"Now that Scooter Libby won't be going to prison, will the Vice President re-hire him as his chief of staff?"

"If not, why not?"

The inappropriateness of his re-hiring speaks to the inappropriateness of his freedom.

I've known a lot of guys, liberal and conservative, who would distinguish between having intercourse (calling it "sex") and a blowjob (calling it a long list of slang terms as opposed to the formal term "blowjob").

The argument that Sen. Vitter's privacy should be respected is about as disengenous an argument as, well, the GOP itself.

See, in general, I do feel like if someone cheats on their spouse it shouldn't be part of the public record. But when you're so pathetic that you've got to commit a crime to commit your adultery, your rights of privacy on this matter go right out the window--especially when your madame gets indicted.

And, yes, there's nothing that stinks worse than someone who can decry the morality of someone else while engaged in an obviously more morally offensive act. In fact, I think Jesus had something to say about that. Oh yes, here it is: "Judge not lest ye be judged."

I feel bad for Vitter's children, because they had no choice in being born to their miserable parents. But I don't have one iota of compassion for Wendy; in fact, I take some satisfaction in her situation. She has enjoyed the privelage and prominence afforded by her and her husband's sense of morality. Now, the true nature of Vitter's morality has been made manifest. And at the same time her husband was calling President Clinton morally unfit, Wendy Vitter misled the public about how she'd respond to adultery. That is, like HIllary, Wendy chose to stay with her man. Hillary never claimed she'd do otherwise.

Ah, the bullhorn the pResident wielded--what? two days--after the attacks--after he crapped himself as children read my pet goat, after he criss-crossed the country running like a dog with his tail between his legs, and after he gave the embarrasing speach on the night of--THAT bullhorn? OK.

I never gave a damn about the bullhorn-on-the-rubble moment and immediately saw it for what it was--the first of many empty, staged photo-ops that would mark his pResidency and more importantly the beginning of this junta's effort to move us into a facist, police state. Or to put it differently and more cynically, no group on the planet benefitted more from 9/11 than the Bush administration.

"Only the attacks of Sept. 11 gave Rove, Bush and Cheney an atmosphere in which such theories could thrive through the exploitation of fear. Rove became the public exponent of using terror as a political instrument to demonize the Democrats as unreliably soft."

Writing like that makes me think the Bush administration benefited from 9/11. Thank god the administration did everything they possibly could to prevent the attacks, proving once and for all that the attacks weren't their desired outcome.

And where'd Rove get the idea that the Democrats are unreliably soft?

I don't know who I hate more--Rove or Shrum. Rove for all the obvious reasons. But Shrum, well Rove owes some of his success to Shrum. Shrum is a worthless sack of $hit, and the fact that he can still get people to answer his phone calls is all anyone needs to know about the Democratic party.

I would think that a pro-war rally would be a great place to find people eager to be a part of this event that they're in favor of. And now even those as old as 42 can participate! What an opportunity! Please follow up; I can't wait for the good news.

I would like to see an explanation from McCain about why he has called for Larry Craig's resignation and not David Vitter's. Is it because Craig illegally pursued sexual activity that was homosexual while Vitter illegally pursued sexual activity that was heterosexual? Or is it because Craig's Republican governor will replace him with another Republican, while Vitter's Democratic governor wouldn't?

STRAIGHT TALK EXPRESSED! . . . all the way

OK, then clear up the mystery. If it's not illegally soliciting a prostitute, what is the sin David Vitter is confessing?

I acknowledge your broader point. Religions have a long list of common sins, many of which are not crimes. Looking at a Playboy--sin, not a crime, thank God! Using the "Lord's" name in vain--sin, not a crime. Of course, many of those sins are crimes--murder, theft, and soliciting a prostitute (except in Nevada). So, I get your point. I just don't see how it's relevant, except as a typical right-wing tactic to create enough cognitive disonance to give Vitter more wiggle room.