Perhaps her phone was tapped to target her husband? Was any phone of his tapped, does the helpful, anonymous, NSA lackey know?

Ah, the tangled webs we weave, when first we practice to deceive...

But didn't you love the part where Lindsey Graham told Alito,

"Roe v. Wade and abortion: If I wanted to work for Ronald Reagan, one of the things I would tell the Reagan administration is I think Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. They are likely to hire me because they were trying to prove to the court that the court took away from elected officials a very important right, protecting the unborn."

Then later:

"They're talking about filibustering maybe if you don't give the right answer. Well, what could possibly be the right answer about Roe v. Wade? If you acknowledge it's a precedent the court, well, then you would be right. If you refused to listen to someone who's trying to change the way it's applied or to overturn it and you will say, "Here, I will never listen to them," you might talk me out of voting for you.

I don't think any American should lose the right to challenge any precedent that the Supreme Court has issued because the judge wanted to get on the court. "

So, in applying for a job no integrity should be expected of Alito - but he should have suddenly developed it to get on the Supreme Court?

I haven't read the Post's letters to the editor in the past several weeks - but I stopped because their letters column seems to be sanitized. One might think that the major newspaper in the nation's capital would have a lively debate in its letters column, but they print a very boring sample and don't ever seem to print any critical of the Bush Regime. It's not surprising that they won't accept emails that they don't want to have to share.

My thanks to those who responded to the Post about the ombudsman's misrepresentation of the facts - the print and TV media must not be allowed to let the image of an equal opportunity corruption scandal stand.

What a surprise that the Bush Administration even knew they had such a thing. But then there's the "Clear Skies Initiative," "faith-based" transfers of funds from taxpayers to right wing religious institutions, and "terrorism surveillance" of anyone in the country the Bush Administration is suspicious of....

What happened, they were accidentally doing the job the section name implies? This prosecutor should be sent to the Eastern Front!

It's beyond frustrating to read-watch-hear the news every day. But I think the math would be different if Democrats win a majority in the Senate because a/Bush at that point would be a more weakened president than he is now if the country is in a mood to vote out the Republicans, and he would not be able to propose a candidate who's so right-of-center, and b/the dynamic would be different for Senate Democrats if they have a majority in the Senate, and presumably some gains, if not control, of the House.

And most hopefully, there would be a well-deserved impeachment process underway.

Why in hell is it so difficult to get the Dems rowing in the same boat, firing off some cannons when the important targets pop up??????

None of the coverage of Cindy Sheehan's arrest at the SOTU speech points out the irony that one family who's son was killed by George W. in Iraq was "honored" at the speech, while Ms Sheehan was removed and arrested because she won't present a "happy-to-sacrifice-my-child-to-your-war" face for the Bush regime. Does one dead soldier count less than another? However the regime feels about her opposition to their war, shouldn't she be similarly respected for her family's loss?

I am shocked and saddened to read the letters responding to this article. More than half sound like they come from the hard right. Who decided that animals are deserving of less respect than humans? That it is acceptable to torment and mutilate them so that a human can have relief of disease symptoms or live a little longer? Why is that okay? We're bigger? Badder?

Many years ago, my spouse and I invited a young doctor of recent acquaintance to dinner. She didn't show up, and when she contacted us a night later, she said she'd been called into surgery. She confided that it had been her first surgery on a human. We were surprised that a person with a medical degree had performed her first surgery after receiving her degree. She said she'd only done "dog surgery" in medical school. That was the first time that I heard about the use of dogs in medical training. She told us that the first surgery on the dogs was to remove their vocal chords. Then they were subjected to three subsequent surgeries by students, after which they were euthanized.

That was wrong then. It is wrong now. We have no right to justify intentional infliction of harm on sensate creatures for our benefit - and, no, I don't visit doctors and I don't take medications or use processed foods, and I am very careful in my choices of consumer products.

The group that has targeted Huntington has achieved an important result. Only very hard pressure will change such horrific practices, and by focusing so hard on one target, they have made progress. It will have a broader effect. I don't agree with personal physical violence towards humans or animals, but every step short of that, I do support.

The idea that "we" need to continue to use inhumane treatment of animals till something better cmes along is absolutely abhorent. It suggests that we can just dismiss suffering on a human convenience basis so long as it suits us. We aren't so special, folks - each of us will die. Making another creature's existence horrible to put off that inevitability is an absolutely grotesque ethic.