that immunitity from criticism is the first step that leads directly to failure.

The reason Tony Snow is trying this tactic is because it works. Many people approach the military with the same kind of deference that others associate with religious observance. Thus the same kind of taboos apply - unless of course your a member of the priesthood.

This is an angle that I don't get think gets near enough attention. One of the reasons Iran is emboldened to the point that they are is that we've shown our cards. They know what we are capable of and it ain't much. We can certainly blow things up at will, but as Iraq makes clear that doesn't mean squat when your actually trying to govern a country or otherwise control events on the ground.

The good news is that you don't read too many fantasies anymore that all we have to do is lob a few well-placed missles and the populace will miraculously overthrow their government and embrace Western-Style democracy. But I'd bet there are still a few Neocon strategists who are still scratching their heads wondering why it doesn't happen that way.

at the time and haven't learned enough history since to feel qualified to judge Paul R's interpretation of LBJ's motives.

But this paragraph needs to be shouted from the rooftops!

Second, that there is a direct and simple connection between LBJ's fear of being red-baited and the current crop of Beltway Dems fear of being labelled "pro-terrorist." It's important to remind them, ourselves, and everyone else that running scared of being labelled "soft" can have disasterous consequences.

The degree to which I've seen people being bullied into supporting the current war against their own better judgment certainly lends credence to the red-baiting theory. If you doubt it - remember the Dixie Chicks.

I've always thought that the word "terrorist" should be defined as anyone who has committed an act of terrorism or anyone who plans on committing an act of terrorism in the future. It's seems perfectly reasonable and it encompasses thousands of dangerous people. Unfortunatetly now "terrorist" has been redefined to include anybody who doesn't like the USA plus anybody who happens to occupy any real estate we're targeting at the moment. So we've instantly gone from facing thousands of terrorists to facing millions! No wonder the chickhawks are so scared!

What you've described in your post, is the redefinition of the word "insurgent" in precisely the same manner. It does make things more difficult when insurgents are routinely elected in the Democracies we're so busy imposing. But nevertheless in this Orwellian world we now occupy, "insurgencies" are bound to be springing up all over the place. All we have to do is target a building and "POOF", its instantly filled with insurgents!

In short if there's no notion of rule of law that actually means anything, and since at the end of the day all international agreements are voluntary and not enforceable perhaps we should simply abandon the idea that negotiations and agreements mean anything at all.

You've just decribed the Bush/Cheney philosophy in its entirety in a single sentence.

Than was actually placed there

All I said (and I thought I was reasonably clear) is that our leaders (and their enablers in the media) choose their language in such a way to shape attitudes to justify anything they choose. There are terrorists then there are terrorists. By expanding the word to mean just about any Muslim who harbors ill feelings toward the USA, we suddenly have moral clearance to spread mahem wherever we choose.

I said absolutley nothing about the justification or lack thereof for actions against Iran. I simply noted that the NYT was using language specifically designed to provide moral cover, if and when a military strike takes place.

If

A: You can write in complete sentences.

B: Are capable of being polite even when you fuming and

C: Really want to help matters, then by all means write letters to the editor. Target your local paper. Target the perpetrator if its national media. Be polite and accurate.

The blogosphere is often dismissed as being shrill and angry. The fact that the things that make us angry would make ANY thinking being on the planet angry is then dismissed out of hand. But if you are sincere, then your voice is needed.

Well that would be...Introducing...the Bunkerbusters!

This country has changed A LOT since 2003. It's sometimes easy to forget just how insane things were in the run-up to Iraq.

If I'm ever in danger of forgetting I simply remember Clear-Channel and The Dixie Chicks and it all comes rushing back.

As opposed to a brand name...or franchise.

You TOO can be a member of a worldwide terrorist network. All you need to is send 2 box-tops and 4.95 to Al-Qaeda Worldwide headquarters PO Box 555, Pakistan. Please allow 6 weeks for delivery of your official membership card, decoder ring and laptop full of photos of US landmarks! Supplies are limited so act now!

Oh yeah?!! You and what army?!

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3819