My God, it seems we actually agree on something (was that a pig that just flew overhead??)....

That was not a pig, Jack. Check the author of that post.

So, you like Clark. Great.

Too bad he's a pompous idiot, but then, if he seriously enters the race, that will become (painfully) evident the more he opens his mouth.

Sort of like he did for Tim Russert when he asserted a line from the Communist Manifesto as being a founding principle of the United States...

Run Wesley, run!

Thanks for your comments, Wind Rider. Neil Boortz will be proud to know you've picked up his "Wesley Clark Is Either Stupid Or a Commie.." smear.

Unfortunately for your personal credibility, the Progressive Tax in America predates communism by about a hundred years. A simple internet search will provide more information although http://www.taxworld.org/History/TaxHistory.htm is a good place to start.

As far as your claim of Wesley Clark being a "pompous idiot", I don't know as I have never met him. I am, however, jealous that you have and frankly a little concerned that you didn't come away from your meeting with a more thoughtful opinion of him.

I read your reference dating the progressive tax and because of lack of adherence, etc the tax was discontinued. There wasn't a progressive tax under todays system until 1913. And you said it predated communism by a hundred years. I hope that you don't believe that Karl Marx was the first of the communist theoreticians. If you do I think your personal credibility might suffer. I think Plato had some thoughts on communism. See this google page

The context for my remarks was this line from Wind Rider:

"..like [Gen. Clark] did for Tim Russert when he asserted a line from the Communist Manifesto as being a founding principle of the United States.."

My point was simply that progressive taxation was around before the Communist Manifesto. I should have been less specific than "a hundred years before communism" and instead focused on the development of the progressive tax separate from the modern push towards communism. Even so, the URL I provided should have helped to enlightment those who think Karl Marx and Frederick Engels thunked up the progressive tax.

Thanks for your comments and I'll check out the URL.

...agreed with your assessment of Clark and would love to see him run. i've been waiting for someone to provide a principled and intelligent alternative to the current administration, and the current flock of Dem hopefuls have neither a spine nor a prayer of winning.

What makes Clark attractive to Democrats is that he can play down his liberalism while playing up his military record. As the author indirectly suggests, liberalism cannot win on its own merits. (Please don't bother to argue with this: it's true, or there would be no talk of "smearing" someone as a liberal. Either it's something to be proud of, hence it cannot be a smear, or it's something to be ashamed of, in which case it could be a smear -- if it is also untrue.) So, like always, liberals must run under the radar. And while every other Democratic contender (except Lieberman) has already ruined his credibility on matters of national security, running a former general ought to assuage any reflexive doubts about the Democrats' resolve on such issues.

Let me also point out that the writer is not opposed to smearing, per se, but only to smearing that is injurious to Democrats. Anyone who uses epithets such as "Bush's Evangelical Right stooges", "Clinton-hating Republicans", "Chicken-Hawk Right", and "the bigots of America" cannot credibly object to smearing in principle. Compared with any of those, calling someone a 'liberal' seems pretty mild.

I too agree with the writer. I suspect and passionately hope that General Wesley Clark will eventually run for President of the USA and replace Bush and his unelected gang of arrogant morons.
BTW, it seems to me that down and dirty discriptions are not always incorrect.
Charles Munn

See, there goes the Left again! They complain about "smears" when someone calls a liberal, say, a "liberal". But they think nothing of calling Republicans or conservatives an "unelected gang of arrogant morons." It's like Al Franken, who had the nerve to name his latest book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" -- after he lied to John Ashcroft about the purpose of an interview.

As for "unelected", do the country a favor, please, and actually read the U. S. Constitution. Please pay close attention to Article II, Section 1. The Constitution stipulates, not a popular vote, but a vote by state electors, who are selected in a manner determined by the state legislatures. Please note: state ***legislatures***, not state courts. In other words, when the Florida state legislature had already determined that the deadline for filing votes was by 5 PM, on the Tuesday following the election, they presumably did not mean nineteen days after the election, or "at some time to be determined on the fly by the Florida Supreme Court".

Liberals complain it was a state matter -- all of a sudden, out of the blue, liberals have discovered states rights -- and see it as a states' rights issue, not a matter for the U. S. Supreme Court. But the basis of states' rights is the Tenth Amendment, which states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Please note: It is not a reserved power of the states to re-write Article II, Section 1. Therefore, the U. S. Supreme Court came into the scene and made Florida play nice.

Conclusion: Mr. Bush was elected. Mr. Gore was defeated. Get over it.

Lee:

I apologize for ignoring your first post. I erroneously felt if I just ignored you, you'd go away. But no, you are hanging around doing the brave job of whacking over the head anyone who may have a different opinion than you.

And this would be fine - if you had interpreted my original article on Wesley Clark correctly.

In my article, I put 'smear' in quotes referencing 'liberal' to indicate *I didn't feel it was a smear. Make sense? Imagine if I were saying the sentence out loud and when I got to the word 'smear', I gestured quotes with two fingers on each hand in the air. Suddenly, the sentence changes and the inference is I don't believe it but THEY do (THEY being those that would try to "smear" this way. (I'm a liberal after all - why would I think it's a smear?)

I understand this subtle nuance may be lost on you.

In closing, I'd like you to read my original article one more time, but this time, imagine I'm smiling and making "points" whimsically. Try to see the subtler shadings - to understand the reader from the writing. (Why is the writer angry with the Bush wing of the Religious Right? Ah. Because they took down his man McCain.) (Why does the writer have "Hey Rich!" in parenthesis? Not gonna give this one away!)

-Lope

> But no, you are hanging around doing the brave job of whacking over the head anyone who may have a different opinion than you.

It's all in the characterization. When I disagree with you, it's "whacking you over the head." Is it also "whacking me over the head" when you disagree with me? Probably not, but the distinction gets lost on me. Guess I'm not subtle or nuanced enough.

People misuse scare quotes all the time, but I will gladly accept your version of your use of them with the word 'smear', and apologize for that particular misunderstanding. Now it becomes clear that: 1. You don't consider calling someone a liberal to be a smear, and 2. You obviously have no objection, principled or otherwise, to using smears, since you did not encapsulate your use of the following terms in scare quotes: Chicken Hawk Right; Clinton-hating Republicans; bigots of America.

> I understand this subtle nuance may be lost on you.

How could I have missed all that subtle nuance? Your writing practically screams at the top of its lungs of subtle nuance. "Bigots of America" was definitely a nice, subtle, nuanced, yet humorous characterization of those you disagree with. But that's not "whacking anyone on the head," now, is it?

> In closing, I'd like you to read my original article one more time, but this time, imagine I'm smiling and making "points" whimsically.

That's what Al Franken and Michael Moore do. "Hey guys, it's just whimsy. It's just satire. When I say something that's untrue or cruel, why, that's just me having fun." And how can I argue with that? Some people think pulling wings off of flies is hilarious. So if you think, say, completely mischaracterizing the views of "some Fundamentalist types" and imputing bigotry to them is all in good fun, why, knock yourself out. But don't be surprised when "some Fundamentalist types" call you on it.

Okay, I'm over it. (clicking my new jackbooted heels, but secretly wishing Al Franken and Michael Moore will fly in on their magic carpets. and save us.) I arch my back , jab out my hand and scream,
Heil Dise!

Lee:

I'm not sure why you are looking for a fight. I wrote my version of a political analysis of Wesley Clark. If you have a different opinion, maybe you should write your own analysis instead of shitting all over me for mine.

If you feel like I'm characterizing you with my descriptive name-calling, well, as they say, "If the shoe fits.."

I'm starting to wonder if you went back and re-read like I asked.

"Bigots of America" doesn't refer to people I "don't agree with" (as you said). In my original article it specifically referred to folks who would have a problem with him being a Jew and/or a Catholic (or both is one life). Couldn't we fairly call these folks bigots?

Moving along, how do you know if I mischaracterized the views of "some Fundementalist types" if I'm no more specific than "some Fundementalist types". Can there be no "some Fundementalist types" that would be guilty of the behavior I described? I know plenty of folks like this having grown up in a Fundemental Baptist Church with the correlating Baptist School education for 12 years. I'm fascinated by your comments because I think it reveals much more than you intended. If YOU feel YOU are one of these "some Fundementalist types", I'd love to have a discussion about the current politicization of Fundementalist Christianity (and to some degree Evangelical Christianity) and how it fits in with the the teachings of Christ in the New Testament. I'm equally fascinated by how the mentality of "living in the last times" affects Religious Right politics. (Of course, being a Preterist, I know a few folks of the Religious Right for whom this is no compelling dynamic.)

"Bush's Evangelical Right Stooges" specifically targeted those who "savaged" McCain. I think you remember the facts but if not, here's a refresher: http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/robertson.html
Scroll down to the story titled "One of Pat Robertson's Biggest Lies". I think, based on the definition of "stooge", this "name-calling" was quite appropriate.

I'll take responsibility for "Chicken Hawk Right" because I did not specifically mention to whom this applied. I thought until looking at it just now that it was a link to here: http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html
If you're too busy to check out their exhaustive lists, let me just quickly tell you how they define a Chicken Hawk: "public persons – generally male – who (1) tend to advocate military solutions to political problems, and who have personally (2) declined to take advantage of significant opportunity to serve in uniform during wartime."

As you can probably tell, their description puts the best possible face on a disgusting practice: folks who would sacrifice the lives of others for causes they themselves would not. My use of "Chicken Hawk Right" specifically referred to folks that will attack Clark's military record while remaining silent about Bush's own (or their own). I bet Charles Munn, retired USAF has much more to say about this.

"Clinton-hating Republicans" specifically (and circularly) refers to Republicans that hate Clinton. If there are none of these people (snicker) then no one is being called names.. eh?

Finally (and *gasp*), I've given a lot of consideration to the differences between LABELING and NAME-CALLING. While I'd like to honestly make the claim that they are different (former assigns a pre-defined set of attributes that may or may not apply to the product or person being labeled, latter is short-hand notation for what appear to be obvious attributes to the applier) I think they are probably interchangeable. I will say, however, that LABELING strikes me more as a TACTIC while name-calling seems to be a DEVICE. Hell, I dunno. If anyone has seen this subject dissected online, send me a link.

Again, I'm very open to a debate on the specifics of my article - as indicated above. I'd prefer not to quibble over semantics anymore. Thanks for the comparison with Michael Moore and Al Franken but I don't deserve it. I'm just a computer geek that occasionally wants to express himself. Maybe someday I'll take an English class or debate course and learn what an ad hominen is. Seriously. I might just do that.

(grin) Well, Lope it seems to me that you are an open guy who seriously wishes to debate the issues. I'm a registered independent who has voted Republican, Democrat and Libertarian. Hell, I even kinda' liked old grumpy Dole, ( grin ) still do, viagra peddling and all.

However I must admit, although I'm not nearly as anti Bush as many Republicans were/are anti Clinton, I truly don't like Bush. Frankly it gagged me when I saw that ex Texas Nat'l Guard pilot who went AWOL for one year, in a flight suit.

I find it hard to believe that any military person who is aware of his background would vote for him.

If I or one of my fellow Airman had gone Absent Without Leave for year, especially during a war, we'd still be in Jail! So it seems to me that George W. is the perfect description of a Chicken Hawk . Now Bush senior. is a very differrent story. Although I didn't agree with many of his policies, old daddy Bush has the right stuff. He seems to be an honorable man who did his duty.

Hell, I didn't even vote for Clinton the first time he ran, not because he was a draft dodger, but because he clearly was/is a liar. Hey man, there's just no other way to say it. Same thing applies to George W. That is, a guy gets caught telling enough lies, it's pretty certain that guy's a liar... Now like ol' Diagenes implied, maybe there is no such thing as a person who always tells the truth... But Jeeez, at least some of us make an effort!

I didn't agree with the Vietnam war either. But I was a lifer and I did my job to the best of my ability. My loyality is for the crew with whom I fly and the grunts we support, and not for some politician or political General such as Westmoreland who wraps himself in our flag. Clinton was clearly a draft dodger, but it seems to me that any reasonable person, ( grin ) other than we duty bound lifers, would have tried to avoid that stupid war. At least Clinton didn't pretend to be a warrior and then go AWOL for a year. I did vote for Clinton for his second term, simply because I hated what the Republicans tried to to to him and to our country. Also he was obviously extremely smart and I liked many of his policies and what was happening to the economy. I wonder if anyone can truthfully say that Geogre W. is even moderately smart, etc... Well, maybe so. Maybe I'm just missing it. Still.....

So regardless of what Lee Dice has to say, I'm not a leftist simply because I dislike Bush and his appointments of the old Reagan gang of advisers who now seem to pull his strings. I said that gang of unelected ( grin, and Dise they were not elected, they were appointed! ) men and one woman are morons simply because it seems moronic to me to believe the Iraqis were going to welcome us with open arms, as well as the utter stupidity of sending in so few troops. Now, in the face of this monumental blunder, our troops are still much too thin and the MORONS at the Pentagon have yet to reinforce them!
My heart goes out to our poor grunts who are now pulling duty in Iraq as well as the millions of innocent Iraqis who must also suffer through this disaster. Because of George, Rumy, and other arrogant losers who turned a secular state into a growing terrorist nightmare we have little option but to stay and clean up their mess. So much for our priorities of catching Ben Laden.

I sincerely believe that General Clark may be the one man who might do the job and get us out of Irag with honor as well as chase down the real terrorist.

I will also proudly say that I am a liberal if only because it seems to me that liberals are honest, open minded and willing to discuss any reasonable issue. It seems to me that you fit very nicely into that catagory.

BTW, I usually rarely say that I'm retired from the military because I try very hard to live in the moment. You know, that was then this is now kinda thing. Yet in this case it somehow seems to be the right thing to do.

Best wishes,
Charles Munn, MSGT, USAF, Retired

> I'm not sure why you are looking for a fight.

Does it matter?

> I wrote my version of a political analysis of Wesley Clark. If you have a different opinion, maybe you should write your own analysis instead of shitting all over me for mine.

I think we're seeing elements here, perhaps, of why liberals prefer the print and broadcast media, while conservatives prefer talk radio and the web. James Lileks once wrote, "Newspapers are a lecture; the web is a conversation." What we're doing here is having a conversation. If you don't want my feedback, why not take away the block down here at the bottom of your web page, labeled "Comments"? Better yet, write for the New York Times, where they print approximately one of two hundred letters received? If you want your audience just to sit out here and suck up anything you write, you are definitely employing the wrong medium.

> If you feel like I'm characterizing you with my descriptive name-calling, well, as they say, "If the shoe fits.."

And you ask me why I'm "shitting" on your analysis. Maybe the toilet seat fits. Or we could just bag all this crap and try a real argument. We're certainly never going to get to one, at this rate. C'mon. I'd love to see what you've got.

> "Bigots of America" doesn't refer to people I "don't agree with" (as you said). In my original article it specifically referred to folks who would have a problem with him being a Jew and/or a Catholic (or both is one life). Couldn't we fairly call these folks bigots?

You strongly implied that this characterization would fit someone who is a Southern or rural "fundamentalist type", and then went on to ridicule those who believe there will be an anti-Christ. You paint with a very broad brush, my friend, but don't get mad at me. I'm just noticing.

> Moving along, how do you know if I mischaracterized the views of "some Fundementalist types" if I'm no more specific than "some Fundementalist types".

Not specifying is a terrific way to smear. When pressed, as you are now, you can always deny that's what you meant to do, even though the message comes across loud and clear.

> Can there be no "some Fundementalist types" that would be guilty of the behavior I described?

If President Bush were to say, "Some Jews are greedy and conniving," he could always grin boyishly and ask, "Can there be no Jews that would be guilty of the behavior I described?" I still think it would rile the Anti-Defamation League, though.

> If YOU feel YOU are one of these "some Fundementalist types"...

Guilty as charged.

> I'd love to have a discussion about the current politicization of Fundementalist Christianity (and to some degree Evangelical Christianity) and how it fits in with the the teachings of Christ in the New Testament.

I don't necessarily regard fundamentalist Christianity as "politicized", though you might have to specify what you mean further. If you mean that clergymen should not get involved in politics, I suppose that means Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell -- but it also means the Rev. Martin Luther King, William Sloane Coffin, and the Rev. Jesse Jackson. (My experience with liberals is that when liberals say clergymen should not get involved in politics, they mean conservative clergymen.) It means that John Wilberforce, an evangelical Christian, should have never fought against and ultimately succeeded in getting slavery abolished in England. If you mean the churches themselves should not get involved in politics, I've been going to fundamentalist churches for about fifty years, and I've never been to a church that supported a political candidate. If you mean that fundamentalist Christians themselves should not get involved in politics, sorry but that's their constitutional right as American citizens.

But as for the theology itself, it is pretty much unchanged. I think what you are noticing is not the politicization of religion, but rather the more active involvement of fundamentalist Christians as private citizens in politics. You don't want them there, apparently.

> I'm equally fascinated by how the mentality of "living in the last times" affects Religious Right politics.

I take no position on whether these are the "end times". It's all the same to me, really, from a practical perspective. One who believes these are the end times believes that, any second now, he could find himself in God's presence. Whereas, one who doesn't believe these are necessarily the end times also believes that, any second now, he could die and find himself in God's presence. I don't really see a practical difference. He promised to come back, and I believe Him, but the timing is up to Him, not me, and my commission as a Christian remains the same regardless: to honor the Lord and his commandments and to love my neighbor as myself.

> Bush's Evangelical Right Stooges" specifically targeted those who "savaged" McCain. I think you remember the facts but if not, here's a refresher: http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/robertson.html

Pretty fevered stuff. Sorry, I'm no fan of Mr. McCain's. If you have specific complaints about things said against him, lay them out. I won't support anyone lying about McCain, nor about Robertson, for that matter.

> I'll take responsibility for "Chicken Hawk Right" because I did not specifically mention to whom this applied.

If the implication is that one needed to serve in the military in order to form an opinion about whether the military ought to be used, then I suppose Mr. Clinton -- who famously declined his opportunity to serve in ROTC -- shouldn't have bombed Kosovo, or that aspirin plant in the Sudan. But of course it doesn't work that way. FDR was unable to serve, but he was not unable to judge that the military was needed. Let's recognize question-begging epithets such as the "Chicken Hawk Right" for what they are: a red herring, and a poor substitute for thinking.

> As you can probably tell, their description puts the best possible face on a disgusting practice: folks who would sacrifice the lives of others for causes they themselves would not.

If that description doesn't fit Mr. Clinton, then it wouldn't fit anyone. But that's hardly a new thing in government, is it? Prescribing for others that which we would not prescribe for ourselves? It also applies to rich socialists like Warren Buffett who advocate that I pay higher taxes on my income (people like Buffett don't need even to earn an income). It applies to Section 8 housing bureaucrats who put tenement families next to other people's middle-class homes, but not their own. It is NPR speaking out as the voice of the poor and downtrodden, while objecting to the soup kitchen going in next door to their premises in northern Virginia.

> "Clinton-hating Republicans" specifically (and circularly) refers to Republicans that hate Clinton. If there are none of these people (snicker) then no one is being called names.. eh?

There are Clinton-hating Republicans, even as there (obviously) are Bush-hating Democrats. But for some reason, the news media sees mainly haters on the Right, not on the Left.

> I bet Charles Munn, retired USAF has much more to say about this.

Mr. Munn just likened me to Hitler. Should I care what else he may have to say?

As to defining the difference between "labeling" and "name-calling", allow me to have a stab at it. Everyone labels out of necessity. Let's stipulate that no one can know every fact in the world, or even every fact about one person. If you try to chase down every single fact, you will miss the big picture that the facts are painting. At some point, discernment needs to kick in, and you have to draw conclusions from the set of facts that are available. This is where the value of labels comes in. Labels are a convenient mental and communicational shorthand, a time-saver, that paints a picture in a general way. Their danger is if you confuse the label with the entire scope or breadth of a person, an issue, or the world itself. We would unhesitatingly call William Buckley a conservative, even though he strays from the orthodoxy on some issues, most notably the legalization of marijuana. We would also unhesitatingly label Hitler a monster, even though he was sweet to his secretaries and very sentimental about his dogs.

Name-calling is something different. When someone calls names, he is hoping to distract someone from the issue at hand in an attempt to discredit an idea by association. "Why, of course it's bad policy, the people who favor it are all a bunch of !" It is, in fact, one of the more famous fallacies in informal logic -- the 'argumentum ad hominem' you mentioned. What's important are the two elements of distraction and irrelevance: the name-calling may be, in fact, truthful. President Clinton was in fact a lying, perjuring scumbag, but that of course has no bearing on whether his policy of bombing Kosovo was the right thing to do. Even scumbags can be right once in a while, and even virtuous saints can make mistakes.

And some terms can be used both as a label and as name-calling. That's the way, for example, Rush Limbaugh uses the word "liberal". To him, it's not just a descriptive term, it's an epithet as well, at least to the choir to which he preaches. His argument would, of course, become a mere epithet if he were to stop there and not present any *relevant* arguments.

"Well, you know, I think that what candidate Clark, if there is such a candidate, would be for is he would be for doing the right thing for government. [...]

"...the tax cuts weren’t fair. I mean, the people that need the money and deserve the money are the people who are paying less, not the people who are paying more. I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation." -- General Wesley Clark in an interview with Tim Russert.

Just what we need, a president who wants to do the right thing... for government, and who thinks this country was founded on progressive taxation.

For the record, the Supreme Court ruled the progressive taxation was unconstitutional. Hence the Constitutional Amendment (change) allowing for progressive taxation.

Well Dise, I'll admit after you blantantly called me a leftist I had a little fun at your expense when I implied that you are a Nazi, and I apologize for that. However I also hoped that we may lighten up a little. I gave you the perfect open. That is, you might have said something like, " Moore and Franken's carpets seem to be locked into a left turn. They now seem to be spiraling ever left up into the clouds. Now stand straight Sgt Munn, suck in that gut, no more leftist fairy tale dreams from you!"

Still it seemed to me that you labeled me a leftist because I have not atomatically fallen into step behind the ultra right , of which you seem to be a staunch member, who now seems to totally control the Republican party.

Regarding Clinton: Sure it's very apparent that the man is a liar and a draft dodger and I hated it when he went off half cocked and bombed that pharmaceutical factory and killed all of those innocent people. And yes, like some ultra right wingers, some liberals are also hippocrites. Like old Diagenes implied, maybe there's no such thing as an honest person. But come on, let's make a pledge to at least attempt to be honest and not just merely try to make points at the expense of killing a possible amusing and enlightening debate.

However it seems to me that you are unwilling to yeild a point on any occasion. That, as bright as you seem to be, it seems like you sneer rather than debate. Yet surely even you will give a point or two to Clinton's polocies toward business, after all he stole the ideas from the Republican party. At any rate, Clinton was obviously good for business and maybe gets a B on our ecology, whereas Geoge W. is obviously not good for business and maybe rates a D on ecology.

Sure, maybe it wasn't fair that the Clinton economy got a boost from President Bush senior who, fortunately for us, was clawing our way out of the economical morass left by Reagan and his spend thrift advisors. Also maybe it's true that the market was in a downward trend when George W. took office.

Oh yeah, you might also say that if Reagan hadn't been such a spend thrift then the USSR would not have collapsed and maybe that's even true. Yet it's really a mute point because it's simply conjecture. Maybe they fell because of Gorbachov's open policy. You know, let in a little honest light and the peasants saw all of the hidden skeletons. Maybe they fell because a rag tag Afgan Taliban army, created by the CIA and in a large part funded by the Saudi's, whipped their butts thus proving the Soviets were not a superpower and could not defend themselves because they were unwilling to take casualties.

Still, even if it were true that Reagan's spending drove the Soviets into bankruptcy that was then and this is now. George W's reinventions of Reagan's old spendthrift policy coupled with preventive wars seems to be a total disaster which seems to be getting worse by the second. Hopefully during the next election for President of the USA, George W. and his unelected/ appointed team will be held accountable for what seems to me to be their massive blunders.

At this point in time the nicest thing I can say about the current administration is it's obious to me at least, that their decisions have definitely not been good for busiiness.

At anyrate we're all in this together and I have to believe that we all have the best interest of our citizens and our country in our hearts.

Best Wishes,
Charles Munn

> I'll admit after you blantantly called me a leftist I had a little fun at your expense when I implied that you are a Nazi, and I apologize for that.

Apology accepted, and I hope I didn't flash the "leftist" warning too soon, and apologize myself to you on that score. Let's start over...

> Still it seemed to me that you labeled me a leftist because I have not atomatically fallen into step behind the ultra right....

Whether you are a leftist or not, the phrase "unelected gang of arrogant morons", applied to the Bush administration, puts your commentary in that ballpark. You could refrain from throwing around epithets like that and still not be an ultra-rightist.

> ...the ultra right , of which you seem to be a staunch member, who now seems to totally control the Republican party.

I'm sorry, but I don't see it. I *wish* the "ultra-right", by which I presume you mean conservatives like me, had control over the party. Problem is, aside from his prosecution of the war, and the tax cut (which still was poorly designed), I can't think of any other victories conservatives have enjoyed under Bush. Example: The conservative position would be not to have new, expensive pharmacautical entitlements; however, Bush has signed onto them enthusiastically. Example: The conservative position would be to have free trade; however, Bush pushed through 30% increases in steel tariffs, resulting in massive layoffs in industries dependent on steel. Example: The conservative position would be to have criticized the Supreme Court for ignoring the 14th and 15th amendments and allowing racial quotas at state institutions; however, Bush praised their decision. Example: The conservative position would have been we already have a Dept. of Defense, no, we do not need an expensive new bureaucracy like the Dept. of Homeland Defense; however, Bush was again enthusiastic.

Bush spends money like a drunken sailor, and absolutely refuses to issue a veto of any Congressional bill, no more how pork-laden. He refuses to use the White House to pressure Senate Democrats to pass his judicial appointments. As best as I can tell, Bush Junior is simply a chip off the old blockhead. That is, Bush, like his daddy, is a liberal Republican -- a Rockefeller, not a Reagan. I think the only place he is showing any vision is in his foreign policy. That's not unimportant, but it hardly leaves this conservative fulfilled.

> However it seems to me that you are unwilling to yeild a point on any occasion.

For instance?

> That, as bright as you seem to be, it seems like you sneer rather than debate.

My perspective is that the debate was in sorry shape before I got here. Big on epithets, small on reason.

> Yet surely even you will give a point or two to Clinton's polocies toward business, after all he stole the ideas from the Republican party.

I give the sorry s.o.b. his due, which is not inconsiderable, and no more. I believe the country received tremendous economic benefit from having a Democratic president and a Republican Congress. In 1994, the Clinton adminstration was in big trouble. They started out by raising taxes, and then pulled one of the biggest attempted power-grabs of the century, namely the Hillary Health Care debacle. The country as a whole was not in favor of this new level of socialism, and surprised everyone by electing a Republican Congress. Some of Clinton's advisors warned him, do you want to move somewhat to the Right, or do you want to lose the next election? So, Clinton decided he'd rather sign some conservative bills than be an ex-president. He supported NAFTA; he signed a welfare reform bill; and otherwise kept his hands off the economy. That's faint praise, but it's more than most Republican presidents seem able or willing to accomplish. I have a deep-seated hostility and intense dislike of anything reeking of Clinton, but he made a few very good decisions that helped us a great deal economically. I don't have to like Mr. Clinton to like some of those decisions. That's as much as you get from me.

When the presidency and the Congress are of the same party, it usually bodes poorly for the country. Our system was designed to function best when the powers-that-be are disunited and competing with one another. When they are united, it is usually at the citizens' expense, especially the taxpayers'.

> ...clawing our way out of the economical morass left by Reagan

Ronald Reagan was very good for this nation and its economy. It's so easy to forget the 20% interest rates, the 13% inflation, and the 10% unemployment we enjoyed under Mr. Carter. It's also easy to forget the pitiful impotence of Carter's foreign policy. Mr. Reagan not only showed the world that communism could be defeated, he did it.

> Also maybe it's true that the market was in a downward trend when George W. took office.

We were probably in recession already before Mr. Clinton left office. The Commerce Department lied outright about our economic situation for the last quarter of the year 2000, overestimating certain key figures by as much as 30%. Someone should have been indicted in Commerce when Bush took over, but it's typical of Mr. Bush to avoid direct confrontation, or confrontation of any other type, with Democrats.

And I thank you for your candor and for giving me a possible brief glance into your prospective. Although I generally share the capatilistic views of David Hume, who is sometimes known as the small business man's philosopher, as well as in Adam Smith, who seemed to be highly influenced by Hume, it now seems to me that, through your eyes at least, I am indeed a leftist. It also now seems that you were perfectly justified in labeling me as such.

That is, I've always considered myself as a military lifer who, in that aspect, was A politcal. When given a mission or sent to war, sure, I had opinions and like most lifers, we bitched and moaned and laughed at the frigging politicians and political generals who wrap themselves in the flag, but we kept it among ourselves and did the best job we knew how to do. In that aspect I thought I was fairly far to the right.

But now, in trying my best to be honest, I realize that I, as well as most lifer politicians,
Republican or Democrat, are products of a strong socialistic medical system. We've never had to worry about paying doctor bills or buying drugs as it is supplied by the government and it seems to me that we are guaranteed to have those rights for the rest of our lives.

I also now realize that maybe because I've seen so many people killed by the stupidity of war I'm, as most leftist seem to be, extremely empathic to my fellow humans and other creatures. In fact I'm so empathic to them
that I'd like to see something like that system Hillary proposed put into place. However, I know that will never happen in one fell swoop but, it seems to me, it is happening inch by inch.

Jeeez Lee, thank you again. I'm truthful when I say that it's wonderfully freeing to come out of a leftist closet that I, until reading of your perspective, didn't even know I was in.

I'm a bloody leftist, and I'm reveling in it! Even
though if I were still in the active military I would do my duty for whomever is president, I don't for a minute believe that it's our God given right to engage in so called preventive wars. I don't for a minute believe that we have the right to determine the fate of other nations who pose little threat to our massive existence.

I know we have radically different views, but let's just agree to disagree and get on with our lives. I mean, hell, we are simply standing in very different places perhaps caused by radically different experiences.

That said, I'd like to address something you said regarding Plato and communism. You seem to be very well read, so I'm sure that you are aware that Plato proposed a Republic which was run by a sect called "The Guardians." He said those Guardians were to be chosen at birth and then trained to run all facets of the government. They were to be public servants who were never allowed to own property, etc.

However, that didn't apply to the citizens of that Republic. Those citizens were free to own property, run businesses and trade at the local agora. Rather than to call that a communist state I'd say it was a totalitarian state. In that respect I do admit that it might have some vague resemblance to the old USSR, a country who claimed to be communist but, as we are both aware of, were nothing but a totalitarian state run by self styled elitist.

Now back to Plato who said something like,
I seem to remember in book IV of The Republic, that it was just an ideal, a model if you will, but that it probably would never work.

I first read The Republic when I was in my teens and it truly puzzeled me as to who would choose the Guardians. Then finally it dawned on me, why old Plato and his elitist aristocratic friends would of course chose the Guardians as well as over see them and, ( grin ) probaly write their proficiency reports.

Hell, I guess nothing much has changed after
all. The Guardians of today are still chosen by the aristocratic elite, you know, the Harvard, Yale, and other ivy league bunch. Unfortunately the modern Guardians can own property etc. which seems to cause them to be open to bribes, etc..
( grin ) Hmmmm, maybe only a leftist would even consider such a thing.

Best Wishes,
Charles Munn

> ...products of a strong socialistic medical system. We've never had to worry about paying doctor bills or buying drugs as it is supplied by the government and it seems to me that we are guaranteed to have those rights for the rest of our lives.

One person's rights is another person's obligation. Medicine is not a free good, like the air we breathe. It is a scarce good, which is simply something which everyone cannot simply walk out their door and get as much of as they need. HMOs are often criticized because they deny care. However, socialized medicine also denies care, only they don't call it that, they call it a waiting line. If the wait for a heart operation is three years and you'll be dead in six months without the operation, then that's an effective denial.

> I also now realize that maybe because I've seen so many people killed by the stupidity of war I'm, as most leftist seem to be, extremely empathic to my fellow humans and other creatures.

I don't equate leftists with peaceniks. Leftists are not necessarily anti-war, if it happens to be a war of their own choice. Sen. Dean, for example, is all in favor of sending troops to Liberia. The only real difference between Liberia and Iraq is there is no vital U.S. interest in Liberia. Leftists only want war when there can be no possible gain for the U.S.

> I don't for a minute believe that it's our God given right to engage in so called preventive wars.

And then, when there is a huge smoking radioactive hole where downtown New York used to be, the giant public finger starts pointing in the direction of people who could have done something to nip it in the bud, but chose not to do anything. If we don't start hitting these people where they live, they will continue to hit us where we live.

There are numerous parallels, in my opinion, between the U.S. and the Roman Republic circa 200 B.C. Rome ran a wealthy alliance of city-states, and had extremely productive agriculture. Wealth attracts robbers, and over the course of a couple of hundred years they were attacked, and sometimes sacked, by the Gauls, the Etruscans, the Carthaginians, the Macedonians, and whomever else felt they had something to gain. Rome dealt with their need for security by taking over.

This is where the logic leads us. As a military man, you know that there is no responsibility without authority. Well, we in the U.S. have been held responsible for everything in the world since 1945. If there is a famine in Ethiopia, we are somehow to blame. If there is war in the Mideast, we are somehow to blame. If an enormous Soviet army is bearing down on western Europe, it is incumbent on us to stop it. A hundred years ago, we could hide behind our oceans and be secure in our borders. This is no longer an option. If we are going to be saddled with the responsibility, we need to grab the authority. If we will not grab the authority, then we have no responsibility. For fifty-plus years, and even now to a large extent, we have been seeking some middle ground that allows us to be responsible, but does not grant us the political or moral authority to do what we need to do. That middle ground does not exist. We need to decide if we are going to be a giant Switzerland, content to sit here hoping they don't hit us again; or to take charge and make sure it doesn't happen again.

I know where the Democrats line up on this issue. It just isn't a serious option.

Lee: "One person's rights is another person's obligation."

True and I see your point of view. However, please bear with me for a moment as I attempt to explain my point of view. As I'm sure you know, Jamestown was our first colony and it failed miserably. It was of course our first experiment in commmunism in that everyone worked together and shared the harvest. Well, there were too many people who laid back and didn't work hard enough. It finally got back on track with the pragmatic philosophy of "No work, no food." So it seems to me that one can't always count on all of us doing the honorable thing. And I agree that those who refuse to be productive shouldn't be paid or get medicine, after all it's their choice. It's not cruel. It's simply nature's way. Hunt for, kill and/or domesticate and eat our fellow creatures, including both plant and/or animal, or die and visa versa.

But it seems there is ample evidence to strongly suggest that that even Neanderthal man cared for their weak and elderly, that they cared enough to share their hunt. Now I do agree with many of the hard edged intellectual views of Libertarians, however it seems to me that both Libertarians and Republicans beleive that all men are honorable and, unfortunately that seems to have been proven to be an incorrect stance. A Libertarian or a Republican might say. "I care enough to take care of the children of those who refuse to work, as well as the sick and elderly, but it's my choice to either do so or not. You don't have the right to do it for me through taxation."

Yet, like Jamestown and those who didn't work hard enough, that is, those who always leave it to others to get the job done, there are also many of us who won't reach out and help our nieghbors. Maybe they are the same people who wont pull their weight in a crunch. Maybe some are just unaware of the many people who, through no fault of their own, just need a little help.

Yet it seems that we've made sure that everyone, if they make the effort, can find a free food line, get free food stamps, find free used clothing. But, even with medicare, ( which is so riddled with mindless paperwork that many physicians now refuse to take it ) it seems that not everyone can get the care of a decent medical system. So I've adamantly concluded, as flawed as it may be, that socialized medicine is a necessity in any human, caring state.

Lee: "I don't equate leftists with peaceniks. Leftists are not necessarily anti-war, if it happens to be a war of their own choice. Sen. Dean, for example, is all in favor of sending troops to Liberia. The only real difference between Liberia and Iraq is there is no vital U.S. interest in Liberia. "

Perhaps true, at first glance. That is, it may seem it is in our interest to set up a puppet government in Iraq and control Iragi oil, not take the profits from their oil, but simply to control it via the puppet government and thereby become an active member of OPEC. Yet it seems doubtful if that will ever happen in fact I wonder if we have not just made the biggest political blunder in the history of the USA when we forgot the needed interdependance of our traditional allies, got extremely greedy at the thought of all of that oil, then convinced ourselves that, since Saddam is such a monster, the Iragis will welcome us with open arms.

I quote a Sunni Muslim cleric in Iraq, "There are only two powers now in the world. One is America, which is tyrananical and oppressive. The other is a warrior who has not yet been awakened from his slumber and that warrior is Islam."

Lee: "Leftists only want war when there can be no possible gain for the U.S."

( grin ) Like Aristotle's sylogisms which fathered the impedus theory, which was, when applied outside of the confines of earth, falsified by Newton's trajectory theory, your statement is not always true. Leftists don't always agree just as Republicans, (grin) maybe only privately, don't always agree. That is, some only want war when our country is threatened. Some seem to think we have an obligation to police the world and some, like myself, reason that going to war for either cause can be valid.

Lee: "And then, when there is a huge smoking radioactive hole where downtown New York used to be, the giant public finger starts pointing in the direction of people who could have done something to nip it in the bud, but chose not to do anything. If we don't start hitting these people where they live, they will continue to hit us where we live."

That seems much more likely to happen now, after our rogue approach to Irag. It was the above kind of fear which stampeded us into Irag. It seems to me that decisions based upon fear are always irrational. Sure, fear is a necessary emotion. We need our fear in times of immediate survival. Yet we surely must provide a proper calm atmosphere within ourselves so that we can stay in touch with our innate sanity. That calm, hopefully somewhat amused, atmosphere allows our fear to awaken only in moments of shear terror. During those times, in my experience, a rested fear can be very useful. Time seems to slow down and enables one to function within that flowing moment. So it seems to me that the kind of fearful, running amok, seemingly anti thinking that has taken hold of the US is extremely self destructive.

Lee: "Rome dealt with their need for security by taking over. This is where the logic leads us."

Umm, possibly. But, it seems to me, that this is a very different world. Most intellectuals, even some religious ones, see the world in terms of modern physics, that is, the world/universe is non deterministic. That is, it is causitive by it parts and it parts are accountable for their actions. It took many centuries before Rome got its come uppance, but things now seem to progress blindingly fast. In that regard, it seems to me, unless some powerful intellectual gets us back on the road to recognizing the interdependance of all of humanity, we may soon pay a massive price for our unlaterism.

Lee: " As a military man, you know that there is no responsibility without authority."

True, but one has nothing to do with the other. That is, our military will always do their jobs the best they know how. But I truly don't believe you really want a world where any nation can go to war with any other nation simply because they believe that nation may, in some future time, attack them?

Lee: "That middle ground does not exist"

Here we stand in radically different places. It seems to me that we have more choices than either becoming another Switzerland or becoming another nation such as Ceasar's Rome, Napolean's France or Hitler's Germany. It seems to me that we need not try to cram our notion of hegemony down the throats of the world. We can recognize the world as equal human partners with different ways of seeing the universe and still easily take care of our own needs. Surely you must see how self destructive it is to allow one of your neighbors to run fearfully amok in your neighborhood, his id in total control, taking what he wants. Surely you don't want the US to continue down that, what seems to me to be, fearful road to total insanity.

Thanks for the dialogue and
Best Wishes,
Charles Munn

> A Libertarian or a Republican might say. "I care enough to take care of the children of those who refuse to work, as well as the sick and elderly, but it's my choice to either do so or not. You don't have the right to do it for me through taxation."

You're right, I think libertarians have nothing against helping the poor. They are, however, against forcing someone to help the poor. Liberals talk a lot about being 'pro-choice', but outside of abortion, you can't really apply that to much that remains on their agenda.

> ...Maybe some are just unaware of the many people who, through no fault of their own, just need a little help.

Giving other people's money is not an act of generosity.

> So I've adamantly concluded, as flawed as it may be, that socialized medicine is a necessity in any human, caring state.

The Left is expert at indicting the status quo, but they do it in a tricky way. Their trick is to compare capitalism as it functions in the real world with socialism as it functions in their idealized imaginations... their dream world, if you will. In a perfect world, everyone could have the most, the best, the latest health care imaginable, so that's how liberals present socialized medicine. Look at today's flawed system, they say. Look at all the poor, needy, deserving people who are going without, they say. Let's fix this, they say. Then they imply that socialist reality will closely resemble their dream construct.

Yet a more realistic approach would be to compare capitalistic medicine as it functions in the U.S., with socialized medicine as it functions elsewhere -- in other words, two real-world comparisons. The result would be more favorable to capitalism than people think. There has to be some reason why Canadians flock to the border states for their medical care, even though in their homeland they get it, ostensibly, for free.

> ...we forgot the needed interdependance of our traditional allies...

"Allies" who won't support us in our hour of need aren't worthy of the label. We have always been there for them, but they decided to take a shit when we needed them. Truth is, the Europeans had been making bazillions of dollars selling arms to Saddam, and didn't want us to ruin their market. Tough. Frankly, it is liberating to know where he stand with that bunch of ingrates. We needn't concern ourselves about them in the future.

> I quote a Sunni Muslim cleric in Iraq, "There are only two powers now in the world. One is America, which is tyrananical and oppressive. The other is a warrior who has not yet been awakened from his slumber and that warrior is Islam."

I don't need to listen to lectures in morality from a society that beats and oppresses its women and cuts off hands for petty larceny.

> That seems much more likely to happen now, after our rogue approach to Irag.

I don't think the evidence suggests that doing nothing is the right approach. After the Lebanese bombing in the early 1980s, we did nothing. After Somalia, we did nothing. After the first Trade Tower bombing, we did nothing. After the U.S. Embassy was bombed, we did nothing. After the U.S.S. Cole was bombed, we did nothing. Then they bombed the Trade Towers and the Pentagon. The evidence suggests that doing nothing only encourages them.

> It was the above kind of fear which stampeded us into Irag. It seems to me that decisions based upon fear are always irrational.

If you run from a wild animal instead of standing and fighting, you may be operating out of fear, but it may save your life nevertheless. We have good reason to fear, so we don't necessarily have the luxury of solving these problems in cool academic deliberation. The path to survival is usually to make your enemy fear you more than his desire to kill you.

> ...unless some powerful intellectual gets us back on the road to recognizing the interdependance of all of humanity, we may soon pay a massive price for our unlaterism.

That's always a possibility, but life has risks. And again, we were not unilateral by choice. We didn't desert our so-called allies, they deserted us.

>> Lee: " As a military man, you know that there is no responsibility without authority."
> True, but one has nothing to do with the other.

I see them as intertwined.

> But I truly don't believe you really want a world where any nation can go to war with any other nation simply because they believe that nation may, in some future time, attack them?

That's exactly the world we already live in, even before 9/11. During this century, the Soviet Union invaded Poland, Finland, and the rest of Eastern Europe. Germany attacked France twice and Russia once. Japan invaded China. The Indians and the Pakistanis fight regularly. Idi Amin attacked neighboring Tanzania. Italy attacked Greece and Ethiopia. The Turks annihilated the Armenians, and still square off with Greece once in a while over Cyprus. The Brits and the Argentines have duked it out over a frozen piece of dirt in the South Atlantic. France couldn't subdue Vietnam, and neither could we. The Arabs have fallen on their faces four times against the Israelis. Other nations can and do go to war for any reason, or no reason, whenever they feel like it, and always have. Let's just stick to the reasons for the U.S. going to war.

Interestingly, if you look back in history, you'll see we have already done what you suggest many time: attacked other nations out of fear of being attacked. Why did we declare war on Germany in 1941? They didn't attack us. While it is true that Hitler declared was on us first, he was certainly in no position to prosecute it, and in fact had gone well out of his way to avoid provoking us. In World War I, we fought the Kaiser even though we were not directly attacked. (The pretext was that the Germans had sunk a British ship with a lot of Americans on board. Germany had run ads in newspapers urging Americans not to be on that ship prior to its last fateful journey.)

Technically, Saddam did attack us, back during the first WTC bombing, which he financed, and also when he attempted to assassinate the first President Bush (after he was already out of office). But also, more importantly, all we really did was enforce earlier UN resolutions that had already been signed by member nations.

Liberals tend to see the world outside the U.S. as simply a more exotic U.S., complete with human rights, human dignity, and justice for all. They're wrong: it's a jungle out there. John Locke disappears at the borders, and Thomas Hobbes takes a bow. I am in favor of taking any action that helps secure the lives and freedom of American citizens.

> We can recognize the world as equal human partners with different ways of seeing the universe and still easily take care of our own needs.

If other nations want us to see them as our equals, then they need to start acting like it. That means, in Liberia, they ought to stop eating people, at the very least. That means, in Western Europe (Britain aside), they can start assuming some of the responsibility for peacekeeping, and quit being a national-defense welfare case.

> Surely you must see how self destructive it is to allow one of your neighbors to run fearfully amok in your neighborhood, his id in total control, taking what he wants.

I don't believe that would be a fair characterization of what we did. What we did was shut down an extremely nasty dictatorship with a minimum of resources, and give the Iraqis a chance to better themselves. If other European nations disagree, let them. Next time they need us to come free them from another one of their own homegrown nasty dictatorships, screw them.

Hmmm, nice come back. ( grin ) However....

Lee: " In a perfect world, everyone could have the most, the best, the latest health care imaginable, so that's how liberals present socialized medicine. Look at today's flawed system, they say. Look at all the poor, needy, deserving people who are going without, they say. Let's fix this, they say. Then they imply that socialist reality will closely resemble their dream construct. Yet a more realistic approach would be to compare capitalistic medicine as it functions in the U.S., with socialized medicine as it functions elsewhere -- in other words, two real-world comparisons. The result would be more favorable to capitalism than people think. There has to be some reason why Canadians flock to the border states for their medical care, even though in their homeland they get it, ostensibly, for free."

Even though many richer Canadians do come to the US for our admittedly richer and therefore more upscale medicine. and that is surely a product of capitalism, I would wager that most Canadians much perfer their system to our system. I've also lived in France, England, and Germany and, unlike most US citizens, it seems to me that most Europeans are very aware of our system which is based on massive riches compared to theirs and, in comparison, they are extremely happy with their own admittedly poorer and perhaps less upscale, socialistic system. However poor old bankrupt Cuba, in the face of that dummy Fidel as well as all of our intense restrictions, seems to have a terrific health care system which has made some great inroads concerning health care.

Yet I will admit that our form of extremely rich capitalism has produced an abundance of fine medical doctors, and it has also caused a brain drain of wonderful doctors from India, Pakistan and other countrys. Surely there must be a way for reasonable people (grin) such as ourselves to sit down and make an effort to come together and solve this problem.

Lee: "Interestingly, if you look back in history, you'll see we have already done what you suggest many time: attacked other nations out of fear of being attacked. Why did we declare war on Germany in 1941? They didn't attack us. While it is true that Hitler declared was on us first, he was certainly in no position to prosecute it, and in fact had gone well out of his way to avoid provoking us. In World War I, we fought the Kaiser even though we were not directly attacked. (The pretext was that the Germans had sunk a British ship with a lot of Americans on board. Germany had run ads in newspapers urging Americans not to be on that ship prior to its last fateful journey.)"

It's true, Germany practiced so called preventive war when it trumped up reasons to invade Poland and then, because of existing treaties France and England were forced to declare war on Germany. When Germany made the deal with Japan to declare war after Pearl Harbor and Nutty old Hitler declared war on the US, the US, a sleeping giant, was sucked totally into the war with Germany and we awaken and prosecuted that war with intense vigor. It's also true that many nations go to war for a varity of silly fearful reasons, but they are usually teritorial and not so called, preventive. Or, as Johnson did in the gulf of Tonkin, outright lies in order to fullful some innane political goals revolving around the domino theory, and not because that nation was any threat to the USA.

Anyway, do we really want to model the US after Hitler's truly mindless policies of world domination?

Lee:"Technically, Saddam did attack us, back during the first WTC bombing, which he financed."

I'm an avid reader and I have absolutely found no evidence of that. Regarding Saddam's attempt of George senior's life, it's nothing that the CIA hasn't done in numerous countries. I see no reason to take our nation into war because Saddam tried to kill George Bush senior, even though I admittedly admire many aspects of Dubya's daddy.

Lee: "But also, more importantly, all we really did was enforce earlier UN resolutions that had already been signed by member nations."

Oh jeez Lee, the job was getting done. Surely we had other priorities in Afghanistan. We had plenty of time to mobilize so called Old Europe and get them in our boat. It would have only taken a bit of diplomacy such as George senior exhibited in the Gulf War. (grin) ( Which I was also against, thinking the Kuwaitis to be not much better than Saddam or the Saudis. At the very least the Iragis were at least secular. Women were taking ph'd.s, etc.) But no, Dubya listened to his staff of old Reagan Hawks... we disregard any hint of deplomacy and here we are in a now seemingly terrorist Irag that our unilateral, and therefore illegitiment, policies seems to be recruiting thousands of new terrorist by the week.

Seriously, Lee, if George W managages to hang on in the next election I ferventluy pray to our deeper intelligence that he will instill a democracy in Irag and that it will be a shinning example to the whole Arab world. Yet knowing the history of the Christians and Muslams I rather doubt that all of those isms can be overcome. Yet still I pray.

Lee: "I don't think the evidence suggests that doing nothing is the right approach"

I agree. Find the culprits and hold them accountable and do it with our old allies. Sure, there is a faction in France who fervently believes a United Europe and the US are now so different that we must take different courses. But there is also that steady hand in France who knows that they need us as much as we need them. All we need to do in order to
activate those sages are to sit down and be reasonalble. That is, fully recognize the magnificence of the possibilities of a United Europe who is in Equal partnership with the US.

But there is not one shred of evidence which concretely links Saddam to the terrorists who attacked us in those situations. The heads of those terrorist are still living in Afghanistan and we need to first finished that job by actually locating and prosecuting Bin Laden , then turning Afghanistan into a shinning democratic state.

Lee: "I don't believe that would be a fair characterization of what we did."

Come on Lee, I didn't pull that out of thin air . Referring to the US and so called preventive wars, I said, >Surely you must see how self destructive it is to allow one of your neighbors ( in this case the US ) to run fearfully amok in your neighborhood, his id in total control, taking what he wants.

That was in responce to you when you stated,

"Rome dealt with their need for security by taking over. This is where the logic leads us."

Anyway, we took at look at each other, exchanged a few notions and, (grin) at least in my case, got a feeling of what we lefties are up against come 2004. I will admit that you are a bright and formadable foe.
( grin ) I respect your right to express your views and look forward to going into full political combat against you. ( grin ) I only hope we lefties can persuade General Wesley Clark to lead us into battle.
But hell, if I have to I'll follow old Dean and do my damndest to rid ourselves of this present administration.

Thanks again for the terrific dialogue,
Best personal wishes ( honestly! )
Charlie

> Even though many richer Canadians do come to the US for our admittedly richer and therefore more upscale medicine...

Are you speculating, or do you have figures that show that Canadians getting health care in the U.S. are the wealthy, and how wealthy would that be? I think the people who are coming across the border are those people who need health care, like, now, and cannot afford to wait to be treated. Of course, that's speculation as well. But we can both speculate.

> ...and that is surely a product of capitalism, I would wager that most Canadians much perfer their system to our system.

Well, you go ahead and wager that. Meanwhile, Canadians pour across the border for health care they cannot get in Canada. If they really preferred their system to ours, it would be easy for them to stay put and get it for free... if they could get it, that is.

> I've also lived in France, England, and Germany and, unlike most US citizens, it seems to me that most Europeans are very aware of our system which is based on massive riches compared to theirs and, in comparison, they are extremely happy with their own admittedly poorer and perhaps less upscale, socialistic system.
Europe is economically not doing very well, either, relative to the U.S. One of the big problems with socialism is simply it is not efficient relative to capitalism. Too bad "economic efficiency" isn't a great catch phrase to be used in a political stumpwinder. It just doesn't play very well, rhetorically. Like I said, too bad -- because economic efficiency is the only hope of raising people out of poverty. If, during the Twentieth Century, the U.S. had enjoyed just an average annual economic growth rate that was 1% smaller -- just 1% -- today, Mexico would have a higher standard of living than the U.S. Economic growth is very important, and so therefore is economic efficiency.

There are various reasons why socialism is less efficient. You worked for the military for years, so you have seen some of it first hand. The biggest issue, actually, is not what economic activities are allowed to succeed, but which ones are allowed to fail. In the government, and in large bureacracies elsewhere, revenue is not a function of performance. When some effort fails in government, perversely, that effort tends to get not less, but more resources. It doesn't work that way in a healthy capitalistic environment. Poorly performing businesses lose revenue, and if they don't find out what the problem is and fix it, they go backrupt. Bankruptcy court and eventually a sheriff guarantee that the poorly performing economic enterprise will come to a halt. Poorly performing companies forfeit their very existence, and those resources are conficated by creditors and auctioneers, and put to better use.

> Yet I will admit that our form of extremely rich capitalism has produced an abundance of fine medical doctors, and it has also caused a brain drain of wonderful doctors from India, Pakistan and other countrys. Surely there must be a way for reasonable people (grin) such as ourselves to sit down and make an effort to come together and solve this problem.

What problem?
> When Germany made the deal with Japan to declare war after Pearl Harbor and Nutty old Hitler declared war on the US, the US, a sleeping giant, was sucked totally into the war with Germany and we awaken and prosecuted that war with intense vigor.
But like I said, Hitler's Germany never attacked us. We attacked them anyway.
> Or, as Johnson did in the gulf of Tonkin, outright lies in order to fullful some innane political goals revolving around the domino theory, and not because that nation was any threat to the USA.
LBJ? As I recall, he was one of your boys. This old right-winger takes no credit for him. Had I been of age, Goldwater would have gotten my vote.
> Anyway, do we really want to model the US after Hitler's truly mindless policies of world domination?
No, but like I said, Roosevelt attacked Germany without having been attacked first. Can we model Roosevelt's presumably mindful policies?
>> Lee:"Technically, Saddam did attack us, back during the first WTC bombing, which he financed."
> I'm an avid reader and I have absolutely found no evidence of that.
See Laurie Mylroie, The Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America .
> Regarding Saddam's attempt of George senior's life, it's nothing that the CIA hasn't done in numerous countries. I see no reason to take our nation into war because Saddam tried to kill George Bush senior, even though I admittedly admire many aspects of Dubya's daddy.
Trying to bump off a head of state is an act of war, or ought to be considered one.
>> Lee: "But also, more importantly, all we really did was enforce earlier UN resolutions that had already been signed by member nations."
> Oh jeez Lee, the job was getting done. Surely we had other priorities in Afghanistan....
But now, at least, you're not arguing that he did the wrong thing, but that he did the right thing wrongly. I call that progress.
> Seriously, Lee, if George W managages to hang on in the next election I ferventluy pray to our deeper intelligence that he will instill a democracy in Irag and that it will be a shinning example to the whole Arab world. Yet knowing the history of the Christians and Muslams I rather doubt that all of those isms can be overcome. Yet still I pray.
I doubt that it can be done myself, but I think it needs to be tried. I think democratic government and all its blessings are due largely to the political and intellectual infrastructure of Western civilization, particularly in England and the U.S. Things like the Magna Carta, the separation of powers between the Crown and Parliament, John Locke, the Federalist Papers, the U.S. Constitution, and so forth. It remains to be seen if this form of government can be transplanted into a non-Western society such as Iraq. But this I know: people need something to live for. If outlaw Islamic nations can improve their political backwardness and economic performance, maybe they'll have better things to do than cheer in the streets when Americans die.
> But there is also that steady hand in France who knows that they need us as much as we need them.
Chirac? That's a joke, right?
> All we need to do in order to activate those sages are to sit down and be reasonalble. That is, fully recognize the magnificence of the possibilities of a United Europe who is in Equal partnership with the US.
Not until they ratify the Bill of Rights.
> I only hope we lefties can persuade General Wesley Clark to lead us into battle.
But hell, if I have to I'll follow old Dean and do my damndest to rid ourselves of this present administration.
One advantage of having a Democratic president is that he'll be able to do what needs doing without cavilling from either the Democratic or Republican party. Fighting a war never seems to be so horrific to lefties when one of their own guys is doing it. The only question is my mind is, will a Democratic president have the guts to do what needs doing?

I won't respond to all of your comments because, it seems to me, that we have both had our say on those subjects. ( grin ) You know, beating the dead horse, etc.

However ....

Lee: "Well, you go ahead and wager that. Meanwhile, Canadians pour across the border for health care they cannot get in Canada."

My wife is an ARNP and we live in Washington
state, about a 3 hour drive to Vancouver. I've been a regular visitor to Canada since 1970 and have known many Canadians who think our system is downright barbaric.
My wife is in private practice as well as working in community health. She also has full prescriptive authority, which is legal in this state. She is also a speaker for a few pharmaceutical companys and attends nearly all medical practitioners conventions, etc. I just now asked her if she is aware or has she heard anything from her coleagues regarding Canadians coming here for health care.. Her answer was," Never, I've not heard anyone
speak of it, but I imagine a few wealthy Canadians may occasionally come over. "

At anyrate we all know, because the news is full of it, that US citizens do flock to Canada to get their prescriptions filled. I also know that you get a very different picture from Canadians than you do US citizens. ( grin ) Also my wife doesn't want socialized medicine because it would drastically reduce her income.

Lee: "What problem?"

Heh, heh, Cute!

Lee: "But like I said, Hitler's Germany never attacked us. We attacked them anyway."

(grin) You aint getting away with that!
The friggin' Nazi's friggin' declare war on us! What were we supposed to do, wait until it was convient for that mad man? Wait until he took over that great aircraft carrier lying off France? ( grin ) You know, Great Britian.

Jeeez Lee, give me a friggin' break!

Lee: "But now, at least, you're not arguing that he did the wrong thing, but that he did the right thing wrongly. I call that progress."

Hey, I still think Saddam was the Iragi people's problem. However what really bothers me is the arrogant way the Bush group threw
deplomacy to the winds and didn't line up his allies. It could have been done. We could have gone in under the Powell doctrine of overwhelming massive force. With a tiny bit of deplomacy we could have swayed the Turks and also come in with our force from the north. Had we bothered to line up our ducks, rather than deliberately pissing off our friends we could have gone in under the mantle of the UN.
That legitimazation may have saved Iraq
from the seemingly pending civil war.

Regarding Chirac, there are many wise and powerful people in France who deeply regret Chirac's veto....
People who think he just went too far with that innane proposal.
People who would love to mend fences, but they have to be met half way, to be respected even when they don't always agree with us.

By the way, I'm truly not a Democrat
nor a Republican. I despised Johnson as well as JFK. ( I'm an old dude, nearly twenty years older than my wife. That's why she's still locked in her career. )

but I digress.
Rather than vote for JFK I voted for Nixon. Nixon was very flawed in terrible ways..... but he was very smart. Hell, many powerful Republicans hated it when Nixon opened up China ! Give the devil his due, what foresight!
Had we followed with Nixon's ideas we would have soon had open trade with Cuba. Old Fidel wouldn't have lasted long had the people a steady taste of affluence.

And even though Kissinger gave away the friggin' store, Nixon got us out of that awful mess in Vietnam!

On the other hand JFK okayed the bay of pigs fiasco, then wouldn't back it up. That weakness put us on the edge of Nuclear war. Then, to cover up his weakness, he set troops into Vietnam. What a dork! Then dummy Johnson ---- aw, you know the rest.
The only reason I'm voting Democratic this next time is because I don't like the Bush
administration. Ummm, more than that. I think they really and truly dropped the ball.

If I thought General Wesley Clark could win as an Independent, then I'd be delighted! But we both know it's a two party shut out simply because of the electoral vote... aw, you know the rest.

Charlie

> I won't respond to all of your comments because, it seems to me, that we have both had our say on those subjects. ( grin ) You know, beating the dead horse, etc.

Continue the dialog as long as you like, and then move on.

> I just now asked her if she is aware or has she heard anything from her coleagues regarding Canadians coming here for health care.. Her answer was," Never, I've not heard anyone speak of it, but I imagine a few wealthy Canadians may occasionally come over.

A simple web search reveals that not only does this phenomenon exist, it has been written about in the media, and it happens apparently for the reasons I suggest. There are other links, here's one: http://www.pressherald.com/business/pulse/030722pulse.shtm

> At anyrate we all know, because the news is full of it, that US citizens do flock to Canada to get their prescriptions filled.

I don't have any problem at all with Canadians paying higher taxes to subsidize American pharmaceutical consumers. If they want to do so, let them.

> > Lee: "But like I said, Hitler's Germany never attacked us. We attacked them anyway."
> (grin) You aint getting away with that!The friggin' Nazi's friggin' declare war on us! What were we supposed to do, wait until it was convient for that mad man? Wait until he took over that great aircraft carrier lying off France? ( grin ) You know, Great Britian.

A declaration of war is simply words. Why not wait until he attacked us? Otherwise, until he actually attacked us, why, you don't advocate that we should have fought a preventive war, do you?

> Hey, I still think Saddam was the Iragi people's problem. However what really bothers me is the arrogant way the Bush group threw deplomacy to the winds and didn't line up his allies.

It takes two to tango. Why is it Bush's failure, instead of Chirac's?

> It could have been done. We could have gone in under the Powell doctrine of overwhelming massive force.

That's right. Why do it on the cheap when we can spend a whole lot more money?

> With a tiny bit of deplomacy we could have swayed the Turks and also come in with our force from the north.

Just what we need, the Turks shooting up Kurds and us getting the blame.

> Had we bothered to line up our ducks, rather than deliberately pissing off our friends we could have gone in under the mantle of the UN.

The UN is worse than worthless. Revering an organization where the committee on human rights is headed by Libya is not even funny, but it's certainly a joke.

> People who would love to mend fences, but they have to be met half way, to be respected even when they don't always agree with us.

Sorry. It's hard to respect the French, who, in the words of P. J. P'Rourke, belong to "The Dog Ate My Homework" school of diplomacy.

Lee:"A simple web search reveals that not only does this phenomenon exist, it has been written about in the media"

That link is no longer active.
And yes, even though the Canadian system is half the cost to operate than US medicare and medicaid, because of US insurance and its massive beauracracy, the Canadian system is flawed in that they don't allow practioners to have private practices. You know, if you've got the money you can jump ahead of the line by going to a private practioner. I have no problem with that, but the Canadian system doesn't allow that to happen. In that regard it may drive those who want better care to go outside of the country. The same thing happens here with medicare and medicaid. That is, those who want more personal care can pay the price and step outside of the system. The difference is in the US we have our choice of medicare, medicaid or private practice. I think it's everyone's right to spend their money as they see fit, that is, to have that choice.

Regarding pharmaceuticals: The price of Canadian drugs are not cheaper because they are subsidized by the Canadian government. The price of all drugs throughout the world are nearly half the price, and sometimes even lower than half the US price. Yet the drug companys still make a good profit throughout the world and without subsidies. However, in the US the drug companys have laws that allows them to stick it to US consumers. That's not something I made up, that is, it's not someones else's opinion... It's simply a result of a massive US drug lobby.

What I'm advocating is to use the less beauracratic Canadian system in place of medicare and medicaid, eliminate all of blue cross, blue shield, etc. paper work, yet still encourage private practice. Many practitioners in private practice, at the very least, don't take medicaid, and if we moved to the Canadian model they could still refuse to accept it. It would not only save us money, but it would make medicine truly available to everyone, rich and not so rich and very poor. Those who have the money can pay for more upscale care, more personal care, ( grin ) such as I used to get from the Flight Surgeon in the USAF.
Also it would be very helpful to those on fixed incomes if the price of pharmaceuticals were not artificially propped up because of rich lobbyist.
And for those great hard edged pragmatist such as ( grin ) ourselves, it would save us a hell of a lot of money in future taxes. Like going from spending 32 cents of each dollar toward paperwork as we now do in the US with medicare and medicaid, to 16 cents of each dollar, as they do in Canada, for their simplified paper work billing.

Lee: "Why not wait until he attacked us? Otherwise, until he actually attacked us, why, you don't advocate that we should have fought a preventive war, do you?

Jeeez Lee, you're talking apples and oranges. Hitler conspired with the Japanese to attack us in the Pacific. He promised the Japanese that he'd declare war on us when and if they bombed Pearl Harbor. If you refuse to admit that heinous act meant that Germany was deadly serious when Hitler declared war on the US then it's pointless to further discuss this.
It would have been foolish to allow him to consolodate the whole of Europe, grow even stronger, while we only concentrated on Japan. Sure had we only fought the Japanese we may have defeated them sooner, but I doubt it. The Japanese were an amazing fighting force. A very formidable and worthy foe. We might have still needed that awful A bomb to finish the job and that would probably have been completed around the same time in 1944.

Meanwhile Hitler would have grown stronger and nuttier each day. We didn't fight Hitler because we wanted to prevent a war.
We fought him because he started a war with us. We knew we were in a deadly serious all out live or die war when we sent our forces into Great Britian, Africa and Italy.

( Maybe the Germans would have caved in the face of that terrible weapon, but we couldn't be sure. They might beat us to it. Had we timidly held back, ( grin ) I might indeed be heiling Dise. )

Lee: "Just what we need, the Turks shooting up Kurds and us getting the blame."

Apples and oranges again. The Turks are some of the most ferrocious fighters in the world, but compared to our huge military they are a flea on an elephant. They're not stupid. They don't want to take us on in a military way. That's why, even without a massive US presence in Turkey as we planned to have when attacking Iraq from the North, the Turks left the Kurds alone. They left them alone because we told them to leave them alone. Period. Regardless of whatever scenerio played out, the Turks absolutely in no uncertain terms knew that it could have been a total economic, military, and certainly political diaster for them to gone against us against the Kurds.

Lee: "The UN is worse than worthless. Revering an organization where the committee on human rights is headed by Libya is not even funny, but it's certainly a joke."

Like humanity, the UN is ponderous and flawed, but it enables dialogue. So it seems that here we have such radically different view points that I rather doubt we can even come close to seeing eye to eye. . But it was fun trying.

Lee: "Sorry. It's hard to respect the French, who, in the words of P. J. P'Rourke, belong to "The Dog Ate My Homework" school of diplomacy."

Again, we have totally different view points. As I said, I lived in France for a year, literally butchered their language, ( zillions of times worse than I do in English! ) but I found the French to be a warm and hospitible people, no real difference than the folks of Texas where I grew up. I still take a variety of news publications, including Le Monde Diplomatic, which I certainly don't always agree with, but I enjoy the different points of views.

The German language is closer to the English language and a little easier to get by in. Yet, regarding the people, I had nearly the same experience in Germany and indeed the whole of Europe, and middle east, including Turkey, Libya, Iran, and Pakistan. They are all not much different than we. Indeed, in most aspects they are we.

Libby and I visited France, Italy and Spain a bit before 9/11 and Paris is still my favorite city in the whole world. We stumbled through their language and still only found a most helpful and caring people.
We hope to return soon. Perhaps next year... Paris/April/romance. ( grin ) Still an old romantic fool.
charlie

Regarding the book written about Saddam and the WTC, apparently US intelligence couldn't make the connection, the leap if you will, that Mylorie made in her book. Her theories were jumped at, like a drowning man after a straw, by many ultra conservatives.
(grin. So she has a theory and plotted a book around it. Hell, anybody can write a book. I've even got a couple in print. )
If you wish to read the article which refers to the above go to:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33705

Back to General Wesley CLark. Do you dislike the idea of him a President of the US or do you merely enjoy exchanging views?

In support of the proposition that Canadians are fleeing their perfect nirvana of a medical system and flocking to the benighted American one, here are some links:

http://www.medrants.com/archives/001672.html

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20030506.shtml

http://www.cahionline.org/cahi_contents/resources/SRn102Myths.pdf

The essential problem underscoring any government subsidization of medical care is that government can and will always take an essentially good thing and carry it past the point of positive returns, into the area of zero or diminishing returns. Government can't help it; it's the way their incentives structures work. Government bureaucrats have an incentive to keep the budgets coming in, and elected officials have an incentive to sell that which sounds good. If what they're selling means ruination at some point in the future, so long as it is a distant time-horizon in the future and not soon enough to affect today's political career, then they don't care,

In the insurance world, it is a well-known fact that catastrophes can easily be planned for and paid out, while insuring someone for every little thing that goes wrong is quite expensive. Look at your auto insurance, for example. Complete coverage is many times more expensive than, say, $1,000 deductible. As a rule, when buying insurance, it is important to buy it only when it is needed. This sounds common-sense, but most people want to feel the sense of security that comes with the words, "complete coverage". But an insurance company can far more cheaply cover you if you have a large deductible -- that you can afford to pay yourself -- than if they have to pay for everything.

More later.

[con't from previous post]

The point is that Americans do not need universal health care coverage of every hangnail or head cold, nor could we afford it if it were being offered. We can afford our own hangnails and colds, and can buy our own aspirin and sudafed. What we really need is insurance from catastrophic illness or injury. You only need insurance to guard you from unforeseen calamities for which you cannot afford to assume the risk. Economically, I am better off than most, but far from rich. I can afford to pay for those doctor's visits when she tells takes my blood and tells me I need to lose weight. What I can't afford on my own is things like my wife's recent bout with cancer -- the surgery, the chemo, the radiation, the repeated visits to specialists. It is for things like this that we need insurance, and I am still financially solvent only because I did indeed have her covered under my policy at work.

When health care costs skyrocket, it has to be one of two things: either demand is going up, or supply is going down. There are no other possibilities. One way to keep control of the demand side is not to subsidize every single visit to the doctor, but only for the insurance to kick in when a certain financial threshhold is reached. One way to keep control of the supply side is to graduate more doctors from the medical schools and to lower the costs of practicing medicine, which would mean taking on the tort lawyers and the great gravy train of malpractice suits.

Points taken. We also have large auto deductables. My wife has insurance through her work at community health which covers incidental doctor visits as well as dental work. She elected not to take it because she is protected under my governent ( socialist ) plan. Still, you and yours have an available doctor. Even though your plan doesn't cover those visits, as you say, you have the money to pay for them on the odd occassion. I suspect because of that availability your wife's doctor caught her cancer in the early stages. But Lee, not everyone, often through no fault of their own, has enough money to live as you do. You may now even have a portfolio that gives you at least a modicum of independence from the work place. But I suspect most of those 3.5 million who are now out of work, and millions of others who have slipped through the cracks, are not as blessed and are now without medical insurance.

And yes, governments are wasteful. However the Canadian system gets their billing done at half the cost of our billing. All I'm advocating is to use their billing model for welfare (medicaid) and medicare, and therefore stretch our dollar, and use those enormous savings to provide medicine to those who are unable to pay for insurance.

Anyway, no fear Lee. Mine is a mute point. It will never happen and I can only regard this part of our conversation as an intellectual exercise. ( Maybe the whole thing, including General Wesley Clark for president, falls under that catagory as he has yet to even name his party. ) The AMA, pharmaceutical, and insurance companies lobbies are just too strong. And even though my wife is a caring person, it seems she feels much the same as you regarding socialised medicine. I suspect that the majority of US citizens fall into your camp and after all, this is a democracy. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Still, like Lope, I hope General Wesley Clark will declare and become the democratic candidate. Surely even you must see the intellectual depth and warrior strength of this great potential US leader?

> Still, like Lope, I hope General Wesley Clark will declare and become the democratic candidate. Surely even you must see the intellectual depth and warrior strength of this great potential US leader?

It isn't a hopeful sign that he thinks graduated tax rates -- that is, so-called "progressive taxation" -- are one of the principles our nation was founded on. In fact, I think a very good argument can be made that taxing those who make more money at a higher rate than those who make less money is a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. In other words, Clark may not be merely wrong, he may in fact have the situation precisely backwards.

As a general (no pun intended) rule, I'm not terribly impressed with the intellectual prowess of military officers, especially the senior-level ones. I'm sure it could probably be shown empirically that most officers have higher IQs than most enlisted, but if we had to sift through officers and enlisted to find the first person with an IQ higher than, say, 160, I would like the odds better of finding one by sifting through the enlisted corps. I admit, that's a prejudice, but it is a prejudice born of experience. I did some time myself -- in the military, that is -- and worked for close to twenty years as a defense contractor. I grant that if there were an IQ scale for self-promotional aptitude, military officers would be off the charts.

One of my favorite lines in any movie is from a terrific Australian WWI movie called "The Light Horseman". In one scene, a British intelligence officer needs to plant bogus intelligence to fool the Turks, and asks the Australian commander of a light horseman brigade: "I need one of your enlisted men to accompany me on a scouting expedition. Do you have someone who is capable, brave, smart, a very good shot, is absolutely convinced that all officers are idiots, and can be positively counted on to gossip about it?"

The Australian commander dryly replied, "I think we can accomodate you." :-)

Okay, I'll admit I'm a bit star eyed regarding Clark.
I'll even admit that I've had other lower ranking Sgts working under me who were extremely bright. Many had BA's, some had Master's and a couple had Ph.d's. I was honored to work with them. Some also had that inner strength that is always apparent in a warrior, be s/he a civilian or in uniform. You know, that crisp inner wisdom that denotes a life lived without fear.
Dole seems to have it. As much as I dislike the Kennedy's, it, minus an intellectual bent, does seem to be a family trait. Even though I didn't agree with his politics, Barry Goldwater had it, and on and on.

Yet I've also served with many fine commisioned officers who were undoubtedly in firm touch with their deeper intelligence. You know, that intelligence that Einstein called, "My line to the Old One." That Huxley called, "Ultimate Reality." and the religious sometime refer to as, "the Christ withn, or the Buddha within." The same thing that I refer to as my Knower.

You know what I'm talking about. A lot of people call it their gut instinct. Socrates, via Plato, referred to it in, I seem to remember, his dialogues ... when he, somewhat tongue in cheek, proved that even Menlo, who was none too bright, was born with the sum total of all of the knowledge of the universe... Implying that he only had to educate himself so that he could understand it.

LOL, And for what it's worth, which probably aint much in your book, even before I knew of Clark's fantastic resume and his opposition to the Iraqi war, the first time I saw him on CNN I called my wife over and said, "Look at that guy honey, that's the next president of the USA."

> And for what it's worth, which probably aint much in your book, even before I knew of Clark's fantastic resume and his opposition to the Iraqi war, the first time I saw him on CNN I called my wife over and said, "Look at that guy honey, that's the next president of the USA."

From what I've seen of Clark, he may have what it takes to defeat Bush, but I doubt it will happen next year. I think the problem Clark faces is inside the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party. The Democrats are in an ugly mood this year, and Mr. Dean is a reflection of that mood. Running anti-war and moving left in response to an unpopular war still couldn't elevate McGovern; running anti-war and moving left in response to a popular war doesn't look like much of an improvement at this point. But polarizing candidates are the ones who tend to win nominations in highly-charged partisan times, and Mr. Dean is such a polarizing candidate. Gen. Clark may in fact simply be way too moderate to win the nomination, even though he'd probably fare better in the general election.

If I were you, I would look for Gen. Clark to run as a VP with Dean or Lieberman (if the Democrats come to their senses in time), lose, and then get a better run at the trophy in 2008, assuming he can beat Hillary. Clark's greatest contribution to the Democratic Party, as I see it, is that he is the only Democrats who can say, "I favor a strong national defense," and not automatically get laughed out of town.

By the way, my comments about military officers and their general intelligence were uncalled for, to say the least. That's just me, spouting off. If I'm so smart, how come I'm not rich? :-)

And you might hate this one, but Hillary definitely has it. Regardless of what you think of her politics, she is fearless.

I'd also like to amend the Kennedy statement. It seems to me that JFK lost it when first elected, reconnected during the nuclear confrontation with the USSR/Cuba, then lost it again.

LOL, and please forgive, but you'll really hate this one, George W. found it right after 9/11.... and it seems to me that he lost it soon after Afghanistan, maybe corrupted by the intense power of his office.

> And you might hate this one, but Hillary definitely has it. Regardless of what you think of her politics, she is fearless.

I'm not speaking to Hillary until she apologizes for that "right-wing conspiracy" remark. (She finally quit making the accusation when they did a spot check on Monica's dress, as I recall.)

Hillary is either a very astute politician, or she's getting some excellent coaching. At the moment, she thinks the Democrats are going to lose next year. She is not saying this directly, of course. She is saying it by saying she isn't in the running this year. I think she knows the nomination is hers for the asking, and I think if she thought she could win, she'd ask.

You may be right in your political assessment of Clark's chances. If he runs as a veep with anyone other than Kerry or Dean, then I'll simply abstain in 2004. But I'll be surprised if Clark runs as a veep, period. I suspect that is not who he is.
In fact he has essentially been saying the same thing as Dean, but with much more authority. Like Dean, he was adamantly against the Iraqi war. Unlike Dean, he discovered himself to be a good business man. He has a firm grasp of future trends underscored by a masters in Economics from Oxford. He's been out there doing business and making bucks since Clinton fired him a Supreme NATO Commander in 2000.

LOL, Take a deep breath and then take a good look at this guy. I'm as positive as I can be that Clark will, at the very least, vastly improve our portfolios.

Hilliary is an extremely astute politician born of a Republican family; a born again Democrat by her intense feelings for Bill. Hilliary was/is Bill's strength. LOL, Maybe she is his line to the old one.
Bill is dead without Hillary. He knew it when he saw her at Oxford. He LOL, ostensibly dropped the many females who it seems have always lusted after him, and married cute little, extremely bright, fearless and intellectual Hilliary.

Feeling all of that I would of course vote for her, but Hilliary will probably never become the president of the USA. Hilliary knows the odds better than anyone. She knows at this point she could never be elected to any office utside of New York and a few left leaning tiny eastern states. She also knows that middle America intensely dislikes Her. She's too strong, too bright, not feminine enough for most of the South. LOL, All of the things I love about her.

OOPS! Sorry, I meant Harvard.

Lee:" By the way, my comments about military officers and their general intelligence were uncalled for, to say the least. That's just me, spouting off. If I'm so smart, how come I'm not rich? :-)"

Since I've only ever been a crusty old NCO I didn't find your comments insulting. Indeed, they have a certain logic in that there are vastly more enlisted than commission. So it seems to me, given the fact that many enlisted also have advanced degrees, that the odds are in favor of your speculation.

LOL, and I expect if a commissioned officer read it, s/he would just giggle and say something like, "What do you expect from an enlisted pig?"

My wife spent four years as a commissioned officer. I met her after she got out after her first four year hitch. It was about the same time that I retired after twenty four years. LOL So the enlisted pigs thing is one of our standing jokes. I suspect few military people, Officers or NCO's take themselves that seriously. The military is just something some of us loved to do.

It would be more truthful to say, "The adventure afforded by the military is just something some of us love to do." LOL, I can't speak for other lifers, but I wasn't that crazy about the "hump twos" and and snapping to shit.
But that's really superficial stuff.

I know this guy Clark because I've worked for officers who were aspects of him. Work for a guy like Clark, and sure he expects the displine reflected in a reasonalble, personable appearance. But as long as you remain intensely personally honest, that is, never lie, no matter your imagined personal cost, and do your job to the utmost of your ability, even a dummy like me will be respected by Clark.
And that's what Clark will deliver to the citizens of the USA, that is, honesty, no matter the personal cost, as well as a super intellect and a warrior's peace of mind which is found only in fearless inner strength.

Lee,
Lee: "And then, when there is a huge smoking radioactive hole where downtown New York used to be, the giant public finger starts pointing in the direction of people who could have done something to nip it in the bud, but chose not to do anything. If we don't start hitting these people where they live, they will continue to hit us where we live."

Umm... people up top HAD the opportunity to stop it. Four days before the WTC went down, Jeb Bush signed EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER 01-261. Remember, an executive order is not made by the legislative branch. Its an order created and signed by the executive branch of government. Im CURIOUS why he signed in 9/7/01. It reaks of scandal. REAKS

Okay, I'll bite. What's the conspiracy theory du jour?

And if we're going to blame 9/11 on Bush, can some of the additional credit be allowed to splash on Clinton, who had an opportunity to extradite Bin Laden from the Sudanese?

Paul, can you give us some links regarding Jeb Bush signed EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER 01-261? Also I don't get it. What does the governor of Fla have to do with Federal decisions?

And yes Lee, Clinton did have a small window to extract Bin Laden from the Sudan. He didn't act upon it because, at that time, the FBI and CIA just didn't have anything to charge him with. In fact it seems that members of the CIA considered Ben Laden a friend until 9/11. As you are probably aware, even then, as the US was still funding Afghanistan and theirby paying the wages of the Taliban even while we bombed them, it seems the CIA, like US funding to the Taliban, was still coming to grips with their dilemma.

So all of this stuff is pretty muddy and, like you, I'm not so quick to jump on something just because I dislike the guy.

And Paul, even though the Bush aministration won't let anyone get a look into his adminstrations activities in the first few weeks prior to 9/11, that doesn't necessarily mean they conspired to let it happen. I mean, it seems I am a true left liberal and even I must see the evidence before i will even begin to consider that a possibilty.

However I do believe it's in the best interest of the USA, as well as the Bush administration, for all US citizens to continue to press for a full investigation regarding the prior events of 9/11
and the actions taken, or not taken, by
the CIA, FBI as well as the Bush administration.

That is, surely it must be evident that someone really dropped the ball. The only way we can correct any mistakes that may have happened is to put them under an intense honest light.

Paul, I just looked up the executive order signed by Jeb Bush. You can find it at:
http://www.state.fl.us/eog_new/eog/orders/2001/september/eo2001-261-09-07-01.html

As far as I can tell, it's about funding, training and intergrating the state of Florida's law inforcement with that of the National Guard. Am I wrong? Did I err? If so will you elaborate?

The following is a portion of EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER 01-261

"The Florida National Guard may order selected members on to state active duty for service to the State of Florida pursuant to Section 250.06(4), Florida Statutes, to assist FDLE in performing port security training and inspections. Based on the potential massive damage to life and property that may result from an act of terrorism at a Florida port, the necessity to protect life and property from such acts of terrorism, and inhibiting the smuggling of illegal drugs into the State of Florida, the use of the Florida National Guard to support FDLE in accomplishing port security training and inspections is "extraordinary support to law enforcement" as used in Section 250.06(4), Florida Statutes. "

I think I may see a glimmer of what you are refering to. But since it's been SOP for many years to train for such events, and even though the date may be coincidental, I find it hard to tie such an order to what occurred on 9/11. Please educate me.

Paul, if you can actually prove what you said please be extremely careful. In fact, I'd suggest you get outta Dodge because it would mean the people now running things have truly gone off the deep end. If so, they would have no trouble at all making you disappear.

Whoa, Paul! I now see what you meant. It seems that many are aware of the following insinuations. At the very least, the "Hot " stuff at the link below surely must press congress, minus the executive branch, to investigate activities of government following 9/11.
http://www.onlinejournal.com/archive/05-23-02_Molson.pdf

Corrections, I meant investigate government's actions before 9/11. If the Bush team wants to clear up these insinuations then they will encourage an independent investigation and keep their hands off.

But It won't happen unless we the people keep the notion of that needed investigation alive.

Charles, two things:

1. Looks like Paul was replying privately to you so none of his comments show up in the thread of the main message (about Wesley Clark). Perhaps you could copy and paste them all together in one message and post it to the main thread.

2. What, exactly, is being asserted in the PDF linked? To me (admittedly, I read quickly) it looked like a bunch of unrelated nonsense. If the assertion is that 9/11 was the precursor for some big business deals by the Bushes, I can buy that. The Bushes have a special way of turning a lot of bad things (tragedy, war, despotism, dictatorship, land grabbing) into good revenue. (a cursory internet search will reveal much of this - Joe Conason's new book also mentions plenty.)

( - and Republicans were fixated on a land development deal gone sour years and years earlier that involved Clinton - the hypocrisy here is mind-boggling - )

Otherwise, the PDF looks like run-of-the-mill conspiracy theory.

LOL, I'm sorry, I can see how misleading it looks. Check the my posted times and you can see that it's just me thinking aloud, so to speak. LOL, I feel a little silly about it, but that's what happened. Paul made only the one statement here on this thread. I then looked up the executive order and quickly scanned it and posted my next addendum. Then went back read that one chapter and posted it, etc. Then I went back and found http://www.onlinejournal.com/archive/05-23-02_Molson.pdf
Which seems to me to reflect an incomptance on the par