If you want to join the People's Front of Judea, you have to really hate the Romans.

I realized yesterday that although my outrage meter on George W. Bush has long sense maxed out, I still have room for plenty of outrage aimed at Democrats in congress. I am simply livid that they caved to Bush on the Iraq supplemental and basically gave him everything he wanted to let him push this disaster onto the lap of the next President.

There's a whole hell of a lot to say about this and how it's a fundamental betrayal of the will of the American people not to mention just plain stupid politics when dealing with a President as unpopular as Bush, but I just want to address one little canard that crawled out of the mud yesterday - Nicholas Beaudrot's much talked about contention that this is a direct result of Democrats taking power through the election of moderates in Republican districts.

Put aside the dubious methodology to Beaudrot uses to come to this conclusion the bottom line is it's completely irrelevant how Democrats won the last election. What's important is that there was a referendum on George W. Bush and his execution of the war in Iraq. Can anybody name any other national issue that was debated in every district in the country? Can anybody seriously argue that the message voters sent to our leaders was to get our boys the hell out of that quagmire?

Democratic congressmen of all stripes - moderates, liberals, conservatives or martian - were put in power to end this stupid fucking war. Democratic politicians like Pelosi and Reid who fail in that fundamental task aren't just sticking their finger in the eyes of the Democratic base, they're giving the majority of Americans the finger.

We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline.

He doesn't punish men for discipline. He likes to see men crawl.

Why won't Bush sign the Iraq supplemental?

The elements of the supplemental of which he disagrees such as the time tables and benchmarks are all non-binding. As our local radio personality Thom Hartman has pointed out on a number of occasions Bush could just sign the bill and then issue a signing statement saying he's ignoring all of that stuff and go on merrily sending our troops into his quagmire without facing a single repercussion for thumbing his nose at congress.

So why the veto?

The only two answers I can come up with are politics and his ego. Both are stupid reasons to force a constitutional showdown over non-binding legislation but our President hasn't shown himself at any moment of his life to be a very bright man.