Interesting article. Seemed well thought out, and focussed on ideology.

Left out the economic reasons for the US involvement in the Middle East. I think it's the economic ideology (read "oil") which is driving the political/religous excuses.

Without oil, and Bush the Firsts' pride, Iraq would not be an issue. Look at North Korea - the US "turned it over" to the UN. Didn't want to screw with it, EVEN THOUGH there is a strong American presence in the neighborhood. No oil.

And, interestingly, the longer the Middle East situation drags out the less attention Bush the Second pays to the economy and the closer comes the time when the bills have to be paid.

I'll bet there will be a crunch. Bush the First regretted devoting so much attention to the Middle East and not the economy, and Bush the Second is caught in a similar trap. Bush the First thought he could ride his wartime popularity into a second term, and apparently so does Bush the Second. Although Bush the Second's "war" ain't.

We'll see. Unless they figure out a way to deprive unemployed people of the vote there could be some changes a'comin'. The inevitable increase in tax breaks for the rich, with unemployment climbing, will tend to irritate voters.

Wouldn't be surprised to see the Rs FORCE GWB to run in 2004 if the economy collapses completely. No other Republican would want to run. And the economy is tottering, even Greenspan says the Fed has done about as much as it can. If Japan goes completely, or the EU sinks, there will be real world-wide consequences, and unemployed folks seem to vote for change.

I think Rove will watch the polls, and bail.

Arf