Kagan in today's Washington Post:
Oh well, impeachment was a lovely fantasy while it lasted. Strange, though, how it's an anti-right-wing fantasy here in the US, while in the UK it's an anti-left-wing fantasy.

Meanwhile, paraphrasing Christopher Hitchens on Hardball tonight: "If there truly are no WMDs then it would appear that Hussein is, by whatever process, disarmed... which he wasn't in 1998... and some people seem to be unhappy about that fact."

Chris intentionally misses the whole point. If Hussein had the weapons, where are they now? Did Bush's war just make the world a lot more dangerous? We reportedly had one nut controlling WMDs. If he had significant quantities, I would suggest that the materials are now in unknown hands. Nice job George a regional problem just went global.

My impeachment fantasy is this- If an administration comes into power with plans to use the lives of American servicemen and the treasure of the American people to satisfy their own empire building madness, the knowlege that Congress has the stones to impeach could be an effective deterent. It is not enough that we change tyrants every 4 or 8 years, the office must be reduced. I had high hopes when the Reps were whoopin up on Clinton but they attacked the man not the office. Unfortunately, Bush hasn't had an effective opposition either. That flag is practically painted on and the Democrats, loving the power that they have given the Executive, are afraid to apply the necessary solvent.

Kagan makes an interesting point but lets not pretend that he has no stake in this arguement, since he is a major player in The Project for the New American Century.

It wouldn't be popular so I don't expect it, but the Dems could stand for a reasonable foreign policy.

Guilty as charged. :)

Kagan's point isn't changed one bit by any memberships.

WMD shipped to more dangerous hands: if this is an allowable speculation POST-war, then it's an allowable speculation PRE-war, and the war makes the world safer by preventing more and larger WMD from being produced and ending up in those hands. Also, more dangerous than... Hussein? He does remain one of the few guys who ever used these weapons on his enemies.

Point taken on the amount of WMD in existence.

There are two key differences.

Before the war, Hussein had his little sandbox which folks against the war maintain would have been endangered by working with Islamic extremists thought to be his natural enemies. Ending sanctions and moving on could have frozen the situation in place. When it became obvious that he would no longer have that sandbox, I assume revenge became his primary urge. If we knew he had WMD, why would we wage a war whose most logical outcome would be to distribute whatever stocks are in existence?

My house of cards is "not being used to for the purposes of evil" the administrations most definitely was. Mine is being used to make an arguement. Bush used his to make a war that somehow a goodly number of Americans have connected to 911. They won, they got the war they somehow forgot to mention in all the talk about humble foreign policy during the election cycle and now everyone else gets to pay for it.

[sarcasm]Everybody and his mother have used WMD, Hussein isn't even the first in Iraq. WW1 which made the world safe for democracy had more than a few chemical exchanges. WW2 which protected the Poles and Chechs from tyranny ended with a pair of WMD bangs as well.[/sarcasm]

I am now pulling the nails from my soapbox and stacking the wood in my kindling pile, since further speculation on my part is really pointless at least until the next preemptive invasion. My big complaint with the whole mess is the assumption that the world needs a new style empire and it is being brought about by the advocates of limited government.

This does bother me. Why wasn't a bigger effort made to stop the export of these things.
Also why wasn't the Pakistani border sealed when we invaded Afganistan?:confused:

Billy, this bothers us in the west very much.:(

I never know that
 

XOXO. I have never heard that. I don't think so. There must be other reasons, not that. We support public clubs.

Re: I never know that
 

Intolerance in government is universal. Created by what I call "living too long in the ethersphere". Clearly there is no danger from clubs using names such a German, French, etc. But then some in power will fear. Clearly the only threat to studying "the China Fishing Association" comes from learning how that organization openly lied about how much fish were being taken from the oceans - contributing to a collapsing stock of ocean fish. Government would fear people learn about a fishing association because people would then uncover fraud.

Same fear of change is found in the US as noted in a previous recent discussion. Some US government leaders so fear that laws even make some sex illegal between consenting, married, adults in the confines of their private abode. How silly those government leaders. Never doubt that government so fears new ideas as to even make safe materials illegal; even mandating jail sentences equivalent to those for murder only because government leaders fear change. They do this due to ignorance and fear of change.

The China Fishing Association is a hobby freshwater fishing group.

Billy, have you heard about this? :(

Confirm the news for you
 

I don't know it.I will check it for you later.