In an effort to recreate the failed Reagan-Bush dynasty sucession, the most recent incarnation of political criminals have simply rung off the same sophist arguments. "We are great, they are not." The names the faces the slogans are nothing more than the recycled jargon supplied by from the power of the oligarchs. Bush 2.0 is the ultimate representative for Scaife and Coors, because he knows nothing, cares for no one, and gets angry at so called acts of insubordination.

In the Le Carre novel "Smiley's People", George Smiley explains to an operative about the villain Karla, "You know why they call him the Sandman? He has a way of putting to sleep everyone who comes near him." Sound familiar, Libby, Safarian, Browne, Powell, McClellan, O'Neil, Witman, Ridge, Clarke and on... In case anyone has forgotten, this crime family has 3 more years of planning with heads of industry to dole out resources, illegally or not. So lets start the parade to jailhouse and let all those Naderites who bought the fatuous arguement that centrism means no ethical difference between Gore and Bush rejoin the fight for democracy.

Please keep in mind the true historical perspective for Democratic support of the Iraqi invasion.

Two main points:

1) Wrong or Weak Intelligence promoted: Congress, pressured for a pre-election vote to authorize the use of force, was given (fed) filtered intelligence reports (48 hours before the vote)which had cautionary qualifiers/modifiers of the reporters (analysts) removed. So, if someone said "possibly caches of weapons," the modifier was removed. The result was a stronger certainty commumicated than really existed. A recent comparison of the actual intelligence documents to the administration's congressional hand-out has shown this to be true.

2) No "Declaration of War" was authorized: The promise of the administration was to take the congressional authorization for force (not declaration of war, as it is conveniently remembered) before the UN for a vote by the Security Council prior to any invasion. Not only was there never a vote requested, our case before the UN is the lead bit on the Colin Powell blooper reel...self admitted. The president can't authorize war...it's a congressional power.

How, then was the war not started by a cabal?

Once again, the Bush Doctrine has been revealed...

"I'll take it under revisement."

I am sure that a lot of us have had some of the same thoughts about this administration as Blumenthal's. It is also important to remember, that Hitler/Goebbels used Ludendorf's argument to support their political program. Now it seems that Bush/Rove are doing the same thing. Its all there for anyone to see, the hyper-masculinity-macho-military worship from basically very feminine men, the only difference is that Hitler really did win his Iron Cross for bravery in a real battle, not strutting across the deck of an aircraft carrier.

Even though he paints a grim picture the fact that the facts are being clearly stated gives me hope that endless limitless lying will not ultimately succeed.

Good Day,

With the exception of the Supreme Court choices I was wondering why the democrats wanted to win the last election. As events from the last couple of weeks have shown Bush's right wing base makes it very hard to appeal to the American center. The only thing that made it possiblefor Bush and Rove to rule was September 11th. Remember China and the trifecta comment from years gone bye. People forget how broke our foreign policy was before September 11. Bush's comment about the trifecta shows how he understood America's short memory.

People are beginning to understand the depth of this administration's breathtaking duplicity. The key word is beginning. It is interesting that they see it correctly through hurricaine Katrina. A little story to illustrate.

Currently I am waiting for a visa to leave. My job is meaningless. Ahh, but my girlfriend. She's a scientist who works in oceanography. Her department has been killed by NSF cutbacks. As a result:

• her boss M. returned to Germany to rebuild a program there.
• a coworker is returning to Canada
• we are going to Australia

This leaves this proud univerity without a physical oceanography department. And by the way a year and a half after M. returned to Germany, the position still remains unfilled after an exhaustive worldwide search!

In short I think a major portion of the people who study natural sciences are leaving. The proud American scientific tradition that studies global warming is quickly being disassembled because budget priorities demand we pay for this god-forsaken war.

I was against this war from the very beginning. But as soon as I saw Clinton come out for the war on late night tv I knew it was a done deal. He also told us how easy it would be. ( I think it was Letterman. ) But those of us were of a similar mind were voices protesting in the wilderness. Why did I think it was wrong? I looked at the Isreali experience in the occupied territories and thought we would end up in a similar situation, but with our very economy at stake.

I guess now conservation is our only way out.

U.S. soldiers "deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them into war continue to stand behind them," Bush admonished.

No Mr. Bush - you stand "behind" someone when you are giving them a push forward to do something that they must do all by themselves. U.S. soldiers deserve to know that their elected officials, whether they voted to send them into Iraq or not, will continue to stand BESIDE them. Hiding behind a mountain of deceit is hardly a place to do this important job.

I think the relevant passage is this:

The turn in public opinion against Bush has been slowly considered and is therefore also firm.

We on the left have waited five years for the scales to finally fall from the public's eyes. The seven befuddled minutes after the first plane struck the Twin Towers would do it. The train-wreck debate against John Kerry would do it. The Downing Street memos would do it. The 1,000th casualty in Iraq, the 2,000th, Cindy Sheehan. We've had to endure disappointment after disappointment, as Bush's popularity has remained stubbornly immune to ... what do they call 'em ... oh yes: facts.

So while I'm cautious when Blumenthal proclaims a sea change in the public's perception of Bush, I also think it may finally be true. Bush voters still even intermittantly inhabiting the reality-based community have had to let a lot slide over the last several years. However, the day must come when you can't tell yourself another lie, rationalize another failure or excuse another scandal. It does feel as if the public is finally Bushed out. And if it is, how is the President going to win it back? More divisive cultural "issues"? More pie-in-the-sky promises about missions to Mars or solving poverty? Not while people are dying in Iraq. Not while the President's top advisors are nervously waiting the day when an indictment drops onto their desks.

We've turned a corner. Bush will certainly recover some of his popularity; three years would be an eternity to dwell in the cellar of sub-40% approval ratings. But he'll never again be the steadfast, resolute pseudo-king that Karl Rove and Fox News have taken such care to beam into our living rooms every day. In a way, the next three years will finally give us the Bush presidency we should've had, the presidency that would've unfolded had there been no 9/11 and no Iraq war: a remote and incompentent executive, forlornly trying to wind up enough fanatics to enact a radical agenda unconvincingly hidden behind Orwellian doublespeak. The next three years will be a long, hard slog for Bush--and for us all.