Quote:
I am just really, really disappointed that she hasn't managed to steer the Bush administration away from a collision course with all the rest of the world.
'

Well, I don't know if this will make you feel any better, but in all of the books I've read, it seems that she has constantly been at odds with the Pentagon (and Rumsfeld in particular) and at least up until 2003 (when my sources were written) was more in line with Colin Powell as far as diplomatic relations and conflict resolution go. Add to that the fact that the State Department is doing everything in its power to derail Bush's policy and your world may not be crumbling quite as fast as you think.

Thank you for at least being respectful while still getting a chance to voice your disapproval and/or opinions. I'm sure Mark Cushman will get over it.

Aren't all Europeans, at least Western ones, liberal? I think in previous posts, Jim has quite proudly claimed to be liberal. And he should - he's very good at it!

Quote:
the quaint US two-party pseudo-democracy


That's a little condescending isn't it? And I can think of many borderline socialist nations in Europe and elsewhere that are far more “pseudo-democrac(ies)” than the US. But that’s using one inaccuracy to justify another one and that really doesn’t hold water in debate does it? Technically, the United States of America (i.e. Jesusland for the Moveon.org peeps) is a Republic. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. …Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. So, I guess I don’t mind not being a “pure” democracy.

And yes, our system is a two party system and that results in most people having to vote for someone who doesn’t represent 100% of what they believe in (just like how I do not support President Bush on 100% of his policies), but the system works for the most part. I look at the Canadian muli-party system and I’m not inspired but the fact is that each of our nations were founded on certain principles and those have to be respected and maintained to ensure the integrity of each. I dig. Yet, I do believe that with issues as large as the war in Iraq, it is easier to look at viewpoints as being either “left” or “right” of center. If we were talking about moral significance in the whole of politics, then we’d need about 500 political parties.


Quote:
created a strong terrorist movement


Obviously there was a strong enough terrorist movement long before President Bush took office to cause all of the terrorist actions against the United States including the abduction of US hostages in Iran in 1979, the bombing of the US embassy in Beruit 1982, the bombing of US Marine barracks in Beruit 1983, the attack on the Italian cruise ship resulting in the killing of a 69 year old American, 1986 bombing of a West Berlin disco frequented by US servicemen, the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1993 Bin Laden sponsored downing of a Blackhawk helicopter in Somalia, the 1995 car bombing in Saudi Arabia killing 5 and wounding 30 Americans, the 1996 bombing of a US Air Force housing complex, the 1998 bombings of two US embassies in Africa, the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole and the 9/11 attacks against Washington DC and New York City. This doens't include any of the attacks that have been stopped such as the "Millenium Plot" in Los Angeles. Doing nothing wasn't an option.

But all of this supports my original point that this is truely a debate over the Bush administration and presidential term. Defaming Condoleezza Rice by calling her an idiot, retarded (Rainman reference), puppet or even "mildly smart" is disgraceful.
_________________________
Brad B.