Pretty much everyone knows what's happened at this point, and the only thing that's left is to round up indubitable proof and git 'em to firin'. I hope they clearly enunciate every word when they explain to Gonzales why it is that he should step down. In this case, "performance reasons" can be referred to with confidence.

On the other hand, I can't help but admit to certain perverse pleasure the the Master of Pain is now squirming under the gaze of a bipartisan pannel and in front of a massive TV audience. It ain't waterboarding, but it can't be pleasant. I'm not an "eye for an eye" kind of guy, but oh man. In the absence of a sweeping solution to all our problems, this feels sooo good.

(Now if only we could get George W. and Dick to squirm like that... I'd pay real money to see it happen.)

"The charge -- and it's really more than a charge, now -- is that Gonzales has politicized the department to an acceptable degree"... I think you meant "to an UNacceptable degree"

Otherwise it wouldn't be much of a charge, would it? ;)

I.e.: "I didn't see it, but I hear he did a good job." So W. lives in a bubble with a selectively permeable membrane. Not exactly breaking news, folks, but probably the most overt proof thereof yet. What's interesting is that I think W. had only one question for the people who told him about Fredo's testimony: "Did he rat me out?" Fredo, being loyal, didn't. Ergo, W. is pleased with the testimony. The rest doesn't matter.

I think, absent any actual proof, this is the closest we've got to an answer to the question: "Who ordered the firings of the eight U.S. attourneys?" Gonzales evaded it successfully, that's what he's good at, doing W.'s dirty deeds and then screening him out. That's his job. (I'm not saying anything new or unknown, I'm just stating the obvious.) The answer is, of course, "the President of the United States".

Maybe the Congress should dispense with the "antiquated and quaint" due process and waterboard the fuck out of Gonzales. He's a pathetic weakling, he'll crack instantly and then we'll know the truth.

The guy is barely buried and even the left-leaning Salon is relishing the memories of how he was an idiotic drunkard. Some of us, however, are inclined to wonder than if/when Bush, Sr. dies, the glowing tributes to him would involve that vomiting on a Japanese ambassador incident. Likely not. The media, even nice media, like Salon, prefers to insult foreigners and aggrandize its own.

Fair enough. But at least there should be one mention of how Yeltsin stood on a tank (a perfect target for snipers) and declared Russia's independence. Or how he overthrew a group of old-skool Soviet hardliners and rescued Gorbachev from house arrest. Or how he defied Gorbachev's belief that he was a slavish provincial yes-man and began a corruption probe in the Kremlin of unparallelled intensity. Or how nobody could ever assassinate him, and boy, they did try on numerous occasions. Or even his bloody war in Chechnya which, while controversial indeed, is still the work of a world leader.

Of course not. In the West he will be forever remembered as a stumbling drunk. So much the worse for the West.

Oy, it's as if Shelob desired to acquire Barad-dur Industries, Inc. They're birds of a feather, they are, so it's not really a surprise. I mean, the guy owns MySpace, for Pete's sake, so why not the Wall Street Journal?

One can only wish that, Shelob-like, Murdoch's empire would grow so bloated that it would devour itself, much like his pals, the neocon ideologues are doing right now. Yea, verily, and if wishes were fishes...

Now why or why couldn't Nancy speak like this two years ago? Granted, better later than never, but come ON! Why couldn't Kerry say things like this? Why couldn't Reid say things like this? Maybe because they didn't know yet which way the political winds blew. Perhaps because they were concerned with their own hold on power. They could be right: they would've done nobody any good if they went down burning in 2004, but you know, something tells me it would've been a gamble that paid off. After all, people voted for the manly man image.

Eh, who knows? All that is happening in a parallel Universe at this point. We're stuck with this version of events. So hey, at least we can have some fun watching the Decider stomp his foot on the ground and sputter. "But but but Nancy! I'm the commander guy! I don't like playing with you no more, you mean!" Heh.

With all due respect, I object! I am sick and tired of people using Genghis Khan as an example of a grunting savage. The man was actually well known for his social refinement (mostly, of course, in his later years when he became leader of a vast Empire) and built capital city that was renowned as a hub of learning and arts that rivaled even contemporary China.

So please, if you MUST choose an example of an uncivilized male barbarian from a very long list of historical personages, use someone like, say, Mark Anthony (whilst hung over, vomited into his toga during a session of the Roman Senate) or Grigori Rasputin (was famous for eschewing silverware while eating) or Rush Limbaugh (not really a historical personage, but quite uncivilized). Leave Genghis Khan (or Attila the Hun, for that matter) alone.

Thank you.