...every day in Iraq is at best a step or two forward, and a step or two backward (even to an admiral in the U.S. Central Command).

And where does that repetitive back-and-forth motion leave you? All you do is wear an ever-deeper trench into the ground, and eventually you realize you're in a HOLE.

Oh, wait, that's EXACTLY where we are in Iraq -- in an ever-deeper hole, desperately hoping that tossing more American troops into that hole will help us climb OUT. Great strategery!

Strict politeness is no longer appropriate. All that's called for is due respect for a person and the office he/she temporarily holds, followed by blunt candor and truth-telling.

In the case of the Current Occupant, reasonable people can disagree over exactly how much respect is actually "due" him at this point. It won't be much longer before ANY reason for respect has vanished for a majority of Americans -- many have already reached that point.

Cut-and-pasted from the ever-useful Wikipedia:

-------------------

William Worth Belknap (September 22, 1829 – October 13, 1890) was a United States Army general, government administrator, and United States Secretary of War. He is the only Cabinet secretary ever to have been impeached by the United States House of Representatives.

- - -

He was impeached by a unanimous vote of the House of Representatives shortly after he had resigned for allegedly having received money in return for post tradership appointments.[1] Speaker of the House Michael C. Kerr wrote to the Senate that Belknap resigned "with intent to evade the proceedings of impeachment against him."[2] Belknap was tried by the Senate, which ruled by a vote of 37-29 that it had jurisdiction despite the resignation.[3] The vote on conviction fell short of the two-thirds required, with 35 to 37 votes for each article and 25 votes against each. Two of those voting for conviction, 22 of those voting for acquital, and one who declined to vote said they felt that the Senate did not have jurisdiction due to Belknap's resignation.[4]

Can anyone provide anything resembling an official job description for the position of US Attorney? Might be fun to compare and contrast that job description with the real picture that is emerging about Bush administration expectations for these officials.

And to beat a dead horse, weeks ago I modestly suggested that the standard oath of office administered to US Attorneys (and other executive branch officers) should be modified to reflect reality. All those who are actually expected to show primary allegiance to the President, rather than to the United States of America and its Constitution, ought to take an oath pledging to preserve, protect and defend the PRESIDENCY instead.

There's something to be said for honesty and transparency, instead of empty words and false promises, don't you think? It would be SO refreshing, as well as SO unusual.

...at worst, Rove just "mis-spoke" just like Gonzales has (repeatedly). There simply ARE no more lies, just slips of the lip and faulty memory.

Get over it, people. Reality is malleable. We all remember how it was reported by Ron Suskind in October 2004, right? Here's what the unnamed White House aide said:

"That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

That quote crystallizes perfectly the complete arrogance with which this administration governs. God help us, every one.

I've awaited a War Room item lacerating Sen. John McCain for his incredibly insensitive rendition of "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" that he attempted to sing to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann", but nothing has appeared yet. (Tim, how about it?)

McCain's spectacle has to rank right up there with Dubya's videotaped search for WMD's all around the Oval Office several years ago -- NOT funny in any sense, completely inappropriate, insensitive to families who've lost relatives in a war of choice in Iraq and therefore worthy of utter condemnation.

What I really want to know is this -- will the media plaster THIS abomination all over its news coverage of McCain, playing it ad nauseum, just like they played Howard Dean's "scream" over and over again after the 2004 Iowa primary? After all, which has some substance behind it, as an indication of likely policy and practice in office, and which is simply a momentary and insignificant slip?

He should try saying THAT to family members who've lost a loved one in Iraq (whether they're Americans, Iraqis, or any other nationality).

One life to a customer, Senator, one to a customer. What these families wouldn't give for "a life" right now -- or even one more HOUR with their loved ones!

MY outrage isn't burned out right now -- and those of us who have already realized McCain has totally lost it must recognize that a significant number of Americans evidently have NOT reached the same conclusion. Anything that drops the scales from their eyes is welcome.

As I'd suggested in an earlier response to another item, the media ought to give at least the same kind of overkill to McCain's gaffe as they did to Howard Dean's Iowa scream. It's only fair!