All over the web in the last week.  Hundreds of comments on the blogs, and on the editorial pages.  But why bother to comment?

"United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 percent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam."

- Peter Grose, in a page 2 New York Times article titled, 'U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote,' September 4, 1967.

Bob Patterson -

Didn't LBJ say something about: "I don't want to be the first American President to lose a war."  I'm afraid that we have a new tradition for Presidents from Texas.

Mentioned elsewhere this week?

As the votes in Iraq are counted it seems the slate of the United Iraqi Alliance - mainly Shiite religious parties – is pulling ahead.  Hello, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani and goodbye interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi!  This United Iraqi Alliance as of this weekend is poised to control two-third of the new parliament, which is to write the new constitution.  The Sunni folks now say they want in somehow – they want at least some representation. 

But no matter what the Sunni folks want, or the Kurds, Iraq seems to be heading toward a severely theocratic nation of strict Muslim law, with close ties to Iran.  Well, heck, we gave them the vote.  Let’s not talk about how they voted.

But it could be we fought this war to give these folks the freedom to choose to become what we might consider a repressive theocracy with close ties to Iran, that other charter member of the famed, original Axis of Evil.

Give people the vote and they might just disappoint you.