Terrorists, impeachment, Gonzo and cleavage

By Libby

Posting was light this weekend because I'm trying to get some work done around the McPartment. It's getting ridiculous. I've been here for two months and still having unpacked yet. Not that I did much unpacking yesterday. I spent two hours shopping for a hummingbird feeder and another two figuring out how to hang it on the deck without causing any permanent damage.

Anyway, I have to run out again this afternoon and do a couple of errands, so if here are some links to my posts blogged elsewhere.

Unsurprisingly, the wingers made a big deal about this story on the Gitmo releasees that have joined the insurgency. As I pointed out at the NEWSHOGGERS, terrorists are made not born. Which seems to have confused Jules Crittenden to no end.

Newsswine: Chimpy McHitlerBurton lied, people died and his hated Crusader gulag, blight upon free Cuba, made these noble savages what they are. Also, bluecoats speak with forked tongue, U.S. out of North America … at least that’s what I got from it.

I'm taking up a collection at Newshoggers to enroll him in a reading comprehension course.

Impeachment is on my table. We had a good discussion at this post on why Bush and Cheney need to be immediately impeached. And I'm thinking Gonzales needs to go first.

For one thing, as the WaPo chronicles today, the man is a serial liar and Anonymous Liberal has convinced me that a good case can be made for perjury.

And by the way, I'm very curious to know what exactly the DOJ objected to in the illegal NSA surveillance scheme that would have caused them to threaten to resign en masse. The hints and rumors seem to center around data-mining. I'm guessing that my "conspiracy theories" about wholesale spying on innocent Americans weren't so far off the mark.

Finally, I really did try to avoid talking about Hillary's cleavage, but I had to respond to my co-blogger's post in Detroit. It's not often I agree with George. This will probably piss off some people, but I don't think Robin Givhan's stupid piece was all that bad and it surely didn't deserve the outrage it engendered.

I mean, who the hell cares what she says in the first place? And secondly, it's not like you can accuse her of being partisan about it. She also laid down some heavy snark on Condi Rice and John Roberts family's attire in the past. Personally, I think it's this kind of over-reaction to every minor sexist snark that gives feminism a bad name. Let's save our ammunition for things that matter. It's wasted on Givhan.