He's such an iconoclast free thinker. Such a strange coincidence that his little thesis is a cheap repackaging of the administration line that continues to produce disaster.

I will definitely grant him one point: he sure isn't a historian. Remember back in the 1880 when the civil war between US Steel and the railroad trusts was killing dozens if not hundreds of civillians every day? While William Randolph Hurst was using his unrivaled media domination to recruit suicide bombers?

GAH.

Okay, maybe I'm just a sucker for the veneer of non-partisan presentation, but I think you're being overly reductionist. And I should have been clearer as to whether or not I actually agreed with him, or just found it an interesting argument.

I don't think he claimed it was the right thing to do, or that we need to stay there indefinitely. I'm not even sure he thinks the only outcome of this stage he describes is functional democracy.

He's getting plenty of disagreement in his comments, so again, maybe I'm just reacting to the tone in which he puts these things out there for discussion -- and the tone of that discussion -- than the thoughts themselves.