If Fitzgerald were to ask for an extension, could this mean that he's only touched the tip of the proverbial iceberg, and that there is more to this investigation than meets the eye? Could he be pursuing further evidence regarding the forged documents? Could this investigation unearth additional evidence about the fraudulant run-up to the war in Iraq?

This could get very interesting very quickly.

So much for security at the Capitol building. I thought we were concerned about terrorists getting access to government sites. I guess it's okay if they're Christian terrorists.

These people are creeping me out. (shiver)

http://drewlbucket.blogspot.com

This is a perfect example of why religion and government have no business whatsoever being intertwined. And it also begs the question as to why these people are essentially allowed to make blatantly political statements and pronouncements in a tax-exempt house of worship. Isn't that illegal under the income tax code?

And is Rev. Lusk taking government funding - in the neighborhood of $1 million - to spew political propaganda? Just another example of why the "faith-based funding" initiative is not only unethical, but unconstitutional.

The thought that African-Americans, whose civil rights were secured because of "liberal activism", are now being essentially brainwashed to support the antithesis of their personal interests is, quite frankly, obscene. And these people call themselves Christians? Actually, they are awfully sad excuses for human beings.

How shameful!

http://drewlbucket.blogspot.com

It's not surprising that the Bush administration would underestimate the consequences of their actions. They seem to make a habit of shooting first and asking questions later, even when the answers to those questions were available from the beginning. Quite plainly, they are selling the country's future down the proverbial river in order to fulfill their long-sought neo-conservative fantasies.

Not only has the Bush administration bungled the available intelligence (or was that a purposeful "bungling"?) used to support the war in Iraq, but also they've completely mismanaged the war effort, from strategy down to paying for the protracted excursion. Is it a result of sheer incompetence or pure stupidity? One suspects that it's comprised of a healthy serving of each.

Impeachment isn't a strong enough word or a fitting enough result for these criminals. They need to be indicted and sent to prison.

The bottom line is that the Bush administration and its ardent supporters have done an absolutely wonderful job...of making the administration of Richard Nixon look like the cast of Sesame Street in comparison.

http://drewlbucket.blogspot.com

Surely, an intelligent jurist who can easily pull and cite case law from memory should be able to remember WHY he associated with such an organization. To listen to him obfuscate on the issue to no end was an embarassment.

Plessy v. Ferguson? Sure.

Roe v. Wade. Of course.

Concerned Alumni of Princeton? Uh, not so much.

How pathetic!

http://drewlbucket.blogspot.com

Personally, I can't stand Wal-Mart. And I'm not talking so much about its employment policies as I am the shopping experience. Every time I enter a Wal-Mart, which has become increasingly infrequent, I can't wait to leave. The prices may be low, but the enjoyment factor is even lower. I would much rather pay more and shop in a more pleasant and inviting atmosphere such as Target.

I don't necessarily agree with the Maryland action against Wal-Mart. Companies should be able to decide for themselves - absent wide-ranging legislation that applies to ALL companies - what their healthcare or any other benefits will be. If employees don't like the benefits offered, then they don't have to work there. The only wrench in that argument, however, is when Wal-Mart comes into a small town, puts the small businesses there out of business, and leaves itself as the sole source of employment.

But healthcare isn't the only area in which Wal-Mart appears to take advantage of taxpayer money. Many may recall that the federal government recently approved over $30 million to pay for road improvements in front of Wal-Mart's corporate headquarters in Bentonville, Arkansas. You know, if Wal-Mart needs road improvements to improve the flow of traffic for its employees, then maybe this cash-rich, multi-billion dollar company should pay for them itself. Otherwise, this is just another example of government handouts to the rich, subsidized by the poor and middle class.

http://drewlbucket.blogspot.com

I may be wrong, but isn't military action taken against American citizens considered to be unconstitutional, absent the declaration of martial law? The Bush administration and, apparently, the "Justice" Department (let's use that term very loosely) claim that the President is afforded the power to take MILITARY action to protect the country. So if the spying on American citizens is considered to be "military action", then doesn't that open an entirely new can of worms?

If it is "military action", then it's wrong; and if it's not "military action", then it's wrong. Either way one looks at it, it's wrong...and illegal.

http://drewlbucket.blogspot.com

It's high time that our congressional leaders stand up for what's right, regardless of party, and stand firm against overzealous Patriot Act provisions. This comes down to our willingness to sacrifice some safety in order to protect the Constitutional freedoms we have held dear for over 200 years.

Believe me, our Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves at the thought of our trivializing the dangers they faced in putting their own necks on the line for freedom and democracy. Freedom comes with certain risks, and we must be willing to accept those risks to ensure that our freedom continues. That doesn't mean that we put our basic rights and freedoms at risk. Nothing - not even our lives - is worth risking those cherished and absolute hallmarks of our way of life.

http://drewlbucket.blogspot.com