A blogger posted an article recently (maybe even here, can't remember,) that one German city was making a presentation for our base to stay.

Clinton blathers on about the need for international cooperation, but given her personality, does anyone think Hillary would listen to the leaders of any foreign nation if they didn't already agree with what she wanted (so that a terrorist attack during a Clinton adfmiinstration would be met by a midless lashing out by the United States, the way Osama thought Bush would react after 9/11 to enflame the Muslim world). Hostily tossing ashtrays at Bill in a blind rage would turn into hostily tossing missiles at al Qaida in a blind rage.

On the other hand, Dean really believes this stuff, and that's scarier. Better to have a vindictive madwoman to make your enemies fear you than a Carteresque wimp in the Oval Office who waits for Jacque Chirac's OK before defending American interests.

Why would anyone want to continue the Clintonesque incompetence that brought about 9/11 and the current crop of Dem pres candidates?

Why would anyone want to continue the Clintonesque incompetence that brought about 9/11 and the current crop of Dem pres candidates?

There is a fundamental truth being missed here, and that is that the spirit of international cooperation fostered by the U.S. after WWII was not simply in the best interests of the world, but in our own as well. This is because of the very simple principle that once the world is faced with a single superpower unilaterally imposing its will, for good or ill but inevitably at odds with at least some of the collective non-U.S. interests, there is the distinct danger that the rest of the world, or a goodly portion of it, will get together and oppose that superpower. This is one of the prime mechanisms behind the fall of great powers that preceded the U.S., notably the Hapsburg empire and France.

Policies of unilateral action will eventually come back to haunt us. The first rumblings have already occurred--an E.U. defense force, a rapprochement between Russia and China; these events may seem small, even pathetic in some cases, for now, but from little things...

John: G.W.B. is also known to have a sharp temper. Before applying amateurish armchair psychology to a woman you have never met, based solely on armchair psychology passed off as journalism that you have read, you might consider--for just a moment, mind you--the possibility that people other than conservative Republicans are capable of reining in their awful tempers and governing with temperance and thoughtfulness.

M:

Yes, that's why the Euros were so much help in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Central America....oops, never mind.

Just how is Europe going to "get together and oppose" the US? Their economies are in the crapper, they are facing a demographic population meltdown, and soon (2050??) will have a median age of 52.

Has *any* country in history fielded an army of 52 year-olds? Not to mention that their one goal inlife seems to be to retire at age 55.

ray:

They're going to arm their Muslim immigrants and have them do the fighting...

M --

True I've never met the missus, but from the tales told about her, not just by naturally hostile conservative Republicans but by people inside the White House such as George Stephonaupolus and Dick Morris (who admittedly plays both sides of the street), Hillary has a far more firey temper with her vindictiveness than Bush, who has taken the old Kennedy dictum "Don't get mad, get even" to heart.

I personally think Hillary has played the war on terror and the ouster of Saddam better than any other Democrat, when looking towards 2008 -- she has given the base enough anti-Bush rhetoric to keep all but the furthest left satisfied, but she's voted withg Bush on all the key issues, which IMHO is the smart play, since 80 percent of the people out there won't remember the 2003 jibes in 2008, but she will be able to run on her voting record. That said, the ancedotal refrences by White House lead me to believe that a terrorist attack on the United States during an HRC administration would be taken by HRC as a personal attack on HRC, and the reaction against the terrorists would be swift, but not very well calculated for the long term strategically. That's still better than a potential terrorist attack against the United States during a Howard Dean administration, which -- even though he also has a pretty good temper -- seems to reserve that anger for domestic opponents and would perfer foreign threats be handled through the United Nations and the World Court. Hillary might pay lip service to those two governmental bodies, but only after she made sure her poll numbers were back up.