Pelosi and Reid Call on BUSH to Listen to the Will of the American People on Iraq

[bigtree]

Pelosi and Reid Call on President to Listen to the Will of the American People on Iraq

WASHINGTON, June 13 -- Speaker Nancy Pelosi and
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today sent the following letter to
President Bush calling on him to reconsider his opposition to Congressional
proposals that would limit the U.S. mission in Iraq, begin the phased
redeployment of U.S. forces, and bring the war to a responsible end.


June 13, 2007

The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:
Last November, the American people overwhelmingly made clear their
desire to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end. Yet, at the start of
this year, you announced a substantial escalation of our military presence
in Iraq. This so-called "surge" was clearly at odds with past experiences
in Iraq, the wishes of the American people, and the advice of many senior
military leaders, including General Douglas Lute, your "war czar" nominee.
Nevertheless, you proceeded to call up thousands of additional National
Guardsmen and Reservists, extend the tours of tens of thousands of brave
troops already in Iraq, and plunge our forces even deeper into Iraq's civil
war.

As many had foreseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended
results. The increase in U.S. forces has had little impact in curbing the
violence or fostering political reconciliation. It has not enhanced
America's national security. The unsettling reality is that instances of
violence against Iraqis remain high and attacks on U.S. forces have
increased. In fact, the last two months of the war were the deadliest to
date for U.S. troops.

Meanwhile, Iraq's political leaders have done little to unite their
nation and diffuse sectarian tensions. Recent reports indicate that the
Iraqi government is unlikely to enact any of the legislative benchmarks
which you endorsed in your January 10 speech. While our troops and their
families are required to make greater sacrifices on behalf of the Iraqi
people, Iraq's political and military leaders are unlikely to meet any of
the standards for measuring progress which only a few months ago were
thought not only possible, but essential, to achieve. On June 12, the
former head of the US training operation in Iraq, General Dempsey, gave an
assessment of the capability of Iraqi security forces that concluded that
after years of effort and massive expenditure of resources, Iraqi units
remain uneven in their quality and reliability.

Congress on a bipartisan basis sent you legislation in April that set
forth a new strategy for Iraq that responded to the wishes of the American
people and better served America's national security interests. This
legislation, which you unfortunately chose to veto, was consistent with the
approach advocated by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group late last year. That
strategy called for transitioning the role of U.S. forces away from
policing a civil war to missions that are consistent with our strategic
interests, namely fighting terrorism, training Iraqis, and protecting U.S.
forces. The strategy also would have begun the phased redeployment of our
troops from Iraq so that Iraqis could take responsibility for their own
security.

In light of the additional evidence since your veto that your plan is
not working, it is clear that a course correction in Iraq is needed. That
is also the view of a substantial majority of the American people. Rather
than respond with a new plan immediately, Administration officials as well
as Republican congressional leaders suggest that your flawed Iraq strategy
not be revisited until September when General Petraeus is scheduled to
provide Congress with a progress report on Iraq. The only step you have
proposed in the interim is to divest your National Security Advisor of
control over Iraq policy and create a "war czar" position, an act that has
only served to create further confusion and concerns about your plans for
Iraq.

The American people cannot and should not have to wait until later this
year for changes in your flawed Iraq policy. There is an obligation to act
now. That is why we intend to again send you legislation that would limit
the U.S. mission in Iraq, begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces, and
bring the war to a responsible end. These are goals consistent with both
the national security of the United States and the will of the American
people. We respectfully request that you reconsider your previous
opposition to proposals that would accomplish these goals, and work with us
to give our troops a strategy worthy of their sacrifice. We look forward to
discussing these issues with you when we meet at the White House later
today to discuss stability in the Middle East. Thank you for your attention
to our concerns.

Sincerely,

Harry Reid Nancy Pelosi
Majority Leader Speaker

http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=276834&

[spanone]

1. I can see bu$h* playing trashcan basketball with this letter, he could care less.

[bigtree]

6. It proceeds the legislation they intend to introduce

How can they make it happen if they don't even try? Should Bush read their mind? This is a clear signal of their intention to continue pressing for action ahead of any September report. It is advance notice of their upcoming legislative rebuke.

Along with all of the talk of their responsibilities under the Constitution to hold Bush accountable, there should be some positive acknowledgment of efforts like these which may be short of the extraordinary remedy of impeachment, yet still serve as a responsible exercise of their authority in the majority.

[spanone]

22. I absolutely applaud them for sending this letter.

[madokie]

24. I applaud them

they and us have to do something

[waiting for hope]

2. Polite - but not forceful enough for me.

Get out the BIG STICK!

[AlinPA]

3. Karl Rove put that letter in the circular file where all the other letters from Democrats are filed.

[bigtree]

7. that's his loss

I don't think they care any more for what the idiot does with this than anything else that the creep does.

It does serve as notice of the pending legislative action on Iraq, even if the criminals at the White House are too lost in their own bubble to notice or care.

[Turbineguy]

4. Bush's answer

"Take your silly assed problem down the hall to somebody who gives a shit!"

[Donnachaidh]

5. ENOUGH with this PR BS of *calling on the President*

Jeez Louise I'm fed up with this NON-WORKING crap. Bush is NOT going to LISTEN already.

If you cannot get him to listen, then it is in the American interest to make his life SO frigging miserable that he considers eating pretzels again!

Fine. We Don't have the votes. But we DO have the will to question EVERYTHING he does, right down to passing GAS.

And MAKE the Congress WORK for their pay. GET RID of their RECESSES and DAYS off. Make the rest of the whining sobs STAY in Washington and WORK. :rant:

[bigtree]

9. It is a notice of pending, BINDING legislation

It's not just, 'here's some letter and then that's it.'

[Donnachaidh]

62. and exactly how many of these letters have they drafted and sent?

And how many have been IGNORED?

[bigtree]

64. It's about the legislation that's upcoming, not the letter itself

I guess it's easier to attack the leadership for sending a letter than it is to actually debate the substance of what they said. Frankly I think it's absurd for folks to be so satisfied to ignore what they said, even if we accept that Bush isn't listening.

[Bobbieo]

13. Pelosi and Reid are wasting tax payers time and money on rhese

stupid approaches to the Shrub. Yes, we taxpayers do pay their salaries!

[bigtree]

19. Confronting Bush with legislation is just as much a part of their constitutional responsibility

as anything else. It's their job, and I'm encouraged to see them determined to press forward.

[bdamomma]

14. psst, it is way past the time to storm the gates.

[RestoreGore]

17. ditto

[Virginia Dare]

25. That would be done outside the parameters of the Constitution..

for now, Pelosi and Reid are still working within.

[Donnachaidh]

63. no kidding.

I'm sick to death of all these POLITE letters to a disrespectful pseudo-monarch and his henchmen. I want to see people handing out torches and heading towards the Castle the Neocons built.

[annabanana]

8. He won't even know a letter was written. .

He might catch a passing reference to it walking by one of KKKarl's TVs. .

G: "Huh, what was THAT about"

K: "Nothing. Hey, why isn't that FOX on that set?". . (somebody's fired)

[bigtree]

10. He knows that Democrats intend to continue pressing him with legislation

demanding an exit from Iraq.

And he knows his own party is about to abandon him on the occupation, no matter what he pretends or how he postures.

[bdamomma]

11. yea, * will consider the peoples' will, yea sure, how many

times has he given us his middle finger salute, what BS, he needs to be removed from office along with his evil crime partner dick.

[MadHound]

12. Hey, why don't Pelosi and Reid do the same, and end this war now instead of allowing it to continue?

This is, after all, within their capability to do so. All that needs to be done is to hold up any supplemental war funding bills in committee, defund the war, and bring the troops home.

Time for the Dems to stop fucking around, take their own advice, listen to the people and end this war.

[bigtree]

21. Pelosi and Reid don't have the support of the Democratic caucus for that action

The do have support for continuing to press Bush with legislative action which has enough support to advance to his desk, hopefully gaining enough support from weary republicans fed up with losing American lives to defend Bush's junta.

[MadHound]

29. Then that is both a sign of how the Democrats aren't listening to the people

And how weak the leadership of the Democratic party is. If they can't get their own party members to do the right thing and end this war, then they should step aside. Besides, Pelosi and Reid have the final authority on the agenda that reaches the floor, a power that they can exercise themselves:shrug:

It is time for the excuses to end, and for the Democrats to stand up and start acting like an opposition party, rather than consigning our troops and thousands of innocent people to death and agony. You might be perfectly willing for the party to have the blood of innocents on its collective hands, but I and milliions of others won't stand for it, and will express our displeasure in '08. Perhaps the thought of losing their precious positions actually might move the Democrats on this issue, certainly nothing else has, including the overwhelming will of the people.

[bigtree]

30. That course just doesn't have the support of enough members

and it's not clear that the action you propose would achieve anything in the way of moving Bush off of his occupation, despite the claims to the contrary. That action - sitting on their hands and refusing to vote for some spending bill or another - would also fail to direct Bush to do ANYTHING, and do noting at all to restrain Bush from pulling together other funding sources to keep limping our troops along.

Most of our legislators prefer to express their opposition in legislation which has enough votes to actually advance to Bush's desk. That's more than the nothing you imply. They've been confronting Bush all along. I believe their efforts have had the same effect that withholding support for some supplemental spending bill would have. In their efforts they've more than proven that they are interested in more than your cynical view of them protecting their 'precious positions'. In fact, if you have any view at all that the public is annoyed or impatient with their actions to the point of withdrawing support, then it's really not credible to suggest they were pandering to voters as they forwarded their withdrawal legislation or voted for the Democratic funding bill.

[MadHound]

34. Ooo, yes, advancing legislation to Bush's desk, only to watch it vetoed time and again

And just exactly how is that strategy working out? Never mind, I can hear the screams of the people who are still being hurt and killed from here.

And again, that the majority of Democrats aren't supporting this is a serious sign of how out of touch they are with the American people. After all, they were elected to majority position with one clear mandate, to end the war ASAP, by whatever means necessary. Apparently the Democrats really don't give a damn what the American people think, otherwise they would be doing something more substantial than non binding resolutions and caving on funding.

Oh, and as I said, it doesn't take a majority of the Democrats to stop this war, though the majority of Democrats should damn well start listening to the will of their boss, we the people if they wish to retain their job. All it takes is control of the agenda and guess who holds that? Oh, yeah, that weak kneed Democratic leadership. Time for them to put politics behind them and do the right thing.

Oh, and how do you think that Bush will keep his war going without money? Siphoning off money from other departments? Yeah, and watch the Republicans beat the Dems in filing impeachment papers. Even Bushco isn't going to provoke that kind of constitutional crisis:eyes:

Bigtree, your rationalization and apolegectic approach to this issue has continued to reach new heights. I especially like this new gem: "They've been confronting Bush all along. I believe their efforts have had the same effect that withholding support for some supplemental spending bill would have." What efforts are you talking about? They caved and gave Bush all the spending money he wanted to keep his war going!

Ooo, they're going to send more legislation up to Bush, all so that it can be vetoed:eyes: Yeah, that's really showing him now isn't it:eyes:

Sorry, but I'm not buying it, since the Dems still have the option to defund the war and bring the troops home. You may be willing to accept mediocrity, but I nor millions of others who have worked hard to end this war(including putting our trust and sweat into getting Dem majorities) are not willing to accept anything less than bringing the troops home ASAP.

[bigtree]

45. there just isn't any evidence that your 'defending' scheme would work

but you won't find me accusing you of 'blood on your hands' for not supporting the Democratic leadership in their own efforts to end the occupation.

There are several legal avenues Bush has to 'siphon off' money from the general defense budget to prop up his occupation. The Pentagon has already requested twice, and received permission to take money out of the general Defense fund to support the occupation, to the tune of several billion dollars.

The GAO, in fact, reported a few months ago that there was money available to Bush to continue into next year. Also, if you accept the argument of Kucinich and others that there's 'money in the pipeline' to support the troops in a withdrawal, then there's also money for Bush to continue there without any regard at all to a trumped up supplemental which he didn't give a damn about except for the short term political benefit he thought he'd gain by holding it over our party's head as we presented him with our demand for timelines for withdrawal.

Democrats gave him 'all of the money to to keep his war going?' In the one supplemental? That's just not credible on its face. The funding in that Bill doesn't extend indefinitely and was compiled by DEMOCRATS like Murtha, Obey, Skelton, and others as committed to ending the occupation as you are. So don't give me your bullshit about 'rationalizations and apologies.' I just refuse to buy into the pipe dream about ending the occupation by holding back one supplemental spending bill. It's just fantasy, as far as I'm concerned. I don't think it would have accomplished ANYTHING except to delay the funding priorities for our soldiers and veterans that our own Democratic legislators included after four years of neglect and indifference by the republican majority.

So, don't think you can make your argument by suggesting I'm just apologizing for someone, as if your argument was so supreme and unassailable and mine some unprincipled sop for the party. I believe in what I write. That's why I take the time here. Unfortunately it serves the argument of some who are so zealous in their opposition to our party to paint my argument into their own petty corner.

The 'defunding' scheme you advocate to 'end the occupation' is as much of a pipe dream as the strategy of impeaching to end it. You've no evidence at all that Bush would notice or care a wit about 'funding' to a degree that he'd end the deployments. And, you take no responsibility at all for the funding needs in the Democratic spending legislation which benefits the troops and veterans in their safety, security, care, and well-being as you denounce it as 'keeping the war going.' All of that is married to the failure of whatever congressional coalition you support to even achieve enough support from the other members for the strategy you propose. And, someone should continue to follow this strategy? To what end? A failure to garner support in this Congress is a failure of your 'coalition' to end the occupation.

But, of course, only those whose efforts to end the occupation you disagree with get labeled by you for 'blood on their hands."

[bigtree]

31. and, by the way

It's ridiculous and offensive to suggest that our party somehow has 'blood on their hands' just because they don't believe in pursuing your course of action on Iraq.

[MadHound]

36. Let's see, many voted for it initially, many continued to support it by continuing to fund it,

And now they are refusing to end it, when the ability to do so lies within their power. Yeah, I'd say that there is blood on their hands. If people find that hard truth to be offensive, oh well, the truth does indeed hurt sometimes. Perhaps that should act as a catalyst to get our so called leaders to do the right thing and bring this war to an end.

[bigtree]

47. I don't agree that the majority voted for Bush to proceed as he did

in rushing to invade and occupy Iraq. That responsibility lies solely with Bush and his republican enablers, in my view. The majority of our Democrats voted for, and are still prepared and willing to vote for an exit date to end the occupation. The majority of Republicans are not. That makes them, and their president, solely responsible for the occupation continuing. It's an absurd argument to suggest that those legislators who didn't intend for Bush to invade and occupy Iraq and have worked since that invasion to end it, are somehow responsible for it continuing.

That rationale has to be the most convoluted excuse for absolving Bush and his republicans of blame out there. And, I mean . . . out there.

[thethinker]

15. What a waste

Bush does not even listen to the will of the majority of the republicans. Does anyone think he cares about the will of the American people?

[bigtree]

18. really? Advancing legislation on Iraq is a waste?

or formally stating their intentions to do so?

I don't think so. We shouldn't be stifled in addressing the offices of the Executive just because Bush is oblivious.

[Virginia Dare]

26. bush is the waste, that's the problem...n/t

[RestoreGore]

16. "Dear Mr. President"

:puke:

Just a litle newsflash for them: HE DOESN'T CARE WHAT WE THINK.

[bigtree]

20. that's no reason at all to neglect to confront him

[RestoreGore]

23. Letters that call him "Dear Mr. President" are not confronting him at this point

There is only one way to confront people who have stolen the reigns of power and who hate the American people as much as these criminals do.

[bigtree]

27. of course they are. They are addressing the office which they respect

We shouldn't be driven to disrespect for the offices and institutions of our government just because the present occupiers have disgraced them.

Their tone serves to make their appeal sincere, and devoid of partisanship which only serves to polarize and paralyze our political institutions. We should not be driven to disrespect just because they act like cretins.

And, just focusing on the rhetorical niceties in the letter miss the point entirely, which is a direct confrontation of his occupation and a declaration of their intention to press forward with a *legislative rebuke of his intention to continue without a change or correction.

[RestoreGore]

66. What a crock

[bigtree]

69. so says RestoreGore

In my lifetime, I've never seen ANY Democratic leader address the Executive in a rude or demeaning manner by refusing to call them 'president'.

That would be a new low, in my opinion. We don't have to lose our decorum in these formal exchanges with the White House just because Bush is such a buffoon. The substance of what they said in the letter provides more than enough disdain for Bush's actions in regard to Iraq. That what was called for, not name-calling which would distract from the sincere focus in the letter on petitioning Bush to end his occupation.

[Virginia Dare]

28. they should call him "Dear fuckwad"...

but something tells me it wouldn't go over too well anyplace on earth other than DU.

[depakid]

32. "Dear Mr. President."

And the Dem "leadership" wonders why their public opinion ratings are plummeting.

[bigtree]

33. I don't think the public expects them to be as crass and insulting to the office of the president

as we may be here on a discussion board.

. . . as if insulting him in the preamble would have any meaning, significance, or relevance to addressing the needs and concerns Americans share with our party in opposition to Bush and his administration.

[depakid]

35. I think the public expects- and deserves straight talk and action

and not a bunch of mealy mouthed, weak kneed platitudes.

[ShortnFiery]

38. Why? That's how Today's budding Caligula treats the people?

:grr: For Heaven's sake THIS MAN is a CORRUPT war criminal! Yet the gutless wonders in The Congress are afraid to begin Impeachment Proceedings out of *fear* that they will not be successful.

Successful or not, it is The House's DUTY to file Articles of Impeachment. Don't tell me that there's not enough evidence? :grr:

[bigtree]

48. they also have a myriad of other duties related to holding the Executive accountable

which may well fall short of impeachment.

Why wouldn't it be an abrogation of their duty to uphold, defend, and exercise those other levers of accountability as they focused all of their resources, efforts, and attention on the one remedy that's apparently doomed to political failure?

Impeachment is only one fraction of the remedies afforded them by the Constitution and mandated by their oath. Why should they abandon the myriad of others just to pursue the one dubious remedy?

[ShortnFiery]

37. Our Illustrious Democratic Leaders seemingly never fail to prove, that in the end ...

they'll fold ... with FEET OF CLAY. :cry: :(

I hope that I'm wrong ... but I'm not. :(

[pberq]

39. O.K. - this puts Reid and Pelosi on record, but does

anyone believe Bush will listen to them?

[bigtree]

65. The effort is about keeping the pressure on and building support

within and without Congress for a veto-proof majority. It's about Congress not sitting on their hands until September, waiting for Bush to tell them how 'successful' he's been.

[indepat]

40. Pelosi and Reid could have been a good burlesque comedy act

in an earlier era.

[Disturbed]

43. Kucinich has a better plan.

Don't send this Prez. anything. Why send Bills that he will veto or negate via Signing Statements?

[indepat]

53. I like K's idea: the muddle-headed thinking that only bills W will sign must be sent up is absurd:

let the decider veto everything he wants, but only send up bills the majority want.

[pberq]

72. Yes - Dennis is a true Democrat

[Dukkha]

41. too little too late

nothing you send to * will impress me unless it starts with "Articles of Impeachment"

[bigtree]

49. political process of 'accountability' which the target is able to hide behind their party defenders

doesn't impress me in the least. Especially given the balance of power in this Congress.

There's nothing at all to suggest to me that proceeding with the process of impeachment would do anything more than further polarize and dominate the time and resources of both of the institutions we rely on to carry out the myriad of other responsibilities of oversight and accountability.

[Ron Green]

42. I spoke with Pelosi a few days ago

and told her I felt, given the results of the November election, that there should be a much stronger push against this administration and its dead-end ways. I'm sure she's heard many such comments, and my hope is that the weight of these will increase the momentum in the right direction.

[nashville_brook]

44. ...and it didn't work?

[firefox_fan]

46. Uh Oh. Pelosi and Reid finally realized their cowardice backfired...

They thought we'd be satisfied with some posturing. And to fix that... More posturing... Way to go.
Look, they were put there to do a job. They failed to do so and squandered the advantage the Dems had accumulated.

[trashcanistanista]

50. Oh, puuuuh.....leeze. Perspective?

They are doing the best they can. If they can't impeach or get a 'no confidence' on Gonzo, a bona fide criminal if there ever was one, what makes you think they can impeach * and cheney? At this point, whatever they do to pressure and swing rethugs over is the only strategy. WE DO NOT HAVE 60 VOTES and we NEED RETHUG VOTES! They need to keep on it, ram it down the media's throats and chip away at *'s support one by one until they can get 60. Then they will do what we voted them in to do. Bashing Reid and Pelosi is so last month, let's be more constructive. :boring:

[firefox_fan]

55. Not talking about impeachment.

And the polls show the way most progressives feel about it.

[trashcanistanista]

56. Sorry, pulling the war funding?

I backed it, the rest of the country didn't so they went with the majority. Yes, a mistake, but spilt milk and all that. If they can really gear up into attack mode they can swing the needed votes. I think that is the only option left at this point, that is, within the boundaries of the Constitution.

[firefox_fan]

57. Let's see what their base think about the "spilled milk BAU"...

When re-election time comes.

[trashcanistanista]

58. That is my fear as well, but at this pont

the rethugs are not only worse, they are insane. No place left to go. Sorry, I didn't mean to get snappy, we are on the same side. I share your disappointment. Yesterday I was unconsolable about the Gonzo hearing. It's taken me this long to pull myself back together.:thumbsup:

[firefox_fan]

59. We are all a little edgy these days :-)

[Disturbed]

51. I wonder if there were a Natl. Poll asking

if people want Bush & Cheney to resign what that % would be? What if it were around 80%? Would these Assholes resign?

[trashcanistanista]

54. I would venture to guess

that it probably is close to 80% and no, they would not resign.

[leftofthedial]

52. They are shocked--SHOCKED--to hear that the war profits are still flowing

Round up the usual suspects!

[bvar22]

60. wow.....another strongly worded letter.....

be still my heart.....zzzzzz

[bigtree]

61. presented in front of the legislation they've planned

I really don't think they expected anything to come from just presenting the letter.

[tyedyeto]

67. Yet, both the House and Senate passed the funding bill

What am I not understanding about this Congress?

They pass the bills *y wants, then slam him? WTF??

[bigtree]

70. the Democratic funding bill has been seriously misrepresented

withholding it during the debate over timelines didn't restrain Bush one bit as he continued his escalation, and it isn't what's holding our troops there. Bush is by his refusal to withdrawal, and the republicans hold the rest of the responsibility by standing in the way of legislation which rebukes him and contains an exit date for withdrawal. Just voting to allow the Democratic funding bill to proceed, with it's Democratic priorities for the troops deployed and for our veterans, does not change or take away their opposition. The majority who voted for the Democratic funding bill to proceed also voted for the bill when it contained timelines. The majority of republicans did not. Those same Democrats are still prepared and willing to vote for those timelines again and again until Bush comes off of his occupation. In the interim, where NO ONE has garnered enough support behind ANY solution for moving Bush, those troops deployed should not have funds intended for them used as a political football. That issue is now resolved. The most important question is STILL whether members will sign on to legislation calling for an exit by a date certain; legislation which would actually mandate an end to the occupation. The majority in our party is still committed to that exit date. All it would take is a veto-busting margin of republicans to come up off of their obstruction and the troops will begin to come home, money and all.

[DemBones DemBones]

68. American People Call on Pelosi and Reid to Deny Bush Funding to Continue War

beyond September. Stop wasting time writing letters and hold his feet to the fire with votes!

[bigtree]

71. not every American wants the funds which are intended for the troops used as a political football

The letter has substance and should not be ignored. It is a clear statement of the continued opposition to Bush occupation and a message to the Executive of Democrats' intent to keep pressing the case for an exit date for withdrawal in legislation.

How about getting behind that opposition instead of knocking them for it?

[GeorgeGist]

73. Go tell it on the mountain,

Go tell it on the mountain, over the hill and everywhere
Go tell it on the mountain, to let my people go.

Whos that yonder dressed in black, let my people go
Must be the hypocrites turnin back, let my people go
Whos that yonder dressed in black,
Must be the hypocrites turnin back

[Marr]

74. Enough symbolic posturing- we are not idiot right-wingers.

I thought it was the right that fed their base a steady diet of meaningless bullshit to keep them on board. Reid and Pelosi have been taking too many tips from the GOP.

They caved in with the spending bill. That was their chance to force this position, and they chose not to. If this easily-vetoed, empty statement is the sort of thing they were referring to when they said they were going to 'pursue other methods' to end the occupation, then I see the Dems losing their slim majority in the Congress very soon.

It's like they think we're stupid or something.

[Larkspur]

75. Dear Nancy and Harry, your call to Bush is falling on deaf ears

Dubya only listens to what he wants and to praise of himself. You're weak pleas for Narcissus-in-chief to obey the will of the American People only goad him on to screw you and the American people.