The anomaly was discovered by Bob Somerby (click at my sig). Details of the discovery are there.

Dear Congressman Conyers,

Below is a letter which I have sent to my congressional delegation and some others in the Congress. It concerns the obligations of the U.S. Congress in light of the sworn testimony of General Michael Hayden, and the defensive remarks of White House Spokesperson Tony Fratto. It concerns torture. As evidenced in the excerpted articles below, the Congress has no choice but to begin investigation and prosecution of any and all administration officials involved in ordering, approving, writing legal opinions supporting, or otherwise systematizing torture. The treaty is quite clear: There are no extenuating circumstances, even if the September 11th bombers had destroyed every city in the Union, and the bombers were sitting on top of the Capitol building with nuclear weapons in their hands, it would still have been impermissible. The treaty binds signing parties to promptly investigate and prosecute. It binds signing parties to punish appropriately and severely. And the treaty may not be abrogated to absolve those guilty, or to absolve the signing party of the obligations to prosecute.

The Congress is the prosecuting body for the executive branch, and that prosecution is an impeachment proceedings. I don't think you have any choice. If you do not convene such a proceeding you are in violation of the Constitution, which holds treaties as "the supreme law of the land", and you are in violation of a signed, ratified, and implemented treaty. An investigation by the Justice department, given that the statements by Hayden and Fratto are clear that the Justice department was involved, is not a valid investigation. It has no prosecutorial powers. And a routine committee investigation does not have power over executive privilege, which must be waived in this case, since immunity from prosecution for any participants is not allowed by the treaty. Only impeachment does not permit executive privilege claims. Your duty to the law, to the country, and in this case to the entire world, is clear.

Please follow the law.

***(previously posted letter follows)

The Times, the Globe, and the Politico are all reporting that Romney is packing it in.

The Politico says he will make say bye-bye this afternoon before members of CPAC, whatever that is.

Nah. I wouldn't bother, unless you were particularly interested, because, even if MoDo's columns were different between the paper and online, you still wouldn't know why the editing was being done.

If the only question were: Has the NYT decided web viewers need to be treated differently from in print readers? it would be a fairly straightforward analysis. But, a confounding question could be: How do you disentangle the readers of the column (print vs online), from the editorial position of the paper (this candidate vs that candidate)? Or, is the paper responding to what it thinks its readers in various mediums is willing to tolerate before they tune the writer out altogether?

You'd have to examine the content and presentation of individual columns, as well as the contents and presentations of other columnists as well. It's a good project for some foolishly enthusiastic graduate student somewhere.

I need to express, for what it's worth, a personal thought.

Quite awhile back I read a Wa/Po article about Mr. Negroponte.

I'm somewhat familiar with all the 80's El Salvador, Contra, and Nicaragua scandals...

Mr. Negroponte twirls worry beads.

He really loves his adopted children.

There are 'safeguard' higher level human beings disbursed throughout the world?

If that's not believable,

We'd have been blown to smithereens,

a long time ago under the Bush maladministration.

AP and NBC are reporting this right now.

I think you are onto something big. I think you should try to talk to someone on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, preferably the chairman.

I get the Times delivered and have yesterday's paper by my side. I only glance at Maureen these days and so am not up on the flap about her that you're talking about.

Give me an idea of what passage you're concerned about, and I can check for you.

Incidentally, the Times/AP story on the CIA tapes that I just put up here was posted at 2:36 a.m. EST by the Times. That story is not, obviously, in my morning hard copy because it was well past last night's deadline.

Cutting something from a hard copy column for on-line eyes only would seem to be a different kettle of fish, quite possibly, as bystander is suggesting, a different calculation about on-line advertising.

They'll never impeach this bunch. Kucinich has been trying to get them to do it for a long time.

From the WaPo:

Democratic leaders long ago rejected any consideration of impeaching Cheney and President Bush as an irresponsible move supported only by the far left, so they tried today to table Kucinich's impeachment resolution. After initially having more than enough votes to kill the resolution - the "yea" tally to table impeachment topped out at 291 - Republicans decided they had a chance to politically shame Democrats into a full debate on the sensitive issue. Republicans gleefully said they wanted the debate to show the public how many Democrats would actually support impeaching Cheney, which they consider a move supported only by a fringe element of anti-war activists.

More than 120 members, predominantly Republicans, then switched their votes in favor of holding a one-hour debate on the issue, with a final vote of 251-162 supporting a debate on impeachment. Rather than allow a debate fraught with political risk, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) moved to send the Kucinich resolution to the Judiciary Committee, whose chairman, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), has publicly speculated about impeaching the president or vice president but has declined taking any action since taking the gavel in January.

By Paul Kane | November 6, 2007

Na. Ga. Happen. Bush could take a copy of the Constitution and set it on fire on the Capitol steps and they'd just wag their fingers sternly at him. The Republicans love him and the Democrats want to run against him. Why would either screw up what they see as a good thing?