I wonder if use of torture will also come back around to cause the repubs some legal issues. I'd heard or read a few months back some statement that more pictures & video? - possibly worse than the first batch might be coming out. I hadn't thought too much of it until today when I was tuning in a radio station. On the way to the radio station I wanted I passed a conservative talk radio station. They were talking about how it would be immoral NOT to use torture when the "individual" (not human or person) you were "working on" might have information that could save the lives of 25 innocent US soldiers. Makes we wonder if the repub media machine has been instructed to start a program to indoctrinate their base in the torture=okay idea. May also serve to further explain the administration's resistance to having US personnel prosecutable by a world court on human rights abuses...

Anyone hear anything more about Abu Ghraib recently? Also, doesn't it seem like that rolled out of the news cycle pretty quickly given what it was about? Guess it's time to hit the CBC or BBC . . .

It isn't just Scott M that seems to get away w/ any ol' answer he wants.

It seems like the President gets away with answering a ? anyway he wants w/o ever facing a follow-up question.

If a reporter asks something like, "Do you know Harriet Miers' position on abortion?" The response is something like, "I have no litmus test for Supreme Court candidates." - WHICH - seems to mean that he would not decide based solely on that issue - but in no way indicates that he does not know her position - and could really mean he doesn't test their PH but decides based solely on the "would you overturn Roe v Wade test".

If a reporter asks something like have you ever discussed her position on abortion with her the answer is something like, "Not to my recollection have I ever sat down with her. . ." which seems to indicate they have never had a formal conversation about it - but does not seem to preclude a casual conversation that covered it - but could really mean we talked in depth about it while walking around the rose garden, or on the phone, or while standing so I could make this statement or via e-mail - or who knows. It seems like the follow-up should be something like "Have you ever communicated with HM in anyway, while in any position about her position on abortion?"

Also, any speculation on what dirt HM has on P. Bush to force her nomination?

I don't know that I'd bring any indictments against anyone in the administration - after all I have a family. Bringing indictments seems like it would make them madder than anything Joe Wilson did. . . and look at the smear campaign they launched at him - and his family. Fitgerald went after the Gambino mafia family. . .but the Gambinos probably won't get (keep?) the "legal" right to torture and abuse their captives.

Well maybe they won�t threaten him , maybe it�ll be a bribe. They can w/draw Miers� and offer the Supreme Court nomination to Fitz so that he�ll have to recuse himself from the Plame case . . . which will set things back far enough that the public will forget the matter and it will be 2008 by then anyway.

The other option. . .is of course that the requested documents really put the white house in a bad light. It is certainly not a stretch to imagine that the legal advice that this administration would seek (on subjects like torture, libel, slander, perjury, conflicts of interest, money laundering, paid pundits, etc.) might not be something they'd want a lot of people to see.

Kinda makes Rosa Parks getting to lie in state in the rotunda for a couple days seem less special when you here about how Libby got to lie to the state all over the whole capital for several years.

Yeah the Plame affair doesn't go any higher than Libby just like the "not, really a crime - well not an important one anyway" offenses at Abu Ghraib didn't go any higher than Col. Janis Karpinski. . . But just because it may have been enabled and encouraged by someone higher - doesn't mean the charges will go any higher . . . again see Abu Ghraib. . .

"Then McClellan was asked whether the American people don't deserve some answers now. His response: 'The American people deserve a White House that is committed to doing their work.'"

Is there any chance of the American people getting that before 2008?

can't a democratic senator come up with a reason for more debate? Like I'd love to move to an up or down vote but my constituents want to know that my office has taken the time to investigate some recent allegations made about Mr. Alito (Justice, Judge something that sounds respectful). Even though the allegation that the "family friend" that bequeathed the Exon stock to Mr. Alito either directly benefited from his ruling or received unearned funds from a corporation that benefited from Mr. Alito's ruling seems ridiculous it does appear like a bribe and of course it is difficult dismiss it without a full disclosure of Mr. Alito's financial dealings for the last 10 years - and the financial dealings of the “family friend”. Now I’d like to simply assure the American people that there was no impropriety but the fact is that Mr. Alito has not been forthcoming with his financial records. Combined with the fact that he was not forthcoming with answers about his opinions during the judicial committee it gives the _appearance_ that Mr. Alito is not being fully honest which sets the stage for allegations of this type. Which become very difficult to address. If Mr. Alito wishes to produce more information. . . I believe we can proceed to the up and down vote we all desire much more quickly while assuring the American people that all due diligence has been observed.