[George W. Bush]

Actually, I think that if Gore had been elected, he would have declared a war on terror as well. But it would have been more of the usual ineffective bombing of aspirin factories and such. And if Al had screwed up the courage to invade Iraq, he would immediately have handed it over to France and Germany and Russia for profiteering by them and by the U.N.

The author does make a good point though. Even future Demo regimes are now far more likely to look to the Bush example as a precedent for American unilateralism in the modern era. It is, after all, much easier than dialoging with Europe.

Even Clinton didn't particularly like being restricted by Congress which is why he didn't consult them much. One of the reasons American presidents are so powerful internationally is exactly because they have such scope for unilateral action with our military. And any Democrat president likes that power just as much as Republicans.

So, I think the writer is correct. Despite all the Dim blather about mulilateralism currently, any future Dim president is likely to take advantage of Bush's precedent when necessary. Or convenient. It remains to be seen whether we'll all think it's a good thing in the long run. Next time, it might be us objecting to a Dim president taking such actions.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

You are probably right about Dims taking this page out of the Dubya book - and we already know that Clinton got objections from our side over aspirin factory bombings and lobbing a few cruise missles at Bin Laden's camels.

I doubt that algore would have screwed up enough courage to invade Iraq.