Hornet, go to hell. You and every loyal bushie has reason to be utterly ashamed of yourself today; instead you parade your ignorance and contempt for other people by acting like children.

Go fight in the war your damned President started, will you? I'm tired of you and your fellow Americans who defend to the death a completely criminal president and his cronies.

When you get convicted of a felony, don't expect him to commute your sentence-you don't count as a friend.

Keith, you have just written what the 49 percent of the Americans who did not vote for GWB feel-that he spit in our faces by commuting Libby's sentence.

It is a disgrace that he is allowed to remain as president when even Nixon resigned in the face of shameful acts.

What is it about the man who does these things who cannot understand why so many people hate him so thoroughly and totally?

Is he so oblivious to his image that he doesn't believe that anyone could disagree with his mindset? Doesn't he have an ounce of conscience, or an iota of morality?

Thanks for the excellent article. It was timed perfectly.

I hope he doesn't choke on his cake.

When the WH issued its' statement that it would claim executive privilege for the former employees to not testify, it seemed rather presumptous that the argument would hold water.

I think it becomes very apparent that Bush is terrified that anyone would dare cross the line and actually tell the truth about the inner workings of the WH.

In my view, (uneducated in the workings of power), he can't tell anyone to not testify if compelled by subpoena, no matter what his legal stance is, if they're no longer employed by the WH.

After all, they're the ones who will have to answer to the fallout of not testifying. They will face the contempt charges and the possible legal problems of such a move.

The only way I can see that Miers and Taylor are allowed not to testify is if they are covered by a previously signed "loyalty statement" that would hold up in court.

Even corporations have difficulty enforcing those with former employees, so I rather doubt that the WH will prevail in this matter.

To the LW:

Your grandmother is dying,and you should remember one damned thing:

It isn't about you all the time!

I don't care, nor do I want to know what your problem is about your family. I don't care if they piss snake venom.

You, on the other hand, have a choice to live with your conscience. Grow up and call your soon-to-be gone grandmother who loved you once.

You can pass on the funeral and all the other attendant crap that goes with death, but do one person one little favor and let them know that you care about them.

Reading Bob Novak even now, you know he's indifferent to anyone else's opinion; his column is ranting and raving by a failed neo-con "wannabe" player of power in Washington.

He got his revenge on all of his enemies by outing Plame-but they got their rewards by costing him a lucrative job and just general dislike (if not outright hatred) by the other media people.

He can't get no respect, and he doesn't deserve any-he should have been charged with the same item as Libby was; he was just as (if not more) responsible for the destruction of many people's careers by printing the column that named Plame as a covert agent.

I'm still suprised that Fitzgerald didn't name him as a co-conspirator of the Libby bullshit-it's obvious he was helping the administration do their dirty work.

So he's mad at the world for calling him names and ignoring him.

Payback's a bitch, isn't it?

I've always disliked David Brooks-either in his column or on the News Hour.

His ardent and total worship of the administration, especially Bush, is not a sham.

He supports anything Bush does, no matter why or how-and don't ask him to change his mind-he will not. He is the ideal version of a corrupted reporter, beholden to those who hold the power.

I don't know why he is this way, but he does discredit to journalism by his slavish mind-set of "All Bush, all the way".

Instead of a balanced view, he writes and speaks the language of the neo-con front man.

He is just as odious as the people he writes about, and as appalling.

That the LW has nothing better to complain about than use of words to describe a problem is pretty pathetic. He should have at least thrown in a comment about something really sordid, if he has anything to write about.

On the other hand, I can empathize with him-the misuse of the English language is truly appalling; one of my pet peeves is now the new phrase "went missing".

One is either missing or not. You don't go "missing".

Popular parlance does not absolve one of ignorance.

I know about the phrase "went missing" in British literature. It is all well and appropriate in writing, but now it is getting to be so ubiquitous that all news people use it to describe a runaway, a car, anything that doesn't show up in 24 hours.

This is not England, for god's sake; use the American vernacular and stop trying to be high falutin' about how you can speak the "Queens' English".

Just a peeve of mine.