What if you decide to clean out a neighborhood of bank robbers, as your predecessor had promised to do?

Also, Dems (and even just liberals) are deluded if they think Rove is their problem. We can't doubt that Rove is a gifted political operative. But until they rethink their presumptions about conflict, they're not going to be happening. They shouldn't credit Rove as a mastermind just because he's kicking their ass... Especially if they believe their own rhetoric about the marvels of nonpartisan ship.

(And for the record, they don't).

>as your predecessor had promised to do

That was a legal, diplomatic initiative. Bush's war is illegal. SecGenUN
said so.

's a lotta hard wurk.

Crid,

I must tell you that I feel your use of the word "they" is a manifestation of what is wrong with our entire system. It's "Us" and "Them". Both sides are guilty. Hell, I'm guilty of it too.

We can argue until we are blue in the face, but my truth tells me that this war was a bad, bad, bad idea and an astronomical blunder on the part of "W". His father had a more centric view, and didn't go after Saddam specifically because there was no, and I quote, "exit strategy". Plus, the previous war was sanctioned by the UN and our aid was requested by Kuwait. The quagmire we find ourselves in now is largely due to the proclivity the current president has for telling believable lies. Don't get me wrong, I never bought it, any more than I bought it when Clinton said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." But let's note that there is a big difference between a blow job and a full-on war. Although, they both suck - except war sucks in a very *un-fun* way.

Our entire political system needs to be revamped. The Republicans and the Democrats are playing us for fools. We need to take them to task and take our country back. None of them are doing their respective jobs. All they are doing is pandering to us. ALL of us.

Crid, please note my hypocrisy in that I used the words 'us', 'them' and 'they' in the above paragraph. See? We're all guilty of falling into the roles 'they' are setting for us.

Stu----

> That was a legal, diplomatic initiative.

No, it was a statement of US policy. Clinton was kidding. Bush wasn't.

> Bush's war is illegal.

Amazing the way Congress, to say nothing of the voting public, simply rolled over in the face of his endlessly clever yet plainly lawless manipulation... What was the last 'legal' war that the US took part in?

> SecGenUN said so.

In the absolute BEST CASE scenario, Kofi's a feckless, unelected bureaucrat of merely incidental corruption, working to suck a few more breaths of life from a bereft Cold War institution. And even the most liberal media are compelled to note, this is not the best case. Not by a long shot.

Goddyss----

I respectfully disagree. Yes, the left-right dichotomy in political thinking is showing its age... When most of us heard about the Kelo decision last week, we assumed that the majority had come from the Republican fatcat end of the bench, and were amazed to see that it was the other way around. I certainly was.

But there's a dance in the old girl yet. The reason people still use 'liberal' and 'conservative' is that they work. More interesting and perhaps useful polarizations have been offered by Paglia (Apollonian vs Dionysian, with something Cthonian thrown in just to fuck up your spelling), and Postrel (dynamists vs stasists). But calling people liberal and conservative allows us to describe huge swaths of popular thinking in familiar words.

"Your" truth, like "mine," is irrelevant... What matters is persuasion. Defending the way GHWB's (41's) generation handled Iraq is problematic. Obsessing over "exit strategy" is cowardly in all respects: To imagine that civilization can move through history without risk or surprise is foolish in the extreme (see Postrel, above). Do you think the decent wars in history have been fought only because people were confident they'd win? We might well lose this war. I'd still be glad we fought it.

We're in our seventh decade of large military presence in Europe. Would you call that a quagmire or a commitment?

Thinking in terms of 'us' and 'them' certainly has problems. But people who decry partisanship are always, always, always simply whining about the unpleasantness of contention. But I LIKE polarization. It clears the thinking. I WANT politicians to pander: In the western world, we don't call it leadership, we call it public service.

Crid,

I appreciate your opinion, but my feelings are that invading a sovereign country is wrong. War in itself is wrong. Saddam may have rejoiced over 9/11 but he had nothing to do with it. Was he killing his own people? Yes. But if that is truly what we were worried about (that and the non-existent WMDs), why aren't we over in Korea, where there truly are WMDs. Furthermore, it is extremely hypocritical of us to expect that we would be the only nation with nuclear weapons.

Re: Europe - we aren't there for them. We're there because it is strategic for us.

And obsessing over an exit strategy isn't cowardice, it's wisdom. Especially when you're gambling with the lives of thousands of people, Americans and Iraqis alike. Life is all about risk, I agree, but the risk must be justified. In this case, I feel it was not. Sending troops arbitrarily over there was a mistake, which should be corrected by bringing them home. The thought that we can control the - yes, I'm going to use this word again - quagmire that this has become is arrogant and stupid. We cannot control other people, nor is it our place to do so.

My friends are over there fighting a war that never should have happened. Are your friends over there? Do you feel this war is worth the sacrifice of their young lives? Well, I don't.

As for being pandered to, I detest it. It smacks of condescension.

And, personally, I feel "decent war" is an oxymoron.

I appreciate where you are coming from, but I heartily disagree with you. Ultimately, though, as you say, your truth and mine are irrelevant. This conversation will not impact the situation one way or another.

Thanks for giving me some things to think about, though.

All of this being said, if you've seen Team America: World Police, I think this is summed up nicely in the speech at the end of the movie. I, as you, like polarization, provided it is balanced and constructive, and that there is respect for all involved. I can learn from people who disagree with me, and value the opportunity to do so.

> And, personally, I feel "decent war" is
> an oxymoron.

See, that's a fundamental break. Throughout history we've seen that war, despite its wretchedness, is not the worst thing that can happen. Tyranny is worse. As is supporting it, as we did for decades in Saddam's case.

> If you've seen Team America: World Police...

My favorite part was the lilting, Lee Greenwood-style lyric under the full Hollywood orchestration:

"Only a woman can brighten up my day.
Only a woman can touch me the right way.
Only a woman is allowed to touch me there.
All I ask is that you're a woman."

I liked

"Pearl Harbor sucked.
And I miss you..."

Actually, I really liked all of it. Have you seen the uncensored version? Wait till you see what they took out! I nearly peed my pants from laughing so hard...

There was a new part of the sex scene on the internet somewhere. It was difficult to see the difference from the original movie. Because, after all, they're PUPPETS!

Amy never talks about how fountain plazas in Paris have little croissants pressed into their cement.

Trust me, if you see the new version, Crid, you will *know* the difference... it's really funny!