Well since you're not going to play...
I guess I will
"1: Wars of Aggression"
First I have to ask this question: Is there any other kind of war? One does not go to war to sit around and argue over a Bridge game. Here's a link
http://www.cpa.org.au/campaign/ushistory.pdf excluding the present look at what these wars were for. Sadly, in many of these wars good ole Democrats truned their backs on the regimes we were originally supporting and allowed Communism to take over those countries and millions died, not because of the "War of Aggression" but because of a lack thereof or continuance.
"2: The tanking of decades-old alliances"
As has been stated many of these "decades-old alliances" were more lip service than anything. Whenever the US elected to act, many of our allies turned their backs on us and it was obvious just how sound those alliances were. But to say that Bush tanked these alliances is assinine. The biggest problem is that you only know what you're being fed and not all that's going on. Strangely we managed to get the rebuilding of Iraq resolution unnanimously approved by the UN Security Council. Even those who's support Bush "tanked" signed on. Amazing isn't it?
"3: The squandering of world-wide sympathy and support after 9/11"
Again it's already been said but where have you been? People that support you don't attack you. Much of Europe has taken an anti-American stance and this is nothing new. It's been going on for year prior to 9/11. Typically WE support the world communities, not the other way around. Need proof? Name the last war fought on American soil along side our allies? Now name the last war fought on foreign soil along side our allies. Here's a link to get you started
http://web.syr.edu/~laroux/history/history.html This is the French and Indian war but does go on into the Seven Years War as well. Happy reading.
"4: Unconstitutional violations of civil liberties"
While I agree there are some things that have been done that can and probably will incroach on our liberties I don't believe there are any presently set up by the Bush administration that directly affect our individual liberties. Example:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html
The Patriot Act. Good and bad points depending on who's wielding the power. Were something like this in place with the Clintons in office you can bet there would have been rights violations all over the place for political gain and the maintainence of political power.
"5: War profiteering"
Bush is profitting from this war? Perhaps he's profitting in National Security? Monetarily I would like for you to show me just how much money he has made off this war and how much he stands to make if you don't mind. Show me where President or anyone else in his administration has laid claim to anything in Iraq if you would be so kind (and No Cheney has nothing to do with Haliburton anymore since he sold off all his intrests in that company (at a loss no less) to appease the left when he and President Bush took office.)
"6: Criminal violations of law (outing a CIA spy to punish her husband)"
I am in total agreement with you on this one except for one small detail; the White House didn't leak this information. Amazingly, Joseph Wilson himself named his wife Valerie Plame in his bio on the Middle East Institute web site but strangely enough now the link I originally read the bio on no longer works: Here are Robert Novaks stories first about Joseph Wilson where his wife is named and identified and secondly his debunking of the idea that the White House leaked anything to him:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030714.shtml
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak01.html
Enjoy
"7: Lies upon lies upon lies"
If you're talking about the Clinton administration I agree, but since I know you're talking about the Bush administration, what lies are you referring to? I've argued this subject ad nauseum and have come to the conclusion that ignorance is bliss for some people. No amount of education, fact, documentation, common sense or reasoning will make a difference for some. They are convinced that Bush lied even though they have absolutely no proof whatsoever to back this assertion up. Sad. Truly sad. Don't ask me to prove he didn't lie I want you to prove he did. I and others have laid out so much information debunking these "Bush lied" assertions that it's not worth our time anymore.
"8: ..."
This one is tricky. It's either the definitive sign for infinity as written in computer speak or it's a failed attempt at some strange emoticon
Wichever it is I'm sure it would have been cool.
Take care,
DRC
Malone! Buddy! Where have you been young man? Good to see you.
"This thread is a perfect example of why I haven't missed anything by being gone on fires for the last couple of months."
You can say that again. They're bringing up the "Bush lied" BS again.
"It doesn't matter whether Saddam was a threat to some people. Trying to talk rationally to jingoistic followers is futile."
Boy, don't I know that one! Been dealing with it since I signed on to THR.
"The fact that it is against international law to make unilateral, preemptive war is also immaterial to those that don't respect the law."
You know? This is why I like you. Your attention to detail on the issues. So what and when were the "International Police" going to do about all the other law breakers? I equate International law to being the best ballerina in all of Galveston; it sounds good but doesn't mean anything. Hell, the only country that has ever obeyed International Law IS the USA, plus wasn't Saddam breaking International Law? 18 or 19 of them if memory serves and the "International Police" were doing virtually...No wait. They were doing absolutely nothing about it. It's so nice to see how effective International Law can be especially when it's not "International" at all when these laws only apply to one country; the USA!
And how dare you call me a jingoist! I prefer Warmonger IF you don't mind. Remember that for future reference please.
DRC
PS. Good to see you're back safe. Hope all went well.