since the powers carved up the debilitated Ottoman Empire and in order to redeem a wartime promise, cobbled together three provinces of that entity into a "country" called Iraq...just drawing lines on a map without much concern with what those lines meant geographically, demographically, or politically. (I've always had a sneaking fondness for Gertrude Bell, but, lady, you goofed this one big time.) The promise, BTW was to a desert Arab king who never kept his part of the deal: to lead an Arab rebellion against the Turks.

The subsequent history of the place has been pretty dismal: sporadic revolts put down by air power (the British in 1920) or bluff (1941), succession to power by assassination, "government" by kleptocracy, and and psychopathic thuggery, and now an occupation that has displaced a fifth of the population. What grounds are there for supposing that anything will change in the near future (the next 10-20 years)? My bet is a Shiite Saddam Hussein, propped up by Iran. Maliki may be the man, or somebody we have never heard of yet.

Hardly worth a trillion bucks, 4000+ American dead (and how many dead Iraqi's?), 40000+ wounded, many disabled and on our ticket for life.

If there are Americans around who can read history in 50 years or so, they will shake their heads in wonderment, and maybe a new Barbara Tuchman will add a large chapter to "The March of Folly" --- a book that should be read and reread by everyone who was too young to be aware of the Vietnam War. (Books matter; JFK read "The Guns of August" --- Tuchman on the onset of WWI --- just before the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, which was the closest we have come to total nuclear war, and said that its lesson --- that events can too easily get out of control --- and it steadied him.)

But then, people rarely learn from other's mistakes. Even less from their own. Good luck to us all.

Obama must be well aware of what happened to US

(the last part of my previous got chopped --- too long I guess ).

Obama must be aware of the effect on US domestic politics after we "lost" China --- which was never ours to lose and was playing out a centuries-long historical string. We've seen the "stab-in-the-back" legend poison our public discourse for decades now, and whatever can be done to lessen its impact post-Iraq must be done. There is no way to prevent this completely, but it's re-assuring to have a President who can think ahead...playing chess while his opponents are playing Russian checkers (where the idea is to lose your men first).

Steele should have done a little buck and wing along with the song. Or did he?

If he had any pride, principles, or integrity, he would resign.

I think his experience with the stimulus bill wised him and his inner circle up. He really hoped for honest bipartisanship and made some concessions even before the brawling began...and we all saw what happened. Now he's ready for a fight, and knows better than to expect any help from the Rushniks (i. e. Republicans). He has a margin in the House even without the Blue Dogs (or most of them anyway) and as soon as Al Franken* is seated (probably within a month he will need just one Repub Senator to break the 60-vote barrier. So he can reach higher than he expects to get, give some here and some there (he said himself that he would have to sacrifice some priorities) and probably come out close to a realistic level.

But they really have to settle on the bank problem and make a definite choice. I think the stock market (which is butchering my mutual funds like every else's) might settle down no matter what the course is, so long as it's clear.

In the meantime, take a deep breath and remember that you can't turn an ocean liner, let alone the world's largest economy, on a dime.

*If Coleman tries to run out the clock with appeals and prevents Franken from being seated at least provisionally, can not some citizens of Minnesota sue him for denying them their right to full representation in the Federal government and get injunctive relief? Seems like a basic Constitutional right to me...and I'm no lawyer, constitutional or otherwise. If the RNC is paying for Coleman's antics to gum up the works, could not some Dem organizations get behind this? Just asking. If anybody in Minnesota reads this, let me know what you think at jprfrog@aol.com

Thanks for the laughs.