The logical outcome of this discussion is that history will remember the Bush war as the right thing to do. Looking back at history with the kind of scope Timberman does, none of the deaths, the loss of civil liberties, the corruption will matter in a half-century, because our presence in Iraq will probably eventually engender some kind of stability (whether or not thousands or millions die in the process will not be the concern of American-kind circa 2078).

He screwed Mary, of course; got her number off a bathroom wall. He came down in the form of a goat. Or was that Zeus? Oh, well, some old dude with a beard did it. And that's where you get all of today's problems. Loose morals. The Christians are right.

I think you missed the point. I was highlighting the fact that eventually, history will chart this war in the same way you did with industrialization and colonization (which brought on entire genocides), with little horror and with a sober acknowledgement of the positive elements gained for the examining generation and how they can be exploited for good works. My point is that Bush is correct. History will probably judge him favorably. And that's the most depressing thing I can imagine.

Your constant digs at Bucky leave a bad taste in my mouth. Enough, find a new hobby, dude.

This is great. How long have they been studying UT's comment section?

I agree there is horror. But not HORROR. If there were true horror, we would be unable to partake of any of the contrivances of the modern day or any of the territory of this country, knowing, as we must, the suffering endured by those who were enslaved to make them possible. Even now, we should feel horror when confronted with the suffering produced with the maintenance of our first world lifestyles. But here we are, not feeling to horrified, I'd imagine.

No. He said, "make me one with everything". Sheesh. Amateur.

I've yet to read much of any posts from Bucky or any addressed to him. The reason is the inordinate amount of bile that seems to dominate these pages directed at him and at others. Really, just unpleasant, especially given what's going on in the world. Having a laugh at what someone said is one thing, ribbing someone good naturedly is ok. In fact, I like the fact that people have a sense of humor herein. But when such a lot of the posts here are personal insults directed at one individual...well, I just don't understand where any of you are coming from with it. It creates tons of negative pages to look at before you can get to a substantive point and makes this an ugly space. Why don't you just ignore him? Isn't it better than spending the day advertising his presence?

Haven't you heard? Dolphins are apparently worse than we are...all those people saved from drowning? They were apparently being 'humped' to the surface by horny dolphins out for a rub. And apparently they gang up on porpoises and murder them for sport, on porpoise!

1. The opening music is disturbingly reminescent of the Seinfeld theme.

2. I didn't find Charlie Rose to be "angry". He seemed very Charlie Rose, and I thought he was relatively polite and professional.

3. I was struck, on a visceral level, how odd it is to see Arab people speaking about Iraq on a pundit show. I had never noticed how rare it is, until I saw two of them saying all of the things that make sense about this conflict (which clearly, it seems, may only be possible from an Arab viewpoint). Yes, of course, it is worth looking back at 91 and the damage we did to Iraq--and kept doing. But you never hear such things here, even from the mouths of the most fervent anti-war-riors...thanks for posting the vid.

PS. Ondolette. I haven't seen part two. Part one of the Frontline program did a fairly good job of showing that the mistake was the initial declaration of war in Iraq. I was especially struck by the candor of Armitage.

I think you make a valid point. One of the things that bothered me during the run-up to, and the processing of the invasion was that critical Iraqi viewpoints tended to be espoused by Iraqi government apparatchiks. This, to me, seemed a naked a attempt to put anti-war positions in the mouths of Ba'athists in order to discredit others who might have similar viewpoints...

was what I got

I see the US bombing of former Yugoslavia and the forced annexation by NATO, UN and the US of Kosovo, as the way the US would have done Iraq if Democrats had run the show. Not that I think that's good, mind you. Anyone, else notice?

I'm just now getting around to going to school at the age of 39, but I can tell you that my peers (?) have their heads way up their asses. No critical thinking skills, never picked up a book outside of the set mandated by school authorities, don't even read the paper. I was quite surprised and disappointed. Instructors also feel threatened if you seem to know anything about the subject matter. I think they like it that way, the ignorance factor.

I can see why math and techie teachers would be pleased to have someone actually get where they're coming from, since those skills are in the general pop minority. What I have seen, in areas like History and Poli Sci, is just rejection of alternate viewpoints, even when they are obviously informed. Part of this I concede is the fact that many of these professors lack global knowledge about some of the courses they are teaching, and don't want to advertise that fact.

That wasn't directed at me, was it? I've read some of your posts and you sound like an alright dude. Sorry if I misunderstood, but the comment would seem beneath you, no matter where its coming from.

Amen.