Left: U.S. and Soviet troops meet at the Elbe River in April, 1945.

A FULL SIX MONTHS BEFORE THE FALL of Nazi Germany, the first battle of the Cold War between the U.S. and the USSR was already well underway.

Four years earlier, despite a non-aggression pact, Hitler had invaded Russia -- which then became America's ally in the war. But the US-USSR alliance had always been an uneasy one, full of suspicion. Stalin was no friend to democracy, and the pact with Hitler had allowed Stalin to annex the Baltic states while Hitler took Poland.

And though throughout the next four years of the U.S.-Soviet alliance both countries followed the dictum that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', both also knew it was a friendship not meant to last.

Now, with the defeat of Germany just weeks away, the battle for future dominance -- planned in the months before at desks and chalkboards in Washington and Moscow -- was reaching fruition on the front lines.

The grand prize would be the capture of the German scientists... and their cutting edge technological secrets.

THIS DIARY IS IN HONOR of tonight's 'forum'. If you're of a religious frame of mind, it's not for you. Best to move on. However, if you believe...

The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.

True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred.

-- H.L. Mencken

...then come on in.

BEFORE JULY 4TH, 1995, when Nirvana drummer Dave Grohl released his newly-formed band's first album, most people had never heard the term 'Foo Fighters'.

It had originated with a comic strip popular in the 1930s and 1940s, and the character of Smokey Stover -- a screwball firefighter who referred to fire as 'foo' (and called himself a 'foo fighter' and who drove around in his 'foomobile').

And there it might have stayed except for the events of December, 1944 -- as Allied forces pushed through France and Belgium towards a crossing of the Rhine -- when it took on a new, and baffling meaning.

WELL, THE BAD NEWS IS IN. Gwen Ifill will again moderate the VP debate. But forewarned is forearmed, so it's time for a trip in the way-back machine.

First, a warm-up trip back to 2007 on MTP:

MS. IFILL: Well, as David Brooks pointed out in The New York Times yesterday, in Europe, Michael Moore goes about very widely bashing America and bashing Americans as being stupid and not knowing how to put one foot in front of the other and he's received like a conquering hero. They love this. They want to hear this. Now, that's fine. They think he's a documentarian. They think he is bringing them facts. Now, they don't vote in American elections, but there is a wider question to be raised about the impact of Americans who take that abroad in a time of war.

But for the meat of this diary, we go to October '04, and the Cheney-Edwards debate, focusing not on the answers, but on the 15 or so questions she chose on the burning issues of the time...

Left: The Annual Commemorative Dance Held At Fort MacArthur

OKAY, SO THIS DIARY has absolutely nothing to do with electing Democrats (except maybe Kucinich). But more than a few other diaries here have veered off from the stated mission, and I've chosen low-traffic Saturday night because it seems the time when the more playful diaries are posted at DKos.

But why a diary on the UFO phenomenon at all?

Quite simply, because twice this week I've seen the subject used for ridicule here (and not for the first time, including by Markos). And having encountered the phenomena 3 times in my life, and then learning a lot about the subject, I react personally to such uninformed snark .

And being a proactive type, the best response seems to me to diary on the history of this complex subject, written for those with open and enquiring minds.

But since this history covers a period of at least 60 years, this and any future Saturday diaries will nibble with small bites, presented chronologically. Tonight we go back to 1942, and the event called 'The Battle of Los Angeles'.

THE NY SUN TODAY CONFIRMED that it was Prime Minister Maliki's plan to specifically endorse Obama's withdrawal plan. And it was far more calculated than has been revealed:

The matter was taken up at a meeting of Iraq's National Security Council on Thursday on the recommendation of Mr. Maliki, who had been advised by the Iraqi politician Ahmad Chalabi to express public support for the Obama withdrawal plan. Asked for a comment yesterday, Mr. Chalabi, an old hand at working the American political process to the advantage of Iraq, conveyed a statement via his Washington representative, Francis Brooke: "This is an honor I will not claim and a rumor I will not deny."

And though the maneuvering of the neocon's BFF Ahmad Chalabi could fill a diary on its own, I leave that to others, and turn to the little-noticed background behind Maliki's endorsement...

THE DKOS FAQ PLAINLY states...

Diaries should be substantive. A good guideline is that if you don't have at least three solid paragraphs to write about your subject, you should probably post a comment in an open thread, or in a recent diary or front-page post that covers a topic relevant to what you wish to write about.

I would add that tight writing, careful research, insightful analysis -- these are the ingredients of the best diaries. And of course the carefully chosen word.  

But sometimes, only pictures -- and the look in a soldier's eyes -- will do...

THESE ARE BUSY TIMES, and there's an election to win. So many things to be done, that I thought it might help my fellow Kossacks to have their new fourth amendment protections available in standard editing form:

The [previous] right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated [dependent upon the discretion of the government], and no Warrants shall issue [only sometimes be needed later], but  [with no legal requirement to demonstrate] upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and [with no legal requirement for] particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized [because 9-11 changed everything].

Yes, this is a short diary. As I said, these are busy times and there's an election to win. But for those who insist on diary length, maybe this repost from July 4th will do, being a cautionary tale now two steps closer to reality...

I HAD ORIGINALLY PROMISED SEVERAL KOSSACKS that I would write this diary on the ins and outs of foster care, and becoming a foster dad (or mom) weeks ago. I'm late in posting this because I spent a good deal of time trying to figure out the best way into this complex subject.

And then Friday, July 4th, as I made my weekly five-hours-there-five-hours-back trip to visit my (former foster) son in prison, I gave the matter more thought. And then during the visit, a life-changing event took place,  and I realized the real nitty gritty of the matter could only be conveyed from a personal perspective.

And though my tale will include the training, the licensing, the minutia of the process, it will be have to be ferreted out from within this true story, the story of a boy I'll call 'Jack', my former foster kid and the son of my heart.

This is a very long diary, and not for the feint of heart or those who want such things boiled down into feel-good four-color brochures and factoids (though it has factoids as well). So proceed if you want to learn a little something about the subject -- but like being a foster parent itself, it will take a personal commitment to seeing it all the way through...

WHEN THEY CAME FOR THE FIFTH AMENDMENT...

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

...and declared Americans to be 'enemy combatants' without constitutional rights, I did nothing. I was not an enemy combatant.

I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America... I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown, but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating.

-- Barack Obama, January, 2008

In the early years of the civil rights movement and opposition to the Vietnam War, defenders of the status quo often accused anybody who questioned the wisdom of government policies of being unpatriotic. Meanwhile, some of those in the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties reacted not merely by criticizing particular government policies, but by attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself - by burning flags; by blaming America for all that was wrong with the world; and perhaps most tragically, by failing to honor those veterans coming home from Vietnam, something that remains a national shame to this day..

-- Barack Obama, June 30, 2008

Dear Senator Obama:

I was one of those 'so-called counter-culture' DFH's in the late 60s and early 70s. Let me tell you a little about it from one who was there...

ALTHOUGH THE DKOS FAQ DISCOURAGES calling out people by name, I've had enough. And reading the comments of late, so have a lot of other Kossacks.

Apparently, there are people around here who don't understand that the most important election of our lifetime is at hand. They seem to just want to sit in their ivory towers and criticize, ignoring what it takes to get elected.

They seem to bitch and moan about the FISA compromise with no understanding of practical politics. And they pay no attention to things like Olbermann's number one top recommended diary on the subject, or that Obama taught constitutional law.

Some here are willing to call them out in comments as purity trolls, while others just think it. And since DKos is a blog dedicated to electing Democrats, point out that these purity trolls come pretty close to being traitors to the cause as well.

So here's some purity troll comments I've culled together, and I'm calling them out by name...

IT SEEMS LIKE A LIFETIME, but in fact it was just a few months ago when the candidates and their supporters were talking about issues.

You remember issues, don't you? They were those things that actually mattered to most people: health care, Iraq, poverty, the constitution (to name a few). You know, the kind of stuff that will affect you and yours (and me and mine) for generations.

The kind of thing that people will (or at least should) ultimately vote on... if we play it right.

But instead, soon after John Edwards decided to 'step aside so that history can blaze its path', all concern for issues were swept aside as well. The race became about who's sexist, who's racist, who's richest, who's  hypocritical, who's holier, who's shallower, who's X, who's Y, who's this, who's that.

And of course... who started it all.

Note: This diary has nothing to do with Barack Obama. Nor am I any kind of fan of Hillary Clinton.

SPEAKING FROM THE PULPIT a few hours ago...

The Rev. Michael Pfleger told a packed congregation at his St. Sabina Church Sunday he is neither racist nor sexist -- and apologized for controversial statements he made about Hillary Clinton last week...

"For whatever damage that was caused to any human being and for any offense felt, especially to any of the candidates or their families, I am deeply sorry, and I pray that my apology will be accepted even by those who say they won't accept it..."

But is it really an apology?

The diary title gives my opinion. But decide for yourself...

ANOTHER EDWARDS-RUMOR DIARY today. Nothing unusual as of late: a media blowhard spreads a rumor about endorsements, it gets diaried, and the comments flow by the hundreds as John/Elizabeth's motives and character are questioned or vilified.

That neither one have actually said anything nearing what appears in the diaries --  other than Elizabeth's publicly stated personal preference for HRC's health plan over Obama's in answer to a question -- makes little difference. All it takes is the rumor, and the vilification holds sway for another day.

Accompanied by ample recs.

And seemingly the Edwards' biggest crime is that they haven't -- gasp! -- endorsed Obama (even though according to the same commenters John Edwards is a fraud and irrelevant, his endorsement doesn't matter and besides he single-handedly lost John Kerry the 2004 election.).

And never mind what John Edwards actually has to say about why he doesn't endorse:

"All that matters is that a Democrat wins."

continued...

NOT THAT IT WILL MATTER MUCH in the grand scheme of things -- or really to anybody here -- but Senator Clinton's latest enthusiasm for John McCain has finally pushed this die-hard Edwards' independent into the Senator Obama column.

I was a registered, active Democrat for the last 34 years. I left the party last March after Senator Reid chose Joe Lieberman to deliver the 'Democratic Party's Response' to President Bush on the scandal at Walter Reid. It was merely the last straw for me... but there were plenty of straws before that humiliation.

And there have been many more since. The party I once loved has become craven, corrupt and bloated, not really worth supporting except for a few individuals. But the only alternative is to vote Republican, and the country can't survive four more years of that.

This diary is by a die-hard John Edwards supporter.

BARAK OBAMA'S CHIEF ECONOMICS ADVISER AUSTAN GOOLSBEE today on CNBC was explaining the differences between Obama's and Clinton's economic policies. To start, he said...

IT STARTED, AS THESE THINGS USUALLY DO, as a story at the NY Times. The headline...

Edwards Campaign May Have Expected Union Group Plan

And the 'evidence' for the story?

But the Edwards campaign may have expected the support of the group, Alliance for a New America, set up by a local of the Service Employees International Union. An Oct. 8 e-mail message circulated among the union leaders who created the group suggests that they were talking with Edwards campaign officials about "what specific kinds of support they would like to see from us" just as they were planning to create an outside group to advertise in early primary states with "a serious 527 legal structure."

But is that what the memo really says? Well, no...