What more do you want, Nathan? I'm more comfortable talking about US imperialism than I have ever been. What do you think is going on, that Bush really objects to S.H. because he's a wicked dictator? jks
---------
So is everybody else I know---comfortable that is with using imperialism, empire, capitalist pig bastards, police state, and many other terms that sounded so arcane once upon a time. It is a rhetorical way of throwing the obvious complicity of the liberal establishment back in their face. As if to say, look you jerks, where's all that classic liberal crap you espoused not so very long ago about the bill of rights, just wars, democracy, the benefits of a free market and consumer society?
Nathan's problem is that he can't use these terms because he is trying to nuance some unconscionable slime bags back into some better conformity to their own propaganda. (Or he is running for some political office?)
Bandying around terms like Imperialism, Police State Thugs, Fascists, Capitalist Pigs, War Criminals and other clearly spoken words isn't considered polite. Just look at the a-gast Ari Fleischer, stammering with indigitation that a German cabinet minister called Bush's war on Iraq reminiscent of Hitler and the Third Reich. US relations with Germany seem to have taken a nose dive. Why? The truth hurts?
Tsk, Tsk. Justin really, how could you be so gauche.
Chuck Grimes