"Maybe he [Bush] need not be "endured" any longer, Hugh, as there is a very simple, and legal, remedy for this problem: vote Democrat. Since the "Great Hallucinator" has pointedly refused to hear what the American people demand, impeachment will (justifiably?) be Item Number One on a Democrat congressional agenda."
-- from a reader

No, Bush should not be impeached. Many of his policies -- such as those on the need for wiretapping, and the refusal to endow non-citizens with the same constitutional rights as citizens -- deserve support. Almost everything he, or his administration, has asked for when it comes to Congressional approval of surveillance methods, and methods of interrogation, deserve support.

It is his sentimentalism, his inarticulateness, his confusion about Islam, his singleminded belief that "terrorism" is the problem and not Islam itself, his fantastic squandering of resources in Iraq which is the result of his blind belief that "freedom" or "prosperity" or "freedom and prosperity" can and should be brought to Muslim lands by Infidels, and somehow, in some unspecified way, this will necessarily lead to a permanent reduction in the menace presented by the permanent and various instruments of Jihad. That's what's wrong with him, and remaining in Iraq may ensure the triumph not of the merely stupid (like Bush) but of the deliberately appeasement-minded.

It is true, however, that if American troops are withdrawn from Iraq, and there is no falling for the nonsense that "we created it so we have to stay and make things right" or, a variant, "we have to provide large amounts of aid to make up for all the chaos and confusion we brought to Iraq," then the mere act of leaving will allow, once again, the sectarian and ethnic divisions uncovered when Saddam Hussein's murderously heavy lid was removed from the Iraqi pot, to bubble over, a cheerful sight for watching Infidels, not so wonderful for members of the Muslim kaffeeklatsch.

Meanwhile, get out those Diogenes lanterns and go in search of, or help to locate, create, and support, candidates who are in the mold of, Henry Jackson, in either party. "A Good Man Is Hard To Find (You know you always get the other kind)" is a book by O'Connor. And it's a song by Bessie Smith. And it's the motto of the past several decades of presidential politics. Nonetheless, that hard-to-find good man (he can be a not impossible she) has to be found.

As for the suggestion in the posting above that the answer is to "vote Democrat," the question is why? Have the Democrats shown themselves capable of offering a coherent and intelligent criticism of the war in Iraq, one based on the notion that it is ineffectual, and instead sounded the alarm about the islamization of Europe? No, they haven't. Vote for those who see things correctly, of either party. That's the banal, obvious, only conclusion to be drawn. Why should anyone wish for such dangerous Democrats as James McDermott or Dingell to be re-elected, or Ellison to be elected? On the other hand, why should anyone wish to have Chafee re-elected?

When you suggest that the Democrats are just fine, I can only fall back on a quote:

"That's not what I meant at all. That's not it, at all."

Yes, despite his creator (the unpleasant son of a St. Louis furrier), Prufrock himself has his points. Especially when he can be enrolled in the same effort as one of my favorite authors, who was also no fan of his creator, the composer of "The Sweeniad," Miss Myra Buttle.