I'd have to disagree with you a bit, TIA, Larry may have learned the theory of the Rove approach, but his mastery of the technique, as I indicated, is less than perfect.

OK Bushites, the next postings we should see from you should be from Iraq. Your cheap pious mouthings about democracy in Iraq should be backed up with action.

We have now reached the stage where, as some posters have already indicated, the question is "who will be the last to die for a mistake?"

Because that's what the Iraq war was, from start to (a long way from the) finish. A far better idea would have been to take Pat Robertson's "Christian?" approach and fund assassination squads on Saddam. Which is in fact what I was advocating at the time of the war.

As we told you then, you Bushites were duped by a classic campaign of demagoguery into suppporting the war. Then you were again duped by a similar campaign--hate and fear being the Bush team's unquestioned strong suits---to vote for your boy in 2004. It's no wonder that if the US were to split on the basis of red and blue states, the red state US would be an immediate basket case.

Guy who thinks-- why don't you try being a guy who reads? If you don't realize there's a huge difference between South Korea----- (with virtually no sectarian strife and powerful incentive to stay united--i.e. North Korea and China)-----and Iraq, you need to do a lot more reading.

There's also no parallel between the 13 American colonies and Iraq. There would have had to be a period when the 13 colonies were ruled by a Catholic faction which burned a lot of Protestants at the stake. Please enlighten us, Bushites, as to when that was.

And as far as civil war, if you don't think Iraq is headed for civil war, consider what happened when the US was forced to postpone consideration of the slavery issue (in order to have the southern states sign on to the Constitution at all.) These issues (in Iraq, federation, oil distribution, and the role of Islam) don't go away when they are not dealt with.

A much more likely parallel to Iraq now, as others have pointed out, would be an attempt to put Yugoslavia together, post Tito. Remember what happened after Tito?

"Why should America's sworn enemies not join forces?" Because, until Bush drove them together, Osama despised Saddam. Use your head and read something other than the NY Post and the Wall St Journal editorial page. Try reading the actual articles in the Journal.

Whistle Stop---your list of reasons for invasion puts "establishing a democratic model for other Middle Eastern states to emulate" last on the list. With reason--it was an afterthought to the apocalyptic rhetoric the Bush regime used to manipulate public approval of an unnecessary war.

Now, for some reason, it's the only thing we hear--this continues an unbroken pattern of Bushite duplicity.

When the civil war starts, exactly why will US and "Coalition" forces not be in the crossfire?.