As we prepare to celebrate the anniversary of our Declaration of Independence from the jackboot of British imperialism, consider a phrase in the Declaration that should surely vex some purported American patriots today: "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind."

The text seems to indicate that the signers of the Declaration believed some level of respect for the opinions of mankind should be considered decent. This would seem to suggest that they actually gave a rat's behind what people in other countries thought of American actions. How different is Washington today from Philadelphia in 1776!

Americans are often criticized for their ignorance of world affairs. But maybe if our government were not constantly screwing up world affairs, the rest of the world would cut us a bit more slack on the whole "knowledge of world affairs" thing. On the other hand, maybe if we knew a bit more about world affairs, our government would not be screwing them up so much.

Boy, the wingnuts really don't know what to do about this North Korea situation.  It's really a foreign concept based on "diplomacy" and "incentives for compliance" and other fantasyland hippie stuff they must have come up with on the pot-smokers lawn in the Haight-Ashbury.  Real men know that such multilateralism is excessively dangerous and will cause all of us to be blown to bits.

HEWITT: By the way, I -- I'm still trying to find two tickets to the Ohio State-USC game. And none of the USC people will give up their tickets to me. I'd pay fair price. They -- they know Ohio State's gonna slaughter the Trojans. They know that they're gonna slaughter the Trojans, and therefore they do not want me there at the bloodbath, since it's probably the last football game we'll ever get to see before the United States gets blown up by the Islamists under Obama.

Condoleezza Rice's editorial in today's WSJ defends the administration's use of diplomacy with North Korea.

She writes: "We have no permanent enemies."

Nevermind that this may go down as the biggest Bush administration flip-flop since H.W.'s "no new taxes"...

Nevermind that Cheney is probably planning an invasion anyway...

Does Condi's stance suggest a tacit endorsement of Obama? I argue why it might after the break...

This story has been batting around the media at a very low level for a week or so, but I hadn't seen it mentioned anywhere in the DKos Iran hubub.

From the Chicago Tribune:

The Bush administration is considering opening a diplomatic outpost in Iran in what would be a dramatic official U.S. return to the country nearly 30 years after the American Embassy was overrun and the two nations severed relations.

Even as it threatens Iran with sanctions and possible military action over its nuclear program, the administration is weighing opening a U.S. interests section in Tehran similar to one in Havana, officials said Monday.

Looking at the 'front page' of the Washington Post website, I was struck by the cognitive dissonance that was revealed by the happy juxtaposition of two tangentially related stories -- one placed directly above the other. I wonder whether John McCain would see the irony?

Go below "the fold" to see what I mean (please forgive the cut-and-paste job...I don't know how to do the whole image capture thing):

Hey buddy.  I got your most recently forwarded e-mail earlier.  It's a 13 minute embedded video, a screed once again attacking Barack Obama.  Telling me that Obama is not "American enough", not "like us".  Over the months there have been numerous e-mails and videos you have forwarded to me attacking Obama.  And each time you have asked me, as an Obama supporter, to respond, to debunk the lies, to educate you, if I can.  Why?  Because you, as a lifelong Republican, are sick to death of the last eight years.  You want a reason to vote Democratic this year, but the constant barrage of anti-Obama crap you are receiving makes you think you can't vote for him.  Each time I have responded: logically, calmly, rationally, pointing out lie after lie, distortion after distortion, smear after smear.  Well, no more old friend, and here's why.

I will be brief (for once) because this is a call to action. I just noticed that Frank Rich's  New York Times op-ed "One Historic Night, Two Americas" is near the top of the Digg front page. Digging it up will increase the number of eyeballs that see gems such as this:

Mr. McCain only reminded voters that he, like Mrs. Clinton, thinks that change is nothing more than a marketing gimmick. He has no idea what it means. "No matter who wins this election, the direction of this country is going to change dramatically," he said on Tuesday. He then grimly regurgitated Goldwater and Reagan government-bashing talking points from the 1960s and ’70s even as he presumed to accuse Mr. Obama of looking "to the 1960s and ’70s for answers."

More samples below the fold...

The media is doing it again. This time, ABC has published inaccurate information about Obama's stances on the issue of Iran, making it look like he had changed stands on the issue when he had not. This, from the same media that lied to us about the evidence during the leadup to war. This, from the same media that brought us Judith Miller. This, from the same network that gave us right-wing propaganda under the guise of a debate. This, from the same network that has obvious conflicts of interest.

I was transported to dizzying heights by Barack Obama's moving speech Tuesday night.

So, as I awaited Barack Obama's seemingly cumpulsory pilgrimage to the AIPAC conference, I had hope that we would see a courageous new approach to Middle East policy, the prelude of which we have heard in Obama's oft articulated embrace of diplomacy and rejection of posturing with military might or the perpetration of inflammatory rhetoric based on imaginary threats.

I was gravely disappointed, and any illusion of real, fundamental change has vanished, leaving my confidence in our future shattered.

I wish NASA would put John Bolton on the next MARS rocket ship project.  He could report on the plausibility of launching a pre-emptive strike against whatever life exists on the red planet.

Even as the Iron Curtain of Media Silence trembles with, of all things, Scott McClellan’s latest confirmations and non-revelations of media complicity in BushCo propaganda, Dick Cheney fires two salvos across Madame Supertanker’s diplomatic bow using the twin blunderbusses of Ruprecht Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal and Weekly Standard.

Yesterday, I reached a point which many of us come to during the course of our lives.  In short, my idealism suffered a severe hit and I came to a kind of epiphany that there really is no fairness in life.  It's a tough pill to swallow, friends, particularly because in this country we perpetuate an ideal of fairness and justice that often does not come to pass in reality.    

I'm still an Obama supporter and will be from now until November, but I am no longer the starry-eyed true believer as I once was.  In my opinion, support for a candidate must be tempered by constructive criticism of said candidate when justified.  

And in that spirit...  

John McCain was against negotiating with other countries to reduce or eliminate their nuclear programs before he was for it.

I'm looking for information on this topic.

Time magazine reports that Ehud Olmert, the architect of Israel's major military incursion into Lebanon, wants to negotiate with Hamas.

In a major slap in the face to President Bush and John McCain, Olmert has stepped out and taken a bold risk for peace and security in the Middle East:

(U)nder instructions from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Israel envoys have been carrying out discreet talks with the very "radicals and terrorists" that Bush was warning against in his speech: Syria, the Lebanese militia Hizballah and the Palestinian militant group Hamas.

Lately, McCain is making a lot of noise about Obama's willingness to negotiate with countries like Iran.  McCain said:

"The fact that Sen. Obama would try to backtrack from a key pillar of his foreign policy agenda in the middle of a presidential campaign shows that he clearly doesn’t have the judgment or experience to lead as commander in chief."

Obama has repeatedly expressed his willingness to meet with Iran "without preconditions".  This has generated a lot of criticism from McCain in spite of the fact that being unwilling to meet with our enemies is nothing more than a continuation of Bush's disastrous diplomacy and his failed foreign policy.

McCain has twisted the meaning of "without preconditions" to make it sound like Obama is going to invite Ahmadinejad to the White House and when he arrives be like "Hey dude, what's up?  What shall we talk about?"

This is, of course, total bullshit.  

This is just a prediction.  This is not my first choice for an Obama running mate, but this is what I expect will happen in mid-June.

As time passes we are seeing the passage of the WW II and Korean generation of military veterans, yet patriotism remains alive and well in all corners of America, not just military households.  This diary is a reflection about Memorial Day 2008, a series of self-contained thoughts and observations contained in a single entry.