No doubt Dubya is losing sleep over Baker's coming report. I find it hard to imagine that anything coming out of the ISG will sound like anything other than something coming from his own father's dissappointed mouth.

Bush 41 would not have sent Prince Bandar to teach Bush 43 about world affairs if it weren't clear the son wasn't going to take any advice from the father. Now he is expected to take advice from the father by proxy. Blumenthal's right; it's not going to happen.

He'd rather be wrong than be less a the man than his father.

However, Dubya is less the man than himself. He could never defy Baker or the ISG by himself. He'll need someone to do it for him. He is a president insulated by a small group that surrounds him like Biosphere II. Nothing gets in or out without the closed circle of friends opening the door. This is why he won't fire Rumsfeld. That would require bringing in someone he would not or could not trust to protect him and his remaining advisors.

That leaves the question of who will tell Dubya what to do or say to counter Baker's Iraq Study Group's recommendations. I don't trust Dubya to come up with his own solution. Right now he is stomping around the oval office, probably demanding Kissinger get on his knees with him and pray to his Father (Kissinger wondering what he did in life to deserve this deja vu) and find a way to rid him of this Baker sent by his father.

Or it could be Cheney, Rove, Condi Hadley someone.

The next question in this Shakespearian tragedy is who will be telling George the son how to ignore the Iraq Study Group. That's the person behind the throne.

Seeing as Osama and jihadists have had it pretty smooth sailing since 9/11 the country could definitely use the right government in place; if only to put an end to this culture of fear.

Thanks for reminding us to vote Democrat, bestiality boy.

If statements of congressmen shouldn't be used against them, why can the RNC use their votes against them?

It's the very reason the GOP led congress floats pointless flag burning and defense of marriage bills; just to use the votes of any Democrat against them in the next election.

Up here in Vermont the GOP candidate Rich Tarrant has been running a TV blitz accusing Bernie Sanders of supporting baby rapers because he voted against a bill titled as defense of children, but actually a trojan horse for an amendment that granted huge tax cuts for the rich.

Stuff like this is happening in most every congressional and democratic race and the Dems are finally getting their chance calling out the GOP incumbents for their support of now disasterous votes on Iraq and the Medicaid Bill.

And, if posting their inane blatherings on the house floor might actually shut a few of these gasbags up, or at least make them think before they speak, so much the better.

So George Bush, who has built his reputation on sending young men and women to foreign countries to fight and die for our right to choose our leaders, is now running around the country telling us that if we exercise our right to choose anyone but his choices, the terrorists will kill us.

Aside from the obviously totalitarian like message here, the lack of outrage from both the Dems and the media heads is alarming.

This is supposed to be a "clash of civilizations?" The ultimate fight against good and evil? If voting Democrat is voting for evil and against civilization, then why have elections at all? Why not just abolish elections and declare himself "supreme leader of freedom and good" when the risks of a real democracy are so apocalyptic?

Why isn't anyone by Jon Stewart asking this question?