So how is the statement "...when it comes to the troops, it has to use them in a more responsible fashion." "confronting" Mr. Bush over the war? It sounds pretty vague to me.

Yes, we need a president who is going to listen. Our leaders are supposed to listen to us when we say we want an end to global poverty. 191 countries agreed in 2000 to a set of Millennium Development Goals which promised to bring an end to world hunger by 2025. Where is Bush's mention of those goals now? Tell your leaders that they need to pay attention to these goals because you care.

As a Republican, I must impart my sincere sympathies to my Democratic friends. I know your pain! We Republicans have had to live with "Mission Accomplished," for some time now. It hasn't been easy. Let's just say that history has already proved it to be one of the most bone headed utterances ever made, amping up the notion of irrational exuberance right passed the point of shear stupidity!

You may have done us one better however, and again, my heart goes out to you. Politicians never seem to run dry in their effusive use of, self serving, presumptuous, evasive, diversionary, hypocritical, and just plain transparently stupid language. "Non-binding Resolution," may have instantaneously catapulted you to the pinnacle of this endeavor.

You may find this hard to believe, but I was actually—if not somewhat secretly—excited when the Democrats took over control of Congress. The Republicans had the reigns for what, eight years, and accomplished what... not much. So, even though I was relegated to a minority view point in the last election, I thought hmmmm, maybe this will all be for the good.

Look what's happened already. The Democrats have played right into their most stigmatizing stereotype of all—whether fair or unfair—that there is really no substance to their politics, that it always just boils down to attempting to create a favorable perception of themselves, and how they can control that perception.

The Democrats know very well why they were elected; to change our countries course in Iraq... period. They themselves have acknowledged this point and in fact propagated this notion for some time now. So now, when it comes down to really having to act, and in fact now actually having the power to act, they take the safe, non-committal, superfluous way out... the Non-binding Resolution! (Wasn't there a laxative named Non-binding Resolution?)

Is this the conversation our newly elected Democrats are having amongst themselves behind closed Congressional doors? "Let's see, we don't really have the cajonés (or wait, Democrats might use... balls!) to do what our constituents put us in office to do, and consequently, they're going to be madder then a wet hen! So what do we do, what the hell do we do?! (nail biting and consternation here) Maybe if we appear to be mad as hell ourselves, maybe if we pass a resolution, I got it, a non-binding resolution, (light bulbs above heads here, although dimly lit)—that states we're mad as hell, well then maybe we can just go ahead and write that check to George W. and nobody will take much notice. Because golly, it would be even worse if we helped create a perception that we didn't support the troops (even though we don't, mind you)! What a bind we're in, what a bind (more nail biting and consternation here). Hey! Maybe if we wave our hands in the air and keep pointing over there to our phenomenal list of achievements that we accomplished in our first 100 hours in office, maybe that will distract our constituents from their damned, single pointed focus, on the 800 pound gorilla (Iraq) that were desperately trying to squeeze out from under so we can tip toe out the side door while no ones looking!"

Look, I'm serious, I'm actually embarrassed for you guys right now. You've done a great job, you've got your team with the ball right down to the one yard line, lots of time on the clock, a full head of steam, and a home field advantage, and what do they do... punt!

Joe Biden, what a completely transparent nincompoop. Look Joe, the people don't want you to express your opinion anymore... they want you to act... in a meaningful way! You (Democrats) expressed your opinion during the campaign, the people agreed with you, they elected you based upon their agreement with your opinion and your commitment to act... now they just want you to actually do something!

You've got to give Chuck Hagel [R] credit for at least trying to say what's really what, yet it ultimately came off as just more grand standing as he ended up voting for the resolution himself! Christopher Dodd [D] is on the right track though, by pushing to require congressional authorization for any troop build up, it will allow Congress to use the only power it has available to it in this situation; the power of the purse! This is how Congress can do it... but as you and I both know... they won't.

Hey... I wonder if my home mortgage was a non-binding resolution!

As a Republican, I must impart my sincere sympathies to my Democratic friends. I know your pain! We Republicans have had to live with "Mission Accomplished," for some time now. It hasn't been easy. Let's just say that history has already proved it to be one of the most bone headed utterances ever made, amping up the notion of irrational exuberance right passed the point of shear stupidity!

You may have done us one better however, and again, my heart goes out to you. Politicians never seem to run dry in their effusive use of, self serving, presumptuous, evasive, diversionary, hypocritical, and just plain transparently stupid language. "Non-binding Resolution," may have instantaneously catapulted you to the pinnacle of this endeavor.

You may find this hard to believe, but I was actually—if not somewhat secretly—excited when the Democrats took over control of Congress. The Republicans had the reigns for what, eight years, and accomplished what... not much. So, even though I was relegated to a minority view point in the last election, I thought hmmmm, maybe this will all be for the good.

Look what's happened already. The Democrats have played right into their most stigmatizing stereotype of all—whether fair or unfair—that there is really no substance to their politics, that it always just boils down to attempting to create a favorable perception of themselves, and how they can control that perception.

The Democrats know very well why they were elected; to change our countries course in Iraq... period. They themselves have acknowledged this point and in fact propagated this notion for some time now. So now, when it comes down to really having to act, and in fact now actually having the power to act, they take the safe, non-committal, superfluous way out... the Non-binding Resolution! (Wasn't there a laxative named Non-binding Resolution?)

Is this the conversation our newly elected Democrats are having amongst themselves behind closed Congressional doors? "Let's see, we don't really have the cajonés (or wait, Democrats might use... balls!) to do what our constituents put us in office to do, and consequently, they're going to be madder then a wet hen! So what do we do, what the hell do we do?! (nail biting and consternation here) Maybe if we appear to be mad as hell ourselves, maybe if we pass a resolution, I got it, a non-binding resolution, (light bulbs above heads here, although dimly lit)—that states we're mad as hell, well then maybe we can just go ahead and write that check to George W. and nobody will take much notice. Because golly, it would be even worse if we helped create a perception that we didn't support the troops (even though we don't, mind you)! What a bind we're in, what a bind (more nail biting and consternation here). Hey! Maybe if we wave our hands in the air and keep pointing over there to our phenomenal list of achievements that we accomplished in our first 100 hours in office, maybe that will distract our constituents from their damned, single pointed focus, on the 800 pound gorilla (Iraq) that were desperately trying to squeeze out from under so we can tip toe out the side door while no ones looking!"

Look, I'm serious, I'm actually embarrassed for you guys right now. You've done a great job, you've got your team with the ball right down to the one yard line, lots of time on the clock, a full head of steam, and a home field advantage, and what do they do... punt!

Joe Biden, what a completely transparent nincompoop. Look Joe, the people don't want you to express your opinion anymore... they want you to act... in a meaningful way! You (Democrats) expressed your opinion during the campaign, the people agreed with you, they elected you based upon their agreement with your opinion and your commitment to act... now they just want you to actually do something!

You've got to give Chuck Hagel [R] credit for at least trying to say what's really what, yet it ultimately came off as just more grand standing as he ended up voting for the resolution himself! Christopher Dodd [D] is on the right track though, by pushing to require congressional authorization for any troop build up, it will allow Congress to use the only power it has available to it in this situation; the power of the purse! This is how Congress can do it... but as you and I both know... they won't.

Hey... I wonder if my home mortgage was a non-binding resolution!

Whoops! Sorry about that repeat! I just like pushing the button!

Jonhnhnhn -

And you have our sympathies. As a Republican you are accustomed to dealing with non-binding resolutions of your own. You call yours the United States Constitution.

Stop pushing your button. You'll go blind.

Oxymoron: Non-binding resolution. We are resolved to be non-committal in regards to our position.

Perfect!

It isn't a war.

Bush sent in the troops to find and destroy weapons that the UN inspectors said were not there. That is a deception not a war.

And it's insanity to keep the killing going when we know there is nothing there that could hurt us. Let's pull back into Jordan and see how much that dictator likes it.

I listened to Jim Webb's response to President Bush's State Of The Union address, and I found his response to be compelling. He said that this adminstration needed to be more accountable to the troops, and try to end this war as soon as possible. I know that Jim Webb does want this war to end soon, as he has a son over there fighting in Iraq.

GOD BLESS JIM WEBB!
GOD BLESS JIM WEBB'S SON!

You may find this of some interest to this dialogue

Cut off the damn funds, bring the National Guard home, and get Osama Bin Laden- NOW!

Cut off the damn funds, bring the National Guard home, and get Osama Bin Laden- NOW!

Exactly. I suppose that a non-binding resolution is a start, but I want to see more from our Democratic Congress. I'm sure they are planning their next step to end the war now.

send the two brothers to secure iraq...a resolution:

what still bothers me is that the guy that broke the pottery rule aka moron playing president and his side-kick war monger aka shotgun dick continually offer up more of our finest for their iraqmire. neither have a clue what we majority of americans, demos and repubs have said at the last election.

so, let's fly the absentee national guard bar stool drunk to pilot a helicopter and give shotgun dick a side seat in a humvee to secure bagdad. that's a resolution i'd like to see.

**Final Reminder For This Weekend**
Please spread the word around:
Join CODEPINK and many others in a national march to D.C. on January 27-29, to send a strong, clear message to Congress and the Bush Administration: The people of this country want the war and occupation in Iraq to end and we want the troops home now! This is your chance to let your voices be heard. Click on link below for details:

http://www.codepink4peace.org/article.php?list=type&type=185

Impeachment is the only answer to saving this country.

Cheney and Bush are taking over the oil in the middle east and nobody is going to stop them.

This has been planned by PNAC since before 1998.

God help us all.

In three, ten, twenty...FIFTY years from now, when the only government which has any military/policing force in Iraq is finally the "democratically elected" government of Iraq, the country will fall into widespread civil unrest which will dwarf what we're seeing now, unspeakable bloodshed will occur over an indeterminate period of time, and eventually a popular mullah will prevail, bringing a fundametalist Shiah Islamic theocracy to whatever part of Iraq is left after the Kurds partition off their piece.

The ONLY differences between that scenario and what would happen if the Americans ended their occupation today, would be how many thousands of Americans will die and be maimed for life in support of the fiction of a free and democratic and secular Iraq, how many tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis will suffer the same fate, and how many hundreds of billions (or trillions?) of dollars we will pour into this insanity.

The "victory" that Bush and the neo-cons envision, but somehow can't seem to describe, is unattainable militarily.

Now...the non-binding resolution? Useless. This country is long past the point where huffy expressions of indignation have any meaning. This is particularly so in that Republicans and Democrats alike are setting up the Iraqi people themselves as the fall guys for our "failure." Any "timetable" that requires the Iraqis to "stand up" at prescribed times is nothing but a phony excuse to wash our hands of our sins before we bail out.

It's long past time to get out, admit our mistakes, and take full responsibility for whatever happens to the poor people of Iraq. This is all our fault, and I count all of the chicken Democrats who voted for that authorization resolution as sharing the blame. They knew that the administration was lousy with PNAC'ers who wanted to invade Iraq long before 911, and said so in a letter to Clinton in 1998. They knew that we had Saddam in a box, and if we could have put North Korea, Syria and Iraq into exactly the same kind if boxes we would have leaped at the chance. And they knew by then what bald-faced lying this administration was willing to employ to achieve all of their objectives domestically and internationally. So there should have been at least a few more Democrats with the intelligence and courage of Feingold to say "No." Unfortunately, they almost all got swept up in post-911 lust for vengeance, and Saddam happened to be the guy with a "towel" on his head that they could point to and say "There. THERE! HE DID IT!"

Get out of Iraq now. This is not a war. It is an occupation. History is littered with the remains of powers that overstayed their welcome. We're no different. Another example of where Dean was right. We may indeed not always be the most powerful country on earth. Follow the lead of the maniacs who lead us now, and that will almost certainly be the case.

Get out of Iraq today.

Good Morning. So, you want to confront Bush over the Iraq occupation. Here's how:

The National Weather Service is predicting fifty degrees and sunny this Saturday, January 27, in Washington, DC. With no expected chance of precipitation, it'll be a beautiful day to come out for what is expected to be one of the largest mobilizations against the Iraq war since the US invasion in 2003.

The idea is to show Congress that America wants a peace surge, not a troop surge, and to push legislators to listen to the voters, not President Bush, and bring the war to a close.

There's a rally starting at 11:00 on the Mall featuring remarks from a host of speakers including Reps. Dennis Kucinich, Lynn Woolsey and Maxine Waters, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Leslie Cagan and many others. At 1:00 the march will kick off from the Mall. There's still time to get on a bus. Click here for info on transportation and here if you need a place to stay.

The weekend's activities will include an interfaith peace service and a Congressional Education Day on Monday, January 29th. Whether you can be in DC or not, you can help make the actions a success by making a donation to UFPJ, by helping spread the word about the planned actions and by asking your elected reps to support Senator Edward Kennedy's bill against funding a troop surge.

See the UFPJ site for more info on this weekend. And if you're a student organizer (or the parent or friend of one) you should know that our friends and partners at Campus Progress are offering travel grants of up to $300 for students organizing carpool or van trips to the capital. Click here for info on how to apply.

Check out our new progressive events calendar for other antiwar events nationwide.

Finally, please visit The Nation online to read new Nation blogs, to view newsfeed links updated each day, to see when Nation writers are appearing on TV and radio, to get info on nationwide activist campaigns, and to read exclusive online reports and special weekly selections from The Nation magazine!

Best Regards,
Peter Rothberg,
The Nation

Come on! You all sound like you didn't actually win the last Congressional election! Stop whining about George W.! He is a man of convictions—whether you agree with them or not—and he has the guts to act on those convictions, even in the face of overwhelming criticism. You have control of Congress now, use your power... if you have the courage of YOUR convictions! It's one thing to gripe when you don't have the power to act, but to continue to complain about something that you actually now have to power to change... that's just pathetic!

Grow a pair and make the tough decisions! You HAVE the power to do it!

Johnh: George Bush is a man who SHOULD BE convicted!
Dems: Why is the DCCC wanting us to email Bush and demand HE put an end to Iraq, when they know damn good and well that the slime ball won't listen to the will of the people? His main goal in live is to become a third world dictator!
NO, it's up to Congress to bring this War of Lies disaster to a screeching halt!
The DNC/DLC/DCCC needs to get off their collective butts, and kickstart the Republi-lite sell-outs into standing up for the American people and tell K-street to kiss off!
The 2008 election is coming up, and there are a lot of people who are already not seeing a difference between Democrats and Republicans. We need to reform this party NOW! Not after we blow the 2008 elections!

Even though I strongly disagree with most Republicans in general, "Jonhn" makes a good point. We spoke this past November and the party is doing nothing but pussy-footing around the whole situation. The way the party is acting is beginning to make me believe that if we get out of Iraq then the party will not know what to do with itself. I would think as being politicians they would know that in order to get things done in government you must DEMAND and not ask politely (as the non-binding resolution does).

Why don't I hear anything about the Wilson couple in the press anymore? Now that it turns out your anger was inaccurate about that whole made up media scenario I don't see anything on your web site about them. Hmmm.

Remember, President Bush did not say that Iraq had entered into contracts with the Nigerian government-but had made overtures in Niger toward obtaining some yellow cake. So your hit man Wilson was sent by his non-covert CIA wife on his mission to undermine the facts. He even said that Iraq had sent "diplomats" to Niger.

Listen to the words your leaders use before you jump to judgment. Think critically about what he said. He said they had not obtained yellow cake in Niger. What do you think the Iraqi "diplomats" wanted in Niger? You can get two things there-Yellow Cake and sand-and Iraq has got plenty of sand.

You guys talk about distorting the facts to start a war-but you are willing to ignore the facts when it helps support your delusional media brain-washed belief structure. What you guys need to do is look at things from a critical point of view. Be skeptical, but not cynical. Take a moment to consider who is providing you with your information before you take it as gospel.

As I've said before, don't even take what I say as gospel, because I to am biased. Find out for yourselves-but don't just lap up the pabulum the press feeds you every day and think your intelligent for repeating their diatribes.

Since you in the "Do Nothing Coward" Democrat Party are so fond of the quoting press which supports your lies-here's some information you probably refuse to listen to. Since I have to hear your press every day on the network and cable news-maybe you should read something from a logical point of view-instead of your emotionally charged arguments which ignore the facts. Enjoy the read!

The truth hurts doesn't it? Remember September 11, 2001! Remember Flight 93! Keep rolling! Keep fighting despotic dictators and the terrorists they support! God bless the United States of America and God bless our troops! Support their Victory in the battle for Iraq and the war against international terrorism!

Always Faithful
Seeking Truth

Wall Street Journal
January 25, 2007
Pg. 18

Wonder Land

Talking Ourselves Into Defeat

By Daniel Henninger

The United States is talking itself into defeat in Iraq. Its political culture is now in a downward spiral of pessimism. In the halls of Congress, across endless newspaper columns, amid the punditocracy and on Sunday morning talk shows -- all emit a Stygian gloom about America.

Yes, on any given day on some discrete issue (Prime Minister Maliki's bona fides, for example), the criticism of the American role is not without justification. But the cumulative effect of this unremitting ill wind is corrosive. We are not only on the way to talking ourselves into defeat in Iraq but into a diminished international status that may be harder to recover than the doom mob imagines. Self-criticism has its role, but profligate self-doubt can exact a price.

Maine GOP Sen. Susan Collins wonders "whether the clock has already run out." To U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton the new strategy is "a dead end." For the Bush troop request, presidential candidate Joe Biden predicted "overwhelming rejection." (His committee resolution to that effect yesterday passed by three votes.) Presidential candidate Chuck Hagel: "We have anarchy in Iraq. It's getting worse." And not least, Sen. John Warner this week heaved his tenured eminence against the war effort, proposing another "non-binding" resolution against more troops.

To pick one amid scores of similar characterizations in the media, the Associated Press wrote from Washington before the State of the Union speech that "Democrats -- and even some Republicans -- scoffed at his policy." "Scoff" is a strong word, suggesting eye-rolling ridicule. (The line was so good that the AP ran it after the speech as well, under another writer's byline, this time from Baghdad.) But of course amid the giddy vapors of mass mockery, they all "support the troops."

Our slide to a national nervous breakdown because of Iraq is not going unnoticed. Australia's foreign minister, Alexander Downer, has been visiting across the U.S. this week. "I've been pretty worried about what I've heard," Mr. Downer said in an interview. Walking on Santa Monica beach Sunday before last, Mr. Downer said he encountered a display of crosses in the sand, representing the American dead in Iraq.

"What concerns me about this," he said, "is that it's sort of an isolationist sentiment, subconsciously, not consciously, and that would be an enormous problem for the world. I hope the American people understand the importance of not retreating and thinking the world's problems aren't theirs."

Some of this is politics as usual, but even normal partisanship comes dressed now in the language of apocalypse. In his SOTU rebuttal, Democratic Sen. Jim Webb ripped into the current economy, saying it reminded him of the early 1900s: "The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt." Ah, we've fallen to the level of czarist Russia.

You know the pessimism has turned manic when no one is allowed to depart the asylum. Sen. John McCain's support for Iraq and the new Bush plan is now being described in press reports as not only costing him support in the polls (the asylum's inkblot of reality) but worse, the support of campaign contributors.

It is a phenomenon fascinating to behold. Its causes are multiple, but here are several:

Bush schadenfreude. Partisan pleasure in George Bush's pain dates to the anguish of the contested 2000 election loss. The Democrats have run against something called "Bush" for so long that this sentiment is now bound up in any act or policy remotely attached to the president. Iraq's troubles, or Iran or North Korea, are merely an artifact of crushing this one guy.

The Iraq Study Group. The ISG report wasn't defeatist, but it enabled the vocabulary of defeat. Its warning of a "slide toward chaos" was re-defined as the current Iraqi status quo. They called their bipartisan solution "phased withdrawal," but it was a euphemism for defeat. Momentum was already building in this direction, and the ISG propelled it.

The leadership vacuum. The administration never rallied the nation behind the war in a concrete way. A young Marine officer recently returned from combat in Iraq told me this week he is taken aback at how disassociated the American people seem from Iraq, no matter how constantly it's in the news. He says it's as if the problem is not so much what is actually happening in Iraq but that the war is "annoying" to Americans, as if to say: Can't it just go away or not be on the front page all the time? Rallying a nation at war is a president's job.

The opposition vacuum. One reason the negative mood in politics is so disconcerting is that the opposition's alternative vision is nonexistent. On joining the opposition recently, GOP Sen. Norm Coleman announced, "I can't tell you what the path to success is." Joe Biden says the "primary" Iraq strategy should be to force its leaders to make the political compromises necessary to "end the violence."

As a political strategy, unremitting opposition has worked. Approval for the president and the war is low. The GOP lost sight of its ideological lodestars and so control of Congress. But the U.S. still occupies a unique position of power in the world, and we are putting that status at risk by playing politics without a net.

On the "Charlie Rose Show" this month, former Army vice chief of staff Gen. Jack Keane, who supports the counterinsurgency plan being undertaken by Gen. David Petraeus, said in exasperation: "My God, this is the United States. We are the world's No. 1 superpower. This isn't about arrogance. This is about capability and applying ourselves to a problem that is at its essence is a human problem."

At our current juncture, Gen. Keane's words probably rub many the wrong way. But there's a Cassandra-like warning implicit in them. The mood of mass resignation spreading through the body politic is toxic. It is uncharacteristic of Americans under stress. Some might call it realism, but it looks closer to the fatalism of elderly Europe, overwhelmed and exhausted by its burdens, than to the American tradition.

In 1966, Sen. George Aiken delivered a speech on Vietnam famously translated for history as "declare victory and go home.'" On current course, it looks like we may declare defeat and go home.

I have to give your new Speaker, Nancy Pelosi her due respect. As we speak, she is over in Iraq assessing the situation for herself. What will be most interesting will be to see whether she has the courage to change her point of view, in regard to the "troop surge," if in fact she discovers that it is the right course of action to take. She has already said stated that the Democratically controled Congress will vote against it (read non-binding resolution here)... yet will not seek to block funding for a troop increase. Wow... that would really take courage! (All together now, with Borat accent)... NOT! I've got to be honest with you, Republicans are eating this up! Jared is on the right track! It will be a train wreck of monumental proportions, with no survivors, if you can't get your Congress to do what they said they were going to do if you elected them! Here's the thing you must keep in the back of your heads though. What if Nancy decides that the "troop surge" is in fact the right course of action based upon what she discovers for herself in Iraq. Well then, as far as I'm concerned, all is forgiven, people make mistakes—as Bush has—and people should be allowed to change their mind and change their course of action if they now know it to be the right thing to do! To allow our service men to continue in this endeavor without our full support, will be a travisty that will haunt the democrats for years and years to come! And believe me, you can NOT have your cake and eat it too. You cannot tell your son or daughter that drugs are bad for them and then give them a hundred bucks to go get a bump! If Nancy Pelosi comes back from Iraq, still firm in her conviction that the "troop surge" is the wrong course of action, then she has NO ALTERNATIVE but to denie funding to this endeavor... period! Hey... you guys wanted the power... now you've got it. Good luck.

Johnhnhn -

Yah.

Timothy McVeigh had "convictions" and had the "guts" to act upon them despite some pretty tough "criticism."

I'm guessing you admire him, too.

He is a man of convictions—whether you agree with them or not—and he has the guts to act on those convictions, even in the face of overwhelming criticism.

That Bush is a man of conviction and acting on his conviction in the face of overwhelmning criticism is only part of the picture: he is also a man of overwhelming convictions that are in conflict with reality. Therein lies the problem: when you are wrong, yet stubbornly persist in your error, you are dangerous. A man who refuses to listen to the best minds around on how to resolve such a momumental mistake as Iraq is someone who deserves more than criticism.

What I want to know is WHEN DO WE FINALLY IMPEACH this president for lying

We need to: keep pushing for investigations of the lies behind the War of Lies; the no-bid contracts to the war-profiteers who are tied to Cheney; go deeper into the Abramoff scandals; and encourage a deeper look at the Valiri Plaume investigation.
By uncovering the truths hidden beneath the BS, obfuscations, and stonewalling, that the Bushiato has been putting out, we should get enough on the current administration that we wouldn't even have to look at the illegal wiretaps, and we should have embarrassed enough Republican senators to get the 2/3 majority we need to impeach these jerks.
Investigate! Impeach!! Indict!!!

King George's only job was to get Osama Bin Laden.
Every day that we are in Iraq emboldens the enemy!

Impeachment is the only way to get this president's attention. A non-binding resolution does nothing when the Constitution and the Law have been ignored. Bush has just written everything off. When the courts ruled the fake trials for detainees was illegal he just said "I don't agree with that, I'm going to do what I want." He now says he is "The Decider." I guess, being a C student and all, he missed Government 101 when they the reviewed the Constitution. Our founding fathers set up checks and balances so that no one branch was "The Decider." The message will be sent through impeachment that the Constitution applies to everyone, yes, that includes you mr. bush. I know Pelosi said she wouldn't go for impeachment but at this point it really is the only thing capable of stopping him.

New Mexico at least has some balls in this. The state legislator is primarily Democratic and it only requires a majority vote for the new impeachment resolution to be passed. It doesn't even have to have a NM Congressman support it (Although Udahl probably would), it only has to have 1 Congressman support it for the House of Reps to take action. Why more people aren't urging their states to take similar action is beyond me. We sent a message to bush and to Congress when we voted last November. When the will of the people is ignored this is no longer a deocracy, it is a dictatorship. If people aren't concerned that future presidents would not take these same Constitutional "liberties" that bush has, you're sorely mistaken. If bush gets away with this it sends a clear message that we the people are okay with the Constitution being trampled all over and that we will not fight back. Now is the time to act.

The comment about a man with convictions needs examination. A President is elected to serve the people. His "Convictions" are based on mental illness and if you want to be led by that then go for it. But when the majority of American Citizens do not agree, one man does not get to simply stand by his convictions. No one person should decide the course of this Country! That is not what Democracy is!

Webster's Dictionary defines Democracy as:
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

A Dictatorship on the otherhand is defined as: 3 a : a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique b : a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated c : a despotic state

Additionally there is Despotism: despotism
Function: noun
Text: a system of government in which the ruler has unlimited power

So the rest of the world has rejected despotism in favor of democracy yet bush is a classic Despot!

Now, what sounds more like the current state of our government when you say the President is acting on his Convictions despite the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS DISAGREEING!!!!

The comment about a man with convictions needs examination. A President is elected to serve the people. His "Convictions" are based on mental illness and if you want to be led by that then go for it. But when the majority of American Citizens do not agree, one man does not get to simply stand by his convictions. No one person should decide the course of this Country! That is not what Democracy is!

Webster's Dictionary defines Democracy as:
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

A Dictatorship on the otherhand is defined as: 3 a : a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique b : a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated c : a despotic state

Additionally there is Despotism: despotism
Function: noun
Text: a system of government in which the ruler has unlimited power Synonyms autocracy, dictatorship, totalitarianism, tyranny
Related Words monarchy; authoritarianism, fascism; domination, oppression
Near Antonyms: democracy; freedom; anarchy

So the rest of the world has rejected despotism in favor of democracy yet bush is a classic Despot!

Now, what sounds more like the current state of our government when you say the President is acting on his Convictions despite the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS DISAGREEING!!!!

The comment about a man with convictions needs examination. A President is elected to serve the people. His "Convictions" are based on mental illness and if you want to be led by that then go for it. But when the majority of American Citizens do not agree, one man does not get to simply stand by his convictions. No one person should decide the course of this Country! That is not what Democracy is!

Webster's Dictionary defines Democracy as:
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

A Dictatorship on the otherhand is defined as: 3 a : a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique b : a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated c : a despotic state

Additionally there is Despotism: despotism
Function: noun
Text: a system of government in which the ruler has unlimited power Synonyms autocracy, dictatorship, totalitarianism, tyranny
Related Words monarchy; authoritarianism, fascism; domination, oppression
Near Antonyms: democracy; freedom; anarchy

So the rest of the world has rejected despotism in favor of democracy yet bush is a classic Despot!

Now, what sounds more like the current state of our government when you say the President is acting on his Convictions despite the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS DISAGREEING!!!!

Well said fred_smith! Well said! Our buddy TexasDem86 and the rest of these whiners just don't get it, know matter how well it's spelled out for them. No one is usurping the Constitution here. Our President is acting in a manner completely consistent with parameters established for the Executive branch of our government, set forth in the Constitution, specifically in regards to his role as commander in chief of the armed forces. What still hasn't sunk into the heads of our ranting compatriots, is that their newly elected Congress, now has the Constitutional power to stop him... if they in fact have the guts to. It's called the "power of the purse." Go ahead... use it. Impeachment!? On what grounds? Your logic—that because our reasons for going into Iraq turned out to be unsubstantiated, must mean our President lied about those reasons in the first place—is worthy of a thirteen year old, but certainly will never be legitimate grounds for impeachment. We Republicans are laughing ourselves to sleep these days watching the democratic constituency ringing their hands over the fact that their newly elected democratic Congressional representatives have decided NOT to do what they promised you they would do, if elected. Look out... 2008 is right around the corner!

Jonhnhnhnhnh -

I thought I'd seen post-election gloating taken to an insurmountable height in 2000, but you really are in existentially comic territory now - gloating over...well, you know...losing. To wit:

"We fucked up the country these past six years."

"We got our asses kicked in the general election as a consequence."

"The Democrats have had almost THREE FULL WEEKS and they haven't cleaned up the wretched mess we made."

"We're laughing ourselves to sleep over this."

That may pass for tight logic among the Worldwide Wrestling Federation crowd you hang with, but over here it sounds as if it's time you replaced that jar of greenish-gray mayonnaise in your fridge.

So if it's all the same to you, I think we'll all pass on lessons in adolescent logic from the prepubescent wing of the Republican party.

Oh and we'll pass too on your simpleton lessons in Constitutional law. You might remember that your hero once told the nation that it is the job of the Legislative branch to make the laws and the Executive branch "to interpret them." So much for respect for (or understanding of) the precepts of our Constitution. I guess we shouldn't be surprised that he's spent the last six years authoring over 800 signing statements saying, essentially, "No thanks - I don't think I'll enforce THAT law, because I'm The Decider."

This president wipes his ass with the U.S Constitution. It's the last document you should use to make a case in his defense. If you've actually read Article III, you've read it once more than your boy at 1600 Pennsylvania.

But hey...if you do find a section of Article III that describes the Chief Executive as the "Decider," come back and let us know, would you?

Until then, laugh, clown, laugh.

Texas Dem; You forgot a definition.
Oligarchy: Form of government where political power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society (whether distinguished by wealth, family, or military prowess).
Or in the case of the Bushiato, an OILigarchy. They obviously aren't in the business of military prowess.
I guess Fred Smith and Johnhnhn, who can't even spell his own name, are some of the lobotomized Republican minions, who don't seem to be able to tell how dumb they sound.
Ahh Well, just a waste of bandwidth.

Easy Baron, easy, you're turning red! (I'm really sorry, I just couldn't resist) Obviously I've struck a nerve. However, you've lost me big fella. I thought for a moment we were talking about Executive powers, clearly spelled out in Article II of the Constitution. Obviously, there is something about the roll of the judiciary—Article III—that you want to impart to us all. Why don't you fill us in. In the mean time haus, let me suggest something to you about the roll of the judiciary. It is in fact their roll to interpret the constitutional conduct of the Executive branch... not Congress'. And, it is not within Congress' power to pass laws that usurp the Constitutional powers of the Executive branch. Whether they have been intentially attempting to do this or not, is a question that can neither be 'decided' by the President or Congress; only the Judiciary has the power to decide this. So whether you believe that the President has been wiping his ass with the Constitution or I believe Congress has been wiping their collective ass with the Constitution, is of little consequence to anyone of intelligence at the end of the day, although it does make for bracing chit chat (I'm just tingly all over!). I await with bated breath (you know, it does smell a little like greenish-gray mayonnaise!) your erudite ramblings on the roll of the Judiciary! By the way Butt, oh I'm sorry, Butte; did you think Jonhn was my name, or is nincompoop just a roll you play on this blog. Very convincing by the way! I'm not lobotomized by the way, it's the greenish-gray mayonnaise!

Who is confronting Bush? The majority of the Congress/Senate has dual citizenship Israel/USA and they will never confront Bush, but they will ask him and support another war with Iran.

This time the United States will learn how to loose lives!

Stop JEWSA, stop fighting wars for the Jews.

Johnhnhnhn -

Sigh...I should have anticipated that the irony of my remark about Executive "Decider" powers being "granted" in Article III (see earlier commentary on Bush's ignorant conflation of constitutional powers) would have been lost on a hairy-chested conservative like you. Sorry. Henceforth I'll assume you're as ignorant as your continued support of Bush requires.

Interesting take on the presidency, yours - that the Congress doesn't have the Constitutional "right" to "usurp" the Executive's powers. Right out of Bush's imperial play book, of course, but far afield of what the Constitution (and its actual "original" "Originalists" intended.)

When you read the Constitution (for the first time, I'm sure), please take special note of how few powers the founders granted to the Executive Branch, and the manner in which they explicitly limited them. I know, I know...it's a big document and it's got a lot of words in it, and who the heck knows what "Congreff" is anyway, but give it a try - especially since the section in which they empowered the Executive is only a few measly paragraphs long. (Hmmm...makes you wonder, huh?)

Yes, the president would be the Commander in Chief, but it would be they who would declare war. He could make treaties, sure, but it would be they who would approve them. He could make judicial and other appointments, but it would be they who would confirm them (you know - that "advice and CONSENT" wording that gives you conservatives rippling rectal cramps).

In fact, just about the only power they granted to the Executive that they did not check with their own was the power to grant pardons. I'm guessing that, given the variety of criminal activities your "buds" have been involved in over the past six years, this is the Executive power you truly want to ensure does not get "usurped."

Oh my...I just realized I've been giving the sixth grade history lesson to the second grade class. My mistake. I'll keep it monosyllabic from here on out.

Try to keep up.

So...here we go...

How 'bout them Dawgs? They sure git 'er done, yessir. Hooooo boy.

Per the Constitution of the Unites States, only the Congress has the power to declare war.
By misusing and overstepping the limited war powers granted by Congress, George W Bush started an illegal conflict by unilateral aggression, and justified his actions with deliberately falsified reports, and withholding intelligence information that showed that there was more than a reasonable doubt that WMD existed. Not only that, he didn't wait for the UN inspectors to finish their inspections, knowing that the report would have been negative on the WMD.
He has been handed money hand over fist by the rubber-stamp Republican Congress for the five years of this illegal conflict, and if that isn't enough of an impeachable offense then the corruption that went along with it in handing no-bids contracts to the war profiteers ought to put the icing on the cake. Not only that but it leads one to ask how many of the Republican legislators, who were handing him the money, and not questioning his motives, or the validity of his actions should be indicted as co-conspirators?
There's a reason we're getting hit with these Republican trolls. It's because they know we are right, and they want to dilute the true message from the people of this country.
Investigate! Impeach!! Indict!!!
End this illegal War of Lies!

Dear Baron, I stand in abject awe of your towering intellect my friend. Your eminent grasp of the Constitution and it's "real" meanings are certainly a leason for us all here in the second grade. By the way, where did you get your accreditation for your sixth grade history class, was it on line? Yes, you've really "slammed me into the turnbuckle," this time (I wanted to look up some wrestling terms—or is it wrastling—to use in conversation with you as you seem very enamored with this past time). Again, thank you, until this very moment, I had been laboring under the misguided assumption that "advise and consent," meant just that; to advise the President on his choice of appointees, and then consent to them. Low and behold, we find that it actually means to impede and obturate in regard to this appointment process! By the way, it's actually an old laxative I use called "non-binding resolution," that always seems to give me the rectal cramps. In regards to Executive privilege and the granting of pardons, I am assuming that you would have us defer to a more reasoned presidental approach in this endeavor, say for instance Bill Clinton, as a shining example of thoughful restraint. In closing, I so very much appreciate you taking valuable time away from your sixth grade Constitutional studies class to have this conversation with us, and I am sincerely grateful that you have decided to structure your comments in a monosyllabic fashion, this will certainly help us to more clearly understand you, here in the second grade. It is our sincere wish to eventually gain the deeper understanding of the Constitution that you obviously have attained. Of course, we'll have to start unlearning your version when we get to high school, but that's neither here nor there for now, all in good time! With kind regard, Jonhnhnhnhnhnhnhnhnhnhnhnhnhnhnhnhnhnhnhnhnhnhnhnhnhnhnhnhnhn. Talk to you later bud! I'm off to make a delicious green-gray mayonnaise omelet! Join me?

Johnhnhnhn -

Thank you. In a few terse, albeit deluded comments you've revealed the essence of the Bush imperial presidency. "Advise and consent," in Bushie Bushie parlance, means "give me your advice on my appointments and then just shut up and vote 'yes' after I, The Decider, have decided."

Heck, using your definition of "consent," rape would be considered "consensual" as long as the rapist asks for advice from his victim beforehand.

Perfect.

But you know, you still must wonder why the founders bothered at all with the "consent" part. Don'cha, Johnhnhn? Just a little teeny bit? I mean, it seems such unnecessary verbiage when seen in the light of your keen perspective on our system of checks and balances.

Then again, much of what makes our form of government different from any petty dictatorship must keep you in a perpetual state of deep wonderment.

ABy the way...thanks for the reflexive "But Bill Clinton..." argument. For you guys it's like burping after chugging a six pack, isn't it?

You know a Bushie has pulled the last arrow from his quiver when you hear that one.

I loved it.

Dear Baron, I'm glad you loved it! You're most gracious. However, I continue to be sincerely hurt by your cultural characterization of me. This is the very reason why we should never resort to these kinds of stereotypes. Nothing good ever comes of them. There are probably millions of beer drinking NASCAR fans out there, that you have now alienated because they don't want to be associated with me. I try always to steer clear of this tactic. To use it, indicates that ones intellectual arguments have either failed them or have run out. For example, this is how someone, who didn't actually know you, might characterize you:

You and your boyfriend Steve drive a white, rusted out, 1982 Volvo station wagon. Steve is tending bar while he tries to promote his dance career, while you are an adjunct professor at an inner city day care center where you attempt—against all odds—to instruct a sixth grade Constitutional studies class to second graders. Steve has been helping you to write your responses to me and with every referenced cultural put down, you quickly high five each other. This then digresses into an all out tickle fight, eventually ending with a wrestling (or is it wrastling) match involving cocoa butter and a potato gun. You desperately want someone to believe that you know something, so between hits off of your crack pipe you hammer away on this blog, at this Republican nut case that's giving you a hard time (and sadistically enjoying every second of it, I might add).

Now, do you see what has happened here? I've just offended every gay friend of mine that would no sooner want to be compared to you as to Hitler. Therefore, if you can agree to steer clear of attempting to stereotype me, I will afford you the same respect.

Look cowboy, you brought up the issue of the misuse of Presidential pardons, not me. I'm sorry if I seem to have hit another raw nerve. (should I burp here, or would a great big belch work better? Let me know.)

I'm going to let you have the last word so, have at it. I wish I could say something constructive has come of our discourse, but regretfully I can't. In parting, I might add that there are actually one hundred and forty three "hn's" at the end of my sign in name. I leave a few off myself for the sake of brevity. I think everyone on this blog would be phenomenally impressed (I know I would), if you took the time to include them all in your final response.

Thanks bud!

Dear Seeking-Truth!

Keep on hammering my friend! Hammer away!

johnhnhnhny dear,

I understand. "Both my eyes are blackened so there's no point hanging around for another."
It's OK, hun. You're as tedious as ever.

As you have under two previous identities (yup - your soaring, triple somersault leaps of illogic, in Republican neo-con pike position, colored by your imperious tone, leave a transparent signature), you've again admitted to the inferiority of both your intellect and your political arguments. So, no surprise there. Business as usual.

I'll give you a "B" for self-awareness to go along with your "F" in American civics.

So then, tata. Until, that is, you slink back into this space with yet another handle, hoping no one will notice the same, tired self-absorbed dittohead under the disguise.

King George is denying our boys their heroes' welcome.

Your memory is a monster; you forget—it doesn’t. It simply files things away. It keep things for you, or hides things from you—and summons them to your recall with a will of its own.

Let me help recall some memories:

for bethdp who wants to know WHEN DO WE FINALLY INPEACH this president (she means Pres. Bush) for lying....a memory for you

2001 In a deal sparing himself possible indictment, President Bill Clinton acknowledged for the first time making false statements under oath about Monica Lewinsky; he also surrendered his law license for five years.

good question beth, wrong President.

for SandH who said
Bush sent in the troops to find and destroy weapons that the UN inspectors said were not there. That is a deception not a war.

maybe not a memory but new knowledge! Is it possible you glanced and passed right over the information on the 18 underground bunkers with over 297,000 weapons of nerve, mustard and various other unstable chemical weapons the US Dept of Defense dug up and destroyed in the Iraqi desert, 2002? over 90 thousand of these weapons missed the definition of 'mass destruction' by a few less deaths or 1/4 less mile radius of total destruction. Still, had the current Iraqi regime sold them to say, Korea, Russia, Iran to deploy...I'd say they'd probably cause some mass destruction. did you think he'd keep them buried in the desert for fun? or maybe you didn't think.

another memory, seeming so distant now:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
John F. Kennedy

I wonder how Pres. Kennedy would feel about his partys remarks...the Senate's Democratic Committee took the first step in their opposition with a resolution declaring the escalation in Iraq is "not in the national interest."

War, never really won or lost, is costly. The war most consider our biggest sucess, WWII, we won the preservation of the Jewish race and the halt of a German controlled Europe but we lost equal or more. We developed and used the first Nuclear weapon on mankind. It made us now and forever the nation responsible for ensuring no other nation repeats what we did. Our own Civil War, we won a united nation and finally, freedom for every man, we lost brothers, fathers, sons, land, loyalty and respect. It was very costly for this country and at the time, definitely would fit the Dem's description of 'not in the National Interest' I'd say there are may Black Americans that are happy that Pres. Lincoln stayed the course. While we blog about right or wrong my son, like thousands of others, fights the enemy of freedom and liberty in a land we will most likely never set foot in, Iraq. We sent him there, every American who votes, every politician who ran, every Republican every Democrat. How about we stand United and finish what we started. That would make Pres. Kennedy proud, that would make the families who have lost a soldier to the war on Terror proud and I know it would make my soldier proud. To do anything less is unacceptable.
No present individual or organization can forsee what only history will bear out. I think my son's children will read a history book that indicates we planted a seed of hope and freedom in the worst of the Middle East and it was a good thing.

John...I like how you write, peaceful nights to you my friend

Yes you are this dumb -

Citations please on those thousands of viable "near-WMD's" we found in 2002?

Feel free to post them on another thread.

I anxiously await your answer.

“In the United States of America, the people are sovereign, not the president. It is Congress’s responsibility to challenge an administration that persists in a war that is misguided and that the country opposes. We cannot simply wring our hands and complain about the Administration’s policy. We cannot just pass resolutions saying “your policy is mistaken.” -Russ Feingold

That is what I would like to hear members of congress say. We cannot just complain about this and expect it to end...they need to act.

I just got another of those "Send a Message to Bush" emails from the DCCC.
I sent Bush a message in November, he blew it off. Appearantly so did the DCCC!
The DCCC needs to get the message.
BUSH DOESN'T GIVE A RAT'S PATOOTIE!!!!
We could send messages to Bush until the cows come home, until the printouts are piled higher than the White House, and BUSH WON'T CARE ONE IOTA!!!
On top of that they want a contribution?!
Why should I contribute to the DCCC to fund Congresspeople who are going to be as Republi-lite phony "centrist" as they are?
They didn't bother to help Monica Lindeen when she was campaigning against rubber-stamp Republican Denny Rheburg! Why, because she was talking to and for the people!
DCCC, clean up your act, and get the Democrats in Congress to do their jobs.
THAT will send a message to Bush!!!

Baron,

give me an email address, I will be happy to accomodate.

Baron, waiting for link, however, this is public and can be searched so start with this, there is a nice satellite view:

Testimony of Mr. Karmand Rillis, US Army Chemical and Biological Defense Command MM-1 subject matter expert, the removal to secure storage of over 49,800 warheads from missile and bomb bases comprised of a complex variety of chemical weapons—including nerve, blood, blister, and choking agents, toxic industrial chemicals, and novel threat agents—biological weapons—including viruses, bacteria, ricketssial, and toxin agents, and potentially novel or genetically engineered agents, as well as emerging infectious diseases including “dirty bombs.”; the deactivation of four regiments of SS-19 ICBMs; the removal of 750 missiles from evince underground locations; and the elimination of approximately 630 strategic launchers and 91 additional CBD. CTR assistance also helped to begin early deactivation and shipment to accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation before the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services, USHoR