"Everybody is hoping that something will happen on Miers, either that the president would withdraw her or she would realize she is not up to it and pull out while she has some dignity intact." Look for a new nominee, either by forced withdrawal or an unflattering leak. It's actually quite pathetic that GW chose an already flawed crony as opposed to a more qualified person on paper and yet one who was extreme enough in his/her views that it would've meant for a bitter, dragged out fight. GW chose the more timid and safe route. He's showing his true colors.

Apparently DeLay is still running the House show. That's not surprising. What is is that he still wields power enough to change votes. He's feared and his underlings are just a hoarish bunch of cowed suck-ups.

Fitzgerald is putting together quite a blockbuster case. You go boy!

Kevin Drum makes an excellent point regarding the many people who say Rumsfeld should've originally sent more troops to Iraq:

Why do people keep saying stuff like this? The fact is that we didn't, and don't, have any more troops. Rumsfeld's misjudgment wasn't that he decided to use fewer troops than he could have, his misjudgment was in thinking that the occupation could be pulled off successfully with the troops we had available.

Bottom line: if you argue that we needed more troops in order to invade and occupy Iraq properly, you're just arguing that we shouldn't have invaded and occupied Iraq at all. When will conservative supporters of the war own up to this?

Finally O'Reilly utters something truthful.

From Reason.com:

First Five Years, Percentage Changes in Real Discretionary Spending

LBJ: 25.2%
Nixon: -16.5%
Reagan: 11.9%
Clinton: -8.2%
Bush: 35.2%

GW blows away LBJ, but look at Reagan compared to Clinton.

USA Today: "A newly released report published by the CIA rebukes the Bush administration for not paying enough attention to prewar intelligence that predicted the factional rivalries now threatening to split Iraq.
Policymakers worried more about making the case for the war, particularly the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, than planning for the aftermath, the report says." Simply more proof of thorough and complete incompetence.

Regarding Frist, another guy who's toast: "What I find most appalling is the Senate calls it a qualified blind trust when it's not blind," Clark said. "Since the Senate says it's OK, the Senate has made it a political question. It's up to the voter. But there's no doubt it's a conflict of interest."

Wasn't invading Iraq supposed to make oil cheaper for the U.S.?

Hasn't Al-Qaeda's #2 guy been killed about 9 times over?