No matter what you find on these guys (Rove and others) they always seem to have an answer. And the saddest thing is that there are people out there who apparently still believe them. Nothing is going to happen to Rove, no matter the number or content of emails, unless he is actually observed by 2,000 people (dems and republicans) stealing cookies out of a cookie jar. But I'm sure he would have some ludicrist explanation for stealing cookies as well. Or blame it on the white house baker. Another sad thing is that there are people in prison who have been convicted of a crime with much less circumstantial evidence against them than that against Gonzales and Rove to justify the end of their political careers.

In light of GonzalezGATE, it is quite apparent that Harriet Miers “conveniently leaving office" earlier this year, with the newly empowered Democratic Congress, foresaw the personal BIO SOLIDS, which have spewed from the mouths of many from this Administration's CRIMINALS, about to hit the fan!! While her actions are and were deplorable, she was not as ARROGANT to believe the past criminal actions of her future "CO-DEFENDENTS IN CRIME" would catch up with her!! She just didn’t want to be around to personally clean up her personal BIO SOLID MESS!!!!

Regarding the future of Alberto Gonzalez, and notwithstanding my belief he must immediately resign and/or be terminated, I have "mixed" feelings regarding the timing. I believe if he leaves office immediately, i.e. "today", neither Karl Rove nor Harriet Miers will be subpoenaed by Congress. AG leaving will somehow give the Administration reason to end any future investigations into the firings of these US Attorneys, and withdraw their "pledge" to cooperate fully, i.e. using "executive privilege" to circumvent their testimony. In this calculated and deliberate action to conceal the truth, once again, Karl Rove, along with the rest of this horrid Administration, will have the last laugh!! It is the responsibility of Congress to ensure Karl Rove, in particular, is placed under oath and FINALLY forced to give the testimony he has eluded for too long now. Being at the heart and the VERY heartbeat of multiple criminal acts and absolute disregard for the laws of this land, should Karl Rove not be required to testify under oath, this sub human law breaking criminal will once again get the last laugh!! Sadly, this last laugh will be at the expense of each and every American he has trampled on for more than six years now. Waiting one week to gather "more information via emails", etc. vs. Karl Rove escaping testifying under oath regarding his role in the firings of these attorneys', is a small price or "short period" to pay to see justice finally catch up with this horrid man.

@ C A, Tuscaloosa, AL It's true. There is no level of accountability and responsibility on the part of the White House. They send out their sacrificial lambs, instead. The question is...how many lambs will be scarified before we can get to those who are truly guilty of bastardizing the government?

H P Kang- Raleigh: I can't answer your question but wish I could. I guess I can only say that it has to come from the American people. And unfortunately for every concerned citizen in this couintry I am afraid there are hundreds of Americans who either do not care, or who are too busy with their daily lives or what impacts them on the local level to really get involved.

I'm going to get rocks thrown at me in this forum, but does it strike anyone else as slightly ironic that the scandal that may be the one that finally brings at least Gonzales down is one of the few for which he really does have a bit of a defense? Torture memo? Didn't hurt him. NSA spying on citzens not a scratch. FBI abusing the Patriot Act.. never laid a glove on him. Now, the one thing that gets people calling for his head, he probably did have the technical right to do. US attorneys do serve "at the pleasure of the president. Now don't get me wrong, I'm of the mind that whatever works to get the job done, I'm just amused at the irony of it. '

I see the irony ladytechie and will agree that Gonzales should have been taken down long ago. I think it is happening now because of the most recent accumulation of miskews and errors that have come to light about this adminsitration. And although the American people have a great deal of patience, perhaps too much so at times, they are now responding like an angry spouse who has let the abuses of their significant other build and build until they can take it no more. Unfortunately for many such abused spouses, and for this abused nation, we hope and pray that they / we have finally decided to take action before it is too late. Plus Gonzales is going to be elimnated because Bush and Rove need a scape goat.

Better start dragging the Potomac for hard drives and Blackberrys.

It is truly amazing that so many seemingly intelligent folks can exhibit so much intellectual blindness and self-delusion. Why is there a problem with the dismissal of the eight U.S. Attorneys? There are political appointments, serving entirely at the pleasure of the Administration, who can dismiss and replace any of them at any time for any reason. That is the nature of a political appointment. It was equally true when Janet Reno dismissed all 93 U.S. Attorneys. She had the the legal right and power to do so and needed to give no explanation for it. So too, Gonzalez has the right and the power to dismiss any U.S. Attorney, without cause or explanation. That is the nature of a political appointment. If you are complaining about this, then either you are too stupid or blind to undersatnd the legal philosophy and structure of our government, or you deliberately reject it. In which case, you are probably a Communist by philosophy. So, if that is true (and given the policy pronouncements by most Democrats, it is demonstrably true!), why don't you all just fess up and rename the Democratic Party to the Communist Party?

Well,when Congress compels testimony, we will see what their story is this time, and if they can keep their stories straight.

Alexander Ward, Paso Robles, CA - Excuse us "Communists" Alexander. However we do feel it wrong that a.) Congress was lied to about the “whys of these firings b.) The Patriot Act was used in the most egregious of manners, i.e. these US Attorneys were not in any way, shape or form, and a Terrorist Threat” c They were fired because they refused to bow to Karl Rove and/or George W. Bush in an orchestrated effort to change the outcome of last November’s elections d.) One was fired so Karl Rove could find a "spot" for one of his aide’s e.) DOJ said they were fired for poor performance; however their performance reviews were stellar and d.) If you can’t see this, I suggest you live in a country where “We The People” cannot vote or question the ethics of our government. Your posting reminds me of one of my favorite quotes: "WHEN I GIVE FOOD TO THE POOR THEY CALL ME A SAIT, BUT WHEN I ASK WHY THE POOR HAVE NO FOOD, THEY CALL ME A COMMUNIST". No Alexander, we are not Communists – we are sick and tired of an incompetent Administration who has violated the Constitution, the laws of this land, and each and every one of us living in this GREAT COUNTRY. Our reputation in the world is deplorable, our once good moral standing is gone, and you call us COMMUNISTS????? PLEASE, log on to WWW.FOXNEWS.COM - EITHER /HANNITY OR /OREILLY - EITHER WOULD SUIT YOUR BELIEFS JUST FINE!!!!

Personally, I've had it with people who bring up that these attorneys served 'at the pleasure of the President.' While it is true that the President usually fires all USAs and replaces them with people of his liking, it is also true that these appointments are then cleared with the Congress and that their duty is clearly to Dame Justive herself, not to one man or party. Indeed, all eight of the fired USAs were Bush Appointees! That is really what makes this scandal so bad- that a person can come to work, do his/her job to the best of their abilities, and be FIRED because they were refusing to turn their office into an enforcement arm of the Political Office!

Pam Bignardi, San Pedro, CA, Perhaps I did not explain my position clearly: I am neither defending the firing of the attorneys nor am I attacking these actions. I AM trying to make clear that it is the absolute right of the Executive Branch to fire these attorneys. No reason or explanation is required. That is the law. And that was my point about the nature of political appointments. My second point is indeed a point of disagreement with those who are calling for the dismissal of Gonzalez on the merits of this issue. While the tactics of the Administration seem to be rather clumsy, I question the logic and motives of those who are so convinced ab initio of the evil that lies at the heart of all who oppose the liberal agenda. How can one enter into a rational debate on the issues when emotional responses and ad hominem attacks rule the day? As for my accusation that those who are behaving this way and persisting in a fierce attack on the American government are Communist in philosophy, I believe that this charge can be easily proven. To begin with, try reading the Communist Manifesto (by Karl Marx..) and follow that with a careful examination of the policy statements by Hillary Clinton or John Edwards for example. If this is what you believe, then just say so; don't keep hiding under the covers of the Democratic Party. It is disingeneous to pretend to be democratic if you are really communist. If I have misunderstood your position, forgive me; it is not my intention to anger people. However I do want to convey my profound disagreement with those who would abandon rationality and uncritically accept the vicious rants that pass for political discourse these days. And yes, I do watch O'Reilly; I often (but not always) agree with him, but his methods are not always tender. And I'm not a Republican; I think they've made just as many mistakes as the Democrats, but at least the Republicans have been attempting to promulgate the rule of law across the world and to defeat the evil attacks of the Islamic fundamentalists. Whereas the Democrats are only encouraging the Islamic attackers. And that, by the way, is part of a long-standing political tradition of the Communists.... Cheers, and maybe try a little Mylanta to fix that angry stomach. Go ride a horse or pet a dog. We should each of us try to do things to calm the world and bring peace. But if attacked, peace can only come when the enemy is utterly defeated, destroyed, and humiliated.

This guy Rove is acting like is a member of the failed russian government. not elected but has more power then citzens or our its elected officials. not good for democracy at all.

Alex: Ashcroft also "fired" all the USAs. So does *every* AG. It's part of a new administration coming in. It happened with GHWB, Reagan, Carter, etc. So please stop assuming your intellectual superiority, as it does not exist. Reno never fired a USA for investigating or prosecuting a Democrat. W and Gonzalez fired these USAs for retribution and/or cronyism, then used the Patriot Act to fill their seats *without sending their names to congress* as required by law.

So, Supporting ones civil rights now makes them a communist? Alexander should talk to Bob Barr, the one who led the impeachment of Bill Clinton. There he will find a GOPer who has been very aggressive in his condemnation of this Administration. Oh and he's a former US Attorney who came out against the firings.... How's that for a good chuckle. I think I'll listen to Rep Barr beofre I do Alexander anyday.

HST, Superior, AZ: You're right, of course; every President has done this at one time or another. But I think we're actually discusing several different (albeit closely related) issues. One, did the Administration have the Constitutional and legal authortity to dismiss the US Attorneys? Clearly the answer is yes. Two, was it right to do so? That is a political issue and opinions may differ. Three, was it handled well? Obviously not; the Administrations' actions have been clumsy and tactless, at a mininum. Four, the paired issues you raised of Senate confirmation hearings and interim appointments designed to avoid the confirmation process. First, I think that the common practice in the Senate of delaying confirmation as a means of de facto rejection is effectively equivalent to an indefinite filibuster. Legal, but lacking in political courage. But then, how often have politicians ever demonstrated political courage? Second, the Administrations' practice of interim appointments falls into the same category: legal, but lacking in political courage. Pragmatic, but why not really fight the battle? All in all, both sides are exhibiting bad tendencies here. While I might approve of some specific candidates (John Bolton comes to mind), I really don't like the practice of sidestepping the formal procedures. The Administration should fight for approval in the Senate, not slink around the corner. Oh, Donald, I don't think I said that supporting civil rights is communist. Quite the contrary. Civil rights are indeed critical to a free society. I think both Republicans AND Democrats have rather mixed records here. but first, can we define what we mean by civil rights? The phrase covers a lot of territory... And just to make it clear, I haven't actually said whether I agree with the dismissals or not. I'm not really sure and I will need to research each case specifically. all I'm doing is defending the right of any Administration to take such actions. We can reasonably debate whether these US Attorney positions should be political appointments or not, and so on, but again, that is a separate issue. Cheers.

Actually, the earlier dirt didn't stick because Keith wasn't on the job showing fox and cnn that descent can also bring ratings and because presidential oversight was controlled by the Republican$.

ya know every time an incident comes up with this administration, old Rovie's name appears, this cat has his whole hands in a lot of pies...i think its known as being the common denominator...

Alexander Ward, Paso Robles, CA - Thank you for your suggest reading; however I read The Communist Manifesto when I was THIRTEEN YEARS OLD!! Your beliefs border on out and out FASCISM, as does the GEORGE W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION!! This Administration, I call the "DICTATORSHIP", which you so think is following the laws of this land is absolutely absurd, and I've learned long ago not to even attempt to enter into dialogue with someone whose beliefs are so "cast in stone", as it is a waste of my time. I suggest you continue watching O'Reilly, as you stated you agree with him most of the time, and then the "world will be just great" as you are attempting to convince yourself it is. And a suggestion, don't assume people are not well read, as this only proves show you are an elitist, as this Administration has proven to be for more than six years. NO, ALEXANDER, I AM NOT SITTING IN A CORNER WITH A DUNCE CAP ON THANK YOU!!

Alexander Ward, Paso Robles, CA - Nice back-peddling, as I see you've learned a lot from Bill O'Reilly - no - you stated "why don't you all just fess up and rename the Democratic Party to the Communist Party?" Oh, and I'm sure you'll "do that research" on the firings in the same manner as the George W. Bush Administration does! Good luck in your world of FASCISM!!

Funny thing!!!! I don't seem to remember any CNN,NBC,CBS, ABC, MSNBC,NY or LA Times reporting , let alone Congressional Hearings or threatened subpoenas over Bill Clinton's summary discharge of 93 prosecuting attorneys (which I believe, just happened to be done while some of these prosecutors were involved in something called "Whitewater")!!! Doesn't it make you wonder just a bit what might be the real mission here. Couldn't just be a bit more Bush Bashing could it now???

Alexander said, "If you are complaining about this, then either you are too stupid or blind to undersatnd the legal philosophy and structure of our government, or you deliberately reject it. In which case, you are probably a Communist by philosophy. So, if that is true (and given the policy pronouncements by most Democrats, it is demonstrably true!), why don't you all just fess up and rename the Democratic Party to the Communist Party?" Oh dear. How can you say that those who question the actions of a Government are "Communist" in thought? This country was founded on the concept that citizens can question anything and everything the government does. Your statement that those who dare to question the Federal Government are "communist" is nothing but blind ignorance on your part. Apparently, it is *you* who does not understand the scope and spirit of The Constitution. If there was a rallying cry, a ballyhoo against the Democrats, would you be calling those who object "communists?" I should think not. The issue is that those in power, regardless of political party, are abusing their power. Do we allow that to continue or stop it in the best interests of our government? According to your logic, it's ok when some parties engage in this behavior but not ok when it goes against your political leanings. You, sir, are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Pam, My suggestion to read the Communist Manifesto was perhaps poorly phrased; let me be more clear. Many of the key points raised in the Manifesto are fundamental policies of the Democratic Party and of most liberals as well. "Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, ..." And so to assist in that goal, let me quote some of the more memorable passages from the Communist Manifesto. The Manifesto summarizes its claims in the following points: 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. and concludes with this ringing cry: "In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things. The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions." For example, consider point number two, the heavy graduated income tax. Or point number 10, free public education. Hmmm, shall we ask John Edwards, John Kerry, or Sen. Ted Kennedy how they stand on these issues? What about the inheritance tax? Think about the other issues and examine the voting record of the elected members of the Democratic Party. Draw your own conclusions. But please, don't call me a Fascist. Fascism is characterized by, among other things, a centralized economy with heavy government regulation of business activity, not to mention an authoritarian central government. It could be said that we are almost there already! While I support quite a few policies of the current Administration, I disagree with many others. Anf although we seem to disagree on many points, you assumption that therefore I am a Fascist whose beliefs are "cast in stone" is a bit extreme. And unclear, too. Do you mean that I am inflexible, or that I am a caveman? I don't think either is true, but I do insist on a rational, logical debate supported by verifiable facts. Emotional accusations do not further a rational political debate. In any case, I can't be a caveman since I insure my cars with GEICO. The key point is that the most radical political documents are the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These are libertarian policies; our government today (Democrat or Republican) has drifted far from our founding principles. We have yielded both to oligarchic and Communist influences. I think that it is time that we tried to return to our founding principles, or as close to it as we can in a global age with a large population. That is a radical position that is opposed to both the collectivist principles of the Democratic Party and the oligarchic principle of the Republican Party. And deeply opposed to fascist principles. Oh, also opposed to the theocratic and fascist principles of the Islamic radicals. Hmmm, I think that is all I'm opposed to, but give me time and I'll try to think of a few more things. Ahh, here's one: shouting online (i.e., typing in all CAPS). Shouting doesn't really solve much...

Alexander - I believe you just proved by point about the George W. Bush Administration in your OWN WORDS: "Fascism is characterized by, among other things, a centralized economy with heavy government regulation of business activity, not to mention an authoritarian central government." PLEASE, JUST STOP, AS YOU ARE ONLY MAKING YOURSELF APPEAR MORE FOOLISH THAN YOU ALREADY HAVE!!

With the fourth anniversary of the Iraq war on Monday, I thought this quote by Dick Cheney might be of interest. “Turning Point in Iraq” When asked why the United States should not invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, a prescient critic said, “Once you’ve got Baghdad, it’s not clear what you do with it. It’s not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that’s currently there…. How much credibility is that government going to have if it’s set up by the United States military when it’s there?….I think to have American military forces engaged in a civil war inside Iraq would fit the definition of quagmire, and we have absolutely no desire to get bogged down in that fashion.” The critic was Dick Cheney, who made those comments when he was Defense Secretary in 1991. April 26, 2004 Editorials, The Nation Magazine, Page 3

P. B. Cooper, Dallas, Texas - BRAVO!! Congratulations for further exposing this horrid criminal. As I've said before, I turn the "internal mute button" on every time his lips start moving. It's a shame when he was the Defense Secretary during this period, he didn't realize that the man he worked for, George Herbert Walker Bush's SPERM would actually turn out to be the "WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION". No, not biological or chemical weapons - SPERM - from the very man this HORRID CRIMINAL "DICK" worked for!! Thanks to Senior's WMD, a.k.a. his sperm, we have WMD George W. Bush Jr.!!

You know, I think most people just want a peaceful happy life. I don't really see any difference between Communism and Fascism. When it comes right down to it's just "government" run by thugs.

Alexander: Your comment several postings above that " the republicans are attempting to promulgate the rule of law across the world" interest me. Can you explain to me what "law" or "laws" you are referring too. Are these republican laws, the laws of the United States, international laws, natural laws, Iraqi laws, middle eastern laws, muslim laws, laws that govern human rights? I was not sure what laws you were referring too especially when you indicate that the republicans apparently have the right to enforce laws (whatever they may be) on a world-wide basis. I would also be interested if you would define those who encouraged insurgent terroristic acts during the American Revolution to have been communist, some of who signed the Declaration of Independence after the insurgent victory.

*applauds P. B. Cooper*

Guys like "Alexander" just post to get a reaction.

I see Alexander says he's no Republican according to his previous post. Funny that he's using the common Republican blogger debate strategy. Drag the debate into the mud (by insinuating Democrats are Communists), then whine when the mud gets slung back at you. All these partisan creeps need to burn along with the creeps they voted for.

T W, Milwaukee, WI - He just gets his "TALKING POINTS" from Bill O'Reilly, and perhaps we should excuse his ignorant postings, and blast him for watching/listening to AND agreeing with O'Reilly. Perhaps he is on the payroll of Fox News Channel!!????

Pam in San Pedro, I enjoy your posts a great deal, and I'm only a little jealous of your weather status (it's starting to warm up here!) I used to watch the Falafel Man for entertainment value, back before the sexual harassment case - he bought his way out of it, an indirect admission of guilt in most sane people's eyes. Anyone remember when he said if we got to Iraq and there were no WMDs, he would drop his support for the war? The final straw for me was watching him tell his guests to shut up and cutting their mike. This is the guy you agree with, Alex: a sexual harasser of women who work for him, a man who goes back on his word, an obnoxious blowhard who refuses to allow opinions that conflict with his own to be heard. If this is who you look up to, then your previous characterization of Democrats as Communists makes sense to me. Still, you shouldn't employ Republican name-calling debate tactics if you can't take the same back at you.

"Everyone does it." Nice defense, for a 4 year old. So much for the honor and integrity that jr pledged to restore to the White House.

Wow, this is truely scandalous! Lest we forget, these attorneys serve at the leisure of the President. Where was the outrage over the firing of 93 attorneys in 1993 by the left leaning media and the Hill? Two of the attorneys were investigating Billary for Whitewater and the other for one of his cronies! Where was the call for an investigation into these firings? Talk about a witch hunt! This is just another waste of the taxpayers dollars when it could be spent working on more serious issues like illegal immigration, terrorism etc. As a registered Democrat I'm ashamed to call this my party!

I still would like to know why Alexander says he supports the republican's attempts to promulgate the rule of law on a world-wide basis, and whose rules and laws he is speaking of. I think it says something about his thought processes. Something akin to Bush's my way or the highway philosophy. If you don't follow our rules, our laws, we'll invade your country to make sure you do. Kind of scary don't you think? Especially if those rules and laws come from the right and only those on the right have the privilege to break them.

Dear Alexander Ward ,, I can not respond to these comments anymore other than to say I'm in total shock that people who say what you say grew up in the same Country as Myself. Wow. How very sick.. What embarrassment. I think we may be in big trouble as a Nation.. Sorry. A very sad Ivan..............

"As a registered Democrat I'm ashamed to call this my party!" Yeah, Zell Miller checking in. The "as a Democrat" thing is the oldest, lamest, most transparent wingnut ploy on the internet. Seriously dude, don't you have enough confidence in your own position to just state it without the b.s? ---- As for the rest of your post, do a little research, you'll find answers to all the things you're wrong about.

Ivan. Traverse City MI. - Alex’s' responses also sadden me Ivan; however, people like this exist. I do find it hypocritical when the mud starts slinging to the "right", we initially receive extremely long diatribes from people like Alex, and they are always written in language that insults our intelligence. When questioned by multiple people, such as on this blog, people like Alex just "go away" as they cannot explain nor answer the questions being asked, i.e. C A's questions. When Alex suggested I read the "Communist Manifesto", I nearly fell over. The elitist mentality of those like Alex, and those still willing to defend George W. Bush & his Administration in any way, shape or form, are either a.) completely blinded by what has transpired over the course of the last six plus years, b.) they are really embarrassed they voted for the idiot, not once, but twice, after his appalling first term, c.) they don't care that Americans are dying in a war "they" (they don't care what "we" think) were lied to about it and are mortified they believed the lies, d.) can't come to terms with the horror that they, the elitist group of intellectuals who voted for this moron, are responsible for the erosion of our civil liberties; and republicans can be stupid no matter how much money they have, e.) they watch Fox News 24 hours a day; as this is the only explanation I can think of for the complete ignorance of anyone who is still willing to give this Administration one ounce of credibility or defend it!!, f.) All of the above! As I've said before, when I'm asked by someone, "how do you know they're lying", my response is always, "their lips are moving". These people are either 1.) Stupid or 2.) Really pissed off that this criminal Administration is unraveling faster than their 100-year old afghans knitted by their grandmothers!!

Dan, Boston - Well stated!!

Wou I am amazed how many scandels this goverment had. From lying to get us into a war to the page scandel to Liby to Gonzales. But it seems they get cut and instead fix it they make it worse by lying. And of course blaming the democrates. This is a joke people, what do you think the rest of the world thinks about us? I know we don't care but we who supose to be better than anybody else in the world setting a bad exablr. We supose to bring freedom and demarocy to the midle east? Maby we need to start to clean up our own back yard first. We lost more than a war, we also lost the respect and the trust of the rest of the world.

It may be best not to promote or take sides with either party in any of these postings. When this occurs the disagreements become personal rather than issue driven. They become name-calling rater than fact-finding. And the fact is both parties have their crooks as well as their well-meaning representatives. If one has a position here regardless of party affiliation speak for yourself and let others speak their opinion but keep it on the issues at hand. Such opinions may be similar at times but they will almost always never be exactly the same. If one has issues with the current administration and another supports the current administration so be it. And if the current administration is criticized so be it. They are the administration currently in power. To criticize or defend the current administration by way of criticizing a past administration is a very weak non-rational form of arguement. It is a cop out and indicates those doing so cannot defend the current administration on merit alone. It's called rationalization and projection. Two symptoms of paranoia. And if paranoid one's behavior whether verbal, written or non-verbal cannot be taken seriously as legitimate.

Whitewater. So, are we going to spend $40 million investigating a possible connection between jr, and Jeb's friend who sold those faulty waterpumps to the US Army Corps of Engineers? If not, why aren't we?

Very well stated C A....and I've learned so much from the moral high ground you take. While I was appalled, as a democrat, to be referred to as a communist by Alex, and I do believe his beliefs border on fascism, perhaps I could have stated it better, although I'm not sure how I would have done that, as I do believe his beliefs based on this Administration are fascist. Thanks, as always, for your insight!!

Benjamin Miami Fl - Fox News is probably the number one cause for anyone listening to a breath from the mouths of this criminal Administration, in their ongoing and ridiculous efforts defending this Administration. Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Doctor Shopper Fat Rush, I believe do "get it", that is the complete incompetence of the George W. Bush Administration. They simply refuse to admit it. This would force them to face the fact they are a bunch of idiots who voted for this moron not once, but twice. They feel compelled to defend the Administration of George W. Bush, while blaming Bill Clinton for George's failures and his presidential disaster. Should any of them state publicly, "out loud, with an adult present" (thanks Keith) would simply mortify this elitist group of jerks who think they eat something other that the rest of us do. As it is so apparent they believe their s***t doesn't stink!!

Keith,Please read & report on an article by the bbc not reported in this country by Greg Palast why KarlRowl's friend Mr.Griffin was put in as AG in Arkansas and his roll in excluding 70,000 African American soldiers from voting in Arkanas because they were serving in the army over seas protecting us. Then he would be able to cause trouble for Hillary if she decided to run for the presidency in 2008. I know you are one that we can trust. Thank You. Jan Hunter

Hey, Keith (From another Keith) Did other presidental adminstrations have as much scandals as the current one? Did they do a better job of keeping them quiet? The Bush White House is starting to look like a March Madness bracket!

I'm not entirely certain why it is "elitist" to defend "to defend George W. Bush & his Administration in any way, shape or form". Does this imply that any defense of any action taken by the current administration over the past six years is mistaken? That seems a little extreme. At any rate, I haven't quite "gone away", I simply was too busy at work to respond immediately. C.A. from Tuscaloosa pointed out, quite correctly I think, that our own country was founded by insurgents who fought a revolutionary war against the established rulers. Our Founders (the signers of the Declaration Of Independence, for example) would certainly be classified as terrorists under todays political environment. Yet I believe that there is a fundamental difference between the colonial insurgents who rebelled against the established British government and the terrorists that we are fighting today in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and elsewhere. One component of that difference is the rule of law. C.A. asks, What laws am I referring to? Republican, American, international, Iraqi, Muslim? To begin with, I was using the phrase "rule of law" as a shorthand for two distinct meanings, and I did not meant be unclear. First, I mean the rule of law as a process, and second I mean the rule of law in the sense of the content or meaning of those laws. By process, I mean that a society ruled by law is ruled by a commonly agreed upon system of rules, that there is also a commonly agreed upon system for changing those rules, that there is a consistent system for enforcement of these rules, and finally that all members of that society abide by the same set of rules. Including the rulers of that society. In short, a society ruled by law is ruled by a consistent, predictable, and universally applied set of rules and those rules have been created and are supported by a majority of the members of that society. There is no arbitrary aspect, unless the majority of the citizens enact an arbitrary law. By this definition, the authoritarian theocracy in Iran is not a society with rule by law, because the Islamic laws (Sharia) are immutable, their interpretation and application is not subject to majority approval or appeal, and their enforcement is inconsistent. We, in America, live in perhaps the most free political system in the world, although most of the English-speaking countries such as Britain, Australia, New Zealand are comparable to America in that respect. This is because of two factors. One, our founders (the colonial insurgents) founded a political system based upon the strict rule of law. Second, and this is the second meaning that I was referring to when I wrote of the "rule of law", is that our Founders established a political system whose laws are based upon the fundamental principles of individual liberty and responsibility. As they said, governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. These principles, and their consistent application are the reason why we in America are so fortunate to live here. This is independent of whichever political party is in power at any given time. That too is one of the insights of our founderrs, that a system of checks and balances will tend to correct abuse. While clearly we can disagree about specific policies of one administration or another, a difference of opinions is generally healthy. When I referred to the Communist tendencies of various Democratic platforms, I am not insinuating, I am baldly stating that most Democrats are advocating policies that are demonstrably Communist in philosophy. This is not new news. It goes back to a long-standing collectivist philosphy that underlies the Democratic Party platforms. You can look any of this up; I don't need to throw quotes at you. My point is simply that many societies, both historically and currently, do not govern by rule of law, and do not acknowledge the fundamental principle of individual liberty. America has a long history of defense against such societies, ranging from the Muslim slavers of Tripoli, to the Fascists of Germany and Japan, to the Muslim theocratic fascists we are fighting against today. It is in our best interests, and theirs, too, that we defeat them as completely as possible. This is one policy of our current administration that I support fully. We can, of course, differ on strategy and tactics. We haven't done too well in that respect. We need to win, and win overwhelmingly, not fumble about like incompetent amateurs. It is similar to the situation that Cortez faced in Mexico in 1519. He managed to destroy an evil empire with just 600 men, although plague among the Aztecs helped quite a bit. We need a general in Iraq as competent as Cortez. Our goal is to establish a society in Iraq that is ruled by law and that respects the liberty of the individual. Our own best interests are serrved by that; otherwise we will have to fight the Muslims on our own shores. I see no evidence that the Democrats understand this or support this; quite the contrary.

Mr. Ward - the USA will not defeat muslim extremism in Iraq nor will those efforts keep them from our shores....regardless of the money spent and lives lost. In fact, a strong case can be made that the invasion of Iraq against the best advice of many in high government circles (yes - way back when, before the great(first?)purge there were a few real thinkers in government)has greatly exacerbated terrorism in all of it's various forms to an order of several magnitudes. The problem is world-wide in nature and will require the concerted efforts of all nations, especially Arab counties (and most particularly the arab clergy!) to thwart this now deeply entrenched insanity. Unfortunately, we are more likely to see arab against arab and Sunni against Shia throughout the arab world before much more time has passed. Thank you George W. Bush for the brave new world we thought we'd avoided back in 1984. A measured withdrawal is essential now, and perhaps a glance back at Afghanistan as it slides in reverse back toward the Taliban. Speaking of which -how is this for irony and paradox? Afghanistan produces the bulk of the world's opium supply (then converted to heroin) and is ultimately consumed mainly by addicts in the USA. Since that country has no other economy (a bumper crop this year) the good old USA looks the other way - but in the meantime prosecutes all drug offenders to the maximum allowed by federal guidelines here at home - thus filling federal prisons with a vast population of drug users. Yes, the politics of opportunity is a beautiful thing. Frankly I like the fact that Sen. Chuck Hagel has thrown out the possibility of impeachment today. As a future GOP candidate for 2008 this may have been an extremely timely little bit of political maneuvering, but you've just got to love the fact that somebody finally mentioned it!!

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):