Replies

I agree that they will attempt the Nixon option: spending 4 years trying to impeach W. But: impeachment takes place in the House. I don't think they stand a chance of even getting it up on a committee agenda. In the Senate, we are going to pick up at minimum 2 seats and there is no way even the moderate Republicans are going to deal w/the Donks on that issue after the disgraceful lack of bipartisanship the Ds have displayed for 3 1/2 years.

The Abu Ghraib incident is being adjudicated. Last I heard, it was alleged to have gone as high as some *intelligence officers* and Karpinski was also derelict, but Sanchez called their bluff and they have backed down, AFAIK, on the hearings/assignment of blame. At least, the media is quiet on it all.

Clarke, Wilson and Berger are compromised, marginalized and neutralized. Moore always just preached to the choir. Woodward actually didn't indict W all that badly. Their bench is pretty thin.

The Clinton's are rather preoccupied w/their own legal mess, again, these days. In October, Aaron Tonken's tell-all comes out, detailing Hillary's campaign cash machinations.

From what NewsMax leaked about 10 days ago or so, the ISG report is going to say that Saddam had an active nuke program, not to mention the number of chem shells that was 37 & counting a few weeks ago. Qaddafi is said to be ready to come forward and detail the multinational Axis of Evil nuke program that had been hidden in a hollowed-out mountain in Libya, used Iranian fissionables, Iraqi scientists, Syrian and North Korean missiles.

I also agree with your b) scenario. But don't be so sure the left is unarmed. The ones I know are not.

I experienced martial law in 1967 in Milwaukee's *housing riots* (search Father Groppi, date and city for details). I have a lot of respect for the ability of the National Guard to put down civil unrest, if necessary. As for bombers and violent revolutionaries, I don't think they could muster more than a few hundred broken into cells of 4-6. That's really all the Weatherpeople ever amounted to.

All they really have as a lever is the courts, IMO. So, if we win and increase the margin in the Senate, they will concentrate, again, IMO, on blocking judicial nominations. We may have to deal with that for another 2 years, longer if we lose any Senate seats in the midterms. W will be forced to use recess appointments for critical appointments.I have also heard Donks making dire predictions that they have Senators who would switch parties. I am not sure they do, but the activist cadre is at least concerned about it.

As I think about this, time is also on our side in regard to Europe. The media cannot keep the truth of their economic failure and *malaise* from Americans forever. How wonderful does socialism look when you have to examine it in failure?

I think they are fighting for their lives and so are we and we junkies know it. So do the political leaders on both sides. This is war by other means and we simply cannot afford to lose this November.

BTW, I know you know that. I am on my last nerve w/this election and posting is therapeutic.

Hehehe. I understand. I was a basket case last November until Bush finally pulled it out. I continue to see very positive signs in the (bogus) polls: I think the fact that Bush has not been below 50% on Ras is a clear indicator that the Dems have shot their wad; new polls show Bush ahead in NV, tied in WI, ahead in FL (yes, there is one showing him down), fairly close in MI (5 points), tied in NM. I keep telling people that Kerry will continue to implode and that ultimately a huge proportion of the undecideds will swing our way, in addition to some "closet Democrats" who really can't trust Kerry.