I'm far from his biggest fan, but Jeb is probably smarter and more charismatic than George. Jeb would be President now if he weren't, well, named "Jeb". His parents obviously didn't think that one through.

The Democrats need to let the public decide if this is a GOP issue and adopt a zero tolerance policy. As soon as the evidence is clear (and it seems more than clear), they should send Jefferson packing and make it clear that they'll hold that standard to anyone, Democrat or Republican. It's an easy call (as he's going to have to go sooner or later) and it puts the pressure back on the GOP.

As much as we get on the average people that get duped by GOP rhetoric, I don't think, having grown up in the heartland, that John and Jane Middle-America have much tolerance for corruption. They're willing to turn a blind eye from time to time, but this is turning into a losing battle for the Republicans, and the Democrats need to be 100% clear that they're against this sort of behavior. It's the only way they can win any converts.

So, let me see if I understand this. According to Libby's lawyers: (1) the note isn't authentic, (2) BUT if it is authentic, then it's not relevant, (3) BUT if it is relevant, then "hey, look, is that Elvis?!". Call me old-fashioned, but I tend to think that there's such a thing as fact, and only one of those statements can represent what really happened. Only liars find the truth so malleable.

Did I misinterpret that (apparently, I need the English language periodically explained to me by my government) or did Snow essentially admit that we're fighting Iraqis now, and not al Qaeda? Pardon my interpretation, but doesn't that mean that we're no longer fighting terrorists or foreign fighters, but Iraqi citizens who object to our presence? If we've really beaten the insurgency, it must be time to pack up and go home.

It's one thing for Ken Blackwell and to rig an election and subvert democracy, but when he starts dissing neapolitan ice cream, he's gone too far!

What's the point, exactly, to debating and passing a law that's optional? Of course, then again, in the eyes (and signing statements) of the President, every law seems to be optional.

Are journalists going to be at a greater suicide risk just by being there? Did journalists provoke the suicides? Call me crazy, but I'd think that a few extra pair of eyeballs might actually prevent prisoner suicides.

I'm not up on my Senatorial procedures, but if it's a sham, the Democrats need to stop voting. This was a ridiculous waste of taxpayer time and money for political theater, and the Dems needs to stop playing their part.

HOUSE RESOLUTION #4521: "All Americans should love their mothers, apple pie is good, we support our troops, and George Bush is an incompetent boob."

I mean, come on, what grade are these people in?

If you live in Ramadi and happen to see Bill O'Reilly out and about at 6:59PM, looking for a place to duck into, please do us all a favor here in America: Lock your doors.

I'm embarrassed to be from the same state as Denny Hastert. With Hastert and Hyde being local boys, I'd probably have to move if it weren't for Durbin and Obama.

Hastert can argue the legality of this all day long, but it's clearly unethical. Even taking an easy analogy, how is this different from insider trading? He had inside information that the public wasn't privy to, and he used it to profit. Actually, it's worse, because he manipulated the situation above and beyond just using his information. All of it, of course, at the cost of the taxpayers.

Even as someone who lives in downtown Chicago and whose wife works in the Sears Tower, I find it hard to surpress my cynicism. On the rare occasions that we hear the backstories on these cases, the truth is much less glamourous than the reports, if not completely ludicrous. One of the cases Bush sites frequently, where we intercepted a "terrorist" buying Stinger missiles, is a great example. In that case, the FBI followed someone, over the course of a couple of years, that while certainly not a nice person, was a blowhard and wannabe at best. Ultimately, to make their case, the government had to not only agree to buy the missiles from this suspected terrorists, but they had to produce and sell them to him as well. We may have unearthed a bad person with no moral imperative against harming Americans, but we ultimately spent millions of dollars to lock up someone who was not remotely a clear or present danger.

It's more than just disingenuous for Bush to decry these leaks (since, as you say, administration officials have openly talked about shutting down terrorist funding and financial networks and have even outlined the strategies being used); it's counter to what seems like an important part of the strategy. Part of the reason for talking openly about this anti-terror strategy is to send a warning to terrorist sympathizers who are involved in moving money between organizations or might be considering donating money to groups that use terror as a tactic. Making this action public, and making people aware that it operates on a global scale, discourages groups involved in terror financing and makes the movement of money that much more difficult.

In addition, how could this information possibly help the terrorist networks? All they really know now is that global financial transactions are being monitored. The only possible action they can take is to completely stop using the global financial network, and, frankly, that would be a good thing.