As I write this the administration and congress are on course for a spectacular confrontation. This is one that will be as important as the confrontation between Clinton and the Republican congress in 1995. Then, the confrontation may well have assured the former Arkansas Governor's reelection in 1996. Who will win this one?

Clearly George believes he can keep the public on his side by claiming that the Democrats are refusing to support troops that are in harm's way. The American public is wary of repeating the events of the post Vietnam era, when soldiers were blamed for the mistakes of their commander-in-chief.

One of my favorite columnists, Ted Rall, maintains that our murderers for hire do not deserve our respect and support. In one way I agree, but in another important way I disagree. From Rall's perspective all American soldiers are volunteers. They 'want' to go overseas and kill. Since they don't stand up to their commanders and refuse to obey immoral orders, they share responsibility for what they do.

I disagree with that for this reason. Not every soldier joins the military out of a desire to kill, maim, and destroy. These days the stark economic inequality of our society puts a lot of pressure on young people to find a good-paying job they can use to bootstrap themselves up the economic ladder. One job that's fairly easy to land is military service.

To further complicate matters, I know several national guard members. One of them from my workplace is a man I respect and enjoy discussing things with. I have found him to be a pleasant person without the "urge to kill" that leads some people to devote a lifetime to military service.

Since I've been working there (going on ten years now) he's done a tour of duty in Bosnia, one in Iraq, and has been notified that his unit is about to ship to Iraq again. Another man, about whom I cannot make the same endoresement (primarily because I don't know him as well), currently serves in Iraq.

The president keeps telling us that the war he started in Iraq is part of his "war on terror." He hopes that the presence of "terrorists" in Iraq will convince us he's right. No one can deny that Al Qaida now has a strong presence in Iraq, but experts remain divided on how strong that presence was before we attacked. And I have long believed that if the organization had a presence in Iraq, it was in the part of the country where we actively prevented the late Mr. Hussein from exercising full control.

In other words, instead of killing Saddam, we could have turned him into a valuable ally in the region who could have helped us in the war on terror. Everybody knows Saddam had little, if any, involvement in the planning of the 9-11 attacks. He's dead, but the head of the organization that most likely DID plan and execute the attacks remains free and uninjured.

A recent news item pointed out that Al Qaida has a large contingent of trained and experienced soldiers because the group has exploited the situation in Iraq. In other words, George Bush is providing his enemy with training and support. And those "terrorists in training" aren't the only ones causing trouble in Iraq. Iraqi patriots are doing what's in their power to push us out.

"We can't leave until we've won," King George protests. But for the four plus years of this conflict the junior Bush has successfully failed to define "win." And he's given away the store on why that is. He intends to keep our armies tied down in Iraq for as long as he's president. If he defined the situation under which we had "won," those benchmarks might just be met, and he'd be forced to pull the troops out.

People seeking an explanation for this radicalized politician's desire to go to war in Iraq might have at first believed it was out of a desire to teach the wayward dictator a lesson. But that can't be the case. Saddam Hussein is dead, but our soldiers still get blown up by IEDs. Then there's the errant nonsense that we're there to establish a democracy. "It's catching," one cartoonist claimed. That's why the Middle East is now entirely democratic. It all started when Israel was planted in the region.

"You've got your history wrong!" Yes, I do. The fact is that a democracy has operated at the heart of the Middle East for over fifty years, and not one of its neighbors has become more of a democracy than it was in the past. What makes us think changing Iraq would help? Furthermore, George selected the nation with the least hope of becoming a successful democracy for this war."

Is he sending us a message? Did he pick Iraq because he believed the war he started would last long enough to keep providing political capital for as long as he held office? Since he's held the constitution as normally interpreted in such disdain, does he intend to use the war as an excuse to stay in office past 1/20/2009?

For the sake of this nation and in defense of the values that made this nation great, we MUST remove this man from office as soon as humanly possible. We owe the world an apology for having unleashed and abetted the terrorists. For the sake of our own personal liberties we must put a stop to the ever-expanding police state powers King George the second has granted in the name of his "war on terror."

As the shootings at Virginia Tech have so aptly demonstrated, border controls won't stop terrorists from attacking us. We had enough information to know that the Korean shooter needed help, but we were too stingy to offer it. And we knew this without tapping his phone, reading emails not intended for us, or tracking him with video surveillance.

It makes no sense whatsoever to yeild up our liberties in the name of defending them. While those who want to stir up war with Iran (yes, they are publicly calling for it!) warn us of the dangers of this power of mixed government and religion, George and his cronies are busy setting up just such a tyrranical regieme right here in the United States. It makes no difference if our "official religion" is Christianity instead of Islam. The despotism that results when religion and government are mixed is just as heinous. If Iran's president is wrong, George Bush is equally wrong. Indeed, Iran has yet to start a war in a country that did not attack it.

If you value liberty, if you want to live in a truly great nation, if you have any shred of compassion for humanity, then you must oppose our current president. The crimes are there, waiting to be prosecuted. Let's not wait until 20-20 hindsight tells us what we should have done. There's still hope if we take action now.