That's an interesting observation. A similar comment was made over at Insignificant Thoughts about how the Democrats have nothing good to say (glass half empty).

Isn't that the nature of politics?

When Clinton was in charge, Dems where happy little clams - stock market is booming, we're at peace with the world, everyone's making money hand-over-fist. The Repubs were all doom and gloom over the "shameful conduct in the Oval office" bringing disgrace to the country, how we were wimps militarily, spending spiraling out of control, on and on.

I'm sitting here - as a registered Independent with a Libertarian mindset - and I just laugh. People need to look at what's really happening, and not try and view it through rose-colored or gray-colored glasses.

Personally, I'm happy as hell that the economy is turning around and more people are employed. That means I'm making more money in the stock market, and my company will stay healthy because of improved cash flow. The better the economy, the more years I can knock off of my retirement date!

My dislike of Bush is based on one single, irrefutable thing: He invaded Iraq.

I'll do my damnedest to get him booted from office because of it.

Mike,

The primary reason why I like Bush is exactly why you dislike him. He removed a murderous dictator from power who was not only commiting atrocities, but aiding and abetting terrorists, funding terrorists, and paying off, to the tune of billions, the very same people (read, UN) who were in charge of making sure he did not resurface as a threat.

Mike S is hardly good libertarian. Applying any kind of utilitarian calculus, more good has been done by the removal of Saddam than would have been achieved by allowing him to remain and subsidize terror (recall the many 5-figure checks sent to Palestinian terrorists) and AT LEAST the R&D for the realization of a Terrorist Nuke.

Even Ed Koch, who agrees with NONE of Dubya's social policies, sees him as the ONLY choice. If we don't stop Islamofascism world war is inevitable.

We could have done a lot of good by waking up to Hitler's outspoken PROMISES in the 1930's and stopping him then.

Neutrality is nihilism.

Val, the more important question...is...what is your glass half full of?

Hatuey? Budweiser? Miller Lite?

--s

Sorry, Aaron, you have no clue what it means to be a libertarian.

Militarily, it means protecting Americans, not meddling where ever we perceive there to be a potential problem. It too, can mean helping to defend our allies when they have been attacked. Kuwait, and Western Europe in WWII are good examples. The rationale being that they would come to our assistance in our time of need.

Iraq is akin to Vietnam. There was a government in place with whom we disagreed, so we take it upon ourselves to make a change.

Saddam being gone is good for one country only: Iraq. If he genuinely threatened our only true ally in the region - Israel - they would have taken care of the problem, and we'd help clean up if necessary.

This has been a waste of lives and treasure. The 5-figure checks you complain about are dwarfed by the 12-figure check we've written to date.

Tell you what Mike, I prefer fighting saddam and the likes in Bagdhad than in Boston. Sooner or later they were gonna bring the fight back to us, as 9/11 confirms. You have to be pretty myopic to not see this.

Val, that's it exactly: they are going to bring it here anyway. What we're doing in Iraq won't stop that movement one little bit.

If we had taken that (soon to be) $160 billion and spent it on our intelligence agencies, border patrol/Visa enforcement/Coast Guard, bomb sniffing machines in every airport, and a myriad of other things, we'd be much safer, and their chances of a successful attack would be much, much less.

This war in Iraq is breeding more and more fanatics that are willing to give up their lives because of what we're doing over there.

No Mike. By taking the war to them what we are doing is effectively bringing them out into the open. Thus dealing with the disease and not the symptoms.

If we had taken that (soon to be) $160 billion and spent it on our intelligence agencies, border patrol/Visa enforcement/Coast Guard, bomb sniffing machines in every airport, and a myriad of other things, we'd be much safer, and their chances of a successful attack would be much, much less.

Oh come on man. Had Bush done this then there would be those complaining about the security measures and having the rights trampled on and yada yada yada. Perhaps if the previous administration hadnt cut the intelligence budget the way it did we wouldnt be having this conversation.

You'll get no argument from me about Clinton. I lay the vast majority of 9/11 at his feet. His gutting of those organizations, plus the asinine rules, such as not being able to go under cover to use a terrorist as a source, is simply mind boggling.

Certainly, you'd get people pissed off about tighter border restrictions, but so what? Our government is charged with protecting them. The problem is, we're not even enforcing the laws on the books we have right now. That's just insane.

I don't think there'd be too much bitching about the bomb-sniffing machines, nor with putting the anti-SAM flares on jetliners - at least not by anyone who ever flies!

I gotta run. Thanks for the discussion. It was a good one.

All this talk about "true libertarianism" is nonsense. The fact is there is disagreement within libertarians (small "l") regarding the invasion of Iraq. While the Libertarian Party has taken an isolationist - some might even say cowardly - stance toward the invasion of Iraq and terrorism in general, there are plenty of libertarians out there who recognize the threat of Islamofascism and support the use of the state to systematically destroy it. BTW Mike S., I'm a registered independent with libertarian leanings and I supported the invasion of Iraq.

I am a REPUBLICAN because of great men like President Reagan and terrible leaders like President Clinton. Democrats historically have made a mess of the country while in power. Please don't even bring up President Carter. Could you get any dumber?

I am a DEMOCRAT because of great men like President Clinton, who had his priorities straight: making opportunity available for more Americans and expanding access to healthcare.

As differentiated by the mob of thugs at the levels of power now: petty insignificant men and women who see the government as a grand opportunity to line their pockets and further tilt the playing field in favor of monied, powerful interests. Disgusting individuals who think that asking corporations to pay their fair share of taxes is a bigger sin than having children without health insurance, and public schools with too few textbooks and too many students. jerks.