This just came across the news wires -- how weird is this? The Bush White House plans an address to the nation in the middle of a "commercial free" broadcast of ABC's now-notorious "The Path to 9/11"?

Hmmm -- this might be a STRONG hint that ABC will indeed pull the plug on this production completely, just like "The Reagans" was dumped several years ago under conservative pressure!

Copied from Myway news:

- - - - - - - - - - -

Sep 8, 9:05 AM (ET)

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush will make a prime-time address from the Oval Office on Monday to mark the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

White House press secretary Tony Snow said the administration had requested network time for the address at 9:01 p.m. EDT. The address is expected to run 16 to 18 minutes, he said.

The speech will come after Bush visits each of the attack sites, in New York, Shanksville, Pa., and the Pentagon, where terrorist hijackers used commercial airliners as weapons to kill nearly 3,000 people.

Snow said Bush's address would not be a political speech or a charge to Congress for action. Rather, he said, it would be reflective of what Sept. 11 has meant and "how we move ahead as a country in making use of the lessons of Sept. 11."

"It will have a note of optimism as well as sobriety about what we've been through," Snow said.

as he frantically tried to divert Dorothy and her friends from the truth:

"Pay no attention to the corpses -- I mean 'that MAN" -- behind the curtain."

ABC repeated the same comment today on Good Morning America in connection with Charlie Gibson's return to the show, flogging his interview of the president -- you hardly know whether to laugh or cry when Dubya is described as "Educator-in-Chief." Either way, it's monumentally silly.

I'm a little late jumping into the fray on this topic, but a recurring fear that first crossed my mind months ago has raced back. It will NOT stay locked away, no matter how many mental nails I hammer into the door to keep it under control.

If this "struggle against Islamofascism", or whatever the heck it's being called THIS week, is the pre-eminent struggle of our time, we'd better get prepared for even more extreme actions by Dubya and his acolytes.

Our fearless leader and his supporters seem fully capable of excusing any act by the President, by way of the fanciful "unitary executive theory". The President apparently is fully justified and empowered to ignore ANY law, be it legislative or constitutional, in order to "protect the nation from harm."

Well, here's my recurring fear: We could VERY easily see this current occupant of the White House say that it's "too dangerous" to leave office in 2008 and pass the baton to a successor (especially if it's a Democrat). So who's to say Dubya won't attempt to stay in office, or will "justify" corrupting the electoral process to ensure that the "chosen Republican" succeeds him? After all, if the Second Amendment restriction against unwarranted searches can be abrogated by Dubya, why can't the 22nd Amendment limiting Presidents to two terms in office? And what's more important -- "keeping us safe," or piddly details like fair elections?

After all, NO ONE but Dubya can keep us safe!

I'm just waiting for the first trial balloon to be floated by designated right-wing opinion makers. I, for one, won't be surprised to see it happen.

...but is it totally loony to expect the leaders of our various branches of government to show at least a semblance of bipartisan/nonpartisan behavior? I don't want to beat on John Boehner alone (even though he is my congressman here in SW Ohio), since Democrats and Republicans alike seem locked into this poisonously partisan behavior and rhetoric.

Shouldn't there be some sense that our elected officials were elected to represent ALL Americans, not just the people in their own political party (or more specifically, those in one wing of their own party)? Bush isn't President of the Republican Party -- he's President of the United States.

Yes, yes, I know, Boehner is specifically Majority Leader in the House, which might rightly be considered more explicitly partisan -- but he should be a U.S. Congressman first, and Majority Leader second. If in fact Bush & his followers truly believe this is a time of great crisis for our country and the world, perhaps even "World War III", why can't there be some attempt to BE a "uniter, not a divider"?

Someone explain to me again, how is it that the spending of obscene amounts of money (with or without full disclosure of donors) is constitutionally protected "free speech"?

Guess this has to be understood as yet another aspect of life explained by Orwell's "Animal Farm" -- all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. We all have the same right to free speech, but some have MORE of this "same right".

I have not been away in any far-off galaxy -- I KNOW what has come down over the last 15 years. Believe me, I hail from Ohio, Ground Zero of one-party, highly partisan, GOP-led government. Southwest Ohio is a black hole of GOP control -- NOTHING escapes their influence in this area.

My plaintive cry for a least a SEMBLANCE of bipartisan/nonpartisan behavior is more a sign of despair and resignation. I don't believe for one minute that this crowd in Washington is capable of such behavior -- it's all about power, and if you ain't with me, you're agin me.

I would have thought my comments would have been understood quite clearly -- oh well...