In fact, there was some discussion of just such a scenario happening here... on a recent thread on GG's blog. I think you may have been part of it, but I don't remember.

Part of my reaction to the events in Pakistan over the weekend was to wonder if Bush/Cheney feel chagrined that he got there before them and spilled the beans (or foreshadowed spilling the beans?), so to speak. Not only that, but Musharraf has done it all so clumsily... i.e., with an awful lot of violence, and Bush/Cheney could probably have smoothed things over for him, if only he'd been less graceless.

Or am I off my rocker?

I heard or read another story about how the news coverage in Pakistan can all of a sudden become very bland... and that it's how people know when the censorship light is on.

* * *

By that measure, we should have been wondering for awhile now if our press has been protesting for lo these many years. [/sarcasm]

The attorney firings would have surfaced anyway - because guess what? Lawyers aren't quiet when you illegally fire them.

Were it not for the work Josh Marshall's crew (and their readers/commenters) do at TPM, we would probably still not know about the DOJ abuses.

The story began to gather momentum only because TPM began hearing stories from their readers/commenters (i.e., sources) over a period of time... about irregularities in the USA offices, at first about them being fired when working on corruption cases, but then even more... It took quite awhile to connect enough dots, but when the did, then the story picked up some real momentum.

I have to agree, too, that Karl Rove is likely a casualty of that scandal, and perhaps of the political prosecution in Georgia that is still being investigated. We've probably only seen the tip of the iceberg.

You are right about so many more things than you are ever wrong about, that your archives are probably an effective seminar of some kind (I'll have to look). But thank you, just the same.

an interesting thread today, since I'll be at the polls.

I do wonder, though, how one justifies voting for a candidate who doesn't really believe in government or in governing. And I don't mean that to apply just to Paul, but to so many others as well.

...in such a civilized manner, WT and Mona.

In fact, if not for you two (and a few others, as well), there would have been very little sanity in this comment thread.

Just sayin...

I was at the polls yesterday, and in a doctor's waiting room for a good part of the day today, so it was all I could do to skim through enough to get the gist. Perhaps it was just as well, because I really have so little (new) to add to the libertarian discussions. I appreciate your various metaphors, though, woven through with bits of history.

Tomorrow is a new day, and hopefully there will be a new (RP-less) post. ;~)

I hear Fox is putting it together as a reality show since the writers are all on strike.

WT and Pedinska... I'm picturing a Simpsons opening scene. Sort of...

About those internally and externally displaced Iraqis...

You probably already read Riverbend, but for those who don't, her last 3 posts (in particular) deal with the dilemmas and decisions surrounding her family's "choice" to leave Baghdad for Syria. She always writes in a way that is both dispassionate and moving. And often scathing. The last three posts occur over many months, months when her readers could only wonder about the outcome. And now, we still have to wonder, since everything is still so very temporary. It still blows my mind that, in addition to everything else, we are also responsible for creating millions of refugees. As if the world didn't have enough refugees before this maladministration seized power.

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

he's been called "Gleen." ;~)

I've actually been wondering if the situation in Pakistan makes it more difficult for GWB to play out one of those scenarios discussed in an earlier thread... one where we discussed martial law, canceling elections, etc.

I saw a headline today on the way to work: Bush pleads for end to Pakistan's martial law.

Would it even be possible for Bush/Cheney to do anything remotely similar here... after Musharraf's attempt? Of course, I've thought so many other things would be impossible, too...

The pictures of the chopstick bra (via Google) actually show containers attached to the cups. Containers with food in them, in fact.

One cannot help but wonder whether the sight of such comely models using them that way in a restaurant would be as likely as the sight of a nursing mother to cause growls about breast feeding in public... What do you think? ;~)

My other thought is that this story must also bear some bad news for Democrats, but I can't for the life of me foresee what it might be. Any thoughts?

You reminded me of the airport security issue for some reason... when women were having to undergo a second layer of security because of their underwire bras. Your telescoping chopsticks would most certainly not pass muster...

Houngan... Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that Bush/Cheney et al need to react just like Musharraf. The earlier discussion some threads back was speculation about whether Bush/Cheney might try canceling the next election, etc., in conjunction with some other terrorist-like (9/11) event. Martial law really would look weird here, after all. I was only wondering whether Bush's pleading with Musharraf about ending his own power grab would make it more difficult for him to do anything remotely similar here. Just wondering...

I agree that he mostly gets what he wants already anyway, but trying to cancel an election... that really would be a coup.