Here's something interesting to me. Bob Barr was the unyielding Republican congressman of most sanctimonious accretion who pursued the evil, immoral Bill Clinton to impeachment. He's standing up to GWB's attacks on civil rights? When the Republican faithful -- especially the religiously inclined -- begin to oppose him, there's hope that Bush's wall may develop some cracks. Well I can hope, can't I?

arsenic, gallium, germanium, silicon and heavy metals like mercury, copper, titanium, chromium. Production is so dangerous that it is usually done off the continental USA because of the liability concerns due to the poisonous, toxic, noxious, and carcinogenic chemicals in use during production. In short, the poisons are so bad that I wouldn't sweat the cancer. I feel sorry for the mice.

You are hearing it here for the first time. The 2008 Republican nominee for president will be...Newt Gingrich. And the state his party will steal votes from this time? Michigan. Not Florida as in 2000. Not Ohio as in 2004. This time it will be Michigan.

Look, muckity-mucks, Newt has been positioning hisself for months to become the savior of the Republican party. At the last minute, he will ride his white mane into the arena and the neo-cons will suddenly realize they have their candidate. Everything, everything he says and does points that way. And he will be hard to beat.

I think the comments miss the connotation in Bush's statement. If he says he doesn't know the true facts (yes, yes, I know), then he establishes plausible deniability for knowledge of the interrogation techniques. A war crimes court might see his statement as evidence he really didn't know what the CIA was doing to the detainees. His defenders at an impeachment trial could point to this statement also. Not to mention the press when they wake from their nap. It's really a sly dodge of a substantive issue by means of a syntactical distraction. And we fell for it.

...if the steroid era is over, the days of outfielders throwing out runners at the plate may be coming back. Home runs won't be as easy if the hitters aren't juiced, right?

"They have at their fingertips high-fidelity images less than 90 days old of nearly every square foot of Iraq and Afghanistan -- a vast amount of data."

If this methodology is so effective, why haven't they snuffed Osama Bin Laden and al-Zwahiri? It can't that good.

“…the book by Jonah Goldberg…the first time I ran into this book, I thought at first it was satire.”

- Crust1

Be careful here. I believe Jonah Goldberg is writing satire. In fact farce. Nobody, but nobody who can put sentences together as well as Goldberg could possibly be serious about the opinions he expresses. HE IS PUTTING US ALL ON!! It’s all a joke, a hoax. Nobody is that stupid. Andy Kaufman, Martin Gardner (pardon me, Martin, for comparing you to Kaufman and Goldberg), even Jonathon Swift have delighted generations of readers with tongue-in-cheek nonsense that only the truly ignorant take as real. At least I hope Goldberg is a hoaxster. Oh God, I hope so.

is that they were sent there in the employ of the Republican Party. Listen, children, and heed me. A photo of Obama on stage, with head scarves in the background is worth millions of votes for John McCain, or, better, the actual candidate the Republicans will field in the November election. And so it goes....

Glen got it wrong.

"This whole controversy began because George Bush, in December of 2005, got caught breaking our spying laws for years. He did so because he embraced a radical and un-American theory that asserted he has the power to break all of our laws provided such lawbreaking is, in his view, related to "defense of the nation." That lawbreaking theory is at the heart of virtually every major controversy of the last seven years, and it remains entirely in tact and preserved."

Nixon in the Watergate scandal and Reagan in Iran-Contra did the same thing. They justified spying and defiance of the Constitution on national security grounds. Nixon would have been impeached; Reagan got off because he was feeling his age and had poor memory. The substance of the scandals in both cases was violation of guarantees in the Bill of Rights.

If a citizen is detained and/or searched of his possessions or papers in violation of the now eviserated Fourth-Amendment rights, can that person now sue and appeal all the way to the Supreme Court? If that citizen wins, is not this FISA law overturned because it violates the Constitution?

I like Glenn's purity of purpose about Fourth Amendment rights as much as the rest of the bloggers on this site. But Obama has the problem of trying to win the election. The choice, my friends, is a sad but crucial one. Do we want Obama to win, which entails avoiding vulnerability on the ALL IMPORTANT homeland security issue? Or would we prefer to stay pure in support of constitutional rights but lose the election to the Republicans who can claim they are best able to protect us from terrorists and Communists and evil empires and axes of evil and liberals?