[Urbane Guerrilla]

Okay, you mindless crank, listen up! I'm going lay some enlightement on you, which you are quite unwilling to receive, as you prefer to be the crank you are rather than ever understand anything accurately. I know I'm condescending to a worm, but who better? Maybe the pig doesn't learn to sing, but everyone else around him can -- and we can all have smoked pork chops later, if the pig never manifests a musical gift.

History shows Republican Presidents advancing democracy's march by taking dictatorships and other less-than-democracies down. Noriega -- still jailed. Ortega -- out of power for twenty years and staying quiet now. Taliban -- out, whether or not they're fighting back. Ba'athist Hussein -- dead. Soviet Russia -- broken by Reagan. And did any Democratic President have anything to do with Chinese reform? Don't make me laugh.

Democratic Presidents haven't managed communistofascist removal since Truman. You might look it up. So you've gotten one thing wrong, because of your leftwing extremist agenda -- oh, call it what it is: your pathological obsession which keeps you a ninny. You justify, through your postings, the application of any uncomplimentary epithet I know of short of "pedophile" or in other rhetorical flights, "a precious child of God." (As in, called him everything but. . .)

"Republican Party handlers" are in no hurry to "handle" a voter with Libertarian as his declared political persuasion. I think more up for myself than you can -- for one instance, I'm not prone to conspiracy theories the way you are; conspiracists generally strike me as having fried frontal lobes. Your hamfisted attempt at a flight of rhetoric amounts to a second mistake.

I understand that getting bin Laden or not getting bin Laden is simply symbolic. The real work is getting his organization, tying it up in a shadowy web of crippling mutual mistrusts, and destroying the Islamoterrorists' supporters. There's nothing to suggest that with bin Laden in a cage or a hole that our actual troubles would be over. The President understands this, I understand this -- and you won't understand this, which is why I'm free to tell you you are singularly, cripplingly, criminally stupid. Why are you so afraid we might win, you who try so hard to see that we lose? Answer! -- or know that the rest of the Cellar thinks you're a syphilis case.

Saddam was complicit in terrorism generally, as evidenced by those 25K payments to suicide bombers' families, and a practicer of genocide, and was manifestly desirous to seize a substantial fraction of the world's oil reserves as shown by which nations he attacked. Seems control of a quarter of the world's oil reserves wasn't enough. Half the time, these were attacks on nations friendly to us, which isn't something we're going to take lying down. You may try and twist my words, tw, but we can all see you doing it, and we snicker at your incompetence and your obviousness. We can hardly believe how constistently stupidly you behave. You will persuade absolutely no one but yourself, and you'd be more honest if you failed even at that. I know how you think, and it's a very poor way to think. There's a sigline running around on The Cellar: There are a lot more people who will tell me what people think than people who think that way.

Winning the war on terror takes a holistic approach: hostile, but failed, states must be neutralized as well as their terrorist proxy fighters. This calls for the use of one force against states, another sort of force against their proxies -- and there will be overlap of these spheres of action.

Rant at me a bit by way of conclusion, would you? Sounds extremist, doesn't it? -- well, you wouldn't know. Put another way: Vulcan, Schmulcan. You have never in your life been the master of your passions.