Sen. Webb's pointed and heart-felt response to Bush's SOTU address reminds me of another historical incident -- the response made by attorney Joseph Welch to Sen. Joe McCarthy's irresponsible attacks on Fred Fisher, a junior attorney in Welch's firm.

Totally different circumstances, of course, but Welch's memorable line ("Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?") would have been entirely appropriate last night, had Webb decided to include it.

Webb's vow regarding Bush's promise to find a new way to success in Iraq ("If he does not, we will be showing him the way.") merits inclusion with Welch's slap-down of McCarthy.

According to news reports this morning, Ohio's George Voinovich, now our senior Senator since the defeat of Mike DeWine, has joined a growing number of at least 8 Republicans who back a Senate resolution against Dubya's Iraq "surge"!

Best news I've heard so far today -- I'd suspected days ago that he might join other Republicans-with-a-brain and ditch Bush's misguided plan. Some might accuse him of simply sticking his finger into the wind, following the polls; that may be true, but he did show real evidence of a conscience as Ohio's governor in the 1990's.

I'll assume it's a real conversion until proven otherwise -- but WHATEVER caused it, let's be GLAD! Now, all we need is that delegation of senior Republicans going to the White House, as they did in 1974, informing Nixon that he was finished during the Watergate scandal.

History may be repeating itself in a very real way, very soon.

Since former Sen. Bill Frist was so ADEPT at making a diagnosis via videotape (remember Terri Schiavo?), some enterprising reporter should ring him up and ask:

"Hey, Bill, what do YOU think? Is Bush's presidency on life support, or should we just forget our lying eyes one more time?"

You gotta see War Room today if you think Salon is neglecting Webb's GREAT Democratic rebuttal to Dubya's SOTU address!

(Apologies for doing it twice, but I'd posted this to another War Room item earlier today and it's much more appropriate here!)

According to news reports this morning, Ohio's George Voinovich, now our senior Senator since the defeat of Mike DeWine, has joined a growing number of at least 8 Republicans who back a Senate resolution against Dubya's Iraq "surge"!

Best news I've heard so far today -- I'd suspected days ago that he might join other Republicans-with-a-brain and ditch Bush's misguided plan. Some might accuse him of simply sticking his finger into the wind, following the polls; that may be true, but he did show real evidence of a conscience as Ohio's governor in the 1990's.

I'll assume it's a real conversion until proven otherwise -- but WHATEVER caused it, let's be GLAD! Now, all we need is that delegation of senior Republicans going to the White House, as they did in 1974, informing Nixon that he was finished during the Watergate scandal.

History may be repeating itself in a very real way, very soon.

My earlier kind words for Sen. Voinovich are hereby retracted -- he caved, and failed to support the measure rebuking Bush's Iraq escalation. He may, of course, support an even weaker gesture of disapproval, but I'm disgusted with George's lack of spine today.

For the record, here are the Republicans who did NOT follow Sen. Hagel's lead:

Richard Lugar (Indiana)

Norm Coleman (Minnesota)

Bob Corker (Tennessee)

John Sununu (New Hampshire)

George Voinovich (Ohio) *SIGH*

Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)

Jim DeMint (South Carolina)

Johnny Isakson (Georgia)

David Vitter (Louisiana)

I propose that constituents from each state "represented" by each of these Profiles in Courage should flood their respective offices with strong messages of disapproval.

It's called "Good Cop, Bad Cop" -- with only one slight change -- now it's "Good Cop, VERY VERY VERY BAD Cop".

Kind of takes the shine off the making-nice facade Dubya tried to erect last night, doesn't it? Does this surprise ANYONE? It shouldn't. The only surprise might be how briefly Cheney allowed the afterglow to last. How many hours after the SOTU speech was it -- even 12?

Sad. Sweet words last night notwithstanding, Bush/Cheney have NO interest in real discussion, consultation or cooperation with any Congress.

It's on CNN right now -- 4 PM eastern -- the interview is to be spread out over the next 2 hours of the "Situation Room" program hosted by Wolf Blitzer.

...probably in condensed form, compared to being spread out during 4 to 6 PM edition.

First segment is absolutely priceless -- Cheney is overbearing, condescending, dismissive and obnoxious. In other words, a perfect SNAFU -- situation normal, all f****d up.

Wolf Blitzer must have an awfully long fuse -- I'd be unable to avoid exploding in the face of this particular "gentleman", were I unlucky enough to be in the same room with him.

"The Pentagon tells the Times that former secretaries are entitled to a transition office and staff in order to sort through their papers." THEIR papers???

Here's a question for some historian out there -- when and why did it become the case that an officeholder (elected or otherwise) owns or otherwise controls his/her papers? What was the logic behind this? In ANY other employment venue, the employer owns and controls job-related documents -- not so, obviously, for government employment!

The evolution of so-called "Presidential Libraries" is probably entangled with this phenomenon. But how does the theory about Presidential papers extend to cabinet secretaries? Why should the Sec. of Defense have rights to control "his" papers -- he's an employee of the federal government, so all Americans are in essence his employer.

Sorry if this is a naive question, but I'd really like to know! (The simple answer will probably be, Congressional laws and Presidential executive orders cobbled this "system" together bit-by-bit over many years.)

Obviously, it must be HERSELF. So, as the old saying goes, we know what you are; now we're just haggling over the price.