Bush and his Minions or The Minions and Bush do continue to robotically repeat talking points that have long since flown in the face of any strategy grounded in reality. Those of us that didn't buy the bullshit from the start, and hopefully a growing number of those that were duped by rhetoric masquerading as resolve and patriotism, no longer take the talking points as truth. Many I suspect are simply tuning them out. Therein lies a real danger. The Iraqi talking points have served to deflect any discussion about what if anything is happening in Afghanistan. Has anyone out there seen or heard anything more than passing mention of the Afghan situation. With ever increaseing chatter and babble about that overwhelming threat, Iran, I expect to see more talking points that focus on the Iranian threat, with what smells like a clear intent to blur the focus on the Iraqi debacle.

Dubya must think that a down to earth, homespun style is a good balance to his typical arrogant dismissiveness. The problem is that anyway that you phrase it or deliver the message, most of us still require a reasonable facsimile of logic with some basis in fact. Regardless of whether he tries to be the good ole texas boy or the hard line, stay-the-course arrogant, don't question me - he still can't seem to string together a simple set of words that convey ideas supported by facts leading to a logical conclusion. In the Bush universe, Iraq is part of global terror, and therefore we are fighting a global war on terror. He seems to think that the current debate about his decisions is simply because we've forgotten about 9-11. Not so. I don't know anyone that has forgotten 9-11. The current debate is in part due to increased scrutiny by at least some of the press, and that the information that we see just doesn't support the decisions that have been made. When more people finally came around to ask slightly more probing questions, it become abundantly clear that Bush and his administration have no defensible answers for their misquided actions. When pushed on a explanation he can not provide convincing arguments supported by evidence, he's just really painful to watch and hear. He seems to think that restating his answer in a slightly modified form provides clarity. Unfortunately, his ineptness becomes more glaring and magnfied, even to his previous admirers and supporters, because he's now forced to do a few press conferences and speeches. I wonder if Harriet Meier still thinks that he just the most amazing brilliant man? I expect much, much more from my president.

We can not afford George W. Bush, version 2.0. Regardless of what Mehlman, Rove, Cheney, and Dubya happen to think - we're not camping out over night to purchase a retread message. Sound bites without substance may play well for a while, but at some point, the message begins to sound the same, because it is the same. Even the least critical listener/reader begins to expect more explanation beyond what they've heard over and over. It seems that Bush's handlers and the RNC have finally found themselves between a serious rock and a very, very, hard place. The boy who would be king leader can't hide behind the scenes. The administration and the RNC must now stand behind him and in doing so must deal with his inability to understand questions and to provide thoughtful and critical answers. Running up straw men is a simplistic and typically desparate strategy when you find yourself in an undefensible position. The RNC and the Bush administration seem to be in a position where he absolutely needs to be out front and a situation in which he simply does not have the capacity. Bush and his administration have placed us in a completely intractable debacle abroad and at home that continues to exponentially accrue costs in loss of life, liberty, and monumental unbelievable record deficits. For what. The present looks very gloomy and the future looks dire. We need a completely new operating system. A version upgrade wont' do.

How many times does congress as a body have to be dismissively and derisively ignored before they recognize that Bush and his administration see themselves above any law they choose? This administration has a consistent pattern of responding to congressional challenges to illegal or questionalbe practice, by using friends that broker somewhat off-table or side-bar committee deals that on the surface promise to provide oversight. Rather than a substantive agreement with legimate intentions of compliance, they, in practice, function to deflect or to remove the scrutiny from the news cycle. This is precisely why Feingold has argued for censure. What is less apparent, is why congress has not been persuaded by the consistent pattern of failure to comply by Bush and this administration and taken appropriate action to protect congressional oversight.