Okay, fine, Henry VIII was not as short as Rhys Myers, but so what? That's a mere quibble, as is your complaint about his weight. He didn't get fat right away, but was handsome and fit.

Having seen the first two episodes already, I'd say that what's most important is that this show captures him extremely well, if you've read any biographies (try Alison Weir's, Heather, before opining again).

For the early part of his reign he was a complete hedonist: he loved women, dancing, riding, falconry. He was vain and completely uninterested in ruling and politics and left all that to Moore. He also was never a very nice man, and quite brutal throughout his reign, without his daughter Elizabeth's wit, charm, or profound intelligence. The Tudors does a tremendous job of capturing him in his bully-boy glory. Keith Michell was great thirty years ago, but that was a soft-focus portrait of Henry in the early episodes.

There may be only four exceptions, but you can be sure that this administration will interpret them in its favor, as leniently as possible, even if the bill passes with a veto-proof majority. Given this administration's history of disregard of Congress through signing statements, why would anyone believe a mere law can change direction in Iraq?

I've had no respect for her as a reporter since the time she all but accused Gary Condit's office staff of about half a dozen of conspiracy in murder by covering up for him. It was disgraceful yellow journalism, and unbelievable.

This quote should be on every front page and the lede for every newscast across the country:

<<I'm not going to sit here and tell you that the problem's been solved or that we've made substantial progress>>

But watch it get buried or ignored, even though the SOS says we're not making progress in Iraq!

You do have to wonder about the skewed vision and lack of insight of someone who can not only see GB as a savior, but who decried this in the political scene in DC a decade ago: "the inability for people to get stuff done and bridge divides." It's as if the Republicans didn't control Congress and weren't doing their best to undermine Clinton (and democracy) at every step of the way.

As someone who's studied and taught Holocaust literature and history, and who's written a lot of what's called Second Generation work, I have my doubts about the trope I've seen in fiction as well: Jewish woman sleeps with Nazi. I haven't found it believable to date, and none of the reviews of this film make it sound believable either. I suppose authors and Verhoeven choose it to violate a taboo and shock the audience/readers--but it seems psychologically improbable, and a cheap effect.

So what's the opposite of a flaccid sidekick?

One thing that shocked me in the run-up to the war was an absence of commentary on Iraq's history and the way in which it had been cobbled together by Churchill from three separate Ottoman provinces that had nothing in common with one another. The future was obvious: we'd seen Yugoslavia fall apart after the death of Tito and the rise of separatism and the resurgence of old hatreds; Iraq would surely suffer a similar fate. I have been amazed as I travel around the country how few people know anything about Iraq as a country, and I'm still appalled that when talk of casualties in Iraq comes up in the news, we're rarely reminded how small a country it is and told what percentage of the population is dead, displaced, or has fled the country.

Messsage: I care about rugs.

From the beginning of the war, American media were useless. I watched BBC America news, and checked out The Guardian and other British papers, or Der Spiegel. Anything else here was more like mid-1950s Bulgarian press extolling the fearless leader.

You would have thought a male duckologist would have been alert to the reality of super-large, seasonal penises, no?

The White House has not reversed itself. It never does. It's wrong to talk to Syria, except when Condi does it. For Pelosi, it's still cynical, destructive, America-hating.

"Get it?"

"Got it."

"Good."

What's unfair is that for six years the MSM has "protected" the public from knowing what this man truly speaks like, thinks like, acts like.

Surely it's

ménages à trois

and not

ménage a trois's?

This comment below irritates me:

"if you think he was trying to convey all that with an off-the-cuff remark."

Hello? Do some research. Read about Bush's relationships with his family (Bush on the Couch is a good place to start). He wasn't trying to convey anything, it slipped out and speaks volumes.

And anyone who thinks he was actually referring to the former relationship between England and the Colonies is giving the man far too much credit for quick thinking. I suppose you also believe he reads those weighty tomes he carries around. Had he been a man of even average wit, reading, and substance, he might have made some reference to the old Anglo-American relationship to cover his slip, but it would not have been couched in such plebeian imagery.

This is, after all, the man given to fart jokes in the Oval Office.

My guess is that since W. had to be strong-armed into the dinner and the white tie by Condi and Laura, he rejected even talk of any invitations to "eggheads." The guest list was as crass as the man himself and a perfect summation of a shameful, low-rent presidency.

How many tens of millions have been slaughtered in the last 100 years in the name of "godless" Communism, fascism and other authoritarian ideologies? Not as many as killed in the name of God, you say? Well, that's because secular killing machines haven't had as much time.

Let's all start using this whenever possible:

"I'm not sure that I have any personal knowledge outside the documents ..."

It sounds official and clear and authoritative while it's nothing but blowing smoke.