King? Maybe a little bit of hyperbole. But the examples you cite are either things Dick Cheney really didn't want or international issues they only wish they could control. How many times have you been shocked at what they've done? What price have they paid thus far?

Granted, the dem majority is changing the equation, but if you think Congress can control the terms of a troop withdrawl or an attack on Iran, you haven't been paying attention. They cannot do anything to prempt either, except by extraordinary means.

We were talking about Bush as King or dictator or absolute ruler without serious accountability or effective checks on his power, not individual (and clearly important) issues on which he currently appears to have more power than his opponents. And I see no reason to view him as any of the former. Not now, not in the past, and certainly not in the future.

He still holds power, but it is waning, not waxing, with little to no likelihood of returning, absent some extraordinary series of events (which I wouldn't discount, but resorting to a diablo ex machina expectation is rather weak and uninteresting), and dependant on being able to game the political system in ways that will soon prove to be all but impossible, for the reasons that I outlined in previous comments.

You're simply another one of the "argument by cynicism" folks who view the still relatively recent past (6 years is nothing in the overall timespan of our country's evolution) as a sure indicator of the long-term future. If everyone was this simplistically and defiantly cynical, we'd still be a British colony--how laughably naive of those head in the clouds rebels to think that they could secede from the kingdom and actually make it work! Or those crazy abolitionists, suffragettes and civil rights protesters! What naive utopia did THEY live in?!?

Oh, wait, I forgot, this time everything's different. Really, it is.

Yeah, it always is, when it's easier to say so instead of examine the details.

Absolute cynicism is always appealing to some, because it's lazy and easy. But rarely correct.

We're in the middle of a major historical crisis, and have been for over 6 years. We may survive it, or we may not. But to declare at the outset that we won't is, well, unfounded.

Like I said, lazy.

So why do the troops hate America? Why do Americans hate America?

Now waving the flag, getting rip roaring drunk on cheap domestic beer and pigging out on hot dogs over an expensive outdoor grill without a care in the world--now THAT'S truly American!

Now if only those traitorous troops only knew that--it's what they're fighting for, after all!

Always have, always will. It's fully warranted, necessary and, I think, increasingly possible. But to view it--or, more extremely, a coup or revolution--as the ONLY possible solution at this point is to essentially cede victory to Bush & Co. We have a number of options, some spectacular, some more boring and technical, to meaningfully get the troops out of Iraq and prevent yet other disasters. To throw out all but the most charged and attention-getting of them is to needlessly make things easier for the other side and harder for ours.

Don't empty our quiver and look for some magical bullet to save things. This will be won--if it can and will be won--by a gradual chipping away at their edifice, perhaps culmination with some spectacular event like impeachment, but not necessarily so. No great struggle--and this is clearly one--was one overnight, with one or two major initiatives. The Revolutionary, Civil and two World Wars, the civil rights struggle, etc., all too years and much effort.

This has been and will be no diffeent. We're going against over 40 years of entrenched and highly organized, disciplined and powerful forces, and it's naive to have expected us to win so quickly and easily. I yet hold out hope for impeachment, but as the culmination, not primary mover, of the effort to deprive this administration of its ability to cause yet more damage. Plus, as they say, we don't have the votes--yet. I'm trying to explain how to get them.

Patience, determination, persistence. It's what will win this for us in the end, if anything will.

Hegel can make all the noises he wants but he will never be elected president.

Especially since he's been dead for over a century and wasn't even born in the US.

Sorry, couldn't resist, and I needed some comic relief...

I just posted a comment on DailyKos regarding a photo caption in a small proto montage on the NY Times web site that I found rather objectionable, and completely in line with the meme that Glenn addressed about how there's this perception that opposing the war/occupation means not supporting the troops:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/5/27/231532/979/38#c38

For those without the time or inclination to view the link, the gist of it is that there's a photo of a group of people peacefully protesting the war standing in front of an old building in a small town in Delaware, and on the other side of the street is an older man, holding a sign that apparently indicates his support for the troops. The caption under the photo reads:

Jeffery Broderick, foreground, stood alone in Lewes, Del., last week in support of United States troops as demonstrators for peace occupied an opposite corner.

I.e. "demonstrators for peace" (let alone anti-war activisits) are obviously and unquestioningly not "in support of United States troops"--you're either for the war or against the troops.

Sigh. Even apparently unintentionally, the MSM reveals its unconscious biases.