sisyphusshrugged | one of these things is not like the other

see if you can work out the difference

President Bush praised the visit of interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi to the United States and detailed his plan for stabilizing Iraq during his weekly radio address Saturday.

"In less than three months, Prime Minister Allawi and his government have accomplished a great deal, despite persistent violence in parts of Iraq," Bush said.

In the Democratic radio address response, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi slammed the Bush administration over its policy on Iraq.

Pelosi accused Republicans of sinking to the "politics of fear" and called recent statements by Vice President Dick Cheney that America would be more susceptible to a terror attack if Sen. John Kerry were elected president, "despicable."

"Republicans should remember that the reason Osama bin Laden is still able to threaten the United States, three years after the September 11 attacks, is the utter failure of the Bush administration to capture bin Laden and to destroy his terrorist network," Pelosi said.

Bush emphasized his five-point plan for "completing the mission so that Iraq is stable and self-governing, and American troops can come home with the honor they have earned."

The plan, as spelled out by Bush, includes:

# The transfer of power to a government of Iraqi citizens, accomplished June 28.

# Helping Iraq's new government train and employ more than 200,000 security personnel by 2005.Improving

# Iraq's infrastructure.

# Enlisting more international help for Iraq's "transition to democracy."

To conduct free national elections no later than January. "Iraq, America, and our coalition will stand firm, and Iraq will be free, the world will be more peaceful, and America will be more secure," Bush said.

Pelosi said that Bush's "condescension and go-it-alone policy" in a "war of choice" in Iraq has been a diversion from the real job of fighting al Qaeda and labeled the Iraq war a "grotesque mistake" that has cost the lives of over 1,000 U.S. military personnel.

Speaker in exile Pelosi also had some thoughts about the House Republican attempt to exempt politically-motivated expression of fundamentalism from supervision by the courts

"Mr. Speaker, with our troops in harm’s way in Iraq, and with our country facing the clear and present danger of terrorism, there are great and grave issues that Congress must address. But what are we doing here today? Are we debating the 9/11 Commission recommendations to secure our nation? Are we providing health insurance to the millions of Americans who have lost their insurance under this President, providing jobs to the millions of unemployed Americans, and fully funding our schools?

"No, Mr. Speaker, instead we are gathering here once again to debate undermining the Constitution of the United States and dishonoring the oath of office that we take to protect and defend the Constitution.

"The bill before us claims to protect the Pledge of Allegiance. But protect the Pledge from what? Our Supreme Court has not undermined the constitutionality of the pledge. With the reversal of the Newdow case, there is only one major appeals court decision that has addressed the constitutionality of the pledge, and that court — in the Seventh Circuit -- has upheld the Pledge.

"This is a piece of legislation in search of a solution for a problem that does not exist.

"Millions of Americans daily and proudly pledge 'one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' Let me be clear: I defer to no one in my defense of the voluntary recitation of the Pledge. I strongly believe the phrase 'under God' and the Pledge itself is an uplifting expression of support of the United States.

"This bill not only does not protect the pledge, it violates the spirit of the Pledge by professing a lack of faith in our Constitutional framework. It has been a settled principle since Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison, that 'it is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.' The Federalist papers, subsequent decisions of the Court, and the judicial branch’s role as a co-equal branch all strongly suggest that Congress cannot prohibit courts from determining Constitutional questions.

"There is no question that this bill does not pass Constitutional muster.

"But that does not deter the bill’s proponents. The author of the last court stripping bill, and a key advocate for this bill, the Gentleman from Indiana has even outdone his statement two months ago that 200 years of precedent in Marbury v. Madison establishing judicial review was 'wrongly decided.'

"The Gentleman from Indiana amazingly asserted in the markup of this bill last week that, 'the notion of an independent judiciary is a flawed notion….the notion of an independent judiciary just does not bear out actually in the Constitution.' Is this what the leadership of this House and the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee really believe? I suggest that they read James Madison and Alexander Hamilton’s writings in the Federalist Papers. This radical concept is completely counter to our history and our values.

"Two months ago, some assured us that court stripping efforts would stop once they got what they wanted on the Defense of Marriage Act. But as the Gentleman from Michigan, the distinguished Dean of the House, so eloquently warned us in July, 'We should expect to see this dangerous approach repeated on a wide range of other legislation.' Today, his prediction has come true, and there is no pretense that this will end. What is next? Voting rights? Laws that prohibit racial discrimination? Civil liberties? Our rights to privacy?

Me personally, I think this woman would make a fine Majority Leader.

You?