Submitted by popo, Mar 7, 2007 17:50

The president said that it may be "the first time in the history of the United States Congress" that the body "voted to send a new commander into battle and then voted to oppose the plan he said was critical in winning that battle."

Uh... could that be because the entire premise for war turned out to be based on manufactured evidence? Could it be because at every phase of this operation the White House has spoken half-truths, released overly rosy data and at other times flat-out lied to the American people? Could it be because the costs of the war have skyrocketed and the American people have born witness to the birth of utterly-bizarre new words like "no bid contract"? Could it be because during the course of this "war" the President has seized unprecedented powers for the Executive, claimed sweeping war powers and trampled on civil liberties?

This isn't about a Congress that has turned. This is about a Congress that has slowly (painfully slowly) become enlightened to terrifying threat to America from within.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.