This article must hit the made popular list.

The hospital incident is the most telling anecdote and most representative of what absolute scum we are dealing with.

Nixon will look like Honest Abe compared to them before this is done.

Some here are speculating about the members of congress being spied on and blackmailed. I know Right Wingers will be inclined to call that unhinged speculation and conspiracy thinking, but I think the speculation is warranted and a reasonable inference.

After all, Cheney and the neo-cons went to the utmost to link the Democrats, and John Kerry to supporting Al Qaeda, and even claimed Al Qaeda wanted Kerry to win. Is it possible they weren't just cynically manipulating public opinion, that these paranoid weirdos running the country actually thought maybe Democrats were in cahoots with terrorists?

Some of these people are that paranoid. Some of the people at Free Republic aren't joking, and this is exactly the sort of people the Bush administration hires, deliberately for non-partisan positions. What was Porter Goss doing running CIA? Purging it of Democrats of course.

Also, of course there is just the run of the mill amoral desire to spy on your enemies and thus we must ask:

How do we know these spying powers were not used on Democrats and John Kerry? The point of warrants is that it creates a record that protects the entity doing the spying from accusations of improper use. Detached from that, all we have is the word of a bunch of serial liars.

Question for Bush supporters:

1) If Gonzales told you "the check is in the mail" would you believe him?

2) Has honour and dignity been restored to the White House yet?

Why did nabalzbbfr's foolishness get an editor's star?

nab: If AG Gonzales came into your business and wanted to pay for a substantial item by personal check would you accept it?

Some right wingers are systematically trying to bury the digg version of this article.

Also, all our supporting comments.

Please do register with Digg and digg articles like these.

The hospital incident really needs to permeate more minds, because it is a highly representative incident of just how low they will go.

The thing with Digg, kind of like daily Kos is that there is a point of critical mass. 20-30 diggs is meaningless, hit 40 to 50 and suddenly the article gets "made popular" and is opened up to many many more readers.

So a small cadre of dedicated suppressors can keep this thing down.

I only hype Digg at times when I think Glenn has hit one out of the park, and this is one such time. We the little people can do our very small part to help end this travesty of an administration and here is something easy you can do to help.

Go. Now.

Thanks!

I also appreciated your earlier point that they were probably spying on and blackmailing republicans too.

After all, they have proved willing to abuse DoJ to tarnish and defeat Democrats, it makes perfect sense they'd use it to keep Republicans in line, and helps to explain their unseemly lemming like lockstep march with the Administration off the cliffs of electoral oblivion.

That, and their high-RWA personalities, but if that was the only factor you'd expect a few dissenters among their ranks.

This is probably the lesson Republicans learned from Watergate: If you're going to ratfuck, ratfuck your friends just as much as your enemies. Nixon could have stayed president if he could have kept 34 Republican senators on board.

Add me to the impromptu petition for a starless commenting section.

The program is too irregular, and too incomprehensible to be meaningful. Glenn has commented that he can star things, but rarely does so, and other Salon editors occasionally come by.

As such, it becomes a very unpredictable mechanism of finding good comments.

If it is going to continue, I request a Salon Mucky-muck post some type of criteria they use to assess what makes a star-worthy post. If it's not transparent, what's the point?

Seriously: Naz's starred comment is indicative that the criteria are weak. The thrust of his comment is that Americans don't care and as a matter of public opinion, the issue is an electoral loser. That's a pretty weak rebuttal to the serious legal and moral issues Glenn raises, and the new evidence as provided by Comey's testimony. What made that comment starworthy? Naz didn't engage the substance of Glenn's post at all.

Lots of very important issues are unfortunately not electoral winners. Is a windy appeal to majority fallacy all it takes to get a star?

In that case, my rebuttal is Glenn's very high readership numbers and that almost every post he makes hits Salon's "most active stories" section. Lots of people agree with him, so Naz must be wrong by his own "logic"