This reminds me of something I've wondered about for years: why bother with starting pitchers at all, especially in the NL? If your whole pitching staff is middle- and short-relievers, you can mix and match all you want and use the exact same pitchers tomorrow, or at least the day after.

By the tail-chasing solipsism of the unitary executive theory, Bush's vow to track down the leaker of a document that Bush himself told Libby to disclose to Miller does not mean Bush should have sicced himself on himself. As the Commander-in-Chief in wartime, it wasn't a leak. It was strategery.

Where does anyone get the idea that a college student doesn't understand about plagiarism? College students are relentlessly warned, threatened, cajoled, etc., etc., about plagiarism, why it is bad, and especially why getting caught at it is a bad career event.

No one understands the risks better than a college student.

Re-Elect Gore! Re-Elect Gore! Re-Elect Gore!

It has a nice ring, doesn't it.

Smileyy -- haven't you been paying attention? At a time of war the President is entitled -- indeed, obligated -- to flout any laws that need flouting. Presumably, that would include the RFK law.

And it's vital for national security that the White House remain in Bush family hands, because otherwise the documentation of all that embarrassing (criminal?) behavior by Poppy and now Junior and Co. would leak out.

Don't forget -- Bush's first official act as President was to seal Reagan's presidential papers, flouting the law even then, before he had the "war" excuse but was protected by one of Gonzales's convoluted memos. Whyever would he do that?

If drinking beer isn't drinking, then receiving a blow job isn't having sex. Fair's fair.

Over the decades, plenty of politicians, mafiosi, unwanted spouses and others have been killed in "hunting accidents." I had a high school teacher who recommended that if we wanted to kill someone, just take him hunting.

So, it's not tinfoil territory to ask, "Did Dick have some reason to off Whittington? Was, perhaps, Whittington planning to let a little daylight shine on the administration of Texas Gov. George W. Bush?"

Well, possibly not -- it's hard to kill a man with birdshot. But Cheney's competence record isn't all that great, so maybe. . .

Even if not, though, it's totally possible to imagine Cheney shooting the man so as to bury other, more damaging news. What'll he do tomorrow?

The Army can handle a few lowlifes -- petty thieves, card sharpers, gangbangers -- but I'd suspect that the tipping point is low. Once the proportion of lowlifes crosses that point, the Army will start to look like prisons and our worst high schools.

Discouraging honest, middle class kids from enlisting, raising again the proportion of criminals in the ranks . . .

Look for the nickname! If Bush bestowed one of his puerile nicknames on Abramoff, the White House is lying. If not, then maybe, strange as it sounds, they're telling the truth.

Remember the outrage-on-cue in 2000 when Al Gore was said to have used his office phone for fund-raising?

Very simple version of the UET: The President can do anything that won't get him impeached and kicked out of office.

This is simply the Presidential version of Oliver Wendell Holmes's famous axiom: the law is merely a menu of what the government might do to you if you behave in such-and-such a way. Basically, if it won't cost us jail time or cash, it isn't against the law. Jaywalking is supposedly against the law. But if the cops won't ticket jaywalkers, as a practical matter it isn't.

Slightly longer version: The Executive -- not the just the President, all of them -- swears to "faithfully" preserve, etc. the Constitution. To do its job, it must frequently interpret the law. It cannot and should not rely on the other branches' interpretations, save possibly when there is case law precisely on point. Indeed, the "cases and controversies" clause prevents the Executive from consulting the courts. Therefore, the Executive's good-faith decision about the Constitutionality of a course of action is presumptively legal, and it should go ahead. If the other branches disagree, they have Holmes's remedy: punishment under the law. That means impeachment, trial and removal from office. That's the only stick the other branches have. This leaves two kinds of "high crimes and misdemeanors." The President can be false to his oath, especially interpreting the laws in bad faith, or he can refuse to leave the office when the time comes.

He's clearly interpreting the laws in bad faith. So let's get on with it. Let's impeach him and kick him out. Cheney, too, while we're at it.

Maybe Wafah can do a photo spread with Bush's niece.

Would somebody ask Bush if his theory of presidential powers includes the power to cancel elections or ignore their results?

Careful, Tim. Bush told Matt Lauer that he didn't think the war on terror could be won. That's perfectly true, the same way the war on bank robbery can never be won. There will always be somebody with a new reason and a new idea for doing terror.

But -- you're playing Bush's game. Bush's remark to Lauer is utterly irrelevant to the war in Iraq, because that war is not part of the war on terror! If anything, the war in Iraq serves to provoke terrorists, not fight them.

As opposed to Limbaugh, a useless idiot.