[Texasforever]

These folks don't want a president they want a king. It is so tragically ironic that they set themselves up as the "champions of the constitution" and then demand that it not be followed.

[Miss Marple]

You know, I am still wondering what Rush is doing. Is he THAT upset about this bill, or does something else have him going nuts?

Gingrich wasn't upset at all.

[Revel]

"These folks don't want a president they want a king. It is so tragically ironic that they set themselves up as the "champions of the constitution" and then demand that it not be followed." You would not know the constitution if they put it on your roll of toilet paper. Your constitution is being hammered right out of existence. But arguing with people today is like arguing with Carvell. Might better save my time.

[Howlin]

These folks don't want a president they want a king.

Now, you know better than that: they want anybody but Bush, period.

[Southern Federalist]

The subtext of all this discussion is whether the war is serious or not. The Bush-bashers seem clearly to think that the war is something to which Bush should be giving about 10% of his attention while concentrating on their favorite domestic issues. If the war is not a deliberately staged NWO deception to enslave us, it is at least no big deal; Clinton or Gore would have done as well, etc., etc.

Bush clearly believes that the war is dead serious, that very possibly the survival of both western civilization and our nation depend on it. So he is devoting about 90% of his energy to the war and 10% to domestic policy. He obviously doesn't believe Rush's line that he has so much political capital that he can conduct the war on terror with one hand, and have total domestic war with the Democrats and the media with the other. The Bush-bashers won't of course give him any credit for anything but venal motives, but it is just possible that he knows more than Rush does about what the war on terrorism is going to require.

I don't think that all Bush's decisions have been good. I do wish he would veto CFR. I think it's good for him to hear from the base on these issues. But I hope he won't listen to voices on the Right which seem to assume that the war on terrorism is an easy, inconsequential matter that could safely be put second to domestic politics (shades of Clinton!).

Those who think the war on terrorism is no big deal should ponder Jeffrey Goldberg's New Yorker article, The Great Terror and contemplate the prospect of Saddam with another five or ten years to develop his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

So until I see the Democrat I would trust with the conduct of this war, my criticisms of Bush will be muted. And the only Democrat since Harry Truman I would have trusted with the war is Scoop Jackson, and he's dead and his Democratic Party died years before he did. If that makes me a Bushbot, so be it.