Not Wrong Yet

"Character is like a tree and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing." ~ Abraham Lincoln

According to news reports, A top Bush administration official, Randall Tobias, has been named as one of the clients of the DC Madam, Deborah Palfrey.

-------------------------------Randall Tobias---------------------------

ABC News reported late Friday that Tobias said in a Thursday interview that he had used the Pamela Martin and Associates escort services for massages, but it reported that he said there had been "no sex."

Recently, I made some predictions regarding what may be found when the contents of the DC madam's "little black book" is made public. Now that a couple of names in her records have been leaked, it would seem to appear that maybe my predictions were wrong.

It would appear.

But let's not jump to conclusions here. For one thing, let's try to remember that ABC news is one of several news outlets that would like nothing better than to prove all Republicans corrupt. They are, after all, Liberally biased.

Let's also not forget that as of yet, only two names on the list have been revealed. There is no doubt that there are indeed Republicans listed in that book. But it by no means suggests that only Republicans are on it, or even that Democrat names don't outnumber Republican's.

I never suggested that there wouldn't be any Republicans listed. So the jury is still out concerning the accuracy of my predictions.

Here are some additional thoughts, however:

I want to get this one out of the way first: Mr. Tobias stated that no sex occurred during his visits to the Madam's escort service. If you believe that one, I have some land in Florida to sell you. Whether there was sex involved or not, he did the right thing in immediately resigning. On the other hand, not only should he not have patronized the escort service in the first place, he should have resigned before it became known he was a client. Now it simply appears as he only resigned to save the Bush administration embarrassment.

Which, of course, he did. That was stupid, in my opinion.

Now. It doesn't fit the Liberally biased media's agenda to reveal the names of Democrats on the list, so it isn't surprising in the least that no Democrat's names have as yet been revealed.

ABC will not reveal Democrats names. They will cover them up at all costs. But if, somehow, ABC accidentally leaks any Democrats names, You can bet the Democrats involved will not resign. Instead they will return triumphant to their posts to the thunderous applause of their constituency and colleagues.

The Democrats will exploit the Tobias story to bolster their ridiculous notion of a "culture of Corruption", indeed, the left wing blogs (although I don't visit or read them) are no doubt already celebrating yet another stunning victory.

So, my predictions have not been proven wrong. I stand by my original predictions.

They Were Heroes Once

"The real hero is always a hero by mistake; he dreams of being an honest coward like everybody else." ~ Umberto Eco

While channel surfing last night I happened across some Congressional hearing being chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman. I don't know the name of the committee, but it was about the fabrication of stories of heroism in Iraq, specifically, the friendly fire death of Former pro football player Pat Tillman and the capture and ultimate rescue of Jessica Lynch. As I've said before, I'm really not a news junkie, but I stopped and watched, and listened as former hero Jessica Lynch recounted her experience in Iraq.

Jessica says she is still confused about "why they chose to lie and make me a legend."

And so am I.

As I watched, the thought struck me that Ms Lynch was exactly right. Yes, the Armed services and the media lied about the circumstances of Jessica and Pat Tillman's heroism. Yes, Jessica was not the hero the media and the armed services hyped her to be. No, Pat Tillman didn't die as a result of enemy fire.

But I was also struck by the realization that for whatever reason, the powers that be decided that America needs these people to be heroes. They seem to believe that Pvt Lynch needed to bravely fight off her eventual capture, guns in both hands blazing, until she was at last overwhelmed.

They seem to believe America needed Pat Tillman to be shot by enemy soldiers while vainly fighting to save his comrades.

Why do we need to invent stories of heroism to sell the war to everyday non combatant Americans? Are there no "actual" heroes available?


I think Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman, and those thousands of others are heroes. They are heroes just for enlisting. They are heroes for just going to Iraq. They are heroes by virtue of just being there, fighting so that we here in the states don't have to face terrorism in our own back yards.

Why do the armed services and/or the media have to invent stories to create larger than life super heroes out of men and women who are just doing their jobs? Do they really believe it necessary to sell the war at home? Do they believe it necessary to create legends instead of simply reporting the facts? There are plenty of real heroic acts in this war to report without embellishment. Many of them even more dramatic than the ones they report.

Isn't the images of terrorists sawing off the heads of innocent civilians and the results of suicide bombers enough to convince the public that terrorists need to be stopped? Who do they think is going to stop them if not soldiers?

Propaganda is a tactic employed by every government in every age since the world began. It is a profoundly effective way to influence troops and public opinion, either for purposes of motivating or for demoralizing.

So what?

Everyone who enlisted in this time of war is a hero to me. Not only the ones in actual life risking combat situations, but everyone who dons a uniform of the United States Armed services. Whether they are shooting at the enemy or simply requisitioning office supplies and filing papers for the everyday operations on bases here at home.

All are heroes.

They are the reason I can sit here in relative comfort and type these words without fear of being taken in the night and imprisoned and tortured and summarily executed for expressing my convictions. I have the freedom to agree or disagree with my government, or the news media, or anyone else because of the commitment of these brave men and women who consider it not only a right, but a privilege to serve.

Why invent heroes? Why?

And, as long as we're asking questions, why are we bothering to investigate these stories in the first place? What is being accomplished by downplaying the role of our soldiers in battle?

It seems to me that the Democrats conducting these hearings are attempting to discredit the current administration. It is a red herring. It is a blatant attempt to distract Americans from the real reason we are fighting this war. The real reason Tillman and Lynch were over there in the first place. They want to focus on the propaganda instead of why we make use of the propaganda:

To inspire and motivate our own people, and to demoralize our enemies.

And what they are succeeding in doing is precisely the opposite.

Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman and thousands of others are heroes. It matters not how they earned their accolades, only that they have earned them.

Ambassador Bill

"And thus I clothe my naked villainy
With old odd ends, stol'n forth of holy writ;
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil." ~ William Shakespeare

Hillary Clinton has announced what role her husband will play in her Presidential administration.

No, it won't be interviewing candidates for positions as interns (literally) under him.

According to the Liberally biased AP, She wants to make him "a roaming ambassador to the world, using his skills to repair the nation's tattered image abroad".

Personally, I think this is a great idea! No, seriously. There is no doubt that Bill has great charisma, and is loved by dictators, despots, Socialists, and terrorist leaders around the world.

That's a good thing, isn't it?

Here's another possible good thing that can come out of Hilary's plans for her husband:

If Bill gets killed by the terrorists while he is trying to negotiate appeasement terms with them, the Democrats will finally see why we are fighting them.

After all, he is the Democrats hero, isn't he?

The Victimization Of Cho

“There is something rotten in the state of Denmark!” ~ William Shakespeare

One prediction I forgot to include on Tuesday when I offered my predictions on the aftermath of the Virginia Tech massacre is now too late to make because it is becoming evident that the process has already started.

The media will attempt to create victimhood status for Seung-hui Cho.

I realize it doesn't look like that's what they are doing yet, but give them time. They realize that any characterization of the shooter as a victim of social injustice at this time is too soon, and the public will not buy it. But let the shock wear off a little. Right now they are preparing us for the big announcement.

Already they are attempting to desensitize us to the fact that he murdered 32 innocent people by focusing instead on his insane pronouncements that rich people and Christianity are at fault for making him kill.

They will latch onto these statements and present them as inescapable fact to create a sense of guilt in rich people and Christians, and any other group of people they want to blame.

They will blame Christianity and man's inhumanity to man to excuse the murderous acts of any crazy person who commits murder.

It is never the perpetrator's fault. It is always society's.

I want to also point out that already, the Democrats are talking about legislation to prevent this type of thing from happening again, just as I predicted.

The only reason they haven't already introduced a bill making it illegal to shoot college students on college campuses, is because they haven't agreed among each other what the exact wording of the bill should be. They can't just say, "It shall be illegal to shoot college students on college campuses". That would be too simple and too transparent. They have to make sure it doesn't sound redundant.

After all, as I pointed out on Tuesday, murder is already illegal.

It is both amusing and frightening just how predictable these Liberals have become.

Tax Day!

Click to enlarge.

Multiple posting today. Scroll down for my thoughts on todays news.

More Predictions

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." ~ Isaac Asimov



The tragic events at Virginia Tech University yesterday has started me thinking again, (see previous post) and so, I have a couple more predictions to share.

Prediction number 1:

I will not go so far as to say at this point that I believe the shooter was a Muslim, but my prediction is, if it becomes known that the shooter was a Muslim, we won't hear it from the Mainstream media. We won't hear it on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, or read it in the New York Slimes, Washington ComPost, the L.A. Slimes, The Cleveland Claim Dealer, etc.

The media simply doesn't want to blame Muslims for anything. If the media is forced to acknowledge the shooter is a Muslim, they will find a way to blame his onslaught on Conservatism, or Christianity, or both.

However, you may hear it from FOX News.

Prediction number 2:

OK. This one is a no-brainer. The gun control left will renew their incessant call for outlawing guns. The right will renew their insistence that "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". And the right will be ...well...right. Left wingers will cite other countries that don't have high gun related death rates because of strict gun control laws, and Conservatives will point out true statistics that refute that myth.

Prediction number 3:

There will be copycat shootings in other schools within the next few weeks. Probably not Colleges. Most likely high schools.

Prediction number 4:

In short order, The Democratically controlled United States Congress will introduce legislation that will make it illegal to shoot students on College campuses. This is something that I have always referred to as "Typical Government Overkill".

Remember the case of Matthew Shepard, the gay young man who was beaten to death by a couple of gay bashing thugs in Wyoming? Congress reacted to his death by passing a law that effectively made it illegal to kill gays because they are gay.

The dragging death of James Byrd in Texas by a couple of white racists prompted Congress to pass a law making it illegal to kill people because of their color.

The preceding examples are labeled "hate Crime legislation" to distinguish them from just plain murder, which as we all know, is already illegal.

I might point out here, that the Democrats know that shooting college students on college campuses is already illegal, but this will prove to the gullible that Democrats are at least doing something to prevent violence.

Actually, to be fair, I shouldn't lay this unnecessary legislation on the Democrats doorstep alone. Many Republicans introduce equally redundant laws.

Oh well, I suppose that's what we pay them for, isn't it?

I Think

"I think, therefore, I am" ~ René Descartes

Imagine my surprise when I discovered I have been awarded a "Thinking blogger" award, from not one, but two of my fellow bloggers!
The Thinking Blogger Award

Ken, from "The Conservative Truth/ The Liberal Lie" , left the message for me in the comments section of my last post, as did Mary, from "Freedom Eden".

Actually, I'm not completely sure if I got the award because I make people think or because I think, myself. I will define it in my own way, thank you, and assume it means I think.

Who'da thunk?

The reason this comes as such a surprise to me is because there are some bloggers that apparently believe that I don't think at all.

I won't mention any names, but one in particular comes to mind who's initials are E.R. He repeatedly accuses me of getting all my blog entry ideas from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, etc. I assume this means he doesn't believe I have the capacity to think for myself. He often infers that I listen too much to Conservative talk radio.

Nothing could be further from the truth. While I enjoy listening to Conservative talk radio, unfortunately I rarely do anymore, due to the fact that I only listen to radio when I'm driving, and the old pick-up truck I've been driving doesn't have one.

Interesting enough, I recently responded to one of his typical accusations over at ELAshley's place, in which I charged that he is less likely to do any original thinking than I. I referred to the fact that his posts usually are copied and pasted from some overtly Liberal website somewhere, with very little actual commentary from him. I rarely do that.

ELAshley, by the way, is one of my choices for my bestowal of the thinking blogger award.

So, while I'm on that subject, I am expected to list The Official Participation Rules. They are as follows:

1. If, and only if, you get tagged, write a post with links to 5 blogs that make you think

2. Link to this post so that people can easily find the exact origin of the meme

3. Optional: Proudly display the 'Thinking Blogger Award' with a link to the post that you wrote.

Here are my official choices for Thinking Blogger Award recipients:

1. Lone Ranger

2. Serial Extremist

3. The Flesh is Grass

4. Chicago Con

5. Trucker Philosophy

I would have liked to add Marshall Art to the list, but as far as I know, he doesn't have a blog. Yet.

Just to prove that I do indeed think, here is a thought upon which I often reflect, and it involves the quote I placed at the beginning of this post:

If, in the course of a discussion, Descartes were to state, "I think not", would he then cease to exist?

Ultra-Sensitivity And Over-Reacction

"There will be a time when loud-mouthed, incompetent people seem to be getting the best of you. When that happens, you only have to be patient and wait for them to self destruct. It never fails." ~ Richard Rybolt

Forgive me. I know I have an opinion about this whole Don Imus' insensitive remark thing, but I can't seem to get my mind wrapped around how I feel. I know I feel something but I can't seem to articulate what I want to say.

The way I usually handle this kind of dilemma is to just start typing and whatever comes out is closest to what I want to say, but is rarely everything I have to say.

The issue is so petty and so unimportant, I don't know why it causes me to be unable to sleep thinking about it.

The remark, which referred to the Rutgers University women's basketball team as "nappy headed ho's", was absolutely insensitive, and on that, I believe we all agree.

I think the issue is not so much in what was said, but in the intent behind it.

Did Imus use the term as an intentional insult, or was he simply using a common colloquialism used routinely by blacks in an non-derogatory way? It can be argued that he was echoing the same kind of euphemisms that blacks use in their own everyday conversation, in an unconscious attempt to relate to his black audience members.

I don't think so. Don Imus is, in my opinion, an elitist, condescending, egotist who cares about one person and one person only. Himself. He believes himself intellectually above the masses. He is an angry, hateful man.

I don't doubt for an instant that he was forced by his radio network to issue an apology or face serious repercussions.

Everything and everyone is fair game to Don Imus. So, in that respect, he probably shouldn't be faulted for singling out one particular race. He is, after all, an equal opportunity offender.

Does he really have that much disrespect for black people? Absolutely. However, he has that much disrespect for all people regardless of race, color, or creed. Does that excuse his inappropriate remark?

Not on your life.

He did apologize, by the way, and his apology sounded quite a bit more sincere than others, such as Dick Durbin's and Cynthia McKinney's "If I have offended anyone" apologies.

Curiously, they still have their jobs.

On the other hand, I also believe the civil rights leaders who claim to be offended aren't really offended at all, but would never miss an opportunity to use any so-called offensive remark to generate more publicity and inflame as much public outrage as they can. Their entire motive is to further widen the gap between whites and minorities in this country, and Imus played right into their hands.

Rev. Al Sharpton, who has himself used similar offensive terms in referring to white people and has yet to offer an apology, had Imus on his radio show ostensibly, so Imus could apologize, and ended up pretending further offense when Imus inadvertently referred to Sharpton and his black Congresswoman telephone guest as "you people".

Obviously, Imus wasn't referring to all black people when he said that, but Sharpton was quick to object strenuously at the intentionally mis-perceived phrase.

Howard Stern, an equally egotistic radio shock jock, who has himself experienced some conflict with Don Imus in the past, nevertheless rallied to his foe's side, saying, something like, He shouldn't have apologized. He should have said it's just a joke, F--- You.

Now, Imus has been fired by MSNBC, and speculation abounds about whether CBS radio will fire him as well. If he is fired, it won't hurt him. In fact, it may turn out to be advantageous to him. Satellite radio will hire him and probably at a much higher pay rate.

Another thing I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around is this seeming ultra sensitivity to just about everything these days. It seems to me that too many people are much too thin skinned, and object to the most petty of offenses. If I am called a "cracker" or a "peckerwood" by a black person, I don't feel the least bit offended, but maybe that's because I really don't understand what it is about those words that I am to be offended. I know they are supposed to be insults directed at whites mainly because of our color, but I don't know what the terms mean.

Lewis Farrakhan has referred to whites in general as "white devils". I find that slightly offensive, but certainly not enough to rise up in outrage and demand his immediate execution. He never apologized for that, as far as I know. Jesse Jackson used the term "Hymie town" in referring to New York City's large population of Jews. He never apologized. Sharpton himself has ignited race riots with his racist pronouncements. Riots in which lives were lost. I don't remember an apology for that.

I find the loss of life resulting from irresponsible and unmotivated racist remarks highly and outrageously offensive. My outrage is not, however, predicated on what color I am.

It's not only over sensitivity to racist remarks that has me troubled. There are also all kinds of other examples of ultra sensitivity and the resulting over-reaction. I am thinking specifically of situations involving the relatively new problem of deadly road rage.

This is over-sensitivity related, too.

Yesterday, a truck driver in Maryland deliberately rammed a car off the road, killing the two occupants of the vehicle. Reports from eyewitnesses say the drivers of both vehicles involved had been driving recklessly, shouting, and flipping each other off just prior to the incident. Needless to say, the driver of the pick up sped away and authorities are still searching for him.

Last night, another incident occurred in Virginia on I-95 which also may have been a case of road rage. It may not either, but in any case, a car was exceeding the speed limit by about 15 miles per hour and slammed into the side of a semi-trailer truck, forcing the truck off the road, where it overturned, killing the driver and blocking all lanes of traffic.

That angered me personally, because I was caught in the traffic jam myself. I felt no need to react violently. But then, I have learned to be patient in my declining years.

Hey! Here's a thought!

Perhaps the appropriate punishment for people who have difficulty with being able to be patient would be some practical education. They should be forced to learn patience the same way I learned how to be patient.

They should be forced to stand in the longest, slowest moving check out line at Walmart, and not complain.

What If They Held A Debate And No One Came?

"Curiouser and curiouser', Cried Alice (She was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English)" ~ Lewis Carrol

While the hot topic in the news is yet another of Don Imus' ignorant statements, (Imus has always been a jerk, and if anyone thinks he doesn't really think that way, seek professional help) there comes a rather curious story regarding the refusal of at least three major Democratic Presidential candidates to participate in a debate because....I guess...it was to be broadcast on FOX News.

Now this, I have to admit, I don't get. What are Hillary, Obama, and Edwards afraid of? Do they think that somehow, FOX will make them say something they don't want the public to know? Or is it that because FOX news is fair and balanced they fear they won't be allowed to get away with untruths that the other networks would allow? And how would FOX news be able to do that if they just allowed the candidates to speak without offering comment?

I have tried to come up with some perspective on this but I really have no idea what the motivation is to refuse FOX to broadcast this debate unless it is some childish attitude along the lines of "I don't like them so I won't go to their stupid party" kind of thing.

The debate will be co-sponsored by FOX News and the Congressional Black Caucus. On the surface it would seem the Democrats are cutting off their nose to spite their face, (after all, black voters are a big part of the Democrats base) but that wouldn't be true, either, according to the Liberally biased AP:

"Democrats have been under pressure from liberal activists to avoid Fox-hosted debates. Last month, the Nevada Democratic Party canceled a debate that Fox was to co-sponsor in August.

The institute, a nonprofit group whose directors include members of the Congressional Black Caucus, and Fox News announced an agreement nearly two weeks ago to air Republican and Democratic presidential debates. But activists, including civil rights leader Jesse Jackson, immediately criticized the alliance and many called on Democrats to pull out."

Jesse Jackson criticizing other blacks? Who'd a thunk?

So the question remains: What do the Democrat Presidential candidates fear?

And does America really want a President that is afraid of something so innocuous as a news network?

Happy Easter!

"After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

The angel said to the women, 'Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay." ~ Matthew 28:1-6

Photo courtesy of Poison Pero

Happy Easter. For more of my thoughts about this day, see my other blog, "Gods way, My way"

Arrogance Knows No Bounds

"To excite opposition and inflame malevolence is the unhappy privilege of courage made arrogant by consciousness of strength." ~ Samuel Johnson

Arrogance knows no bounds. President Bush has appointed Republican fundraiser Sam Fox as U.S. ambassador to Belgium over the objections of the Democratic party, and especially, John Kerry.

According to the Liberally biased AP, "Democrats had denounced Fox for his donation to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth during the 2004 presidential campaign. The group's TV ads, which claimed that Sen. John Kerry exaggerated his military record in Vietnam, were viewed as a major factor in the Massachusetts Democrat's election loss."

"Fox, a 77-year-old St. Louis businessman, gave $50,000 to the Swift Boat group. He is national chairman of the Jewish Republican Coalition and was dubbed a "ranger" by Bush's 2004 campaign for raising at least $200,000. He is founder and chairman of the Clayton, Mo.-based Harbour Group, which specializes in the takeover of manufacturing companies.

Fox has donated millions of dollars to Republican candidates and causes since the 1990s."


They even said what the President did may be illegal. I don't believe it is. He used the same strategy to appoint John Bolton ambassador to the UN.

Oh, horror of horrors! Fox actually donated to a group that supported one candidate over another! For shame! for shame!

One would think that Fox is a Republican or something. Farbeit from a Democrat President to ever appoint a Democrat fundraiser to an important office.

Really, the thing that astounds me over this thing is the arrogance of both the Democrats and the President.

First, While I think it was brilliant of the President to make use of the recess appointment strategy, I also think it was an intentional slap in the face of the Democrats. I don't think it was necessary to appoint Fox, in particular. I think there are probably many less controversial and better qualified prospects. I think it was a move calculated to anger the Democrats.

If a Democratic President did the same thing, I am quite sure I would be as outraged as the Democrats are now.

But I'm not outraged now. I am, after all, a Republican.

On the other hand, how dare the Democrats object to this appointment just because he donated money to Bush's Presidential campaign! The reason they don't want him to be ambassador is because they are still angry that Kerry got caught being a phony, and Fox was one of many who helped catch him.

Go ahead, Democrats! Take your ball and go home! Geeez.

The real arrogance comes from John Kerry. He still insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that he is a genuine war hero. The Swift Boat Veterans brought forth overwhelming eye witness testimony (which is admissible in any court in the land, with the possible exception of California's 6th district court.) that John Kerry is a phony, but still the Democrats still insist he is a hero.

A hero that undermines the troops and the war effort? That isn't a hero as far as I'm concerned.

Then there's the arrogance of Nancy Pelosi. Despite the administration telling her explicitly not to go to Syria, she went anyway. And what did she do while over there comporting with one of the worlds worst terrorists and dictators? From another AP article, "After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said."

This, according to a Washington Compost editorial, is a misrepresentation.

Misrepresentation? Let's call it what it is:

A lie.

That's arrogance, too.

Arrogance is not necessarily a bad thing. It often helps sports teams get motivated to win. It helps businessmen convince their bosses that they have what it takes to be promoted. It can be healthy.

But not in this case. President Bush showed arrogance, absolutely.

But, in comparison to the Democrats, his is minimal.

A Fungus Amung Us

"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." ~ Sun-tzu

Well, a Democrat turned Republican turned Democrat again is making news today.

According to the AP, a news organization that seems to take a great deal of delight in any story, (or even non-story) that makes the Republicans and George W. Bush specifically, look bad, Michael Dowd, a "top Democratic strategist", is disappointed in Bush's leadership.

Dowd, (no relation to Maureen or even Elwood P?) labeled by the fawning AP as "a symbol of George W. Bush’s early success at positioning himself as a Republican with Democratic appeal" has come out with the statement that his faith in President Bush was "misplaced".

So, he never really switched parties in the first place. He just thought Bush was more Democrat than Republican. Or did he?

According to the Liberally biased AP, "He criticized the president as failing to call the nation to a shared sense of sacrifice at a time of war, failing to reach across the political divide to build consensus and ignoring the will of the people on Iraq. He said he believed the president had not moved aggressively enough to hold anyone accountable for the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and that Mr. Bush still approached governing with a “my way or the highway” mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides."

Who is he kidding?

Let's take these allegations one at a time.

President Bush failed to call the nation to a shared sense of sacrifice at a time of war?

Bush has never ceased to call for a shared sense of sacrifice. From the very beginning of this conflict in Iraq, he has constantly referred to the struggle as a long road that we must travel to assure freedom throughout the world, and that it would take tremendous sacrifices for all Americans.

I guess the the Defeatocrats and the RINO appeasers in Congress who have constantly opposed and undermined his efforts don't consider themselves part of that America.

He failed to reach across the political divide to build consensus and ignoring the will of the people on Iraq?

If President Bush has failed to build consensus, it hasn't been his fault. One need only to look at the Democrats in both Houses of Congress to see who has failed in that particular endeavor.

If anything, Bush has tried too hard to reach consensus with the Democrats, with his concessionary attitude toward those who would seek surrender in the war on Terror. You know, like Murtha and Kerry et al.

He ignores the will of the people? What people? Democrats? "Jihad" Jane Fonda? "Peace through surrender" Cindy Sheehan?

Most Americans want us to win in Iraq. It's true many Americans have changed their minds about how this war should be fought, but winning the war is still the ultimate goal of most of us. And that is precisely what he is trying to do, in spite of whining bleeding heart liberal sob sisters like Joe Biden and Chucky Shumer.

He didn't hold those responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib accountable?

On what planet? Was Lindy not convicted? Was her boyfriend's sentence commuted? If so, I didn't hear about it. Hasn't everyone involved in that scandal been punished?

What more does Mr. Dowd want?

Mr. Bush approached governing with a “my way or the highway” mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides"?

Well, most people would consider that "my way or the highway" mentality a desirable quality of strong leadership.

That said, really the only reason his circle of aides could be shrinking is the number of baseless allegations of scandal ensuing from the left side of the aisle, aimed at discrediting the integrity of Bush's aides. Rather than distract America from the truly important issues, they simply resign. It isn't because they no longer believe in Bush or his mission.

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would say that Mr. Dowd is a Democrat plant, placed in Bush's inner circle to discredit him, thereby destroying the administration from within. But I'm not a conspiracy theorist, so I don't think that way.

I do think, however, that Mr. Dowd is a fair weather opportunist who jumps from one side to the other depending on which party appears to have the political advantage over the other.

They call those kind of people "mugwumps". They are the ones who sit with their mugs on one side of the fence, and their wumps on the other.

If Bush has made any mistake it was in the hiring of this guy. Obviously, he failed to properly screen those who work on his campaigns.