Of course we have to be at war as far as El Presidente is concerned.  It is the vehicle he uses to get policies in place that he wants.  War time presidents are always given deferrence when it comes to fighting any given war.  If we all of a sudden say that our efforts against terrorist extremists aren't part of a "war" it would undermine Bush's authority at home and in the world, make dissent permissable, and call into question all that Bush has done in his public relations created "faux war".  That is a completely unacceptable option for Bush.  He needs to stay wrapped in the American Flag with the authority of a war time president or lest he will lose public support.  And it makes no difference what the Pentagon knows/thinks...it's a war.

Between this and his comments about Creationism/Intelligent Design, etc., Bush is simply proving the ultimate American Dream -- that anybody, ANYBODY, any bozo can grow up and be President!

". . . ANYBODY, any bozo can grow up and be President!"

At least as long as they preserve that special affirmative action program that allows rich idiots to get into Yale and Harvard . . .

I was surprised when the GSAVE thing came up -- I can't imagine Bush giving up the mantle of "war time President."  Being "at war" is essential to his strategy and it's worked -- he doesn't have to actually ask for the sacrifices of a nation really at war (no draft, no rationing, no increased taxes) but he can still give handouts to defense and energy companies, as if he has no other choice.

Where's Karen Huhges when you need her.

Comr to think of it, did she come up with GSAVE? If so, not an auspicious beginning for Bush's Propagandess in Chief.

What do you call it when Elmer Fudd and Porky Pig have the run of the place?

Loony Tunes!!!

Th-th-th-that's all folks...

Actually, it is possible to replace a mentally ill president. I read a book by, I think, Jules Witcover, which told about some members of Reagan's staff being so concerned about the President's wandering focus that they were considering trying to have him replaced by George H. W. Bush. I believe it was Howard Baker who told them to forget-about-it.

What about replacing a terminally dumb President?

(Cpt. Kirk on communicator from the WH)...

"Beam me up Scotty, no intelligent life here."

One can be reasonably sure that this gang will react to the deaths of the 20 Marines in Western Iraq by doing exactly the wrong thing.  How easy to blame Syria for the porous border, and then extend the war across the border, Cambodia-style.  A couple of weeks ago there was a ridiculous threat to attack Aleppo.  Watch out!

I'm not going to mince words, the guy is mad as a hatter.

Methinks 20 dead marines from one battalion played havoc with the timing for marketing a positive portrayal. While GSAVE may well be a trial balloon that popped, it also doesn’t have to be an either or. A five-week vacation in Texas wouldn’t have anything to do with Fitzpatrick, would it? With getting in the way? Or mutiny among the troops? Is 5 weeks enough?

As for "being in charge", what happened to Cheney and Rumsfeld? When i think of Rove and Bush, the imagery of "My Fair Lady" always comes to mind.

We're at war with an enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001

The Bush Doctrine: brown heathen are fungible.

I excuse this president nothing - particularly the deaths of the 14 marines, the deaths of nearly 1,800 of their comrades and the thousands of wounded men and women who went to Iraq in good faith and on his word.  My heart can only ache for their families and friends and for the futures that might have been.
  Now that His Petulancy has cleared up that we still at war with terrorism, I wonder how General Myers will walk back from his comments last week? Unfortunately the general's comments sounded much to much like John Kerry's plan for pursuing the "violent extremists" who perpetrate terrorist acts in the name of Islam.  Dubya just can't have that, and he cannot appear to be backing down or away from the war that he named and invoked so often.  Yet, somehow we  will be drawing down the troops just in time for the mid-term elections...  Each passing day I wonder how my country (and the rest of the planet) will survive the train wreck that is this man's utter incompetence.

Each passing day I wonder how my country (and the rest of the planet) will survive the train wreck that is this man's utter incompetence.

As bad as things are, I always try and remind myself just how fearful I was for the survival of our country and our world back in 1983, when Richard Turco and Carl Sagan published their first models of nuclear winter, during the tenure of Ronald "We begin bombing in five minutes" Reagan.

Not to mention the contemporary hijinks of James Watt, Oliver North and Ed Meese. When we got through that era, I decided that our country and our government had a level of resiliency that could get us through just about anything.  

Not that Dubya isn't testing my optimism...

 . . . as pointed out Monday by George Lakoff (see http://www.alternet.org/story/23810/):

"If this is not a "war," does the president still have the war powers given him by Congress? If there is no "war" anymore, how can there be "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo, whose imprisonment without due process is being justified by "war." If there is no "war," will we still need to call up the reserves and the National Guard? And is the new framing retroactive? Was there ever a "war" on terror? Was it just a mistake to think so?"

In this instance, Bush (or whoever is pulling his strings on this one) is right. Replacing GWOT with GSAVE would give up ground he can't afford to surrender.

In Ohio, here's what one father, Paul, of a dead soldier, Edward August Schroeder II, had to say after hearing of his son's death:

I hold the Bush administration responsible, from the president through the secretaries of state and defense and all those who have had a hand in starting this war.

I also hold every Democrat in Congress who voted to authorize this misadventure as accomplices.

(snip)

To honor him, I no longer can sit still, just keeping quiet and being politically correct.

Democrats in Congress need to take the words of this father to heart, and to understand that it is time to step up and say, "I was wrong; I am sorry."  Make no mistake, Democrats, as well as Republicans, who voted for the war will be called to account.

Here's the link to the Newhouse article.

It's quite simple.

Now Bush has one more flourish in his rhetorical arsenal.

War when that's what he needs.

GSAVE when he needs to say he's working on all fronts.

War works for him. This is a WAR PRESIDENT not a STRUGGLES PRESIDENT Jon Stewart

We are at war make no mistake and we will do whatever it takes. We will remain true to Amrican principles - W, Daily Show Moment of Zen

this one:

But, Daalder said, the recent rhetorical tension might reflect the president's desire to announce troop withdrawals after next winter's election of a permanent Iraqi government rather than against the backdrop of this summer's violence. That way, Daalder said, the president could argue "we are leaving in a position of strength."


The strain between the Pentagon and White House has emerged as steady violence and a sharp increase in American casualties exposes Bush to increasing political pressure over Iraq.

That one!


Need coffee nurse, STAT