Nice column, Ms. Walsh. Very curious business, this whole thing! You wrote...

Goodling, remember, categorizes people as "loyal Bushies" and now "friendlies," a sophisticated taxonomy that's no doubt just another benefit of her rigorous education at Regent University.

What it looks like is war slang -- "Don't shoot'em, they're friendlies! There are some unfriendlies in the hills; get out the flamethrowers!" Says everything about the bunker mentality they have.

As for Mark McKinnon, he's a DINO gun-for-hire, by the look of things. This is the problem with DINOs in general; they think nothing of putting their particular talents to work for the GOP, even while being ostensibly Democratic, if the pay is right.

The thinking liberal has to ask: with friendlies like these, who needs enemies?

Reading this column was surprisingly uplifting. As much as I try to be unattached and optimistic, having the Bush criminal regime in my daily attention can be a strain, creating an undertone of dread and disgust. A sense of lightness and jest about this gang of sociopaths is refreshing.

I have been a fan for years. Joe's investigative work has been something I always look forward to reading. Joe keep shaking them trees cause I think alot more stuff is going to fall out.

While I think Joe is well worth responding to, too, sharing a private email response from McKinnon (which was surprisingly good-natured, given the sharp ribbing Joe was giving McKinnon) with you, presumably without McKinnon's permission was a definite, if minor, breach of netiquette. Your publishing it publically online is an outrageously bad one.

If I were McKinnon, I would be tempted to take back that offer of non-partisan, reflective bread-breaking, as the offer has now publically been used in a partisan and petty fashion.

He's also worth citing as a counterexample whenever the subject of the sad state of journalism arises.

I enjoyed reading Conason's column way back in February, and I enjoyed the rehash of it today, but posting the email posits an interesting conundrum. On the one hand, even with permission from Conason, posting the email reminds me of why I like to delete and clean up my files; on the other, how does this make me any different from the DOJ/Rove group that infuriates me so much?

Journalists should be bound by netiquette? I don't think McKimmon's reply should have been published because it isn't newsworthy or enlightening, but I don't think netiquette should have been a consideration at all.

"Within an hour, McKinnon replied:

Touche Joe.

Maybe someday in the future, we can break tortillas in New York City somewhere and reflect about all this."

So McKinnon wants to sit down for a pleasant meal and reflect about all of this? After W's policies have messed up the whole country -- the whole world?

What about the Katrina victims? What about the ever more numerous poor in this country? What about the dead U.S. soldiers, dead Iraqis, living Iraqis? They sure don't have the luxury of sitting down to a meal and reflecting.

Thank you, Mr. McKinnon. You've helped to give us so much! And now you want to reflect on it. Well, I hope you choke on your tortilla.

McKinnon's jaunty response demonstrates the fact that these people (in the Bush camp) care not a bit about the serious damage they're doing to our nation, the lies they are passing off as truth, the crimes they're committing, etc. It's all a sort of "game" and nothing more. Please, Mr. Conason, don't ever sit down to a meal with this man again. He deserves scorn, not collegiality.

You'd have to work overtime to persuade me that McKinnon isn't the original "anonymous source" who put the unintentionally ironic phrase "reality-based" into the modern political lexicon.

Your observation, Joan, was refreshing—it's so rare to hear anything positive about Regent University these days.

Your comment serves as a timely reminder of the opportunity to see Ms Goodling further delineate and expound upon this taxonomy tomorrow (on C-SPAN 3 at 10:15 EDT) before the House Committee on the Judiciary—or, as she might say, perhaps, "the meanies."

OHHHHH yes he did!

i love joe conason.

I thought this was an amusing, and generally speaking a light hearted article. However when I read comments like "no doubt just another benefit of her rigorous education at Regent University" that smack of snide sarcasm. I can't but think that maybe liberals are being rightly called elist... I think the coverage questioning Ms. Goodling qualifications was reasonable and justified. Slipping in a little dig without a context seems on the other hand petty.

Re: the Regents dig--Is it elitist or petty to say that shit smells like shit?

Re: publishing McKinnon's email--If McKinnon wanted the email to stay private, he should have said so. Say what you will about the man, he's no moron. Had he asked Conason not to share it, I'm sure Joe would have complied. Obviously he didn't, so it's fair game.

Speaking of petty, McKinnon started it all with his snide, "Joe's not worth responding to" comment in the first place. He had it coming, and was man enough to acknowledge it, I have to say. However, I have to imagine it's easier to admit it when you lose a battle or two when you're always playing on the winning team.

One thing I'm really curious about though, is how did McKinnon feel he had to respond to? Isn't he working for McCain now? The timing of it all seems weird to me.

And yes, a fourth-tier, barely-accredited madrassa like Regent deserves all the scorn it gets.

You have to put your political lenses on to make any sense of McKinnon's comment that Joe is "generally not worth responding to". Mark means that responding to Conason is usually politically a losing proposition for this administration.

In the same way perhaps, New Orleans was "generally not worth saving" -- and the occupation of Iraq is definitely "not worth ending".

"X is Y" is just bushie-speak for "politically X is Y for this administration".