>
> > The "debate" was pretty stupid.
>
>Granted. Whether it exemplifies the current state of the Democratic Party
>seems to be another issue.
Agreed.
>
>What, you would've preferred that we kill everyone in Vietnam?
As you know, I would have preferred that we killed no one in Vietnam. We had no had damn business there.
Why any
>leftist would guffaw at America's inevitable failure (a worthless goal
>pursued with the most ruthless of means) is beyond me. Tears are a more
>fitting response.
Guffaw? And I think anger and outrage was the fitting response.
> > Clinton's gesture is typical, a symbolic nothing ("I feel your pain");
>it
> > would be more impressive from someone who had not abolished welfare,
> > repealed habeas corpus, ensconced Reaganism has the ruling philosophy of
>the
> > DP, and rammed through GATT and NAFTA, meanwhile launching cruise
>missiles
> > at random to distract from his domestic embarassments.
>
>Yep, sure, and snickers are also empty until backed by a substantive
>critique.
Snickers?
Somehow, I think even your laundry list falls just short
>(I don't personally think of NAFTA, GATT, and Kosovo as an "axis of
>evil").
We can disagree on that.
The Wag the Dog bit was refuted in the New Yorker at the time:
>existing policy proscribed cruise missile attacks against Iraq the next
>time
>weapons inspectors were turned away.
Damned convenient to apply the policy mechanically inthe circumstances. You don'tthink whether to carry out prescribed policy is a political choice?
> > I miss Richard Nixon. For all his creepy personality and attacks on the
> > Constitution he did more good for this country in any week in office
>than
> > Clinton did in eight years.
>
>Question: why wouldn't progressive like Kuttner say something like that?
>Wishful thinking?
I dunno. wouldn't he?
>
>All the best from gloomy Oxford,
>
Zat where you are right now? Semester abroad?
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com