Indeed. An unexplored position on any subject is usually disturbing, if one accepts on faith the statments made to reinforce a self-serving position.

The article goes on to say, "As I have argued before on these pages, that rage is morally ambiguous." This observation is a very good one and states an important point. We can extend this to include, the reaction to rage is usually also rage polarized to the opposite position.

Next the premise, " Disgust at the Bush administration has pushed liberal opinion around the world into the shameful position that it would not back the opponents of Saddam Hussein." I agree there is world-wide disgust at the Bush administration. However, liberal opinion considers Bush has placed the US in a shameful position. This is very different from what the article is saying.

"The result of the breakdown in international solidarity" is precisely the fault "liberal opinion" is laying at the feet of the Bush administration for going adventuring with the money and men of our country. All the reasons given by Bush have turned out to be bogus, the results dubious, and the future of that country ambiguous.

The writer's point was correct in recognizing the polarization of opinion the Bush administration has created. But let us not forget the "conservative opinion" that apologizes for Bush, puts such spin on his positions that Bushspeak is excused with the same right-wing zeal the Japanese reserve for the Showa Emperor.

Publius