En Tequila Es Verdad/progressive conservatism/post/2009/01/26/1006
 January 26, 2009 10:06 AM - MikeMike at The Big Stick said...
The money saved by more efficient transportation of goods dwarfs the money saved by offering public transit."
You're just re-asserting your claim again. Some data, please.
Here’s an excellent comparison from Australia:
More on the need for heavy rail here:
"How many times did we go to war under Clinton? Somali, Iraq, Bosnia."
That's quite different from being pro-war.
Somalia: Clinton went in with international cooperation to stop a humanitarian crisis -- not as an act of vengeance or conquest.
Iraq: Clinton initiated a 4-day bombing campaign intended to avert the need for actual war later on. Conservatives claimed, at the time, that he was just trying to deflect attention away from crucial domestic issues, like whether or not he was cheating on his wife (because, after all, how does tiny Iraq pose a threat to America?). Later on, they claimed he had been soft on terrorism. Are they back to claiming he was a warmonger? Stay tuned.
Bosnia: Again, we went in with an international coalition to stop a humanitarian crisis, and did so with astonishing success. No American solders were killed in combat during that operation, and the people in that part of the world still see Clinton as a hero.
Thanks for playing.
"It seems liberals like war just fine, so long as they are the ones running the show."
If the ultimate goal is promoting peace, then one might say this (albeit stretching the meaning of "like" rather a lot).
It seems that Clinton saw war (and make no mistake – lopsided actions like Bosnia and air-bombing Iraq were still wars) as a useful tool for getting another party to comply with your goals. I would call that ‘pro-war’ even if it seems less so in comparison with Bush’s attitude.