Here's the pertinent excerpt from the Time article:

"Part of his job has been to make the case that his wife and Obama aren't so different in their records on Iraq: though Obama opposed the Iraq invasion as a Senate candidate, the former President argues, Obama's voting on the war has been virtually identical to Hillary's in the Senate."

So, once in office, exactly HOW has Sen. Obama's voting record on Iraq differed from Sen. Clinton's? I would think that an impartial conclusion could be reached based on actual votes cast. Right?

At the very least, Blair should be able to say what he THOUGHT victory meant when he first decided to go to war, shoulder to shoulder with Dubya. Then, and only then, could he credibly say he's uncertain what victory would actually mean NOW, given how events have transpired afterwards.

Without that, he would sound like a complete idiot. Which he does.

Is it too much to expect some sort of cost/benefit calculation from the "Leaders of the Free World"? Simply bleating that "I had the best of intentions, and used my best judgment" is hardly enough, and doesn't excuse massive blunders. Who would EVER admit that they DIDN'T have the best of intentions, or use their best judgment?

...seemingly trapped in Oz, wishing we could go home to Kansas -- and then we'll remember we can tap those ruby slippers and IMPEACH THE BASTARDS.

We have every tool that's needed to rein in the Current Occupant and his acolytes. All that we have to do is find the guts to DO IT.

The world didn't end with Bill Clinton's impeachment, and won't end with a Bush/Cheney impeachment. In fact, we might actually see the dawn of a renewed and refreshed government OF, BY AND FOR THE PEOPLE. How refreshing THAT would be!

...but in what sort of organization is the PRESIDENT considered to be part of the STAFF? For better or worse, he's MANAGEMENT, with all the privileges and pitfalls that come with such a lofty position.

The White House won't lift a finger to overturn this action by the Iraqis, because it will serve to feed the fiction that they are a "sovereign" nation and government. ("Gee, WE don't think this is such a good idea, but what can we do? After all, Iraq has a democratically elected government!")

Even worse, our own armed forces will continue to be USED shamelessly by this Administration and its supporters, e.g. by agreeing to accept petitions signed by active duty forces who support current Iraq policy, while denying/denigrating/dismissing negative commentary by anyone connected with the military, whether active duty or retired.

It's all so sickening -- and so predictable.

...when he says "There are consequences to all of these decisions and all of these actions, and a responsible public official has to accept the responsibility for the consequences of what they recommend."

The problem is, HE is unwilling to accept any real responsibility for the debacle he encouraged and CONTINUES to encourage.

I'm always reminded of a classic editorial cartoon (don't remember who drew it) showing Dubya with a 2-by-4 board in his hand. He's just smacked a hornets nest labeled "Iraq", and the hornets are swarming angrily around the head of hapless Uncle Sam. Dubya has moved along, now standing by a second hornets nest labeled "Iran" -- and he says, "Ya know, I don't like the looks of THIS one either."

EXACTLY SO -- except there are multiple neocon hands swinging that 2-by-4, not just those of the President. Both of Cheney's hands are all over the attack on Iraq. Our esteemed Vice President clearly believes responsibility for attacking Iraq is synonymous with CREDIT; at least 2/3 of the American public now recognizes his responsibility is far more appropriately called BLAME.

During last week's appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, AG Gonzalez said this in reply to a question from Rep. Conyers:

"I have a lot of conversations with Mr. Rove, Mr. Chairman."

This, of course, was part of his amnesiac routine. (He might just as well have answered: "How can I tell you what we talked about on any particular date, since we're ALWAYS talking?")

It begs this question: What exactly IS involved in these frequent conversations with Mr. Rove? There are three deputy chiefs of staff in this White House -- Joe Hagin (Operations), Karl Rove (Strategic Planning) and Joel Kaplan (Policy). Seems obvious that Rove, who is also "Senior Advisor to the President", is nothing more than we've always suspected -- the chief political operative for Dubya. A deputy chief of staff for Operations or Policy would obviously have plausible and defensible reasons for speaking to various Cabinet departments.

However, call me naive, but the Strategic Planning (read "Political") guy really ought not to be having "a lot of conversations" with the Cabinet. So let's have these questions posed to Gonzalez -- what DO you and Rove talk about during these frequent talks? The weather? Sports? And how much do you interact with the other two deputy chiefs of staff, compared to Rove?

Are Democrats in the House or Senate talking to any Republicans about switching parties right now? I sincerely hope so.

Seems like it would be extremely smart to explore all such possibilities. Democrats could offer valuable political cover to sitting GOP members, especially those from "blue states" who can expect great difficulty being re-elected in 2008.

Multiple defections would also offset the effect of de facto Republican Sen. Joe Lieberman -- the leverage of this nauseating man could finally be erased.

Any rumors floating around about such discussions?