Two Potatoe, Three Potatoe
 

A few months ago Bush's was closer to 15%, I think. I suspect it had to do with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

S_A_M

Finally . . .
 

The Palis are about to have a civil war. Hamas v. the "elected government." Hamas is claiming to root out the corruption and the elected government is claiming to root out extremism. Both are probably partially right, but it strikes me as funny that without Israel to blame for their problems (ha ha), the real shit is going to hit the fan.

Finally . . .
 

I will be cheering for a long hard fought drawn out battle, that ultimately ends in a draw, after the last man from each side goes down. Like in Rocky I.

I picture myself looking like this foul whore while I cheer (if I can learn how to do the falalalalalala thing):

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/misc1/91....from.whom.jpg

Finally . . .
 

Come on over and we'll ululate together, baby. LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Finally . . .
 

Curb your enthusiam. Ty will be here before the night is out to explain why this is ultimately W's fault.

Finally . . .
 

No, I think this is why it's a good thing that Egypt has stepped up. Finally, there's someone there who has the power and the desire to make all the various factions back off and settle down, or . . . well . . . die. For the same reason the Soviet Union could keep all of its disparate and hostile pieces peaceful while it had power, Egypt has the power to do the same in Palestine.

The Palestinians, in about two years, are going to be wishing they were still living under the velvet glove of the Israelis. Or, they are going to be living more normal lives, not blowing people up, and rejoining the world.

I blame Bush.

Two Percent.
 

Here's the main line from the article:

"The poll showed Bush's approval ratings dropping to 39%, the lowest of his presidency in the NBC/Journal surveys. Other polls have shown a similar decline with Bush's ratings falling below the 40% threshold in recent weeks."

Here's the low polling points for various past presidents:

*Johnson: 35%
*Nixon: 24%
*Ford: 37%
*Carter: 28%
*Reagan: 35%
*Bush I: 29%
*Clinton: 37%

Apparently, everyone has bad days, and Bush's haven't been as bad as some others.

Finally . . .
 

Of course you do, but in fairness, you should also blame Clinton. Of course, those most to blame are Sharon and Arafat (for dying).

S_A_M

Finally . . .
 

As to Arafat, too true. Had he still been in the picture, the withdrawal wouldn't have happened, and, even if it had, Egypt would not have stepped in, knowing that they'ed constantly be fighting his cult of personality.

As to Sharon, that's where I got the "I blame Bush". My guess is that this was the result of some very strong-handed behind-the-scenes encouragement by us.

As to Clinton, I'm not sure what he really accomplished, or how his influence led us to this day. Good intentions, huge ambitions, but, in the end, sort of ineffectual, at least in this arena.

Win: Win
 

Win: Win:

The insurgency has pretty much boiled down to the Sunnis. If the election this weekend works, and the consitution is accepted, then eventually the Iraqis take over and it get lefts to the Kurds and the Shiites to keep down the Rebellion.

This weekend's election fails. The country falls apart and you get three states.

1) The Kurds (completely pro U.S. and probably demnocratic and respectful of human rights)
2) The Shiites (could be moderately -pro US, could be anti US) but will probably be some sort of democracy with some rights.
3) Sunnis - who know. Worst case scenario - virulently anti U.S.

In this scenario you have the Kurds and the Shiites free of Baathist opressoin. These two groups of people will no longer have to worry about being exterminated. No matter what happens this will be the case. That in itself justifies the invasion.

Even if the Southern Shiite regime turns into a theocracy, the people will not be threatened by mass executions and opression by the Baathists.

If the Sunni regime is anti US it will have no oil and be very small and will be surrounded on all sides by hostile enemies. Kurdistan, Iran and Souther Iraqi Shiite state.

Saddam's regime was virulently anti US so we have reduced in size and power the state that stood against us. So even in the worst case scenario we are better off and the Iraqis are better off.

However, I think the Odds are that a stable federated republic will form. Much better for everyone.

So what is the problem?

Win: Win
 

1. Once the US checks out, the Shiites go after the Sunnis and there's a civil war. The Sunnis have shown they are well armed and ruthless. I'm happy with your idea that the Kurds and Shiites can now walk the streets free of Baathist oppression, but you conveniently left out the Sunnis.

2. The Kurds suddenly have a nice wad of cash and can purchase arms to pursue their ultimate goal of an independent Kurdistan. They go to war with the Turks. The Kurds will be pro-Kurd, not pro-US - they will be pro-US, and respect human rights, only as long as it serves their interests.

A "stable federated republic may form" one day, but best case, the Sunnis will be second-class citizens in it.

Win: Win
 

No the point is if the Sunnis are still being opressed, that is better than all three being opressed. And the Sunni's had it the best under Saddam. And of course, that is assuming that the Sunni's choose to have an opressive regime.

They have been independent for fourteen years and are very demoratic now. and seem to respect human rights. They were definitely better off after the first invasion and are now infinitely better off. Even if they change from being pro-US they are free. And if they can help free the Kurds in South Eastern Turkey - so much the better. Sometimes between opression and civil war, civil war is the better alternative. No matter what happend, with a stong Kurdistan to support them, the Kurds in southeastern Turkey are going to have more rights. One way or the other.

Still a lot better than everyon in the country save Saddam being a slave, let alone a second class citizen, and eigthy percent of the population being free of a dictator that exterminates large swaths of their populations without batting and eye.

Like I said. Win. Win.

Win: Win
 

The constitution will be adopted and it will get a good deal of Sunni support - the top Sunni party is PUBLICLY urging all Sunnis to support it. What will

Win: Win
 

I hope so. And there is a good chance of this happening.

My point was that the invasion is a no-brainer, because almost any scenario is better than having Saddam still there.

And the cost. Chump Change. For argument sake lets say that the invasion and all associated costs is 500 billion dollars (which is a really, really high estimate). That is 25% of our annual budget. Over a ten year period that is 2.5% of our expenditures. And this expenditure is not like other costs, like Medicare, Welfare, Defense. It is a one time expense. In thirty years, when an annual budget is 10 trillion dollars, it will really seem like a bargain.

Win: Win
 

See, you make assumptions about base principles that leave your statements unsupported to some readers.

You totally overlook "If Saddam were still there, Kerry might be president."