Other spineless insects are coming out of the woodwork besides Tenet. Have you heard Dick Durbin?

Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyonYGeyFb4

As someone else here said, blow the whistle and resign or take whatever consequences come from blowing the whistle. But don't ooze in front of a microphone NOW and tell us you knew all along. Tenet's book should be boycotted.

robertogreen said it perfectly. Too little, too late. What GT needs to do is donate the four million advance he got for the book and donate it to wounded soldiers. Every goddamn cent of it.

My prediction is the book isn't going to sell well at all.

Who are the non-civil-service employees? If Goodling and Sampson were given authority to hire and fire janitors, who cares? (Nothing against janitors, I just can't see how their personal politics would help the DOJ pursue a neocon agenda.)

Every time I hear Bush say how concerned he is about the Iraqi people, that we can't get out because there'll be a bloodbath -- I mean, come on! The easiest thing would be to pull out and let the Dems take the heat. He's not pulling out because he's afraid there WON'T be a bloodbath.

You go in, tear a country apart, sewage and blood are running together in the streets, no one has any idea if they have a tomorrow much less a future -- tell me again: how exactly are you going to slap their wrist if they don't get the trains to run on time?

Two days later Jack Ruby, also by the merest chance, found himself in a position to shoot Oswald and that is what he did.

I would love to have you on the jury panel if I'm ever accused of a serious crime. Your credulity and willingness to accept surface facts without explanation would be of great value to my case, I'm sure.

Those questions are way too ugly. The bit of the debate I heard on the radio while commuting was a combination of right-wing paranoia (everyone in the world is out to get us) and clubby, chummy chuckles about making comments about each other's stated points of view. Combo frat-house and rubber room. You were expecting maybe something else?

Here was this little, short, unimpressive man with a funny mustache trying to portray himself as the ultimate tough guy, to project a vitality that just wasn't there.

The Fuhrer didn't have to be tough, all he had to do was tap into the terror, confusion and anger of the German people, which was at the time something we can hardly imagine. Luckily, our Hitlers have a small audience that doesn't comprise a majority of voters. But we have to make sure they're marginalized to the greatest extent possible, because who knows what tomorrow may bring?

Her close relationship with the president, whom she uncritically adores, has enhanced her power and prestige -- largely because she "enables" him, as Mabry puts it, without challenging his assumptions or puncturing his illusions. One close friend of Rice's, echoing many others, told the author: "She thought he could do no wrong."

As you pointed out, all her previous bosses thought she felt that way about them. Once Bush falls, look for Condi to set up camp at Obama's campaign, gazing upon her new coattail with those same adoring eyes.

what does h/t mean?

After reading about L-1 Solutions, I'm having my teenagers re-read "1984."

How is it that Brit Hume and so many others can say stuff like: "I mean, this is why the Democratic Party has had this reputation, going back decades, of really not being very serious about national defense. It's because they aren't," and be taken seriously? By anyone? What I want to know is, who are the Democrats he's referring to? Woodrow Wilson, arguably the first neocon? FDR, who was just itching to get into WWII and finally managed it? Truman, who sent troops to Korea without consulting congress in the slightest? Kennedy and Johnson, who armed us mightily against the USSR and embroiled us in Vietnam for the national security? Who ARE these wimpy Democrats Hume and others keep referring to?

Our Fearless Leader, despite the blood being spilled daily in his name and at his command, has the personal inner resources to remain courteous, cheerful and charming, and that his love of a good joke hasn't been dampened by the fact that most people think he's doing a lousy job.

I returned from a visit to the USSR in 1985 and had the same impression. In fact, I went specifically to see who and what it was we'd been so terrified of all those years. It wasn't like they had a lot of neat stuff that had recently fallen into disrepair. The whole country was backward, nothing worked nor looked as if it had ever worked, new buildings looked ready to fall down -- the only things they had to show to tourists were relics from the days of the Czars.

The Cold War was all a mutually-agreed-upon sham to keep the Politburo in power and the MIC raking in the bucks.

Your company wasn't pushed out by companies in India. It was pushed out by consolidation in your industry...at home.

The U.S. has anti-trust laws, but they are not enforced. When one or two or three companies own enough of an industry that all by themselves they can change the rules of the game -- and especially when those changes put people in the unemployment line -- they should be broken up. Yes, there are efficiencies of scale, but they're not worth the price. If there had still been a lot of publishers, some would have gone to India and had less expensive books to sell; others would have stayed in the States and had higher-quality books to sell.

Maybe I'm wrong, but this is what I believe.