Nicely said, Keillor. And while clipping items may seem a bit Cheneyish, I approve. The only thing I would add is that you should not tear the article out. No. Whip out your mini Swiss Army penknife and make a few deft swipes, then snap the item away from the rest of the page with flourish, folding it with one hand while you do and tucking it into your breast pocket in one continuous movement.

In addition to everything else the paper can do for you, I dare say I've never seen anyone using their $1200 laptop as an umbrella as they step briskly from the coffeeshop doorway to the curb after having used it to flag down a cab.

And finally, two things to keep in mind if you're looking to build that image: working the crossword in public - good; working the Sudoku in public - not so much.

The position taken by Lieberman, McCain, et al, ignores the plain fact that by any rational measure we've already failed in Iraq.

The only thing we've "succeeded" in doing is removing Hussein from power. In doing so, however, we've turned the country into a war-torn shambles where almost nothing works, and which likely won't see anything resembling peace for a generation (whether we stay or go).

This is not the fault of the brave men and women on the ground in this hellscape, but rather the fault of the President and his top-level official and un-official advisors. The litany of their failures is by now well-known and accepted by the majority of people here in the US and around the world.

Lieberman, McCain and the rest still think we can make a silk purse out of the bloody pig's ear Mr. Bush has left us to hold. They are wrong. All we can do is get more Americans killed. If there was a real-world chance that we could fix things, we would of course have an obligation to try (see "Rule, Pottery Barn"). But short of the impossibility of putting a half-million troops in-country, nothing we do will stop or even slow the sectarian bloodbath.

There is no "good" result that we can obtain in Iraq in the foreseeable future. All that we can do is get out of the way as soon as possible, and then work as hard as we can within the international community to find a diplomatic solution to the mess we've made.

I can certainly understand why Cheney was left off Fitzgerald's witness list. It is not necessary to prove that someone told Libby to lie, and even less so to prove who might have told him to lie. The only question is: DID he lie (actually, "did he knowingly make a misstatement of a material fact")?

Cheney is on Libby's list because the defense is going to try to show that the misstatement was not made knowingly. They want to show, as noted, that Libby did not "intend" to make a misstatement, or that he did not know it was a misstatement when he made it. Cheney's testimony will try to show that he was keeping Libby so busy with more important matters that Libby could not possibly be expected to keep the dates/times/people straight in all his different timelines given to the FBI and other investigators.

As to whether Cheney will be vigorously cross-examined, I suggest that you look at the vigor Fitzgerald's team brought to last year's prosecution of former Illinois governor George Ryan. Clearly, Fitzgerald does not like being fucked with, and if Cheney's testimony gets hinky, I have no doubt that the prosecutors will go after him with great zeal. If, however, the defense does its job properly, there won't be any deviation from the script and thus not room for much of a cross examination.

And this is where we get back to "pride." Cheney will have every opportunity to duplicate Jack Nicholson's famous portrayal of a military officer going all wild-eyed on the stand, and the defense will have to work damn hard to keep that from happening.

Man do I hope they fail.

The posts regarding FDR's tribunals and Adams' Alien & Sedition Act unintentionally (I'm sure) remind us that even those who history has come to recognize as honorable on the whole have made mistakes. It is interesting to note, as well, that those mistakes are so often rooted in fear.

FDR did, in fact, recognize this when he reminded us that all we had to really fear was fear itself. For it is fear that drives our worst actions.

True bravery in the face of terrorism is to say: the worst thing is not to die at the hands of a terrorist, but to allow that terrorist to scare me into giving up my freedom, into scaring me into stripping my brothers of their freedom, into surrendering to fear. True bravery is to say that I would rather die than live in a police state, subjected to ever more restrictive check-points, forced to carry my identity papers everywhere I went, constantly editing my phone calls, letters, emails and even, eventually, my thoughts.

True bravery is to say I will not lock someone else away because I am afraid of what they might do, and instead will take the brave stance of Anant and others like him, and fight for the victory of freedom over fear, even in the face of the economic blackmail being practiced by the Cully Stimsons of the world.