Very nice to see PM Blair and President Bush confirming the culmination of 9 months of behind the scenes diplomacy with Libya, begun at the behest of Colonel Gaddafi no less.

Washington reports that Libya has already shared detailed information about its WMD & missile programs with both UK and US intelligence services.

Libya will allow open inspections of its programs, and transparent supervision of their dismantlement - "immediately and unconditionally". Libya will sign the applicable treaties. Libya will cooperate in the War on Terror.

With these steps, and the Lockerbie settlement, Libya will begin to enjoy the benefits of rejoining the brotherhood of nations.

To paraphrase the president, old enemies need not be enemies any longer.

It would seem more likely that Howard Dean's "straight talk" candidacy and Wes Clark's ability to do things better than GW has frightened Colonel Gaddafi into taking action rather than dealing with either at a later date.
--
Rob

SW Montana's Online Community
Modular Model Railroading

Maybe Hillary Clinton's reputation as someone not to be triffled with?
--
Rob

SW Montana's Online Community
Modular Model Railroading

Well let's face it, of that bunch - Hillary is the smarter politician.

And if you've got a triple digit IQ, you can consider yourself smarter than George Bush Junior

----
Cheers,

Dan
Founder and CEO

LionsGate Creative
GoodPassRobot
Magelln

Can't attack the result, so your best response is a grade school insult? Ah I see you're referring to my Hillary comment.

I'm complimenting Hillary. Her position is more thought out, and will stand the political test better than Dean's. I think she's perfectly happy to let Dean & Gore take the rabid bunch off the reservation with them, she'll be well placed to put it all back together in '08.

Actually, I don't consider my remark an insult - at least, not in principle. And, certainly no more insulting than much of the archetypical neoconservative rhetoric (one thinks of Rush Limbaugh as just one example of many). I find it doubtful that Hillary Clinton will ever be successful in a run for the Oval Office. A female conservative maybe (one thinks of Thatcher - exception that proves the rule?). A big maybe. But a female democrat? Unlikely in my (albeit non-American) eyes. Americans are too fearful or leary of liberal ideologies - that sometimes conflict with traditional (and often archaic) Christian values held closest by conservatives. And to elect a woman liberal as President, may be too much for the electorate (conservatives and even many democrats) to swallow. Seems like a lost cause, and something that conservatives might embrace, thinking it would secure a third consecutive conservative term in the Oval Office. I'd be interested in your take on Hillary Clinton running for President. For example, what (if anything in your eyes) can she bring to the table, and what chances does she have to garner support from both democrats and conservatives. 2008 may be the more interesting election.

----
Cheers,

Dan
Founder and CEO

LionsGate Creative
GoodPassRobot
Magelln

At least with GW, the discussions start with his intellect. With his predecessor, the abilities discussed were rarely above the belt, so to speak.
--
Rob

SW Montana's Online Community
Modular Model Railroading

I think I'd prefer to have something with an overactive libido (even when proven to fall outside the normal bounds of marriage), than someone with an underactive IQ

----
Cheers,

Dan
Founder and CEO

LionsGate Creative
GoodPassRobot
Magelln

You really need to let go of "necon" as a driving force of the current administration. That's bordering on 'black helicopter' thinking. Conservatism is a big tent, with more falling into the economic/foreign policy side than the purely religious end of the classification. The thing to remember about Bush is that he's a political realist. But one that is also willing to gamble the political capital he's cached with the far right on policies they oppose. Love him or hate him, he's a leader - not a follower.

Also a more pragmatic approach to American politics may help avoid those easy mistakes. The broad middle, and right, of the American political spectrum have not rejected the liberal left because of fear - they reject it because of its failures, and the perceived failures of those countries that embrace it. Individuality, risk, freedom, chance, and free will...these things are particularly American and anathema to the left. The small-L libertarian belief trumps it and is deeply ingrained in the American psyche.

Onto the more interesting subject of Hillary and a presidential run. She could have a very successful bid for her party's nomination, and make a very serious run in the general election. Depending on who opposes her, she could very well win the general election against a weak opponent. It would be close though.

In Hillary's foreign policy speeches, she takes great care to follow in the other Clinton's footsteps. He is after all the only candidate from their party to take the office in the last 24 years, and he did it by securing the middle ground. Hillary knows that is the key to a Democrat win. Add the gender issue in and she, or any other she, will have to be strong on defense and homeland security issues. Even having a military general fill the VP slot would not be enough, the head of the ticket will have to sell strength.

While Dean continues his anti-war rant, urged on by Gore, she's solidified her position by supporting the war and the anti-terror campaigns. She knows when to be critical of the current administration, and when to support the winning--and correct--position. That's pure political ability and I think she has it in spades.

There could also be a couple of interesting Republican party female presidential candidates emerge. A head to head campaign would be terrific television, but I don't think it's likely in '08.

Hillary's option in '08 will be driven by whether or not she can overcome her high negative opinion numbers. I'm sure her people will be tracking that regularly for foreseeable future.

That's bordering on 'black helicopter' thinking

There we go =) Conservatives seem to be fixated on black helicopters as I only seem to hear it from them - and it's from whom I first heard about them. This would exemplify archetypical neoconservative rhetotic. But this is not to say, that I'm 'labelling' you as a neocon - just the tactic. However, liberal ideologies have not failed Canada. But conservative ideologies have failed in Canada, under the umbrella of Brian Mulroney (whose Conservative party was virtually wiped out until it just merged with the Alliance Party of Canada) and the [old] Alliance Party of Canada, to name a few. And you can find other examples throughout the World - where both rightwing (and leftwing) politics have failed. Successes occur in the middle of the road, not on the extremes - which is a large part of why the Canadian Liberal Party has been so successful. Gay marriage (no failures that I know of - but any would be irrelevant) is possible in countries like Canada, because (in part) we adopt more middle of the road liberal ideologies, driven more by ethical principles rather than religious principles (and so-called time-changing morals). However, America is still not terribly extremeist, so if Hillary Clinton can secure the middle ground, maybe. But America will still be at war. Can the American people elect a woman as their commander-in-chief during time of war? In peacetime, I'd say yes. Otherwise, it is dubious. Maybe if the US does way with the Electoral College.

----
Cheers,

Dan
Founder and CEO

LionsGate Creative
GoodPassRobot
Magelln

Dan,

I don't understand what the Electoral College has to do with the election of a female president/commander-in-chief, either during war or peace time??

I would say the Electoral College serves several purposes:

• In extremely close presidential races, the "winner take all" method helps to create a definative national "winner" based on electoral college votes.
• Winning state by state also helps prevent a nation wide vote recount and limits the size of any potential recount to a specific state or counties in a state.
• Each state has the same number of electoral votes as they do representatives and senators. Its purpose is similar to that of the senate, to help protect the rights of the opposition/minority or small states.

Without the Electoral College, there could possibly be either a tie and/or prolonged, nation-wide vote recounting.

There are also valid and reasonable reasons to dislike/criticize the Electoral College, but in the last Presidential election cycle, no candidate complained about the Electoral College until election day.

AFAIK, none of the 9 or so current Democratic Presidential Candidates have made abolition of the Electoral College a main issue in their campaigns.
--
Rob

SW Montana's Online Community
Modular Model Railroading

Fair enough. But there has been talk in the US for some time in some circles about disbanding (or at least revising) the Electoral College. One can make valid arguments against and in favour. Personally I'd prefer to vote for my person directly, rather than elect a group of people who promise to cast their vote in favour of the person I chose. And I'd prefer to have the majority chosen person as the one elected to office. Recounts can be a thing of the past with nationally standardized electronic ballots (Electronic College ). Unless I misunderstand your process or your point, I see a tie as more likely under the Electoral College - in terms of the number of cast (popular vote) ballots versus the number of Electoral College votes. Oh well, you Yanks always have to be different

----
Cheers,

Dan
Founder and CEO

LionsGate Creative
GoodPassRobot
Magelln

True. There may be a better way to elect a President in 2004, but when the Consitution was written, most things traveled at the speed of a horse.

Being a Yank, I've always looked at the parlimentary system rather critically. The US tradition and system tries to allow for stability and predictable change. A citizen can make plans based on the assumption that legal/political/economic system 5 years from now will not be significantly different than it is now. Any change will be slow and allow the country to adjust.

From this perspective, the parlimentary system looks kind of frightening. At any moment the country can have a "no confidence" vote and the entire government changes.

How do you like the multi-party parlimentary system?
--
Rob

SW Montana's Online Community
Modular Model Railroading

Non-confidence votes are very rare and few between. I believe the last one was back in 1979, when Joe "Who" Clark's minority conservative government was defeated after less than a year in power on a non-confidence vote - and then shortly after, lost the 1980 election. At least in Canada and the UK, elections typically occur every four years or so (give or take six months). But the parlimentary system can be wild and crazy - but with the added bonus that your national leader is more out in the open and accountable (Question Period can be very entertaining). Each system has its advantages and disadvantages so I'm not making a general value judgement in comparing the two as they both serve their intended purpose to their best of their ability - but, each subject to improvement. And I (and many, if not, most Canadians) like the multiparty system as it better serves regional interests, and often provides better representation. And, it has driven the Liberal Party (under new PM, Paul Martin [billionnaire shipping magnate, which is somewhat bothersome]) to compete with the regional parties, and to be more things to more people. Current multiparty politics have helped preserve middle of the road liberalism in Canada.

----
Cheers,

Dan
Founder and CEO

LionsGate Creative
GoodPassRobot
Magelln

Dan,

I wondered if you had been to Europe and if so, what you thought. I was in Austria, Italy and Germany briefly several years ago. Really liked the atmosphere. Also noted some differences.

In Austria, the beggars had to have permits and then only knelt on a folded coat with their hat in hand, looking pityful. I asked why there were not more agressive and was told if they were, they were ran out of town by the police. Same thing with people handing out brochures, very respectful. In the US, the freedom of speech/right of assembly/etc has been interpreted in a way to allow them to be rude, aggressive and in your face.

In Venice, there what looked like a non-violent tudent protest forming. Next water bus stop were a bunch of riot police getting off. I didn't see the outcome, but it did not seem like those in charge were going to stand for any kind of disruption in the city.

At the Amsterdam airport, I was surprised to see security in "military" type uniforms with machine guns. When the airlines did the security check in Boston, the security guards had on "cop" uniforms and at most, sidearms/handguns.
--
Rob

SW Montana's Online Community
Modular Model Railroading

Europe, no. But I've had similar experiences when I used to travel to the US. Weird vibes and little things here and there that appeared odd (and sometimes even scary) from a Canadian perspective. For example, in the US, almost anyone with any sort of a badge, carries a gun - not to mention the citizens packing heat in states that allow concealed weapons. Quite the opposite in Canada, but terrorism (international and domestic) and per capita domestic violence in Canada is a fraction of what it is in the US, and Europe. Still, the US is nothing like Europe as Europe has felt the pains of wars and terrorism like the West has never - and over centuries. However, the gap between the US (and to a lessor extent, Canada) and Europe is narrowing somewhat with regard to restrictions in liberties and enforcement. You do seem to see many basic rights curtailed in many European nations. I wonder how this plays into the new breed to radical conservatism that is sweeping across Europe, albeit at the grassroot level. Still very much in the background, but very disturbing nevetheless - especially when you listen to the rhetoric of their leaders. My girlfriend and I hope to visit Amsterdam next December as we thinking of moving there in the next few years. We wanted to check it out. We also are considering the Cook Islands. The latter may be where we move, depending on how we assess Amsterdam - she rows competitively so the protected canals are appealing

----
Cheers,

Dan
Founder and CEO

LionsGate Creative
GoodPassRobot
Magelln

Dan,

I see efforts to limit freedoms from both the right and left in the US, sort of the "you are free to agree with me" perspective.

More frightening to me is the PC movement, as its purpose is to limit thought. Don't know if you have seen Orwell's animated movie Animal Farm?
--
Rob

SW Montana's Online Community
Modular Model Railroading