You wrote in all caps because you lack good internet posting manners. Screaming is a sign of weakness and poor self control among other things. You would make a nice neocon come to think about it.

I understand that you would like to isolate the Paris attack from the GWOT.

When we were attacked by a dozen and a half or so Saudis in 2001 it could have been treated as an isolated attack and the perpetrators hunted down by good intelligence, interpol and police work. Unfortunately the PNAC plan was put into operation by guess who, Bush.Cheney and their neocon advisors. Presto! GWOT. All that follows, including Paris, is a byproduct of blowback from what the neocons have wrought.

I completely understand why you would fail to see this. A good neocon always deflects criticism like, well, like a Pavlovian dog.

"Your vitriol proves my point"

He has merely answered your post in the same style you used. Glad you recognized it.

As for neocons; well now, it is their policies and misinformation (see how reasonable I am not to say lies) that provide most of the current recruiting posters for the jihadists. With financial help from our "allies" the Saudis of course. (BTW, please provide any instance where JR has defended jihadist terrorism or any other form of terrorism.) What he and others have done is recognize the fact that our current dilemma began with the purely concocted invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, as formulated and endorsed by neocons.

In case you need a refresher; after 9-11 the entire world was on our side. Even including the Taliban (whom Bush had been praising months earlier). They agreed to turn Bin Laden over as soon as we provided evidence to them of his responsibility. Evidence that we, for some reason failed to produce. This is merely one of many, many reasons the neocons deserve all the criticism thrown at them.

Your point is that you don't like hearing it, especially from JR. That and a buck seventy-five gets you a Starbucks.

What the hell, you probably believe that a middle aged man with numerous health issues including diabetes, kidney failure requiring dialysis, running from safe house to safe house could live for 20 years without a transplant. Let alone direct global terrorism.

Oh please...compared to yours, JR's "rants" are Sunday School homilies.

Other than a bit of oxygenated venom you provide nothing of substance to support anything you have claimed.

Go back downstairs, the adults are talking.

Well, though your basic point about the RepubliCrats is valid, placing time, money and efforts in a third party is indeed wasted. The stranglehold held by the existing plutocrats on ballot access, legal access and their ability to marginalize, all but assure that any third party movement will be doomed.

The better way to fight your "criminal syndicates" is to ignore their beltway diktats by a de facto refusal to enforce them. Community after community can take back power unto themselves by community policing, jury nullification and simply ignoring the beltway. It's not a perfect response true, but it would be more effective and money better spent than third party pipe dreams.

Lumping "...the Pauls..." together is disingenuous. The son is not the father.

Your assessment of Rand is generally on target though a bit overwrought. He has chosen to attempt to act within the existing structure of the GOP. A difficult task given the stranglehold of power exercised by the RR and neoconservative warmongers. This is perhaps good strategy perhaps not. It certainly opens him up to charges of inconsistency. And yes, it requires at least an appearance of fealty to Israel and some distasteful recognition of the GOP power structure. In the end he may be nothing more than LOTE.

On the other hand, his father left no doubt about his platform or action plan as President. It did not include playing nice with the GOP power brokers. We see what that got him.

Formation of an "alternative party" has been often attempted with little to show for it except that which you decry, wasting money, giving inspiring speeches and attacking the status quo. No victories, just a waste of time, effort and money.

Your last sentence is telling. The speed with which the establishment is responding in its desire to belittle Attkisson as overwrought and paranoid, is proof positive that they want to shut down this story ASAP.

Obama is going to be remembered as one of the cleverest presidents since FDR. He even has Buchanan fooled.

Yes, to his credit he has resisted anymore fiasco’s like Libya and the Afghan “surge”. How quickly it’s forgotten that it was he who foolishly precipitated them. As well as Syria, Egypt and now, Africa.

Matter of fact, he has ongoing Special Ops in over twice as many countries as Bush. He has successfully (by all appearances at least) farmed out war making to the CIA ops wing, Special Forces and “private contractors”. Blowback to follow.

And now, here he is, praised by Buchanan no less for his pacifism.

The human comedy has seldom been more comedic.

I share Phil Giraldi's concerns about Rand Paul.

The fundamental questions are; does his relative inexperience cause him to shoot from the lip? Is he a shallow thinker? Is he simply another craven politician attempting to appear amenable to each and every pressure group?

His performance in Israel gives credence to all the above. As do his flirtations with religious right wing dispensationalists.

Then again, we must also answer these questions; is he a "realist", acutely aware that if he is to compete at the national level, he must accrue favor with the current makeup of the GOP? Is he, in his public comments leaving himself room to maneuver"? Is his approach cleverly designed to put him in a position to make substantive changes to GOP orthodoxy?

A conundrum for sure; he has given both partisans and detractors plenty of ammunition. That he will never be as loved as his father is apparent. As is the fact that he will never be as consistent as his father.

In a just world, Ron Paul would be our President, but we know how that worked out in a world of injustices.

Elections unfortunately always turn on the "lesser of two evils" theory. Rand Paul may be banking on it.

Brooks, Foxton and McArdle.

Need a smear job?

Call us!

Brooks has long been outed as the faux NYT's "conservative" voice, hired to replace another conservative in name only, Bill Safire. Brooks neoconservative credentials are in good standing.

In the case of Snowden, Brooks major peeve is that Snowden is not like, well, David Brooks. Smugly arrogant with a facile manner. Unlike David, Snowden fails to understand that admittance to the club is everything. Once in, fealty is required.

The junior partners are little more than wannabes.

Foxton has "never liked Greenwald". Gasp. To be unliked by a nonentity. One who writes opinion columns and is offended when criticized for them. Nuff said.

McArdle at least lends some unintended humor to the story. In her best Ann Coulter mode, she finds Snowden "weird". As in the manner of sorority ladies sitting around discussing the new frat pledges. Who wants to date a "weird guy"? In Megan's world "different" and "weird" are the same.

Don't see it like I do? You are one "weird" dude then. And scary. Yuk!

Sycophants are blind to unsanctioned heroics. Frightened by them. Only the State can anoint heroes.

A genuine loss. His kind are too few. Irascible, gutty and fearless; Charley never equivocated.

RIP Charley, you leave us all better off for having read you.