Listening to parroting, C-list actors repeat the standard-issue party line - really great. Oh, wait - she did some "indie" films - she must be like smart or somethin', right? Cool!

I especially like the part about the U.N. casualty estimates. A million? Hey, if that's what the U.N. says, it must be so. After all, this is this the same U.N. that just appointed Lybia to head the "human rights commission". (Where's your protest on that one? Oh, wait - it doesn't involve hating Bush.) That U.N., such joksters!

But still, bad, bad W "wants to bomb civilians". Please. Whether the war's a good idea or not, look beyond your hatred. Nobody wants to bomb Iraqi civilians - except Saddam actually did it once. No, a half-dozen times. Read the story in last year's New Yorker. Poison gas bombings -but be prepared, it's like, totally "ghoulish", dude.

Well M-----, if you want ghoulish, our government did bury Iraqi soldiers alive during the Gulf War. But, of course, this story got little play in the press, even though a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter writes about it here:

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0211/sloyan.html

Saddam Hussein is an asshole. He wasn't behind the attacks on the WTC, of course, nor was he democratically elected (he has that in common with GWB). Take the fucker out and the world would be a better place. Of course, it would've been prudent for Rumsfeld not to support the guy back and normalize relations with Iraq in '83/'84, shortly after your fave organization the UN reported that he'd gassed Kurds. My point on US foreign policy is that it's completely unprincipled and gets us in further trouble. Stop supporting dictators and murderers. Demand compliance with human rights. Foreign aid, not arms sales. Should happen, never will.

But my point on the war is that civilians are likely to die given that we wage war from the air, and any civilian death--of THEM or US--is a tragedy and should be avoided. Iraqi civilians are just as valuable as you and I, M-----. For all your talk about my hating, my orientation actually comes from respect and love for humanity. I only hate the haters.

Anyway, I'm glad you read the article.

I have to say, I'm generally pretty disdainful of celebrity politicians, but I though Garafalo was pretty candid about her "qualifications" to be a spokesperson, and said some pretty reasonable things in her interview. Being an indie actress may not make her brilliant, but it also doesn't make her automatically discredited.

MD: Isn't one of your complaints about this board (that I sometimes share) is that Bush is bashed just for talking, with no regard to critically evaluating the content of his speech? Aren't you doing the same thing to Garafalo?

Maybe the UN is full of hooey with their estimate, but if they said it, she's being accurate to cite them, regardless of whether it is anybody's party line or not. And yeah, Saddam is a bad guy, but that clearly isn't our critera for starting wars, or we have a lot of African states we should be ramping up on now too.

Now, on the other hand, I agree that it is not a "glaring hypocrisy" that a pro-war President is also pro-life (any more than that old saw about the "hypocrisy" of being pro-life and pro-death penalty or vice-versa). But many of her other points are fair game: This military action is open to question, questioning military action is not synonymous with treason, and one can be patriotic and anti-a-particular-war at the same time.

And, c'mon, where is the love: David's citing of the "sex-sting" story was brilliant, and added a great twist on making us think about the role the media plays in helping us "think" about war. Or for that matter, Cadillacs. I mean, was that the lamest Superbowl commercial EVER?

Yes, Jimpy, I was doing the same thing to the poor little "celebrity." And, no, bad guys are not our war-criteria. And, sure, she's legit in citing a UN study.

But do you notice how people cite the UN only when it suits them? Do you notice how they don't mention Lybia as chairing the "human rights" whatever? Do you notice how they ignore the UN's virulent anti-semetism?

And do you notice how people say "Bush wants to bomb innocent Iraqis" when they know darn well he'd love to remove Saddam without bombing a single civilian? This kinda rhetoric pollutes the debate. It's beside the point. It unintentionally reveals the Bush-hate that underlies the arguments of all those who were silent when Clinton bombed Yugoslavia.

At least people are consistent in their inconsistency.

My worst SB commercials were for the new Pepsi drink. Don't they realize they're better off without narration at the end? But I really liked the upside clown. Bud kicked everybody's ass. And that Caddie commercial probably works nicely if you're frying on quality X. But all we had was nachos and Tecate.

M-----, I've never said that Bush WANTS to bomb innocent Iraqis, just that that's the consequence of the action he's going to take.

In case it's not glaringly obvious, Libya (note spelling) is a shitty country with no regard for human rights. But my point about being consistent is that we need to defend our liberties at home as well. And that includes people who haven't committed crimes other than being immigrants who are held nonetheless. In case you missed it, my protest against the INS was against INS DETENTIONS, whereby law-abiding residents of the US were detained for days and charged with nothing, denied access to lawyers and habeus corpus. Justice and the rule of law is what makes the country great, M-----, not blind worship of the President. He has no authority to overturn the Constitution.

And, for the record, I was against civilian casualties in Yugoslavia as well, and for military action there to stop ethnic cleansing long before it happened. Bombing didn't cut it--only infantry would--but, for all our defense buildup, wer'e unwilling to suffer any casualties ourselves. The result is that more civilians die so less of our troops do. If we're going to fight, we need to fight.

So my objection to all of this is not SH. He's a dictator. You've ignored my point that we installed him and funnelled him aid long after it was known that he gassed Kurds, and that was under Reagan. SH is not OBL, either, and OBL is still at large and still the CAUSE OF 9/11. So I don't know what the hell war in Iraq is going to do to solve the problem.

I question our commitment to maintain a presence in Iraq and finish the job of nation building. Just bombing the shit out of a country and letting the chips fall where they may, as we've done in Afghanistan, does nothing to lessen our grief or the world's.

The point is that military action should be undertaken with great deliberation, clear goals, and a commitment to follow up. WWII was the last World War because of the Marshall Plan.

One more thing. Are you saying that SH DIDN'T gas his own people in '83 BECAUSE the UN said so? If not, why get sidetracked on the point about the UN? He gassed his own people in 83 and Rumsfeld, under Reagan, didn't care. The UN was the source, but it wasn't contradicted at the time or by subsequent events.

Two more things. First, Norman Schwarzkopf agrees with Janeane.

Second, here are some indications that civilians are toast in Iraq. 800 missiles to hit Iraq in first 48 hours - smh.com.au An exerpt: "The US intends to shatter Iraq "physically, emotionally and psychologically" by raining down on its people as many as 800 cruise missiles in two days.

The Pentagon battle plan aims not only to crush Iraqi troops, but also wipe out power and water supplies in the capital, Baghdad.

It is based on a strategy known as "Shock and Awe", conceived at the National Defense University in Washington, in which between 300 and 400 cruise missiles would fall on Iraq each day for two consecutive days. It would be more than twice the number of missiles launched during the entire 40 days of the 1991 GulfWar.

"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," a Pentagon official told America's CBS News after a briefing on the plan. "The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before."

I read with interest the piece you linked about burying Iraqi troops in the Gulf War. Heard about the episode and always wanted to read an account of how it happened. In linking it, you implied the burying was immoral, at least the equivalent of SHÂ's civilian atrocities, and maybe a war crime Â- right? The article is part of your case that Â"America is bad, too.Â"

Did you read your article? It described anything but the immoral slaughter of unarmed soldiers. It did, however, describe the burying of live, armed and firing troops as an instance of battlefield warfare. So what if the Iraqis were buried alive instead of shot or bombed alive? So what if our weapon was a bulldozer instead of bullets? ItÂ's war, dude. You kill your enemy before he kills you.

Further undermining your point, the piece says the U.S. Â"littered Iraqi troops with leaflets that warned of imminent attacksÂ" by bombers. Â"Arabic warnings told troops to avoid sleeping in tanks or near artillery positions.Â" It also says Bush told his commanders he wanted Â"minimal enemy casualties.Â"

In short, the article actually refutes your point that the U.S. was evil, too. (The U.S. has abetted evil elsewhere, but thatÂ's another topic.) YouÂ're of course free to blow off this suggestion: Before you continue posting on W & Iraq, pause for a moment, formulate your thoughts, and structure your anti-war arguments with consistency and clarity. ThereÂ's a case against war in Iraq, but the article you posted doesnÂ't help you any.

Per your last comment above, I agree the conundrum is weighing costs and benefits, and "costs" obviously includes non-combatant lives. That's why my mind's not made up. The fire-bombing of Dresden in '45 - 100,000 civilians killed - was wrong and stupid.