MAYBE IT'S JUST GEORGE'S WAY OF TRYING TO MAKE NICE

The John Edwards campaign had an unscheduled meeting with law enforcement authorities this week when a white powdery substance was delivered to their offices. Meanwhile George Bush just got back after a visit to South America. Reportedly, he did not have to go through a Customs inspection upon his return. Asked about the substance, Edwards denied any knowledge or actual possession of the powder, adding, "I did not have sex with the President. Oh, he tried to [expletive] me," he said, "but he's doing that to the whole country."

"DON'T WORRY ABOUT A THING, SPEEDY, YOU'RE DOING A HECK OF A JOB"

The New York Times and CNN are both moving stories indicating that the Bush Cabinet token Hispanic could soon be getting a surprise going-away party, as some Republican leaders are beginning to question Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' continued value in light of recent revelations about the political slaughter of eight U.S. Attorneys.
... And with the President trying to score (one thing or another) in South America this week and unable to to shore up his sinking political ship of state, some of his crew is pondering the jetison of useless cargo. Stand by for the lifeboat drill.

COUNTING THE WALKING WOUNDED

Depending upon whom you choose to believe, at least one-third, or 130,000 of the military personnel who have served in Iraq are out of their freaking minds... That is, after all, the estimation of those suffering from some sort of mental illness brought on by combat. Some estimates put that number as high as 250,000. Yikes.
While I won't dismiss, or even downplay the effects of combat-related stress, I don't have some questions about the numbers, not the least of which is whether a quarter-million men have even cycled through that theater yet. I mean, given the fact that the number of military personnel in-country has ebbed and flowed between 130,000 and 165,000 - with some units doing three or four tours - have 250,000 individual men and women yet been in theater? And if they have, wouldn't that mean the percentage of those affected be closer to 75 or even 100 percent? And if so, what has changed so drasticaly from earlier wars to inflict such a catastrophic casualty rate? Is it the technology of modern warfare? Is it the benchmark definitions of disease? Or is it a gross exageration on the part of those publishing the information?
Certainly I don't know, but if the numbers are correct, what does it mean for the innocent civilians and non-combatants in a country that didn't need to be invaded in the first place? How many of them are suffering from Post-trumatic stress?... So somebody remind me again why this war was a good idea.