George Bush leads us into the world of Kafka.

Hang on, let me make sure I'm getting this straight. Basically, whenever a nation or system that does anything that could be construed as negative aren't Leftist by your default plan, even when all their stated ideals, goals, and programs elucidate leftist idealogies, they aren't in fact apart of "the Left?"For the record I understand what you mean, but apparently you miss the obvious that what you are saying is completely incorrect as you set yourself up in a very safe position as an afterthought. Of course they are and no amount verbal contortion is going to change that fact embedded in history. You are making it so that "Left" means "good, fair, and impartial." That's absurd. And to make the connection of how that's incorrect and biased, some have found it objectionable that certain Christians speak about "real Christians," and that their interpretation of who is a real Christian and who isn't comes directly from their ability to parcel it but not anyone else's. Does that make sense?

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Uhh, no, I don't think that. And I'm aware that the US has engaged in certain things that tarnish its history. Likewise. The US has every right to defend and support a nation that shares similar visions of Democracy in a middle east that predominantly despises such notions. As for being bombed by US missles is the same as getting shot by Russian-made weaponry in Iraq and blaming the Russians for it. You also need to realize who is getting 'bombed.' I think you've been duped by the unending distortions propagated by Pallywood and Hezbollywood. There were human rights abuses in Iraq where the US intervened and supplanted the Hussein regime but that didn't seem to make anyone happier about the US. This is yet another case of damned if we do, damned if we don't. Whenever the US intervenes the charge almost always seem to condemn the US for sticking their nose where it doesn't belong, but then when it doesn't intervene, the charge is that America is heartless. Really, what exactly should the US do to make the Muslim nations happy? What about the Iran-Iraq war? Uh, Iraq invaded a Muslim nation called "Kuwait" because he wanted to control it. The US signed a treaty with Kuwait years before granting the Kuwaitis protection for continuing to support us through oil. So, please explain to me how this offended the Muslim world? You know, I kind of think that not honoring our part of the agreement would make the US more suspect in regards to its offenses to Muslim nations. Oh, yes, that evil US who is only interested in the ME for oil, because France, Germany, Canada, the UK, Sweden, Norway, Japan, the Phillipines, and so on care about the ME for reasons other than oil? Please tell me when the moment a nation was allowed to secure its interests. Why do you condemn the US and implicate the US as the sole proprietor for the world's problems.Here's the bottom line: Terrorism will not stop until Islamofascism is removed from the general population of Muslims or until the US becomes a Muslim nation. That has been cited by numerous factions in the MidEast.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Okay, then let me extend my meaning to mean either Reasonable Suspicion or Probable Cause, not hunches. I'm not sure what that has to do with the discussion. Maybe you can elaborate on your meaning. You say that like its a bad thing. Again, the gov't doesn't just spy on people without some corroborating reason to do so. What you are doing is demonizing and basically slandering the entire intelligence and counterintelligence community. If they spy on activists its because there is credible reason to believe that they are engaged in illegal activities. Having said that, I'm certain that somewhere along the line there has been corruption on some level, but surely you have to believe that this would be few and far between. What a ridiculous argument. That's like saying no police officer is allowed to carry a gun because somewhere along the line someobne will use it incorrectly. Yes, because one man doesn't make a system. there are checks and balances in place so that we don't have dictatorships in power. Its called Congress who has to approve these kinds of things.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt