Although I will also admit that if one looks at the angle of the camera lens, it does not appear to be pointed UP (as it would have to be to get the shot it at first glance appears he is trying to get). Still, you have to wonder... what's he really doing? Taking a picture of the back of her knees? Why, for the love of goodness?

While it does seem unlikely that attempting to prosecute Bush & Co. here in the US would prove fruitful, there are at least two possible useful results from an investigation, and even from a Bush pardon.

First, in retrospect, it would seem obvious that one serious flaw in the pardon power is its seeming grant of the power of self-pardon. It would seem reasonable to consider the passage of an Amendment barring the use of the pardon power by a sitting president to pardon either himself, or any member of his administration (current or former member). Even if future administrations feel pressured to grant pardons - if only to preserve the hope for themselves - this route, ala Nixon/Ford, still seems infinitely preferable than the idea that a President should have the unlimited ability to pardon himself. Should Bush choose to exercise a blanket pardon, one might at least find the impetus to pass such an amendment.

Lastly, an important point of an investigative committee, and undoubtedly a matter of some concern to members of the administration, is not their liability in the United States, but their potential foreign liability. Should an investigation reveal serious wrong doing, it is quite likely that individuals would (theoretically) face international liability for their actions. Note here in particular the recent historical indictments in England and Spain against Gen. Pinochet or former members of the Spanish fascist forces - it is certainly permissible under international law, and it is not unheard of for foreign courts to indict foreign officials. While it is unlikely that the United States would ever extradite a former official even if charged elsewhere, the mere possibility of future charges or extradition, or the actual bringing of charges - which would likely serve as an effective bar to foreign travel for the indicted individuals, lest a foreign country detain and extradite them to the prosecuting country - would certainly be a significant weight for former officials in and of itself.

As such, the unlikely nature of US prosecutions does not negate the usefulness of an open investigation, nor is a blanket pardon a guaranteed escape ticket for administration officials.

Mr. Greener suggests that to correct its current ills, the Republican party should focus on spreading "basic Republican principles." I have a better suggestion, Mr. Greener: perhaps the Republican Party should first attempt to get, and then practice, some principles in the first place.

Yes, yes, the Republican party has principles. It talks about them all the time, in fact. But, so far as this young (18-30), and now probably continuing Democratic voter can see, it has none in fact. Your party talks a good talk about moral principals, doing the right thing, faith in God, family ethics, and moral virtue. Meanwhile, your party's leading lights are out trampling the very virtues they profess to hold dearest. See i.e., Newt Gingrich, Mark Sanford, Chip Pickering; among a long list of others.

Republicans espouse - and virtually trademark - principles such as a patriotism, 'nation first,' a fair opportunity (although not outcome) for all, and fiscal restraint. John McCain recently bemoaned the passing of 'another check to our grandchildren.' Meanwhile, Republicans have presided over two massive tax cuts to the wealthiest portions of society, while overseeing massive budget deficits under every Republican President of the past thirty years. For all their talk about "strong nation," and past leaders, Republican foreign policy over the past 20 years appears to have devolved to "we have the biggest guns - do what we say, or else." So much for Teddy's admonition to "walk softly..."

The Republican party talks about small government - which seems to apply only to guns and taxes. So long as the question is medical (abortion), private (homosexual conduct or marriage), among others, well, regulation and prohibition is all the rage.

Lastly, there is no question that we are confronted today by serious problems and threats, many of which are structural and institutional in nature (health care, etc.). And yet, while there are many different opinions about how to fix them, Republican Senators proudly crow that "if this can be stopped, it will be Obama's Waterloo." Principled stand, or naked politicking? - How do you think I see it?

I believe it to be in our national interest to have a strong, viable opposition party. I don't have any authoritative answers to the serious questions facing us, but I can smell hypocrisy a mile away - and I don't like it. If the Republican party seriously hopes to regain any electoral sway - particularly with my generation - it would do well to find some reasonable, humanly-obtainable principles, and then put them into actual practice.