The vast majority of Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq based on the "faulty" WMD intel. Now, of course, they tell us they were duped by the President, that they never would have voted for the war if they had known that there were no WMDs.

Meanwhile, today, Iranian president Akillinfidelsismyjob admits that Iran is pursuing NUCLEAR (not chemical, not biological, but freakin' NUCLEAR) capabilities. Iran is run by kooks who are far more radical than Sadaam, and probably guilty of even more crimes against humanity than he was.

OK, the question for the day for all of my liberal friends is this:

If democrats supported the invasion of Iraq because of suspicion of WMDs in the light of Sadaam's thumbing his nose at the UN Security Council resolutions, why are they so anxious to prevent any action against Iran?

What do YOU think? Yes or no? Should we give Iran the full-court press, up to and including an invasion?

I want to move to Texas.

I want to live in a place where they have a newspaper called the Liberty Post.

Where signs that read "we don't call 911" hang in convenience stores.

The state that used to be it's own frackin' country.

Home of Willie Nelson, George W. Bush, and the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders.

Final resting place of Davy Frickin' Crocket.

Tony Blair is an interesting figure.

On the one hand, he is as left as they come in terms of British politics. As leader of Labour, he's going to naturally be to the left of most Democrats in the United States on social issues as well as economics. Yet, he has been a staunch ally of the United States and President Bush in the war on terror.

Until now.

I can't fault the man for falling to political pressure. The fact of the matter is that, if a Democrat in the US had faced the same kind of opposition that Blair has faced in the UK, we'd have been out of Iraq before you could say "fat bloated bastard."

I guess it speaks to the testicular fortitude of George W. Bush that we haven't announced a timetable.

Hillary, however, has.

If you haven't got 'em, you just haven't got 'em.

Hillary wants the Confederate flag removed from the South Carolina statehouse grounds. Something bothers me about this.

OK, I know, I know. I've heard it. The Confederate flag, even if it doesn't represent slavery or racism to Bo and Luke Duke, it does represent slavery or racism or something to Jesse Jackson and his friends, so it's offensive. It's about reception as well as intention. Fine, fine. I disagree, but I'm tired of this particular argument for a while. We can revisit it another time.

I'm not even upset at the hypocrisy of Hillary. She never suggested removing the Confederate star from the Arkansas state flag, or pulling down the "lone star" Republic of Texas flag down off of the Texas Statehouse grounds. (Although, that would be a fun one to watch. Can you imagine the hell that Hillary would catch?)

And, honestly, the "support the troops from South Carolina by removing the Confederate flag, yet let's demand Bush bring them home without victory" argument is, by any logical estimation, flawed at best. But, that's not new, we've seen it a lot from Hillary. And I'm sure we'll see a hell of a lot more. That doesn't especially bother me today.

Nope. My big problem is this:

Hillary Clinton is a Senator. From New York. She thinks she needs to dictate to another State, South Carolina, what it should and should not do with its flags.

Hillary Clinton wants to be President. Of the United States. As which she, we should assume, would actually think she had the power to dictate to a state, like South Carolina, what it should do with its flags. Now, that is scary, my friends.