We’re going to be in this part of the world. We aren’t going to leave. Now, we can readjust our strategy for Iraq. We can extricate our troops from the sectarian violence. But we’re going to have to contain the problems that could spill over and the—and cause this critical part of the world to spin out of control.

Zinni is a full-fledged member of the Imperial War Party, it's just that he's a rationalist, unlike the neo-cons. He and James Baker would probably get along just fine in running the world the way it "should" be run, unlike the clueless Mayberry Machiavelli's in charge now.

What needs to happen, with people of good will in both the Democratic and Republican parties, is that America has to decide if we're going to be an empire or not. I say not -- as do Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM). We should get out of the Middle East, close our bases, and leave. If the oil-having countries there don't want to sell us oil once we leave their territories and stop bothering their citizens, I'd be very surprised. And if Israel can't fend off its neighbors with its load of nukes, perhaps it should start talking to a few neighbors -- but that's Israel's problem to solve, not mine or America's. This is a discussion that is long overdue.

The Founders had a good idea -- no entangling alliances, no standing armies, friends/trade with all, enemies with none. It's time for the U.S. to decide whether it will consciously abandon those ideas, or not.

Babblemouth me this morning. The War Tsar idea is NOT dead, via antiwar.com:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18089899/from/ET/

Had to go out to JFK airport in NYC yesterday to meet someone. At the first airport monorail stop, a group of 6 or 7 young soldiers got on, dressed in desert camo (at JFK?), berets at a jaunty angle, nice big black M-16s in their hands. They didn't make eye contact with any of us civilians, but were having some sort of argument among themselves and didn't seem very happy. It was a very odd feeling, looking at these kids, who -- if they hadn't been in uniform with rifles -- I would have ignored, but realizing that if I or anyone else in the train did something these soldiers didn't like...well, we could be detained, arrested, even shot, if they got really nervous. I had no faith in these soldiers and their judgment and in fact felt very insecure, especially because my husband is dark and is frequently taken for a Middle Easterner. In fact, I was scared (and thinking about how Iraqis must feel, who don't speak the soldiers' language and don't understand their customs). It was extremely unpleasant and very sobering. Everyone in the train was silent until the soldiers got off.

Big brother is watching us, and his little brother has guns.

Oddly enough, the Birchers have been against the Iraq war from the beginning -- too expanding of the executive and of federal power. So, while they may be strange, and have certainly touted some odd stuff in the past, they're hanging out with the libruls on this one.

Not all right wingers think alike, anymore than Joe Lieberman represents most Dems who post here (I would guess the latter to be the case anyway...)

Has anyone seen or heard from Clownsense/BeBop? He hasn't posted for a while.

sysprog -- Walcott's speech brought tears to my eyes. Dang.

that, argubly, is the worst thing about the "war on terror"--that all the evil it does depends on a vampire-like feeding on the common decency of the American people, who, like Jessica Lynch, simply cannot comprehend the evil that now rules over us.

Yes, yes, yes. This has always made me very mad. The Bushies have appealed to that in Americans that looks to the best -- their love of country, a longing for community and an ideal worth fighting for. Then they told Americans that anyone who disagreed with Dear Leader hated all those good things. Damn their eyes.

I believe there's a special place in the inferno for those who twist other people's goodness to their own evil ends.

ATSJer,if you're serious about news sources,I recommend several blogs in addition to this one,including Juan Cole's Informed Comment(the Middle East),Dean Baker's Beat the Press(economics),and Larry Johnson's No Quarter(the war,etc.).Robert Parry,one of the few Washington journalists who weren't fellating Reagan in the 80's,has a site called Consortium.TomDispatch and Counterpunch also offer a wide variety of excellent writers and thinkers.

For electronic media,DemocracyNow is an indispensible daily news show.INN Report(I get it on DishNetwork channel 9415) also provides more critical reporting than you'll find on the conventional networks.

-- AnonE.Mouse

One of my favorite news compilers is Antiwar.com. They're libertarian, which will irritate some, but they consistently gather news from all over and they are catholic in their sources -- Juan Cole, American Conservative mag, Haaretz, Counterpunch, Democracy Now, and many more (including frequent links to Glenn's articles). They were on the aluminum tube/Niger forgery/mobile labs/drone weapons delivery stories as that crap was being shoveled and were really the sole reason I personally realized the pre-Iraq war justifications were a complete crock.

And for any die-hard cons out there, Antiwar.com got their start as a protest against Clinton's Serbia adventure -- they aren't simply "Bush bashers" (altho how anyone who's not in a coma could be pro Bush at this point is beyond me, beyond that's a bit OT,init?).

beyond that's a bit OT,init?

BUT that's a bit OT. :)