As far as semantic arguments over what is and is not an empire go, I tend to fall on the side of the dictionary - if you rule it, own it, use it for your economic purposes without particularly caring what happens to the subject population, you're talking empire. Much as I abhor the term "American Global Hegemony" it is more accurate. We have power, influence and what not coming out of our ears, more in fact than we quite know what to do with. We are first, second and third among equals. But we haven't created an empire. 

Going halfway around the world to terminate the leader of a nation that pissed us off may be uppity, forceful, arrogant, domineering, renegade, of doubtful wisdom, wrong or even evil. But if after we do, we give it back, it's not imperial. Perhaps its more like empire's kindler, gentler, third cousin twice removed on the maternal side. And she has a great personality. 

And as for blogging politesse, I just wanted to assure all of my fellow tuppenny pundits that what I have done up to this point is not an attack on the morals, intelligence, ancestry, judgment, honor, personal grooming habits or sexual orientation of anyone. That way, when I do make a personal attack, it will be obvious that that was what I wanted to do. 

"Cultural Historian," huh? I heard that cultural historians were four-flushing, devious, deviant, dimwitted pinheads who couldn't narrate their way out of a wet paper sack. And that when they weren't failing to write even mediocre history, they spent their time engaged in questionable unsafe same sex practices with their aunt-mothers, brother-fathers, and any filthy goat that happens to be wandering by. And they have the perspicacity, good sense and wisdom of a retarded paint chip on crack.

You say the attacks on Bush are similar to the attacks on Reagan. You seem to imply that the attacks on Reagan were misplaced, that he wasn't an amiable dunce, that he did have a grasp on policy, wasn't leading us to hell, and faced down the global menace of communism. So are you saying that Bush is no Reagan, and that this comparison is wrong?

So is Bush stupid, unable to comprehend the policies he's advocating (or not advocating), and not facing down terrorism? And you're asking if this behavior is deliberate? Or that critics were right to criticise Reagan but wrong on Bush?

Forgive me, but I don't see what you're getting at.

Do you think, on Bush's part, it's deliberate?

The vehemence-- nay, venom-- with which Bush's opponents speak of him brings to mind another Republican President, a President whose intellect was ridiculed by many, who was accused of not having a grasp on the niceties of policy, whose administration was heralded as a new direction and a road to hell, who sometimes demonstrated an offhand callousness about matters he didn't care about or fully appreciate, who took it upon himself to face down a global menace threatening the lives and liberty of freedom-loving peoples everywhere.

"I know Ronald Reagan, and you sir, are no Ronald Reagan!"

Buckethead:

"sorry."

haw!

I think these days "empire" can be construed more broadly than the American Heritage Dictionary tells it. Though I'm going to have to think more on this: If going into a nation halfway around the world and removing a leader who is repugnant to us, if not actually an act of empire, does not comprise at least sidling up to empire's hot sister at a party and trying to hook up with her, how so? 

Apologies for that last sentence there. I had sugar packets at lunch. 

Also, I'm a cultural historian, not some fancy-pants political scientist like Buckethead. 
 

Bucket, I know full well that you say what you mean whether in writing or face to face, and Mike, I know the same about you. I've known each of you for years, and am waaaaay beyond letting opinions get the better of my esteem for you, as long as you can adequately explain yourself. I hope I have been civil as well.

But please, let's not go too far with that. Shit-talking makes the world go round. On this subject, and pursuant to my own apparent flirtation with moral equivalence over the war (we'll have WORDS about that, Buckethead, WORDS, like "cromulent," "embiggen," and "guignol"), I leave you with this quote, aptly enough, about morality:

"I don't give a tupenny fuck about your moral conundrum, you meat-headed shit-sack!"

Money Quote:

"That's Rumsfeld's function -- to take the polite fictions and drag them back to the real world. During the Afghan campaign, CNN's Larry King asked him, "Is it very important that the coalition hold?" The correct answer -- the Powell-Blair-Gore-Annan answer -- is, of course, "Yes." But Rummy decided to give the truthful answer: "No." He went on to explain why: "The worst thing you can do is allow a coalition to determine what your mission is." Such a man cannot be happy at the sight of the Guinean tail wagging the French rectum of the British hind quarters of the American dog."

Wonderful imagery.

Like Mike, I should like to say that I don't mean any of what I write as an assault on anyone in particular. (If I am assaulting anyone, I'll be specific.) I tend to come across a bit stronger in writing than I do in person.

I don't have a problem showing favoritism to Israel over Palestine. Of the two groups, one is a parliamentary democracy (and one fifth of the members of this parliament are from the same ethnic and religious group as the enemy.) with freedom of speech and press, a market economy, and rule of law. The other is a terrorist organization that plans and executes the murders of civilians, and ruthlessly supresses all dissent (collaboration) and embezzles billions of dollars into Swiss bank accounts. I can discriminate between the two, rather easily.