VIDEO: Kathleen Sebelius State of the Union response

LIVEBLOG PART 3: The Democratic rebuttal to Bush's final State of the Union speech

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius is set to give the Democratic rebuttal to Bush's final State of the Union address. Let's liveblog this too!

10:14pm - Sebelius is supposedly set to endorse Barack Obama for President. HA HA, it would be funny if she did it during her speech tonight.
10:16pm - You're an American! I'm an American! Everyone watching tonight is American!
10:16pm - We're all rolling our eyes at Larry King and Wolf Blitzer.
10:18pm - This will be a non-partisan rebuttal.
10:20pm - Will you join us, Mr. President? Will you join us?
10:23pm - There is uncertainty throughout the land!
10:25pm - If she ask George Bush to join us one more time...
10:26pm - Oh hey there, take tonight off, we'll just get to work tomorrow.
10:26pm - Aaaaand she's done! Who the hell wrote that speech? They are so fired. I'll have the video up shortly (maybe).

[Earlier: LIVEBLOG: George Bush's final State of the Union speech & LIVEBLOG SURGE PART 2: George Bush's final State of the Union speech]

LIVEBLOG SURGE PART 2: George Bush's final State of the Union speech

[Earlier: LIVEBLOG: George Bush's final State of the Union speech]

9:36pm - He's reminding us what happened on September 11, 2001. Rudy Giuliani (the mayor and owner of 9/11) is soooo happy right now!
9:38pm - We're going to have a SURGE in Afghanistan now!
9:40pm - SURGE SURGE SURGE!
9:41pm - SURGE! The Iraqi's launched some sort of grassroots SURGE (WTF?) IN Iraq! American SURGE!
9:42pm - Hey look there's the oldest man (538 years old) in the world John Warner again!
9:47pm - Progress! Surge! Progress! Surge!
9:49pm - Forces of extremism in "the holy land."
9:50pm - Condi Rice looks like a dragon! She also looks stoned..
9:53pm - Oh hey there, did you know the terrorists still want to kill us!
9:55pm - To protect you from terrorist we have to listen in on your phone calls, read your emails, and oh hey.. install cameras in public bathrooms too!
10:00pm - Hooray! Now we're going to get a history lesson on how the Constitution was drafted.
10:01pm - HE SAID IT! HE SAID IT! The state of our union will remain strong! HAHAAHAH! 10:02pm - GOD BLESS AMERICA! It's finally over!!
10:03pm - CNN reports that Hillary and Obama still haven't spoken to each other. As I said in part one of the liveblog, they were only sitting about 10 feet from each other!
10:10pm - The NPR FactWatch blog calls Bush a lying liar!

And now, lets liveblog the Democratic rebuttal!

LIVEBLOG: George Bush's final State of the Union speech

8:43pm - Ha ha, John McCain won't be there!
9:00pm - Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne isn't invited to the party!
9:01pm - The Bush twins are there (and probably drunk?). This is the first time they've attended Bush's SOTU speech.
9:03pm - CNN just reported that Hillary Clinton is seated about 10 feet from Barack Obama and Ted Kennedy. When she walked over towards them Ted Kennedy reached across Obama to shake her hand, while Obama just looked away. BURRRRRN!
9:09pm - Bush calls for debate on the economy and foreign policy. Yeah because he's been so open to debate over the past seven years.
9:10pm - Republicans and Democrats can cooperate! Wow....... Really.....?
9:11pm - "Our economy is undergoing a period of uncertainty..."
9:13pm - You're all screwed in the short run.
9:13pm - Bush calls on Americans to send the IRS checks AND money orders!!
9:15pm - Bush threatens a surplus in 2012 (but only because we'll have a Democrat in office).
9:15pm - We're going to veto EVERY bill over the next year!
9:16pm - Something is apparently funny.
9:18pm - Oh man Hillary looks THRILLED to be there!
9:18pm - Obama too!!
9:19pm - Let's help the rich people some more!
9:20pm - NO ONE can deny No Child Left Behind has been nothing but a big.. fat.. disaster!
9:20pm - No Child Left Behind is bi-partisan because..... uhm.... Joe Lieberman (?) supports it?
9:24pm - Colombia is our new BFF!
9:25pm - Hey look there's 49 term Senator John Warner of Virginia. Oh John Warner, I thought you were dead already. You know, since you're like 538 years old and all.
9:27pm - All this talk about cleaner and more energy efficient technology would be great and all, you know, if Bush would actually act on it.
9:27pm - Stop murdering stem cells!
9:29pm - All life should be treated with dignity. Except in Iraq. Except for the death penalty. Hell, except for anyone who isn't a white wealthy Christian male.
9:30pm - The Federal government is supporting religion. Wait, isn't that sort of, ya know, a violation of the Constitution?
9:32pm - Massive deficits!
9:34pm - Stirring moments in "the history of liberal." LOLZ!
9:36pm - Juvenile Iraqi's voted? Wait, I don't think that's legal OR a correct statement.

Let's start a part two!

Liveblogging Bush's final State of the Union Speech

It's been a long time since I've done one of these, but tonight I'll be here liveblogging George Bush's final State of the Union speech beginning at 9pm ET.

Also, here's a look back at Jim Webb's rebuttal to Bush's State of the Union speech last year:

Hillary's new campaign ad

The Democrats have finally launched their 2007 War On Christmas! Albeit a little late this year.

This latest assault on Americans includes universal health care, alternative energy, a homecoming for U.S. troops in Iraq, tax breaks for the middle class, and universal Pre-Kindergarten for the kids!

Best ad of the 2008 presidential campaign thus far. Thoughts?

2007 one of the ten warmest years on record; Seventh warmest for Virginia

According to a report issued last week from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the year 2007 will go down as one of the 10 warmest years on record for not only the contiguous United States, but also the entire planet.

In the United States:

The preliminary annual average temperature for 2007 across the contiguous United States will likely be near 54.3° F- 1.5°F (0.8°C) above the twentieth century average of 52.8°F. This currently establishes 2007 as the eighth warmest on record. Only February and April were cooler-than-average, while March and August were second warmest in the 113-year record.

The warmer-than-average conditions in 2007 influenced residential energy demand in opposing ways, as measured by the nation’s Residential Energy Demand Temperature Index. Using this index, NOAA scientists determined that the U.S. residential energy demand was about three percent less during the winter and eight percent higher during the summer than what would have occurred under average climate conditions.

Exceptional warmth in late March was followed by a record cold outbreak from the central Plains to the Southeast in early April. The combination of premature growth from the March warmth and the record-breaking freeze behind it caused more than an estimated $1 billion in losses to crops (agricultural and horticultural).

A severe heat wave affected large parts of the central and southeastern U.S. in August, setting more than 2,500 new daily record highs.

Across the globe:

The global annual temperature − for combined land and ocean surfaces – for 2007 is expected to be near 58.0 F – and would be the fifth warmest since records began in 1880. Some of the largest and most widespread warm anomalies occurred from eastern Europe to central Asia.

Including 2007, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1997. The global average surface temperature has risen between 0.6°C and 0.7°C since the start of the twentieth century, and the rate of increase since 1976 has been approximately three times faster than the century-scale trend.

The greatest warming has taken place in high latitude regions of the Northern Hemisphere. Anomalous warmth in 2007 contributed to the lowest Arctic sea ice extent since satellite records began in 1979, surpassing the previous record low set in 2005 by a remarkable 23 percent. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, this is part of a continuing trend in end-of-summer Arctic sea ice extent reductions of about 10 percent per decade since 1979.

Obviously a scary report. And when whack jobs on the right, and those who reject proven Science dismiss this as "hippie Liberal political games," just remember the report came from the National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration, not Al Gore, MoveOn.org or any other perceived "radical left" organizations that often land on the right wing's list of favorite targets.

On the flip though, and to be fair, this single report does not by itself definitively prove anything. However, added to the mounting evidence that shows global warming to be very real, and a very serious threat to Earth as we know it, I think we can all agree that we must work to get it under control and adopt better environmental policies as a national and international community.

BREAKING: Karl Rove, and Dan Bartlett subpoenaed to testify at Libby trial

Both Karl Rove and Dan Bartlett are being subpoenaed to testify in the 'Scooter' Libby Trial.

UPDATE: Via Michael Isikoff of Newsweek:

White House anxiety is mounting over the prospect that top officials—including deputy chief of staff Karl Rove and counselor Dan Bartlett-may be forced to provide potentially awkward testimony in the perjury and obstruction trial of Lewis (Scooter) Libby.

Both Rove and Bartlett have already received trial subpoenas from Libby’s defense lawyers, according to lawyers close to the case who asked not to be identified talking about sensitive matters. While that is no guarantee they will be called, the odds increased this week after Libby’s lawyer, Ted Wells, laid out a defense resting on the idea that his client, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, had been made a “scapegoat” to protect Rove.

Developing...

PRESIDENT Jim Webb?

Some mighty popular national bloggers seem to think so. I've got details here.

More on THAT site to come in a few. :)

Transcript of Webb speech

View the entire speech here via Drudge Report.

I also want to reiterate something that was said earlier on MSNBC, that is, the reason Jim Webb's rebuttal speech was so special and powerful, was because he was 'on point' and didn't stray from the most important topic, the war in Iraq. It sounded like something UNIQUE to this situation, and not just another Democratic talking points "memo."

[Hat tip Raising Kaine!]

Bush to call on Americans to cut gas consumption

So, Bush plans to call on Americans to cut their gas consumption by 20 percent over 10 years, yet his administration has done little to NOTHING to help ease Americans off of their "addiction to oil."

ABC News:

Such a dramatic reduction in gasoline consumption would require new standards of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy system, known as CAFE, and an increased availability in the U.S. auto market of vehicles that run on alternative fuels.

"He's going to set a very ambitious goal for this country: to reduce our gasoline usage by 20 percent in 10 years," Deputy White House Chief of Staff Joel Kaplan said in an exclusive interview with ABC News. "'Twenty in 10,' we are calling it. It's very ambitious, but we think it's achievable, and I think a lot of Americans are going to rally to that cause."

"Talking the talk," and "walking the walk" are two completely different ballgames Mr. Bush.

Democrats, Jim Webb readying tonight's rebuttal

While President Bush plans to focus more on domestic issues in tonight's State of the Union speech rather than on one of the worst blunders in Presidential history, the War in Iraq, Senator Jim Webb, in his rebuttal speech, plans to refute the President's plan to send 21,500 additional U.S. troops to Iraq, whether Bush wants to talk about it or not. Via the Associated Press:

"I don't particularly view this surge program as a change in strategy at all," said freshman Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, the Vietnam veteran chosen to deliver his party's response to Bush's speech Tuesday night.

"I don't see it as strategic, other than perhaps politically strategic," Webb said in a conference call Monday with reporters. "It's just a lot more flailing around rather than coming up with something specific that's going to end our involvement and bring better stability to the region."

Senator John Warner, Virginia's "do nothing" Senator?

Earlier today I was pleasantly surprised to learn that Senator John Warner, who I've been covering very closely over the past few weeks, was going to coming out AGAINST the Bush plan to send 21,500 additional U.S. troops into the midst of a civil war in Iraq. However, after reading a bit more, it seems like yet another "do nothing" proposal from Senator Warner in an attempt to appear a sensible moderate. Once again I want to reiterate that the time for compromise over Iraq is LONG since gone, and it's time to bring our troops home. While Warner apparently opposes the 21,500 troop increase, it would appear as if he isn't opposed to a smaller increase, something every U.S. military official on the ground in Iraq, and at the Pentagon, agrees would be a disaster. Via CNN:

"The Senate disagrees with the 'plan' to augment our forces by 21,500, and urges the president instead to consider all options and alternatives for achieving the strategic goals set forth below with reduced force levels than proposed," the measure states.

The same article went on to say:

Warner said senators aren't trying to encroach on Bush's authority as commander-in-chief of the military, but he cautioned that the war effort "can only be sustained and achieved with the support of the American people, and with a level of bipartisanship here in the Congress of the United States."

Warner also said the senators were "accepting the president's offer" to offer an alternative to his plans.

Well, suggesting that Bush "consider other alternatives" isn't exactly an ALTERNATIVE PLAN, since President Bush has made it increasingly clear NOTHING short of cutting funding for the war, or impeachment will get the message across. The American people are increasingly against the war (and any escalation of the war), as shown in poll after poll, AND the November 7 elections. The time to "cozy up" to George Bush is over, the time for "compromise" is over. Congress MUST take serious action NOW, of they're ALL going to have one helluva BAD day come Election Day 2008.

Hillary Clinton: 'I'm in! And I'm in to win!'

Hillary Clinton announced earlier today that she will be running for President. Via Clinton's website:

I'm in. And I'm in to win.

Today I am announcing that I will form an exploratory committee to run for president.

And I want you to join me not just for the campaign but for a conversation about the future of our country -- about the bold but practical changes we need to overcome six years of Bush administration failures.

The AP writes:

Clinton's announcement, days after Sen. Barack Obama shook up the contest race with his bid to become the first black president, establishes the most diverse political field ever.

Clinton is considered the front-runner, with Obama and 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards top contenders. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who would be the first Hispanic president, intends to announce his plans on Sunday.

Raising Kaine has more, as does The Washington Post.

A lesson on the Constitution for Republicans

Apparently Eric Cantor, and the rest of the Republican party, need to reread the Constitution, and perhaps, for the first time realize that we do not live in a monarchy, but rather, have three separate branches of Government all with "checks and balances" on each other. As some of you already know, a bill yesterday proposed by Republican Rep. Sam Johnson of Texas, proposed a bill yesterday that will bar any interruption of funding for U.S. troops in a war zone. You know, never mind the fact that while the President is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the Congress has "power of the purse" as a means of keeping the Presidential power over the military in check. Time to go back to third grade History for all Republican Congressman.

Via the RTD:

"Open debate on Iraq is good, but our troops and the dollars that support them should not be used to play politics," Cantor, the chief deputy minority whip, said at a news conference.

"It will only hurt our troops and encourage the terrorists who want to harm them."

The bill was introduced yesterday by Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam. Cantor has endorsed President Bush's plan for a buildup of U.S. troops in Iraq and was a co-sponsor of Johnson's measure.

MoveOn's new ad against McCain

Saw this on TV yesterday, MoveOn.org's new ad against John McCain. It's a great ad and is obviously aimed at getting people to associate McCain (the leading Republican Presidential candidate for 2008), with the grossly unpopular plan to send 21,500 additional U.S. troops to Iraq:

Bush makes threat to those opposing troop increase; Hagel slams administration, again!

Most had said long before the November elections that if Democrats took control, many Republicans in Congress would be "jumping ship" so to speak. That is, they would likely begin to speak out against Bush's failed policy - not only in Iraq, but at home too. After dropping the hammer on "Conda-liesa-liesa-liesa-lot" in Senate hearings last week, Chuck Hagel (R-NE) on CNN today slammed the Bush administration again, AND claimed Congress needs to be more assertive, saying "this is not a monarchy," and going on to say:

"We are no longer just going to quietly stand by, as we have done for the last four years, and let our young men and women be thrown into this conflict when they cannot affect the outcome."

He can join a growing number of Republicans who oppose the McCain doctrine, and while some media reports claim he's the "second" one to come out against it, he's actually the seventh, including Sam Brownback of Kansas, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Gordon Smith of Oregon, George Voinovich of Ohio, Susan Collins of Maine, and Olympia Snowe of Maine.

According to an article on CNN's website:

Acknowledging their party is divided on Iraq, Republican leaders are trying to stave off a showdown in Congress by casting Democratic efforts as a political ploy to embarrass the president.

The White House cautioned lawmakers about the consequences of voting against a buildup.

"The one thing the president has said is, whatever you do, make sure you support the troops," Snow said at the White House. "And the question people who support this resolution will have to ask is, how does this support the troops?"

Awww, so George Bush thinks he can make idle threats now? CONSEQUENCES of voting against sending our troops into a civil war in Iraq? Now what would they be, pray tell? My guess would be that Bush would send them anyway! And to the Republican leaders: George Bush has done a fine job embarrassing himself, Democratic "efforts" to save the country aren't responsible for it.

Senator Jim Webb to deliver response to 'State of the Union'

Via The Washington Post:

Freshman Sen. Jim Webb will deliver the Democrats' response next Tuesday to President Bush's State of the Union address.

The selection was made Tuesday by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, said Webb spokeswoman Jessica Smith.

They couldn't have chosen a better person either. Jim Webb will have no problem telling the country how it really is, after Bush gets done with his hour long spin job trying to save face for his disastrous administration.

You may also remember that last year, Governor Tim Kaine gave the rebuttal speech.

Where does John Warner Stand?; Why Bush's troop surge is a bad idea; Mark Warner for Senate in 2008!?

Can Republican Senator John Warner please tell Virginians where he stands on the war in Iraq and Bush's plan to send 21,500 additional U.S. troops to the war zone? He's for it, he doesn't know, he's against it, WHO KNOWS! In October, Warner said the war in Iraq was "drifting sideways," and the following excerpt appeared on NewsMax on October 6, 2006:

He (John Warner) said the military had done what it could and that Congress must make some "bold decisions" if, after three months, progress is not made by the Iraqis to calm ethnic violence and hasten reconstruction.

Warner did not say what he thinks Congress should do, but added all options will be considered. Lawmakers have suggested various remedies, including setting a timetable to pull out U.S. troops and dividing the country into smaller independent ethnic states.

Well, Senator Warner, it's been more than three months, get moving! What's your plan? What's your idea? Are you for or against the McCain doctrine?

Wednesday night, after George Bush spoke to the nation regarding his plan, Warner said the following regarding the President's speech:

"I found the speech to be credible, and sincere that reflects a lot of study by the Executive Branch, and a lot of advice the President took into consideration."

Well, Warner didn't exactly endorse the plan (with this quote, at least), I'll give him that. However, his inability to express his concerns about the plan on national TV accurately reflects the GOP over the past few years: the political party where party loyalty comes before doing the right thing, and opposition to fellow Republicans is supposed to be expressed "privately."

So what is Senator Warner's position on the McCain doctrine, and the Iraq war in general at this hour? Well, at last check, he supports the plan to send additional U.S. troops into the midst of the civil war in Iraq, but not quite the 21,500 Bush plans to send. Not yet, at least. Warner told Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Peter Pace that instead of 21,500 troops, the U.S. should start with several thousand troops instead. According to the Richmond Times Dispatch, Warner went on to say:

"Shouldn't we walk a few steps along this line and then see how quickly -- hopefully -- the Iraqis begin to take up their responsibilities?"

No, Senator Warner, we shouldn't. First of all, we've waited long enough for the Iraqis to "take control," but instead, the country sinks further and further into civil war every day. Not only that, but as I reported in a December 19, 2006 entry regarding the Joint Chiefs opposition to the troop "surge" via a WaPo article:

At regular interagency meetings and in briefing President Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq -- including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias -- without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said.

And here's the kicker! Senator John Warner, please pay attention:

The Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops, the officials said.

Hear that? If the Bush administration and other supporters of the McCain doctrine really want to fuel terrorists recruiting, "all" they have to do is continue with this dangerous plan to SEND MORE U.S. TROOPS TO IRAQ!

General John Abizaid, the U.S. military commander of forces in the Middle East opposes the plan too, saying in November that "Troop levels need to stay where they are." While, as I wrote on December 28, 2006, according to an article published by the AP, U.S. soldiers on the ground in Iraq are increasingly against the war too:

"Nothing's going to help. It's a religious war, and we're caught in the middle of it," said Sgt. Josh Keim, a native of Canton, Ohio, who is on his second tour in Iraq. "It's hard to be somewhere where there's no mission and we just drive around."

But James said more troops in combat would likely not have the desired effect.

One Lieutenant General slammed the "troop surge" saying instead of more troops, he wants better equipment for the soldiers already on the ground:

During a recent interview, Lt. Gen. Nasier Abadi, deputy chief of staff for the Iraqi army, said that instead of sending more U.S. soldiers, Washington should focus on furnishing his men with better equipment.

"We are hoping 2007 will be the year of supplies," he said.

Unfortunately though, as Jaime over at West of Shockoe told us on Wednesday, it doesn't appear as though Lieutenant General Nasier Abadi is going to get his wish:

The thousands of troops that President Bush is expected to order to Iraq will join the fight largely without the protection of the latest armored vehicles that withstand bomb blasts far better than the Humvees in wide use, military officers said.

One soldier, who had his contract involuntarily extended (indefinitely, I'm assuming), flat out claimed the U.S. was losing the war, and that a troop surge was not a good idea:

Sgt. Justin Thompson, a San Antonio native, said he signed up for delayed enlistment before the Sept. 11 terror attacks, then was forced to go to a war he didn't agree with.

A troop surge is "not going to stop the hatred between Shia and Sunni," said Thompson, who is especially bitter because his 4-year contract was involuntarily extended in June. "This is a civil war, and we're just making things worse. We're losing. I'm not afraid to say it."

Still not convinced? Consider this, in 2004 support of the war among active duty military members was at 63 percent. Support from the military now? Only 35 percent of the servicemen and women said they approve of the way President George W. Bush is handling the war. My, my, so much for that "the media only reports the bad news from Iraq" theory, huh?

So, you see Mr. 'come 2009 FORMER' Senator John Warner, dancing around your stance on the McCain doctrine, and trying to take the middle road by suggesting even a "moderate" troop surge, as you did, is NOT a good idea. Not only that, but Virginians have a right to know your thoughts, so stop dancing around the issue in order to save face among your degenerate fellow party members.

Once again, as I headlined the other day, I would like to reiterate the need for Democrats to start getting SERIOUS about challenging John Warner for his Senate seat in 2008. We may be getting a pleasant surprise too! I've been told (and I'm sure many others may have heard as well) that former Governor Mark Warner is doing "polling" ahead of a possible 2008 Virginia Senate bid.

UPDATE: I meant to give mention to the fact that the Pentagon has abandoned its limit on time citizen-soldiers can be required to serve on active duty. More proof that the U.S. military has sadly been stretched dangerously thin. I'd also like to mention a "Catzmaw's Commentary" post from earlier today revealing a classified Pentagon memo which projects "10,000 casualties, and 100,000 wounded" in Iraq by the end of 2008.

[Cross posted at Daily Kos, and Raising Kaine!]

Update: Upcoming peace march in Washington, DC!!

I posted an entry Wednesday about an Anti 'surge' rally that was hosted in Richmond last night by MoveOn.org, to protest George Bush's dangerous plan to send about 22,000 additional American soldiers to Iraq, and it looks like the event went reasonably well. The local ABC affiliate reported over 100 activists turned out while passers by honked horns to show support:

Activists angered by President Bush's decision to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq rushed earlier Thursday to organize protests in Richmond and several hundred other communities around the nation.

More than 100 protesters stood outside City Hall earlier Thursday evening, waving flags and holding signs and candles.

People driving by on Broad Street honked their horns in support.

The local CBS affiliate, WTVR Channel 6 posted an article about it on their website as well:

Anti-war activists have taken to the streets in several major cities to vent their anger at President Bush's decision to send more troops to Iraq. In San Francisco, hundreds gathered for a rush-hour protest at a shopping area. One demonstrator says the president "doesn't seem to get it." In New York, Tony Palladino protested in Lower Manhattan's Foley Square with a pair of anti-war signs. The former Air National Guardsman said the new troops would just give insurgents "20,000 extra targets."

Also, more than 100 protesters stood outside City Hall in Richmond, waving flags and holding signs and candles. People driving by on Broad Street during the evening commute honked their horns in support.

For the record, all three of the major local television stations, ABC 8, CBS 6, and NBC 12 had television reports about the rally as well.

I planned on having a few pictures to post up, by unfortunately, by the time I got there (almost an hour and 20 minutes late), everything was pretty much wrapped up. There was however, a rather large police presence.

While the MoveOn.org rallies were a good start, more needs to be done to show the Bush administration and politicians in Washington, DC that AMERICA DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS WAR! In fact, in recent polls more than 70% of Americans said they DO NOT support the "surge" of U.S. troops to the CIVIL WAR in Iraq. On Saturday, January 27, 2007, United for Peace and Justice plans a "March on Washington" to tell George Bush and his cronies to bring our troops home NOW! The rally will kick off at 11am on the Mall between 3rd and 7th Streets, and the march will begin at 1pm.

The United For Peace and Justice web site has much more information, including fliers, transportation information, housing accommodations, and more! I'll be in DC that entire weekend and would love to meet some fellow bloggers, so please let me know if you plan to attend too! :)

Cross posted at both Raising Kaine, and Daily Kos!