[fantom]

Please , step away from thr bong !

[unkus]

The Democrats will do nothing for the good of the country.PERIOD

[RightWhale]

The President is apparently clearing the decks for action. He isn't saying much, but much is happening.

[frogjerk]

President Bush Can Still Sink the Democrats

Can and Will are too entirely different things. I hope that W finds the Will.

[johnny7]

Pelosi's already blown 36 of those 100 hours...

[Voltage]

Bush needs to veto bills with pork in them, and expose and make fun of the pork and make a laughing stock of the representatives that put in the pork.

The house and senate will soon discover they are the weak branch of government.

[Vigilanteman]

Baker's surrender strategy was - and is -- also the core of his foreign policy theory. He, like many of his background and age, are stability addicts. To gain stability - on domestic or foreign fronts - he's willing to trade more than it is worth. Trying to prop up Gorbachev, Baker opposed American support for Balkan freedom, nearly getting into a fistfight with fellow cabinet member Jack Kemp over it. Now, when the Iranian mullahs are beset by falling oil production and growing internal unrest, Baker wants to make it harder for Iranians to overthrow the mullahs just like he wanted to make it harder for Latvia and Lithuania to shake off the shackles of the Soviets.

Just about sums up James Baker's resume.

[Mr. Mojo]

They [the Democrats] can't openly advocate cutting and running from Iraq: they're taking cover under the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group report.

Correct, but how exactly does this fact help the President? The author seems more than a bit confused.

When the Iraq Surrender Group first released its report many thought that it would give the Bush admin. the perfect out for leaving Iraq. But as I suspected, it turns out quite the opposite -- the Democrats are using it as cover for their cut-and-run position.

[firewalk]

They have to exorcise the ghosts of surrenders past

.

[jazusamo]

Good piece by Jed Babbin. He's right about President Bush not wavering on the WOT and the Dems are divided on their Iraq war policy. Even holding the majority in Congress they can't or won't get a withdrawal of troops from Iraq anytime soon.

[pabianice]

Fighting has already broken-out in the House. Two congresspeople -- one D, the other R -- traded verbal blows today over the Dems' already unmasked pre-election lies.

[Brilliant]

Unfortunately, though, Bush has no desire to make it difficult for the Dems.

[Bommer]

Big assumption since Bush has no testicles for standing up against them! Nancy owns them now!

[ZULU]

He can.

The question is WILL he?

I hope he has sharpened up his veto pen.

[Political Junkie Too]

They can't openly advocate cutting and running from Iraq: taking cover under the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group report.

Isn't that exactly what they are doing today? What about the letter from Pelosi and Reid urging Bush not to send more troops to Iraq? What about Obama coming out today opposing more troops in Iraq? What about the Democrats urging Bush to begin planning to remove troops?

They aren't hiding behind anything.

-PJ