In other words, you just reiterated yourself. Excellent. I'd like to read a few more for myself. Could you possibly suggest a some titles and authors? Suggestion: don't use the word 'only.' That denotes that you've explored only a very narrow range of options. Considering as our democracy is far from an ideal form of government, it actually might be better for the US to move away from this ideology we call capitalism. The fall of the Soviet Union doesn't prove anything beyond the fact that the communist government in that superpower diminished the state as a world power. And now the US is on track to follow the same path. Japan is also a democracy and a capitalist economy; it's also following the same pattern as the US. Maybe another solution might have been that the US should not have allowed itself to become a consumer nation, giving China and India an economic edge in the long run. In the 1940's, the US was virtually a self-sustaining state; but our economic trends since WWII have lead us to become dependent on foreign states increasingly more. Maybe it would have been better if we had not encouraged consumerism and tried following Europe's example. George W. Bush certainly knew. They did know before Desert Storm of the crimes against humanity that Saddam committed, right? So it's not as though new evidence for WMD and of his brutal dictatorship just happened to show up 12 years later, correct? That's not hypocrisy. Maybe you should just skip with the rhetoric, as I don't know what you're getting at. You're saying that Obama is limited in what he has the power to do, and he's appreciative not to be a dictator because it alleviates him of responsibility? So if the oil spill gets worse, he isn't going to be held responsible for any of it, as he isn't in full control of the situation? You like repeating yourself, don't you? I'd be interested in knowing from where you conjured this very peculiar chain of logic.