Tenet received the medal for the same reason the others did: he took the blame on Bush's behalf. The medal is a badge of shame and he should be forced to wear it for the rest of his life.

Joan: I caught your performance on Scarborough last night, and while I agree Tenet's actions were, and continue to be, incompetent and deplorable, it's obvious Scarborough is using the occasion to scapegoat him for Bush's shortcomings. I presume this is the Republican talking-point we're hearing. You were off-base in accepting their portrayal Tenet as the mastermind of the Bad Intel, leading poor dear gullible George and Dick down the primrose path and all that. I won't let Tenet off the hook, but even a clock that runs backwards is going to be right at least twice a day -- and when he laid down his rhetorical challenge -- did Cheney really need Tenet's say-so to invade Iraq, when the overwhelming concensus of evidence clearly shows Cheney's mind was made up from day one -- that much has the ring of truth, and we shouldn't allow the rest of it to become a sideshow distraction that obscures that point.

She can't travel because she's a ward of the state -- I'm not sure of her exact circumstances, but it looks something like the Irish equivalent of Child Protective Services had already taken custody of her, so she can't just up and go to England on her own.

...gives new meaning to the phrase "fuck a duck"...

Once you've dubbed it "sex education" it's doomed. Somehow we manage to learn how our lungs work, how our hearts work, how our intestines work, but the moment you try to discuss the human reproductive system, suddenly it's "sex" ed.

Kids need to know how the reproductive system works, because kids grow up to be adults. I am stunned by the number of adults I meet, for example, who believe that women can't get pregnant from rape. I've heard this from well-educated professional men in their 40's! And these are people who, among other things, have to make decisions about whether or not to support womens' reproductive rights. These are people who sit on juries during rape trials.

The absolute minimum kids need to know is how their bodies work. Parents are free to teach "values" at home, but if we rely on them to teach biology and disease prevention -- that is a recipe for disaster.

BadRel: I suspect this came around via a distortion of one possibly true fact: rapes are statistically less likely to result in pregnancies than you see in consensual unprotected sex -- one factor is that rapists are frequently unable to finish off what they begin (don't ask me why), and another factor could be that when people are having consensual unprotected sex, in many cases they're actively trying to conceive, so they may have taken steps that are likely to enhance their chances of success (like timing it to coincide with ovulation, taking fertility treatments, etc.). I don't know why somebody would believe that rapes "never" result in pregnancies, but I will say that I was amazed to have a room full of well-educated professional men explain to me that this is a "well known proven fact."

It may be a well known proven fact in the high school locker room where they got their information about human reproduction, but I don't know any medical professional who agrees with it.

In response, Alberto Gonzales refused to allow Ashcroft or Comey to testify about any such matters ... "Clearly, there are privilege issues that have to be considered," Gonzales said.

If I'm reading the description of the scene in the hospital room correctly, is Bush (via Gonzales) able to assert attorney-client privelege, at least as far as that one discussion goes? Ashcroft's wife was present, doesn't that defeat the assertion of privelege? I'll admit up front I don't know a whole lot about when privelege is waived.

Does this administration really believe that the smartest response to their being accused of lying, is to suggest that the people who believed their lies -- I mean assertions -- actually somehow missed the delicate nuance in the way they parsed their words? That it was all somehow some big misunderstanding? Is the answer to suggest that the overwhelming number of Americans who initially supported their war, did so because they made a connection in the Administration's case that the Administration never ever intended to suggest? Do they actually want to go public claiming that their intent was never to lead America to believe Saddam was somehow behind 9/11?

Possibly, since "intent" is one of the most difficult elements to prove. You can stand there with one hand on the Bible and the other with your fingers crossed behind your back and never get "caught", but that's not the same as being believed.

Claiming "it all depends on what the definition of 'is' is" may be a good way to equivocate your way through questions you don't want to have to answer, but at a minimum Bush should have learned it's not a great way to bolster your credibility.