maybe someone should let Bush in on the fact that 'killing fields' originated with Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia and that, once freed from the war with the US, Ho Chi Minh was able to conquer and depose that savage dictator.

Thanks for the correction on the date of Ho's death. I had mentally placed it much later. A senior moment perhaps.

Good points about the history of US involvement in Viet Nam. Anyone who's read the Pentagon Papers knows that we demanded partition of Viet Nam at the Geneva peace talks for the purpose of supporting the government of the south so we could justify war with Ho. In short, our commitment to war was made then.

As with Iran in 1953, and many others since, we simply couldn't abide an independent Viet Nam. There's no question that Ho hated and feared the Chinese and would have been a reliable, if non-aligned partner of ours. But in our Cold War mindset, peaceful coexistance was out of the question. The imperatives of the Warfare State are amazing to behold.

Thanks for the list of what Dems will do if and when they get the presidency. As I said in my previous post, please retain your list and revisit it from time to time and see how the Dems stack up. Of course several of your items weren't predictions of what they would do but rather expressions of your own desires for what they should do, bu subtracting those, you still have a nice list of things you think they will actually accomplish.

Two things. First, I want you to look at the extreme modesty of the list you've compiled. Several of your points are implicit comparisons to the Bush Admin, such as improved foreign policy. As I said in my previous post, asking the next admin to be better than the current one is not setting the bar very high. And things like lessening the testing requirements of the No Child.... educational policy, even if they do it, is not exactly earth shaking. So my first point is that, given the large number of extremely important issues that face us (health care, campaign finance, infrastructure decay, federal budget radically skewed toward military spending, tax structure favoring the rich, growing gap between rich and poor, global warming, etc.), look at your list and note that you don't expect the Dems to do much of anything about any of those vital issues.

The second point is that I don't think for one second that you're right about several of your points. Of course neither of us can predict the future, but we can look at the past, and my reading of the past tells me that you are far too optimistic. Dems will protect our civil liberties? How do you figure? All Dems but one voted for the Patriot Act; two weeks ago they fell into line behind warrantless wiretapping of Americans and they failed to fillibuster the nominations of Roberts and Alito both of whom were known to subscribe to the theory of the Unitary Executive. That's protecting our civil liberties?

You mention protection of reproductive rights. Is that why they've made no move to repeal the ban on "partial birth abortion" recently upheld by the SC? Is that why they failed to stop Roberts and Alito from taking their places on the court? Look at the facts; to the extent that abortion rights are protected in this country, it's by Roe and Casey. That gives Dems a pass to say they support abortion rights while doing next to nothing to prove it. Because of Casey, state legislatures are free to test the limits of Roe by passing laws which the SC then decides either do or don't impose an "undue burden" on abortion rights. Where are the Dems in those state legislative fights? Why is it that law after law after law gets passed at the state level with truly draconian restrictions on abortion rights? The answer is obvious - Dems either actively support those statutes or they fail to stop them becoming law.

Dems protect the environment? Two weeks ago they failed to pass an amendment to a statute that would have required automakers to raise fuel efficiency standards to 35 mpg within the next 15(?) years.

Yes, it seems Dems really are that lame.

You expect very little of Dems and that's just what you get.

Why not? Just keep shuffling the deck til you get a hand you like.

Hey, I love the guy, but he didn't have much range. There are several guys playing the position at any given time who are as good in the field as Little Joe.

They hired a lobbying firm to build public opinion against Maliki? What do they think the CIA is for? Ask Diem, Allende, etc.

just as it did before we invaded - Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq because he was a brutal dictator who had the backing of the army and the police. Iraq was not a natural state, but one cobbled together to fit European interests, so it had to be maintained by the power of the army. If Iraq holds together as a single state, it will be because the next Iraqi leader is the same - ruthless and with the power of the military behind him.

Now of course there is no Iraqi military worthy of the name thanks to the genius of L. Paul Bremer, which means that either (a) Iraq will splinter into more ethnically/religiously coherant parts or (b) former Baath Party military leaders will get it together and find another Saddam. Either way, Allawi will have no part in the outcome and neither will George Bush.