That word would be "embolden." It's starting to rank right up there with the "-gate" suffix that historically was added far too often to most scandals, real or imagined.

Setting a date certain to withdraw from Iraq, for any reason, is "emboldening the enemy." Now removing Gonzales will "embolden the Democrats." Of course, to the WSJ, Democrat is considered a synonym for enemy -- so it's really the same thing, isn't it?

One of my favorite editorial cartoons of all time (don't recall who drew it) shows Uncle Sam swatting away hornets that came from a nest labeled "Iraq" after Dubya had just whacked it with the board in his hand. The Current Occupant is now studying a second hornets nest labeled "Iran" and says, "Hmmm -- you know, I don't like the looks of THAT one either!"

Just so. How sad for our armed forces and the people of Iraq that our so-called leaders didn't realize that they were emboldening the hornets of the region, which continue to swarm about all of our heads. By all means, let's whack Iran next and see exactly how many hornets we can swat at one time!

At least as far as George W. Bush is concerned, I propose another word for banishment -- that word is "hope".

That sounds far too negative and cynical to me too, folks -- let me explain before being lambasted.

Wouldn't it be instructive to do a Nexis search to see how often the President has used the word "hope" or "hopeful" in speeches or statements responding to various crises and issues, both here and around the world? I bet it would be hundreds of times. Heck, I'm all for hope -- who wants to carry on in any truly hopeless situation?

But Bush relies on his mantra of claiming there's hope for better times in New Orleans, that the Iraqi people are all hopeful that democracy will take hold, on and on. In essence, we should forget how crappy things are now because, gosh, we all do HOPE better times lie ahead, so things MUST get better, right?

After the first 10 or 20 or 50 times the word "hope" passes Bush's lips, you start to remember Clara Peller's famous line from those old Wendy's commercials: "Where's the beef?" Hope is fine, and it's necessary -- but it's NOT SUFFICIENT. At some time, you must have concrete results and real improvements; otherwise that invocation of "hope" is simply a sentimental ploy, and a means to deflect judgment about real blunders and omissions.

Mr. Bush, you are now officially proclaimed the first HOPELESS PRESIDENT. (Others can make anything they want of that statement, because it works on several different levels.)

...what we have here is a giant game of chicken.

Bush is betting he can convince the public that Congress is simply not "supporting the troops" when they attach an end date of any sort to a funding bill and approve it -- as though this were the same as not approving ANY funding bill! There is a smidgen of truth to this, but only in the sense that Congress knows Bush will veto it, and they can't yet muster the votes to override.

Congress, on the other hand, is counting on the larger truth to be heard by the public -- that they HAVE approved all the funding (and more) requested by the Current Occupant. His veto and the lack of GOP votes to override are all that stands between the troops everyone SAYS they support, and the money that they need.

So, who will blink first in this game of chicken? Who will swerve away before the otherwise inevitable collision? Bush's "political capital" so noisily proclaimed after his re-election is gone (assuming it ever existed) -- and his administration's credibility is approaching zero. He ain't gonna win this battle.

Congress can continue their approval of bill after bill, and can point to that historical record to refute claims that THEY are holding up funding, that THEY don't "support the troops." Bring it on, Mr. President, bring it on. You're on the wrong side, as last November's election results proved.

My luck, and everyone else's, ran out yesterday -- it may have happened earlier, I guess, but it's the first instance I've run across.

Daniel Schorr, NPR's senior news analyst, was discussing the ongoing affair over dismissal of the eight U.S. Attorneys on the 3/28 edition of "All Things Considered," and he actually called it this:

"Attorney-Gate"

*sigh*

...is this: Is it simply impermissible to question anything that the United States does, or to ask if there just MIGHT be other ways to look at problems than the way most of us (or our leaders) do?

Is it unacceptable "moral relativism" even to speculate about the attitudes of non-Americans towards us, or to (heaven forbid) consider that it's possible for them to disagree with American policy without being completely wrong, anti-American, supportive of terrorists and otherwise reprehensible?

Is it absolutely necessary to look at every issue as black-and-white, in the "either you're for us or you're against us" mindset?

Seems like the radical fringe of the American right wing would answer "YES!" to each variation of the same basic question listed above. Not too surprising, really -- freedom of speech has never been valued by either extreme of the political spectrum, when opinions veer from the orthodoxy of their own group.