The Congress has become a threat to "National Security".

[kentuck]

Impossible? Unthinkable? Just look at the facts.

They are led around by the nose by an arrogant, unintelligent president that intimidates the crap out of all of them. They are scared to death of him. They are wimps.

Never mind that he is a psychopath and a megalomaniac. He uses that to his advantage. Who would challenge such an intimidating character? Certainly not the Congress of the United States and most certainly, not the Republican Party.

The Congress of the United States has set by idly as this wayward leader has lied us into war and our troops are stuck in a sandy quagmire in the Middle East. They have set idly by as the Bush people have spent our national treasure, both in lives and money. They have appeased George W Bush at every turn, when they should have slapped him down early and put him in his place. He is the President - not the King. He answers to the people or the people's Representatives. He does not have permission to sell our ports or take us to wars of his choice or to spend us into bankruptcy. But, he has done all the above. Why? Because of the Congress of the Untied States not doing their job. They are supposed to be there to represent us but they are representing someone else. They are a threat to our national security.

[Lindsay]

1. Well said, although there are exceptions.

There are some few Dems who walk the walk as well as talk the talk. And even some Repugs speak up, but when votes are cast, they just get in line.

[tecelote]

2. Totally Agree

We need to change course and elect honest people to represent us in Washington.

Obviously, from the lack of outrage, the whole lot of them are corrupt.

If you're not outraged, you're not listening.

[Mandate My Ass]

3. We're on our own

When Bush decides to bomb Iran they'll whine a bit then sign on, oh so reluctantly, and pretend they don't remember the lies that led to invading Iraq.

When his popularity was in the high 80's their appeasement was ethically questionable, now they're just making it abundantly clear they are serving the PTB with occasional impotent sideshow "hearings" to keep it looking legit. I wish they'd go home and quit showing up for appearance's sake. It isn't remotely believable anymore.

[sendero]

4. Over the last few weeks..

... I've had a change of mind. While I still think Ralph Nader was wrong for staying in key races in 2000, he was right about one thing, there isn't an ounce of practical difference between the Dems and the Repubs.

Hear me out. Do I think Al Gore would have instigated a war with Iraq? No, I don't. But no one can look at the facts and say that any substantial number of Dems have really opposed the war. Or any other of Bush**'s misbegotten policies. Except for SS, which truly is the third rail of politics, the Dems have been nearly 100% ineffective at stopping the Bush agenda.

I used to think that was because they are spineless, cared only about keeping their jobs, etc., but I'm coming around. It has to go deeper than that. They are complicit. There are too many cases where they could have easily, and without political cost, stepped up and done something, but they didn't.

I realize this opinion is not shared by many, but believe me, when I came here 4 years ago I scoffed derisively at Nader's assertion. After watching this little pantomime for 4 years, I think he's 100% correct.

[Lerkfish]

7. I will say that whether complicit, coerced or coopted, the end result

is the same.

There are obvious exceptions: Boxer, Conyers, Mckinney, etc.

but by and large, I see no end result difference whether they're simply wimps or complicit.

[hang a left]

5. ....can I get an Amen!

Amen Brother!! They are accomplices. Rat Bastards!

[kentuck]

6. They are wimps...

Every decision is made out of fear. That is not in our best interest. They have become accomplices, just as someone said.