Then Deputy Attorney General James Comey opposed the policy and "told colleagues at the department that they would all be 'ashamed' when the world eventually learned of it."

I hate to disagree with Comey, but it appears that none of his colleagues is capable of feeling shame -- embarassment, perhaps, but not shame.

My guess is that their children or grandchildren will be the ones to feel ashamed.

Dear Democratic Majority: The reason Rush, Ann, BillO and Tucker can paint you as wimps so successfully is NOT because Americans believe you're actually weak on terrorism. It's NOT because Americans believe you're weak on crime. It's NOT because Americans believe you're weak on fiscal discipline. I'm pretty sure I've run through all the reasons you've been branded weak for the past few decades, but if there's any I've forgotten, just fill in the blanks.

The reason Republicans and the rest of Americans think you're too wimpy to govern, is that you're weak on Republicans. Nobody wants to publicly align themselves with weak and wimpy government, and your chronic spine-free governance is what makes people lose it.

Let's review for a moment. Bill Clinton appeased the Republicans, and in the first midterm election of his presidency, lost control of Congress. Bill Clinton, same guy, shut down the government rather than cave in to them, and his approval ratings skyrocketed. Bill Clinton refused to step down when they voted to impeach, and his approval ratings shot into the stratosphere.

Nobody has ever managed to make the "wimp" accusation stick to Bill Clinton. We all saw him stand up to the bullies. His campaign was legendary for hitting back, instantly and effectively, when he was smeared.

John McCain was known as a "maverick" back in the days when he stood up to the Bush power machine. He wasn't defeated by the American people, he was defeated by his own party for disloyalty. Now he's learned how to play the game. Now that he knows how to appease the bullies, his support is nonexistent. He's a wimp.

Your problem, dear Democrats, is that you're soft on Republicans. You still think the day will come when Rush says "Gee, you guys are actually pretty tough!" In fact, the only Democrat who's perceived as even remotely tough right now is Senator Clinton (a card-carrying member of the Gang of Fourteen, to her everlasting shame).

If you give away our constitution -- do you honestly think Americans will think you're tough? If Verizon has been handing my phone records over to the partisan hacks at the Department of Homeland Security, and you give away my right to sue them for violating my privacy, am I going to thank you for being tough on ... me?

And no, I'm not going to publish this anonymously. Somebody around here has to have guts for ... something.

Sincerely,

America

Girly Bits.

If Judge Mukasey doesn't want to get people in trouble, has anybody explained to him the job description of the top prosecutor in the U.S.?

I'm positive there would be support for an anti-waterboarding statute sufficient to override a veto, but as a fail-safe, the legislation could be drafted to make it clear that the United States considers waterboarding torture when perpetrated by, or against, Americans. That way, in order to veto the provision the President would be acknowledging that other nations who waterboard our soldiers would "not" be prosecutable for torture.

So rather than credit female Neanderthals for helping to prolong the survival of the species, the Globe decides their "feminism" contributed to its downfall. That's where you see the Globe's clear bias: If only those females had known their proper place!

That's like blaming Rosie the Riveter for World War II, since without the female work force, the war would not have been possible.

I'm curious to know exactly how the immunity provision is phrased, at least in the bill being debated.

For example, if I, as a customer of Verizon online, want to terminate my contract without incurring their obscene early termination fee, am I able to assert that their disclosure of my records is in breach of our contract? In other words, let's assume they have immunity from a lawsuit by me -- even so, does this mean they're not in breach of a contract so as to allow me to terminate without becoming liable for the fee?

I have more questions -- but I'd really love to see the exact text of the immunity provision.