Evocative turn of phrase. Where I could be said to "dress" to the left, you "dress" to the right....

One of the frustrating things about trying to have this conversation with you is that you seem compelled to frame it in terms of Bush versus Gore. My observations apply equally well to a different Republican President. It's quite interesting to ask, What would John McCain have done? Given his reputation as an upstanding, no-nonsense kind of guy, I'd expect him to give the Saudis little slack; I'd expect him to come down on them like a load of bricks, in fact. Ditto Pakistan.

I question the right's continual assertion that Clinton-Gore were "soft" on terrorism. In my reading recently, I came across several references to criticism by Republicans in Congress of Clinton's "obsession" with getting Osama bin Laden (which references I didn't think I'd need to bookmark for future ammo). How do you reconcile his attacks on what turned out to be a baby-food factory with the assertion that he was soft on terrorism? (You've used that incident before as an argument that liberals are being hypocritical today to criticize Bush for his belligerance, forgetting that it also undermines the "soft on terrorism" accusation; it's hard to keep so many stories straight, isn't it?)

"Nuclear-armed Pakistan" is a red-herring. They have a handful of nukes positioned on their eastern border to rattle sabers back at India. My Indian roommate observed, with a grin, that everyone there understands that it's a game, that those nukes are entirely symbolic. Can you really claim with a straight face that pitiful little Pakistan would try to rattle its miniature nuclear saber at the US? Possession of nukes is a two-edged sword: It admits you to the nuclear club, but as a junior member, more in the crosshairs of the senior members than you'd be without nukes. They're out of their league. And, BTW, let's not forget that Saudi money helped pay for those nukes; follow the money.

Properly discounting the "nuclear-armed Pakistan" boogeyman, it seems to me that it would (have) work(ed) to quietly give Pakistan a little ultimatum: "We're going in to your northwest territory; you can smile and thank us for our help bringing order to your rogue territory, and save face; or you can protest and whine while we do it anyway and look like a wuss to the world. Your choice." Bush is waaay to eager to kiss Pakistani ass, and one has to wonder why, given his eagerness to play the 900 pound gorilla everywhere else. (Do you think maybe he's gotten tired of being compared to a chimp, and figures that gorilla is a step up the evolutionary ladder?)

What exactly is that press release from the Saudi embassy supposed to mean? So Gore speaks the boiler-plate platitudes that come after every such diplomatic meeting; change the names and it's completely generic, and could have been delivered by any high government official of the last 50 years. Your point would be what, exactly?

Oil consumption's an equation with more than one term. The right tries to focus exclusively on supply, but demand counts too. Common sense should tell you that we'd be more secure if we reduce our rate of consumption in order to better leverage whatever supply of oil we have, than to try and keep up as we burn through greater and greater amounts of oil. If we reduce our consumption and someday we're forced to rely exclusively on domestic supplies, we'll be better able to cope than if our society and economy is based on a high rate of consumption. Bottom line, the Democratic strategy of promoting fuel efficiency is far more prudent than the right's party-like-there-'s-no-tomorrow orgy of consumption.

(In the course of writing this, Norton AntiVirus has popped up at least 30 times to warn me of the SOBIG virus, yanking the keyboard away from this reply window. It thus took about 40 minutes to write this, and I'm exhausted. Enough!)