However his government is run, as was much of Ronald Reagan's government, by the Jim Baker's of the world who do not share Bush or Reagan's personal commitment to these fundamental principals.
I want to respectfully point out that Dane is wrong about Bush's campaign message in several respects--government deficits and spending; and preemptive war to pursue expansion of American hegemony (as opposed to war to defend American).
On the other hand, it is very very difficult to draw the line between the two objectives of war--in my own view, I can see the Iraq invasion as perfectly justified by the goal of defending America before invaders reach the gates. Most of the political attacks on this action are based on the same kind of logic Chamberlin argued in the 1930's. Striking Saddam was a legitimate attack on the underpinnings of the Mohammadan war on America.
On the other hand, I would go nowhere to stop the Mahammadans from pursuing their beliefs if they did not threaten us and our way of life in America.
I suppose a political difference could be constructed out of the ultimate remedy in Iraq at this point--I don't care whether Iraq has a nation or not; there is no Iraq people; they too are an amalgamation. Divide the country up among the Kurds, Kuwait, and other interested parties and drive on.
Yes, exactly. That sums it up for me too.