the growing revolution, uneasy Warlords, and "Liberal" Democrats

Like I said, when you start giving the masses more and more power, the Sultans grow more and more uneasy.

"Mubarak, a regional heavyweight and a top U.S. ally, appeared to speak for many in the region who are uneasy about seeing a former Arab president tried and sentenced — no matter how much they disliked Saddam's regime."

Also: in our contemporary world, we in the West tend to be easily and understandably offended by singular deaths. It makes sense: thanks to numerous medical discoveries and uncoveries, we're living longer and saucier these days. Therefore, when someone dies, it's hard.

Still, the individual deaths pale in comparison to how many were killed, say, in the American Civil War, taking some 650,000 lives to both keep the Union whole, and, mid-way through, do away with that "peculiar" institution, and emancipate the slaves. It took even longer — about another 100 years — to re-establish Civil Rights.

I think we can all agree that the situation in Iraq and even Afghanistan has been poorly handled. What I wonder is this: do the "Liberal" Democrats have the stomach to re-organize and carry on with bringing more power to the people, both domestically and abroad? Or are they going to continue playing the Victimization game like they did so well in the 19th century, insisting that those "niggers" wouldn't know what to do with themselves if they were free? So is it Abraham Lincoln and Henry Winter Davis, Pepe? Or are you Dems gonna stick with the Stephen A. Douglas and Ulrich B. Phillips game plan?