That wasn’t the reason we went in Yaman! Come on. 9/11, Bin Laden, and Al Qaeda were the reasons we invaded Afghanistan. And you didn’t embrace the idea, but you did say it:

when other factors are clearly the more prominent one: whether they be to build oil pipelines,

And as to the idea of the “increasing American power” abroad. I don’t think that’s so much the case. We didn’t topple the Taliban or Hussein to increase hegemony. That’s Telegraph-street rhetoric, completely devoid of any factual basis. Why didn’t we take out Tehran then? Which, by the way, has twice the oil reserves of Iraq, is building nuclear material for a bomb, and contributed to the 34-day war in Lebanon. It makes no sense.

it doesn’t matter if you condemn them with libservice–the point is that you completely support the rule of the House of Saud

Do you mean lip-service? No I don’t. I’d like to see Saudi Arabia governed by a secular government that invests in its infrastructure, not madrassas [look at other gulf-state governments]. Call it whatever you like, but you’re lying when you say I “completely” support a government which I loathe.

That’s nice, why doesn’t hamas run freedom of religion and let the jews be? Doesn’t sound democratic to me.

“Whether or not it’s possible to have tolerance and human rights in an Islamic state is, for all intents and purposes, moot, […]” Yaman.

You are truly a wonder of a kind Yaman.
99.99% of Americans put ‘human rights ‘ at the top of their lists of importance for any government they, the people, want to live under. After the United States Constitution was finished, most people in the states said they would not ratify it until a promise of a People’s Bill of Rights was issued to them all. I think this would be a good plan for Islam as a whole. Let people be people and live in tolerance.

“Anonymous, you make it sound like all of your comments have been about Islamic Law as a theoretical construct, but this is not the case in either tone or content.” Yaman

I see you care less, as long as Islamofascism procures its right, eh?

Islam is a theocracy, based upon an Islamic Law, geared toward classicism. That’s not in any shape or form a democratic formula. Lets stick to a deductive argument.

Your attempts at induction are off-topic. Let get back only to Islam and its governing formula, called the Sunnah.

It isn’t true according to whom? Any how do you define any “meaningful way?” See this link: http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/afghanistanunveiled/women.html. There is still much work to do in terms of women’s rights and equality in Afghanistan. But it also shows quite a bit of progress since the Taliban fell. More needs to be done, granted. But the situation is much better for an average Afghan woman than when Mullah Muhammad Omar was in control of the country.

Bush has made a career out of needless partisanship. He regularly works so that any bill that would recieve bipartisan support is continually marked up until no Democrat could ever support it. Bush has never given any indication that he is interested in bipartisanship.

No Child Left Behind? The new pension bill passed recently? The way he led the country immediately after September 11? And the argument can be made that Bush is partisan because his opposition is. It’s a two-way street. Dennis Kucinich and Michael Moore aren’t exactly emblems of bipartisanship.

You seem to think that something written by a “liberal” is defacto both an opinion and wrong

That’s ridiculous. I’m conservative in that I agree with many conservative principles and policies, not because I think everything liberal is wrong. I’m no fan of the administration’s environmental policy, its funding for math and science, or the massive deficit.

And as a response to your Washington-monthly article: take a look at my newest blog to see an example of the ridiculous foaming-at-the-mouth partisanship in Washington.

I’ve always thought that Republicans would be so concerned about actually winning the war on terror that they would oppose Bush using it as a cynical political campaign prop to be used in elections, even if it means harming our efforts in defeating the terrorists, but the Republicans continually prove me wrong…

The Bush administration shouldn’t put its best face forward in that we haven’t been attacked in 5 years on our own soil? That argument makes absolutely no sense.

All: So we’ve discussed abortion, Afghan women’s rights, American politics, Bush, SDI, and BCR. Does anyone have anything relevant to say about the original topic of this post or do we need to talk about the economic policies of Zimbabwe too?

Also, I may not have been explicit enough with my prior comment, as you seem to have taken it as a non sequitor.

You brought up the point that Afghani women don’t have to wear burqaas anymore. This is a conservative talking point, in the sense that it isn’t true, at least not in any meaningful way.

Now obviously this conversation isn’t about Afghanistan, I was just merely correcting your statement that things were going well over there. They aren’t. And things seem to be getting much much worse. And that probably almost entirely because of all of the troops we have pinned down in Iraq that can’t help in Afghanistan.

So again we’re left with a situation that Bush hasn’t handled to the best of his ability, and a political opposition that is too rabid with hatred for him to even sit down and discuss an alternate plan.
Are you for real? Bush has made a career out of needless partisanship. He regularly works so that any bill that would recieve bipartisan support is continually marked up until no Democrat could ever support it. Bush has never given any indication that he is interested in bipartisanship, and there is a long history of people who work with him receiving, at best, nothing in return, and oftentimes much worse.

You seem to think that something written by a “liberal” is defacto both an opinion and wrong, so I don’t think it would do much good to educate you by providing you with a link to a liberal site, but here is more on Bush and his needless partisanship. (And I’m not changing the subject, you brought it up.)

“After a calculated display of bipartisan mourning for public consumption, the Bush administration thereafter refused to consult with or even take notice of the existence of an opposition party. Republican consultants advised their clients to use the war as a wedge issue in reelection campaigns and the Republican leadership declared rhetorical war on mild-mannered Tom Daschle… The White House cynically proposed a union-busting plan for the Department of Homeland Security designed solely to arouse Democratic opposition. The President told cheering audiences that Senate Democrats didn’t care about the security of the country and campaigned tirelessly even against congressmen who had supported him.”
source: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_09/004753.php

I’ve always thought that Republicans would be so concerned about actually winning the war on terror that they would oppose Bush using it as a cynical political campaign prop to be used in elections, even if it means harming our efforts in defeating the terrorists, but the Republicans continually prove me wrong…