..."He may be a bastard, but he's OUR bastard."

We'll never cut off aid to Musharaff or Pakistan, as long as he's in power and parrots the Bush mantra that he's a bulwark against Islamic extremism, all the while actually fomenting ever-greater political resistance in response to his naked power grab.

Kind of turns the relationship on its head, doesn't it? We've painted ourselves into a corner with Musharaff, and have nowhere else to turn. Now we discover that he can not only thumb his nose at us -- he can probably demand (and get) further concessions from us with impunity! Great planning, as usual, Mr. Bush.

An amazing paragraph: "To be fair to Clinton, she hasn't been 'playing the victim card' herself -- she sort of tried to unplay it Friday in New Hampshire -- but her campaign and some of her supporters have done it for her."

Fair? Seems like it's MORE than "being fair" to Hillary Clinton -- plausible deniability is a bit lacking here.

Um, how does one separate Hillary Clinton from "her campaign" that neatly? Considering how well-oiled and finely-tuned her campaign machinery has been to date, is it plausible that she had no warning about, or control over, the statements made by "her campaign" on this occasion? And even if it were true, has she actually and specifically repudiated what her campaign said regarding the implication that all those brutes were piling on the lone woman?

This is undoubtedly my last posting to War Room, since I'm sure my head will be exploding any moment now. It's been fun, everyone -- but everything that could possibly be said, HAS been said, after Dana Perino's latest pronouncement about Judge Mukasey.

Can't argue with ya, Ms. Perino. "Amazing" is one of those wonderful weasel words that cuts both ways, so there's NO doubt Karen Hughes' work qualifies as "amazing" in at least one sense.

Now, if she'd said Hughes had done "good" or "effective" work, THAT would be just a bit harder to swallow.

...doesn't it, Ms. Perino? Maybe not to her, or Dubya, or others of their ilk -- but it means something to Americans.

Here's info concerning NINE Presidential cabinet nominees rejected over the years, copied from the U.S. Senate's own website: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Nominations.htm#8

(That entire webpage will be enlightening to today's ignorant administration lackeys, who evidently couldn't pass a high school proficiency test in civics or U.S. government.)

- - - - - - -

Cabinet Nominations Rejected

Name: Roger B. Taney

Nominated by: Andrew Jackson

Nomination Position: Treasury

Date Nominated: June 23, 1834

Date Rejected: June 24, 1834

Vote: 18-28

-------------------------

Name: Caleb Cushing

Nominated by: John Tyler

Nomination Position: Treasury

Date Nominated: March 2, 1843

Date Rejected: March 3, 1843

Vote: 19-27

Note: President Tyler responded to the rejection by renominating Cushing twice on the same day, March 3, 1843. Both times, the Senate rejected the nomination, first by a vote of 10-27, and later by a vote of 2-29.

-------------------------

Name: David Henshaw

Nominated by: John Tyler

Nomination Position: Navy

Date Nominated: December 6, 1843

Date Rejected: January 15, 1844

Vote: 8-34

-------------------------

Name: James M. Porter

Nominated by: John Tyler

Nomination Position: War

Date Nominated: December 6, 1843

Date Rejected: January 30, 1844

Vote: 3-38

-------------------------

Name: James S. Green

Nominated by: John Tyler

Nomination Position: Treasury

Date Nominated: June 14, 1844

Date Rejected: June 15, 1844

Vote: not recorded

-------------------------

Name: Henry Stanbery

Nominated by: Andrew Johnson

Nomination Position: Justice

Date Nominated: May 27, 1868

Date Rejected: June 2, 1868

Vote: 11-29

-------------------------

Name: Charles B. Warren

Nominated by: Calvin Coolidge

Nomination Position: Justice

Date Nominated: January 10, 1925; renominated March 5, 1925

Date Rejected: March 10, 1925

Vote: 39-41

Note: After the Senate rejected Warren, Coolidge renominated him on March 12, 1925. The Senate again rejected the nomination on March 16, 1925, by a vote of 39-46.

-------------------------

Name: Lewis L. Strauss

Nominated by: Dwight Eisenhower

Nomination Position: Commerce

Date Nominated: January 17, 1959

Date Rejected: June 18, 1959

Vote: 46-49

-------------------------

Name: John G. Tower

Nominated by: George Bush

Nomination Position: Defense

Date Nominated: January 20, 1989

Date Rejected: March 9, 1989

Vote: 47-53

This is usually attributed to Louis XIV of France, but is probably apocryphal.

Unfortunately, we're now faced with the reality of this pretender, George W. Bush -- our own "Son King" -- who asserts the authority to wield power unheard of since the days of the absolute monarchs. Where are the true patriots who will resist this kind of government by fiat? In Congress? In our courts? Within the executive branch itself?

I won't be surprised if deafening silence greets any declarations from the White House about Dubya's sweeping powers to act unilaterally in almost every area. Not one bit surprised.

George W. Bush, "Distinguished Lecturer"

First, Bush's confusion. If, in fact, our enemies "hate us for our freedom", then why in God's name are you working so furiously to demolish our freedoms, our civil liberties, the rule of law, etc. -- all in the name of PROTECTING what you yourself are demolishing? Why are you doing EXACTLY what you claim to believe our enemies want -- the destruction of what we ought to hold most dear?

And now, for Hillary's mistake. You do recall, don't you, the way John Kerry was lampooned for being "French"? And now YOU use a hoity-toity French phrase like "raison d'etre" in response to a question? Come on, Hillary, speak good-old-boy, down-home English, OK? Ya gotta talk like an Uh-mer-cun so that the yahoos aren't offended!

Rudy's definitely been around the marital track a few times himself -- so he's seen the world from both sides.

Makes you wonder how he could be so apparently clueless, not realizing that average Americans would think about HIS marriages, not marriages where he officiated, when answering this question!

Pretty tone-deaf for any politician, but especially so for Rudy.