I would have to disagree with some of those categorizations. Seems more likely that Politics and War-on-Terror are sub-categories of World Affairs. Happy is not always Cute, but Cute is almost always Happy. And I believe that Parody is not always Comedy.

Could use a Geography / Region / County category for: Asia, British, Canada and Downunder

----------------
Cultural
----------------
80s: dag, active
asia: Lucky760, active
bravo (italian): Deano, MIA
british: Zifnab, active
canada: Calvados, active
downunder: maatc, active
kids: James Roe, active
geek: gorgonheap, active

----------------
Entertainment
----------------
1sttube: Grimm, active
vintage: swampgirl, active
animation: thesnipe, active
--> woo hoo: Krupo, active
latenight: eric3579, active

commercial: Looris, MIA
viral: Open
--> meme: MarineGunrock, active

comedy: Open
--> stand up: winkler1, active
--> parody: dotdude, active

music: Open
--> hiphop: benjee, MIA
--> jazz: choggie, active
--> rocknroll: MLX, ?
--> livemusic: deathcow, active

cinema: pigeon, ?
--> shortfilms: Sarzy, active
--> grindhouse: dw117, active

actionpack: wildmanbill, MIA
dark: dystopianfututretoday, active
horror show: pyrex, MIA
mystery: grspec, MIA
wild west show: Open
scifi: Firefly, active

documentaries: Fedquip, active

sports: michie, MIA

videogames: Oatmeal, active

----------------
Educational
----------------
art: plastiquemonkey, active
books: kronosposeidon, active
science: rembar, active
engineering: oxdottir, active
nature: Arvana, active
catsanddogs: youdiejoe, active
cooking: djsunkid, active
history: rickegee, MIA
military: darksun, MIA
spacey: lunkwill, active
travel: silvercord, ?
howto: maudlin, MIA

politics: Open
--> election 08: joedirt, active
--> war on terror: raven, MIA
--> world affairs: histnerd, active

religion: LadyBug, MIA
--> cult: therealblankman, active
--> islam: Gwann, MIA

humanitarian: bl968, MIA
philosophy: bluecliff, MIA

sexuality: persephone, active
--> femme: intangiblemeg, MIA
--> gay: Open




----------------
Other
----------------
cute: Open
--> happy: Issykitty, active
obscure: Farhad2000, active
terrible: sometimes, active
eia: karaidl, MIA
fear: blankfist, active
lies: Fjnbk, active
wtf: Spiff, ?

I'm going to have to thoroughly disagree with the channel selections. I'd say this video discusses neither politics, world affairs, the war on terror or the upcoming election.

news as in *slapstick?
scrap fascism, civil liberties would be nice. we've already got military, why not just plain "civilians" channel? violent cops could get their own channel, too. with all the taser videos and officer rivieri on the loose, you're in business... except, you'd be treading on MarineGunrock's territory
i *fear the idea of *brief and *ass_gravy is sooooooo last month
war? you have politics, military, world affairs, war on terror or history for those, i guess

I'm American, and I work at a Zoo. I spend most of my time explaining to people that cheetah's don't lay eggs, that beavers are not reptiles, that elephants do not eat meat...

It's not limited to world affairs.

I'm not sure what you are looking for here. Do you want me to let your arguments to go unchallenged?

No. And I'm not calling you out personally, nor the submitter of any sift for submitting it. Never have.

Do you think you are a victim?

That's a question I would ask of anyone who leans left.

Do you think you are being singled out and persecuted because you are conservative? If that's the case, then why don't other conservatives on the site suffer the problems that you do?

1) Barring a few random posts, I know of no other conservatives on this site; I'm told they avoid me...since they don't exist...I cannot say.

2) You assume the feedback is "a problem." The only suffering, I realized, is the suffering I get by spoiling others' good time. The majority of sifters lean left. I'm not helping anyone, including myself.

3) My "critics" seem unable or unwilling to tolerate my "punditry". If it's not the one-liners, they object to the "name calling" (e.g. Keith Olbyloon = Keep Overbite) or that this or that comment "lacks depth", the last being a problem of generation and education. I can't make up for decades of government school indoctrination explaining something as simple as "The Constitution limits government power."

Maybe it's not everyone else. Maybe it's you.

That's OK. Right or wrong, a warrior always stands alone.

Say whatever you want, whenever you want. I actually enjoy the opportunity to deconstruct your rhetoric, and I encourage you to deconstruct mine.

But we haven't done that...if I gave every sift I commented on the loving attention it deserves, this would be my full time job. Ha ha ha.

If you can't see problems in plain view with our President and country, then I'm not sure what to say.


Both sides see a country in crisis. Where they differ is the reasons, motives and underlying philosophies.

Example: man-made global warming, to the left, is the ultimate deity replacement and all-purpose tool to gain complete power, since everything and everyone is affected by it. Therefore the left embraces all evidence claiming warming is a real and immediate threat and act accordingly. The other side (mine) sees this for what it is, what I just described. Is the globe heating? Sure, it heats and cools all the time, has for millions of years. Is it man-made? There's no solid evidence, yet all these good folks that want to DO SOMETHING have decided the argument is closed and are ready to flip civilization on its ear for an unproven theory.

I'm actually hopeful that both parties are finally moving away from Movement Politics towards Principled Politics. I see the Republican love affair with principled conservatives like Ron Paul very heartening, just as the Democrats have begun to embrace principled Liberals such as Dean and Obama. It's very interesting to see how this switch effects the opposition. Politicians like Obama and Paul are gaining quite a bit of crossover respect, if not crossover support.

Maybe it's time you started the transition from Movement Conservative to the Principled variety.

I know you didn't ask for them, but here's my Cliffs Notes of those two:

Obama: a good speaker, inspiring, but inexperienced, naive about world affairs and hiding his true ultra-left agenda. No politician ever got elected stating flat out: "If you elect me, I will raise your taxes." You have to know that's his plan. Same with Hil.

Paul: a principled man, yes, but unfortunately the only one of his caliber in Congress and therefore a cult of personality. I agree with most of Paul's platform, but he's as naive about world affairs as Obama if he thinks recalling all of our troops around the world will somehow promote peace and understanding. You have to know that while you and I may embrace many views of a Ron Paul (or not), so many of our fellow Americans are already receiving a check from the government, and many, many more are hoping for the same. The government has bought in and bought everyone off. Nothing new really:

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." -- Frédéric Bastiat (1801 – 1850)

I want to agree with your moniker, as I'm a natural cynic and pessimist; I just happen to view conservatism as a rational response to humans' natural savagery, not a cause of it.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I'm not sure what you are looking for here. Do you want me to let your arguments to go unchallenged?...

first thing, and i'm being sincere here, shroom.

So am I! I like the new pic.

could you go back through your post, and wherever you see the word liberal, could you state whether it's social liberal, or fiscal liberal, that you're referring to?

I can't seriously believe you don't know the common definition of a liberal: fiscally reckless and socially liberal (aka nuts). No one knows what 'classical liberalism' is except you, me, and Ron Paul.

"Social liberal" is a dangerously vague term. Ending Drug Prohibition could be considered socially liberal, but so could something absolutely insane, like open borders, and there's all sorts of wiggle room for questionable things like affirmative action (as a libertarian, you'd oppose it). Wouldn't "conservatarian" explain what you're saying you represent, a la fiscally conservative and socially (more) liberal? Your conservative side? You don't have to "prove" anything, I'm jess sayin' I'm not seein' it, and that's fine.

srsly. i've mentioned i don't know how many times, to you, that this is why i'm a libertarian, not a democrat. and yet you persist in treating anyone either socially or fiscally the same, when they actually have nothing to do with each other.

Do you really expect me to go down the list and fine tune each post so that every sifter of the many, many who oppose my POV feels good about it? For that personal touch, anyone who wants to discuss things more in depth is free to visit, as you have.

I used to be a libertarian and I've kept what I liked about it. Don't know if you've noticed, but generally Americans don't care about large-L Libertarians (or much of what any 3rd party says) or many small-L libertarian ideas. While I was a card-carrying Libertarian, I figured if any LP idea suddenly sounded good to the American population (ending Drug Prohibition, getting rid of IRS) one of the two major parties would steal it and claim it as their own. If I had my druthers (whatever they are) the two major parties would be Libertarian and Republican, but that's another rant.

and you can just call ppl by their fuckin' names, dude.
we all know what obama's middle name is. can't think of any reason anyone should give a shit.

Well, obviously YOU care!

my middle name's paul. do you care?

A-Ha! Do you know what Ron Paul's LAST NAME is? That's right. PAUL! It's all so clear to me now!

Yeah, I'm joking.

we all know who the president of iran is. just grow up, use ppl's fuckin' names? only you and jay leno think that shit's funny, and namecalling is essentially an ad hom attack as well.

Well, if for some reason Bush 43's middle name resembled "Hitler", you don't think the looney lefties would use that against him? Newsflash: for 8 years they've called him Hitler anyway, and a whole slew of unprintables, and the so-called "unbiased" mainstream media (long may they die) fuels it.

yeah. even worse when it's about something they didn't even get to choose - their name. should i really have to explain shit this silly, to you?

No, but here's what you should explain to me, why as a libertarian, you give a damn about hurting the feelings of a Jewicidal iranian tyrant, or saddam or dildo chavez, now in the process of starving his country with price controls. I mean, is that really what keeps you up at night? Name games with B. Hussein Obama? (he can legally change his name, if he wishes). How about O-Bam's disastrous tax-raising schemes or his frightening level of naivety in dealing in world affairs? As a fiscally-conservative libertarian, you should be terrified of this guy, and the broad.

>> anytime you'd like to address your original false accusations,
>> instead of burying them in new ones, you let me know.

> I'm not sure what the "false" accusations are as they have yet to be challenged.

oh come on, man! i make direct challenges all the time.
start with my rebuttal on the obama clip, where i said:
"how about quoting us a line from this, shroom..."

You have to understand the subtle dynamic at work with the Obama speech. On the surface it sounds like he's appealing to reason; what he's really doing is slipping in digs at Whitey, (including his own grandmother) knowing Whitey has no equal time forum to respond. That's what I hate about liberals and "race talk", it's not really a "dialogue" they seek, just more chances to blame others for their problems. As you claim to be a libertarian, I don't know why you're quick to defend someone advocating the OPPOSITE of personal responsibility and more Big Government "solutions".

and on the freeway protest clip, i listed many direct challenges.
you ignored them, and went off on some jim crow horseshit.

Oh, that. Well, my point was, if the original charge was 'gerrymandering' then so what, both parties do it and is it really something to be upset about? If one were a bona fide member of a 3rd party I could see it being offensive, but otherwise... srsly, if two thieves take turns robbing your house why only get upset (outraged) at one of them?

The response I got moved beyond that to accusations of (surprise) racism, always with the racism. So my Final Answer in essence was, why bother? Every time a group of 3 or more Black folks get pissed because they can't have their way they cry "Slavery!" and pretend it's the Jim Crow South all over again, as if there'd been NO progress or things made right by Whites since the Civil War. It's an insult to the intelligence of anyone White or Black to play these kinds of games; they trivialize the real Civil Rights movement, which acheived its goals decades ago.

You casually wrote off all of the great things Republicans have done for Black Americans because they happened before last week...if you won't acknowledge which party freed the slaves, then accept the other party is the one that tried to keep them slaves, and ironically, continues to do so today, only the chains are mental.

As per the gerrymandering post (which only has 19 votes) is it of great importance to you that the Dems are the ones running 'a Black Guy'? As the Dems like to claim, Black conservatives "aren't really Black." It's shameful that any party is so race and gender obsessed, even tho it helps my side.


and calling the site "liberalsift"? if it's too "liberal" for you, gtfo. srsly. i wouldn't dream of going to any site, that had a more conservative viewership, and then blame them for wanting to talk openly.

I'm the only conservative that pipes up around here, and from time to time I've expressed gratitude for being able to do so. When I was banned a few folks who don't like me also welcomed my return. And while I believe you wouldn't go to townhall.com and attack the columnists there, many liberals and libertarians do. I'm sure there are conservative hawks who post at Daily Kos. So really, who's blaming whom? I don't want people to not post because they disagree with me, and let's face it, most do. Bush is unpopular, the war is unpopular, but popularity is not what it's about.

I'M not blaming anyone for posting as they do, or for posting what they want, even if they're not creative enough to go past Olbyloon's latest Countdown To No Ratings rant.

When I like a sift, I upvote it on its merit, even if I disagree 100% with the submitter.

whoopdee-fuckin-doo.

I didn't explain these points to gain sympathy any more than you want your posts treated with kid gloves. I'm just letting you know that I know what's going on. I think the challenge is that "angry knee-jerk reactions" is where a lot of these sifters start with their cockamamie sifts, and then expect a full discourse on American History they never learned to justify any possible opposing point of view.

The old joke goes, "Liberals welcome all points of view, until to their horror they discover there are other points of view."

Do you think posting a video of "angry" Black people marching in one kollij in one state is supposed to make the world tremble and viewers believe anything they say just because they're "angry"? I'll bet 90% of those doofs marching had no idea what they were matching for, they were marching because their friends were marching, or to meet girls, or worse yet, because Professor Marx offered credit to anyone who went. I don't have to know every little detail, I know enough about human nature.

> the sifts I submit are apolitical 98% of the time.

i would upvote honest, socially- or fiscally-conservative sifts. shit, dude. i'd welcome fiscally conservative ones with open fuckin' arms. saw plenty of good ones while ron paul was setting fundraising records.

Apolitical.

but not o'reilly, dude. c'mon. he's an embarrassment. look at the work of conservative intellectuals like margolis, and tell me you can't see the difference.

O'Reilly is current. What liberal is going to read margolis (or download her picture)?

Actually, people bagging on O'Reilly have posted more of his clips than I have.

now, since you mentioned snacks, it just so happens i have some ben & jerry's in the freezer. so i'm going to update my bio pic now...

I was about to recommend Colbert's Americone Dream but I see you've found it. Happy snacking!

In reply to this comment by my15minutes:
In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:

first thing, and i'm being sincere here, shroom.
could you go back through your post, and wherever you see the word liberal, could you state whether it's social liberal, or fiscal liberal, that you're referring to?

choggie, as always, i don't have a fucking clue what you want to relay here, but i like your style. basicaly my point of view on world affairs goes like: we're all fucked anyway so why bother

Oh my, Oh my,
Choggie, if you haven't written a book on world affairs, you should. If you have, where do I get a copy ASAP.

Some of the stuff that went ballistic when it got sifted was very difficult for me to get the initial ten. I don't know what it is. I've given up on videos that eventually tons of other people liked.

More selectivity would be great, but selectivity based on what? The stuff I like the best is rarely the stuff that zooms out of the queue.

Another thing, we have a two tier system now, with a numerical ranking within the two buckets we have (sifted and not-sifted). The channels make for communities. Perhaps after you have contributed to the life of a channel enough (moderated it, voted for it, sifted to it), you can be part of the voting body to take videos to the next tier for that channel. that is, people who really really like the lolcats and cute doggies and such (of which I have posted some myself) get to vote on the creme de la creme de lolcat videos, and so on. I mean honestly, there are people who have the submission history to be more worth listening to with respect to world affairs for instance, and I care more about their opinions in that area, than that of random people who came by to vote for the boob video their buddy told them about.

I always get the feeling people who support Ron Paul don’t really understand exactly what he supports. They hear that he’s anti-war, anti-corporatism, and pro-privacy/anti-federal government, all things many disillusioned voters (many of whom seem to be liberals upset over the democratic congresses’ lack-luster performance so far) identify with.

It all stems from his radical isolationist, laissez-faire business style, and anti-federal government stances. First of all I’ll say that just because the Bush administration some how convinced everyone war with Iraq because they had some grainy satellite photos of metal tubing next to a ditch, reports (that I seem to remember were proven false rather quickly) of Saddam trying to buy yellow cake, and weapons inspectors who weren’t finding anything, which obviously meant all the WMDs were being driven around in special mobile VANS OF DOOM so as to keep them hidden, doesn’t mean the US should stay completely out of world affairs. That said I do agree with Ron Paul in that we need get out of Iraq as soon as possible. Truthfully I think we’re going to get bitten in the ass no matter what we do in Iraq since the whole thing was just a giant cock-up, but leaving would probably put us in the best position to deal with said bite in the ass.

I also don’t understand how people think Ron Paul’s “true” free-market approach would be the end of monopolies and corporations. That’s been tried in this country before, Robber Barons anyone? Deregulation of the market is like a wet-dream for mega-corporations. You see how quickly competition dies the second they don’t have to worry about anti-trust laws, I can guarantee AT&T isn’t going to let your DSL provider us its lines anymore. Maybe it’s just the area I live in but any time any part of an industry has been deregulated I’ve noticed a decline in the quality of service and a rise in prices.

Basically put Ron Paul is a state’s rights person. So that means that instead of the idiots at the federal level trampling all over your privacy and rights as a citizen the idiots in your state government get to trample over your rights as a citizen and privacy. Many pro-choice people support Ron Paul because he votes against (most) anti-abortion legislation. This is because he thinks abortion should be banned at the state level. Similarly he seems to enjoy a lot of support from the gay community because he doesn’t support a federal amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage. He doesn’t support one because it would set a precedent that the federal government has control over marriage, one that could later be overturned. He wants States to decide, and seeing how that vote normally goes when it’s put to the populace it’s bad news for the gays. Further more he wants to get rid of the requirement that states have to recognize marriages in other states. So the gays lose there too. Really the only thing Ron Paul’s anti-federal government agenda would accomplish is to further polarize the differences between the north and the south. Might as get out a big paint roller and physically put the Mason Dixon line back in. Again I suppose it depends on what state you live in, but in general I see the Federal Government as a more positive force when it comes to civil rights. It’s unfortunate that for the last few years we’ve had Darth Vader in an ‘I’m with President Stupid’ tee-shirt steering the direction of this country’s civil rights.

I’m not endorsing the front runner democrats or republicans, I’m simply trying to point out that Ron Paul’s beliefs (seem to) clash with those of a lot of his supporters. Truthfully I was very intrigued by Ron Paul the first couple of times I saw him speak, and he really seemed to resonate with a lot I believed in. He’s also probably one of the most straight forward candidates (not saying a whole lot for the rest of them). I eventually ended up digging a little deeper and found myself opposed to many of the things he supported and believed. All I can say is take a closer look at Ron Paul as a candidate and not just what you see in compiled you-tube clips. Okay my rant is over.

excellent post!
THE ARCHITECTS OF WAR: WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
http://thinkprogress.org/the-architects-where-are-they-now/

President Bush has not fired any of the architects of the Iraq war. In fact, a review of the key planners of the conflict reveals that they have been rewarded — not blamed — for their incompetence.

PAUL WOLFOWITZ

Role In Going To War: Wolfowitz said the U.S. would be greeted as liberators, that Iraqi oil money would pay for the reconstruction, and that Gen. Eric Shinseki’s estimate that several hundred thousand troops would be needed was “wildly off the mark.” [Washington Post, 12/8/05; Wolfowitz, 3/27/03]

Where He Is Now: Bush promoted Wolfowitz to head the World Bank in March 2005. Two years into his five-year term, Wolfowitz was rebuked by the World Bank investigative committee for engineering an unethical pay and promotion package for his girlfriend and, after repeated calls for his resignation, stepped down on May 17, 2007. Wolfowitz is now a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-wing think tank that “has the President’s ear” on national security issues. [Washington Post, 3/17/05, 5/18/07; Financial Times, 6/28/07]

Key Quote: “The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason [for going to war].” [USA Today, 5/30/03]

DOUGLAS FEITH

Role In Going To War: As Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Feith spearheaded two secretive groups at the Pentagon — the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group and the Office of Special Plans — that were instrumental in drawing up documents that explained the supposed ties between Saddam and al Qaeda. The groups were “created in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true.” Colin Powell referred to Feith’s operation as the Gestapo. In Bob Woodward’s Plan of Attack, former CentCom Commander Gen. Tommy Franks called Feith the “f***ing stupidest guy on the face of the earth.” [LAT, 1/27/05; NYT, 4/28/04; New Yorker, 5/12/03; Plan of Attack, p.281]

Where He Is Now: Feith voluntarily resigned from the Defense Department shortly after Bush’s reelection. He is currently writing a memoir of his Pentagon work and teaching a course at Georgetown University “on the Bush Administration’s strategy behind the war on terrorism.” The Defense Department’s Inspector General found that Feith’s secretive groups at the Pentagon “developed, produced, and then disseminated” deceptive intelligence that contradicted “the consensus of the Intelligence Community.” These groups are still under investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee. [Washington Post, 1/27/05;Georgetown press release, 5/1/06; NYT, 2/9/07]

Key Quote: “I am not asserting to you that I know that the answer is — we did it right. What I am saying is it’s an extremely complex judgment to know whether the course that we chose with its pros and cons was more sensible.” [Washington Post, 7/13/05]

STEPHEN HADLEY

Role In Going To War: As then-Deputy National Security Advisor, Hadley disregarded memos from the CIA and a personal phone call from Director George Tenet warning that references to Iraq’s pursuit of uranium be dropped from Bush’s speeches. The false information ended up in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address. [Washington Post, 7/23/03]

Where He Is Now: On January 26, 2005, Stephen Hadley was promoted to National Security Advisor. [White House bio]

Key Quote: “I should have recalled at the time of the State of the Union speech that there was controversy associated with the uranium issue. … And it is now clear to me that I failed in that responsibility in connection with the inclusion of these 16 words in the speech that he gave on the 28th of January.” [Hadley, 7/22/03]

RICHARD PERLE

Role In Going To War: Richard Perle, the so-called “Prince of Darkness,” was the chairman of Defense Policy Board during the run-up to the Iraq war. He suggested Iraq had a hand in 9-11. In 1996, he authored “Clean Break,” a paper that was co-signed by Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, and others that argued for regime change in Iraq. Shortly after the war began, Perle resigned from the Board because he came under fire for having relationships with businesses that stood to profit from the war. [Guardian, 9/3/02, 3/28/03; AFP, 8/9/02]

Where He Is Now: Currently, Perle is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute where he specializes in national security and defense issues. He has been investigated for ethical violations concerning war profiteering and other conflicts of interest. [Washington Post, 9/1/04]

Key Quote: “And a year from now, I’ll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush. There is no doubt that, with the exception of a very small number of people close to a vicious regime, the people of Iraq have been liberated and they understand that they’ve been liberated. And it is getting easier every day for Iraqis to express that sense of liberation.” [Perle, 9/22/03]

ELLIOT ABRAMS

Role In Going To War: Abrams was one of the defendants in the Iran-Contra Affair, and he pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress. He was appointed Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs during Bush’s first term, where he served as Bush’s chief advisor on the Middle East. His name surfaced as part of the investigation into who leaked the name of a undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame. [Washington Post, 5/27/03, 2/3/05]

Where He Is Now: Abrams was promoted to deputy national security adviser in February of 2005. In that position, he has led a smear campaign to attack Speaker Nancy Pelosi for visiting Syria. [Slate, 2/17/05; IPS, 4/9/07; Washington Post, 2/15/07]

Key Quote: “We recognize that military action in Iraq, if necessary, will have adverse humanitarian consequences. We have been planning over the last several months, across all relevant agencies, to limit any such consequences and provide relief quickly.” [CNN, 2/25/03]

SCOOTER LIBBY

Role In Going To War: As Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Libby repeatedly pressured CIA analysts to report that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda. He also provided classified government information to New York Times reporter Judith Miller that formed the basis of a series of articles highlighting Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction that were later entirely discredited. Along with Hannah, Libby was a principal author of the discredited draft UN presentation. [Washington Post, 6/5/03; National Journal, 4/6/06; FAIR, 3/19/07; NYT, 10/30/05]

Where He Is Now: On June 5, 2007, Libby was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison and a fine of $250,000 for perjury and obstruction of justice for his role in the CIA leak case. On July 2, 2007, Bush commuted Libby’s prison sentence, ensuring he would serve no time in jail. [NYT, 6/5/07; Bush, 7/2/07]

Key Quote: “I’m a great fan of the Vice President,” Libby told Larry King in 2002. “I think he’s one of the smartest, most honorable people I’ve ever met.” [Time, 10/28/05]

JOHN HANNAH

Role In Going To War: As deputy national security advisor to Vice President Cheney, Hannah served as the conduit between Ahmad Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress and the Bush administration, passing along false information about Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction that the administration relied upon to justify the invasion. Hannah was also a principal author of the draft speech making the administration’s case for war to the UN. Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and CIA director George Tenet rejected most of the content of the speech as exaggerated and unwarranted. [Newsweek, 12/15/06; NYT, 10/30/05]

Where He Is Now: On October 31, 2005, Cheney promoted Hannah to national security advisor, replacing the role served previously by Scooter Libby. [CNN, 10/31/05]

Key Quote: Reprising his role in misleading the country to war with Iraq, Hannah has told a U.S. ambassador that 2007 is “the year of Iran” and that a U.S. attack is “a real possibility.” [Washington Post, 2/11/07]

DAVID WURMSER

Role In Going To War: At the time of the war, Wurmser was a special assistant to John Bolton in the State Department. Wurmser has long advocated the belief that both Syria and Iraq represented threats to the stability of the Middle East. In early 2001, Wurmser had issued a call for air strikes against Iraq and Syria. Along with Perle, he is considered a main author of “Clean Break.” [Asia Times, 4/17/03; Guardian, 9/3/02]

Where He Is Now: Wurmser was promoted to Principal Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs; he is in charge of coordinating Middle East strategy. His name has been associated with the Plame Affair and with an FBI investigation into the passing of classified information to Chalabi and AIPAC. [Raw Story, 10/19/05; Washington Post, 9/4/04]

Key Quote: “Syria, Iran, Iraq, the PLO and Sudan are playing a skillful game, but have consistently worked to undermine US interests and influence in the region for years, and certainly will continue to do so now, even if they momentarily, out of fear, seem more forthcoming.” [Washington Post, 9/24/01]

ANDREW NATSIOS

Role In Going To War: Shortly after the invasion of Iraq, Andrew Natsios, then the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, went on Nightline and claimed that the U.S. contribution to the rebuilding of Iraq would be just $1.7 billion. When it became quickly apparent that Natsios’ prediction would fall woefully short of reality, the government came under fire for scrubbing his comments from the USAID Web site. [Washington Post, 12/18/03; ABC News, 4/23/03]

Where He Is Now: Natsios stepped down as the head of USAID in January and was teaching at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh’s School of Foreign Service as a Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy and Advisor on International Development. In September 2006, Bush appointed him Special Envoy for Darfur. [AP, 2/20/06; Georgetown, 12/2/05; Washington Post, 9/19/06]

Key Quote: “[T]he American part of this will be $1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.” [Nightline, 4/23/03]

DAN BARTLETT

Role In Going To War: Dan Bartlett was the White House Communications Director at the time of the war and was a mouthpiece in hyping the Iraq threat. Bartlett was also a regular participant in the weekly meetings of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG). The main purpose of the group was the systematic coordination of the “marketing” of going to war with Iraq as well as selling the war here at home. [Washington Post, 8/10/03]

Where He Is Now: Bartlett announced his resignation on June 1, 2007 to pursue his “prospects in the private sector.” He was promoted to Counselor to the President on January 5, 2005, and was responsible for the formulation of policy and implementation of the President’s agenda. [Washington Post, 6/2/07]

Key Quote: “Most people would argue we are part of the solution in Iraq, not part of the problem.” [CNN, 10/23/06]

MITCH DANIELS

Role In Going To War: Mitch Daniels was the director of the Office of Management and Budget from January 2001 through June of 2003. In this capacity, he was responsible for releasing the initial budget estimates for the Iraq War which he pegged at $50 to $60 billion. The estimated cost of the war, including the full economic ramifications, is approaching $1 trillion. [MSNBC, 3/17/06]

Where He Is Now: In 2004, Daniels was elected Governor of Indiana. [USA Today, 11/3/04]

Key Quote: Mitch Daniels had said the war would be an “affordable endeavor” and rejected an estimate by the chief White House economic adviser that the war would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion as “very, very high.” [Christian Science Monitor, 1/10/06]

GEORGE TENET

Role In Going To War: As CIA Director, Tenet was responsible for gathering information on Iraq and the potential threat posted by Saddam Hussein. According to author Bob Woodward, Tenet told President Bush before the war that there was a “slam dunk case” that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. Tenet remained publicly silent while the Bush administration made pre-war statements on Iraq’s supposed nuclear program and ties to al Qaeda that were contrary to the CIA’s judgments. Tenet issued a statement in July 2003, drafted by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, taking responsibility for Bush’s false statements in his State of the Union address. [CNN, 4/19/04; NYT, 7/22/05]

Where He Is Now: Tenet voluntarily resigned from the administration on June 3, 2004. He was later awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom. He released a memoir in April 2007 critical of many in the Bush administration for their roles in the Iraq war and currently teaches at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh’s School of Foreign Service. [Washington Post, 6/3/04; CBS, 4/29/07]

Key Quote: “It’s a slam dunk case.” [CNN, 4/19/04]

COLIN POWELL

Role In Going To War: Despite stating in Feb. 2001 that Saddam had not developed “any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction,” Powell made the case in front of the United Nations for a United States-led invasion of Iraq, stating that, “There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction.” [Powell, 2/5/03; Powell, 2/24/01]

Where He Is Now: Shortly after Bush won reelection in 2004, Powell resigned from the administration. Powell now sits on numerous corporate boards. He succeeded Henry Kissinger in May 2006 as Chairman of the Eisenhower Fellowship Program at the City College of New York. In September 2005, Powell said of his U.N. speech that it was a “blot” on his record. He went on to say, “It will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It’s painful now.” [ABC News, 9/9/05]

Key Quote: “‘You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people,’ he told the president. ‘You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You’ll own it all.’ Privately, Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage called this the Pottery Barn rule: You break it, you own it.” [Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack]

DONALD RUMSFELD

Role In Going To War: Prior to the war, Rumsfeld repeatedly suggested the war in Iraq would be short and swift. He said, “The Gulf War in the 1990s lasted five days on the ground. I can’t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that.” He also said, “It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” [Rumsfeld, 11/14/02; USA Today, 4/1/03]

Where He Is Now: After repeated calls for his resignation, Donald Rumsfeld finally stepped down on November 8, 2006, one day after the 2006 midterm elections. Rumsfeld is now “working on setting up a new foundation…to promote continued U.S. engagement in world affairs in furtherance of U.S. security interests” so that he can “remain engaged in public policy issues.” He is also shopping a memoir, in the hopes of receiving “a large cash advance.” [AP, 11/8/06; Reuters, 3/19/06; Washington Times, 5/18/07; NY Sun, 6/27/07]

Key Quote: “You go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” [CNN, 12/9/04]

CONDOLEEZZA RICE

Role In Going To War: As National Security Adviser, Rice disregarded at least two CIA memos and a personal phone call from Director George Tenet stating that the evidence behind Iraq’s supposed uranium acquisition was weak. She urged the necessity of war because “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” [Washington Post, 7/27/03; CNN, 9/8/02]

Where She Is Now: In December of 2004, Condoleezza Rice was promoted to Secretary of State. [ABC News, 11/16/04]

Key Quote: “We did not know at the time — maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency — but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery. Of course it was information that was mistaken.” [Meet the Press, 6/8/03]

DICK CHENEY

Role In Going To War: Among a host of false pre-war statements, Cheney claimed that Iraq may have had a role in 9/11, stating that it was “pretty well confirmed” that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials. Cheney also claimed that Saddam was “in fact reconstituting his nuclear program” and that the U.S. would be “greeted as liberators.” [Meet the Press, 12/9/01, 3/16/03]

Where He Is Now: Cheney earned another four years in power when Bush won re-election in 2004. Despite some conservatives calling for him to be replaced, Cheney has said, “I’ve now been elected to a second term; I’ll serve out my term.” Cheney continues to advocate for preemptive military intervention, recently delivering threats toward Iran in a speech aboard an aircraft carrier off Iran’s coast. [CBS Face the Nation, 3/19/06; NYT, 5/11/07]

Key Quote: “I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.” [Larry King Live, 6/20/05]

GEORGE W. BUSH

Role In Going To War: Emphasizing Saddam Hussein’s supposed stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, supposed ties to al Qaeda, and supposed nuclear weapons program, Bush built public support for — and subsequently ordered — an invasion of Iraq. [State of the Union, 1/28/03]

Where He Is Now: In November 2004, Bush won re-election. Since that time, popular support for the war and the President have reached a low point — nearing the levels of Richard Nixon during Watergate. [Chicago Sun-Times, 6/19/07]

Key Quote: “Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” [Bush, 10/7/02]

You simply *discard this one, copy everything it has, then go to the Politics channel.
From there you simply "post to politics talk"

Though, I think world affairs would be a much better place.

Apparently the most important world affairs don't matter

I think I'm going to get this book too -- it sounds like it gives a lot of insight that can help with the big picture of world affairs.