Let's face it, that's all this is.

Bush equivocates, claiming he is waiting for recommendations from Petraeus, or the general du jour, which will be a) the dictated reiteration of Bush's own evaluation and "plan" written by the White House and not the commander in the field or b) a plan which, if it veers even an atom from his dictates, will be completely ignored or denounced before it even sees the light of day.

And so, over and over, we wait to see who will blink. With a Congress that puts on a vociferous show, and in the end takes a dive into the comfortable realm of "what else can we do, we don't have the votes."

What they can do is stop worrying about looking like the bad guy. Most of us don't believe the neocon label of "not supporting the troops", why is Congress still scared to make Bush step up to the plate and show once and for all that HE is the one "not supporting the troops"?

Note to Congress: Call his bluff. Make him stand up and shout who he really is. We're all behind you.

But know this...if you don't, there are e-mails arriving at my desk daily that show organizations intent on revoking the trust we placed in you.

We voted you in...we will vote you out. The sad thing is that none of you seem to care how many more dead kids will be returning to grief-stricken parents in the meantime.

Thanks for the behind-the-bluster look at Mark (looks more like John Lovitz than John Wayne) Hemingway.

Yep, yep, yep.

Unfortunately, his parents never did it, the Texas National Guard never did it, his partners never did it, the Supreme Court didn't do it, and now the Congress isn't doing it.

Is it any wonder that all the leader of the greatest power (or was) in the world can bring himself to say on the diplomatic global stage is something worthy of an uninformed 15 year-old?

His tragic case of arrested development rests on so many shoulders it is impossible to name them all.

He has gone beyond bullying drunk, narcissistic punk, lazy and irresponsible businessman, corrupt politician and callous human being to something sinister and devastating.

He is killing people. He shows no remorse, no responsibility, no concern.

Now we know the only part of his miserable life that he can call on as President. George W. Bush...with a megaphone...from the sidelines...."we're kicking ass". Beer at my place.

Instead of "we regret to inform you"...let's start those dreaded visits off with a cheer from George, instead.

to read about the life and times of J. Edgar Hoover to see the creative ways domestic spying can be brought to bear on Americans who have differing political ideals, are campaigning against your candidate or sleeping with your sister, or are just plain annoying.

Or to read about the McCarthy era to see how applying a label (communist then, terrorist now) can allow those with overreaching power, and greed for more, to ruin the lives of harmless Americans.

And now we have a whole legion of David Addington's and 21st Century tools. Woohoo. Somewhere in the basement of the White House, someone is salivating. And waiting for that bomb.

The GOP definition (along with Craig and his family)is "being in the wrong place at the wrong time."

Works in practically any situation but Iraq.

There are plenty of us who think that the GOP represents a huge part of what is wrong with American ideals, ethics and agenda. And yet we still think that illegal immigration is a problem that needs enforcement.

It doesn't need to be dealt with by sappy "poor brown-skinned people need our sympathy" approaches as one poster suggests. Nor by "illegal immigrants have rights too". They don't. The only legitimate right they have as an illegal non-citizen is to go home.

If I illegally enter another country, I can expect to be imprisoned and/or sent home. If I try to get a job as a non-citizen in most European countries, I am prohibited, except under special circumstances that have everything to do with putting the rights of that country's own citizens first.

The biggest problem with Alex Koppelman's article is the blatant portrayal of his own assumptions as fact.

And dissembling. Following an account of rabid support for the agents, he reveals that the question posed for viewers was:

"Do you believe the Justice Department should be giving immunity to illegal alien drug smugglers in order to prosecute U.S. Border Patrol agents for breaking administrative regulations? ... Yes or no."

Who would think that illegal drug dealers should get a pass for "administrative" screw-ups by border agents?

This story is being told as though both sides are larger than life in the "righteousness" of their position.

Some border agents said a fleeing drug dealer had "something shiny" in his hand. They didn't say he had a gun. The suspect was an illegal alien with a van full of drugs. The agents covered up their ineptitude. Fourteen shots without a hit. The suspect's mother-in-law is indignant. The officers are given 10 years, the suspect is uncharged.

There is indeed something wrong with this. On both sides. Illegal immigration problems are not going to be solved by sending feckless agents to prison, or letting drug-smuggling illegal aliens go free because no one can prove he wasn't armed.

For this to become the defining standard of a cause on either side is absurd...

...as ridiculous as Alex Koppelman's assertion that wanting a clampdown on the flood of illegal immigration is the domain of the far right, and that those who want it stopped are "anti-immigration."

A van full of drugs. A fleeing illegal. This is not a question of "anti-immigration" posturing, Alex.