Tom Friedman in today's New York Times:
Yes, Mr. Bush's original vision of a unified democratic Iraq was compelling and important. But it's not happening. It's become the "second choice" of too many Iraqis. Too many Kurds just want their own state; too many Shiites just want their own pro-Iranian zone in the south; too many Sunnis want the old order. Real democracy is too many Iraqis' second choice.
Um, if Kurds want their own state, and Shiites want their own pro-Iranian zone in the south, and if they were able to vote to achieve partition, wouldn't that be democracy? Or is Friedman using the Bushite definition of "democracy" -- which is "any government we like"?