For a while now, the GOP has been floating the "legal technicality" defense regarding the Plame Investigation (now indictments). Basically, the leak had no teeth, so Fitzgerald chased down a lesser charge to cover his tracks. However, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, "You go with the indictments you HAVE, not the indictments you might want." During Fitzgerald's press conference, it became clear that he was intensely interested in only bringing indictments that he felt confident in prosecuting successfully. Interestingly, he made some crucial points about the indictments he did issue. National security was at the heart of the leak charge. CIA operatives have dangerous jobs and about the only security our nation can offer NOCs is that their identity won't be revealed. The leak was despicable and our safety has been threatened because of it. He also subtly implied that the specifics of the law may be too vague and narrow as written. The indictments are for ...

Following up on yesterday's post about Lott's predilection for the taste of his own foot, comes this one ... Ladies and Gentlemen, it's time for an intervention...

So Trent "Foot in Mouth" Lott posits "In a month, who will remember the name Harriet Miers?" Hmmm, maybe her most important client, the President of the United States?!?! Damn, Lottie, the man promised to build you a nice, new porch and all you can do is pimp-slap his personal attorney. Didn't losing your Senate Majority Leadership during " Operation Credit Strom " teach you anything about sound bites? Sheesh. Still, I can't help thinking progressives lost their best shot at a moderate in this woman. We ultimately discovered very little about Miers, but her positions on Roe in particular were hardly set in stone. Further, the granite tough united front of the GOP was fissuring to say the least. A few more weeks of of fringe Right bickering and sniping, followed by a week or so of confirmation hearings would have shined the spotlight on Dubya's eroding influence. As others have noted, it would have been a true watershed moment had Democrats sup...

I play referee between two respected blogger/pundits. They happen to be Black. Steve Gilliard kicks things off with a post that defies description . Robert George weighs in after dropping hints to Andrew Sullivan and, one imagines, a few others... My comments to Steve Gilliard are here . To Robert George here . It seems to me that Steve has pushed the envelop too far, yet again, while Robert has played to "liberals are racist too" card, one more time. The posts are racking up on both sites... Definitely worth a look see...

Gotta hand it to Tom Delay. He takes a heckuva mug shot . In fact, he's positively beaming. This, in stark contrast to the permanent scowl that normally graces his pix. This is actually a great move on his part. Knowing that the pic would inevitably race across the Internet, he threw on a grin that would feel welcome at a TRMPAC corporate shindig. Subliminal message, "I'm happy cuz I'll be exonerated soon!" Don't take this the wrong way, Tom, but I hope you're way wrong...

Despite my description, there has not been a lot of pop culture of late. Dubya's cronies have kept me busy with other things. However, I do want to briefly comment on one of my fascinations... comic books. Specifically, the current Supreme Power spin-off feature centering on Nighthawk. Marvel's Squadron Supreme started as a barely-veiled anti-Justice League. Hyperion and Power Princess were Supes and Wonder Woman. Dr. Spectrum filled in for Green Lantern, Whizzer (WHIZZER!) for the Flash and Nighthawk for Batman. They eventually expanded to include analogues for Green Arrow, Black Canary, Zatanna, and even Firestorm among others. The problem was they always went up against the Avengers, so they always had their asses handed to them. A while back, they were given a 12-issue maxi-series that featured the team in their "own universe" where THEY were the champions. Interestingly, the plot turned on mind alteration, and the subsequent schism in the team after the technolog...

I've been off this topic because "revelations" have been flowing like California mud slides. The blogosphere has been chock full of analysis and the MSM have been elbowing each other like dateless, 39-year-olds with cake buzz at a bridal bouquet toss. But as the grand jury clock ticks its last tocks, the cross hairs appear to have settled on the VP's office. Scooter Libby in particular... but Cheney has NOT been excluded from the possibility of indictment. How big is this? To put things in perspective, the word TREASON and Vice President are being mentioned in the same sentence this week. TREASON. Ken Starr investigated everything from cronyism to "suspicious" land deals to Vince Foster to Lewinsky and all he came up with was a soiled dress. Fitzgerald's investigation pulls back the curtain on a deliberate, coordinated effort to manipulate facts in an attempt to garner support for a WAR! A war that has cost tens of thousands Iraqi lives, thousands of Ame...

No one really knows who this woman is! I don't mean to minimize her credentials, but doesn't she strike you as the out-of-town cousin who sits at the kiddie table for Thanksgiving dinner? A nice enough person to be sure, but not quite ready to sit with the grown-ups. This is a woman who has followed Dubya around like a puppy dog since his days as Governor. Do you think she realizes that he's only in office for three more years? If she's ANYTHING like the frat-boy idiot prince leading the country, then sitting with a bunch of learned jurists in black robes can hardly have the appeal of worshipping at the feet of the most intelligent man she's ever met. Which is kind of a good thing as far as I'm concerned. It means that she might just quit after he leaves town. And that would give President Wesley Clark a chance at appointing a justice.

Lots to talk about. I've been reeling from a successive volley of GOP-scandal body blows to rival the beleagured Roy Jones, Jr. I didn't post anything about the Bennett fiasco for a few reasons. As personally repellent as I found the comments (in their proper context thank you.), I was even more blown away specious Right wing attempts to explain them away. To begin, Bennett's "thought exercise" is hardly a tour de force of logic. Since there are criminals in every racial population, killing the babies of one population will reduce the crime rate in the same way that removing all red cars will reduce the automobile emissions rate. So let's be clear, Bennett's real problem is that HE introduced race into the argument. Neither the caller, nor the author of Freakonomics (whose book was under discussion) mentioned race as a factor in the premise of relating abortion to crime rate. In fact, as others have discussed, the author used Scadinavian data as part...