You say the attacks on Bush are similar to the attacks on Reagan. You seem to imply that the attacks on Reagan were misplaced, that he wasn't an amiable dunce, that he did have a grasp on policy, wasn't leading us to hell, and faced down the global menace of communism. So are you saying that Bush is no Reagan, and that this comparison is wrong?

So is Bush stupid, unable to comprehend the policies he's advocating (or not advocating), and not facing down terrorism? And you're asking if this behavior is deliberate? Or that critics were right to criticise Reagan but wrong on Bush?

Forgive me, but I don't see what you're getting at.

Do you think, on Bush's part, it's deliberate?

The vehemence-- nay, venom-- with which Bush's opponents speak of him brings to mind another Republican President, a President whose intellect was ridiculed by many, who was accused of not having a grasp on the niceties of policy, whose administration was heralded as a new direction and a road to hell, who sometimes demonstrated an offhand callousness about matters he didn't care about or fully appreciate, who took it upon himself to face down a global menace threatening the lives and liberty of freedom-loving peoples everywhere.

"I know Ronald Reagan, and you sir, are no Ronald Reagan!"

Buckethead:

"sorry."

haw!

I think these days "empire" can be construed more broadly than the American Heritage Dictionary tells it. Though I'm going to have to think more on this: If going into a nation halfway around the world and removing a leader who is repugnant to us, if not actually an act of empire, does not comprise at least sidling up to empire's hot sister at a party and trying to hook up with her, how so? 

Apologies for that last sentence there. I had sugar packets at lunch. 

Also, I'm a cultural historian, not some fancy-pants political scientist like Buckethead. 
 

Bucket, I know full well that you say what you mean whether in writing or face to face, and Mike, I know the same about you. I've known each of you for years, and am waaaaay beyond letting opinions get the better of my esteem for you, as long as you can adequately explain yourself. I hope I have been civil as well.

But please, let's not go too far with that. Shit-talking makes the world go round. On this subject, and pursuant to my own apparent flirtation with moral equivalence over the war (we'll have WORDS about that, Buckethead, WORDS, like "cromulent," "embiggen," and "guignol"), I leave you with this quote, aptly enough, about morality:

"I don't give a tupenny fuck about your moral conundrum, you meat-headed shit-sack!"

Money Quote:

"That's Rumsfeld's function -- to take the polite fictions and drag them back to the real world. During the Afghan campaign, CNN's Larry King asked him, "Is it very important that the coalition hold?" The correct answer -- the Powell-Blair-Gore-Annan answer -- is, of course, "Yes." But Rummy decided to give the truthful answer: "No." He went on to explain why: "The worst thing you can do is allow a coalition to determine what your mission is." Such a man cannot be happy at the sight of the Guinean tail wagging the French rectum of the British hind quarters of the American dog."

Wonderful imagery.

Like Mike, I should like to say that I don't mean any of what I write as an assault on anyone in particular. (If I am assaulting anyone, I'll be specific.) I tend to come across a bit stronger in writing than I do in person.

I don't have a problem showing favoritism to Israel over Palestine. Of the two groups, one is a parliamentary democracy (and one fifth of the members of this parliament are from the same ethnic and religious group as the enemy.) with freedom of speech and press, a market economy, and rule of law. The other is a terrorist organization that plans and executes the murders of civilians, and ruthlessly supresses all dissent (collaboration) and embezzles billions of dollars into Swiss bank accounts. I can discriminate between the two, rather easily.

I posted a poll on my friend's website - it was still there as of this morning - asking, "what is the most ruthless empire in world history?" I included as one choice, "American Global Hegemony." Right now, the response (from an admittedly small pool of respondents) is down to 28%. But for the first several days, half of the votes were going to America. I found this shocking but not surprising. Does America have an empire? Or even imperialistic aims? 
 

Empire, n. 1.

a. political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority. b. The territory included in such a unit.

2. An extensive enterprise under a unified authority: a publishing empire. 

3. Imperial or imperialistic sovereignty, domination, or control 

(From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

While we have fought wars, we have not annexed conquered nations. (Okay, we did in the Spanish-American War, but they are all independent, or have voted to remain part of the U.S.) We occupied Europe, but as France and Germany proved recently, we do not control them or dictate to them. Naturally, we have a great deal of influence. But the last six months in the UN shows that it is not infinite. We can create an empire, but we haven't and we won't. America's position in the world is nothing like the British, French, Roman, Persian, Chinese or other historical empire. As for decline, I know nothing lasts forever. But I don't see the U.S. going down in flames anytime soon. Not in the next fifty years, probably not for a while yet. 

Something like imperial overstretch is a serious concern, but remember that our relative military power is going through the roof as military expenditures as a percentage of GNP are declining. We are becoming more powerful with less effort - we are not sacrificing economics to maintain our power, as many empires in the past have done. While we worry about other potential rivals - Japan and East Asia are in the shitter, economically, Europe has been in the doldrums for decades, Russia is a third world nation, and China could be on the verge of complete collapse in ten years. Who is going to give us the payback? And why would they? If Iraq, liberated from Saddam, becomes more prosperous and free, they are not going to be gunning for us. Remember how the people of Afghanistan celebrated after we destroyed the Taliban. There will be some resentment for our power and success, but I don't see your scenario coming to pass. 

I have painted an optimistic picture, to be sure. But the problem is not from plans not surviving contact with the enemy. Militarily, we include that in the plan. We have the flexibility to adjust to the situation as it evolves. We're good at that. And even a moderate success is still, well, a success. As far as military conflict goes, I don't think you'll see major resistance from anything other than the Special Republican Guard, perhaps 13,000 troops. As for the people, Saddam rules a totalitarian state - all segments of the population have been set against each other to allow Saddam's small tribe from Tikrut to maintain power. There won't be a Baathist resistance movement. 

Finally, in a representative democracy, or Republic, we elect officials to make decisions. We don't have plebiscites on every issue like Athens in 500bc. If we are unhappy, we bitch and we moan, and then elect someone else next time. So no, we don't have direct control over the government minute to minute, but the existence of an unhappy electorate will definitely affect the actions of our public servants. And we have the ultimate power to remove those who displease us - though we may have to wait a couple years. I was deeply unhappy with our leadership for most of the nineties, but I never said I lived in a "republic." (BTW, I'm really getting frustrated with "scare quotes." This mode of expression has gotten a lot more common over the past few years. Sure it fits in with our ironic mode of existence, but imaging the speaker twitching the two first fingers of both hands beside his head as he speaks is getting to me.)