"John Yoo . . . is not only the most authoritarian but also the most partisan and intellectually dishonest lawyer in the country."

Perhaps, but let us not forget Doug Kmiec.

If Gonzalez's testimony on the TSP was not so inconsistent as to be obvious perjury because Gonzalez at some times referred to the TSP and at others referred to a different program is not much help to him or the other Bushies. In either case, the Executive had mounted an illegal program. If it was the TSP, at least it was sufficiently modified by Comey, et al., to withstand some level of scrutiny, but Gonzalez lied about it to the Senate Judiciary Committee. If it was not TSP it was sufficiently outside the 4th Amendment envelope to cause an enormous kerfluffle, and has never been exposed or regluated. In which case not only has Gonzalez has lied to Congress by failing to disclose in the face of a great deal of questioning, the Bush Administration is/was operating domestic surveillance without constitutional authority.

Gonzalez is quite the legal mind. Harvard Law. Is this a great country, or what?

My original posting was not edited, and I apologize. I think it's worth resubmitting.

If Gonzalez's testimony on the TSP was not so inconsistent as to be obvious perjury because Gonzalez at some times referred to the TSP and at others referred to a different program, it is not much help to him or the other Bushies. Examine the two possiblities.

If the disputed program was the TSP then Gonzalez perjured himself.

If it was not the TSP, the program was sufficiently outside the 4th Amendment envelope to cause an enormous kerfluffle, and has never been exposed or regulated. In which case not only has the administration (with Gonzalez's active participation) engaged in illegal domestic surveillance, but Gonzalez has lied to Congress by denying the existence of extra-legal domestic spying programs. Moreover, now that the secret of its existence has been breached, Congress must investigate the conduct and parameters of the program. Can you say "impeachable offense?"

Gonzalez is quite the legal mind. Harvard Law, eh? Is this a great country, or what?

There was nothing extraordinary about Rudy Giuliani on 9/11. He displayed the ordinary courage and competence we expect from leaders at times of disaster. He showed up at the site as soon as possible, but never put himself at obvious physical risk. He then organized a competent, if not brilliant, response. His actions fall into the "attaboy," rather than the "medal of honor" class.

The fairness of this assessment can be taken by comparing the actions of those who took great personal risks in order to save the lives of others even to the point of "the last full measure of devotion."

The one thing noteworthy about Rudy is the comparison to President Bush, who spent the day scuttling from one safe location to another. That George Bush is a poltroon goes largely unremarked in American discourse. I suppose because it is so painful. The comparison to Bush's shameful behavior is an important aspect of Rudy's popularity; in that in order to deny the obvious cowardice of the one, it is necessary to overstate the heroism of the other to the point where merely showing up is made to seem extraordinary.

Rudy is sufficiently aware of the contrast to take what advantage he can, again falling into the category of "what we ordinarily expect" from a politician. Although he should neither be elevated nor condemned for his political instincts it is worth making all three points. Rudy did nothing especially heroic. Many people did, and we remember them for it. One person shamed the nation, and neither we nor he should be allowed to forget.

This review is so overwrought, so hyperbolic, so wordy, so absolutely free of criticism, and entirely too fraught with modifiers while deliciously insinuating its way past actual nouns and hopeful-faced verbs -- and at the same time manages odd sentence construction.

Dylan was good. The movie may or may not be. The review stinks.

Hizzoner's Qatar association is slimy enough that it will be raised (repeatedly!) by Rudy's opponents should the press continue to force the issue.

A broader question lingers. How is that until now it was enough for Giuliani to say that work performed by Giuliani and Partners, including its client list, is confidential. Absent a subpoena the company cannot be forced to reveal anything. But, if I recall correctly, Giuliani is running for President. Giuliani and Partners (as distinguished from the law firm of Bracwell & Giuliand) hold no legal privileges, nor is it forced to undertake work for distasteful clients by the ethics of the legal profession. Rudy's protestations regarding duties to his partners and clients are both specious and jejune. Surely no adult associated with him did not willingly assume the possibility of publicity.

Are Rudy's activities between mayoralty and candidacy not our business? Any other matters of national security we should know about? To what, besides pushing the Kerik nomination, has he put himself up? That he will not reveal is suspicious. Not to put too fine a point on it -- How dare he?!

You gotta love the MSM. Get on it Joe. And give 'em hell.