She says, "...demand cowardice like a real Democrat! So ... they stamp their feet and demand that Bush go to the United Nations."

OK, explain coward = democrat, please. Let's see the folks who stood up to racial prejudice/segregation, forced teaching of creationism, railroad barons, and other great progressive causes are cowards. Hey, them's fightin' words.

Second, wasn't it Bush making a plea for UN assistance in Iraq last week? Did I miss something.

Eager to learn,
Smootz

By contrast, the German occupation was run as liberals would like to run postwar Iraq � a joint affair among "the Allies," the United States, Britain, France and the Soviet Union. It took 45 years to clean up the mess that created.

The Soviets bickered with the French, refusing to treat them as "allies" (on the admittedly sensible grounds that they didn't fight). While plundering their zone, the Soviets refused to relinquish any territory to France. Trying to be gallant, the U.S. and British carved a French zone out of their own sectors. The Soviets then blockaded Berlin, built the Berlin Wall, and Germany was split for the next 45 years.

The British made Germany's war-torn economy worse by trying to impose socialism in their zone (as well as in their country). Predictably, economic disaster ensued. Over the next five years, the U.S. was required to spend the equivalent of about $200 billion annually in today's dollars to bail out Western Europe under the Marshall Plan. I note that there was no need for a Marshall Plan in Japan.

And the disastrous German occupation is the best-case scenario for "international peacekeeping." The less rosy picture involves the defaced corpses of American servicemen being dragged through the streets by dancing, cheering savages, as happened under "international peacekeeping" forces in Somalia in 1993. Showing that America is not a country to be toyed with, our draft-dodging, pot-smoking commander in chief responded by withdrawing our troops.

So naturally the Democrats are rooting for an international force in Iraq. The Democratic logic on national defense is: As soon as anyone in the military gets his hair mussed, we must pull out and bring "international peace-keeping" forces in. Our boys are in harm's way! People are dying! Bush lied when he said major combat operations were over! Let's run. That'll show 'em.

second, since when has anyone seriously considered withdrawing? much of the left had been making the case for action in iraq long before rummy got a burr under his saddle; but many knew that it would come to this "now what?" phase without a clear plan for reconstruction. now that we're in, we have an obligation to set some sort of system up.

so to clear it up, no one is saying run. we're just saying a) we shouldn't have gone in the first place under this specific set of circumstances (i.e. idiot chief, made up reasons/excuses, no clear plan other than "blow shit up," no exit plan - clear or otherwise - at all, other countries which pose actual threats to national security receiving little or no attention, oh yeah and the fucking taliban we apparently just got bored with) but now that we're committed b) we need an actual exit strategy, including the genesis of some kind of self-rule, and it needs to be something other than "stand around and get shot." we need to bring these kids home to their slashed pensions, deteriorating benefits, and anemic private-sector employment opportunities. not to mention their steadily-eroding civil rights.