... and it wasn't ok for the Governor of NY to compel a prostitute to cross state lines.

Both are illegal felonies, and both should (have) result(ed) in resignation.

I am disappointed that Mr. Greenwald is equivocating on behalf of the Governor. This is the first time I have disagreed with anything he has written. I am surprised because I had believed that Glenn was one of the most evenhanded journalists I have read. His reaction to this even has caused me to reexamine my prior opinion of his work.

The entire question of political motivation on the part of the Bush Justice Department is another issue entirely. I do feel that this is quite probably a result of warrantless wiretapping.

The prosecutors could gather enough information illegally to subsequently investigate and strike 'legally' without betraying their original illicit sources.

I suspect that, like the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, there will be few individuals involved in this scandal exhibiting noble intentions.

We can debate the relative morality of prostitution until the cows come home. Illegal does not necessarily equal Wrong.

There is a term "Equal Justice Under The Law" - perhaps you've heard of it?

Mr. Spitzer, sworn to uphold the law, broke it. Mr. Clinton, having taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, lied under oath.

In both cases, regardless of the reason for it, they lied and violated laws, rendering their word worthless when it comes to any future oaths they might ever take. It's called dishonesty.

Spitzer is a hypocrite whose form of crusading justice has resulted in the incarceration of many people who probably felt that they were really doing nothing "wrong" when they broke the laws that resulted in their arrest and prosecution.

Messers. Bush and Cheney probably thought they were doing nothing wrong when they compelled the telcos to wiretap without a warrant.

If you don't like the a law, our form of government allows you to publicly petition or lobby to have it changed. There is also an American tradition of civil disobedience, where you publicly and explicitly break a law in order to emphasize its injustice.

Once people in power decide arbitrarily which laws to obey and which to ignore, and do so surreptitiously, we are faced with a situation whereby there is no real respect for law by the people sworn to uphold it.

When you are empowered with enforcing and representing the word of law, you cannot choose to violate those same laws with impunity and expect to be taken seriously by intelligent people.

We don't live in a perfect world, and politicians lie and break the law every day.

However, if we are to continue to move towards the ideals established by our founding fathers, the law cannot tolerate dishonesty on the part of those people empowered to create and enforce it.

A lawyer is merely a politician in larval form...

wow - that was fast!

. . . for The Machinist.

Now, does anyone really buy the story that Spitzer was tripped up by currency transaction reporting? I suspect warrantless wiretapping by Bush's Justice Department.

Keep an eye on exactly how this was uncovered - I think it will be interesting.

Who approved this story for publication? Ugh.

PS - I never look...

All I know is Salon.com is making more money off the the page hits from Greenwald's readers' discussions on this subject than Client #9 ever paid his to his prostitutes.

don't wait for it to arrive in the mail - get it today!

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/JDF-Saddam-Report.pdf

that we're going to really find out what happened with this warrentless wiretapping...

get ready - the cockroaches will soon be scurrying from the daylight...

and hated Kansas 'o Flaherty

I love this strip.

You are correct - and the other videos of the Pentagon strike, confiscated by the FBI, have never been shown to the public.

The first Loose Change video was sensationalistic, the second one was a little more rational, but still over the top.

The LC "Final Cut" edition tries to stick closer to facts but veers off into hyperbole.

Just because some of the folks spinning crazy theories believe that the whole September 11th story has not been told does not negate the fact that WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 are the first and only skyscrapers to collapse due to "fire".

The fact that there were two debris fields in Shanksville almost certainly indicates that the passenger aircraft was shot down, with the exploded engine landing in one debris field and the remaining aircraft landing in the other.

To have faith in the official 9/11 report requires total suspension of belief in reality.

I don't know what happened that day, but I do know we are not being told the truth, and probably never will be.

To say that there is unanimous consensus between all architects and engineers regarding the reason for the World Trade Center collapse is incorrect and misleading.

If anyone (engineer or otherwise) can explain how a Boeing aircraft piloted by an inexperienced beginner can execute a 160 degree turn at 300+ miles per hour and hit the Pentagon without leaving any impact marks on the lawn or on the building from the wings, I'm all ears.

Since there are so many questions about this, what rational national security reasoning could there be for withholding the other videos from all of the other security cameras?

The book argues that new communications technologies are loosening the culture's grip on what people once called "objective reality."

Perhaps corporate influence of the media accounts for the bias that some people perceive in the manufactured dreck that passes for "the culture" today.

Case in point: yesterday's 9/11 article and today's Apple article - two subjects guaranteed to generate page hits and revenue for Salon.com - and if you're Slashdotted, who knows? Perhaps an uptick in book sales and a quarterly bonus ...