Addiction? Lemme get back to you on that. . .

Uh-oh.

I have to say that I wish the Bush White House would just admit that they wanted to knock over Saddam Hussein. Of course that would mean that they were morally wrong to go in in the first place, but honesty might win them a few friends domestically. It would also let the leaders of their traditional allies know that there wouldn't be a repeat of Gulf War II.

The goal of removing Saddam Hussein would have been laudable in itself. But to get approval, GWB & Co. would have had to run it by the UN, and they would have needed some sort of clear statement of agreement.

Not that they couldn't just have gone and done it anyway (as indeed they did), but it's usually been an important part of preserving the American ethos abroad to make a moral case for war, even when the idea is distasteful, or even outright wrong.

Oh well. Saddam's out, and that is unquestionably the way most Iraqis seem to want it. I can't say I trust the current administration to keep clear of cronyism, cheating, and corruption, though.

Some pundits are fond of pointing to the Whitewater scandal and the Clinton impeachment trial as indications the last democratic regime in the White House was somehow thoroughly corrupt. Unfortunately for the true believers, Ronald Reagan's administration had more investigations and a hell of a lot more convictions.

And in the end, the vast majority of news about Clinton was made due to an inquiry that would, in the world of the ordinary citizen, have been unpardonable harrassment. I was going to link to a reasonable source on the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, but try typing those words into a search engine.

It's hard to give each man equal shrift in the face of facts like that.

Which brings me back to GWB. It's my feeling he's treading too close to Ronald Reagan's shoes on domestic issues, and on too many toes in foreign policy. He needs to be fairly circumspect about the company he keeps.

On the other hand, the citizenry seems to like him and the democrats don't seem able to field a credible opponent thus far.

But the profusion of "I-hate-Dubya" out there is sometimes a bit much (although it's somtimes amusing to watch). Consider this site--it's been around awhile. After a bit it kind of starts to grate on me.

Oooh--good one, though!

Let me admit to a bias: One of these sites (this one) is much pleasanter and interesting than the other. More creative and fun, too (not that the bit about a "liberal media bias" isn't funny or creative).

But I'm trying to be truthful here, so here's a "fair and balanced" (can I be sued for saying that?) perspective on both of those Web sites .

Oh, by the way, here's an ethical and trustworthy news source: Scroll to the very bottom of the article text and read the letters in blue. Of course it's ethical and trustworthy--I told you so didn't I? And you can always trust what you read on the internet.

An interesting sort of anti-fan site.

A candyfloss analysis of presidential lives.

An interesting page, probably even truthful.

A young Iraqi who scooped the New York Times, among others--also hosted by Blogspot.

By the way, if you went to the Snopes page above, did you notice the "about this page" button at the bottom of any of the stories? Worth a look.