On the eve of the American invasion, 'The Daily Show' had a very memorable segment in which John Stewart observed that the only way to avoid the war at that late date was for Saddam Hussein to hastily acquire some WMDs (like, over the weekend), so that he could then quickly be "disarmed" (of his just-acquired WMDs) before the deadline set by the U.S. (i.e., the deadline for giving up the WMDs he didn't have).

This illustrates that not "everyone" believed that Iraq was a hotbed of WMDs in 2003, or that the likely existence of a few canisters of degraded materials left over from the Iraq-Iran War justified abandoning the hunt for al-Qaeda in order to start a doomed occupation of Iraq. Unless "everyone" refers to America's credulous corporate media stars, who eagerly helped sell the Bush-Cheney lies, and who even at this late date are clearly still struggling with the total non-existence of WMDs -- which was Tim Grieve's point in War Room.

Beyond that, citing atrocities that were committed in 1988 and 1991 as the justification for invading Iraq in 2003 is a particularly weak argument, especially considering that Reagan and Bush Sr. chose to do nothing in response at that time. Of course, the GOP faithful are very quickly running out of any other arguments in favor of this disastrous war.

Finally, concerning any "poll" that supposedly shows Iraqis happier and better off today, I have to ask one question: we're talking only about the survivors, right? Because I have a hard time believing the 30,000 to 100,000 Iraqis who have been killed or maimed since the U.S. invasion would consider themselves better off now.

Uncle Albert made me chuckle. Indeed, imagine how horrible it would be if "N.Y., Boston, D.C., Chicago, L.A., S.F." -- i.e., the places where many Americans actually live -- were allowed to play a fair and equal role in electing U.S. presidents.

Albert obviously prefers the present system, in which a Republican vote in Wyoming carries four times the electoral weight of a Democratic vote in California; campaigns are confined to a handful of "contested" states; the candidate who got the most votes in the last open election did not "win"; and the U.S. government is determined by the prejudices of a rural minority scattered across a large number of small red states.

And yes, the electoral college IS relevant to the RFK Jr. debate, because among its many flaws is the sad fact that when a national election is decided within a single state -- Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004 -- the mechanics of stealing that election are much more feasible. Thus the electoral college, in addition to overturning the will of the people, constitutes an invitation to election theft.

Under the current system, campaigns already ignore "entire regions" of the country, in favor of a handful of contested states. Such a system constitutes an invitation to election fraud, by placing national elections within a handful of precincts in a single state. You suggest that rural Americans would be ignored in a democratic system. I doubt that would happen in this age of electronic media; but is it not far more unjust that most big cities and states are irrelevant in national elections (e.g., California in 2000 and 2004)?

In re votes carrying unequal weight among the states, California had 33.9 million people according to the 2000 census, while Wyoming had less than 500,000. In 2000, California had 54 electoral votes, which equals one vote for every 628,000 people. Wyoming had three electoral votes, which equals one vote for every 167,000 people. Thus, Wyoming voters enjoyed nearly four times the per capita electoral weight of California voters.

Using the same method of calculation, a vote for Bush Jr. in North Dakota, together with a vote for Bush Jr. in South Dakota, carried roughly three times the weight of any two Gore votes in California in 2000. As a matter of fact, there are sixteen small red states west of the Mississippi whose combined population is less than California's. Yet those sixteen states commanded 81 electoral votes in 2000, compared to California's 54.

When you consider that the electoral college is a reflection of each state's respective congressional representation, you will more clearly understand why Congress spends so much of its time worrying about abortion, gay marriage, and the other concerns of the bible belt, and so little time addressing the fiasco in Iraq and the failure to catch Osama bin-Forgotten, not to mention little things like health insurance, global warming, etc.

Yes, I have seen the maps of the red-blue breakdown from 2000 (and, presumably from 2004). I have seen how the blue areas are relatively small areas that coincide rather remarkably with population maps of the United States. In other words, if you were to fly over the U.S. in the space shuttle at night, the concentration of lights you would see would coincide almost exactly with the areas that have voted Democratic -- BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LIVE. As opposed to the wide open spaces occupied mostly by cattle and corn, whose inhabitants apparently voted for Bush Jr., and think that abortion and gay marriage are greater threats to the republic than lying to start a war and failing to catch the mastermind responsible for 9/11.

Neverthless I admire your respectful discourse.