The other things is, we know where the Mahdi Army lives. We know where to find them. We're just not finding them because we, for reasons I still cannot fathom, allowed Mookie to evade a murder warrant and establish himself inside the legitimate government.

Should Mookie's face be gracing the back of a milk carton? Without certainty. Will it? Probably not. We've lost the courage to fight the terrorists in Iraq, for the most part. We're acting like mealy-mouthed lying cowards and the various factions in iraq are acting accordingly.

> with extreme prejudice?

If al Sadr were assassinated, his followers including all the Mahdi Army would rise up and unleash a wave of violence far outshadowing the current dismal levels.

And that violence would be inflicted on anyone and everyone perceived as enemies.

What I am wondering, is why we don't see more mortar and rocket attacks on the Green Zone. There were a couple of car bombs inside the green zone in recent weeks, but why don't we see more attacks from outside?

Tubino, my spam moderation filter grabbed your last two comments and I have not the foggiest idea how to retrieve them. I apologize for that.

I"ll reply in brief and please, feel free to restate your comments as you please.

Regarding China and the potential effect on the world's economy should we cease dealing with them. First, I'm not particularly concerned abut the world's economy. The nations of the world can choose their own side of the argument and I happen to think that we make a better deal than the tyrants. I certainly see no immense harm in something as simple as revoking China's MFN status as a starting point. If they want to play economic hardball, they'd certainly find us a tougher nut to crack. Despite their size, our economy is more important ot them than theirs is to us.

On your other point, of dealing when tyrants only when we need to, I can only say that's always been our policy. Unfortunately our Presidents and Congress have defined "need" rather broadly.

I'm saying that tyranny is as large a danger to our national interest now as Communism or Nazism was then. I realize that's a big step to make but it's certainly not an unreasonable one.

I'm not pretending to not have to deal with it. I would choose specifically not to deal with it. There is a difference and it's important. I"m not closing my ears and singing loudly so I don't have to acknowledge tyranny. I'm looking it directly in the eyes and telling it that I will no longer pretend that its interests and mine coincide in any way.

See, one of the beauties of democracy is that we may choose with what countries we associate, regardless of how they get their government. As an extreme example, just because Hitler's Germany was still democratic (at least in name) does not mean that we had to deal with it as if we believed it legitimate.

I do see where my policy might leads and I intend on a more thorough analysis of that very question as soon as I have the opportunity to do so.

But, it's worth noting that Osama bin Laden, the Ba'athists, and SCIRI exist in their current forms because the UNited States coddled tyrants with a "realist" policy.

I notice that you steadfastly refuse to grant any legitimacy to democracy where you don't like the results. You just pretend you don't have to deal with it. Very Bush-like.

You are dodging the essential contradiction of Bush's policy, where it matches yours. Very Bush-like.

And besides, you still think the US is much more powerful than it is. Refusing to deal with the reality of the world is no solution. Iraq was the experiment, and you can see the result yourself. Except, of course, that you CAN'T see it, because you still can't face up to what your own policy leads to.

North Korea hopes the US always follows your policy. So does Iran. Osama bin Laden LOVES your policy. Your policy kept Castro in power for decades. Hugo Chavez adores your policy. The Ba'athists in Iraq thrive on your policy. SCIRI knows it is safe as long as the US follows your policy. If the Brits had followed your policy, the IRA would still be a very active terrorist group.

I happen to want a better world than that.

My answer to "dealing" with them is very simple. I would not "deal" with them. I would not seek them out to talk to them. I would not treat them as if they were in the least bit legitimate to me or my interests. I would, in fact, use every means at my disposal to undermine them and their interests.

It actually astounds me that you seem to be wholly endorsing treating those who truck with genodical killers, the folks who intentionally blow up women and children, and those who oppress innocents as folks we should talk to as if all was hunky-dory. But, hey, we've seen just how that's worked out for thirty years, haven't we?

And you've still not demonstrated how, at any point, we have firmly decided not to deal favorably with tyrants and had it "fail".