sub sole sub umbra virens

AH YES!

A new Deck of Cards, Andy.

and its "ON WITH THE SHOW"

BOLT on

BOLT off

GOOD UN

Bad UN

Bolton

GOOD UN

Boltoff or Cherchoff

After all Dad Bush(always CIA)has the A&M Corps and he can send A&M President Dr. Bob to Kissinger the Deal.

Kill more as we keep the public guessing as to what we will do to fix juniors folly. Heck what are a few more National Guardsmen who stop illegals from coming across from (your guess is as good as mine)! Not my kids says the Senate.

NOT MY KIDS SAYS DADDY and Junoir Bush. NOT MY KIDS say the Congress: yet each and every one waiting to come home are the kids of "WE THE PEOPLE": please get on with our business!

To HELL WITH IMPEACHMENT

ARREST BOTH JUNIOR BUSH and Richard Cheney as the "W" ar CRIMINAS that they are.

They have caused the DEATH of MORE WOMEN AND CHILDREN than Sadaam: and they are still allowed to be at it.

Who arrested Sadaam? Who will arrest GEORGE WALKER BUSH?

Who will arrest Dick Cheney?

WHO WILL STAND UP AS AN AMERICAN AND SEND THESE WAR CRIMINALS TO CUBA?

WE KNOW THEIR CRIMES, and we know where they are!

sub sole sub umbra virens

I'm no Donald Rumsfeld fan - I think he should have fired over a year ago. However, I can't help but have a knot in my stomach over the timing of his termination. Doesn't anyone question this?

The media was totally asleep when we were preparing to go to war in Iraq, taking everything this president had to say at face value. But I think you, the media, are getting duped again. I don't think Bush decided to allow the resignation of Rumsfeld because of the loss of the house and senate - I think he knew about it months ago and held off on it until after the election knowing the republicans were going to get tanked, especially in the house.

It seems to me that if George W. Bush really wanted to help republicans win the elections, he could have thrown out Rumsfeld BEFORE the election. Yes, that would have proven the Dems right but it may have set some minds at ease that we were actually going to try a different strategy in Iraq, one that might get us out of there, protect the Iraqi people and protect us in the long run. It may have saved a few seats, if Iraq was as big an issue as everyone says is was.

I think Bush didn't want the republicans to win. You know why? Immigration reform. He snookered us into going into Iraq and now he's going to do it again with immigration and the democrats are all too willing, if not giddy, at the opportunity to tap into this new voting block. Bush knew how unpopular this war is and how fellow party members and supporters were getting beaten up by their support for him and his terribly flawed policy. But, these are the same folks who have been fighting him tooth and nail on immigration reform. Coincidence?

I think the Bush administration left the die hard republicans out to dry just so he could get one more flawed policy in place. Wake up, Democrats! When George Bush and Nancy Pelosi agree on something, it can only be an unholy alliance that will sell us all down the river...it's not bi-partisanship. These are power-hungry, money-hungry wanna-be-kings who don't care one bit what their constituency wants - they want a legacy, power and control.

Benjamin and Sherer have an error in their otherwise excellent essay. Robert Gates actually did serve in the military. He was in the US Air Force for nearly as long a time as Donald Rumsfeld served in the US Navy. Of course, military service is not a requirement for the office of Secretary of Defense. At least half a dozen secretaries of defense never served in the armed services, including Dick Cheney. But if a candidate for that office has served, it should at least be properly reported.

>>But on the bright cynical side, they will probably be to busy fighting each other over there to have any energy left to fight us over here.<<

Gee, where have I heard a slightly different version of that argument before?

The first order of business for Gates must be to freeze all new military spending on new systems and projects not already in the production or maintenance pipeline. Maybe we don't need all the F-22's, Boomer subs, B2's and Nimitz class carriers on the schedule right now. Then they have to take that funding street and redirect it to lower tech spending to help men and women in Iraq right now until they are pulled out. Then in the next two years we need to have a top to bottom strategic posture review to re examine all military spending to identify where large scale cuts have to be made.

Leaving Iraq isn't going to solve the problem of spending 380 billion to be in Iraq. You DO understand that.

The US does NOT have a "lot" of oil with regard to how much we consume. You may say, "ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife Refuge) has LOTS of oil!" Yes, about 6 billion barrels, and it does sound like a lot, but when you consider that that is what the US uses in 12 months, we'd have to discover another ANWR every year for the next God-knows-how-long in order to be self sufficient as far as oil is concerned. Regardless, we import 55 percent of our oil now, so it is clear we need to find alternative sources of energy.

Fossil fuels are not the only source of energy. It pains me that, as we spend over 300 thousand dollars per minute in Iraq, we could have been going full steam ahead on alternative energy research and development. Private industries are working fast and furious on this, but a big boost from gov't money (our money) would really catapult the effort forward.

As long as oil is the chief means by which we transport ourselves, we will be be involved with oil wars. After all, oil revenue paid for the terrorist attack on 9/11 via Saudi Arabia.

Global warming is the second huge reason to get off the oil/natural gas/coal addiction. As long as we release the carbon (which has been locked up in the earth for millenia) into the atmosphere via internal combustion (at 70 million tons per day), we are really screwing up the planet.

So please, don't just think we can drill our way out of the oil addiction because we can't. The middle east truly does has "lots" of it, at least for now; it's up to us to find something else that is safer in all respects. Wouldn't if be great if we could say, "yeah, they have lots of oil, so what?"