William certainly deserved a better response to his well articulated comment than to have it labeled, if only in part, "silly".
The American Exceptionalism cult feeds off all its interventions, not just the ones that cause over a million casualties.
"Low impact" interventions, from a USGOV with a very low tolerance for nuance or facts, lead to big "world-saving" interventions; the same machinery and thought-patterns are in place in both; only the scale is varied.
William makes an excellent point about the Clinton Admin. And the author's "drug addict" analogy was good, except it skipped the part where a gateway drug is enjoyed. William simply corrected the omission.
"But no, I think he is just as looney as the day is long and quite paranoid."
In general I found this SOTU article to be useful, but you disappoint with the above quoted remark. Is that really all you can offer in analysis of Karzai? This website is still named "Informed Comment" isn't it?
Maybe this SOTU piece wasn't the place for it, but somewhere you must be more probing and nuanced that this flat statement, which sounds like something Dennis Miller would say, implies.
As a student, nay, scholar of Middle East history and politics, you must have more on your mind re: Karzai than this characterization suggests, no?
William certainly deserved a better response to his well articulated comment than to have it labeled, if only in part, "silly".
The American Exceptionalism cult feeds off all its interventions, not just the ones that cause over a million casualties.
"Low impact" interventions, from a USGOV with a very low tolerance for nuance or facts, lead to big "world-saving" interventions; the same machinery and thought-patterns are in place in both; only the scale is varied.
William makes an excellent point about the Clinton Admin. And the author's "drug addict" analogy was good, except it skipped the part where a gateway drug is enjoyed. William simply corrected the omission.
"But no, I think he is just as looney as the day is long and quite paranoid."
In general I found this SOTU article to be useful, but you disappoint with the above quoted remark. Is that really all you can offer in analysis of Karzai? This website is still named "Informed Comment" isn't it?
Maybe this SOTU piece wasn't the place for it, but somewhere you must be more probing and nuanced that this flat statement, which sounds like something Dennis Miller would say, implies.
As a student, nay, scholar of Middle East history and politics, you must have more on your mind re: Karzai than this characterization suggests, no?