Regardless of the public impression of progress or chance for ultimate success in Afghanistan, I dare say over 90% of the American public is (and has been) in favor of our intervention in that sorry country. It was accurately fingered as the immediate source of the al Qaeda infection that spawned the 9/11 attacks. I don't recall any significant resistance to THAT operation, except among true pacifists.

In fact, if you're honest, you KNOW that most informed observers bemoaned the fact that the Iraq distraction was criticized strongly for siphoning needed troops and resources to an unneeded war of choice in Iraq.

Your brother-in-law in Afghanistan ought to be upset at Dubya and his misguided policies in Iraq even more than the rest of us -- HE and THOSE POLICIES are a much greater threat to him and his fellow soldiers than Democrats and other Iraq war opponents.

Can you point to even ONE Democratic leader who has indicated he/she favors pulling out, or even winding down, operations in Afghanistan?

I meant to say this in the 2nd paragraph of my earlier post:

"In fact, if you're honest, you KNOW that most informed observers strongly criticized the Iraq distraction for siphoning needed troops and resources to an unneeded war of choice in Iraq."

Sorry, I ought to proofread a bit better.

...then his irony is WAY too subtle for this reader. Not one ounce of irony, humor or anything else a reasonably intelligent person could glean, at least from his latest posts.

In any case, there ARE people who truly believe what he's saying. And he (or others) can SAY that Democrats want to pull out of Afghanistan, or that they never wanted to go in in the first place.

There is, as I said and repeat now, NO EVIDENCE of this.

Wouldn't it be interesting if people serving in high office in this, or any, administration showed a little contemporaneous integrity -- not this 20/20 hindsight pseudo-integrity that has emerged all too often recently? Oh, yeah, such delayed integrity sells books and gives face time on 60 Minutes and other news programs -- but just as we say that "justice delayed is justice denied", I have little time for slow integrity that has allowed countless but predictable deaths to occur. In such cases, silence is anything but golden -- it's deadly, and those who could speak up but refuse are COMPLICIT in those deaths.

Wouldn't it be great if even ONE official in the Bush administration (yes, Colin Powell, I'm talking to YOU) had resigned from office -- publicly, proudly and LOUDLY -- over some matter of principle? This happens all the time in Great Britain and other countries, yet for some reason, rarely if ever in the U.S.

Do cabinet secretaries and lower level officials really believe the oath of office each one utters when being installed -- that they pledge support and allegiance to the country and our Constitution, NOT to this or any President? Don't they recognize that there IS a difference between support and first allegiance to the country and our Constitution, rather than the President?

Just asking.

That discussion occurred long ago, Farnsworth, and it's settled.

No, we're not a pure democracy -- we're a democratic republic, with an amendable Constitution limiting what can and cannot be done by the people and government at all levels.

For better or worse -- and those "worse" times include the moments when we might choose to elect the wrong person, or vote to approve/disapprove a tax levy, etc. -- in the end, the PEOPLE decide. That's the price we pay for those democratic elements, and that's also the beauty of our system. We're ALLOWED to make mistakes, if in fact our choices turn out to be mistakes. A certain level of mistakes is obviously to be expected.

But we're not always wrong -- and the bottom line is, WE THE PEOPLE get to choose. If you're longing for smoothly running government and society, no doubt a "benevolent dictatorship" looks mighty attractive -- assuming only benevolent and qualified people run things. Other than in a fantasy world, it ain't gonna happen; it CAN'T happen in the real world.

We should rejoice in that truth. How did Churchill put it? "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Exactly.

He started out all wrong with "And I think...", but quickly got it right again when he continued "I don't think..."

No, he does NOT think; he parrots, and repeats, and distorts, and obfuscates, but above all, LIES.

...we have the testimony of Laura Bush earlier this week that NO ONE suffers more about our presence in Iraq than our President and the First Lady.

Honestly, does even one person (who hasn't been clinically diagnosed as mentally ill) seriously believe that? Even ONE?

Oh, sure -- Dubya ponders the wonders and terrors he's wrought, night and day. No doubt he thinks his drunken threat to go "mano a mano" with his disapproving father years ago was similar to the dangers awaiting our combat forces in Iraq. He can RELATE, man, he can RELATE.

Pardon me while I vomit repeatedly.

Neither the discussion of firing U.S. attorneys, nor their actual dismissal, is likely illegal on its face.

However, as was pointed out ad nauseum during the Lewinsky affair, lying under oath IS illegal, and impeachable to boot.

Being a political process, the bar for impeachment is different, and in a real way, lower than for purely legal matters. As we all should have learned during Watergate, it's the COVERUP, stupid. It's patently obvious that many in the Bush administration have lied their rear ends off, from Gonzalez' early denials of involvement, to claims by him and many others that they "couldn't remember", during investigation of this matter.