Your post is further proof of how far this case has gotten under neocon skin. Since when did Hitchens ever become the beacon of truth or good judgment? And he’s far from non-partisan. More importantly, he wasn’t smart (or sober) enough to realize that going into Iraq was a mistake in the first place. Quoting him means nothing to me. He can do the Churchill/lush routine all he likes. The bottom line is he’s an idiot because he didn’t know better about Iraq in the first place. Iraq was never a threat. Period.

As far as Wilson goes, you really think he didn’t testify under oath? Or at least was interviewed long enough to determine whether or not it was worth the trouble? You guys seem to forget that Fitzgerald is a Bush appointee, and that Wilson was lauded by Bush the elder, and well-respected among other Republicans in general. (Neocons, not so much, for now-obvious reasons). You think Wilson just woke up one day and decided to be a partisan hack after a career of service along side other Republicans? Give me a break.

I can’t speak for any decisions made by the Kerry campaign. They made plenty of mistakes in judgment. As far as Slate vs. Salon goes, Salon does as much reporting as it can afford to do. Same with Slate. If you think Salon is so bad, why are you slumming here? (Why? Because this Libby case has you scared shitless that it’s will bring down your hero, Bush, just like Watergate brought down Nixon.)You certainly aren’t going to win any hearts and minds with your weak, dead-ender bullshit here. Bear in mind, it’s only the authoritarian “dimwits” like you who are still in that narrow 30 or so percent who will cling to Bush and Cheney no matter what.

Go to the CNN web site. Try finding an article about the Libby case. Good luck. Hint: There's one way, way at the bottom under Time Magazine. Contrast that with the fact that articles on Sydney Sheldon's death, and US Airways' cutting back on aclohol sales are at the top.

"I'm not joking."

Man, how do you ever escape that emphatic qualifier?

It doesn't make Biden a bigger racist, it makes him more of a hypocrite. A bigger racist would mean he's actively advocating policy that's hostile to a given race of people. Like the Republicans do with affirmative action, for example.

I think I understand now why members of the mainstream media are so reluctant to criticize members of the Bush administration for incompetence. Yikes.

joe's posts will always as brief as they are factless and insubstantial.

I believe the operative term is "hot air."

if Fitzgerald had Cheney and Bush dead-to-rights like that, they'd have been indicted by now. It's a nice thought, though. And no doubt true that they are involved and responsible. I just don't believe (yet) that there's any sort of smoking gun in Cheney's notes.

I was young when Watergate was playing out. The thing is, this has already been playing out for nearly four years. I'm not counting on even Libby going down, let alone Bush or cheney. I admit I'm pessimistic, but I've been awfully disappointed so far. That being said, I still find it all quite fascinating.

By the time they get this "non-binding" resolution passed, the 21,500 soldiers will have already been killed....

Goldberg is willing to send thousands more soldiers to Iraq for no valid reason other than his and Bush's own stubborn pride, but WE are being mean for calling him on his bullshit? What a riot!

I’m not sure if it’s any worse than having a president who thinks The Flintstones is a historically accurate portrayal of the birth of our civilization.

Things I don't EVER want my 17 year-old son to do, by Karl Rove:

--Make beds in some Las Vegas hotel. Check.

--Work the fields in some San Joaquin Valley orchard. Check.

--Fight in Iraq. Check.

How's this for an explanation:

"I had my reservations regarding the resolution at the time, but sometimes my responsibilities as a representative include honoring the overwhelming opinion of my constituents. Not only was there overwhelming support for the war across the country, but in my state of New York in particular. In this instance, I chose to put my reservations aside, and abide by the wishes of my constituents."

Sure, it's a cop out and and I don't agree with it, but it's probably the best spin one could put on things. My personal preference would be an all-out mea culpa, but even if she did that now, it might be too late. However, if she's for real as a candidate, she should be able to absorb the fallout from such an apology.

back during the lead-up to the war: Neither side thought it would turn into THIS. Sure, rational people thought it might, but I think senators on both the right and left (save for Fiengold), thought this was going to be "Gulf War '91" all over again. Democratic senators just did not see a downside to backing this war because they couldn't imagine it would be executed so incompetently. They thought the generals would control it, and that Bush, et al., would stay out of the way like the first Gulf War. Had this war gone like '91 did, the political fallout for those who opposed it would have been enormous.

At this point, I just can't see myself backing someone for president who wasn't smart enough to oppose the war back during the lead up. And I don't see that opinion ever changing.