...everyone should be aware of this exchange from NPR's "Diane Rehm Show" earlier this week:

- - - - - -

REHM: It’s my understanding that the National Intelligence Estimate — that now at least two months overdue — is going to suggest that adding troops is the wrong way to go, that it’s not going to improve the situation. Why has that NIE been delayed for so long? And was it deliberately delayed until after the election — after President Bush’s speech last night?

VIN WEBER: I don’t know. I doubt it. I mean, I don’t often buy into conspiracy theories in Washington. There’s too many reporters that uncover those.

REHM: Do you question that John?

JOHN PODESTA: Well, you know it was due in August. I think when they want to get something out, they get it out. And when they want to have more review, they have more reviews. So I think at this point that the Congress demand that that NIE be completed and provided to the Congress.

- - - - - -

Is there a single sane person who doubts that the entire Bush administration is prepared to do and say ANYTHING to achieve its goals? That it believes ANY means are justified to achieve its pre-conceived ends? That their ideology allows them to lie, subvert the law, stall, obfuscate, and generally do whatever the hell they want to do? That they will continue to do this until and unless they are out of power?

The only remaining question -- when will the real patriots in this country finally assert themselves and END this administration's reign of death and destruction? Will we have to wait until January 2009, when the next President takes office, or (please God, let it be so!) will it happen sooner?

Recall that real surge of wishful thinking back in 2000, when people actually talked about Al Gore and John McCain joining forces as a truly bipartisan "unity ticket"? Of course, that was back when there was a belief that Sen. McCain was actually a Straight Talker, as his campaign tried to frame his candidacy. Gee, that WAS a long time ago, wasn't it? Seems almost like there are at least two John McCains wandering around out there.

What the heck, let's indulge in more wild speculation -- how about a Hagel-Webb ticket? (Or a Webb-Hagel ticket, if you prefer...)

Now THAT would be a Straight Talking pair, at least as far as this misbegotten war in Iraq is concerned! Sweet...

To be completely cynical, could it be that the administration made the conscious decision to suppress the truth of this horrible incident, since it occurred just prior to both Dubya's SOTU address and the Senate Foreign Relations committee vote on its anti-surge resolution? Could it BE that political timing was coming into play?

Wait just a minute, maybe that isn't CYNICISM -- maybe it's the voice of experience talking to all of us. Been there, done that, Mr. President: "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice -- we won't get fooled again." Look at the deception surrounding Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan. This administration knows no shame -- they're prepared to use even the death of troops in political ways, and to feel GOOD about it.

My earlier post notwithstanding, I'm certainly not endorsing Hagel for President at this early date.

However, I think you miss how the political equation would change with an anti-Iraq-war person in the White House. Sure, Hagel has mostly "conservative Republican" credentials. But I'm going to base the following comments on a pretty good assumption -- Democrats are going to control Congress for the next two years, and are likely to increase that majority in 2008 if the war in Iraq continues that long (God forbid!).

None of the radically conservative notions you ascribed to Hagel are going to be enacted by any Democratic Congress in upcoming years. Conversely, since this Congress is reluctant to assert whatever power it has to end our deep involvement in Iraq, we evidently will be mired there indefinitely, until and unless the PRESIDENT decides to act. Thanks for being overly deferential, Congress!

The way the pieces of this puzzle are now laid out, the one piece that's missing is a sane, rational and effective President. Sure, Bush (or any Republican president) can wield the veto pen to stop reforms coming out of Congress -- but that will only last as long as a veto-proof majority isn't cobbled together, perhaps a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans.

In any case, I'm less afraid of a conservative President who does NOT favor involvement in Iraq than I am of someone like Bush, given that Congress so far is unwilling to "go nuclear" with this President.

There was a passage in this year's SOTU address that really struck me, but I've seen zero commentary anywhere about it. This is a prime opportunity to vent on the topic. Dubya was justifiably bemoaning the use and abuse of earmarks by Congress when he said:

"You didn't vote them into law. I didn't sign them into law. Yet, they're treated as if they have the force of law. The time has come to end this practice."

Seems to me that his words are even MORE appropriate as an unintended self-criticism of his own heavy use of so-called signing statements. Why no real legal challenge to this extra-constitutional and unconstitutional practice has occurred escapes me. Yes, I know other presidents have issued signing statements -- but the Bush administration obviously favors this practice far more than any other, and has honed it well, turning laws on their collective ears.

It should stop. Period.