Yes. According to the White House's own website, Bush said "the Pak government." You'd think he was talking about college football (a la Pac-10 schools).

saintzak's comment of "Could we honestly have fucked up more?" is dead on. Ugh. Unintentional pun. I think about that every time I read about the Middle East in the news. We really have the makings for World War III, and the oceans won't keep the U.S. from taking multiple direct hits anymore. My one consolation is that I work in Washington, DC, which will likely be vaporized instantly. It's the suburbs that'll have to suffer the writhing agony of nuclear fallout.

According to the Bushies, you can't ask hypothetical questions about what could happen because that's not dealing in reality (since when does Bush have a problem with that?).

You can't ask questions regarding ongoing situations because the involved parties should be given the opportunities to come to their decisions.

And you can't ask questions after the fact, because that'll reveal tactics to our enemies and compromise national security.

Noticing a pattern? Does Bush not realize that Congress and the American people are part of the decision-making process? Scratch that. Of course he doesn't get it. He's The Decider. And The Decider in Chief (or, D.I.C.) hopes others will take his advice and "then, obviously, we'll deal with it if something other than that happens." Does he not know what he'd do yet? Holy f--k, is he winging it?

In 2000, George W. Bush ran on a platform of restoring morality to the White House. Rudy Giuliani is a hedonistic, adulterating slut. That's a freaky marriage of convenience.

But Giuliani can reliably continue war with Iraq and extend it into Iran, which matters to George W. Bush more than anything. He's already laid the groundwork to saddle the next president with Iraq and wants to continue his policies from the grave.

Giuliani is Bush's savior.

And, hey, Giuliani did get us through 9/11. Who else could have happened to be mayor of a city during one of the worst attacks on American soil? Anyone, you say? Silly you. 9/11!

But those high numbers took place before The Surge of New Strategy Greatness (TM).

The surge changed everything.

Nothing before the surge counts.

Hmm, what does that say about all of the pre-surge deaths and casualties? Oops? My bad? If we were going to go into Iraq, we should have gone in with overwhelming force to begin with?

I think Mukasey's nomination deserves to be moved to a full Senate vote. He's legally qualified with a past reputation for fairness, even though his equivocations on waterboarding are, as Condoleezza Rice might say, "disappointing." His refusal to speak clearly about waterboarding prompt questions about his character. But I think reasonable people can disagree about whether or not this is a deal-breaker.

Will we get a better nomination from the Bush Administration? Are we better off with Mukasey as Attorney General than no one at all? Will he serve the position well? Will he do more good than harm? Will he reign-in some of the Bush Admistration's excesses? Again, because I think reasonable people can disagree about these issues, Mukasey should get a full vote.

The thing is, with this going to a full vote, Mukasey will certainly be confirmed (it'll be a squeaker, though). Should we choose this over ideological purity or is it better to send a message?

I'm really not sure what to think about this. But I do think Mukasey could do some good.

From Lisa Navarrete, a spokeswoman for the National Council of La Raza, a national Hispanic civil rights organization:

He was clearly trying to not be Caucasian. How dark or light he is, is beside the point. It is a costume that people did find and would find offensive that was sanctioned by the executives. There's obviously a sensitivity issue that ICE needs to address with its own staff.

I couldn't have said it any better. Kudos to Navarrete.

From CT Voter: "the lacking-any-backbone or integrity Democrats will vote for it."

Some will, but others (like Obama), will be conveniently out of town and absent from the vote.

You're probably right that it won't be a squeaker, but I don't think he'll get the overwhelming support of 70 votes either. Call me an optimist, but I think the Democrats will at least make a vague showing of being anti-torture.

I can't believe that article didn't bring up "Aunt Flo" at all. For many women, menstrual pain is so bad it's a near-guaranteed sick day each month.

Aside from that obvious reason, there's also:

1. Woman as primary caregiver, using sick days to take care of sick children or aging parents.

2. Women using sick days to take care of doctor's appointments for themselves, children or aging parents. As it is, women go to the doctor more. Heck, they've gotta go just to get birth control!

3. Women have the good sense to stay home when they're sick instead of infecting the entire office. That one's just anecdotal. Our office has some notorious culprits who come into work even when they're hacking up a lung. And none of these co-workers is a woman.

4. The article quotes "that married men with kids actually report a lower rate of absences than men without children." Well, these men don't need to take sick days to be with the kids because mom is usually doing that. These same men may also get sick less often because their adorable little germ-factories at home have actually strengthened their immune systems! That one is also anecdotal. Right after college, I had two roommates, one a pre-school teacher. For the first few months we all caught whatever illness was going around the pre-school (of which, there were many). But, after those few months had passed, our systems had adapted.

Like most things in this world, this is an issue without one simple answer.