Ceri, I think you're going to find out that most of Bush's delay on this expedition will end up being a case of rope-a dope. There are several good reasons why we were wiser not to attack before a few months from now - getting smart weapons resupplied, getting troops in place in the countries that we can count on, and most importantly, allowing the Iraqi weather to moderate so that the troops can operate in their MOPP suits.

Political realities intrude here, too. He'll now begin to push the Democrats for a resolution supporting military action, in time for the November selections. Given the popular support for the war, they'll dare not say no. About the same time, we will all of the sudden find that quite a few nations will have a last minute change-of-heart. As they see that the US is going to do this no matter how much they piss and moan, they'll get on the bandwagon. They'll have to, in order to preserve any say whatsoever in the post-Saddam scenarios - we'll surely tell them to bug off if they don't participate in the war, and then want to try to wage the peace.

I further suspect that several Arab nations are saying one thing in public, for the benefit of their domestic streets, and a completely different thing in private talks with the Administration.

Even as we speak, there are US troops operating in Iraq, tracking down Scud sites and other targets to be hit in the first moments of the war. This weeks air raids in Iraqi C&C centers and air-defense networks are also surefire indications that we've already decided to take Saddam down.

It's like a duck paddling across a pond - it looks all smooth and quiet, but beneath the surface there's some pretty furious paddling going on.

If we're not in there by the end of December, I'll join all of you in calling for 43's head.

Well, I understand all that, the political necessities and the military preparedness stuff, but I'm talking about appearances. And so far, Georgie Boy is looking like a guy who talks big but doesn't follow through. "We're going to get Osama bin Laden" and if we have, we don't know it yet. "Israel better play nice with the Palestinians, or else!" Or else what? There's precious little he's willing to do to Israel, I'll bet, no matter what they do to the Palestinians. So then it's, "We're going to go get that big jerk Saddam Hussein!" but instead of going and doing it, the next thing we know he's whining to the UN about what a doo-doo head Saddam is.

Am I really the only one who sees this?

I, contrary to popular belief, am not confusing liberals with pacifists. While you two may take umbrage at the linkage, it is there. We have two major political parties in the US, the Republicans and the Democrats. Question - which one do you call "liberal"?

Now, go back and look at the vote in the Senate for the resolution authorizing GWI. (It narrowly passed 52-47) Two Republicans voted no, ten Democrats voted yes. Was it the "liberal" party that voted it in, or the "conservative" party? I assure you the same thing will happen in the coming vote in Congress on GWII.

So, am I being fair associating liberalism with pacifism?

Rather than trying to get me to change my definition of the term, one shared by the world at large, it might be more productive for you to consider changing the way you label your political beliefs. If the shoe doesn't fit, you might wanna quit wearing it.

And, to repeat for the record, I consider myself neither a liberal or a conservative, as I espouse beliefs that each party champions, and others that neither would touch with a ten-foot ballot.

That's like you deciding to use the "n" word and telling black people not to be offended by it. Politics is too complex to dismiss one whole group of "liberals" or "democrats" or whatever. I've known some democrats who are more "conservative" than some republicans. Don't fault me for finding it offensive. Maybe you should find another word used to insult people, how about that?

My entire use of the word liberal in the post to which Ceri replied was this one phrase...

"Would just one liberal that supports women's rights,..."

I'm not really seeing how that's subbing it for a cussword, or even using the word in an offensive way.

It's not like I said, "Would some stupid clueless asslicking mother-liberal-fucking diseased offspring of a Clinton-sucking outhouse whore that supports women's rights..."

(See, iffn I wanna cuss at somebody, I can go some. Killin' commies wasn't all I learned in the Marines. :-)

I think what's going on here is that you two are getting upset over my associating liberalism, to which you both profess, with a reluctance to go get Saddam, which you have both clearly supported.

Now, I really don't feel I've used the word like a cussword, but if y'all perceive it that way, there must be something there. So, I just spent an hour researching this. Type the word liberal into my site search box. You will get 24 hits (maybe one more with this comment posted) Then use your browser "find in this page" on each hit. (Ctrl-F shortcut key in Windows - dunno if that works on Macs, Ceri) I've looked at every single freakin' occurrence of the word liberal in this blog. In the majority of cases the word is used in either a neutral ("liberal amounts of aid") or in a complimentary ("establish liberal democracies in the Middle East") In another, the article "Casus Belli," I describe emdot as a "feminist, liberal, empathetic soul," and then go on to say "For the record, I use none of those adjectives in that last sentence in a perjorative manner."

There are two articles where I chide liberals for not getting on the war wagon. In one, I recite a laundry list of liberal personalites, (Chomsky, Sontag, et al) asking "where are the liberals? I then added President Bush to the list of people that aren't raising enough hell about human rights violations in the Third World. Hardly a ringing condemnation.

So, here's my request. Help me understand. Show me where in anything I've written where the word liberal appears as an insult. Not just as a label for some folks that tout some policies with which I disagree, but as an insult.

macker would have a lot more grounds for getting on my ass for using the term Xian as an insult, though, in that instance also, I just use it as a label for a group that shares a belief.

The whole comparison with using the word nigger, Mary, is more than a little farfetched. That is a word that is itself offensive to black people of nearly any persuasion. If I walked up to Colin Powell and said, "You know, you're a smart nigger," he'd be offended, and well he should. If I walked up to, oh, I dunno, pick somebody, Chomsky, Al Gore, Daschle, emdot, and said,"You're a smart liberal," I imagine the answer would be something like, "Thanks."

Now, if I said that to Rush Limbaugh, he might get upset, but he's an idiot. :-)

Dude, you're missing my point, and that is very likely because of the fact I'm not explaining it well. Let me try again.

I don't use liberal to describe a political affiliation, or to express some mindless viewpoint by which I filter information (Like Limbaugh idiots call themselves "dittoheads"). Liberal to me means "open-minded". There can be liberal republicans, too. And since I strive to be an open minded person (sometimes succeeding), I see "liberal" as being a part of me, just like being "female" or "caucasian". If you threw around those two words, like "Those stupid females need to stop whining about fighting Iraq", then I would be insulted. And I'm insulted by you using liberal. I have asked you repeatedly not to, but you have every right to do so. I just thought you'd like to know exactly what you're communicating when you do that. It all comes down to semantics, but as long as you're aware of the semantics, then you say what you want.

You know, fighting with you... it's... kinda... turnin' me on! ;-)

Sorry it's taken me so long to reply to this, but I've been a bit handicapped of late, as you well know.

So, if I read here what you're saying correctly, you use the word liberal a bit differently from most people. ("I don't use liberal to describe a political affiliation...") I use it in the more conventionally accepted fashion, that is, as a political affiliation, along with it's other adjectival meanings, such as a synonym for generous, as in "a liberal amount of foreign aid." So, I should change my usage of the term to conform to your idiosyncratic usage to avoid offending you, and find some other synonym of the word to use where I would normally use the word to communicate that particular political affiliation to all the rest of the world, or at least that very small subset of it that actually that reads this blog. Do I have that right now? ;-)

If so, what word would you suggest to replace the word liberal as a label for that group of political beliefs normally known to the rest of the world (minus BeerMary, and so it seems, Ceridwen) as "liberal?"

Well, thanks honey, glad to be of service to you. You flatter an old man. Would it make you any moister to know I always win? :-)

You said:

" So, I should change my usage of the term to conform to your idiosyncratic usage to avoid offending you...?"

Um, yes. Exactly.

Can you believe no man has snapped me up yet? :-)