I can tell from reading your post that even as you wrote it you might've sensed you were getting yourself into a logical mess. You went through some impressive contortions to try and craft sentences containing Bushisms like "Or if you knowingly harbor Cannibalistics you become the enemy". The very fact that it's impossible to construct an intelligible sentence that way is a dead giveaway that the truth is the opposite of what you're arguing.

It's possible to conduct a war against Cannibals, but not Cannibalism. The enemy is the people who commit cannibalism. If a Cannibal reforms and gives up human flesh, there's no reason we can't live peacably with Cannibals. A war with a definable enemy is war that can be won.

Ideas never disappear. The knowledge of the practice of cannibalism won't go away even if nobody practices it. But if nobody's practicing cannibalism, who's the target of your War on Cannibalism? How do you declare victory?

Same thing with terrorism. People will always know how to do it--hell, you and I and everybody who's followed the news the last few years know how to be terrorists, gb--so by definition Bush's War on Terrorism can never end, even if nobody practices terrorism. That's the logical fallacy that everybody not on the Right's been trying to point out for years.

As for Gary Hart. All I can say that considering the other Dems he could be presidential material. But I never thought that grading on a curve was a good thing.

Full points for that bon mot, dude. I'll leave it as an exercize for the reader to imagine what the Republican curve looks like.