I'm not looking for "objectivity," whatever that is. And I expect a point of view, of course. I'm talking about not giving the reader any information other than a link to a press release. It is out of the ordinary - and pretty likely that Mr. Koppelman has a friend at EFF. I would expect a comment about the case - or some information about it. Not just a teaser to someone else's PR text.

...he's been a paid whore his entire professional life. But will Democrats refuse to take calls from Akin Gump? Doubt it. Everyone understands this is a pageant and that money talks -- to both sides of the aisle.

The Bush administration's argument in a Rove-Gonzales case looks like it will be that the Constitution's establishment of co-equal branches of government implies that the congressional branch's power of the subpoena does not extend to an executive branch employee over which it does not have direct budgetary control. Yet the fact that different branches can, and do, wield power over one another is undeniable, as evidenced by the Scooter Libby trial, held by the judicial branch, and, ironically, the fired US Attorneys of the executive branch, some of whom were fired for not sufficiently investigating the congressional branch.

When the administration and its echo chambers make the argument that co-equal branches enjoy immunity from one another, they must be challenged to explain how far this theory goes -- and if it does has limitations and nuances, what are they and why?

It is so transparent that our government - Dems and Repubs alike - don't believe the in a universal standard of justice other than this one.

For example, what is the legal difference between the US-British kidnapping of Iranian officials legally in Iraq (who haven't yet been released) and the Iranian capture of British soldiers in Iraqi waters?

If other nations started kidnapping US and British troops and putting them in secret torture prisons, because they have been determined to be a potential threat to peace and security, why would they be on different legal footing than George Bush?

Might makes right -- at home and abroad. You could replace the Constitution and UN mandate with that phrase and you'd help the next generations understand the news a whole lot better.

Newsflash: Bush is a hypocrite!

We can kick a figurehead until our foot turns black and blue, but the only way to actually prevent our nation from being the heavy on the world stage is to expect more out of the only democratic (if only somewhat) institution in this nation: the Democratic Party.

No surprise that Bush isn't helpful. Of greater concern is that most of the Democrats have so bought into the GOP spin that they fear allocating money only for withdrawal of troops would cause insane Bush to spend it on combat and leave high and dry the troops who will still be in Iraq -- and it will be the Democrats fault! Boy, talk about enabling a pathology!

An analogy to how the Democrats think: "Here John, take $20 to spend on schoolbooks for our son Billy. (later) John! You spent the money on a deluxe carwash, in direct contravention of my instructions as family bookkeeper! What John? You're telling me I let Billy down because I didn't give you money for the car wash instead? I guess you're right. I'll go on the Sunday shows and acknowledge mistakes were made and that I really, really do love Billy as much as you do. Sniff."

Would you if no one held you accountable?

It got a red star. The new Salon system has one little bug to work out: editors choices don't show up in full list (click on

"editors only" and you'll see different posts).

I agree with saintzak that Bush has no idea what he's saying. Is he a drunk who is occasionally pulled out of the closet to read a teleprompter, or is he sober? That's the only interesting question. There is no disputing that he is a figurehead about whom the American public knows absolutely nothing.

It was clear who Bill Clinton was, whatever his flaws, but George Bush is an empty suit who could have any set of values or interests. And whatever those values and interests are – who cares? – they aren't driving anything.

What is worst about this situation is that impeaching Bush wouldn't be any more any more productive than impeaching a real president's wardrobe.

Wait, I take that back. What's worst about this is that it is completely transparent to the entire world that George Bush has no substance whatsoever, and yet, not a single mainstream media outlet would consider discussing this fact, let alone accept it as an underlying fact in any other coverage of the Executive Branch.

According to polls, somewhere around 60 percent of the public has wanted this war drawn to a close - to give up - for months now. Yet the big lie, the one that equates "supporting the troops" requires continued warfare, is so powerful that even a Democratic landslide (especially given our voting infrastructure), based on the war, was insufficient in moving even the Democratic majority to assert any real authority.

Lies work.

Niger cake worked too.

So did Iraq and 9/11.

And so did Colin Powell at the UN.

And so did the current World Bank president and, "It will pay for itself."

And so did purple fingers.

And so did Chalabi.

And so did Tony Blair.

And so did the networks.

And so did cable.

And so did the New York Times and the Washington Post.