Though there are things to learn about Iraq by studying Algeria, like the effects of resorting to torture and the fate of supporters of the defeated occupying power, there is a key difference that makes it particularly sad that Bush is drawing no other lesson from Horne's book than that the occupier just needs to stick it out.

The difference is the sides were clear in Algeria. The insurgents wanted independence, France and it's supporters wanted France to stay. Two clear sides with opposing goals. But whose side are we on in Iraq? The Sunnis want to avoid Shiite domination, or in their more delusion moments want to run Iraq again. The Shiite want to run the whole country. The Kurds want to avoid being run by Arabs. They all have rival militias or insurgent groups. So whose side are we on? How do we possibly know if we've won?

I have the same problem with saying we lost. Lost what? It's a sectarian conflict. We don't have a side. We have a disaster and a lot of culpability, but asking if we've lost or if we can win is just the wrong question. The only reasonable question is how we get out of there with the least possible further damage to us or Iraq.

I'm personally torn when it comes to Tony Blair. Being of Irish extraction, and knowing the history of the potato famine and how it continued to motivate acts of terrorism, I was undeniably moved when Blair apologized for the famine and admitted it was man-made and made in Britain. The peace in Ulster would not have happened without Blair. I don't ignore the utterly necessary involvement of Bill Clinton, but Blair was equally necessary and I'll never not praise him for that.

However, admitting he was in a tough spot as Andrew Brown suggested, Blair gave legitimacy to Bush's sales campaign for the invasion of Iraq. I think Bush would have invaded regardless, but the odds were certainly better with Blair's support. His opposition would have made many Americans rethink their support, even if not the American acting as president. I always had trouble believing Blair believed the nonsense, but he supported it. Maybe he couldn't have stopped the invasion, but he should have tried. I'll be glad to see Bush out of power, but I feel a sense of tragedy about Blair.

OK Congress, Gonzales has had his day before each house, and you've gone above and beyond the call of decorum in letting Gonzales hang around. How much more crap will you take from him? By now even though most naive must have figured out that no amount of exposure of wrongdoing will cause him to resign. Yes, any honorable man would have been gone by now. He clearly has no scrap of honor left. He moreover showed complete contempt for Congress by reusing his Senate opening statement, and not checking into those questions he was explicitly told to check on and answer. That's assuming my eyes deceived me, and he was not wearing the conservative pundit smirk --- you know, the one conservatives wear when they think they're putting something over on dumb liberals.

At this point, you know he's at minimum the most incompetent AG in US history. He contradicted himself in testimony, contradicted other sworn testimony, has held back documents he was supposed to release and didn't admit they existed until leaked. He has plainly allowed if not caused the politicization of prosecutions and hiring. He even has Republicans calling for his resignation.

Impeachment would pass the House, and there's even a chance the Senate will convict. So what are you waiting for?

I'm sick of having to say this but since Gonzo is still there...

Isn't there enough evidence of venality to impeach him, even this incident by itself? Isn't this also evidence that he doesn't have the character to leave without impeachment or firing no matter how much he's disgraced?

There was something bizarre I noticed in this AP story, http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8P5HR500.html, White House: World Bank Bruised by Fight. There was this paragraph:

"This has certainly been a bruising episode for the bank, and what you have to do is figure out a way forward to maintain the integrity of the institution," White House press secretary Tony Snow said. "And, therefore, when you do it, you're going to discuss everything. That's what you would normally do," he added.

Clearly they're trying to spin this as the bank has had something go seriously wrong, and it's the bank that has suffered damage. It seems to me that succeeding in clearing out the corruption that came in with Wolfowitz shows the bank has some strength and integrity as an institution, and it's sure to come out of this stronger since the Bush administration's ability to dictate to it will be greatly weakened. Maybe if it can't gain some freedom from US supply-side nonsense, it can change its policies and start doing a lot more good.

As flawed as the military commissions act was, the intent was clearly to stop the use of torture and secret prisons. That such legislation has to be written so carefully and tightly because otherwise it will be broken shows how morally bankrupt Bush has become. Someone as determined to break the law regardless of what tortured theories he has to use deserves impeachment for this above all the other crimes he could be impeached for.