While the news story your post refers to fails to take notice, Tampa, Florida has also experienced the joys of protest areas located as much as a mile away from the president's speech making and the Media. One local celebrity Joe Rednour (a local strip club owner who in the past has sued (and won big) the city of Tampa and Hillsborough County over violations of First Amendment rights) has also filed a suit in this matter. It is a sad commentary on a sad president.

This is interesting. Most people know the current President is a Republican, so it is worth noting that Wilson, as you obviously know, was a Democrat (arguably only still in office for WW1 because Hughes was too lazy to shake hands). On a vaguely relevant aside, the administration of another wartime Democrat, FDR, brought us the Japanese internments.

I've heard about some of the lame incidents you mention, but who has been held without charges or a lawyer merely for protesting the war? Am I reading you correctly? That's information that I'd like to know, if you get a chance to link (your last answer to me was worthwhile).

" ... violations of First Amendment rights) has also filed a suit in this matter. It is a sad commentary on a sad president." (1)

It's interesting to note how quickly he became a creature of the neoconservatives.

When you go back over his re-election speeches, you find him a compassionate conservative, agains nation-building, etc.

Shortly after election, certainly after 9/11, he was in lock-step with their agenda.

9/11 affected his foreign policy? What a tool!

I would say GWB's greatest strength is that he WAS changed by 9/11 and apprehended that the War on Terror must become his and the nation's top priority.

" ... Wilson ... was a Democrat --- another wartime Democrat, FDR, brought us the Japanese internments." (2)

I'm an EOB (Equal Opportunity Basher) when it comes to politics and politicians. When I see something I don't like or think isn't right, I try to at least speak up regardless of the political label involved.

I think some, maybe a lot, of this country's major problems are caused by too many people slapping political labels on their own foreheads, then becoming "Stepford"-Republicans-Democrats-Neoconservatives-Savetheearthers-Liberals-Whatevers.

It makes life easier in one sense because you don't have to think, you can just parrot "the party line" but it results in significant societal losses. Whatever hapened to judgment, discrimination and critical thinking?

[Aside: "Stepford" is from the original "The Stepford Wifes" movie. Husbands in the town of Stepford turned their wives into bionic versions that were "perfect" [..."where perfect is defined as fitting neatly and exclusively into your societal sex role." http://www.tnmc.org/dp/0520031.shtml ]

--
"... who has been held without charges or a lawyer merely for protesting the war? Am I reading you correctly?" (2)

Based on our last interchange, I think you may have a tendency to read more into what I say than what I say and that seems to have happened here :-).

So far, I've only heard of people being held that way for taking-pictures-while-looking-foreign or in cases where their immigrant status is in question.

But if anti-war protestors were being held, how would we know?

"... the War on Terror must become his and the nation's top priority ..." (5)

I agree (at least one of the top 3).

But why invade Iraq unilaterally and increase the threat of terror to America?

US intelligence warned that this would happen (as it has) but that advice was rejected.

Hal, I'm glad you agree the war on terror is critical - that is a very important area of agreement, the rest comes down to HOW best to conduct it. I can understand your perspective on Iraq, but I just don't see it that way. I see it as a critical step in the continuing war, the first opportunity for participatory democracy and civil society in the Arab world, and a critical message to violent haters of America and the West in general.

I see our situation as safer now, not less so than before the war.

"... I see our situation as safer now, not less so than before the war." (8)

You may be in the minority, as I've found many who agreed with the invasion but seeing the increasing concentration of terorists in Iraq, now think it's more likely that this action stirred up a hornet's nest and made it more likely that more terrorism will occur on American soil.

I sincerely hope you're right and they're wrong, but logic and history tell me that's not the way it is.

At this point, though, there's no way to know.

PS to Eric:

Note that I'm not advocating pulling out of Iraq. We need to fix it now that we're there, and pulling out would make things much worse.

Hal,

I agree with most of that. I am pro-war but can make good anti-war arguments, and am familiar with being rabidly smeared based on one issue.

And preemption--is there a refund policy? Probably cash only. I can't say I oppose it, but at the least I have severe reservations.

I think an offshoot of what you mentioned is people arguing affiliations instead of issues. And yes, if my many fans start digging, I'm sure they can find an example of me doing it. I'm no Step--

Nice Stepford reference. I use it myself. Beresford Tipton is another good one.

We could live in the Matrix and we wouldn't know. I certainly wouldn't approve of tossing mere dissenters into the clink.

My favorite Hals:
Barney Miller
The Computer
McRae

The Howard Dean position, for which I give you both full credit.

"The Howard Dean position, for which I give you both full credit." (8)

"There you go again," as one of the neocon icons would say.

Why start applying labels rather than continuing to engage in what so far has been a rational discussion?

Labels can generate some heat but cast absolutely no light. And often are an implicit acknowledgement of an indefensible position.

Hal, unless I'm mis-reading Eric, his comment was a positive one. Why the acrimony?

Labels can constrict a conversation, but they can also be useful for broad categorizations. If your position differs from that of Howard Dean's on this issue (we shouldn't have gone to Iraq, but it's too late to pull out troops now), feel free to explain how. Otherwise, accept Eric's comment for what it appeared to be: an acknowledgement that while he disagrees, he find it at least a logical position to take.

Unless I've mid-read Eric, in which case just ignore me.

Um, all I said was it's the same position Howard Dean has taken, and one I think is rational.

Ah, you were talking about the "we're there so let's do it" part.

Kind of hard to tell without any included quotes.

Sorry about that, guys.

But it's still a bit bothersome. Linking me to "the Howard Dean position" in an open-ended way communicates to others that I'm a "Dean Partisan," whether intentional or not.

Or maybe my 30+ years in advertising and marketing have just made me (overly?) sensitive to communications nuances :-)

nothing implied beyond you share that one position - denotation only, no connotation