Since it appears as of now that victory is imminent for coalition forces in Iraq (though, watching Iraqi TV/New York Times reports, I'm waiting for the Iraqi Army to conquer Augusta National Golf Club with Martha Burke leading the charge), finding someone to take over Iraq is the next priority. Since for some warped reason there is sentiment in some quarters to placate those who opposed U.S. involvement in the war, its only appropriate to do that with the leader of the new Iraq. The man has to be anti-U.S. policy, have always wanted to run a third world country, and be naive enough so that Iran and Syria do not feel threatened. Now, there is only one man who can fit under all of these qualifications. Yes, thats right, Ted Turner's friend and yours: Jimmy Carter. He's been against most U.S. foreign policy (including much of Clinton's) for over twenty years, his bumbling leadership almost turned the U.S. into a joke during his Presidency, and the Iranians have already used him as their bitch once, so they shouldn't have any problem with him being in charge of Iraq. Jimmy Carter, President of Iraq. Has a nice sound to it. Plus, he can oversee the elections himself.
(edited by redsoxnation on 5.4.03 2220) Nice to see the Red Sox have decided to go 'Arsonist By Committee'. Now, where's the nearest bridge?
Well, if they do this thing right, the Iraqi people will have free elections to determine their own leader, who we'll probably want to kill just as badly as the last guy they picked.
If all else, though, give it to a tribunal, consisting of Clinton, Dole, and Johnny Carson. That way, Clinton and Dole's votes will cancel each other out, and Carson will run Iraq, and run it with class.
Of course, that assumes that you think the Swifties are lying...the same can be said about Soros and Co. too. What you see depends on where you sit. It really picked up with some of the libs after the Swifties came along.