First of all, thanks to Salon for posting this. If you want a mindless amen corner, go check out a right-wing blog.

Second, it seems to me that the (temporary) Republican victory on war funding says less about Bush's ability to somehow control the terms of public debate, and more about a decision by Senate Republicans to circle the wagons around the Iraq war. Given the mood of the country, the jury is still out on whether this was a good decision politically, but all the signs are that it will cost them dearly in the long (or medium) run. So how does this bear any resemblance to the Republican meltdown in 1995?

Check out the weird logo atop Richard Perle's letter. What kind of pompous ass thinks that passes for letterhead?

Well done, as usual. But I think it's worth mentioning that the proponents of these theories, which seek to extract the most extraordinary presidential powers out of three words in the Constitution ("Commander in Chief"), elsewhere describe themselves as "strict constructionists," or "texualists." Argue that modern concerns raised by state restriction of abortion, or by state efforts to control gun violence, present new problems that can't be answered by the text as understood in 1789, and their response is always the same: "Then amend the Constitution. But don't twist its text to serve your purposes."

Now these same people come to the courts complaining that traditional readings of the Constitution don't let us fight "a new kind of war," and suddenly the solution is not to amend the Constitution, but instead to adopt the most expansive possible reading of those three words -- a meaning the drafters of the Constitution could never have had in mind.

I suppose such hypocrisy doesn't really shock anyone these days, but it shouldn't pass unnoticed.

Core facts: CIA in Republican administration complains about leak to Republican attorney general, who appoints highly respected Republican prosecutor, who investigates and brings charges in court presided over by Republican-appointed judge (appointed, in fact, by the sitting President). Jury that all observers agree was highly thoughtful and careful in its deliberations votes unanimously to convict on several charges.

But since throughout this process, Democrats -- who held absolutely no power to affect the proceedings at any time -- strongly urged that this was a serious matter and that the principals had behaved shamefully, somehow it's supposed to be a respectable position to portray the whole thing as a partisan witch hunt.

Huh?

In his ridiculous column today, David Brooks accuses those of us who think Libby should be held accountable as adhering to an "assigned posture[s] in this drama." The truth, of course, is just the opposite: The "assigned posture" of conservative pundits is to portray anyone who advocates applying the normal rule of law to Libby's case as a raving partsan maniac.

Did the Republicans steal the 2000 elections by stopping the recounts? Perhaps rational people could argue about that. But it is utterly inarguable that they stole the election BEFORE the polls opened, via a massive effort to strike Democratic voters from the rolls, an effort delivered by Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris. The details of this effort are well-documented, and it appears statistically impossible, given the number of voters improperly struck and the thin margin of victory, to argue that it did not alter the outcome of the election.

It seems really odd to me that in response to the letter, the columnist would decline to mention this glaring impropriety and instead volunteer that Democrats stole another presidential election 40 years ago -- a charge that has extensively been debated over the decades, with, at best, no decisive case made that it is true.

"Meanwhile, the statistics for the hapless Iraqis themselves are no less encouraging."

Um, don't you mean "no MORE encouraging?"

Hey Salon:

As I'm sure you've noticed by now, this Camille Paglia person has a unique ability to piss your readers (who seem to know who she is) off.

Speaking as one who does not really know who she is or where she came from, but has read her for the past several months, she does not strike me as particularly aggravating -- just incredibly self-important and boring. Was this woman famous or something? Does that relieve her of the obligation to write well or offer insightful opinions?

Anyway, a lot of people clearly want you to dump her. You might think seriously about doing that.

--A friend.