I've written about the subject before. It comes down to whether a disaggregated band of anti-government/anti-Coalition forces creating violence but not apparently fighting for a single political objective qualifies.

Indeed, this reminds me (now that I write this) about Goldberg's column on Pinochet that I criticized recently. The bottom line is Goldberg , like a lot of pundits, starts from an ideological position and then forms an opinion about an issue--one that he often doesn't really know that much about.

While experts can be wrong (indeed, very wrong), the idea of directly challenging, in a very public and blustery way, someone who knows far more about a subject than you do isn't very wise.

This reminds me of the Nixon-era economist, who upon being chastised for negativity, and specifically for his inexpedient use of the word "recession," announced that he would no longer use that word, and would use "banana" instead. And, at his next press conference, he noted that if trends continued, "America was at risk of sliding into a deep banana."

Maybe we should say that Iraq is today involved in a fierce and bloody avocado.

Boy do I want to find that guy and make him pay up!

I'm willing to bet Goldberg will not get that honor.