She took about a year off in 2004, but she's back strong these days.

RE refutation: if you provide a verifiable fact, like 60 nominees who never got out of committee, what you get back is a torrent of invective. If you dare to respond to the invective, you're trashed with the absolutely dirtiest word in their lexicon - liberal!

The way I see it is that there's no way a sentient being over the age of 15 can make the case that the WMD deal was anything but a blatent deception and anything less than treason. Scott Ridder said they had nothing, Blix said they had nothing, and in January and February of 2004 both Rice and Powell gave press conferences that said they had nothing. We even have it in official documents from Blair's government - Bush knew they had nothing.

So the problem becomes if they show any sign of weakness on any matter, anything but fanatical devotion to their fantasy, then the whole thing falls like a house of cards and maybe Bush ends up in front a tribunal in the Hague where he belongs.

Hey, I can dream, can't I?