The more I see of the Iraqi on Iraqi strife the more I am on Bush's side in this incredible mess.

The insanity is confined in Iraq, where it belongs. Obviously the wall is a temporary attempt to solve an intractable problem. Bush didn't create the hate. Saddam controlled the hate by state terrorism. In removing the state terrorism, the pressure in the kettle is venting.

Same thing happened in Yugoslavia and the result has been multiple states and UN guard troops. Clinton took a lot of criticism for US involvement, but in his case he showed much more of that quantity singularly lacking in the Bush administration - Leadership.

Clinton did not hesitate to bomb when it would motivate the Serbs.

Clinton utilized NATO and the UN. He engaged in no breast beating and de-emphasized religion except as pointing out that the majority of the victims were Muslim. In fact, the violence was extreme between and among Catholic, Orthodox, and Muslim. Some longstanding icons of peace between different cultures were destroyed, and a lot of mines were laid and many innocent civilians died. But the West went in with overwhelming force and was for the most part organized.

We are in a more difficult part of the world, and much farther from the West. Still, many of the isues are of a similar nature. Bush's attempt to deal with it is not altogether wrong. Unfortunately, his people were not nearly as competent as Clinton's.

But between Saddam and Bush there is no choice. Between the Osamas and Zarqawis on the one hand, and the US and British and Australian and Canadian forces on the other there is no possible contention. With the most western and enlightened of the Muslim countries putting people to death because betrothed couples are walking hand in hand, cutting heads off for converting to another religion, what is there to seriously say? You want Saddam back? Want to go backwards in time?

Who is really being stupid?