STUPID predictions on my part, and equally stupid predictions on yours cian.

Noone should make those kinds of predictions, they are arrogant and stupid.

Afghanistan was a no brainer and there was hardly a country in the world that couldn't see the justification for it. The Dem's as you say would have gone in. The difference? They would have stayed in and as a result the Taliban would not now be on their come back tour.

It would be a hoot, I grant you that ....

There is are only two things that diplomacy can accomplish. A sense of delay, or a sense of urgency.

During the cold war there was no doubt that the US and Russia would go all out in their conflicts, which promoted a delay on both sides, because we scared the hell out of eachother.

Iran is working on nukes, korea MIGHT have nukes, China is delaying so that they have an economic standard, korea and iran are delaying so that they can join the nuclear club full force.

At this moment, it is important for western nations to experience a sense of urgency, to believe that any treaty, that any negotiations has ever worked for a final accomplishment is at best naive. Diplomacy is the equivalent of a pinky swear.

Diplomacy is not an answer, it is a tactic, I really wish the peace at any cost crowd would get that.

Also, every member of nato is technicaly still at war with Korea, we are just complacent in assuming that a constantly violated armistice is the same thing as a final peace.

(I do believe that, though I didn't articulate it very well)

For example, if we are trying to convince North Korea to stop working on nuclear weapons, then it makes no sense to make general threats against it. It is no different from parenting. You get the behavior you want (no nukes) by rewarding good behavior and punishing bad behavior. But if you make Kim believe that you are going to take him out no matter what, then what's the incentive for him to stop?

If he believes Bush will try to get him no matter what, then his only hope is to develop enough nukes, while the US military is tied up in Iraq, to deter Bush in the future, which is exactly what he seems to be trying to do. Evil and delusional they may be, but not completely stupid.

I tend to lean left, but my real beef with the Bush administration (and associated Republicans) is competence and leadership. I think that attacking Iraq was not that beneficial to the war on terror, but, if we are going to do it, we should have done it right.

Could the Democrats have done it any better? Maybe not, but then, they wouldn't have tried. (Afghanistan, on the other hand, is a completely different story. I'm pretty sure that a Democratic president would also have launched a war against the Taliban, with probably about the same results.)

No statute of limitations on impeachment. Impeach Elenor Rosevelt!

The thing that made me look at the bolton thing was we were going through this charade of "No UN Authorization for the Iraq War." Which could be said, we could also say that the authorizations already existed, but since we couldn't get an ambassador into the UN to represent us with full faith of the president, then the senate was over-reaching (not the dem's, and not the senate, but the senate foreign relations comittee) was deliberately encroaching on the authority of the executive.

(just pulled that out of the tuech not bad eh?)

Who do the Democrats think would want a two year appointment to the UN in the last two years of a lame duck presidency?

At a time when the great cause is lying in tatters at their feet, and reality is being appeased even, perhaps, in the oval office, the support of Bolton is a last ditch effort to maintain the illusion that they might turn out to be the brave visionaries after all. His removal would be the final step in the purging of the ultras, except for Cheney of course...

And o course, this is all partisan point scoring. The democrats objecting to him, the president appointing him in the recess appointment, etc.

Just thought I would say that.