[counterpunch]

Of course they're going to dredge it up again.. and Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo Bay, and the case for war in Iraq, and the 9/11 PDB... you name it.

As I've been trying to tell people, we really don't need to go through all this again. Let's send up a nominee who will initiate a discussion on the proper role of the Judiciary, not what Bush knew and when did he know it.

[KingKongCobra]

So now you have tied your wagon to ... Ben Barnes.

It must suck to be you.

[KingKongCobra]

Not only are you in bed with Barnes but you had to find an article from a week ago to get there. Totally, laughably pathetic.

[sinkspur]

Of course they're going to dredge it up again.. and Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo Bay, and the case for war in Iraq, and the 9/11 PDB... you name it.

For the fifteen-thousandth time:These are matters of executive privilege, since she was an attorney in the White House when these matters were discussed. She will not answer any questions about these subjects.

[LasVegasMac]

Let's send up a nominee who will initiate a discussion on the proper role of the Judiciary, not what Bush knew and when did he know it.

Two questions, CP.

1) What is your axe to grind with the current nominee?

2) You actually believe, see your quote above, that GWB could pick a nominee that the 'Rats would not have a cow over?

GWB's nominee could be my dog - and you would see / hear the 'Rat talking point objections before they figured out who or what they were talking about.

This is not about her past.

This is not about her qualifications.

This is not about how she would rule on the bench.

This is about the fact that she is GWB's nominee.

Do you have any French branches in your tree?

Buck up, man! Your logic is to offer up a candidate that "will please" the a$$holes. F*** them!

LVM

[Howlin]

As I've been trying to tell people, we really don't need to go through all this again.

Maybe Bush should resign, huh?