...but isn't it likely that Dubya was having an "Oh, shit" moment when told of the World Trade Center attack while reading "My Pet Goat" in that Florida 2nd grade classroom? Meaning, of course, this: "Omigawd, THIS is what the August PDB meant by 'Bin Laden determined to strike in US'! It really WAS a warning, not a cover-your-ass moment like I thought! Who knew? NOW what do I do?"

The famous five minute period of inaction (paralysis?) after Dubya was informed by Andy Card is perhaps understandable in that context. Understandable doesn't mean forgivable or acceptable, mind you, and I certainly wouldn't want to have been in his shoes at that moment either. But I never aspired to be President, or harbored illusions I could actually do the job.

Regarding Gore's response when questioned about Hillary Clinton, a better answer might have been this: "I can name you a dozen or more Democrats who are capable and deserving of the Presidency, and Sen. Clinton is certainly one of them. In fact, it's hard to think of a person LESS capable and deserving than the current occupant."

Quoth Dubya:

"But it's one thing to put people in uniform, and another thing to have clear command structure, or the capacity to move troops from point A to point B, or the capacity to make sure that the troop carrier from point A to point B has got the necessary air in its tires or oil in its engine. In other words, this is a sophisticated operation to get a unifying army stood up."

Putting air in tires or oil in engines is "sophisticated"? My God. Seems to ME that such items are basic and certainly necessary, but hardly sophisticated. Then again, that all depends on your definition of the word -- to the logic-challenged, I suppose such things ARE tremendously sophisticated...

Of course not -- the time to save New Orleans was before Hurricane Katrina. Sufficient warnings existed prior to that catastrophic storm, and these should have resulted in a far better job of preparation (just refer to the detailed series of stories from the Times-Picayune newspaper that eerily predicted almost exactly what Katrina wrought). Once New Orleans was largely decimated, "saving" the city became a moot point - all that remains now is reconstruction of something that is a mere shadow of the original.

Similarly, the time to save Iraq appears to have already come, and most likely, passed. Iraq might have been "saved" if the rosy scenario crowd had listened to realists, or if they'd read any history of British involvement in the region eighty years ago.

So, Hurricane Dubya has swept through Iraq, wiping away what was and leaving little in its wake save for escalating violence and suffering. Let's pray it isn't too late to stop the complete implosion of the country -- an unnecessary tragedy caused by the blind, bull-in-the-china-shop "strategy" of the Current Occupant and his acolytes.

Websters first definition for the word "tragedy": a serious play typically dealing with the problems of a central character, leading to an unhappy or disastrous ending brought on, as in ancient drama, by fate or a tragic flaw in this character, or, in modern drama, usually by moral weakness, psychological maladjustment, or social pressures.

Exactly. Iraq as a modern Greek tragedy -- a disaster brought on by tragic flaws in a central character, including psychological maladjustment. EXACTLY.

He might have used the forbidden word "nuanced" instead of "sophisticated". We all remember how Sen. Kerry was flogged mercilessly during the 2004 campaign for daring to state the obvious -- that most issues are complicated, requiring nuanced analysis and response.

Oh, no -- things are (and MUST be) taken as absolutely black-and-white, with nothing but simplistic yes or no answers. Of course, that sort of "logic" has left us painted in a corner, with NO WAY OUT of Iraq that avoids continuing death and destruction.

Thanks, Dubya -- NOW you get all sophisticated on us.

Diebold and other companies manufacture both electronic voting machines and ATM machines. I realize assumptions are often dangerous, but the functions of voting machines and ATMs are fundamentally similar, and I assume the "paper trail" and security of transactions conducted via ATM are deemed sufficient for our banking industry. Those of us who use ATMs certainly seem to believe they're safe, and banks wouldn't accept significant losses due to major problems!

Why, then, is it impossible to provide exactly the same level of security for the voting process? If it's good enough for banks, why is it insufficient for voting?

Put in reverse, if the existing level of ATM security isn't adequate for voting, doesn't that call into question the use of ATMs too? Seems to me either both are good enough, or both are inadequate. Can someone point out the fallacy in this conclusion?