I do think she is certifiably bat shit fucking crazy, and a Manchurian Candidate, Pathological, Sociopathic, with a Messiah Complex, self-loathing, etc etc etc .... and with an inferiority complex that will drive her to start WW3 to cover up for her being their puppet, because she resents being their puppet.

You are welcome to disagree and have a different take on the lady, but that is, in no uncertain terms, my take on the lady.

and globalization sold the manufacturing base to the Chinese oligarchs
and the space program to the Russkies, it's amazing to think how clinton
and the neocons think we can wage a war against both let alone win one.

supposedly justifies.

The word "war" justifies a whole range of things in this culture, and suggests certain kinds of responses.

For instance, when we describe the 9/11 attack as an act of war, and then subsequently say we are waging War on Terror, that means that the proper response is a massive military buildup, some kind of police state structure at home to make sure no subversion is happening, whether from foreign infiltrators or unruly citizens, and those armed soldiers and militias you spoke of being deployed to over 100 countries in the world. It makes sense, you see! We're waging a war against an enemy that exists all over the place--wherever terrorism exists, we're going to be there to wage war on it! So obviously, we have to send troops to over 100 countries.

It also involves some truly despicable things like black sites and torture and detention centers in Chicago...suppression of the press....a growing unkindness to the idea of civil liberties...and, I'd argue, a corrupting effect on our legal system, though I can't prove that.

Now imagine if we'd called the 9/11 attack a crime against the people of the United States. It's not an act of war; it's a crime. OK. What do we do when we need to respond to a crime?

Well, we get investigators on the case, so we can find out definitively who the criminals are (and hopefully where they are). In this case that would be the people who planned and supported the action, since all the immediate criminals are dead. Since they have a multinational network, we need to cooperate with police and investigators in multiple countries, and military intelligence types as well. We find out as much as we can, within the law, to further our investigation.

I emphasize "within the law" because, since we are looking to prosecute a crime, rather than wage a war, we cannot let ourselves become lawless. Whereas war, in contrast, has an inherent tendency toward lawlessness, a criminal investigation needs to stay within the law. Therefore hauling random people--or even particular people--off to some dark hole and tormenting them with the cruelty of the Nine Hells is out. And it's not out just b/c it's against the law. It's also out because your overwhelming need, as an investigator, is to get accurate information. People at war also need reliable accurate information, but they also, often, have another need: to demoralize and pacify the population, which you do by creating terror and despair.

It's been obvious from the outset that the "War on Terror" has prioritized the latter need over the former. So much so, that it's led to some colossally stupid, wasteful, and dishonorable acts, even by the standards of many high-ranking US military themselves. I see serious problems with their ethics, but the WoT doesn't even manage to be honorable or sensible by their standards. Which is why so many high-ranking military were uncomfortable with these wars back in the days of Bush and Cheney.

Back to the idea of 9/11 being a crime against the American people. Our first step is investigation, information-gathering, establishing and activating the networks that will get us reliable accurate information. Once we've established who the criminals are, and where they are, the next step is to capture them alive, and bring them back for trial.

This is the point where War on Terror apologists like to mock civil libertarians and people who care about ethics. Because this is the point where you probably will need military action to bring the criminals back and have them stand trial--because they're generally protected by a lot of people with guns, and dug in or entrenched somewhere as secure as possible. You can't just have a police investigator walk up and say "I arrest you, Osama bin Laden, for the crime of conspiring to kill 3,000 people. You have the right to remain silent..." because that guy will be dead before he gets anywhere near Osama bin Laden. You need to get past the people with guns to get to the leadership who actually made the plan. So yes, there will be some military action done here. Perhaps it will be done by international police alone, but it's more likely that there will be a cooperative effort between police and the militaries of various countries.

But that does not, repeat NOT, mean a "Coalition of the Willing" fighting an "Axis of Evil." You're still trying to uphold the law. You're just having a hell of a time getting to these particular criminals. And once you do get them, you do not blow the criminal away along with a few of his wives. You do not shove a bayonet into his body. With guns on him from all sides, you have a legal authority step forward and say: "Osama bin Laden, you are under arrest for the crime of conspiring to kill 3,000 people. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish."

Imagine what this would mean. No Iraq War. No war in Afghanistan after the criminals are seized. No war in Pakistan. None in Syria. No Islamic State.

No black sites. No justification of torture. No constant paranoia. No suppression of the press and over-reliance on the odious Espionage Act. No constant stream of Pravda-like propaganda.

and possibly, though not certainly, no Patriot Acts I and II.

Maybe I should re-publish this as a diary on September 11.