Now, everyone is going to hear certain things that amaze/stun/outrage them on shows like this. (This is the REAL reason people shouldn't keep coffee cups near their monitors) Sometimes it's the questions, sometimes it's the answers.

I picked a few which seemed egregious to me, plus I decided to take pity on the poor reader and merely bore them to tears instead of to a vegetative state...remember I said this when you're halway through.

Admittedly out of context, if you want to see the complete framing and what the full answers were, go follow the link, ya lazy bastid!

MR. RUSSERT:  The Pentagon, the administration and other editorials across the country have said the problem with the bill is that if, after three years people can leave with full benefits, it'll be very difficult to retain good soldiers, to have them re-enlist.

This was asked of Jim Webb, who is championing a return to the G.I. Bill of WW2 Vets. What he said was correct politically, I suppose, but what **I** would have said is:

"Well, Tim, maybe they're right! I guess the only way to know for sure is to get those editorial writers, Pentagon and Admi nistration people - hell, whoever else has a problem with it as being "too rewarding" - out to Sadr City, Basra, or Southern Afghanistan and let THEM decide 'How Long IS Long Enough To Earn Full Benefits.' There's a certain incentive that comes with bullets whizzing by and things blowing up around you that you just can't get the feel of in a newspaper editorial board or a cushy Washington office."

MR. RUSSERT:  In the debate over Iraq, which we're going to see this fall, Barack Obama will say have a withdrawal of troops over 16-month period, and John McCain said the other day his goal is to have them out by 2013, but there would be a continued force there.  How do the Democrats argue withdrawal from Iraq without being perceived as weak on foreign or defense policy?

I can't blame him, but he really blew this one. In the same way Democrats have been blowing it for decades. What **I** would have said:

"Tim, I see your premise as flawed. The Democrats ARE strong on defense - they always have been. Look who has been in charge of the disastrous foreign policy of the last eight years, stretching our forces beyond reason, holding our valiant troops hostage with 'stop loss', refusing to pursue aggressive diplomacy, plunging the world into an energy crisis, destroying Habeas Corpus, engaging in the most vile of methods to torture prisoners in our care in defiance of our Geneva treaties. It's the REPUBLICANS who have PROVEN themselves to be incapable of responsible national safety.

It is our very PRESENCE in Iraq which is a root cause of our weakness in foreign policy and world standing. We have no credibility! The world KNOWS we lied our way into an invasion and seen what the effects have been on the world wide economy, and they want to know WHY we are continuing this madness.

If we are to follow another Republican, John McCain, devout Conservative and completely behind the Bush Folly, we will find ourselves ostracized and ignored. We have to help Iraq to rebuild in any way we can, but we MUST remove combat troops in order to give them a CHANCE to stabilize. Right now, we are acting as the hired militia of al Malaki, and I guarantee you this is another "Bush Bungle" which will come back to bite us squarely in the ass."

Sleepy yet? There's more. We still have the 'round table'...in response to a query about "Aren't we worse off, danger wise, from Iran than we were when Bush ascended to the throne?" Okay, that's paraphrasing a bit, but you get the gist...

FMR. GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE (R-AR):  Well, I would disagree that the reason that we're worse off is because of what George Bush has done.  I think it's a little bit disingenuous to say that it's all his fault that things are more dangerous with Iran than they were.

Yeah...let's look at that a bit, and, Russert? Feel free to jump in with an occasional fact or two so we know that you're actually AWARE of this stuff,  mmm-kay?

2000 - According to the CIA World Factbook (scroll all the way down), under Transnational Issues, the United States isn't even listed. Huh.

Shortly after 9/11, in Iran, Tehran's main soccer stadium observed an unprecedented minute's silence in sympathy with the victims. Iran's Ayatollah Imami Kashani spoke of a catastrophic act of terrorism which could only be condemned by all Muslims, adding the whole world should mobilise against terrorism. People took to the streets of Tehran for a candlelight vigil in honor of the victims.



Shortly before we invaded Afghanistan, by Oct 2001, Iran let us know exactly where they stood and offered reasonable aid for a country not wanting to get directly involved in a conflict with a neighbor.

And then, on January 29, 2002, George Bush, at his idiotic best, channeled the works of neoconservative Yossef Bodansky from a decade earlier as he labeled Iran one-third of an "axis of evil" which existed primarily in the imagination of the most unimaginative people ever to be put in positions of authority.

Since then, there has been nothing but threats, coercion, sanctions, financial blockages, and a fear mongering campaign unseen since the days of...2002 and Saddam Hussein...