We didn't have someone specified as the "War Czar" during THAT war, so how did we and the Allies EVER manage to do it, anyway? Hmmm. We had a War Department back then, headed by a Secretary of War, didn't we? Not a squishier "Defense Dept.", but a real War Dept.

Of course, even more importantly, we had a real President back then too. *sigh*

I wonder -- if we went into a major conflict with a clear understanding that it meant full-scale war -- not a cake walk, with residents greeting us with candy and flowers -- but WAR, would we be a bit more selective and focused? Fighting only those wars that are necessary, unavoidable and WINNABLE?

You know what just came to mind? Those old Bugs Bunny cartoons, in which Bugs had just gotten to the end of his rope with some irritating character. He looks sternly at the audience, waves a forefinger in the air, and says in his best Brooklyn accent, "You realize, of course, dat DIS means WAR!" Ah, for such clarity and focus...sad to realize that a cartoon might provide a better model than real life has recently.

Second verse, same as the first. Mr. Tobias "did not have sexual relations" with the rent-a-masseuse gals. Sure, who wouldn't believe that? Guess it all depends on your definition of "sex", doesn't it?

As Yogi Berra famously put it (in a TOTALLY different context, of course): It's deja vu, all over again.

Neither the discussion of firing U.S. attorneys, nor their actual dismissal, is likely illegal on its face.

However, as was pointed out ad nauseum during the Lewinsky affair, lying under oath IS illegal, and impeachable to boot.

Being a political process, the bar for impeachment is different, and in a real way, lower than for purely legal matters. As we all should have learned during Watergate, it's the COVERUP, stupid. It's patently obvious that many in the Bush administration have lied their rear ends off, from Gonzalez' early denials of involvement, to claims by him and many others that they "couldn't remember", during investigation of this matter.

...we have the testimony of Laura Bush earlier this week that NO ONE suffers more about our presence in Iraq than our President and the First Lady.

Honestly, does even one person (who hasn't been clinically diagnosed as mentally ill) seriously believe that? Even ONE?

Oh, sure -- Dubya ponders the wonders and terrors he's wrought, night and day. No doubt he thinks his drunken threat to go "mano a mano" with his disapproving father years ago was similar to the dangers awaiting our combat forces in Iraq. He can RELATE, man, he can RELATE.

Pardon me while I vomit repeatedly.

He started out all wrong with "And I think...", but quickly got it right again when he continued "I don't think..."

No, he does NOT think; he parrots, and repeats, and distorts, and obfuscates, but above all, LIES.

That discussion occurred long ago, Farnsworth, and it's settled.

No, we're not a pure democracy -- we're a democratic republic, with an amendable Constitution limiting what can and cannot be done by the people and government at all levels.

For better or worse -- and those "worse" times include the moments when we might choose to elect the wrong person, or vote to approve/disapprove a tax levy, etc. -- in the end, the PEOPLE decide. That's the price we pay for those democratic elements, and that's also the beauty of our system. We're ALLOWED to make mistakes, if in fact our choices turn out to be mistakes. A certain level of mistakes is obviously to be expected.

But we're not always wrong -- and the bottom line is, WE THE PEOPLE get to choose. If you're longing for smoothly running government and society, no doubt a "benevolent dictatorship" looks mighty attractive -- assuming only benevolent and qualified people run things. Other than in a fantasy world, it ain't gonna happen; it CAN'T happen in the real world.

We should rejoice in that truth. How did Churchill put it? "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Exactly.

Wouldn't it be interesting if people serving in high office in this, or any, administration showed a little contemporaneous integrity -- not this 20/20 hindsight pseudo-integrity that has emerged all too often recently? Oh, yeah, such delayed integrity sells books and gives face time on 60 Minutes and other news programs -- but just as we say that "justice delayed is justice denied", I have little time for slow integrity that has allowed countless but predictable deaths to occur. In such cases, silence is anything but golden -- it's deadly, and those who could speak up but refuse are COMPLICIT in those deaths.

Wouldn't it be great if even ONE official in the Bush administration (yes, Colin Powell, I'm talking to YOU) had resigned from office -- publicly, proudly and LOUDLY -- over some matter of principle? This happens all the time in Great Britain and other countries, yet for some reason, rarely if ever in the U.S.

Do cabinet secretaries and lower level officials really believe the oath of office each one utters when being installed -- that they pledge support and allegiance to the country and our Constitution, NOT to this or any President? Don't they recognize that there IS a difference between support and first allegiance to the country and our Constitution, rather than the President?

Just asking.

...then his irony is WAY too subtle for this reader. Not one ounce of irony, humor or anything else a reasonably intelligent person could glean, at least from his latest posts.

In any case, there ARE people who truly believe what he's saying. And he (or others) can SAY that Democrats want to pull out of Afghanistan, or that they never wanted to go in in the first place.

There is, as I said and repeat now, NO EVIDENCE of this.