...is that he took Iraq from Saddam and gave it to Al Qaeda. All he can do now is try to hold off the day that Al Qaeda will take full and undisputed possession of their territory.

Bush doesn't know how to win the war in Iraq or how to get out of it. Hence he's going to "stay the course" until the next president takes over and then he'll try to blame that president for losing Iraq.

Bush is fighting terrorism in a way that practically guarantees victory to the terrorists. Americans are supposed to maintain their resolve forever, Iraqis are supposed to establish 'freedom and democracy' in a country that never saw either, and the terrorists are supposed to quietly give up and go away. But all the terrorists have to do is not quit! If the terrorists can make freedom and democracy impossible in Iraq, then how long can Americans stay resolved?

We didn't win the Cold war or WW II by hoping our enemies would be nice enough to let us win. We didn't put our fate in other people's hands. Yet this is EXACTLY what Bush is doing in the war in Iraq and in the war on terror: he's hoping the terrorists will give up, that the Iraqis will pull their country together, and that Americans can win just by wishing hard enough and long enough and strong enough. But this is just crazy.

One way or another, we need to rid of Bush before we can make any progress against terrorism.

...may be living in and about the Las Vegas area and is busy compiling quotes from Democrats to show that they believed that WMD in Iraq were a threat to the US.

Or maybe not. But those quotes do show that most people before the war believed that Saddam possed WMD in one form or another. What was disputed was whether we should invade Iraq or let the weapons inspectors continue to do their job.

...not extra chromosomes.

And by the same token, I.Q. and stupidity do not correlate in any way.

...and unconstitutional to boot.

But I can easily see something like this coming to pass, given the extreme incompetence and risk taking of the Bush administration.

What if, say, a terrorist group gets a nuke from Pakistan and manages to wipe out an American base in Iraq, and most of our troops? Or they wipe out the Saudi oil fields? Confidence in the Bush administration would go down to zero in such a situation, without a corresponding increase in confidence for the Democrats or for any other Republican. At that point we might well end up picking a general to lead us in a de facto military dictatorship.

I'm really not sure there would be a better solution. What else could we do if we really needed to get our nuts out of the fire that Bush keeps insisting that we have to dip them into?

I'm sorry to say it, but maybe this country really isn't ready for democracy yet.

Lincoln was assassinated just days after the Civil War ended, so he hardly had a chance to exercise anything like 'complete control' over the subjugated South.

Furthermore, it's highly debatable whether a more radical approach towards the white Southerners would have led to a better result in the end. Witness Iraq, where Bush is attempting to impose democratic values and 'freedom' on the Iraqis. His attempts could easily end up having the opposite results from the intented ones.

...Harris is so nutty she might win.

It's happened before: Ronald Reagan. He wasn't a damn bit saner than she is.

...Islamofoxists now?

Joking aside, you have to be pretty low to sit in your armchair and criticize hostages trying to stay alive.

Rumsfeld and Bush's problem is that they invaded Iraq on false premises and now they have no idea how to win.

They can't pull out, because that would be a clear loss. They can't put more troops in, because that would necessitate a draft and an even greater loss in the future than they face now. They can't put a strong man in power, because that would contradict everything they've said for the past four years.

All they can do is stay. As long as they can stay, defeat can be staved off and victory can forever be said to be just around the next corner. All they need to do is shut up everyone who says there are no more corners. And that's what Rumsfeld is trying to do now.

...Slate's article on the Duke case as covered by the New York Times?

http://www.slate.com/id/2148546/

...and three Shakespeares and call me in the morning.

I belive books are just sleeping aids for Mr. Bush. He may not even be aware that anyone else regards them differently.

..and no more true, either.

...Magpie. However, if the Republican happens to be solidly against the war and the Democrat isn't, then vote for the Republican. If it's a wash, or if both are pro war, then vote for the Democrat.

In no circumstances should you vote third party, it won't do anything.

Really it's the best thing you can do. It won't solve everything, but it will help.

...and you can't call an objective (freedom and democracy in Iraq) a 'strategy,' as Bush did in his last press conference.

Likewise, facing up to reality and making a decision does not constitute 'having a philosophical discussion.'

I almost begin to believe that this man is not a president; he certainly doesn't seem any more eager to do his job than he is to get his definitions right.

If he won't make a decision in Iraq--either to withdraw or to put in more troops--then what are paying him for?