>>><...worse than McCarthyism, worse than the Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War.

>>>Absolutely NONE of this has happened. None. No wholesale violations of citizen's rights. No suppression of dissent (if they are suppressing it, they're really doing a crappy job). No camps. No failed invasions.

I suppose by this quote he is referring to all the civil liberties-infringing stuff in the Patriot Act. I think that the jury is still out on what the ultimate effects will be. Even if the Bush admin uses these new powers sparingly and only in the right times, it is hard to say how they will be used in all of the subsequent administrations. The constitution was just fine without this mess. And yeah, law enforcement has worked fairly well without it as well.

I HATE the Patriot Act. All patriots should. All libertarians should. I think it is arguable that the violence done to our constitution is worse than the items in Le Carre's list that seem to threaten you so.

>>>>I would ask him what I ask every leftist who says this. HOW???? What methods? Under what banner? The goddam U.N.? How are they supposed to enforce anything? Nasty letters? How do you cause Saddam's downfall without the threat of military force? And who gets called on when such force is needed? It sure as hell ain't Belgium.

>>>Usual response to this question: a quick change of subject. They've got nothing at all to offer. Nothing. Not one of these assholes has come up with a workable alternative to the monsters infesting this planet.

No change of subject necessary: Pinochet, Marcos, Baby Doc, the Shah of Iran (off the top of my head) were removed from power without anyone having to invade anyone. I'll bet that without breaking a sweat I could come up with 20 more examples from the 20th century. I wouldn't be surprised if the total number was closer to 100.

You maintain that force is necessary. Prove that, please. (do I hear a subject change coming up?)