Let's not forget the role that political expedience and posturing plays in all this.

Bob Barr, arch-conservative (his recent "libertarian" candidacy notwithstanding) was harshly critical of Bill Clinton sending troops to Somalia, and this includes well before the famous firefight that soured the country on the peacekeeping efforts there.

This is a laughable stance given his support for President George W Bush's invasion of Iraq, which was done for far less magnanimous not to mention far less valid reasons.

My point is that being opposed to whatever the hell your opposing party is doing is not a trick limited only to the US. When living in the UK I found it almost comic to watch how vociferously the Tories lambasted Labour for the Irag invasion, when you just know that were it their own party doing the invading it would likely elicit a different response from them.

In the 1990s then, we saw the right wingers in the US opposing military use overseas, and, one can only conclude, pretty much entirely because it was a Democratic President who was ordering it.

A very pertinent case in point: A WaPo article (URL below or click my screenname) shows how John McCain opposed Clinton's attack against Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998. It describes how the action was applauded by many, including even Republicans.

Some senators, it says, however, were less than positive:

"Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) ... criticized the administration for ignoring problems other than bin Laden, including Iraq dragging its feet on arms inspections..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/react082198.htm

So much for priorities, there's McCain on record being against chasing Bin Laden and for the distraction of Iraq.

Returning to your article, the point I'm making is that Labour has been in power in the UK for Donkey's years, or however that expression goes over there. The far right wing of the GOP has been in the White House on our side of the puddle. This, I submit, explains a lot of the difference. Not all, but a lot of it.

Glenn! Another great entry, filled with more TRUTH and substance than I get most other places. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I don't consider myself a fan of many reporters or bloggers, but I'm a fan of yours.

I'd like to write a few things that you probably think, but would weaken your strong journalistic style to say...

The people who wish to give power to an authoritarian government are amazingly STUPID and have an enormous amount of HUBRIS!

The obvious deflection of any serious conversation about suspending our right to habeas corpus, that used to work for...uh...hundreds of years, somehow has lost its magic. "Wouldn't you want the right of habeas corpus if YOU were mistakenly arrested as a suspected terrorist?" These fools must think - its the only conclusion I can come up with - that it just couldn't happen to them or anyone they cared about.

Next, you ask Neocons very simple questions that you know the answer to: "Do you want a President Obama having these powers?" Their answer: "That can't happen!" Are these people THAT shortsighted? Not a single Republican brought up the scenario of having a Democrat majority when they were discussing the "nucular option" of eliminating the filibuster from the rules of the Senate.

This stupid, plan-for-the-best-most-trustworthy-leaders attitude is pervasive and accounts for problems with Enron, WorldCom, the mortgage crisis, our war in Iraq, etc.

As a small business owner, if I planned for only the best-case scenarios...I'd be out of a job in no time.

Idiots! Fools! Imbeciles!

'Nough said. Thank you Supreme Court.

P.S. I can't believe 4 judges dissented. I mean, I can believe those men did...I just can't believe they are our justices.

Growing up, my mom perpetually lectured us on the dangers of extremism, both on the left and on the right. On the far left, she explained, individuals believed that all wealth would be accumulated and distributed fairly. This left the problem of who would control the power of those responsible for collection and distribution. This argument I clearly understood (as did most Americans at the time). The dangers of government power in a highly socialist society are clearly understood and appreciated by Americans. My mom warned of an equivalent danger on the extreme right -- she explained that on the far right, people do not believe in democracy. They believe in a government of the rich who believe that they know best how to run the country and the world. They are interested in power, and see no use for the messy busines of democracy. I never respected this argument or saw it as a real danger. More troubling, most Americans really do not perceive the extreme right as a threat to democracy itself. People have no problem thinking of the extreme left as unacceptable communists, but do not think of the extreme right as facists. We should all now be clear that the extremists on the right pose as much or more of threat to our democracy and the values of freedom and liberty at the core of our Constitution than extremists on the far left ever did.

I love hearing that from folks like Hannity. Yes, the radical activist jurists who upheld the 800 year old foundation of western democracy - habeus corpus.

What has happened in the US was and is being enabled not by the "right" or "conservatives", but by the government in toto. A more telling comparison arises between how the opposition parties in each system of government, UK and USA, are functioning.

While I don't deny Glenn's point in terms of exposing apparent deceit in political philosophy (or at least internal inconsistencies), the blame for what has happened in the US lies as much with the so-called opposition party as it does with the ruling party.

The opposition party in the US was and is complicit in the most egregious decisions made, and the rationale for these decisions and the willing participation/support by the opposition, had absolutely nothing to do with a failure of political philosophy.

In a similar vein, any difference in how the British government of the day reacted when Irish lads were terrorizing England has less to do with political philosophy than it does the cultural identity of the terrorists.