Look, anyone who's been paying attention might have noticed the following: George Bush has not changed his position, but he has added new phrases to address his poll numbers.

Consider his first speechs, all about spreading freedom to Iraq and how 9/11 changed things and Saddam was going to attack us. Then he took a dive in the polls. His advisors suggested, after sedating Cheney, that he acknowledge that Iraq is going through tough times. They tell him to include in his speech a word or two about how he understands the trouble in Iraq. Then the press conference goes like this: He gives the exact same speech, but adds a sentence at the end of each answer stating that he understands times are hard. No matter what any reporter asked him, "Iraq, Afganistan, GATT treaty, global warming... the coda was the same "I understand that times are hard and there is suffering happening. Allawi, who's this Iraqi guy says suffering is happening. I understand and I care about suffering. I'm saying it so it must be true."

He gets a bump in the polls which then take another nose dive with new bombings and talk about civil war. The MSM start to question whether he is being realistic about his approach to the war in Iraq (a ephemism for "Is this president insane?") His advisors look at the poll numbers he himself never looks at and suggest that he address the fact he is being 'realistic' in dealing with Iraq.

The result: George Bush gives the same speech he's given since 2003 and amended by adding his "understanding of the suffering" in 2005 and then adds one more sentence: "Look, I'm being realistic."

Yes, that is our president, that is our foreign policy: An unrealistic statement of how we control reality and the world and, when confronted by true reality, appending our statement with the words "I understand the suffering" and "I am being realistic." This is the response of someone who lives only be polls, but never by reality.

The problem I have with Joseph Smith's responses are two-fold:

First, in any debate when a person suddenly discovers he has no foot to stand on he attacks his debator. In law we say 'When you don't have a case, attack the plaintiff.' Confronted by Anonymous's call asking you to explain what Iraq had to do with 9/11 you stuttered, stammered, then attacked anonymous for being anonymous.

Do you really think my name is Dawggone? I surely don't believe you are the heir of the Morman church. Joseph Smith is a psuedonym you created and to attack anonymous for being "anonymous" is to give lie to your own position. In short, you are a liar.

Second, your plea to sympathy does not trump truth.

Maybe you did lose people in 9/11. I personally doubt it. I think you are trying to garner sympathy but let us assume you actually did lose friends. Let us also assume you are a neo Nazi and your Neo Nazi friends rented an office in the WTC to spread their message of continuing genocide against Jews, only to be hoisted upon your own petard by a couple of planes piloted by antizionists. Should I feel sympathy and agree with whatever crazy opinion you have merely because your family or friends died at the WTC?

I have no idea what your politics are or what you believe since you have not offered anything but personal attacks and pleas to sympathy.

What does matter, both to me, to anonymous and to all other writers, is this. Why will you not address or acknowledge that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? Would you feel the same had we invaded Canada over 9/11? Do you have any idea that perhaps 9/11 was used as an excuse to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11?

She wrote a check to her son. Then she had her lackeys spin it. Nuff said.

If the Dems don't run ads contrasting Mehlman's hystrionic blatherings with clips of Joseph Goebbels they are missing one incredible opportunity to point out what is really wrong with this administration. If Lincoln is right than this hopefully will be the year all the people cannot be fooled all the time.

Here is a perfect opportunity to point out that people who ran and hid behind deferrments in the sixties have no business running a war.

Please, somebody call the Daily Show and Colbert Report and get those ads going.

Sweet. The internet is mighter than the plagiarizing pen! Nice to see it is a double edged sword that cuts both ways (Jayson Blair is sending over a scotch on the rocks). Now, maybe, just maybe, WAPO.com will hire a conservative who not only believes in his ideologies tenets of fiscal restraint, personal liberty and privacy, and avoiding foreign entanglements, but will actually call his party members and the Prez to account for their transgressions. "Right wing" pundits seem more as groveling sycophantic apologists for this administration and congress than true spokespersons for their cause. Hopefully someone at WAPO will discern the difference.

As for Domenech (if that really is his name) all I can say is that his "vile lies" should be given "no quarter." And I say that in my own words. I didn't borrow them from anyone, honest.