40-30, Hillary's service ... ?
It's time for Clinton to ask the president whose side of this debate he's on. -ASTwo thoughts:
1. Why bother? Seriously, post-Libby, who has any respect for the President's management skills enough to ask him to referee? It wouldn't matter what he said about it. He's got no credibility left to lose. His father thinks he's serving with honor, but that's what family is for, right?2. We have Democrats - Democrats! - supporting Cheney's constitutional brinksmanship and treating of Executive Orders as "guidelines", more or less.
To review in context: The President issues an EO on "torture". Given how Cheney treats them - perhaps just the tip of the iceberg, an EO from President Bush of the United States is not worth ink or a pixel, right?
Besides, did you watch Charlie Rose's interview with Holbroke?
It looked like a more strident than usual CR attempt to get important ideas, from those who are competent to lead, injected into the deadbeat Oval, right?
By the way, I'm not likely to jump into the "Who fragged Pat Tillman?" debate. There are few good outcomes, although no one who is criminally responsible ought to get off 'for the good of the corps'. Someone ought to ask Rumsfeld about how his office has been handling cases, in general, since this has been an issue in both Iraq/Afghanistan, to show that we worry about all our soldiers who face fratricide.
