You write (and this is/continues to be the crux of our disagreement):
And you -here- mean to retroactively dignify the jingoism by which the Rove/Bush figurehead arrogated the power to arbitrarily attack any 'nation' of Earth, at will, regardless of that clause within our primal Document (of that former Republic we tried). [remember .?. that .. ..decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.] No, maybe you don't.
That *you* can chew, swallow and now say, "It's Good" -- all which has followed since the White House surrogate-CIA/NSA/PNAC ad hoc group OVER-RODE == molded, edited and spun the intelligence re Iraq.. belies the philosophical underpinnings I know that you have been (at least exposed-to). Maybe you just memorized that stuff, though; sound-byte style. There's a lot of that, these days.
"The power to arbitrarily attack any 'nation' of Earth...decent respect to the opinions of mankind that they should declare causes which impel them to the separation"... If I understand this statement correctly, you are implying that the US did not "declare" its intentions before this war? There were 10 + years of sanctions, shit - an actual war in '91, his state of the union, his ultimatums, the first UN resolution, etc... Arbitrarily indeed. In any case, the end justified the means. Even your current hero seems to agree with this. (read the text at [link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_0930.html|http://www.washingto.../debate_0930.html] word search to "The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike." Quit with the no IQ nonRovian bullshit, eh... Natch, Natch...
Dude, it's this simple. Even a stopped clock (non-digital) is correct twice a day. Even more to the point (made by analogy), just because those who have witnessed dusk and dawn realize that there is more than just night and day - it doesn't change the fact that most of the time it's either night or day. Think about it.
When I was watching Kerry effectively intellectually eviscerate W, I couldn't help but think - just because someone speaks eloquently, doesn't mean they're not still full of shit... after his most powerful moment in the debate when Kerry says: "But this issue of certainty. It's one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong.
It's another to be certain and be right, or to be certain and be moving in the right direction, or be certain about a principle and then learn new facts and take those new facts and put them to use in order to change and get your policy right."
Ah, if only the last part was heeded... But I am as certain as the sun appears to rise in the east and set in the west that neither of these candidates will adhere to the most basic tenet of liberal philosophy as to try to "improve". It's not in our history or the history of mankind. Just my $.02...
YMMV...