> On 4/9/06, ken hanly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Without the threat of WMD > > and massive retaliation no one who opposes US policy > > can hope for success.
On 4/9/06, Eubulides <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is this a prediction? > > It remains to be seen whether the *current administration* controlling > the institutions of the USG can credibly commit successor > administrations -and the voters who put them in office- to open-ended > arms races against any *imagined* rival or whether this is just a > classic testosterone fueled game of chicken that will de-escalate in > ways none of us are privy to before the next major election cycle in > the US. true, but the Bushistas can create conditions where the "middle" of the poltical spectrum (which politicians, journalists, etc compare themselves too) is so far to the right (as it were) that any "more moderate" alternative to Bush is locked into a vicious cycle of deteriorating relations with the rest of the world. For example, we already see Hillary Clinton defining herself this way and she's quite a hawk (by more objective standards) as a result. -- Jim Devine / "There can be no real individual freedom in the presence of economic insecurity." -- Chester Bowles
