What's that line about if you tell a lie enough times it will be true?

In this case, it will never be true.

Bush continues to insist that the war on terror begins and ends in Iraq. It does not.

Bush has told us repeatedly that if we don't fight the terrorist there we will have to fight them here.

But most of the public have never stopped to consider where "there" ought to have been from the beginning. And so 70% of the public rallied around the Bush administration in 2003.

"There" should have been WHEREVER Osama bin Laden and his number 2 were hiding. We should have run him down and tracked him like a hound dog tracks whatever it is hound dogs track. (How the heck do I know, I'm a city slicker.)

That was MISSION ONE and until it was accomplished we NEVER should have gone to MISSION IRAQ.

Bush made some bold statements when this war on terror first started. He said bin Laden could run but he could not hide. That was a good start. Unfortunately, Bush gave up the hunt after bin Laden did such a good job of ... well, um... hiding.

We're not buying it, counselor.

Way to Go, Pres!

He's claiming to be concerned about liberty when he signed his presidential directive #51?? Is this some kind of joke?
Tyranny, he understands. Freedom is inconvenient to him.

Doesn't this "Commander Guy" feel any guilt whatsoever for lying this country into war?

And to mention the men and women who served in Vietnam while he was drunk as a skunk hiding in Alabama and Elmer Fudd was shooting rabbits in Wyoming,just down right disgusting.

Loon,
Lighting up the bong a little early? Have a safe Memorial Day weekend and let someone else drive.

Paulo

Four years after the Bush team's unsuccessful attempt to remove terrorists from Iraq, reality finally seems to be getting the attention of the Bush team.

It should be safe to say that the Bush team's motivation factors are the same as most of the world's humans - to make a gain or to avoid a lost.

But the motivation for the Bush team's war on Iraq is hard to fathom.

An American document(not Niger sourced)now in the process of being declassified sheds more light on the wisdom of starting a war with Iraq.

It looked like the Bush team ignored wisdom that did not parallel its own. There seems to be an "AXIOM" that says once the Bush team believes it's right, it will stay the course.

AND THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF DON'T HAVE TO TAKE ADVICE FROM NOBODY IF HE DON'T WANT TO.

It would be difficult to believe that the Congress was privy to all the classified information that Mr. Bush was privy to. And while the Bush team opened the kimono of the American public, it closed its own.

There is something BAD WRONG with the Bush team's administration.

But now perhaps reality or perhaps the fear of what is about to be revealed, may have influenced the Bush team to start talking about troop decrease in Iraq.

The more you read, the more you wonder if the Iraq war was the personal war of Mr. Bush.

I am sure that our President knows that if we are completely successful in Iraq the terrorist networks will soldier on. Any groups that are now in Iraq will slide over into Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt or whatever country they came from. There were no terrorist groups of any significance in Iraq because Saddam recognized their threat. An unlikely peace in Iraq will have little effect on terrorists. "Terrorists" must be chased all over the free world. "Terror* is a tool of George Bush and cohorts.

http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=333

Great program on This American Life today about the run up to the war, what was ignored from the past, and what is happening now.

I believed there were weapons of mass destruction. I believed Iraq was supporting Al Quida. I was so wrong. Johnson, McNamara, and Westmoreland lied to me about Vietnam. I should have learned.
Is President Bush telling me that if we don't prevail in Iraq that they will follow us home. Well Mr President I believe if we do prevail in Iraq that we will still be threatened by Al Quida.You cannot connect the two as much as you try.
Jim Horton

Back during the Vietnam War, liberals said that South Vietnam was not worthy of support because it was not a democracy. In Iraq, we set up a democratic government with a constitution but liberals are perfectly willing to throw it under the bus.

When liberals claim they are pro-democracy or pro-liberty, they are lying.

"On Memorial Day,'' the president said in his weekly radio address today, "we rededicate ourselves to freedom's cause. In Iraq and Afghanistan, millions have shown their desire to be free. "We are determined to help them secure their liberty,'' he said.
-------

This is a nice Memorial Day speech, were it World War II. Following that war, we put forth the Marshall Plan, and events like the Berlin Airlift established U.S. credentials. The U.S. was clearly the major superpower, and its performamce in both the European and Asian theatres as evidence.

The world today is quite different. There are currently trouble spots brewing in Ukraine, Somalia, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Gaza, and more. Russia is getting stronger thanks to oil revenues, and Putin's determined leadership - he even is sponsoring a nationalistic group (look up the Nashi) similar to what the Hitler Youth were, in terms of "protecting the homeland).

China is likewise investing its newfound wealth in weaponry, and competing in terms of being a giant oil purchaser - they are far more inefficient in terms of energy consumption than we are, so they use more oil per unit of production. The problem here is Taiwan, which is now a major producer of electronic components.

In order to reduce our deficit, in the final years of the 20th Century, we reduced defense spending (it was all we could really cut) to get to a surplus. Bush has managed to turn that into a huge ongoing annual deficit by NOT wiping out al Qaeda, and then attacking Iraq without providing for post-war leadership. The Sunnis are under constant attacks from the Shia, and that provided an opening for al Qaeda (they are Sunni) to move into Sunni neighborhoods to offer protection, in return for the Sunni natives providing them a base of operations in Iraq.

We face major additional expenditures in expanding our military again, and replacing munitions expended in Iraq, and upgrading weapons system - it costs a small fortune to outfit each soldier today. Then, we also have a large future burden at the V.A. to deal with, plus leaving Iraq after landing 900-plus million tons of equipment, weapons, etc., which we cannot just leave behind - that's one reason we cannot just "pull out".

In summation, it firmly appears that Cheney wants war with Iran, and while the Joint Chiefs and State are resisting, Bush's claims in this speech lead me to believe that he will make the same strategic errors with Iran as he did with Iraq - we have no ground troops to send in to stabilize following a conflict. We have no support amongst the moderates in Iran leading to their taking over, in the face of a fundamentalist government actually running the country.

Bush is incapable of learning from his mistakes, and of course Cheney's ego overwhelms the entire picture.

In part, bezelt posted and said (above):

"But the motivation for the Bush team's war on Iraq is hard to fathom."

No. It is not hard to fathom. His reasons have changed, but the are fairly simple to see if you look close enough.

His first reason for being in Iraq was to depose Saddam Hussein, and then to plant "democracy" there. But once we got there and Saddam was out of the picture, things changed in an unexpected manner; that is, unexpected to Dubya and his pals.

What immediately ensued was chaos. There was looting and vandalism that went largely unchecked. Law and order wasn’t maintained because there were no police, and few soldiers were trained or deployed for law enforcement. We soon disbanded their army and De-baathified their existing governmental structure. We left a large vacuum that we couldn't fill, and which the constitutional government the Iraqis elected left unfilled.

Factions filled the void; factions that hate one another in a way we cannot begin to fathom. Anyone bothering to examine the history of Iraq during the 20th Century, or its religious history over the past 1300 years, or either of these in combination with Iraq's current social structure, might have reasonably anticipated the eruption of factionalism after Saddam’s repression ended. A reasonable person, in light of this history, would have planned to keep the peace. But we didn't - or, more correctly, Dubya didn’t.

Which brings us to Dubya’s current reason for being in Iraq: to suppress the violence long enough to help bring about reconciliation and/or a peaceful, political solution. One thing Dubya knows, and in which he is not wrong, is that the current violence will result in a blood-bath of catastrophic proportions if left unrestrained. Some fear, with justification, that unchecked factional hatred and the resulting internecine violence will intensify when we leave, because the factions will no longer have us as a common enemy. This violence will likely draw a military response from Iraq’s neighbors to protect their own political and territorial interests. In a splintering country, for example, the Kurds might simply unify with other Kurds resulting in a threat to the territorial integrity of Turkey, Iran, Azerbaijan, and Armenia. The Turks, for one, will not tolerate this – which heightens the likelihood of intervention on their part, and an even bigger blood bath. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the Iraqi people, and all of Iraq’s neighbors, that we take whatever action we can to weaken and disrupt the armed and warring factions - at least long enough to allow the elected government to take over the peace keeping functions. This is Dubya’s reasoning. It oozes from everything he says.

Why is this so hard to see? I’ll tell you why. It is hard to see for those who choose not to see the reasoning of those they hate. One may dislike Dubya with some justification. One may even question the wisdom and morality of his invasion with even greater justification. But one cannot challenge the reality that the dam is cracked, we have our finger in the hole, and the deaths from the threatened flood are too many to ignore.

Uttered a half century ago and we still don't understand it:

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?"
~ Mohandas Gandhi

John W,

I don't believe for one second that the idiots (W. administration) who got us into this mess can get us out of it.
I've lost all faith in the GOP and I think our country will be better off if they just go away for awhile after the 08 election.

I'm sure the Iraqi parliament will be enjoying their vacation this summer while our troops continue to "surge" and I'm guessing that Al-Sadar has his feet up on a table while drinking some hot tea and laughing at the American idiots who put him in power.

Thanks Republo-Fascists!

John W.

Your assessment of the current and future Iraqi conditions are likely to be more correct than incorrect. Your comments provide thoughtful reading.

You recognized that there were immediate bad results for Iraq because Saddam was removed and was replace with NOTHING. There was no leadership. What was the Bush team thinking?

If the Bush team intended to export democracy to Iraq how did it plan to do it without installing a government? And were the insurgents supposed to wait for a cue from the Bush team before starting their activities?

Installing a new government should have been the first order of business after removing the old government. And if that could not happen, the Bush team was in a place it should not have been.

The Bush team went into Iraq with a plan that was destined to fail. And it looks like they did not know their plan was defective. That is scary.

Way to go, Pres. Bush, way to go...NOT!

S.Sherman,as you shove another brat down your pie hole and wrap your fat but in the flag on Monday,consider the story below.

BAGHDAD - Americans have opened nearly 1,000 new graves to bury U.S. troops killed in Iraq since Memorial Day a year ago. The figure is telling — and expected to rise in coming months.

bushie is a idiot plain and simple...let's hope they build his 'liberry' (his 'spelin') in baghdad...

John W.

Your way of thinking aligns with mine 100%. Wish more people were that informed. Very refreshing.

Bezelt

"The more you read, the more you wonder if the Iraq war was the personal war of Mr. Bush."

LoL. I highly doubt it. I'm not one for "conspiracy theories", but sometimes I catch myself wondering the same thing.

So I agree with Bud here,as the whole entire phony Liar in Chief George W Bush and Vice Liar
Deranged Draft Dodger Cheney Administration has
been based on lies and deceptions all along,and
frankly George W Bush and Draft Dodger Cheney
are the biggest two tyrants since Adolf Hitler
and Josef Stalin as well!

America is not a free country so who would care if Iraq were made free ? American Enterprise Institute.

RR posted and, in relevant part, said (above):

"I don't believe for one second that the idiots (W. administration) who got us into this mess can get us out of it."

- to which I say:

Neither do I. In fact, I don't hold out any hope that any American President or administration, by itself, can fix the problems there. I think its going to take group cooperation from a number of nations, including most of Iraq's neighbors, to fix the situation - if it can be fixed.

He then said:

"I've lost all faith in the GOP and I think our country will be better off if they just go away for awhile after the 08 election."

- to which I reply:

Although I understand your point of view, I don't completely share your sentiments. I think Bush is an awful President, a petty dictator, and someone who does not represent the core values of conservatism and constitutional orthodoxy. His foreign policy decisions, especially with regard to Iraq, run counter to the foreign policies of every other Republican administration in the 20th Century. All of the latter favored democracy abroad, but none favored exporting it through force or regime change. Even Bush Sr. thought occupying Iraq was a crazy idea because we couldn't afford the required dangers and expenditures.

In other words, Dubya is an anomaly for Republicans, and his mistaken policies are not likely to be repeated by another Republican administration in the foreseeable future. I just hope these words are not prophetic for the wrong reasons.

Finally, RR also said:

"I'm sure the Iraqi parliament will be enjoying their vacation this summer while our troops continue to "surge" and I'm guessing that Al-Sadar has his feet up on a table while drinking some hot tea and laughing at the American idiots who put him in power."

- to which I reply:

I'm wondering whether the Iraqi parliament isn't simply ducking out of sight. Maybe they know some large masses of fecal matter are about to hit the rotating oscillator - and they just don't want to be around for it.

As for Sadr, I would advise him to ear more RushNDuck for dinner. That is, when he eats, he should rush in and duck out. He is probably a target. He has been before, but now he is causing too much trouble to tolerate.

first it was WMD, then it was Saddam and Saddam actually hated Bin Laden. Now it's the terrorists, but it's actually a civil war between Sunni and Shites arabs. Who benefits in this Iraq war???
Oil companies like Haliburton.
Defense contractor like Lockheed Martin.
Construction like Bectel.
Guess what?? these companies' boards are loaded with Republicans supported Bush for his reelection.
The bottom line: poor kids die in Iraq and Exxon makes billion dollars profits.

Another scare tactics by Mr. Bush: If we don't fight terrorist in Iraq, we will have to fight them here. Mr Bush fights in Iraq to "spread" democracy and liberty???? by having "our" soldiers, tanks in their country??? It's like pointing a gun in their heads and tell them to vote. Democracy is from the people, not forcing down their throat.
Saddam is a tyrant, but so is the King of Saudi (who voted him there?? Musharaf is a tyrant of Pakistan because he forced himself there after a coup. If we are in business of democracy and removing tyrannies, why don't we remove those mentioned. Who is us the rights to interfere with other countries' affairs?

Just follow the money. How is it possible to want democracy overseas and destroy it at home. There are many people getting very rich during this war. And they like it! Try focusing on who sponsors our leaders in the white house and you will get an idea of where their interests lie.

Why is there nothing in the Trib about The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive," with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland Security Presidential Directive?

Because Commander Guy just signed into law extra special powers he'll have once he lets the terrorists hit us again.

Raving Loon says:
"S.Sherman,as you shove another brat down your pie hole and wrap your fat but in the flag on Monday,consider the story below."

Look, Mr. Loon, I don't know what I said that made you angry. I merely pointed out that, in contrast to Kennedy and Johnson in Vietnam, Bush has attempted to establish a genuine democracy in Iraq. It may turn out to have been a futile effort but it was a noble effort nonetheless.

Those who want to see Bush fail in Iraq want to see democracy fail.

I thought conservatives did not like 'democracy'. The local letter writers of the Republican persuasion like to point out that it inevitably leads to socialism because the little man will vote in his own interest, not the interest of the vested interests.

It is then pointed out that our Republican form of g'vment, hooked up to the Electoral College is meant to deny the common man the ultimate voice under our system.

Why then is GWB always pushing 'democracy'?

I guess nobody can answer my ?

C.Morris wrote (above):

"I thought conservatives did not like 'democracy'. The local letter writers of the Republican persuasion like to point out that it inevitably leads to socialism because the little man will vote in his own interest, not the interest of the vested interests."

"It is then pointed out that our Republican form of g'vment, hooked up to the Electoral College is meant to deny the common man the ultimate voice under our system."

"Why then is GWB always pushing 'democracy'?"

Dear C.Morris,

I originally thought you might be joking with your line about, “I thought conservatives did not like 'democracy,’” because of their "democracy leads to socialism" arguments. So I did some research on my own. To my total amazement, I unearthed a number of online commentaries and blogs where the same “democracy leads to socialism” claims were made.

There is an important but subtle distinction that is lost on some of these writers. That is, they generally equate “democracy” with “government by the masses,” or rule by direct, mass vote. The framers of the Constitution did not favor this form of “democracy.” In the Federalist Papers (No. 10), James Madison wrote that a majority faction in a purely popular democracy can “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Benjamin Franklin was more blunt. He said, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.”

This is to be distinguished from the “representative democracy” or “republican form of government” like we have in the U.S. In a representative democracy the effect of populism is blunted by a structure designed to diffuse power. That is, people have a say in what will happen, but only by voting for a representative to voice and protect their interests. According to Madison, this provides a cure for factionalism not found in a populist government. This is because representatives are more likely to act on deliberation and reflection rather than passion, and more interested in the welfare of the whole over the interest of one faction over another. (See Federalist No. 10.)

The same diffusion is found in the “electoral college” system we use to elect the President. Every voter has the right to vote for the presidential candidate of his or her choice. But that vote is also blunted and diffused because the popular vote only determines how a State will cast its electoral votes. [Admittedly, the "winner take all" electoral system has a lot of room for improvement.]

So when someone says Republicans and/or Dubya favor democracy, they are referring to a “representative democracy.” When they say “democracy” leads to “socialism” the are speaking about “populist democracy” of the sort condemned by the Founding fathers.

Otherwise, they are ignorant. Representative democracy does not lead to socialism as a result of popular interest. The socialist features found in the U.S. government were imposed from the top down, and not otherwise. Welfare-state programs were enacted from above by F.D.R., Kennedy, Johnson and their ilk with program packages like “the New Deal,” the “New Frontier” and “the Great Society.” One can only guess at how well these programs would have done if put to a popular vote.

John W,

I appr. that you actually understood what I was saying and posited a thoughtful response. We may or may not agree on a lot of things, but at least you read my posting and very incisively understood what the hell I was talking about.

Your analysis addresses my point exactly.

There is a strong, unseen movement against democracy, as you and I understand it, in this country that I have been aware of for some time. It is closely linked to the companion premise; 'there is no separation of church and state in America'.

Who knows where it will lead.

John W.,

"In other words, Dubya is an anomaly for Republicans, and his mistaken policies are not likely to be repeated by another Republican administration in the foreseeable future."

This stikes me as very wishful thinking, John. Just wondering, which 2008 GOP presidential candidate, besides Congressman Ron Paul, is making any sort of a clean break from Bushism? They all sound like robot clones to me, falling overthemselves to see who can denounce Osama Bin Laden the loudest while ignoring any of the root causes of why we are in the mess we are in or providing any sort of clear-headed analysis of how to get out.

I'm not one of those people who think the Iraq War was simply poorly managed (though it most certainly was). The Iraq War made no more sense in 2001-2 than it does now. I'd like to hear more from the GOP nominees as to how they are going to avoid the obvious temptation of trying to succeed in Syria or Iran where we have failed in Iraq.

I want a sensible foreign policy based on a wise balance of carrots and sticks, instead of the current soundbite cliche-infested rhetorical drivel about "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" and "exporting democracy" while aggressively rolling it back at home. I don't see the Grand Old Party abandoning the borrow-and-spend jingoism of this Administration any time soon. But I hope you're right, John. The sooner the "if you don't support Bush or don't like the Iraq War you hate America" crowd is trounced, the sooner sane people can start to take their country back.

John W.,

"In other words, Dubya is an anomaly for Republicans, and his mistaken policies are not likely to be repeated by another Republican administration in the foreseeable future."

This stikes me as very wishful thinking. Just wondering, which 2008 GOP presidential candidate, besides Congressman Ron Paul, is making any sort of a clean break from Bushism? They all sound like robot clones to me, falling overthemselves to see who can denounce Osama Bin Laden the loudest while ignoring any of the root causes of why we are in the mess we are in or providing any sort of clear-headed analysis of how to get out.

I'm not one of those people who think the Iraq War was simply poorly managed (though it most certainly was). The Iraq War made no more sense in 2001-2 than it does now. I'd like to hear more from the GOP nominees as to how they are going to avoid the obvious temptation of trying to succeed in Syria or Iran where we have failed in Iraq.

I want a sensible foreign policy based on a wise balance of carrots and sticks, instead of the current soundbite cliche-infested rhetorical drivel about "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" and "exporting democracy" while aggressively rolling it back at home. I don't see the Grand Old Party abandoning the borrow-and-spend jingoism of this Administration any time soon. But I hope you're right, John. The sooner the "if you don't support Bush or don't like the Iraq War you hate America" crowd is trounced, the sooner sane people can start to take their country back.

C.Morris wrote above:

"There is a strong, unseen movement against democracy, as you and I understand it, in this country that I have been aware of for some time. It is closely linked to the companion premise; 'there is no separation of church and state in America'.

Who knows where it will lead."

Dear C.Morris,

Could you elaborate a little? I don't quite know what you mean when you represent that some believe "there is no separation of church and state."

There IS a separation of Church and State, and it is a feature that everyone should welcome. Many fundamentalist groups are quite happy with the idea of SOCAS on the ground they don't want the state to dictate a belief system to them. James Madison's protest against a Virginia's proposal to support the Anglican Church began with the premise that a man's duty to God precede his duty to society. That being the case, Madison reasoned, the subject matter of religion must remain entirely out of bounds for State action. If we had a theocracy with a representative government, then orthodoxy and heresy could change with a different majority vote. That should sound strange to anyone.

There is the inverse view, championed by some, that religious views ought to dictate the content of our laws. I'm not sure how far such influence or religious views was comprehended within the First Amendment's prohibition against Congress making laws "respecting the Establishment of Religion." After all, everyone is entitled to vote their conscience regardless of how one formed their conscience. Conscience is a human right protected by the First Amendment separate and apart from any consdieration of religion or church. To the extent that people vote their conscience, however influence by religious scruples or not, and that law is not otherwise unconstitutional (i.e. does not otherwise have a tendency to "establish: a State religion), then I can't see any genuine objection to the practice.

But you might not be talking precisely about either of these scenarios. That is why I need some clarification.

John W:
I must say I'm impressed. Someone who actually listens & responds without resorting to rhetoric & name calling is rare here (from either the right or the left). Its also nice to here from someone who realizes the Catch-22 reality that is Iraq & doesn't resort to catch phrases or knee jerk rhetoric. Personally I think you have more faith in the Iraqi Government's desire to find a way to reconciliation than I do but in the end only time will give us the answer to that. International help/support would be great if we could get it but I can't see how the current administration could get anyone to sign on for that job. Is a stable Iraq in a lot of countries best interest? Yes, definitely but history is filled with tons of examples of counties that didn't do what was in their best interest.

John W,

We will have more chances to discuss this subject in other blogs yet to appear.

Briefly, There are groups like Dobson's, Robertson's, more, that claim there has never been separation of church and state in America, that it was all made up by activist judges.

They argue that the words 'separation of church and state' appear nowhere in the Constitution, therefore it's non-existant.

My response has always been that the Supremes, in their past wisdom at least, saw keeping a clear separation of church and state as the only workable or practical remedy for g'vmnt encroachment on religious freedom, or religious doctrine encroaching on g'vmt. policy, etc.

Dear Brian,

The part about Bush being an anomaly for Republicans isn't wishful thinking. He is an anomaly - and this is doubly true when it comes to matters of foreign policy. I might be wrong but, as I recall, no Republican President in the 20th Century got us into a battle until Ronald Reagan had us invade Grenada. Even Daddy Bush invaded Iraq only to liberate Kuwait, and, even then, only with a U.N. mandate. Dubya's wilsonian "exporting democracy" policy puts him in his own field as an anomaly.

As for the candidates for 2008, I think its a bit too early to make any judgments about who the front runner will be, much less what their platform will be. I don't suspect that even a fraction of them will still be around come nomination time. There is the Ross Perot factor to consider. That is, we simply don't know how many candidates will be late comer, disappear or disappear and then reappear at some later time.

But I do know that many Republican candidates are making a point of trying not to be Bush clones, even if they aren't succeeding very well. Most of them know (or should know) that distancing themselves from Bush is a political necessity - because being too close to Bush isn't going to get them anywhere with any group of voters.

I don't think the debates are a very good indicator of where a lot of these people stand in relation to Bush. This is largely true because no one has asked them the hard questions (at least I don't think they have). For instance, I don't recall anyone asking the panel of Republican candidates if they, too, believe in torture, blanket authorizations for illegal wiretapping, or even if they would have invaded Iraq if they knew what Bush knew then (or even if they knew what we all know now.)

Parenthetically, I like Ron Paul. There are very few ideas and issues where he and I disagree. But I don't give him much chance at getting the nomination. People don't understand him, and his rival Republican candidates don't want to understand him. They want to portray him as some nut job. But he has something few of the others have: consistency.

I agree with you to the extent that you believe it was a very bad idea to invade Iraq in the first place. It was foreseeable that we would have invited a lot less resentment and trouble if we had simply done a better job at "containment." Consider the paradox that the Iraqi people seem more interested in taking up arms against us and each other than they were in taking up arms against Saddam. This foible was foreseeable from their 20th century history of revolting against western control, and from their 1958 revolution in particular. The invasion created a power vacuum that was both foreseeable and avoidable. It is this same power vacuum which Iran is now poised to exploit, and which is responsible for the bedlam that now reigns there. If the Iraqi people wanted freedom and democracy, they should have fought for themselves like we did. That would have been the orthodox Republican thing to do.

Unlike you, I do see the Republican party abandoning the "borrow-and-spend jingoism of this Administration," as you put it. McCain, for instance, has openly stated that we need to rein in our spending practices and make government small, efficient and accountable. I don't think too many of the other candidates would disagree with this. Rudi might, but, hey, Rudi is Rudi. But don't ask me to vote for him either.

I also do not think the "if you don't support Bush or don't like the Iraq War you hate America" crowd represents orthodox America any more, much less orthodox Republicanism. A number of candidates have been openly critical of Bush's handling of the war. You also have to remember that Bush's low approval rating reflects more than the disapproval of Democrats and Independents. It also reflects the existence of many disaffected Republicans, myself included.

Dear jj,

I have no faith that members of the Iraqi government desire to do anything but keep from ascending the gallows. I believe, however, that they know they cannot long survive in a country torm apart by sectarian violence. Thus, it is in their best interests to succeed by whatever means are available.

I have no disagreement or further comment regarding the rest of your last post.