Does anyone know if this is a typo (either on Salon or in the book from which it was quoted)? Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for the man who calls himself president to make such gramatical mistakes, so I must ask....

"No, I didn't feel the need to, because I knew how we was going to respond, that he was against the war,"

What a smarmy little piggie is Joe, and far too late to the fair to get a ribbon in his porkish pink snout. And with Commander Codpiece, Ol' Mission Accomplished hisownseff, you don't have to choose between idiot and fascist. You get two for the price of one, and a Dick on the side. Cheney the lot of them, dogstyle.

The problems that Scarborough alluded to were there since 2003. Where was Joe then? And, since Bush is the first sitting president to admit to an impeachable offense (according to John Dean, who may something of this type of thing), I await with baited breath for Joe to lead a conservative groundswell in favour of impeachment. After all, if central features of the conservative doctrine (not the neo-con version) are respect for the traditions that made a society healthy, limited government and personal accountability for your actions, especially those of the criminal ilk, then for a conservative to NOT call for Bush's head on a platter is simple opportunism.

does anyone know the answer to this- i have always wondered why Ms Klausutis family did not file one of those civil suits- wrongful death, etc. that was done in Simpson case.

i am not a lawyer, but perhaps some lawyer out there can reply to this.

scar is a rich man. the Klausutis family could have taken him to court to find out what really happened and perhaps get some recompense for their suffering.

or did scar settle out of court, buying them off?

any ideas out there?

thanks for info.

-this creep really got away with murder, is the way it looks from here. how many women her age die in such a strange way? and in a congressional office? doesn't smell good to me....

hey Joe,

if bush is an idiot, then aren't you also idiotic for not spotting this obvious fact back in 2000 when lots of people said it.

too bad Salon did not ask Joe this Q.

nor did they ask him about the young lady who mysteriously died in his office. did someone say Adultery?

If I wanted to read interviews with liars and hypocrites, I'd subscribe to the New Republic or the National Review. Nothing Joe Scarborough has to say can be believed or given any credibility, until he comes clean about Laurie Klausitis (the young woman that was found dead in his office about the time Gary Condit was getting pummeled by Chandra Levy speculation).

And even then, I would not give him any respect. He is a scumbag, and should be stomped on.

Who's next, Joe Lieberman? Keep it up, Salon, and you will force me to cancel my subscription.

"I'm not a fan of Scarborough... but the real reason the Lori Klausutis didn't gain more traction in 2001 was because Scarborough was not even in Florida when she died. He was in Washington." -- kb3edk

What, people have to be present to have someone offed for illegitimate love-prgnancies? Last I remember, Condit was at home in bed with his wife AND we weren't even sure a crime was committed (no body!) but that didn't keep the so-called liberal media from jumpin' all over that one. Are your Klausutis facts from the Florida media which you just blindly accept? Don't you see a problem with that?

Try reading up on it. It's not as cut-and-dry as "Joe not in same state".

Magoo wrote an editor's choice letter saying, "Hey, Bush is no dumber now than he was five years ago. Scarborough's just a rat jumping off the sinking ship." Second sentence: no doubt whatsoever in my mind. First sentence: maybe not. Crooks&Liars has some video footage comparing Bush the debater in 1994 and Bush the debater in 2004. There's a big difference. The younger Bush was confident and coherent. He may have memorized his lines, but he memorized them well.

Whether it's presenile dementia, hitting the bottle, or something less dramatic, Bush is clearly not the man he was 10 years ago.

I would be much more impressed with Joe's integrity, intellect, and patriotism if he were demanding consequences for Bush's "idiocy," instead of simply viewing it as a harmless quirk. I, too, think that Bush is an idiot, a dickless frat boy who is playing at being a president on TV. When left to his own goofy devices, we have him choosing goats over terrorists, vacations over duty, Meirs & Brown over - well, just about anyone else, really.

Yet when handled effectively, he's also a photogenic mouthpiece for corporate barons and warmongers (oops, I repeat myself) and the voice of absolute wealth and power. He has no idea what a nation is, much less how to lead one. He has never in his life held a job he got for himself. He cannot even recognize a complexity, much less parse one. And yet the Joes & Anns & Bills & Rushes proudly deemed him more than fit for office. Twice. Now Joe is rethinking his former devotion. If Joe is serious, and not simply another of those hypocrites he so smugly derides, he must take this to its logical conclusion.

It's not a quirk to be an idiot president. George II is not just a joke. He is a criminal. If Joe really thinks George is unfit for office, he should be agitating to get him out, as well as calling for his administration's accountability. Not just because omigosh he's not really a fiscal conservative, or because he's using his office gasp illegally and unconstitutionally, or because he sold our energy policies hee hee to the highest bidders, or nudge nudge wink wink is stacking our judiciary with one trick ponies, or has chosen to abandon our smirk citizens in the Katrina disaster. He also decided to kill 2,600 Americans and over 40,000 Iraqis in a counterfeit war, and his death toll continues to rise.

Bush is worse than incompetent: he's a traitor and a mass murderer. Or would reality hurt Joe's ratings?