I can't find any constitutional damage no matter how much radar alleges it's happening. I see a President who didn't figure it was right to pick on Smith & Wesson, unlike his glib but wisdomless predecessor. Clinton visibly found the Bill of Rights a stumbling block to his ambitions, whereas Bush hews to it, no ands or caveats.

That the left-of-center have been acutely disappointed and rather marginalized these last seven years is all to the good. That bunch doesn't keep the Republic.

I think what I particularly like is that the Federal level of the Government has been wholly occupied with foreign policy, and isn't mucking about with the domestic economy -- that never ends well. The current generation of Democrats doesn't know this and won't be instructed. That keeps them somewhere between worthless and a downright menace.

Any war big enough to notice bruises the economy. At bottom, all wars are economic, and you can expect the war winners to be those economies that took the least damage, by percentage or in absolute quantity.

I think somebody is going to have to admit that a "lasting peace accord" for the Middle East is a very relative term. Temporary lulls are really all we've ever seen, no? Since absolutely no one can be trusted to throw an airtight economic embargo around the Palestinians and the Israelis and tell them to thrash it out permanently entirely on their own, there is no prospect at all for peace in the Middle East: it's taking on the properties of a proxy war. The principals can keep playing because their sponsors can supply them with the sinews of war and keep them in the game.

And isn't it funny how some people think it's irredeemably dumb to actually try and win a war, particularly when somebody else has handed you one in the grand and very public manner? Such an opinion makes me tired of the slackeroids who hold it. Particularly radar, whose raging discredits him as a serious thinker: trying to actually win a war handed you by foreigners is not and never can be treason. You cannot think intelligently until you discard this toxic idea, Paul. You can only rage, rave, and froth at the mouth, and none of that looks good on you.

If you could identify this mysterious "somebody" we might have some idea what you think Dubya's war is redressing.

A few months back I saw a Frontline story on Cheney. I found out that the shows are available online for anyone to see.

There is the 'Dark Side 2006' online video and 'Cheney's Law 2007' among others regarding this administration. I think it was Cheney's law I watched with my mouth hanging open. :eek:

FRONTLINE ONLINE VIDEOS
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/view/

Meaning that the US wasn't the only western country mucking about in the Middle East, and that other treaties were written an adhered to for decades. Israel and Egypt haven't shot at each other in the 30 years since the Camp David Peace Accords, which is a pretty good stretch for the region.

Sorry rich, I was being pedantic. I meant, literally, "What does 'one of the only' mean?" To me, it's a phrase that doesn't make sense, similar to 'try and do,' or 'try and anything.' These should be 'try to,' and the first phrase should be 'the only one,' or 'one of the few.'

Carry on.

Sorry, Clinton beat him to it.

Hardly.

Clinton's entire presidency was about his pop ups.

The Middle East has never been stable, ever. We can only try to protect our interests there.

Jealous. :D

Not at all. I'm still waiting for a pop down.

We're exporting security and globalization's connectedness. The purveyors of a competing disconnectedness -- the radical Islamists, if anyone needs it spelled out -- are fighting back. We are redressing the fuckage those totalitarian sons of syphilitic bitches are perpetrating, and never forget that, Griff. It's my war too. It should be yours, but you haven't figured out antidemocracy is wrong, wrong, ten quadrillion times wrong. It makes you a dreadfully weak Libertarian. You won't bludgeon the anti-Libertarians. You have designed yourself to be a passive feeb -- in effect, a brownshirt.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that this is suboptimal, even dumb -- and for an enumeration of the dumb, how about every last don't-fight-with-the-fascists-you-might-make-them-mad idiot who ever spoke against this war. Fascists' dupes the lot, for what are our enemies but fascists? The stumblefucks don't want the fascists to die, and this is not comprehensible on any level, political or moral. It's either bad politics or worse morality, and none can gainsay that without revealing a defective moral center.

These, my friend, are the kind of wars we really fight, and have for over a century, so we're definitely in the habit. The Left has been trying for generations to obscure this. Study of our wars tells us the Left is full of stuff that makes roses grow -- but cannot be mistaken for a rose.

I refuse to be a totalitarian's sockpuppet, even unknowingly. You really ought to do the same and go kill a couple of their lackeys if you want to aspire to being a strongly moral man. Fascist blood is beautiful, man. If you didn't think so, you wouldn't have become a Libertarian.

However, he who mistakes Republicans for Fascists knows nothing about either. He can't.

Why on God's green Earth were you calling our radical Islamist foes a "mysterious somebody?" I'd like to see you explain that one! I don't expect your effort will resemble logic.

Hussein was secular. The radical Islamists did not have any significant presence in Iraq. Your war has likely handed them Iraq. That is why your argument is not taken seriously. I'll let you work out your own definition of fascism, mine includes militarism and crony capitalism two Bushite values.

This being our last communication, I'll end with humor.