Exactly ...

If enemies of the United States had gotten together a few years ago to devise a plan to damage America and undermine its global position–diminish its power and credibility, drag it into a stubborn war, harm its relations with allies, create international financial disarray, run up huge deficits, create political openings for the Europeans and China to exploit and become equals in global economic matters, motivate terrorists, bring the U.S. image in the Middle East to its nadir, restrict civil liberties at home, and so forth–they would have been hard-pressed to create a program that would be mor...

Exactly ...

If enemies of the United States had gotten together a few years ago to devise a plan to damage America and undermine its global position–diminish its power and credibility, drag it into a stubborn war, harm its relations with allies, create international financial disarray, run up huge deficits, create political openings for the Europeans and China to exploit and become equals in global economic matters, motivate terrorists, bring the U.S. image in the Middle East to its nadir, restrict civil liberties at home, and so forth–they would have been hard-pressed to create a program that would be more effective than the Bush administration’s policies on these issues of war, terrorism, and global economics have.

The spirit of Democracy is a corrective one. We acknowledge that leaders, agendas and strategies can be flawed, so we created a popular mechanism by which to assure regular change. In fact, as America pioneered democracy on all levels of government, our founding fathers were so committed to the idea of change that they assured it would happen, at lest incrementally every two years. The idea is that it is always better to try something new.

The Bush administration's unwillingness to examine itself and its failures, and attempt to find new solutions to old problems is fundamentally anti-democratic. Until somebody seriously starts proposing a new direction in Iraq, and in our foreign policy o...

The spirit of Democracy is a corrective one. We acknowledge that leaders, agendas and strategies can be flawed, so we created a popular mechanism by which to assure regular change. In fact, as America pioneered democracy on all levels of government, our founding fathers were so committed to the idea of change that they assured it would happen, at lest incrementally every two years. The idea is that it is always better to try something new.

The Bush administration's unwillingness to examine itself and its failures, and attempt to find new solutions to old problems is fundamentally anti-democratic. Until somebody seriously starts proposing a new direction in Iraq, and in our foreign policy on the whole, we will continue discredit our own democratic values, which is the greatest evidence we could offer our international critics that call us imperialists and oppressors.

When America can admit that it has made mistakes and move to correct them, we will see a vast improvement in our international reputation.

The word terrorism incites fear on its own. We should call these people religious fanatics and refocus our image of them.
Terrorism is not trivial, but it is self generating
By declaring war on terrorism, terrorists were given a credibility they do not deserve. The amplification of their actual abilities, for the sake of justification, does their work for them. What else do they need to do? The damage has been done. Their bark was worse than their bite. 9/11 was tragic, but it was committed by a relatively small group of insane people. The credibility given to the terrorists gave them power and 'prestige' and made the numbers of terrorists increase. You can't kill an idea like terrorism, yo...

The word terrorism incites fear on its own. We should call these people religious fanatics and refocus our image of them.
Terrorism is not trivial, but it is self generating
By declaring war on terrorism, terrorists were given a credibility they do not deserve. The amplification of their actual abilities, for the sake of justification, does their work for them. What else do they need to do? The damage has been done. Their bark was worse than their bite. 9/11 was tragic, but it was committed by a relatively small group of insane people. The credibility given to the terrorists gave them power and 'prestige' and made the numbers of terrorists increase. You can't kill an idea like terrorism, you can only discredit it by not being afraid. Look at the facts. The bombs can be destructive, but the shock and surprise can be as crippling.We just have to keep remembering that if ever there is an attack we need to keep a clear head to be able to help ourselves, and any injured, because there will not be any assurance of directions. Remember that we are more likely to see a fatal car accident,. After the initial shock, concentrating on the injuries of others, and telling them that they have survived. can occupy your full attention.
The Administration ?
In the future as time passes,what they have done will be seen with a more objective view. and it will be easier to learn more about what happened.
The Middle East has been at war or occupied for over 4000 years. Invaders have come and gone, it is the land bridge between Europe, Asia, and Africa.
Many countries, and cultures have passed through.but they have left the desert for the Arabs, the only ones who could handle the heat.
Terrorism is not viable.It is a corrupt program,
and ultimately self destructive.

If you have a point, try making it again, without the expletives.

I made my point very succintly. Horse "manure" doesn't have quite the same effect and excess verbage (see example below) just dilutes the point. I stand by my post. Why do pseudo intellectuals need to obfuscate things with excess horses**t?

The spirit of Democracy is a corrective one. We acknowledge that
leaders, agendas and strategies can be flawed, so we created a popular
mechanism by which to assure regular change. In fact, as America
pioneered democracy on all levels of government, our founding fathers
were so committed to the idea of change that they assured it would
happen, at lest incrementally e...

read more»

If you have a point, try making it again, without the expletives.

I made my point very succintly. Horse "manure" doesn't have quite the same effect and excess verbage (see example below) just dilutes the point. I stand by my post. Why do pseudo intellectuals need to obfuscate things with excess horses**t?

The spirit of Democracy is a corrective one. We acknowledge that
leaders, agendas and strategies can be flawed, so we created a popular
mechanism by which to assure regular change. In fact, as America
pioneered democracy on all levels of government, our founding fathers
were so committed to the idea of change that they assured it would
happen, at lest incrementally every two years. The idea is that it is
always better to try something new.

The Bush administration's
unwillingness to examine itself and its failures, and attempt to find
new solutions to old problems is fundamentally anti-democratic. Until
somebody seriously starts proposing a new direction in Iraq, and in our
foreign policy on the whole, we will continue discredit our own
democratic values, which is the greatest evidence we could offer our
international critics that call us imperialists and oppressors.

When
America can admit that it has made mistakes and move to correct them,
we will see a vast improvement in our international reputation.

What exactly makes a person a "pseudo intellectual"? I presume that you didn't mean that as a compliment?

I don't enjoy being insulted, but I'll let it slide, because if you have a point to make, I'd genuinely be interested in hearing it.

I don't mean to "obfuscate" anything with my "verbiage," and I'm sorry if it seemed that way. I add details and support to explain my beliefs. That way even if people disagree with me, they at least know my reasons, and can tell me why they think I'm right or wrong. We even may discover we agree on some things!

When you just insult me and call something horseshit (funny that you are bold enough to use the word but not enough to type it out, as if there w...

What exactly makes a person a "pseudo intellectual"? I presume that you didn't mean that as a compliment?

I don't enjoy being insulted, but I'll let it slide, because if you have a point to make, I'd genuinely be interested in hearing it.

I don't mean to "obfuscate" anything with my "verbiage," and I'm sorry if it seemed that way. I add details and support to explain my beliefs. That way even if people disagree with me, they at least know my reasons, and can tell me why they think I'm right or wrong. We even may discover we agree on some things!

When you just insult me and call something horseshit (funny that you are bold enough to use the word but not enough to type it out, as if there was any difference) but don't offer any explanation, it seems to me that you are saying I'm wrong simply for disagreeing with you.

Who knows? If you give me a good reason, i might even change my mind, (its happened before) but if all you do is insult people, you may find it hard to make them take you seriously.