The "liberation" talk is dimming by the hour. In my daily travels, I've heard several citizens wish death and destruction on those "savages" -- and I've heard no mention of the Ba'athist Party, so I assume they're referring to those ungrateful Eye-Rackis who don't understand our noble intentions.

Is there a pool on when the first discussion of using nuclear weapons on Baghdad and Tikrit is floated from the administration?
I say 10 days.

If I'm not mistaken this guy was also in favor of torturing terror suspects in order to obtain information from them.

No nukes barring serious WMD used against us - they would create a public relations nightmare, and their effect can be generated by conventional bombs without the same backlash.

To be honest, I don't really think this is surpising or wrong. Modern Warfare has no chivalry. Armies are drafted and are no more guilty than civilians. Civilians provide coverage for troops and supply them. Modern Wars mean attacking civilians (unless you're attacking invading armies - a situation we kinda saw in Kosovo and even afghanistan but not here). This is the natural thing to do here. The real debate was whether or not to commit to war. Given that commitment, one has to accept civilian casualties.

I completely agree that Dick Morris's suggestion is unacceptable, as I made clear in my Washington Post interview (yeah, I'm still dropping names, sue me). I don't think they will take him up on it though.

I just wanted to retract my statement above. I think it is wrong to attack civilian populations. i think we should avoid doing it. At the same time, I think its unrealistic to expect to win an invasion without killing some civilian, no matter what steps you take. So, I still think that the decision to commit to war was when we decided whether we were killing civilians. All we can argue now is whether we should settl for 500 civilians dead or 50,000. Obviously, I pray its 500.

War crimes were committed, it was your boy
JFK. Get a life you idiot!