War on the Horizon

Paul Rogers is right when he offers,

In Washington among the neo-conservatives, the views of the rest of the world do not seem to be of any relevance at all. In a sense, they might as well not exist. The United States has overwhelming military power; this readily assures the only appropriate system for the world and its security, namely a Western-controlled and globalised liberal market – end of story.

The only problem with this is that 96% of the world’s people are not American. This may not be too fair a point as so many Americans themselves reject the neo-conservative agenda, but the wider issue is that it is being comprehensively rejected in so many quarters around the world. For the moment, though, the hawks are in charge and are not prepared to accept any opposition. This is a daunting prospect and it is hardly surprising that the unease is so widespread among those experienced international civil servants who had hoped to be a part of a more cooperative international order.

But he fails to mention something equally relevant: the neocon agenda is supposed to have a counterweight. And that counterweight should be the Democratic Party. But, alas, no. Instead, we have the Weenie Party, a group of hapless twits who cannot even muster the courage to dissent on such a fundamental issue as whether to invade a country "preemptively" because...well, simply because the hawks want to.

Oh, maybe you haven't heard: war on Iraq by a score of 296-133. Pathetic. At least we know who to hold accountable one year from now when this blows up in everyone's and, yes, I mean everyone's face. The question I now pose is this: once the crap hits the fan, who do we throw out of office first, the Bushies or the 296 weasles listed here?

Update: Add 77 to this tally since the Senate has thrown its hat into the ring, too.