Since when have the Generals had anything to do with setting troop levels? Just ask Gen. Shinseki about what happens when military and political realities clash.

If Bush thinks that announcing troop reductions in October will help with the mid-terms, they'll be announced. But, don't confuse the announcement with an actual reduction.

I think what the General is trying to say is that if you gave our Fearless Leader an infinite number of soldiers with an infinite number of M-16s, they'll eventually provide a democratic Iraq.

Of course, they'll need to write the complete works of Shakespeare first.

What the fascisti (yes I do mean "fascisti", they stopped being Republicans long ago) think that they can do to non-US citizens, they'll also try to do to the rest of us when they get around to it.

It won't all happen at once. They'll cloak the new police state in red, white, and blue and they'll try to put a smiley face on it, but in the end, the new rules will apply to us all. After all, "If you haven't done anything wrong, what have you got to hide?".

And precisely what was "nebulous" about what happened on 9/11, or the steady stream of videos by al Qaeda wackos declaring unending war on the West?

Well, while not nebulous, none of those things have caused the diminuition of democracy in the US.

Just as anaphylactic shock is a fatal reaction by the immune system to a substance that would cause no problem in a person without the sensitivity, the current administration has decided to hype the real, but minor, threat posed by Islamist whack-jobs to facilitate a power grab.

It's that grab and the attendant shredding of the Constitution that's killing democracy in the US by slow degrees.

... As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be take pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic]. (Letter to Joshua Speed, 1855).

A quote that I snagged from Wikipedia.

The subject was slightly different, but the sentiment is clear. Too bad what used to proudly, and with justification, called itself "The Party of Lincoln" has denigrated into what is little more than a latter day version of the Know-Nothings.

This, people, is how democracy ends. Not with a bang, but with a whimper, buried on page 81.

"To think that he didn't have weapons of mass destruction is pure lunacy," Boehner told Chris Matthews. "He had them. What did he do with them? We don't know."

Absolutely, the same kind if lunacy that leads millions of people to deny the monsters under their beds that have the ability to dissappear as soon as light hits them.

Leahy recounted that his weak-kneed Democratic colleagues also argue, "'We have to go along with it because we'll never be able to explain it back home.'" That prompted the Vermont senator to add, "Maybe one way to explain it is to say, 'I stood up for you and your rights.'"

Pat Leahy is absolutely correct.

One of my senators, Maria Cantwell, is in a tight race for her seat this year. The only explaining she'll need to do to me is to explain why she did not push for a fillibuster. Something tells me that her explanation will fall short. Not fillibustering is objectively the same as condoning torture.

I expect that I'll be voting for Aaron Dixon (Green Party) this year.

When a fillibuster is called for where are they? Covering their asses with ineffectual "No" votes and hoping the Supremes bail their cowardly asses out.

I've got news for the spineless wonders, an "enemy combatant" is anyone the SecDef says is an enemy combatant, regardless of nationality. They can use these measures against anyone they please.

One of my senators (Cantwell D-WA) is in a close race this November. If she doesn't support a fillibuster there's no real reason remaining that I shouldn't vote for Aaron Dixon, the Green candidate.

Although maybe not for the reason they'd like.

Given the absolute inability of anyone in this Misadministration to admit that George W. Bush has *ever* made a mistake on *anything*, it was an absolutely stupid question.

You know, I'm always a little suspicious of the "Spend more time with the family" reason, but in this case think that it has the ring of truth. Warner had as good a shot as anyone this far out and didn't seem to need to worry about skeletons in the closet, so I'll buy it. I can also understand it.

BTW Joe regarding:

... qualified, respected in the party and has clear opinions on what's wrong with the current admin but, just can't be bothered to take on the hard work.

Kinda sounds like the present occupant of the Oval Office except for the parts about qualified, respect, and having a clue about what's wrong with the current administration. I suppose it's just as well that W.can't be bothered to take on the hard work, or things would be even more SNAFU'd than they are.

There are plenty of Dems who can do the job, they don't all need to run at once.