Bobert, I didn't mention a profit motive, so your last line mystifies me. As to the rest of your post, I think it's fine to "think peace," but I don't believe that thinking peace is going to get us where we need to be. We're dealing with something pretty ugly here, and starry-eyed suggestions that we can make everything right by thinking good thoughts don't really cut it for me.

I may be more of a Clinton lover than you; I voted for the man twice, think that his Presidency is underrated (and that his personal shortcomings are overrated), and frankly would have voted for him a third time if not for the two-term rule. I also voted for Gore in 2000, and still believe that we would be in better shape if he had won the race (let's agree that we won't quibble in this thread over whether or not he "won"). One thing that I think Clinton did right, that I think Gore would have done right, and that I think Bush has done wrong, is to maintain a deep and sustained level of engagement in the politics of the Middle East, rather than just rushing in when there's a crisis and expecting to solve everyone's problems at the 11th hour. I think our disengagement from the region throughout 2001 allowed some of the problems there to go from bad to worse; I don't claim to know exactly how things would have gone if we had been more involved, but I think the world would be in better shape than it is now. Bush is currently learning a very painful lesson that his disparaging comments about "nation building" during the 2000 campaign were foolish.

However, I do agree with the Bush administration's prosecution of the war on terrorism, including probable future military involvement in Iraq. It's no surprise that the worldwide outpouring of sympathy after September 11th has diminished; we knew it would. We also knew that most of the foreign governments that we consider friends and staunch allies would still prefer for the US to do the heavy lifting, while they made disapproving noises for the benefit of the world press. But I happen to believe that it is essential that we use the power that we do have to diminish some very real threats to the US -- and, not incidentally, to much of the rest of the world -- posed by terrorist networks that are sponsored and supported by foreign governments (such as al Qaeda), or directly posed by the foreign governments themselves (such as Iraq). It's not a pretty business, people will get hurt and killed in the process, and the outcome is uncertain, as it is with all wars. But I believe it is necessary, and I think the US government would be incredibly irresponsible to ignore the very real threats that are out there, or to be squeamish about using our warmaking power to diminish those threats when that is called for.

Keep thinking those good thoughts, though; I'm sure it helps. -- WS