The Repugs think the US can run its empire without competence.  This is the notion that is being challenged by the current debacles in Iraq and Lebanon.  

The Dems argue competence could be useful.  They further suggest they have some.  

The Dems have often argued for more cleverness and less brute force.  This might actually be a good thing.  But their goals are the same.  

Both are committed to the War for Oil, which will continue under whatever adminstration until the US loses, which will happen.  

Can the Allies be coaxed back?  The basic problem is that oil is becoming ever-increasingly short.  So who is going to curtail their own usage?  Until an honest and open discussion occurs on how to manage limited and dwindling resources co-operatively, it will remain a game of who is conning whom.  

And how is such a discussion to happen?  Partnership is dead.  There is no sign of American elites being ready to cede power.  The choice of Bush in the first place was a decision to throw over the co-operation that existed and go for the big grab.  And though that decision may not stand forever, it stands now and will continue to stand in the absence of plain necessity to change it.  

The things that make us think plain necessity is already obvious are the things which led us to know, before it was ever launched, that the Iraq venture was a stupid idea.  But those things carried no weight with the decision makers then and don't now.  They have an utterly different idea of what is good and what is bad.  

Elections will make no difference to this whatever.  Even Diebold is irrelevant.