Shooter also has problems with reading comprehension, but this is an a priori assumption that can be made about anyone who still supports the Bush administration (unless, of course, they are just criminals, pathological liars or unindicted co-conspirators).

Sadly, Bucky1 posted section 1505 of US Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 73 in its entirety, and shooter, who seldom reads all of anything, only got as far as "Antitrust Civil Process Act" and decided that this statute didn't apply to Bush. Of course, he didn't pay any attention to the "or" at the end of the paragraph (or perhaps he doesn't understand what "or" means).

Had he read the rest of the statute he would have seen what the law that applies to Bush is:

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

[Section 1515 of the same statute states: "(b) As used in section 1505, the term “corruptly” means acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including making a false or misleading statement, or withholding, concealing, altering, or destroying a document or other information."

Now it is true that the president can claim executive privilege, and in the case of Miers, doubtless attorney-client privilege as well, but Miers has to appear before the committee to claim those privileges with respect to individual questions. If the committee asks her what her name is, she cannot claim privilege not to answer. But the president cannot direct her not to appear before the committee in response to a subpoena, because that violates USC 18 § 1505.

Shooter's lack of legal expertise coupled with his inability to read and comprehend legalistic, but not particularly complicated, English results in his hysterically flopping around trying to exculpate his leader on the basis of patently false claims about his Füh...er-leader's immunity to the law.

Wasn't it ruled back during the Clinton impeachment nonsense that government lawyers cannot claim attorney-client privilege?

Yes, ironically is was good old Ken Starr who vitiated the attorney-client privilege for government lawyers. See John Dean's commentary (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040604.html) when Bush hired an outside lawyer during the Plame investigation. The presumption was that this was necessary to preserve attorney-client privilege. Attorney-client privilege is also voided if a third person is present during any exchange.

Nevertheless, there still may be areas where Miers and Bush may have some attorney-client privilege left. It depends on the question and individual circumstances surrounding the events. This is why there is no blanket application of privilege and a person subpoenaed must appear in order to claim privilege in individual questions.

Glenn:

There is a reason The Politico is referred to in some circles as "Drudgico" and/or "Drudge's little sister."

In my circle it's referred to as "Politicrudge", but then I move in a pretty small circle.

Arguing that Catholics should withdraw support from one party is, in effect, arguing that Catholics should support the other party. For Holly and the others to claim that their argument is wholly independent of their concern for the well-being of the Democratic Party is dishonest, and obviously so.

Presumably, then, since Ralph Nader doesn't support the Republicans he must support the Democrats. Tell it to Al Gore. Your argument is dishonest and obviously so.

You need to learn the meaning of the term "neutral":

2. not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy

Your ability to construct false dichotomies is every bit the equal of Bush's.

Since you're willing to cede to your dishonesty as a trivial truth, that's fine with me.

Q.E.D.

The wikipedia entry on Fallujah is requesting some editing, of both substance and grammar/usage.

It also needs crossreferences to Guernica, Lidice and Ouradour-sur-Glane.

The only steady progress that has been made in Iraq is shown in this graph: http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/USfatalities.html

When will they ever learn?
Oh, when will they ever learn?