This White House has shown a long-established pattern of burning sources. Brewster Jennings (Valerie Plame's NOC), the above-mentioned Pakistani source, and this most recent one are undoubtedly just the most glaring examples of the callous indifference to quality intel they have shown since January, 2001.

Without commenting on SITE or Katz, internal WH sources sending this leaked video to Fox News (the first destination, as revealed in the logs) was clearly a propaganda move. So what we have is, in fact, an open window into al Quaeda's operations now slammed shut for the price of a few "timely" headlines.

Which side are they on, anyway? Where do their loyalties truly lie?

Oh, wait, we import those. And someone with even a small amount of electronics talent could use them for some very nasty devices indeed.

Was Petraeus even nominated? And isn't that something of a requirement?

I do recall hearing, with some amusement, a right wing attempt to nominate Rush Limbaugh - I swear I am not making this up - and the would-be nominators had no standing to do so. Can Petraeus' "nomination" be any different?

GPS does not have to be moving fast. All it needs to know is where it is. And if you can rig a unit to get a "contact closure" signal out, you've got a lot of potential trouble in a very small package.

Everyone carries a set, some people more than one.

And do you remember Al Roker, in 2001, shortly after flights resumed post-9/11, having his clippers (?) confiscated, then going to the airport shop - past security - and buying a new set?

It's not about screening weapons, it's about making people tractable through a combination of fear and inconvenience. And it seems to be working, quite well, actually.

Was Patrick Buchanan arguing for sympathy and understanding Bill Clinton when he was having it off with Monica Lewinsky?

Oh, riiiiight...Clinton was a Democratic president.

One of the best economics lessons I ever had was from a very good history professor.

He explained that the true purpose of an insurance company is the generation of investment capital. "Coverage", in this understanding, is simply part of the cost of doing business. As in, at best, an inconvenience.

To this end, as noted in the article and several letters, denial of claims is regarded within the insurer's walls as a business positive.

And the "mandated coverage" many are now proposing as a solution to America's health care crisis is little more than a thinly disguised welfare plan for the insurance industry. It's being sold as a "bridge" from where we are now to some form of universal coverage. That is false. It will be a dead end, as there is no incentive to move beyond such a plan once it's in effect. We need to move away from that notion, as it is poisonous to the real goal of universal coverage based on health care as a basic human right.

Universal Medicare is the only solution and that is simply that. Will it be easily achieved? No. Is it worth it? Unquestionably, yes.

The easy snark is that this could explain a lot.

The reality is that it doesn't matter. And for those who complain that Kucinich is being ignored, it's time to face some facts:

1) He's being ignored in great numbers by the American voters.

2) Outside his own district, he barely reaches statistical significance.

3) The lack of press is a reflection of that fact, not the cause of it. If he led the Democratic field, with 50% preferring him, the press would be on him like the proverbial (insert cliche here).

Maybe he doesn't reach outside his district because even in "liberal" media he is only covered when he is being ridiculed. If he got the coverage Clinton did (with the same respect) he would be among the frontrunners.

If he got numbers like Clinton does (disclosure: I am not a Clinton supporter) he would get coverage like Clinton does. The press is a trailing, not a leading, indicator.

And just to set you straight, on the off chance you are amenable to reason, I don't particularly care what either Tim tells me. I see a large number of info-sources in the course of a day, and am also capable of thought. And what I see is a guy who may have some interesting positions (I actually agree with a good number of them) who is not resonating with voters. Therefore, his candidacy is Quixotic, to say the least. One or two more and he can be the 21st Century's (Democratic) Harold Stassen.

Grow up, face reality, and learn something. Or not, as you choose...