Jim Harris: First, I must apologize for not getting this published sooner. Second, I must point out that I only mentioned Bush once, and in no way did I imply he was a good or even decent president (elsewhere I have explicitly said I thought his administration was corrupt to the core). I said that Obama's politicism and disingenuousness made Bush "look like a good President." That means that I believe Bush was not a good President. He certainly was not. Finally, if Obama is the saint you imply he is, why can't he just say "wipe out loopholes" or "raise taxes?" Why does he have to try and pull the wool over our eyes by calling it "tax spending reductions"? "Tax Spending Reduction" implies a reduction in the cost of government, which it clearly is not, it is an increase in revenue, it is taking more from corporations or rich people or whomever. My real problem is that I believe that language matters and using this language implies that the government has a right to our money and that by allowing us to keep it, the government is "spending" and when they take more of it they are "reducing spending." Lennin and Stalin might have thought that was a good concept. It isn't. Call it what it is.

@mindsadrift Although you are probably right in the sense that it is hard to judge without the results, my view of the "stupidity" is that Obama (and everyone in the Administration) is apparently looking at the conflict very narrowly. If Libya was isolated or an isolated "incident" would our actions be foolish? Probably not, but given the broader context of the democratic uprisings in the Middle East, in my view the "smart" thing to do is to look at it in that context. According to all the speeches and talk shows, it appears that we are taking Libya on its own and not viewing it in the broader context. That seems very foolish to me. If we had considered the broader context, we would realize that our actions and appearance in Libya has affects in the other conflicts on both the "protesters" and the rulers of the region. That is why I believe we should have acted more quickly, with more leadership and why I don't believe it smart that we relinquish the leadership role. The goal should not only be helping the protesters, but the removal of Gadhafi and, most importantly, the demonstration to the rest of the Middle East that we are in favor of the democratic movements not only with our words but with our actions.

@ChatandPonder I feel the King hearings are idiotic because they are merely a political stunt pandering to a portion of the population that wants to blame all Muslims for terrorism. They prove nothing, they tell us nothing, they provide no real information on domestic terrorism, and they taint a portion of the American population that has been fiercely loyal (most of our information about domestic terrorist has come from Muslims living here). Like McCarthy's HUAC hearings, they are unjust guilt-by-association pandering and political grandstanding. In my view that is idiotic. And yes, they also hurt the relationship the US has with foreign Muslims, and plays into the hands of those who vilify the US for prejudice against Muslims.