Corrected on Bolton

Tommyblog has corrected me on Bolton, pointing out that he remains essentially "anti-UN," and his continuance in the UN post would not exactly show a "new direction" in US foreign policy.

OK. However, it still seems to be that the Administration's call for his confirmation is still sort of the "preliminary fight" beforee the main event...Iraq and the Democrats would be wiser to simply side step te issue and not waste, in GW's terms, "political capital" on it. There has been some housecleaning of Administration neo-cons since 2004 and letting the Democrats do the coup d'grace on Bolton is probably pretty much doing Bush's job for him.

Suppose that if I were in the Dems shoes, I'd just make it clear that Bolton doesn't have the votes to be confirmed, but if pressed for an "up or down vote," they'd be happy to call Bolton back for further hearings and make those hearings Step One of the Iraqi investigation process and focus on neo-con influence within the Administration.

Another note on Iraq. If anyone wants to get some understanding of the difficulties in Iraq, go revisit "Lawrence of Arabia." Aside from great acting, great photography, etc. there is quite a bit of political history in the lead up to time when the British eventually drew up the Iraq borders. I remember one scene wherein Lawrence is pleading with the British and French authorities for more arms for his rag-tag Arab Army, fighting the German allied Turks. They grant him more guns, ammunition, dynamite, etc., but draw the line at the WMD of the day, artillery. No artillery. Guns make revolutions. Artillery makes governments.