[Griff]

Michael Savage (radio nut) actually made a good point last night. He thinks we need to choose, in out or maintain. He wants IN, that means huge numbers of troops. Either other choice means losing. He was comparing Bagdad with Berlin at the end of WWII. Hitler had the resistance organized before the "liberators" arrived. His figure was 400,000 Russian casualties. Savage maintains that we need to go door to door arresting and eventually trying and hanging all the Baathists. This would necessarily result in heavy US casualties and require many more troops on the ground, but he thinks we would win.

One of his callers made a better point though. He made the analogy that Iraq is a man drowning and America is the life-guard. We jump in and try to help but this victim isn't cooperative, he keeps thrashing until he endangers the life-guard. So do we go down with him?