Who gave you the right to write this? You didnt even know about the formaer president saddam. if you read a little bit about him and about the growing in iraq's economies, you would never ever judge a person like that. and please dont try to spread democracy in iraq because it doesnt work. all what does work is power and iraq's gasoline. we all know this facts, so shut your mouth up.

I THINK U R A DICTATOR NOT SADDAM!!!!

I THINK U R A DICTATOR NOT SADDAM!!!!

I THINK U R A DICTATOR NOT SADDAM!!!!

It is not only the secular, liberal and non-evangelical leaders in Canada and Western Europe who have to start taking action to protect themselves from Ashcroft-type Special Operations Professionals of the year, Americans too should realize that they and their businesses are no safer than Mel Carnahan, Paul Wellstone or Tim Johnson. Big Brother is watching you and if you believe it is because he wants to protect your freedom, Jeb has some swampland in Florida to sell you.

Who are the extremists? Is GW talking about himself and the NWO, his daddy, F. Carlucci, Dick C.(a former director of the CFR), R. Perle and all the PNAC crew, the Oppenheimers, the Rockefellers, the Rothchilds? The One Percent Doctrine is a bit extreme, don't you think?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/rockefellers/

COLORADO KOOL AID

What is an Islamic fascist? Wiki reels off the following words after fascism - corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberlism. The case could be made that those words fit neatly as a definition of Bush Republicanism.

Is the above your definition of fascism and if so how do you tie that definition to Islam?

mKole wrote: "I am not hearing calls from Democrats to substantially abandon the policy of being the world's cop, or of non-intervention."

So much the worse for the Democrats.

I wonder how many Democrats in the House and Senate would substantially disagree with the New American Century cats who wrote in 1999, "The United States is the world's only superpower, combining preeminent military power, global technological leadership and the world's largest economy...America's grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible. There are, however, potentially powerful states dissatisfied with the current situation and eager to change it...in directions that endanger the relatively peaceful, prosperous and free conditions the world enjoys today....[T]hey have been deterred from doing so by the capability and global presence of American military power." The New American Century supports the projection of US force around the world, because it is a "visible expression of the extent of America's status....as the guarantor of liberty, peace and stability."

Makes it sound like US hegemony is a good thing for America AND the world, doesnt it?

IMPEACH!!!

While I don't agree with some of the points in Arkin's piece, I'm appalled at the loony (and one-sided) responses to it. Some of them have been willfully blind, such as this comment: "Treason is defined as aiding and or giving material aid and comfort to declared enemies of the state." Where were the Democrats to attack Bill Clinton when he sold technology to the Chinese in return for campaign contributions? Where are the Libs who want to charge Treason against those who defend and support Muslim extremists, and those who want to prevent the US from protecting itself? (Protecting itself and its citizens is the first duty of any government--except us.)

Another response that can only be described as loony was this: [W] "is convinced that it is up to him to bring about Armageddon, and is certifiably insane ..." But Bush has never said or implied anything about bringing on Armageddon--it would be inconsistent with his faith community anyway; but the leader trying to bring about Armageddon is Ahmedinejahd--the very opposite of Bush. Moreover, there is no medical evidence that the President is "certifiably insane;" this is just an attempt at a high-class slur.

Why can't Americans (both left and right) discuss the issues, without resorting to insults, falsehoods, and hysteria? We're getting nowhere fast, friends. The hysterical Bush-haters need to chill out and start using their brains instead of their bile.

All the "crazy nut" callers in this blog are the ones who are crazy and nuts. You have this naive and misguided notion that the Islamic fascists are your friends who you can appease and deal with. That makes you the nut jobs. Calling the President names and worse only serves to highlight what utter fools you are. Calling your political opponents Nazis, fascists, and worse -- well, you might seek the psychiatric care you so obviously need. You show yourselves to be a deranged bunch of loons. Woe unto us if you ever actually get in a position of power and are able to act out as the Neville Chamberlains of the 21st Century.

Hmmmm So the president and vice president "are daily bombarded with details of the activities, plans, and thoughts of evil people out there in Iraq, Iran..." (quoting Mr. Arkin). So, can we assume that they had plenty of information on the 9/11 plot prior to its inception? Can we also assume then that they "cherry pick" the information to fit their pre-determined agenda?

Actually, Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft/the neocons... whoever sets government policy is committed from then on to justify it. Flawed, disastrous, death-dealing - makes no difference. History is rife with examples of great nations and/or empires falling by the wayside because of just such very common human behavior.

American foreign policy has endlessly meddled abroad. I am not hearing calls from Democrats to substantially abandon the policy of being the world's cop, or of non-intervention.

M. Kole,

Right on! The ubiquitous American foreign policy problem goes back a long way and is shared by all.

As long as America is winning, no one in America seems to care.

However the measure of a true Democracy, as far as I am concerned is whether or not that Democracy has mettle!

I appreciate all of those who, er herm, want to protect me. However, I would prefer that if they were going to protect me that justice would be part and parcel in the equation. From my point of view, not just anything goes!

In other words don't go around the world killing innocent people while pretending that you are doing so in order to protect me.

If we can come up with a clearly defined honest and just foreign policy, it would by and large dictate what our leaders could and could not do, regardless of whatever stripe they happened to come from.

The way that things work, the President is above the law. Even Ronald Reagen, who did some good things for America placed loose with the rules himself! We cannot have it both ways, albeit some Americans do not have any problems with the President playing footlose and fancy free!
Even President's do not have to adhere to the law, neither do the rest of us.

Isn't that what went wrong essentially at Enron, et al?

Pragmatism! Pragmatism! Pragmatism! I don't want anymore gunslinging Texans in the White House. In fact, I don't want anymore dizzy ideologues in control of our country. Fanatics who dig terrible holes for themselves and those affected by them just keep digging and asking for bigger shovels. It's time for practical problem-solving and no more "we are greatest nation, nothing like us ever was." Because as Sandburg said a long time ago, if we keep listening to "the golden girls" and their super-patriotic (say fanatical) patriotic sing alongs, sooner or later there will be nothing but dust and rats left just as Sandburg's poem predicted. Along with science and math we'd better start becoming much more attuned to the lessons of history and the causes that rendered one "great nation" after another to dust. More humility and a bunch more practical THINKING attuned to reality instead of voices in someone's head is what's required now and the sooner the better. But it's not going to happen with a true believer at the helm who wantonly ignores reality and science to point of endagering all of our futures.

Bush is everything our enemies could desire: simplistic, predictable, rigid, and ultimately incompetent.

I don't see a whole lot of difference between Bush foreign policy and past or even present Democratic foreign policy desires beyond location. I am hearing many Dems at once call for a pull-out for Iraq, and a new intervention in Darfur. What is the difference?

American foreign policy has endlessly meddled abroad. I am not hearing calls from Democrats to substantially abandon the policy of being the world's cop, or of non-intervention.

We need to return to the vision of the Founding Fathers- no foreign entanglements. Be strong on literal defense. Stop providing defense for so many other nations.

sm wrote:
--I honestly believe Bush will not remove troops from Iraq until he's dealt with Iran.--

Maybe so. I always considered Iraq to tbe the stepping stone to Iran. And don;t be surprised if a democratic president in 2009 keeps troops in Iraq as leverage against Iran and to act to stabalize the gulf region.

The remark you quoted from Bush seems very accurate to me but reminds me that Bush is an enigma. What I see from Bush is a guy who understands the problems of the world and where things might go bad in the future, but his methods from there are just inexplicable. Its frustrating to see him make a statement like how we need to fight terrorism and then try to like Saddam and Al Qaida. It sort of reminds me of when Reagan's administration was sending cakes in the shape of keys the Iranian ayatolla. What were they thinking?!

We have to get over this dependence on ME oil. There is no other solution. It is clearly clouding the judgement of not only our elected leaders but the oil lobbies that surround the Capitol building. Until that happens we will send troops to the ME to fight for issues we ignore in the rest of the world, we will call countries that do not honor human rights allies, and our president will call leaders who suppress the will of their own people friends. Anything to ensure we get our fix of oil, and like an addict, it may take an intervention to make us face up to our problem.

Its time for demonstrations in the streets to demand alternative fuels and conservation. Its not going to happen overnight, but if our dependence becomes less our judgements might become a little clearer and America will move closer to once again standing for what we say it stands for and what the rest of the world wants it to stand for.

HE IS NOT MY PROTECTER HE HAS MADE THINGS IN THIS WORLD WORSE. WE AS A PEOPLE HAVE TO GET RID, OF THIS CRAZY NUT BUSH,ANY WAY WE CAN,BEFORE HE KILLS ALL OF US.

It's flawed American Foreign Policy stupid....that is the problem!

Our foreign policy as it stands gives license to our leaders, carte blanche, to wreak havoc on other nations in the world and to do so without conscience. It also explains why we are disdained by many in other nations of the world.

American foreign policy according to.......

Dick Cheney: We don't negotiate, we dominate....!

Pat Buchanan: We can do what we want because we are a superpower!

George Bush: It is mine to do with it as I please. My job is to protect America's
interests, therefore I can do whatever I please, even if it means violating domestic and international law, or ignoring the will of the people of the United States of America or lying to or misleading them!

FURTHER: The crux of American Foreign policy is essentially this: WE CAN but Other Nations CANNOT:

Stockpile nuclear weapons, develop more sophisticated nuclear weapons and technologies, utilize nuclear weapons and nuclear technologies, invade other countries (their air space and territorial waters), destabilize. spy upon, embargo, occupy and manipulate elections in other nations; ignore the United Nations and Domestic and International Law; withdraw from treaties, break treaties, kidnap citizens of other nations, hold enemy combatants with minimal due-process or none at all, engage in acts of terrorism against other nations and people, underwrite other nations financially and/or legally or illegally supply those nations with weapons who will act in your nation's interest.....!

WHAT GIVES US THIS RIGHT? Might makes right. We are the United States of America, we are the Superpower. Also because we have WEALTH, we have stockpiles of WEAPONS, a strong MILITARY, NUCLEAR weapons that we will use to destroy you if you were to acquire any nuclear weapons without our permission or to violate our demands. Finally, we have VETO POWER in the United Nations Security Council that permits us to stop you from doing what we do!

FURTHER: No other nation on earth may adopt similar tenets in their foreign policy or behave as we do. Any other nation that would do so or that was to acquire what we have, we would consider hostile and totalitarian; those nations would be subject to attack!!

OUR CONDITIONS FOR NEGOTIATIONS: When other nations get their acts together, abide by the Law, and surrender to the will of America, we will not hesitate to negotiate; otherwise we will eventually get around to attacking you.

Finally: We believe in liberty and justice for all and that American foreign policy is fair and even-handed.

So, what's your point, we do not see any contradictions in our foreign policy?
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Truly American foreign policy is hypocritical, contemptible, corrupt, self-centered, jaundiced, bigoted and arrogant, and it is supported by quasi-religious leaders and organizations in the Christian Right, or wrong...take your pick, and too many of our American citizens!

God help America to get its act together, its unjust policies sorted out and many of its citizens (including the religious ones) to acquire a just heart!

American foreign policy leaves other nations of the world only two alternatives, to submit or to eventually overcome America!

sm - You are correct. As Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker (www.newyorker.com) said, W will be carpet-bombing Tehran by April '07.
You are absolutely correct that oil control
is what drives all of this war-by-deceit. Combined with the facts that Bush literally
believes in the Bible, is convinced that it
is up to him to bring about Armageddon, and
is certifiably insane, he must immediately be impeached or the entire world is doomed.

Terrorism. I guarantee that it is really ture about what I said and strongly protest the terroristic activity.I want to talk about one thing regarding to a nano-chip in my brain implanted by Fa lungong orginazition supported by US governement. Because the chip can detect my vocal cordss vibrations even a tiny vibration when I think,And the chip turn those vibrations into words, so it can read my mind. Also, they send wireless signals to the chip, I can hear that terroristic voices. I know that nano-chip was invented by NASA. The chip can be implanted into brains via foods and drinks they have,and it can read mind at everywhere. This terroristic activity impinges my rights and freedom and good social order.If the technology is used to make terrorism or the chip is implanted into senior officals,reporters and businessmens brains, as a result,the situation will be terrible, military serects, personal privacy, and personal passwords will be revealed.

Did you see the interview the president held the other day where he said the burdens of his office aren't heavy because he can feel people praying for him? The interviewer (I forget who it was) prodded a bit, and it seems Bush meant the statement literally.

So here we are--our president admits, even brags, that he is helped along by some spiritual equivalent of voices in his head and we're all still pretending he's merely a fool, not certifiably insane.

GWB = LBJ

A resignation is in order, ASAP.

jaxas wrote: "farther we move away from that event with no subsequent serious event of its kind taking place, the less the public is inclined to believe that the terrorists have either the will or the capablilty to carry it out."

No, 3000 people havent died but there were, for example, terrorist attacks in London as recently as July 2005 that killed 52 amd injured 700. The threat posed by al-queda is real, whether its worth $2 billion a week is another question.

jaxas wrote: "Bush's silly, repetitive cant about a global ideological struggle against a Nazi-like enemy sound like the ravings of a lunatic."

You know, I'd like to know what the American people thought about his fear. Do the American people fear a radical, nuclear-armed Islamic government in control of the oil reserves? Is it worth going to war over or would they say, its not worth fighting for, let's develop alternative fuels?

Or would the American people say greedily, Islam Schmislam, who needs an excuse, we want control of the oil reserves to mitigate China's threat to the US economically?

While I tend to agree with your analysis Mr. Arkin--that Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, and all of the other neocon "protectors" are possessed of a sort of bizarre paranoia--I do not agree that they have any serious hope of turning the public arround to their way of thinking.

In a strange way, they have become irrelevant. The darkness they have engineered in Iraq now has a life of its own like some Frankensteinian creation that now threatens its own creators. I sense a weariness in the people with Bush. He is simnply being tuned out, even by the media as it turns its sights on 2008.

I simply think Bush has run out of time. And make no mistake about it, Bush was the key. He got as far as he did in this madness because a sizable chunk of the American people invested so much in him fiollowing the 9-11 attack. But, the farther we move away from that event with no subsequent serious event of its kind taking place, the less the public is inclined to believe that the terrorists have either the will or the capablilty to carry it out.

And Bush's silly, repetitive cant about a global ideological struggle against a Nazi-like enemy sound like the ravings of a lunatic. His only salvation from obscurity is another 9-11-like attack. It would not surprise me at all to see him try to engineer one before he leaves office.

So how will it work, Mr. Arkin? The Republicans have to do more than just "distance themselves" from Bush or the Democrats will not step up to the duty to take power away from him.

Its so quiet but we're in more of a Constitutional crisis than Watergate. We don't have a Gerald Ford ready to put in place and people are dying.

What about "when the going gets tough, the tough get going"? It seems to be taking on a new meaning, most of it to "get going" or out of Iraq with a bit of tough talk to the poor fledgling Iraqi government. Hang in there "W"
Graham

From the days of Shock and Awe, here we are 4 years later talking about impeachment. All the bad news started to appear in newspapers across the USA right after November 2004! So the beginning of the end for Bush43, even before starting the second term. I think Laura needs to bail all of us out....have her beloved to resign (along with his mate)and spare this great nation. Impeachment takes too long, we need action NOW!

Might it be possible that the first female president of our United States of America will ascend rather than be elected? It would suit me just fine as I honestly feel soiled to be an American citizen and witness on a daily basis the pathetic excuse for leadership that comes from this White House.

It is good to finally see others using the words fascist and in the correct connotation. President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Halliburton and the secret energy task force, and PNAC all need to be arrested for treason and prosecuted like the criminals they have shown themselves to be at every turn. Treason is not too strong a word. Treason is defined as aiding and or giving material aid and comfort to declared enemies of the state. Diverting our military when they had bin Laden cornered in Afghanistan to attack Iraq under false pretenses for the financial gain of the Administration and their big money contributers both aided bin Laden in escaping and gave Al-Quaeda the material aid and comfort they required to turn them into ten times the terrorist threat they presented pre-9-11. Congress needs to start impeachment and criminal prosecution immediately followed by extensive lobby reform. If Congress fails in this most solemn duty of oversight of the Executive, they are surely courting disaster and as guilty as the President's gang of corporate thugs..

Mr. Arkin, you are right about the President's mesianic vision, but how did you miss the following remark of the President?

President Bush said: "I believe we're in an ideological struggle between forces that are reasonable and want to live in peace, and radicals and extremists. And when you throw into the mix radical Shia and radical Sunni trying to gain power and topple moderate governments, with energy which they could use to blackmail Great Britain or America, or anybody else who doesn't kowtow to them, and a nuclear weapon in the hands of a government that is -- would be using that nuclear weapon to blackmail to achieve political objectives -- historians will look back and say, how come Bush and Blair couldn't see the threat?"

This makes it plain to me that he is really thinking about IRAN, not Iraq. Iran is the threat to US hegemony in the region. Bush will not allow Iran to tell the US what to do, the Big Oil guys that advise Bush will not allow that. I honestly believe Bush will not remove troops from Iraq until he's dealt with Iran.

Yankee dollar talk to the dictators of the world/
In fact it's giving orders and they cant afford to miss a word

lrod writes:"According to our Constitution, Congress is the body that controls the military and forms the foreign policy, not the President."

no, foriegn relations are under the executive.The rest of Lrod's assesment is also a bit confusing.

OK Arkin--you are obviously an illegal enemy combatant, convicted by your own blog. Under the power granted by the Military Commissions Act it is off to Guantanamo with you.

"The only way to secure a lasting peace for our children and grandchildren is to defeat the extremist ideologies," the president said."

Does that mean he is going to fight his, Cheney's, and the Neo-cons' extremist ideologies?

Sarcasm aside, we are are doomed. Bush has every intention to keep on doing what he is doing out of pure egomania until he can pass on the bloody mess to the next President, and blame him for it.

Both the President and the Vice President must be forced to resign: they are toxic to the USA and to the rest of the world.

To the REV. I agree that the conflict in Iraq is an inopportune war that we elected to prosecute, for our own misanthropic or queerly ideological reasons. Nonetheless, it provided a tactical oppty. for our strategic opponents to draw us into a war of attrition from which we derive no benefit. Eventually, we'll withdraw since the risk-benefit calculation makes no sense. Our opponents will be stronger irrespective of what we do at this stage.

John Bowers, good post. I largely agree and feel that the response/rebuke to the idea of bolstering Kurds is a the incorrect reaction. It seems as though everyone believes that to "support" one group or faction is to destroy another. It's about balance, we can fool ourselves into believing it is both possible and worth it to simply shuffle around governments or we can recognize some realities about people and work within constraints no military could change.

I recall during the run-up to the war asking some friends who were supporters of the doctrine to explain to me the simple questions: "why him and why right now?" I'm sure readers will roll their eyes to read this, but today I ask "why should we believe these people have any better judgement today than in 2003?"... sadly again I cannot fathom a good response.

Sound like another George that we all know?

1. George Armstrong Custer was elevated to the rank of General by a battlefied commission during the Civil War.

2. He had emerged from West Point at the bottom of his class where he had amassed a huge number of demerits.

3. His success in the Civil War might be attributed to his unorthodox methods and the wild charges he led with no concern for the scouting reports, if he ever read them.

4. He had the highest casualty figures among the Union division commanders. However, he himself emerged unscathed.

5. After the war, he was stripped of his battlefield commission and returned to the regular army as a captain.

6. He was assigned to Texas to restore order, a task he felt was inconsequential.

7. He was not well loved, drove both men and horses hard while he would go off, alone or with a small group, to hunt.

Er herm, sounds like someone from Texas is headed towards his 'last stand'; neither one listened or listens.

Sound like anyone that we know?

1. George Armstrong Custer was elevated to the rank of General by a battlefied commission during the Civil War.

2. He had emerged from West Point at the bottom of his class where he had amassed a huge number of demerits.

3. His success in the Civil War might be attributed to his unorthodox methods and the wild charges he led with no concern for the scouting reports, if he ever read them.

4. He had the highest casualty figures among the Union division commanders. However, he himself emerged unscathed.

5. After the war, he was stripped of his battlefield commission and returned to the regular army as a captain.

6. He was assigned to Texas to restore order, a task he felt was inconsequential.

7. He was not well loved, drove both men and horses hard while he would go off, alone or with a small group, to hunt.

Er herm, sounds like someone from Texas is headed towards his 'last stand'; neither one listened or listens.

We need a more activist

....... and informed electorate, one that is mobilized to take action against a man who more and more appears to me to be a traitor to the will of the American people and the United States of America.

I step back from what I said a few weeks ago with respect to why we cannot impeach George Bush, due to the Cheney factor. In light of all of the activities of the past few weeks up and to an including his haughty comments that were given yesterday during his joint press-conference with Tony Blair, it is clear to me that this man has zero intentions of acceding to the will of the American people.

George Bush has forgotten, if he ever knew, that he is an elected public servant, and one who can be terminated by the same people who permit him to serve in office. I wonder what kind of grades this man received in Civics Classes, this man doesn't seem to understand the most rudimentary aspects about government or governing.

Anyway, Congress should move to impeach him if he doesn't make a turnaround by January 1, 2007. And what about Cheney, If he were to take over the reigns of power as expected, and he did not accede to the will of the American people, he should be IMMEDIATELY ushered right out of the door behind George Bush? Both of them could relocate to the Middle-East or wherever and to whomever they are trying to please or taking their orders from!

This man has been an obstructionist and a one-man wrecking crew since entering into the office of the Presidency. He has ignored Congress, sirted Domestic and International Law, ignored his Cabinet-members, demonstrated Contempt-of-Court and Congress on numerous occasions and he continues to buck up against the clear and apparent will of the citizens of the United States citizens.

Bush is clearly trying to please himself, his friends in America and those on the other side of the world, and he is also willing to allow the ship to sink, rather than to make a badly needed turnaround!

In Q1' 2007, America, I believe, will have to seriously consider impeaching Bush? It might cause his father to cry, but Bush is causing more pain all over the planet than his father can ever know or feel!

Bush 41 was wrong about his boy; he indicated that 'The Boy Would Do The Nation Good', and now even Bush 41 is in tears!

Yes, I agree that we are in a clash of civilizations.
Posted by: bmcneill

This is not a challenge but a serious question, is what we are witnessing in Iraq in fact a clash of civilizations?

From what I have heard most scholars would not agree with you. This is Bush's war, based on lies, pure and simple!

A lot of the fighting that is going on in Iraq is between Iraqis.

Many of the people of Iraq admire the United and Western culture, at least they did.

In my opinion, if anything at all is taking place in Iraq, George Bush has been attempting to force his will and regime change upon a once sovereign nation, a nation that does not wish to be homogenized.

It kind of reminds me of an American corporate hostile takeover. Company 'B' is resisting, but Company 'A', simply won't back off. In the case of Iraq, we are the hostile company and George Bush is T. Boone Pickens. Unfortunately, Bush is usually the military and weapons instead of stock to takeover Iraq.

What do you think?

He cannot do anything with the military without the approval of Congress.
Posted by: Lrod |

Yes, but this is only true in theory and not in practice. The fact is that Congress did not declare war on Iraq, in fact Congress never declared war on Vietnam and look how many lives were squandered.

There is a loophole and a matter of interpretation with respect to the American Constitution, and once and for all someone needs to reconcile it!

Congress can stop funding the war, genocide or occupation or whatever it is that America is doing in Iraq, but many of our Representatives have already gone public and said already that they will not cut off funds and risk the safety of the troops!

i don't know if bush is a poker player. it seems though that he is treating his presidency as if he is. and as long as anybody is backing him he will continue to do so. the only thing that will bring about a change is for everybody to abandon him. everybody. it's possible that, if this happens, he will literally explode, or go up in a burst of flames and a cloud of smoke. instead of a second coming we can declare a second ascension and he can be added into the pantheon of milosevic, suharto, pineapple face and babydoc duvallier.

Bush does not want to "cut and run" he is willing to "stay the course" until the last American soldier and when we have nothing but casualties he (and Cheney) will blame the whole thing on the American people. ( I think Cheney already has.)

According to our Constitution, Congress is the body that controls the military and forms the foreign policy, not the President. He is the commander in chief of the military, not the American people, and so, is under the control of Congress. Congress answers to the people of the U.S., and the President will have to answer to the Congress. He cannot do anything with the military without the approval of Congress. The Iraq debacle will soon be over.

"Jacoby, in fact, add Congress to that group. Excessive investigation to get to the bottom of intelligence incompetence inhibits law enforcement and intelligence agencies from taking risks in thwarting terrorist operations.

We are again the enemy."

Sounds like time for another false-flag to bolster our dwindling "will".

I have called the Bush Administration Corporate Facist. I believe this is a accurate description as they have attempted to concentrate power in the executive branch at the expense of Congress and the Courts for the benefit of big business.
These are people who think they know what is best for the world, and anyone who disagrees with them is ignorant or deceived. I would not be surprised to hear that the former head of Defense Department Intelligence and Special Ops people were Administration appointees.
I have said it before and I will say it again, George Bush needs to be impeached, before digs a bigger hole for the U.S. and the world from which we cannot get out. The Bush Administration has violated the Constitution and Federal Law in his attempt to concentrate power in the Executive Branch. There is no doubt in my mind that he can be thrown out of office. How many more people are going to die while he fumbles his "way forward". He has to go!

If Iraq was of such earthshatering importance why did our leadership go ahead with Vast plans based on halfvassed ideas. I have only a minimum experience in the mid East and 4 years ago this looked like folly to me but I assumed that these colwns had more info than I did.
I think Bush just wants to hang on until sombody else (no matter who) is in the Whitehouse and when the whole thing colapses he will stand by like an elderstatesman and say "see"

What do Commander-in Chief George Bush and the late General George Custer have in common...,

...among other things, neither one would listen, and their last battle was and probably will be their last battle? I hope that its not too late for our George, but I believe that it is too late for him?

And I was wrong about Bush, it turns out that he is a uniter and not a divider after all, it simply took a while for him to work his magic.

Now he has Conservatists, Independents, Realists (not Liberals), non-voters, college students, men, women, heterosexuals, homosexuals, blacks, whites, intelligent Christians, secularists, communists, terrorists, dictators, and everyone in between speaking the same language, that is BUSH is not only out of touch with the American people, but if you can believe it, Bush believes that he knows better than the American people what needs to be done in Iraq. The man truly is in a 'state of denial'.

Golly, even those Americans who wanted tax-cuts to last into perpetuity are apparently beginning to come around and to see that there are more important issues on the horizon than their pocketbooks!

Finally, if the glove won't fit, you must acquit. Bush doesn't fit so 'he must git!

Let's impeach both Bush and Cheney simultaneously, can we?

What do Commander-in Chief George Bush and the late General Georgia have in common...,

...among other things, neither one would listen, and their last battle was their last battle? I hope that its not too late for our George?

I was wrong about Bush, it turns out that he is a uniter and not a divider after all, it simply took a while for him to work his magic.

Now he has Conservatists, Independents, Realists (not Liberals), non-voters, college students, men, women, heterosexuals, homosexuals, blacks, whites, intelligent Christians, secularists, communists, terrorists, dictators, and everyone in between speaking the same language, that is BUSH is not only out of touch with the American people, but if you can believe it, Bush believes that he knows better than the American people what needs to be done in Iraq. The man truly is in a 'state of denial'.

Golly, even those Americans who wanted tax-cuts to last into perpetuity are apparently beginning to come around and to see that there are more important issues on the horizon than their pocketbooks!

The answer is to elect Iowa Govenor Tom Vilsak as President in 2008.

We'll have an experienced centrist executive, the neo-cons will be relegated to xenophobic evangelical think tanks, and the war in Iraq will end.

Vilsak in '08!

Thank you, Ron, for pointing to a stubborn fact that the media conveniently overlooks. Bush, perhaps without quite realizing it, sided with the Iranians against Saddam. Now we are increasingly uncomfortable with our chosen allies. By identifying all Sunni resistance as al Qaeda, Bush reveals his lack of strategic vision. The cornerstone of American policy for years has been support of allegedly moderate Sunni states. Now US policy is literally in the abyss between Iran and al Qaeda. Now how are we going to complete the mission of seizing Iraq's oil for ourselves--or at least for American multinationals?

Yes, I agree that we are in a clash of civilizations. All the more reason not to plunge into it on ground of our opponent's choosing. Bush is the biggest disaster to hit the republic since FDR, and that opinion is coming from a former YR and precinct chair of a local GOP.

We are now witnessing the beginnings of a shia/sunni proxy war fought between Saudi Arabia and its Iraqi al queda child, and Iran and its Iraqi shia militia. Which side will America line up with? The Iranians, who suckered a not too cerebral Bush into invading Iraq through its agent Chalabi, or al queda and its saudi paymasters?
Since we've never seen Bush holding hands with the Iranian President, or has Iran ever summoned Vice President Cheney to Tehran to give him his marching orders, we have to assume that we will end up supporting, while also being killed by, al queda in Iraq. Could this be why Bush has given up on securing al anbar?
Sort of 9-11 redux, where the saudis are allowed to murder Americans as long as their friends in Texas and Washington are taken care of.
Maybe Bush should consider installing democracy in Saudi Arabia. It would do a lot more to quell islamic terrorism that his Iraq fiasco ever will.

John Bowers:

Bolstering the Kurds is a bad idea. Although they control the safest place in Iraq right now, the Iraqi Kurds will unite with the Kurds in Iran and Turkey if they have the chance and means. (They already have a stable society and a good economy).

Turkey and Iran will not let this happen, and the result will be a huge regional war, allying the Muslim majorities in both countries, and effectively handing secular Turkey over to the fundamentalists.

We are all only one contrived National Emergency away from losing America.

As a conservative Reagan-Republican, I long ago rejected the Bush Neocon nonsense about American world hegemony. In the winter of 2003, I told several of my GOP friends that Iraq would be a repeat of the Bosnian tragedy. To think that Islamic medievalists would flock to New England-style town hall meetings and build Starbucks coffee houses was laughable. When Tito died it took less than a year for centuries of hatred to boil over into genocide. Remove the strong man (e.g. Saddam Hussein)and it's utter chaos and slaughter. We will always have enemies. Clinton ignored them to our peril, but he is not the only one; Congress and the media have as much culpability. What we have to recognize is not that democracy has failed. We are the greatest country in the history of the world. It is our republic and its attendant traditions of respect for law and individuality--which took centuries also to develop--that have led to our greatness. It's the hubris, arrogance and yes ignorance of the Bush-Cheney crowd that created this disaster. We must also recognize that while we are the bastion of liberty we will always have to deal with the bad guys. I kept asking, "Why do we want to topple Hussein?" From a geopolitical persepective, an antagonistic Hussein weakened his fellow criminals--and enemies--in Iran and Syria. I am convinced that Islamic radicals are bent on destroying us, but so were the Soviets. We need to be vigilant, yet practical. And the practical is to bolster the Kurds in the north and the Shia in the south all the while drawing down our troops. That said, what do the rest of you think?

This analysis is right on.The american people led by the general news media deprived of visionary views have their positions preestablished. Led by short sighted instant success desires its unfortunite that it becomes the "majority view".

A few years ago I had a German student in our English as a second Language program. We got talking about the Weimar disaster. She made the comment, What you Americans don't see is that the same thing could happen here. Two years is a long time for Bush to impose his blind policies. But, perhaps this is comeuppance for the paranoia that has been America since post WWII - McCarthyism, et al. The land of the free has become the land of the paranoid.

This column,by William Arkin, is 'right on!' It is amazingly unbelievable how far we are advancing toward Fascism!......with a stubborn, 'messianic' despot leading our once Demecratic America!