You imply that "Official A" was the one who originally leaked to Novak, but unless I've missed something in the indictment, we don't know that to be the case. "Official A" could just as easily be Karl Rove, Novak's second source, who had indeed spoken with Novak earlier that week (July 8th), and whom Novak may well have told that he was ready to write an article. (It strikes me as less likely he'd have indicated to the original leaker he was going to write an article, as I would think that even Novak would have wanted to check the information out before committing himself to that.)

A friend of mine who worked with Alito briefly when she was a federal prosecutor says the guy she knew is highly unlikely to have anything scandalous in his background. If this is fought, it's going to have to be on ideological grounds, which I myself have no problem with. It's not like it hasn't been ideological for quite some time, it's just that it's always been cloaked in codewords and euphemism. Better to have it out in the open, everything on the table. Don't let the other side hide behind their "dignified process," "constitutional option," "discrimination against people of faith" mumbo-jumbo.

I'm glad to see so many other commenters here who feel exactly as I do: If the Democrats don't make a stand here, then where in hell do they intend to make one? Once you've been pushed off the edge of the cliff, it's too lake to try to stand your ground. If the Republicans elect to go nuclear and we lose, then so be it. At least the Dems will have shown that they're willing to go down fighting. And the filibuster is no good to anyone if the Dems are afraid ever to use it.

That is, after all, what the Republicans did in California to cash in on Gray Davis's mounting unpopularity there. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Considerably easier than impeachment: no need to make a case for "high crimes and misdemeanors." We could simply say, like Martha, "Sorry, you're just not working out for us. Good-bye." (Would we have to write a polite note afterward?)

One reason for the disarray is that Bush's Iraq policy has left the country with no good options at all for either continuing the mission or bringing it to a conclusion. If Democrats can't agree on which course of action would be least bad for the United States and the American people at this point, they should at least agree to keep thumping on the fact that Bush's "decisive" leadership has painted us into a corner from which "victory" is impossible and all remaining options are bad ones, and that stubborn pursuit of a bad policy is not steadfastness or true leadership, it's simply stupidity.

Maybe Bush really was as good as the reports say answering spontaneous questions from random members of his audience, but forgive me if I am deeply distrustful of everything that this super-scripted White House does in public.

If you look at the transcript, you'll see that the president took exactly five questions. Of those, two were from self-confessed supporters of his. Two were of a nature that you could say they came from the opposition. And one pretty much straddled the line in the middle. What are the chances of that happening with just random picks from the crowd, huh?

Of course, maybe it's just that Republicans are remarkably lucky when it comes to games of chance. Bob Ney, after all, managed to win $34,000 on a $100 bet in two hands of a card game at a ritzy London casino a British avation executive had introduced him to...

And when I think how the Republicans went after Bill Clinton for a dalliance with a White House intern...

George W. Bush deserves impeachment more than any president in our history--and I never thought I would see someone more worthy of impeachment than Richard Nixon. But the Republican majority in Congress is not the only thing protecting him from the fate he deserves. What Bush opponent would want to clear the way for Dick Cheney to assume the presidency? Our only hope in the short term is to demand that Congress screw its courage to the sticking place and open up investigations on the many abuses of power that are coming to light.

I wish I had a nickel for every time the Bush administration has claimed that with the development du jour, we have "turned the corner" in Iraq. Hasn't it occurred to anyone in the White House that if you are continually turning corners, it means you are going around in circles?

One responder asks, "Where in FISA or anywhere else in federal law does it specificaly say that it's a crime to conduct warrantless surveillance of the kind that Bush has admitted to authorizing?"

You mean besides the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution? ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.")

The FISA law does indeed say that it is a crime to conduct warrantless searches, in Section 1809 of the statute. See http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01075.htm and http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/36/subchapters/i/sections/section_1809.html

The penalty for violation of FISA is a fine of up to $10,000, or imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both.