[WilliamofCarmichael]

RE: "I didn't hear Savage say that the elections were a fraud, but he did say, as he has in the past, that the only solution was a division of the country, into it's ethnic regions. I think that that is the obvious solution, as Savage as pointed out in the past, Iraq really isn't a nation. I wouldn't go along with Savage's proposed giving the Shiites to Iran in return for a no-nukes pledge."

I heard no mention of fraud either. Indeed Iraq is not a nation. Just as Tito held Yugoslavia together Stalinist Saddam held Iraq together with brute force.

Savage has always suggested that dividing up the country yielding parts to Jordan, Syria, and Iran was possibly the best choice.

His point was that an election cannot overcome the facts of life. He's convinced that the Bush Administration will not let Iraq go the way of an Iran despite elections. There will be division of Iraq if necessary to protect the Kurds, etc.

I sure understand how he turns people off with his NYC street style. He's explained his tactics often -- but then I've been listening since he started in SF. Ditto Rush since his first day on KFBK in Sacramento more than twenty years ago.

Critics don't like his style -- boy! can I understand that at times! What I don't understand are the stupid liberal tricks (epithets and distortions) some conservatives use to savage Savage.

[wrathof59]

Savage has always suggested that dividing up the country yielding parts to Jordan, Syria, and Iran was possibly the best choice.

And screw the Kurds again (our most loyal faction of the bunch), you're a nice guy.

[GOP_1900AD]

It's the luke warm, moderate "conservatives" that hate him the most. Good old Goldwater Conservatives usually can get what the Savage is trying to get across.