Novak is very cantankerous and grumpy today.  More so than usual, that is.

When President Bush called for a bipartisan "special advisory council" of congressional leaders on the war against terrorism in his State of the Union address, he had in his pocket a rude rejection from Democratic leaders. Thank you very much, said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, but no thank you.

Three days earlier, Reid and Pelosi wrote a letter to the president turning down his offer (which was contained in his Jan. 10 speech on Iraq) to establish a council consisting of Democratic chairmen and ranking Republican members of the relevant committees. "We believe that Congress already has bipartisan structures in place," they said, adding: "We look forward to working with you within existing structures."

That could be the most overt snub of a presidential overture since Abraham Lincoln was told that Gen. George B. McClellan had retired for the night and could not see him.

There’s a huge distinction, Bob.  General McClellan was a subordinate to his Commander-in-Chief, President Lincoln.  Despite what you may think, Democrats in Congress are not subordinate to President Bush.

Courtesy aside, it shows that the self-confident Democratic leadership is uninterested in being cut into potentially disastrous outcomes in Iraq. It wants to function as a coordinate branch of government, not as friendly colleagues in the spirit of bipartisanship.

Quel horror!!  You mean Congress wants to function as a coordinate branch of government?!?  What is the world coming to?!?  What would Emily Post say??

It seems that Novak’s problem is really with Article I of the Constitution, not congressional Democrats.

Look, I understand that there is a desire out there for Congress to work together on the nation’s problems, and if you want to call that "bipartisanship", then I’m all for it.  But just when did Bush become a convert to bipartisanship?   Only when reality caught up to him, and the American people turned away from him?

For the past four years, opposition to the war (primarily from Democrats) was met by the Bush Administration with not-so-subtle charges of treason, lack of patriotism, naivete, and so on.   Novak has dutifully played his part in levelling those charges against war opposers. 

And now, having insulted and ignored the advice and input of Democrats for all these years, Novak wonders why we don’t accept Bush’s invitation to the prom?  That we’re being rude for not wanting to get into Bush’s limosine, now that his dance card is running low on names?

Sorry, Bob.  Like Webb said the other day, we’ll be happy to show Bush the way.  But to date, he’s shown uncanny resolve in being wrong about Iraq, despite having bipartisan advice from experts (i.e., Baker-Hamilton).  And he shows no sign of changing.  So until then, he — and his hapless followers — are going to have to go it alone.