John T Frazer: "I was just pointing out that Groenhagen's crucifying of Clinton is not the blow to the left that he seems to think it is."

Okay, we're in agreement then.

I was no fan of much about Bill Clinton's policy. Clinton's policy toward Iraq was one of leaving a bad situation in stasis because other sorts of action would make things worse. I don't know what he could have or should have done differently, there, though there are plenty of theories. I think it was a question of choosing one's battles. Bush chose HIS battles, and I think he chose poorly.

Another thing about the fact that Democrats voted to authorize war powers to Bush Jr.: Nobody here has mentioned that this vote was presented, by Republicans, just 3 weeks prior to the 2002 Congressional elections. This hardly excuses the Democrats' votes, and I will never forgive them for the way they handled it. But people need to remember that the vote was set up as a political ploy designed to favor the Republican interests. If the Dems voted for war, they'd give Bush the power he wanted; if the Dems voted against war, many of them would be voted out of office, further weakening what marginal power they had remaining. I think for Dems it was a roll of the dice consisting of, "Do I vote against this B.S. and lose my seat, and all the potential to do good things in the future, or do I hold my nose and hope against hopes that Bush is not a crazy warmongering bastard?"

But we forget about that...

Mark Denney: "In writing all that I also personally get the same feeling I did during the rodney king incident. Did those police go too far, yes I think they did. But, for me, you take a swing at a cop after driving 100 miles an hour down the highway on PCP and taking a taser and still not dropping to the ground....you get what you get."

Uh.... Sorry, this is a mind-boggling comparison.

Mark Denney: "I think that Bush is a very sad person who, much like Reagan, surrounded himself with people who were extremely empowered and thought they were acting in the interests of the country."

How do you know those people thought they were acting in the interests of the country? How do you know they weren't acting in their own self-interests? Or in the interests of just certain segments of the country? You don't. You can't read their minds or their souls. The only thing we have to go on are the reports of what they did, what they said, and what the results are. The result is failure.

Mark Denney: "I think he looks back and personally doesn't understand how it all went so bad with such good intentions."

If he doesn't understand, then he's an asshole for not learning the facts better. Not some poor victim of circumstance who meant well. When people's lives hang in the balance, ignorance or a failure to do homework is not an excuse. And Bush never bothered to do his homework. He never bothered to listen to people who challenged him. The whole administration is famous for shunning people in their own ranks who told them things they didn't want to hear. How can you have sympathy for him?

Mark Denney: "He's a fall guy and a putz who has to live with the knowledge that smarter men made him the patsy for a failed war."

Why do you keep calling him a fall guy? HE IS THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.

Mark Denney: "That's why I think people like Rumsfeld deserve more of the blame."

Let me repeat that. GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.

This "Rumsfeld deserves more blame" stuff is inane. And insane. Truly.

I just don't see why you want to let Bush off the hook that way. You still haven't explained it in any way that makes sense. I think it's an emotional thing for you -- some sort of connetion to Bush, to the idea that he meant well. I think that's wrong. I think Bush has a disdain for other people, an indifference. People wanted to turn him into a father figure, but he's not.

Mark Denney: "Does Bush bear blame too - absolutely. But at the end of the day I think it was Rumsfeld who did everything he could to enforce his agenda and that's what we're living with today. Bush allowed him to do that and, I agree, he deserves blame for that."

No -- wrong, wrong, wrong. Bush was in CONTROL of Rumsfeld's agenda. That's the part you keep ignoring. Bush was the one who told Rumsfeld what to do. To the extent that he chose not to do so, to defer to greater experience or knowledge, he is STILL responsible. Because it was Bush's job to study the situation and know the full ins and outs of what was going on. What is it about chain of command that you don't understand? The guy at the top is responsible for what the plans the people below him carry out. This is how it works.

Mark Denney: "But I believe the person who drove this agenda deserves more blame, whether he's the top dog or not."

There's that word again, "Believe." You believe it why? Why doesn't it matter who's top dog? And how can you be so sure it was just Rumsfeld driving the agenda? What, you don't think Bush was on board, that he wasn't gunning for Saddam Hussein himself, looking to kick ass? Bush drove the agenda. Rumsfeld went along. All Bush had to do was say to Rumsfeld, "Naw, let's do something else," and Rumsfeld would have had to. Bush had that power and didn't use it. Yet you want to excuse him. Why? No, really -- why?

Mark Denney: "And all I can say is what made me rethink it was reading and listening to a guy named Thomas PM Barnett."

Expand your sources. Keep reading. If I come across that book I will look into it. I've read quite a bit of other material and the picture generally keeps getting worse the more I know. I don't think there is much that mitigates a situation in which hundreds of thousands of people have died. I think once people are senselessly dying, questions of "who is more responsible," or "who had good intentions" become pretty trivial.

Mark Denney: "And sorry I called you obtuse and rabid. Again, it's just too easy to be snarky in these posting. My apologies."

No problem, and I am sorry for being so hardcore in terms of my communication. I am not rabid but I am passionate about this. I do not mean to insult you personally, but I *do* mean to lay into your arguments and reasoning. The little rationalizations that live in all of our heads are the seeds of bad things. You seem like a decent person in general. I don't fault you if you have a gut-level affection for Bush, or something, since after all -- it's gut-level.