Conflating theology, nationalism and the short/long term profit margins in the global oil markets... should best be left to experts like the devoutly reasoned and pragmatic David Brooks or, perhaps, with trained Seminary scholars like Hitchens - aka the Rush Limbough(sp?) of theology.

No, you should stick to constitutional issues. It is my understanding the constitution says Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of theology... so it was left to President Bush to point-out that "Islam is a peaceful religion" as we marched to war (on evil) in an overwhelmingly Muslim nation. Jebus.

You also fail to acknowledge the sheer pragmatic profit realized by the global oil industry since the war on evil began: shortly before the President pointed-out Islam is peacful religion I bought gas (in my neck of the woods) for $1.03 per gallon. The price of gas yesterday was $3.19 per gallon.

I have calculated a crude (no pun intended) P&L statement on the net gains for the oil industry to date: $391,893,873,902,765,653,008,534,534,138,229,658,250. and 13 cents. approximately. (*note; this is 'net'...after expenses of approx. $.5 trillion)

That's nothing to sneeze at!

The ancient Manicheans didn't understand the nature of Evil either, Glenn. On long sea journeys they would burn little pieces of paper in hopes of warding off the evil spirits. After a number of ships burnt down with all aboard lost, they decided to invent atheism.

Sincerely,

Bah.

I wouldn't be talking right now! (Salon, for whatever reason, pays for it. Thanks.)

If the WSJ is worth $5 billion, I'll eat my shorts. Money well spent Mr. Murdick.

If CEO's are worth... that many zero's, I'll shave my head and save a few bucks.

O', Give me

a head with hair.

a Long beautiful hair.

down to here, down to there,

...down to where it stops by itself.

thanks to the gaggle of googlers around here, Glenn!

Well, it now seems Prof. Chesney words taken together say; 'there is little point in asking' about the unusally high rate of ex.-priv. in any given year, which is mostly true. After all, form does follow function.

And so, the appropriate question on Executive Privilege according to Cheesney is thus: are the unusally high rates of ex.priv. claims in any given year 'substantive'?

I thought of the Tillman family ...Then, my eyes glazed over.

In my neck of the woods, Wendel Barry (in his book on humming bug species) might have said; say, 'the humming bugs humeth while the moon sheddeth light.'

My dog sheddeth fleas, Substantively!

salutations,

bahhummingbug

but V. Plame was a national secruity secret.

What was this President's prerogative to "protect" national security "secrets" with respect to WH officals disclosing Ms. Plames covert (secret) status as a cia employee... and why should it be respected?

What was the Presidents prerogative to protect Mr. Wilsons investigations (secret?) concerning Iraq purchase of yellowcake?

Why does THIS PRESIDENT'S prerogative concerning national security secrets "need" to be respected wrt wmd, al-qeada/Iraq connection and, hence, the justification for the Iraq war?

To the contrary, this President's prerogative to "protect" 'national security secrets' concerning the Iraq war has been proven false and unjustifiable and deserves no respect.

And that is the point of 'national security secrets'... to provide justification (or not) for action. In the case of war, it is always justification that NEEDS to be crystal clear ... and respected, regardless of who is President.

'we have given you a democracy madam, if you can keep it.'

regards,

Bah.

Still more White House secrecy -- this time in the Tillman investigation.

Try to stay calm, Glenn. I believe you.

sincerely,

david

(what my friends call me ... if I'm lucky.)

you, too, could have been screamed-at and ridiculed by a funny little feller in a bow-tie!

Thankfully, it's not logistics that keep me off Tuckers show - butt, for the record, if Tucker screamed too loud at me, i'd slap that tart silly-sober (manly aye, but I like too. Plus, give em' something real to talk about.).

Monica! Jebus, I can't tell you the conversations I've had w/ Bush supporters where the subject of Monica has reared it's ugly head (make pun, if you want to.).

For some strange reason, most of these Bush supporters (mostly well-to-do Rep.'s), if pressed, will concede that the Iraq 'war' (on evil) was/is ill-concieved - once we can get-around the 'poor execution' excuse. But almost without exception, the next words that fall from their lips is: Bill Clinton and his disgrace of the presidency and all human decency.

It's very weird to me. I have no explanation for it.

sincerely,

bah.

is not 'growing'. Out of compost.

It wasn't that long ago, I recall, I could come home from a hard days night, plop down, reach behind the cushion, locate the remote, turn on NPR's News Hour (when McNeil was still there.)...while the following Sunday morning curling-up with a New York Times, and feel somewhat informed (& in shape). Or, at least, know which way the wind was blowing.

sigh. Those were the days. Foh! And it will be a long Road Home!

Nowadays, I have to hunt and peck. In obscure places like... a saloon (dang nation) with "back row" reporters like Helen and Glenn Greenwald just to stay abreast.

humming.

(doo-wop)

and many miles to go before I wake.

bah.

...why the hell didn't you say so, Greenwald.

Helen,/GG excellent interview. Thanks. I'm impressed.

I must confess, Helen, when GG posed his 'remarks' about 'the mysterious' reporter in the 'incident' with Mr. Snow this day past - that is; "only one person would be [crazy] enough to ask these tough questions" (paraphrase)- , I was intially at a loss! Even more frustrating, I was left to rely on Tony Snow for even the first name, 'Helen'. "Helen who", I pondered?

Now I know you, Helen. You are the reporter in the 'back row'. I am a big fan of the back row. You too, Glenn.

humming.