And (for LL), a "National Conversation" in this country is often not at all like a Garden Party with the Queen. It can become a real knock-down drag-out, and it can last a good long time, and almost when you least expect it, the forces of righteousness can be victorious.

Please excuse me for picking out the term National Conversation from your fine post with which I heartily agreed.
It was that in that term I found an opportunity to indulge in a little Dadaist humour.

Dada was of course an art movement that emerged in Germany shortly after the first world war. When I first heard of it as a kid I was told it was mad and humorous. Naturally I wished to know more. When I eventually got to see some books on it or saw and exhibition at the Tate I can't now remember which I was immediately and overwhelmingly struck by the sheer rage that both underlay and fuelled the surface humour.

Were there ever to be a latter day American Dadaist exhibition drawn from these wars experience which by god supplies material enough on which to build one I would hope to see liberal war supporter dragged in chains around the exhibits being yelled at to laugh at the paintings after which thoroughly disturbing experience they might remember in future never ever to support a fucking war that you yourself are not prepared to go and fight in.

It's a very simple Litmus test for finding out whether a war is worth the fight or not. Would you be prepared to sacrifice you and yours in the effort? If you wouldn't it means that the war can't quite be that necessary and that therefore you can't have really and truly have been in a clear and present danger.

Thought: The non serving Liberals support for a war that they are not prepared to fight in is even MORE repugnant than a knowing neocons refusal to fight in a war that they wished to happen.

Being a jibbering cretin of a big girl's blouse on account of 9/11 is absolutely no excuse at all.

you know, I recall David Thewlis flinging the epithet "big girl's blouse" in the movie "Naked" and always thought it was something he (the character, really, though in Leigh's films the lines are rather blurred, particularly when it comes to the creation of the dialogue) just came up with off the top of his head.

But I guess it's another Britishism I wasn't aware of.

If you're interested in the nuances of the non-American view of the USA, I would recommend picking up a copy of Granta issue # 77. It was the first one published after 9/11. The theme of the issue is "What We Think of America."

It's a collection of writers from around the world describing their with America -- the place, the culture or the (usually) business end (no pun intended) of its foreign policy. It's full of nuance and conflicting impulses the way human emotions often are.

Raja Shehadeh in particular expresses the Palestinian POV in a way I've never read anywhere else.

Here's the blurb for the issue:

The September 11 attacks on the US provoked shock and pity in the rest of the world, but mingled with the sympathy was something harsher: anti-Americanism. It wasn't confined to the West Bank or Kabul. It could be heard in English country pubs, in the bars of Paris and Rome, the tea stalls of New Delhi. ‘Hubris’ was the general idea: in one opinion poll, two-thirds of the respondents outside the US agreed to the proposition that it was ‘good that Americans now know what it’s like to be vulnerable’.

Is the US really so disliked? If so, why? In this issue twenty-four writers drawn from many countries describe the part America has played in their lives – for better or worse – and deliver their estimates of the good and the bad it has done as the world's supreme political, military, economic and cultural power.

http://www.granta.com/Magazine/77

Amazing. But maybe just a little too subtle. And you do leave me wondering if you control your talent or the other way around. Of course, the appearance of perching on the tip of a high tower next to a deep ravine is part of the charm.

...describing their *encounter* with America...

Well, well. The little war-monger is upset that folks in these parts mention the multi-front war that the Obama administration is fighting. It was OK to mention it back when the ReThugs were in power, but now that the Democrats control the government? Not so much. The horrible wars seem to have morphed into "humanitarian operations". Orwell, call your office!

I must admit, we have the little fellow sputtering his obscenities these last few threads. However, it is a simple fact that waging war overtly in three countries, and covertly in Horace knows how many others, will cause the military to use torture. This is an historical fact. And if torture is used, some will die: also an historical fact.

The answer to stopping the torture and many other ills is to stop being the evil empire of the world. Stop spreading the anti-Iran propaganda. Lobby your representatives to stop wasting money on covert operations to overthrow other governments. Get out of the middle east entirely. Leave other nations along, and learn to get along.

This 4th of July, pray that the troops all come home to defend this country and never again bomb innocent women at a wedding ceremony. What is next? Napalm a baby shower?

This news analysis by Simon Romero in the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/world/americas/01venez.html

Obama’s Stance Deflects Chávez’s Finger-Pointing

has this:

"Mr. Chávez portrays his support for Mr. Zelaya as another example of championing his brand of democracy, which often centers on strong presidencies at the expense of other branches of government."

--- Isn't that brand of democracy gaining hold here in the US of A, too?

and this:

"Meanwhile, Mr. Chávez’s threats of belligerence in Central America led one opposition party here, Acción Democrática, to issue a statement on Monday that was full of irony: “Hugo Chávez has become the George Bush of Latin America.”"

--- So far one can say that Obama is more inclined towards diplomacy than the use of force - but will that hold?