To: LindyBill who wrote (15287 ) 11/5/2003 6:26:33 PM From: MSI Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793623 I disagree. Show me anyone who says they are willing to tolerate greater carnage abroad and I'll show you someone in favor of empire at any cost, or in the pay of those who are. Make no mistake -- the PNAC policies are very clear on this point, as are Brzyzinski Democrats who espouse his "Grand Chessboard". The entire panoply of neocon literature is dedicated to the choice of bloody intervention as the self-justifying alternative to patient negotiation. The proposed reasons, of course, are as reiterated in the recent State of the Union speech. We see the results making an increasingly obvious disconnect between the administration and reality. Rumsfeld on the Sunday talkies goes on about why the escalation of American deaths is "progress", even as the Asst SecDef is in the Al Rashid Hotel getting hit with rockets and a helicopter is shot down. This kind of talk is pretense at playing General Patton instead of civilian leadership. As McCain said a couple hours ago, "God spare us more progress". I'm not a babe in the woods. I've been involved in national politics from the ground up, and have had my share of moles attempting to give me outrageous claims in hopes of getting to make them publicly, who turn out to be working for the other side. It's SOP, going back to forever. I was too young to be involved in Nixon's campaigns, but that certainly laid groundwork for dirty tricks which have only been elaborated since. The thing to be careful of are those who would make war as anything other than as a last resort, loud insane extremists of the Ann Coulter variety, who would "kill them all and let God sort them out", or I think more accurately, we should "invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity". These are no different than extremist Islamists who would likewise kill American leaders and attempt to convert America to Islam.