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?"

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.

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.

Why, you ask, would Dubya be MORE exuberant and active, when his poll numbers are tanking?

Our highly intellectual President is simply invoking Newton's Third Law, just like we all learned in physics class -- for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The strong anti-Bush poll numbers could hardly garner a MORE opposite reaction from a President, now could they? And everybody acts like he's STUPID or something!

Yes, of course we openly supported Saddam Hussein after he took absolute power in Iraq, specifically supporting Iraq over Iran during their war -- I said exactly that in my earlier question.

I still have seen no persuasive evidence we were a significant backer of the Ba'athist party when it took power in Syria or Iraq -- where does your information come from? Yes, they were anti-Communist, but more specifically pushed pan-Arab unity, something we did not particularly favor, then or now.

More accurately, anyone who believes Dubya's low poll numbers might affect his behavior or policies have confused him with someone who actually cares what the public thinks. He's still living off his non-existent "political capital", not recognizing that he's been bankrupt in every sense for quite some time.

Um, what evidence do you have that the U.S. put Saddam Hussein in power? I've never seen any history of the region claiming THAT.

As the old saying goes, for years "he may have been a bastard, but he was OUR bastard" -- meaning, of course, we supported him for various strategic and geo-political reasons, regardless of how horrible he was when considered in isolation. (And we all remember Jeane Kirkpatrick's philosophy about preferring authoritarians over totalitarians!)

We certainly "tilted" to Iraq during its war with Iran, and there's always that classic photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam.

Of course, we DID aid and abet Pinochet's rise to power against the democratically elected Chilean government -- something I don't think we did during Saddam Hussein's ascent in Iraq.

That question: Is Iraq a truly sovereign country?

The obvious answer: No.

There were ripples of independence from Maliki and hints of actual Iraqi sovereignty over recent weeks, but this puts to rest any such ideas. Maliki has said he doesn't particularly want more American troops -- and the earlier pre-condition that Iraq must also put up additional troops isn't going to stop us from doing exactly what Dubya wants.

Put another way, Maliki has zero control over this American escalation. His only leverage might have been a refusal to provide the necessary Iraqi troops; we see today that the prime minister has no voice and no role in this "surge".

How stupid I was to think Iraq's puppet government was exercising any real sovereignty!

It's called the UNITED STATES CONGRESS. And every tool needed to investigate, monitor, oversee and control an out-of-control President already exists, up to and including impeachment and removal from office.

As Dorothy learned in Oz, "You've always had the power, but you had to learn it yourself." My GOD, these members of Congress are slow learners, aren't they? After the debacle of the Clinton impeachment, it's understandable that future Congresses would be trigger-shy, but unilateral disarmament by refusing to exercise its power is actually surrender to an out-of-control Dubya.

Click those ruby slippers, Congress. Come home. DO THE JOB EACH OF YOU PLEDGED TO DO WHEN TAKING THE OATH OF OFFICE.

Anyone want to guess whether this "incident" also turns out to be -- now how was it put when the so-called Sears Tower bombers were snagged in Florida? Oh, yes -- "more aspirational than operational"?

You'd think they could be more creative, coming up with something less mundane than "slipping into the U.S. on student visas", wouldn't you? Something like the suitcase atomic bombs on this season's "24", for example.

Just another failure of imagination by this administration...

BOO! Are we all scared yet, America?