"Consider the almost-coup in Venezuela. When democratically elected President Hugo Chavez seemed to have been deposed by the military, the White House expressed quick satisfaction. This put the U.S. at odds with every Latin leader, but especially with 20 years of American lectures on the uses of democracy."

Hmmm. Historically the US has judged other nations by how we could conduct trade with them. Venezuela sold oil to Castro. Bad, bad nation. The US wouldn't care it's an elected government. I don't think that supporting a military coup was compromising any of Bush's principles, though.

The Banana Republics were completely repressive, but were installed and maintained by the US in order to protect American commercial interests. They were called "Republics" with the greatest of sarcasm.

Frankly, the US government doesn't give a rip about "democracy". It cares about trade. Look at how well we get along with China, a trade partner, and Pakistan, a military dictatorship, as opposed to India, the world's largest democracy.

On the other hand, Bush has core beliefs he has to "compromise" in order to be the President of such a diverse nation as the US. Everyone would, really

Whatever the heck terrorism is seems to float. Basically the US defines it as violence perpetrated against civilians, and then excepts violence against civilians perpetrated by a uniformed military force.

In the Middle East, an army using military force against civilians is not regarded as "terrorism". Civilians striking back at the only targets available to them in retaliation, other civilians, is regarded as "terrorism".

Either way civilians are getting killed. Only one is "terrorism", though.

Bush catches hell from his right-wing when he recognizes it's a complex situation, and won't always yield to simplistic arguments. Somebody is always right, which doesn't work when everyone is wrong.

It's a real world. Takes a whole box of crayons, not just the black and white ones.

Arf