With all due respect, Larry, all you did was rehash all the familiar pro-war arguments. The flaw in those arguments is that they're all based on wishful thinking, partisan faith in your president, and the unreasonable hope for an unbroken string of rosy scenarios.

Take the assertion that installing democracies at gunpoint in the Middle East will be to America's benefit. Why would you assume that? Democracy is the least predictable form of government. We need look no further than Bush's track record at getting the support of the European democracies. Spain and Britain ("old Europe" personified) plus Bulgaria are on our side, everybody else is somewhere between unwilling and downright hostile. Why would you assume that newly-created democracies in the Middle East would automatically install pro-American governments? I think they're more likely to react the way other democracies have reacted: Convinced of the benefits of democracy and other aspects of "the American Way", but understandably suspicious of America's intentions. Political philosophy is not the same as the practice of politics.

Speaking of America's intentions: Why is it so hard for Rightists to understand that other nations can be just as rabidly nationalistic as American Rightists? Do you really think that the other nations in the world will happily accept the Bush Regime's doctrine of maintaining dominance even if it requires preemptively stepping on upstarts who might someday challenge us? Would you take kindly to another country declaring its intent to permanently relegate America to the B-Team? Why is it so outrageous that other nations might resist America's avowed plan for hegemony? You might not like it, but it's perfectly understandable. One of the many ways in which Bush is screwing the pooch is by failing to factor in predictable opposition--Bush's plans always seem to assume smooth sailing and wide support, and so they're always vulnerable to being capsized when things don't turn out so rosily. Bush's plans are irresponsibly fragile.

Back to Iraq and the definition of "success"....Bush's own definition of success is bizarre. The raison du jour for war is supposed to be Iraq's disarmament, preferably peacefully. Now, few would claim that Iraq has disarmed, but it's bizarre to see how Bush dismisses every move in the direction of disarmament as "stalling" or "game playing". According to Bush's terms, therefore, "success" is impossible. The way it must look to Saddam is that Bush is demanding that he disarm before we attack. If you were in his shoes, would you disarm voluntarily, knowing that war is inevitable? That's another example of Bush screwing the pooch and making things worse. In the course of trying to back Saddam into a corner, he's backed himself into a corner as well--war is his only way out.

Funny how this is the first time I can remember people seriously questioning the cost of a war.

I thought you were old enough to remember the Vietnam War. While we tend to remember the dramatic anti-war protests, there was increasing skepticism in congress in the late '60s about the cost of the war, and concern about its effects on the economy. In the buildup to the Gulf War, cost was a major issue, and it took pledges of financial support from our allies to reassure Congress enough to vote for war. Bush has ensured that we won't have any financial support this time around, and we're going to have to pay the entire tab.

The Bush Regime's unwillingness to come clean about the cost of the war is today becoming an increasing issue in Congress. Wolfowitz is skirting a contempt-of-Congress citation for refusing to divulge the administration's own internal estimates of the cost--it's not that they don't know, they just don't want to tell. Are they afraid that their support will evaporate once they tell the truth about the cost? Is the Pope Catholic?

Actually, the UN and NATO are destroying themselves by their irrelevancy.

That's a remarkably parochial definition of "relevancy"--what you mean is, the UN isn't rubber-stamping Bush's every demand. The UN isn't a Republican Congress, and you shouldn't be surprised that isn't behaving like one.

You think maybe everybody opposed to Bush's war might consider the UN actually more relevant because it's the focus of opposition? In fact, I'd say that the UN's stature will be enhanced--outside the US--if it's seen as successful in foiling Bush's plans.

Gosh, look at the time! I should wrap this up before your head hits the keyboard.

In broad terms, in just a year or so, Bush has succeeded in transforming America from the world's natural leader to its wannabe boss. That's a dimunition of our prospects, in my book, because I consider leadership superior to dominance. Where once we could look forward to remaining on top because we were widely admired and those who followed did so voluntarily, our prospects are now to be, at best, the alpha male who must continually fight off challenges from aspiring alphas. Instead of a century of peace and prosperity, Bush has brought us the prospect of a century of constant warfare and the crushing economic burden of maintaining permanent military hegemony. "If yer not for us, yer ag'in us" means that from now on it's America against the world.

It didn't have to be this way. Bush has badly screwed the pooch.

--Robert