Given your post's title, at least you are practicing truth in advertising.

Excuse me, but you have no point, and no argument. My point is supported and substantiated by Glenn's post today. Why don't you bother reading one of them sometime? They always contain plenty of support, documentation, thorough research, etc.; as opposed to yours, which contain none of those things. All you are doing is re-typing Republican talking points. But I'm glad you're impressed by my vocabulary. My mother would be proud.

"You just hate me because I disagree with you."

No, I hate the fact that you unquestioningly support and submit to a thoroughly un-American president and his administration.

for "No Name Given" for suggesting that the rest of us are cowards because we are all talk--no action. Bravo!

ps--What was your name again?

Rostenkowski was prosecuted and convicted anyway, right. What's your point? The replaced prosecutor STILL had to pass Senate approval. Bush's replacements would not. THAT is a huge distinction.

You'd have a point if Rostenkowski had never been prosecuted and convicted. You got your pound of flesh. That's the point.

From Joe Conason, A week ago Friday here at Salon:

"Yet certain conservatives now claim -- as some of them did in 1993 -- that Clinton fired all of those U.S. attorneys merely as a smoke screen for his real motive. They insinuate that he wanted to protect Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, the powerful Illinois Democrat then under investigation by Jay Stephens, the Republican U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. (A few have also suggested that Clinton wanted to get rid of the Republican U.S. attorney in Little Rock, Ark., to protect himself and his friends from investigation, a completely fraudulent claim that I examine in the current edition of the New York Observer.)

By firing Stephens, Clinton supposedly meant to hobble the Rostenkowski probe. Peevish about his firing, Stephens himself held a press conference to voice the same suspicions.

There is one pretty obvious flaw in that theory.

On May 31, 1994, Eric Holder, the Democratic successor to Stephens, brought a 17-count indictment against Rostenkowksi -- who eventually pleaded guilty to mail fraud and went to prison. This outcome, with an indictment of one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress arriving in the middle of the midterm election campaign, scarcely helped Clinton or the Democratic Party. Many observers believed, on the contrary, that the Rostenkowksi indictment helped the Republicans win the sweeping November victory that gave them control of the House of Representatives for the first time in more than four decades.

Following the Rostenkowski indictment at least two more Democrats in Congress -- Rep. Mel Reynolds, D-Ill., and Rep. Walter Tucker, D-Calif. -- were indicted later that summer, as the fateful Election Day approached. Neither President Clinton nor Attorney General Janet Reno made any attempt to interfere with those decisions.

As a method of escaping responsibility and distracting gullible commentators, the Clinton dodge is now a classic maneuver for Republicans and conservatives. Back in 2002, when Bush was in trouble over his friendship with Enron's Kenneth Lay, the right-wing media insisted that Clinton had once hosted a White House sleepover for Lay. That diversion was an utter falsehood, as any of those who repeated it could easily have determined. It's a fake this time, too -- and it shouldn't distract anyone from holding Gonzales, Karl Rove and all the other authors of the current disgrace to account."

How typical.

"Don't throw that pathetic Conason article at me."

In other words,

"Quit citing all those salient facts for me."

Why do I argue with authoritarians? All you guys ever hear is the points that support you own "argument"; everything else is in-one-ear-and-out-the-other. You would have a point if Clinton had fired Holder, too. And as thin as your ONE example is, it still pales next to the 8 examples being talked about with Gonzales and Bush. Make that, 8 examples "that we know of so far."

And let me get this straight, you were outraged by Clinton's thing, but not this one with Bush and Gonzales?

Name me one "funny" conservative.

I understand that people feel the need to point out any typographical errors that Glenn may have made in his posts. However, many of us don't really want to read about them every day, day after day. There are always quite a few posts to wade through in the letters section for Glenn's posts anyway, and these typo posts are pretty annoying. Glenn's email address is presented very clearly on his page. I think it would be a much better idea to email your corrections directly to him, rather than make the rest of us have to plow through them every day. Of course, you'd lose those teacher's pet brownie points, but no one else really cares about those, do they?

that the country doesn't want to be in Iraq anymore. He still thinks it's only some lunatic fringe that wants out, and the rest are all behind it. Either that, or he doesn't care about the will of the people, and thinks Bush is a King or a Dictator, and has every right to ignore the will of the people.

That was nice of you to lay bare your complexes and neuroses for us like that. I'm not sure what it really accomplished, but it was nice of you none-the-less.

I agree that the Giants are doomed. It seems like it would be a lot more fun to watch them come in last with a roster of young promising talent rather than with a roster of has-beens and maybe-never-where's.

I'd like to see the Giants adopt the Marlins' strategy of never worrying about winning the division, but winning the World series every 5 years or so instead. Then sell everyone off and rebuild an entirely new team all over again.

This whole thing of tweaking a mediocre (at best) team year in, year out isn't getting anywhere.