In David Brock's "Blinded by the Right," he quoted his former colleague Tucker Carlson as saying (I'm quoting from memory) that he'd "write anything for $200."

Later, an outraged Carlson had Brock on CNN's Crossfire where he demanded Brock "look him straight in the eye" and repeat that charge.

Brock calmly looked him in the eye and repeated the quote.

This may explain Carlson's self-identification with prostitution.

I second what other posters have already noted about the Moyers interview of Nichols and Fein. It's "must" viewing.

Even if Bush & Cheney have enough loyalists in the Senate to prevent conviction and removal, impeachment would serve the purpose of methodically setting out the crimes of the Bush regime in a highly publicized venue that would be impossible for the corporate media to minimize.

It would also put the Republicans in the politically damaging position of defending the indefensible and excusing the inexcusable.

But the fact that Mr. Gonzales continues to hold the position of Attorney General after his repeated perjuries under oath gives me little confidence that enough Democrats in Congress have the courage and/or patriotism to fulfill their constitutional duties.

It's disgusting that the bedwetters among us (who let just 19 homicidal kooks with boxcutters and an audacious plan make them lose all sense of proportion and decency) continue to cheer the Bush regime as it systematically dismantles the greatest constitutional democracy the world has ever seen.

Cheer louder, Elephantman. Maybe nobody will notice the pee stains.

What had been hailed as truly revolutionary in Gorbachev's "perestroika" program was "glasnost" (transparency). This transparency was essential for any type of democratic reform as well as for confidence-building in the Soviet Union's foreign relations.

With the Bush regime, we're seeing an analogue to the pre-glasnost Soviet Union -- a lawless, undemocratic, authoritarian regime operating in secrecy.

To protect those secrets, the Bush regime has adopted the tactics of the mafia: "omerta" (silence). Mafia soldiers knew that, if arrested, their silence would be rewarded with legal help and financial assistance for their families. But unlike the Bush regime, the capos and dons didn't have the means of controlling prosecutions and canceling criminal convictions with commutations and pardons.

As a "journalist," Hiatt's cheerleading for broad government secrecy is like a doctor deliberately spreading disease or a teacher promoting illiteracy.

Since literally everything else uttered by George W. Bush has proved to be a lie, why should we give him the benefit of the doubt on his professed theology? A much more likely explanation is that he's simply pandering to the most credulous of his rapidly shrinking base.

When Bush once recounted how his Bible study changed his life, he was asked which Bible verse was his favorite. He was as flummoxed as Paris Hilton. All his "churchiness" is strictly for the rubes.

Besides, there's no historical basis or interior logic to his oft-repeated statement of freedom being the "gift of the Almighty to all mankind." If that were the case, wouldn't freedom would be the natural order worldwide throughout history, instead of a political system only recently enacted by rational liberals?

Back in the day, these vicious paranoid sociopaths were laughed at. Now they man the levers of government with their "bomb 'em all" abroad and "round 'em up" domestic policy impulses.

Will people like this -- who enthusiastically endorse the routine use of torture -- relinquish power just because the voters turn them out?

Previous administrations have made specious assertions of executive privledge to cover-up mis- and malfeasance, but always backed away from a true constitutional crisis in the "national interest."

This regime has no such respect for the "national interest." The Bush/Cheney cabal -- and its robotic Republicanist supporters -- have no such competing interest. For them, it's about power. Period.

The Democrats should have learned by now that their only two options in light of this regime's ongoing lawlessness are: a) Impeach; or b) Shut the fuck up and go home.

Sadly, option "b" seems to be the option favored by the majority of Democrats in Congress. Our democratic republic may not survive.

At this late date, I think your theory of "gathering forces for final assault" is wishful thinking.

With the countless instances of the Bush regime's contemptuous stonewalling and blatant perjuries, what could the Dems possibly need by way of additional evidence or procedural hurdles to both make a case for impeachment wth the public, and to begin impeachment hearings?

Bush has practically dared the Dems to do impeach him and they still seem meekly content to wait him out until 2009.

I hope you're right. But consider these two factors:

The clock is running out.

The Dems in Congress haven't even impeached Gonzo, and he's definitely "easy meat."

The idiots in charge of US policy are under the impression that by just applying more force here, or dropping more bombs there, or by getting tougher with detainees they will somehow make their incoherent War on Terror succeed.

They don't seem to understand that they are simply hardening the resolve of those who already hate us, and making new enemies among those who were previously merely ambivalent towards us.

Osama bin Laden couldn't have designed better US strategies to further Al Qaeda's interests.

All blood & guts -- as long as it's not their own and the fighting is half a world away.

One terrorist attack on US soil and these guys were so frightened that they continue to cheer the destruction of their own democracy in the false hope that the loss of their freedom will make them safer. Pathetic.

The Bush regime's hamfisted foreign policy seems almost designed to destabilize and Islamize nuclear-armed Pakistan.

At this point we should wonder if it's mis- or malfeasance.

This regime has proved itself capable of gross departure from ethics, decency -- and even sanity -- to further its domestic political goals.