"Does the Bush administration care about fighting terrorism for its citizens or does it care about the political situation in a Third World country like Ethiopia?" asked Tamrat G. Giorgis, managing editor of Fortune, one of Ethiopia’s few independent newspapers. "I think Africans are asking that question, and we know the war on terror is more important."

I should hope it is more important to fight terrorism for national security reasons than get embroilled in fighting for democracy on a global level. Unless we can reasonably equate the two, by arguing that places like Ethiopia are most likely to be terrorist breading grounds while they remain undemocratic.

The group that would win the most by equating poor undemocratic regions with breeding grounds for terrorism, disease, and dispair would have Bush join Bono and Gates. In a sense the elder Bush and Clinton have already joined this group. Should Hillary win in 2008 the logical thrust of her national security policy would be a countinuation along these lines, and then Republicans would either become more isolationist or join them.

I don’t think the future of the democratic party is in being anti-war, anymore than republicans when they gained power were anti-spending, the democrats will just make it a more democrat/social justice war.

Of course when this happens Dr. Knippenburg will see the cup as a quarter full and the author of this article will see it as half full.

In so far as the main thrust in this war started out with a Kantian foundation, its Kantian continuation is actually quite Democrat(ic).

Does anyone know why Ashland University philosophy professor Dr. Tiel dropped off the map of this blog a while after the war started?