The prevailing assumption seems to be that the tapes were destroyed because they showed CIA torture. Gerald Posner has written that during the interrogation Zubaydah named three Saudi princes who had prior knowledge that a major terrorist attack was planned for 9/11, as did the chief of the Pakistani Air Force. All three Saudi princes died suspicios deaths within a week of each other. The Pakistani officer died thereafter in a plane crash.

So maybe the tapes were not destroyed because of the information given, not because of the methods by which it was gotten. Furthermore, there must be a transcript for review by analysts who were not present at the interrogation. In addition, Bush himself has said that Zubdayah gave up "important information." There is no way that information has not been preserved. So why hasn't Congress asked for the transcript?

In this the year of our Independence 232, we have never had a non-Christian president and I would bet that 99% of all American officeholders over the years have been Christians. Why, then, are we in dire need of more Christian leadership? Are they not yet satisfied with the harm Christians have done to this nation over the past 8 years?

"Sept 11, there were times I was worried."

Yeah, worried that two minutes might go by without him being on camera.

"Don't bother me, lady. Your dead son is chump change."

Logic dictates, and all who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible should agree, that no one who takes the Book of Revelation seriously should be elected president. If a president is looking forward to the Rapture (it's hard to type and laugh at the same time), wouldn't it be a wise precaution to keep him away from the nuclear football?

After all, we would't want an Armageddon-happy commander-in-chief gumming up God's plans by triggering The End prematurely.

I am a Catholic who was educated at a parochial grammer school, a Catholic high school, a Catholic college and obtained a post-graduate at a Catholic university. At spectacular cost to me, my two children have followed the same path. (Except for the graduate degree. If they do that,it's on their dime.)

My last two years of college and all of graduate school were substantially paid for by the G.I. Bill. In other words, money from the goverment. Now, you could argue that it was money that I earned during my four years on active duty, but that really doesn't wash because I would not have been entitled to it if I didn't continue my education. I went to Catholic schools. Others went to public institutions. It was an individual choice, but the money came from the same source: Uncle Sam.

Was this a violation of the anti-establishment clause? I don't think so. If the benefit had been denied to me because I went to Catholic institutions would it have been a violation of the equal protection clause? Yes.

Despite my background, I have always been opposed to school vouchers because they harm the public school system that is vitally important to our past, present and future. Having said that, it should be remembered that the Catholic parishes and dioceses have been carrying a substantial portion of the burden of educating young people. The construction and maintenance of these buildings at parish and diocesan expense, and payment of tuition by (mostly) Catholic families (along with substantial tuition subsidies by parishes and dioceses) has, over the past 120 years, saved taxpayers many billions of dollars.

They are also subsidized by the willingness of the dedicated teachers who work for a substantially reduced salary. It is true that they don't have to deal with the highly disruptive students that a public school teacher has to put up with, but it's a mistake to believe that their only alternative is to walk down the street to an inner-city school. They often get jobs at suburban schools. They can also get non-teaching jobs at much higher salaries.

Nor should it be assumed by any means that Catholic schools have better resources and equipment than puclic schools. The opposite is more often true. Catholic schools compete without the same level of financial support.

It is true that their students generally come from families who take an interest in the education of their children, and this is, of course, a key factor in the success of Catholic schools in graduation rates and the percentage of students going on to college.

Catholic schools are not confined to the inner city. Many suburban towns have them, and they are taken for granted until one of them closes and property taxes go up by 10%.

Morton Kondracke can infer that grammer school and high school Pell Grants are a disguise for a Catholic school rescue mission (although many do not need rescuing). And Koppelman can, probably rightly, call them vouchers. But they do not by any means constitute a violation of the separation doctrine, as set forth in my G.I. Bill example above in this terribly lengthy and disjointed post.

How can it possibly be that Al-Qaida "is improving its ability to attack within the United States" when our Republican friends assured us that we were fighting them over there so that we wouldn't have to fight them over here?

Even more disconcerting is the fact that their ability to attack us here is growing even though the Surge Is Working. Does this mean that the surge is so successful that AQI is fleeing Iraq because they feel safer in the U.S?

Or does it just mean that the administration has peddled so many lies over the years that they can't keep them straight anymore? The answer here is "yes." In fact, its been quite a while since they've even cared about the contradictory nature of their lies. Why should they? Nobody ever calls them on it.