Surely the Republicans are not so stupid as to not realize that their attacks on Hillary are helping to secure her nomination.

As someone said about that assistant secretary of defense who sent her that snide letter regarding her question about contingency plans for withdrawal from Iraq, the only thing that could have helped her more would be if Dumbsfeld were to endorse Obama. McConnell's salvo is a continuation of the process.

Why would they do this? Most likely because they believe she would be the easiest Democrat to beat and/or would be the easiest to live with if elected, a Bush-Cheney Lite as Obama put it.

Back in 2004, the Catholic bishops were up in arms about Kerry's stance on abortion. Some of them were calling for his excommunication and some refused to allow him to take Holy Communion in their diocese. Just about all were claiming that it was the duty of a good Catholic not to vote for anyone who was pro-choice regarding abortion.

Where is their outrage now regarding the thrice-divorced, pro-choice Ghouliani? Is it OK to vote for a pro-choice, thrice-divorced candidate if he's a Republican? Or because he remains the staunch friend of a disgraced pedophile former priest? Or both?

Everyone seems to be missing an obvious point regarding Craig's "wide stance" defense; unless he completely doffed his pants and underwear a stance wide enough to encroach into the adjoining stall n not possible.

Craig seems to be somewhat less corpulent than I and presumably wears pants of the same or narrower waist. Just for kicks I measured my "stance" while on the pot. Even with my pants and jockey shorts down to the floor, the widest "stance" I could get, out-to-out of my toes, was 26-inches without busting the seams on both.

The standard width of non-handicapped toilet stalls is 32-inches.

But maybe Craig normally sits sideways or askew on the toilet?

Can't Bush appoint him as acting AG until the appointment is ratified by the Senate, then, if the nomination procedure is proven too difficult simply appoint him as a recess appointment once Congress goes into recess?

And can't Congress prevent recess appointment by technically not going into recess, but appointing one or a few senators to man the fort until the rest return from vacation or whatever? I seem to recall the Republicans doing that during the Clinton years; it was Senator John Warner, I believe, who manned the fort because he happened to live in the area.

You say that Ghouliani's criticism of Clinton could backfire because it could help her. But he and other Republicans are well aware of that. They believe that her nomination is inevitable and/or that she would be the easiest Democrat to beat. If her nomination is inevitable there's no harm in getting in some early licks, and if she's the one they want to get the Democratic nod what better method than to beat up on her during the primary season? Remember Br'er Rabbit?

But the main reason Ghouliani and the other Republican candidates want to beat up on her now is that it goes over great with ones most likely to vote in the primary, the Republican base.

I think it's telling that many Republicans are giving Obama the kiss of death by praising him.

So Bush is not likely to attack Iran but Cheney may have other ideas? What's the difference? Cheney is calling all the shots, and if he wants to attack Iran Bush will order it. Our only hope is that rational leaders in the military will refuse to obey. Or that the two of them are impeached in time.

Attacking Iran under the circumstances would be sheer madness. If you think our military is stretched thin now, consider the consequences of a war with Iran.

The Shiahs and Iranians attacking our supply lines from Kuwait to Baghdad would be the least of the problems; there would probably be no supply lines. Look at the map. Iran controls the narrow Straights of Hormuz, through which all our military and supply ships for Iraq must pass. With shipping to Kuwait blocked off, we'd have to rely on aircraft to resupply our troops.

We'd also need more troops, many more, to fight the Shiahs and their Iranian allies attacking them in Iraq from the east, and in Afghanistan from the west. Where would we get those troops, even if we were able to get them to where they are needed in time?

Clemons feels that Bush is only engaging in Saber rattling. Even if true, that could provoke Iran into attacking first, while it's holding all the cards. Bush didn't exactly dream up the idea of preemptive strikes.

Even Bush/Cheney must realize that Iran could not be defeated in a conventional war under the current circumstances. Once that war was started Bush's only option would be use of nuclear weapons. Is that their intent? If so, do they realize that the victims downwind would include American and Allied soldiers in Aghanistan? And in Iraq if the wind should change? Do they care?

Since 1945 atomic and nuclear weapons have been a deterrent to all out war. That only works when dealing with rational national leaders. But it is an open question as to who is the most irrational: Bush, Cheney or Iranian President Ahmadinejad.

Now that is something to worry about.