I bow to your telepathic divination of my expertise - I wonder which one, being retired, or military or a patriot gives you such perspicaty.

I was simply pointing out that even based on official statistics, it is too early to be saying that the Surge has worked. There has been no armistice or disarming of combatants, and therefore it is entirely possible that the current relative lull in violence is like previous ones clearly visible in the graph.

You want to dispute that - please make your arguments, you've been reading Glenn Greenwald enough to know how to do that, by osmosis at least.

While "Retired Military Patriot" means you are probably older and more experienced than I, nothing gives you the right to make statements as you did without providing some reasons. From your comment is not even clear whether you think the Surge has worked or not.

In a flight to Asia a few days ago, I was seated next to an Englishman. He told me he had been in the military at the time of the Falklands conflict; that a whole group of soldiers were asked "which country was the greatest threat to the world?" and the unanimous answer was "the United States".

This in 1982 from the soldiers of the US's closest ally. My copassenger continues to think it to be true today.

It is then not beyond comprehension entirely that a bunch of Muslim fanatics, taught to see America as corrupt, evil (e.g., see the writings of Sayyid Qutb) think so as well. It is not acceptable, of course, to try to see the world through bin Laden's eyes, except in aid of annihilating him. But it is certainly legitimate to try to understand the viewpoint of those who are one's friends. Really the disbelievers need to look hard in the foreign policy mirror Ron Paul holds up. One might even come to think that American foreign policy is designed to provoke a neverending stream of enemies so that the military machine continues to be fed.

Yes, L.W.M., what I wrote about my copassenger is nothing but an anecdote. The anecdote has a point, however, when it is in line with some larger truth, and that is world opinion about the United States. It is an unpalatable truth, no doubt, but you can't dismiss it out of hand.

BTW, being on my blogroll is not an endorsement anymore than GG's writings about Ron Paul are an endorsement. Being on the blogroll means "here is interesting stuff".

Heroin became in effect legal in Pakistan during the Soviet Afghan war; and its effects are not good.

For just one story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1600712.stm

Whether or not we decriminalize drugs the ready availability of these substances is a danger to society. If not tightly regulated, the results you may see in Pakistan; if tightly regulated, criminal trade will be lucrative. I don't think there are easy answers.

...because we have a different understanding of what the founding fathers intended. The odd thing is that none of them were ever in agreement, either.

Agreement was there, but about the process, not about the results.

Lastly, LWM wanted to know what an Englishman might have thought of the US in 1940 - implying I think that 1982, too, is too long ago to be relevant. Actually, it is very relevant. 1982 is e.g., when bin Laden decided to settle in Peshawar, Pakistan, to aid the Mujahideen.

In the face of such idiocy the only thing one can do (if one cannot volunteer) is to make a monetary contribution to the Edwards campaign. Which I have done, and I hope others here will do too!

About Bush and the My Pet Goat thing. As much as I've come to despise him, I do not share the hostility about Bush's taking five to sit and collect his thoughts while others were already dealing as best they could with what they now knew was an attack of unknown magnitude on the nation. What was he supposed to do, just jump up and starting waving his arms and start screaming in front of all the tots? And the notion that Bush -- or any president under similar circumstances -- should have flown back to D.C. is absurd. No intelligent person should need to have that explained.

If I were President -

The nation is under attack, so I've been told.

There may be decisions that need Presidential authority that may be need to be made very fast.

"Children, I will have to excuse myself. I'm really sorry I'm missing your lesson. We will read "My Pet Goat" together some other day".

...

"Secret Service, get me to somewhere where defending against an attack on the President won't injure bystanders. And put me within immediate contact of Joint Chiefs of Staff, NORAD, blah, blah (I assume if I'm President, I know all the appropriate chains of command that will need me)."

and so on.

Only an utter moron of a President would sit in the place he was scheduled to be (and among children, too) when the nation was facing an attack of unknown magnitude and his presence was putting them at risk. Only an utter moron of a President would be away from where he could conference any of the nation's commanders in an instance and hang out in a classroom when the nation was facing an attack of unknown magnitude, and instant decisions with Presidential-level authority might be needed.

And it is very sad that people saw nothing wrong with Bush's blank stare, in 9/11's red glare, wondering if his brain was still there.