The Times article says:

"The accounts indicate that the involvement of White House officials in the discussions before the destruction of the tapes in November 2005 was more extensive than Bush administration officials have acknowledged." (my emphasis).

Perino said "..we have not described -- neither to highlight, nor to minimize -- the role or deliberations of White House officials in this matter."

In other words, the Administration (officially) acknowledged nothing about this story (other than to note it) either way - and the Times article implied otherwise.

Now Dana Perino is a profligate liar, and her outrage and demand for retraction is ridiculously overblown, and I also certainly believe the Times article that the Administration was deeply involved in this - but on this narrow, specific point she appears to be correct.

I need to go wash up now.

I've forwarded this story on to all my Republican friends:

http://tinyurl.com/39c4cu

You should too.

After reading this article I purchased a bottle of Lucid Absinthe and I am having a drink now.

It was quite expensive - $80 tax included, not counting the $2.69 for the sugar cubes (who has sugar cubes in their pantry?) Anyway, I was going to try it "straight" but had a couple of glasses of cheap merlot at dinner.

It's 62% alcohol - 128 proof. It tastes a lot like Ouzo, but with a pleasant slightly bitter aftertaste. And my tongue is numb. I don't know if it's my imagination but I certainly don't feel like I've had 3oz of Everclear - it is different. Maybe the thujone?

Not bad at all.

Because apparently he wasn't even asked.

The "liberal" media ignores the most liberal candidate. Imagine that.

I'm not sure what your point is. As am American I can only look at this through my experiences. And yes, it does affect me, given that Pakistan is or is not an ally of the US in the fight against Islamic extremism - I can't tell which is the case.

Frankly the issues and players are so muddled in the media and by our governments I don't know what to think about this (other than to be saddened by the death of a public figure of course).

Would you care to explain this for me? I'll listen.

He knows Americans of all political views (liberal and conservative and everything else) are threatened and intimidated by non-English speaking cultural minority members who they see every single day in their neighborhoods.

He is aware that Americans are irrationally afraid and desperately need villains to blame for their troubles, both real and imagined, and he is willing to exploit and stoke these fears for political gain.

In short, Huckabee is an expert on illegal immigration.

I hope he wins.

At the very least I hope Yoo gets hauled into a courtroom and is subject to hostile questioning. I'd like to hear his mewing defense of the mythical extra-constitutional unitary executive he's been free to dissemble about uncontested on the op-ed pages of the NY and LA Times.

Anyone who has children themselves (as I believe Yoo does) and doesn't ask themselves "what if this were my child?" before defending testicle crushing is clearly a sociopath beyond redemption. Hell, anyone at all who would even consider such a thing should be viewed with alarm and suspicion, not be employed as a constitutional expert at a major American university.

Only in the America of George Bush would it make sense to give a suspected terrorist a greater presumption of innocence than a Boalt Hall legal scholar - but clearly it does as Mr. Padilla rather persuasively denies his guilt while Yoo positively revels in professing his.

They are mean, scheming, power-hungry barbarians. They are subject to many appeals, but none of them is truth or fairness or even American interests - and I seriously doubt Obama has the ability or desire to soothe their ingrained racism.

If he is using a quiet voice it's for the benefit of the middle who don't yet understand how dishonest and unethical conservative Republicans are. That there are still such people in the middle is remarkable to me, but they do exist and that's who he needs to speak to.

I meant exactly what I said.

The Republicans I know are mean, nasty power-hungry barbarians. I neglected to menton the emotional, non-thinking knee-jerk voters as well: they're also Republicans.

I made no mention of right-wing conspiracies, or Karl Rove or any of that other nonsense you falsely attributed to my comments. I don't believe in "evil" people. I do believe in sociopaths and the unethical who will screw over their friends and neighbors and country without regard. Without exception the people I know like this are Republicans.

Regardless, at this late date, given George Bush, the Iraq War, the general criminality, dishonesty and vileness of virtually every Republican politician I no longer consider ANYONE who says they are Republican to be a person to be taken seriously in any regard.

Now if they want to start a new, improved conservative non-Republican Party and disavow their past I'm OK with that. I'll listen (with a wary ear) to their story. But after 10+ years of their nonsense I have zero respect for anyone who calls themselves "Republican". None.

It's not a "partisan epic". There are lots of corrupt Democrats, but not all of them are. What this country needs is for the Republican Party to go the way of he Bull Moose party or the Whigs as a party who time has come and gone.

There can't be an undivided America until we deal with the people who have spent the last 30 years deliberately trying to divide us on the basis of race and class and sex and religion. These people aren't your mythical "boogie men", they're members of the current Republican Party.

Please explain how 23% of $100 is $30.

Because that's a GIANT WHOPPING LIE that is at the core of the "fair" tax and colors any other argument in it's favor as dishonest.