Bret, thanks for taking the time to express your true feelings. You're certainly good at ranting. If the robot thing doesn't work out, I'd suggest a career at FoxNews.
As for me, I don't really care for rants and counter-rants. I disagree with a lot of what you said, but don't have the time or interest to argue most of it. One thing you are right about: I am a Bush-hater. And, while I wouldn't do anything to prevent him getting elected, I would do anything that is not unethical, including getting as much "air time" for F9/11 as possible. (Thanks for continuing to stoke the fires!)
What has become more clear to me through this blog is that you and I are not so far apart when it comes to economic issues. We're both basically in support of free markets, free trade, and simplified tax structures; although we do disagree about deficit spending of the magnitude we are currently experiencing.
However, when it comes to politics, we are pretty far apart (though clearly there are extremes further to either side of both of us). From my perspective, it seems to me you are as paranoid as many of those making policy in our current administration. This is how you easily justify war against Iraq (a nation which, as it turns out, was not a serious threat to the U.S.). But, you are poor at recognizing the costs of war, including the possibility that war against Iraq is increasing the threat to us. (Just as disenfrachisement of the Palestinians by the Israeli government increases the threat to Israelis.) Further, shorn of the threat rationale, you point out how bad Saddam was to his own people. Indeed he was! But, certainly no worse than the Sudanese government is now being to approximately 1 million people (that's more than 3 times the innocent dead in Iraq) in Darfur. Or how about the atrocities of Rwanda and the Congo? Or how about a half dozen other African nations in which poor and corrupt governments are causing their populations to sink into mass misery and death due to disease and poverty? Or how about Burma? Why isn't the U.S. invading those nations? Because human suffering is a very weak reason for our government to act -- it's just that it's the only reason left for Iraq so our duplicitous government promotes it to gullible Americans who don't read newspapers.
(Don't misinterpret me, please. I'm not saying that no response is the right response. In fact, I think we should be doing much more in those other countries. I just wouldn't choose war as my tool.)
Bret, I don't expect to persuade you and I doubt that you will persuade me. I think that the "might makes right" approach to global politics is a horrible way for the U.S. to project itself. You can think (and print) whatever you want. I doubt that I'll be interested in engaging any further when it comes to this subject.