Do you have no heart? What about the rape rooms in Burma; the weapons of mass destruction; its sinister collusion with Al Quaida in bringing down the world trade center.

Invading Burma will be a cake-walk.

Don't forget 9-11, remember the Alamo, Pearl Harbor, the Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin, remember Jessica Lynch's and Pat Tillman's sacrifice.

Why don't you nude hippies go to North Korea where you all belong. And wear some clothes, will ya!

I'd recommend also going back to reading and watching tape of what experts in the media was predicting would happen in Iraq before the invasion began. Aren't we still supposed to be involved in a Vietnam-style quagmire? Oh. we are. I see. What was the Vietnam quagmire like again? Can someone refresh our memory?

I guess there is no quantitative and qualitative difference between the Afghani quagmire the Soviets suffered through until they accepted defeat and the one we are apparently still going through and refuse to admit defeat in and pull out — like we should in Iraq – as some short-sided, history challenged people seem to see it…

But this stuff really is wonderful to read….

Mission Accomplished and Imperial Presidents and Squandered good names and Obama Changes.

Perfect arguments from sure as hell seems to be a bumper sticker oriented party this election…..

Clinton left the US secure. Kind of explains how 9/11 happened.

Clinton (and Bush Sr.) left us with no-fly zones and the root source of the problem both intact in Iraq.

Squandered out countries good name: that is becoming an absolutely hilarious line.

I always thought it was crap because I could remember world opinion before Bush and things like Clinton having to stage a finger waging with "friend of America" Chirac after Chirac was microphoned making fun of Clinton and the US – in the elitist, French way he also put down Tony Blair. But, hey. He was the leader for France. So his opinion must be right, lefties, right?

But now, we have a growing list of pro-US leaders being voted in across Europe. — Hey —- I guess they are doing it because Bush will soon be out of office…

What a joke….

On the economy, my weakest area, I would tend to think the 9/11, the technology bubble, and the housing bubble had something to do with the state of the economy — and those date back to Clinton. (But I'm an idiot who tends to think even Carter got way too much blame for the state of the economy during his time in office. Though I don't point to anything he did to help it much).

The stuff on imperial president is just as full of crap.

And Time and the media were angry and bashing Bush before he had even won the Republican Primary in 2000.

Some of us are not as short sighted on history as others tend to be.

Bush was hated by the left dating back to his time in Texas.

So start by telling me how the death penalty is abhorred and opposition of abortion rights is abhorred. And how could an ethical nation possibly elected someone so clearly stupid and against basic human rights —– before you start peddling this other stuff.

Sure, they may have been unrealistic ideas because of the proximity to China, or for tactical reasons, but do you accept the Iraq war as somehow more "just?" Or the failed effort in Afghanistan (which I did and do support), which was given too few resources to complete its mission because we're sinking good troops and money into a hopeless and pointless war in Iraq?

For all the ire that has been poured on us "lefties", the budget was balanced and America was secure when Clinton left office, blowjobs aside. I'll take a lie over bimbos and blowjobs in a president over this one any day.

Let's see: Bush has driven the economy into the ground (started that BEFORE the wars), overstretched our military, squandered our country's good name even in the countries who are our closest allies, and not made the world any safer. Oh, and made a runaway executive that makes imperial Presidents Adams or Lincoln look tame by comparison.

Before getting on Obama's case after responding to a theoretical scenario — man, do you not acknowledge that our actual present situation is worth far more anger than anything some writer for Time dreamed up? I don't know about you, but give me McCain (who knows the meaning of solders' lives and didn't shirk his duty when called), Clinton, or Obama any day of the week.

Is that one really a precedent?

I think it was Charles Krautanhemer (mangled spelling his last name) who I first heard said that the intellectual left in the US since Carter has had as a central foreign policy guiding principle that the US should only get involved in the use of military forces in nations where we have no large strategic or economic interests.