This is what, the third, fourth, fifth theory on why a small number of U.S. Attorneys were replaced?

We had the theory that Carol Lam was too aggressive in investigating Republicans. There weren't any facts in support of that theory, so the story went in search of some other facts.

Then there was the theory that David Iglesias was fired for being lax on prosecuting immigration cases.

There were as many theories as there were Democratic strategists in the media.

So now we have the 'vote fraud' theory. Tell you what, Salonistas; LET'S PRESUME THAT KARL ROVE MADE A LIST OF U.S. ATTORNEYS WHOM HE THOUGHT WERE SOFT ON PROSECUTING VOTE FRAUD. AND HE GAVE THAT LIST TO KYLE SAMPSON, AND SAID, "I'VE GOT PEOPLE IN EACH OF THESE DISTRICTS COMPLAINING THAT THEY DON'T SEE SUFFICIENT ACTIVITY FROM THESE USA'S ON VOTE FRAUD. I'D LIKE TO SEE THE D.O.J. CONSIDER REPLACING THEM." LET'S ASSUME ALL OF THAT TO BE TRUE. WHAT IS THE ILLEGALITY IN ANY OF THAT?

This is just such relentless b.s. Anyway, I am glad to have you all so worked up about this topic. It might keep some of you, and some Congressional Democrats, preoccupied and prevent your meddling in really important matters.

I too am sick and tired of being polite. When people call the administration "bloodthirsty war criminals," and when they say the "war in Iraq is lost," and when I am called a racist on Salon's discussion boards because I recalled instances of past bizarre episodes in the life of John Conyers, and when I think of the phony witch hunt against Scooter Libby and the laughable charges against Paul Wolfowitz, I grow tired of being polite.

It is particularly wearying when the left, instead of criticizing the murderers, kidnappers, suicide bombers and the Islamofacists who would like to attack America, destroy Israel and terrorize Europe, instead chooses to attack western conservatives.

You're darned right I am tired of being polite. I'd prefer the fight against enemies of the United States. But I'm quite content to fight anyone who calls me a racist or a war crimnal. Bring it on.

I suggest that you do a couple of things right away. First, pass articles of impeachment against President Bush in the House. Then nominate a 2008 ticket of Edwards and Obama. Enact a platform with a huge carbon tax, a nationalized health care system, and substantial tax increases. And, naturally, promise that all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq in 90 days after President John Edwards takes office.

How quickly can you get that done for me?

"...the program does not really contain blockbuster new revelations that are unknown to those who have been attentive to these matters, but is nonetheless very much worth watching because it powerfully dramatizes the severity of privacy erosion at the hands of a federal government operating largely in the dark." [Glenn Greenwald's words, my emphasis.]

That's what we need from "news reporters" and "documentaries" on public broadcasting! No new facts or reporting; rather, a dramatization of the views of the fans of Bill Moyers who call in during the fall pledge drive. And the left-wing writers and producers who populate the PBS/NPR echo-chamber.

I don't get it. At least not compared to the Opie/Anthony/Howard Stern/HBO/Rahm Emanuel/Salon Comments level of dockyard gutter-speak.

We now have a model for the Al Sharpton obit.

This manufactured 'scandal' was never about any unofficial impropriety by Wolfowitz. It is about a determined group of Euro-bureaucrats staging a coup, over their dislike of the Bush Administration.

I feel strongly now -- let the Euros run the World Bank. And let the Euros pay for the World Bank. All of it. One of the best things that could ever happen in the effort to ameliorate world poverty would be the dismantling of the World Bank.

Wolfowitz wanted no part of any conflicts with Shaha Riza's supervision at the World Bank, where she worked before Wolfowitz ever got there.

Wolfowitz, before he moved in at the World Bank, asked the bank to handle his conflict. The plan was then to reassign Ms. Riza, by all accounts a capable World Bank emplyoee, to the State Department. Her pay would continue to come from the World Bank, but she would be away from any Wolfowitz supervision. (Even though she was two levels removed from President Wolfowitz anyway.) Ms. Riza's move outside of the World Bank also took her out of the usual promotional line that she would be in for at the World Bank. (You can argue that World Bank mandarins are scandalously overpaid if you want to, but the fact is that Ms. Riza was never overpaid by World Bank standards.) Ms. Riza's move out of the World Bank was a big penatly for her. (Arguably, she may also have known that her relationship with President Wolfowitz was also going to penalize her, given all of the entrenched Bush-hating Euros at the Bank, and the UN, etc.)

All along, Wolfowitz wanted the potential conflict problem removed, but the Bank expected him to deal with it directly. (The Wall Street Journal has exposed far worse conflicts in couples' employment at the Bank, none of which resulted in any terminations. That Wolfowitz would be fired over this is a bad joke.)

Here is page after page of the WSJ's brilliant coverage of the Wolfowitz case:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/search/exec/htsearch.cgi?words=wolfowitz+world+bank&db=db&where=oj