We going by population, square miles, or what? Given the list of coalition members, I doubt it's GDP. In the Security Council, the main holdouts were France, Russia and Germany. Five other members, including the U.S., supported military action. Most of the others supported continued inspections, and were leery of taking a position other than that.

At least we've managed to pry ourselves away from the "unilateral" thing that's planted itself so hard in the Common Wisdom.

As for the rest, nobody's calling Bush infallible, morally or otherwise. I have a realistic view of the man and his faults, and have never been shy about expressing them.

On the other hand, a lot of people seem close to nuts where he's concerned, far beyond anything he's actually done when you look at all the other presidents we've had. Certainly there is nothing objective in the idea that he's the "worst president in history."

As though Iraq was a worse fiasco than Vietnam, or the economy hasn't been worse under many other administrations, or civil rights and abuse of constitutional freedoms haven't suffered more in other times. Good grief, the highest person in the liberal pantheon, FDR, slapped an entire minority into camps, and now Bush is considered the next Hitler for tracing digital phone traffic.

There's got to be some deep psychological need being satisfied by demonizing this president beyond all reason. I saw similar nutball stuff from a lot of conservatives during the Clinton years, accusing him of secret drug cartels, murder, and planning some kind of martial takeover so he wouldn't have to leave office.

Is it the scapegoat idea? President as "sin-eater" for a nation, comforting people with the idea that all our problems are concentrated in one person who will easily and harmlessly be dismissed after four to eight years? The flip side of this coin, of course, is the appealing fantasy of the next president as the Messiah that will save us all.

Rinse, repeat.