I consider it normal that the interests of America and other countries will sometimes diverge. In almost all cases, it is not a national security problem.
You could be right, only time will tell. I disagree.
I am not proposing vast expansion of American forces, and neither is anyone in the Administration that I know of.
The policy of the United States during the Cold War was, in fact, to deal, for the most part, with the regimes that were "on the ground". Sometimes, that made for unsavory involvements, on the grounds that the insurgents were allied with the Soviet Union and would have introduced an even more thoroughgoing apparatus of repression. Certainly, for example, Castro was more brutal than Batista, and the Communist regime in Vietnam was far more repressive than the Thieu regime, although it has mellowed somewhat. I do not, however, deny that some of these alliances may have been mistaken. I just think that it is natural that some mistakes were made.
I have no idea what you are talking about, in relation to impeachable offenses. Bush has Congressional authorization for Iraq, and for the increase in expenditures.
I do not think that Bush has lied. And I do not see anything wrong with prayer.
Again, if you follow the whole sequence of posts on the topic, my aim was to demonstrate the criticisms of revisionist historians like Aperowitz leveled by mainstream historians. You smug assumption that it has been demonstrated that the bombings were bogus is simply wrong. |
