If I were Leonard Downie, my response to Woodward would've been the same as that of the Editor of the New Republic to Stephen Glass:

"You're fired. You have 30 minutes to clean out your desk. Leave everything except your law books. If you don't leave within that time frame, I will call security."

He embodies ALL that is wrong with journalism today: He is arrogant, wealthy, lazy, and above all else, self-interested.

And has everyone, including Sidney Blumenthal, forgotten that Bob Woodward is, and always has been, a Republican?

If I were Leonard Downie, I wouldn't have allowed Woodward to write anything more in The Washington Post, let alone that bullshit "mea culpa."

Instead, I would've simply proclaimed across the newsroom: "Woodward! You have 30 minutes to clean out your desk!"

Paris Hilton is to Dorothy Parker what Forrest Gump is to Albert Einstein. Unlike Gump, however, Hilton is, unfortunately, not a fictional character.

I appreciate the fact that you are willing to do your best impression of Jesus, but Jesus Christ, are you kidding me?

When the moldy sleazeball gave you a check for $50 that was known to be bad, he committed a crime. Your stop at the "money-changers" to cash his worthless check was cut short. You should have continued on to the State Attorney's Office, and I'm sure THEY would've known how to handle this. (Deprivations of liberty have wonderfully salutary effects upon behavior.)

Hell, even Jesus kicked up a fuss when he saw injustice. When did you get the idea that being a doormat for a thief was more beneficial than taking the carpet man to the cleaners?

Excellent article. But as I was reading it, two thoughts occurred to me.

The first is an observation once made by George Carlin: "Ever notice that the women who are against abortion are women you wouldn't want to sleep with?" Nowhere is that more true than with this nutcase, Sauerbrey.

The second is this: Have there EVER been any good Bush appointments?

Like the last contributor, I have an observation and a question:

If you're against abortion, don't have one. But if you're really "pro-life," how come I never see you protesting outside death row?

Alito's a perfect example of the hypocrisy of your position. He's a staunch supporter of the death penalty (thus rejecting Catholic doctrine), while at the same time an avid, foam-at-the-mouth anti-choicer.

If men could get knocked up, abortion would be a sacrament.

would still stink out out loud.

The very notion that Newt Gingrich, that self-described paragon of virtue, didn't pay a penalty is belied by the manner in which it was paid:

A loan from Bob Dole. See this article: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/04/17/dole.gingrich/

Gingrich was going to pay it out of campaign funds, but then even he recognized that people might see that as unseemly. Really?

I don't think Mr. Scherer needed to dignify this faux protest with a response, but he should be applauded for the professional manner in which he dispatched Gingrich nonetheless.

I like Sidney Blumenthal's columns. But here's something I've not heard a single commentator say:

Clarence Thomas expressed fealty to the rule of stare decisis when he testified (under oath I should add) before the Judiciary Committee at his confirmation hearing. Here is what Antonin Scalia has since said about that notion:

Thomas "doesn't believe in stare decisis, period." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31117-2004Oct13.html

Gee, do you think Alito could be lying under oath too? Whatever your views on Alito, THAT should bother you. As should his amnesia about the Princeton alumni group.

And on that score, let me see if I've got this straight: As Ted Kennedy has noted, Alito can remember in great detail EVERY ONE of the 67 dissenting opinions he's written over the last 15 years, but he can't remember a thing about a racist and sexist alumni organization to which he belonged, a fact that he trumpeted in a job application for a position in the Reagan White House in order to establish his "conservative" credentials?

Please. That hearing room is full of 18 bloviators and 1 prevaricator.

During his confirmation hearing, Clarence Thomas expressed fealty toward the concept of stare decisis. Specifically, Thomas testified that "stare decisis provides continuity to our system, it provides predictability, and in our process of case-by-case decision making, I think it is a very important and critical concept."

But in a biography of Thomas by Ken Foskett, none other than Antonin Scalia has said that Thomas "doesn't believe in stare decisis, period."

I guess it would never occur to such idealistic people as politicians like Kent Conrad that anyone, especially a Supreme Court nominee, might lie to get the job.

But I can count on one hand the number of Bush nominees for any position in this government who did not lie to get their jobs. And when they so obviously lie to keep their jobs, is that concept really so hard to get your arms around?

Democrats have now officially devolved into invertebrates. Maybe Darwin WAS wrong, after all, just the right wingers say.

In response to question number 5 posed by "Genuinely Confused":

We know when an undeclared war has ended when they commission a large black marble wall which will then be inscribed with the names of all the U.S. Soldiers who have been sacrificed in that "conflict."

Then, 30 years later, when they need money, the architects of the failed policies will write books containing half-baked mea culpas. The exception to this will be Bush, who never apologizes for anything.