It's obvious what Bush's plan is - just count the days until he retires to Crawford, then hit the lecture circuit and start raking in the big bucks. In the meantime, just veto anything worthwhile the Democrats send his way.

Most presidents have a mixed record, some better than others. But I can't think of a single way in which this country is better off due to Bush's presidency. And I voted for the guy the first time (sorry to say).

We re going from the premise that President George Bush has the power to remedy the mess he has gotten us into with his wars we don't have enough money to pay for.

First of all, and that is good. The US Government is set up in three branches for Checks and Balances. On top of the troika is CONGRESS. But they have failed the people whom they were to represent; and that is not so good.

I read in The Fresno Bee (off and on) about the large portion of American assets (wealth) is being owned and controlled by foreign nations. The largest portion of the remaining wealth is being skimmed by the (what President Eisenhower called it) "the military industrial complex." America now is the dubious owner of an armament industry al la Krupp et. al..

I don't know how Americans can get America back legally. The Hitler regime just confiscated the foreign "capital". Lawfulness was not in their vocabulary. Probably Mussolini and the ruler of Japan did the same.

As I've said, I don't have the solution, but don't expect that the next president can solve the problem. Both of the Bush presidents, like the "Sorcerer's Apprentice"
were able to command the broom to carry water to a point of flood, but now cannot stop it.

Congress has the power to do a lot, but do they have the backbone? Most of them
have spines like wet noodles. I know for certain that the Evangelical Right is not
going to be our salvation.In the final analysis, it will have to be Tom, Dick and
Harry and their lady counterparts to save the UNION. Forgo to buy that new car with the dividends that were earned from the dividends in war material and its related services skimming off money in astronomical amounts.

Ms. Lawson, you correctly point out that there are checks and balances between the branches of government. You also seem to expect Congress to be the branch that takes the lead in getting us out of this mess.

The problem with that is that there are checks and balances within Congress as well. The Democrats have a solid majority in the House, but only a slim majority in the Senate - and only when you count Joe Lieberman, who is independent and votes Republican on many issues. And that doesn't even take into account the power of the filibuster, which allows a minority in the Senate to stop a bill in its tracks.

Thus, while the President is not omnipotent, it is largely the President's job to take the lead. Which is another reason why Bush's tactic of blaming Congress is so lame.

The president can recommend legislation, and congress controlls the allotment of money. And that is where the real power is, or should be as invisioned.

United States Constitution
Article 1...."All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of representatives."

I do not expect Congress to
do much for the people, as I have said, too many legislators of today have a spine like wet macaroni.

The salvation must come from the people. In a free
political system, in the final analysis, the people get the kind of government they deserve. Party affiliations do not enter into as much as the quality of their elected
congress.

And I fully agree, the constitution does not ascribe omnipotence to the presidency. The ultimate
power is with We the People. Congress nor president elect themselves.

And it may be true that Bush blaming congress is lame. But, the inevitable but...
Presidents could not go to war without congress, but congress gave the power to the presedency. And one thing the president still cannot do is the allocation of money.

And that's enough...I may not agree with what my opponents have to say, but with my life shall I defend their right to say it (Voltaire)

Quite frankly it is scary any way you look at it.

Was it a grand scheme to line the pockets of defense contractors?

Or was this a bungled mess costing the taxpayers billions a month?

Either way, we are all belly over a barrel and that is expensive as well.

"Freedom isn't free" heck if it costs this much to waste our money overseas communism may have an upward trend.

Failure-to-impeach, which is Congress' sworn duty, may be their undoing, just as their failure to impeach Reagan enabled Republican dominance for 2 generations, instead, the Democrats discovered "fical conservatism", shorthand for de-regulation, which only helped to diefy him, (to the extent that the democrat candidate today feels oblidged to praise Reaganism.) Absent impeachment, be assured that schools, airports, etc, will be named after Bush...If the soap operas got pre-empted, as they were during Watergate hearings, this impeachment is a slam dunk, Americans were forced to watch, (in those days there were only 3 channels) but were given voluminous evidence, and they were pissed! The Republican leadership turned on Nixon quickly in order to salvage their party. Imagine all the charges, (it took Rep. Kucinich hours just to read the 30-odd crimes and misdemeaners)against these guys, exposed, in detail, on cable TV, day after day,... Failure-to-impeach is certainly not a matter of getting enough votes, these guys are already persona non grata at their own partys functions, no one wants the stink, and yet impeachment is off the table, Nancy?...no, failure-to-impeach is all the evidence one needs to understand the dubious symbiosis of the two-party-party, as if the "Patiot act" weren't ample, twas but a sample. His legacy will be the eight years we had to endure with a vice-pres. mysteriously at the helm who danced all night with they that brung'em, and a Supreme court and Congress that enabled this low-brow coup. Nothing was bungled. Where we are, was a plan sucessfully executed, but to his credit,certainly not by the nincompoop-in-chief...."the problem with the American dream is, ya gotta be asleep..."...George Carlin

Post signed, Mike D, published his regrets, having voted for President Bush(the younger.) And he is not the only one (I know) who are sorry likewise.
A very dear friend (a university instructor) did vote less for Bush than she
voted against Al Gore.
"WHY?"
"BECAUSE AL GORE MAY NOT BE VERY NICE" She answered. Social amenities compelled me to drop the subject.
About half of a century ago, Adlai Stevenson, the world's most respected
American statesman of the post World War II era, proofed to be un-electable
for president in the US because he divorced....can you believe it?

How Franklin D. Roosevelt was able to be elected three times is an enigma.
Because Americans are allergic to intellectuals and more so if it lack
being folksy.

The great Republican Earl Warren (Governor of California, and US Supreme
Court Chief Justice) decorated the American landscape with billboards
"IMPEACH EARL WARREN."

It's a dismal testimony, but in this Christian, born again (whatever that is)nation, not even the carpenter from Nazareth himself, would have much
of a chance. Today too, the echo of "...give us Barabbas!" would sound
from hill to hill across the plains. And that's a fact!

P.S. I am a Roman Catholic , and born only once...and I am sure that was enough for Mother.

I still can't get over that Bush was elected and re-elected. Being an oil man and relationship with the Bin Ladin family didn't seem to matter. How dumb was that?

Interesting - not one post actually saying anything positive about Bush. Is he finally losing his supporters even here in the Central Valley?

Your premise is that positive words lend the kind of support President Bush relies on to sustain himself while enduring the pressures of that office, hardly.

Most already here have a plan to react negatively and vocalize dismay at every action he takes. Meanwhile, he is busy as a bee completing his agenda.
I'm sure he will.

RE: Bart Turnipseed, 2nd paragraph.

With all due respect, I know the words, They are English, but the message escapes me.

I have a great deal of respect for the President. I regret that many opinions seem to bring negative personal criticism of him into the public domain, as though it makes a difference.

As a cosmopolitan, surely you know that folks from all over the world read these comments. Would you lead them to believe that ultimately we do not support our chief executive? You may disagree but I don't think this form of protest is useful or American.

Happy Independence Day everyone.

Re: Mike D. His query being: "...is he [President Bush ed.] finally loosing his supporters in the Central Valley?"

To my chagrin, we have no clinical proof it. Only some empirical conclusions.
For about one month (or so) I am a veteran of even knowing the word BLOG,
and being a participant by contributing some of my 2 cents worth. Above all,
I had the privilege of learning about the ideas, philosophy and experiences
of earnest people from this community. But they are in a very limited number.I know their post names like I would of good friends.

It is like participating in a round table discussion. It's nice.
But it is not a popular grass root community discourse for changing the current state of affairs which has become a source of frustration to a great number of the Central Valley citizenry; and across America.

This being the birthday of this nation. The participants in the Revolution of 76 had to travel far and wide. No obscene size super jets, no email, no Blogs, not even the US surface snail mail. They had Paul Revere and his swift pony.

Was it easier to take the country away from the foreigners, than it is to take it back from those around us who would undo
what the Spirit of 76 had
accomplished?

It is a shame that the Fresno Bee is so stingy with the space it allows for the letters from the people. Less than an entire page of the paper and one letter a month per person....a revolution of 2008 it not maketh.