And what is he asking Kelly to do? Is he asking her to out Ensign? If Ensign is no longer pursuing his wife, shouldn't he be asking his wife to stop pursuing Ensign?

There are a lot of unanswered questions here, but it is all too sordid (and not very interesting) to me.

What's he doing to help?

He's wrong. What needs to happen, over and over again until the message sticks, is for Democrats to pass legislation on a party-line vote, so that Republicans begin to realize that their obstructionism is getting them nowhere.

Maybe so. Maybe it depends on what happens next, on who is inspired by Von Brunn to commit even more destructive crimes.

What about Yigal Amir as compared with Scott Roeder? Amir, by assassinating Yitzhak Rabin, a single man, arguably set the peace process back by decades. Roeder seems to have achieved the shutdown of one of only a handful of clinics offering late term abortions. The number of women (and men) potentially affected is huge. Everyone calls him a kook but it seems to me that if McVeigh and Amir are terrorists then so is Roeder.

I don't think it's at all clear cut that Von Brunn and Roeder are terrorists, but it isn't clear cut that they aren't either.

"Sources", huh?

Who is the missing senator?

I don't want to overstate this, but I think the other reason the US should pursue nonproliferation is for our own redemption. I think Bluebell put it best. It is a part of us beginning to think of ourselves as part of the world, not above it.

Fixed that for you.

Sure, he is turning out to be an unhinged turd DINO, but if the answer to the question "what did the dems give him to switch?" is "nothing", then I don't get the acrimony against dems for having "welcomed him in" -- what exactly have the dems lost?

I liked the comment I read somewhere yesterday (paraphrased): he talks like a liberal and votes like a conservative, and thinks that makes him a moderate.

It is true that Obama does not owe the left wing a prosecution. Prosecution for such a reason would be wrong. But at the same time, avoiding a potential "civil war" by refusing to prosecute is equally wrong; it is tantamount to saying that Obama owes the right wing no prosecution. And who is to say what would really happen if a prosecution brought the facts out -- who can predict that a "civil war" actually would follow? Just because some on the right seem to be threatening it? I believe the American people to be open and mature enough to examine the evidence if it gets to see the light of day; one can argue equally that if the evidence is suppressed, or the Bushies are perceived as being treated with kid gloves, ONCE AGAIN, that people will have had enough and might take to the streets.

Let us not forget, in our system of justice where a person is innocent until proven guilty, that prosecution is simply that process of attempting to prove guilt. Prosecuting them won't automatically make them guilty, just as refusing to prosecute them won't make them innocent. Let the prosecutions go forward.