If Katie Couric would make it her mission to report on matters of substance, in a form that is not disgustingly deferential to those in power, I'd be her number one fan. Instead I watch Amy Goodman because that is exactly what she does.

It's not Couric's fault, of course. She would be out of a job faster than you could say "Ashleigh Banfield" if she attempted to emulate Goodman. None of the major networks do real journalism any more, resorting instead to gimmickry in pursuit of ever-dwindling evening news ratings while simultaneously avoiding presenting anything of real substance.

Repeatedly, nations have united in abstract declarations that the launching of aggressive war is illegal. They have condemned it by treaty. But now we have the concrete application of these abstractions in a way which ought to make clear to the world that those who lead their nations into aggressive war face individual accountability for such acts.

--Justice Robert Jackson, August 12, 1945

In Justice Jackson's ideal world Wolfowitz and other architects of the war in Iraq would have been brought to justice for their criminal behavior a long time ago. Instead, in the topsy turvy world of the neo-cons, he gets rewarded with a plum post at the World Bank. But what finally does him in? His complete disregard for anything other than his own self-interest in obtaining for his girlfriend a plum post with a hefty raise.

I feel sorry for those who believe Wolfowitz is being persecuted. I can understand your confusion: after all Wolfowitz has only done what other neo-cons have done with impunity--so far. No matter how many laws, rules, and moral principles your neo-con heroes disregard you can always find some justification for their behavior. How sad, to have lost your moral compass so completely! "Elephantman", for instance, seems more concerned that "America loses" with Wolfowitz ouster, rather than with the damage Wolfowitz himself has caused with his moral, ethical and legal transgressions. But our losses occurred long before this, thanks to Bush and his cronies. That Wolfowitz doesn't have the good graces to leave quietly only serves to embarrass us further.

Hiatt has at his disposal far more than the rest of us have to force the issue. Hiatt has the the considerable resources of the Washington Post. He can not only demand answers, he can investigate the extent of the wrongdoing and put it on Page 1. But will he?

I finally accepted that soccer highlights would not be shown on SportCenter. And I have come to dislike it when DC United is shown on prime time on ABC (or even ESPN) because I'd miss the first 15 minutes due to an exciting Special Report that Madonna is adopting another child, or because I'd be annoyed at the banner at the bottom of the screen near the end of the game telling the golf weenies that this aberration (my soccer game) would be over Real Soon Now.

So now I'm happy. I have Gol TV. I have Fox Soccer Channel. I have MLS Direct Kick on DirecTV. And when I want to watch something else, there is softball on ESPNU or full coverage of the Luis Vuitton Cup semi-finals (tune in tomorrow at 8:30 AM for a great race between Desafio Espanol 2007 and Emirates Team New Zealand).

So yes, Niche is Cool!

I don't understand the Democrats. They hold all the cards, and yet they whine about not having "veto-proof" number of votes. What fools. They don't need a veto-proof majority! It is that simple. President Bush has no power to force the Democrats to pass anything at all. If the Democrats do nothing, they automatically de-fund the war!

OK, I hear you. I understand that nothing else will get funded either. But if the Democrats keep sending spending bills to this president that contain deadlines for Iraq (which most of us want), and Bush vetoes them, he's the bad guy, not the Democrats.

And does anyone seriously believe the Republican rubbish that not funding the troops means leaving them there stranded? If so, I have a real deal for you...

Finally I wish to point out just how hollow Bush believes his signing statements really are, for if he really believed in their legality he would simply sign the Democratic funding bill and wave away any restrictions it may impose with a signing statement.

Xanax writes:

Really. Its like you people just started paying attention yesterday. The straight dope here: The democrats COULD NOT WIN THIS. Period. It would have been political suicide to cut the funds.

Xanax, could you share your reasoning with us here? Because I'm missing something. Most Americans wish this war to end. There was a sea-change in congress because of this simple fact. So how is it "political suicide"?