Update no.326

Update from the Heartland
No.326
3.3.08 – 9.3.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
During the last week of February, Jeanne took her first pleasure cruise aboard the Celebrity Millennium ship with her friend Cindy and four other women. They visited San Juan, St. Thomas, Casa de Campo, Dominican Republic, and Labadee, Haiti. She had a great time, saw new sights, and experienced what she imagines as the “life of the Rich & Famous,” if only for just a week. Fortuitous timing enabled her to be the vanguard of our cruisin’ time of life. Regular life is certainly not as enjoyable, but I am glad to have her home.

[Jeanne cruise 080228A.jpg] [Jeanne cruise 080228B.jpg]

Occasionally, my attention is drawn to a memorable link; so, it was this weekend. A friend and contributor sent this URL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKCVS57j284
The YouTube site added this caption: “This is a video of the Cactus Cuties, very talented young ladies ranging in age from 8 to 13 singing The Star Spangled Banner. The performance was at the Texas Tech vs. Texas basketball game January 20, 2008 in front of over 11,000 people. The Cuties are Andi, Baylee, Blaire, Madeline and Tatum. The group is named for the Cactus Theater in Lubbock, Texas, and are coached by Cami Caldwell.” Magnificent . . . for voices of any age! They deserve the national and international stage; I shall do my part.

The follow-up news items:
-- Senator John Sidney McCain III of Arizona clinched the Republican Party nomination on Tuesday, with victories in Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island. Governor Mike Huckabee conceded, finally. Just a simple note from personal history: John’s father, Admiral John S. McCain Jr., then Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Command (CinCPac), gave the commencement speech for my Naval Academy class (1970) while John was still a prisoner of war in the Hanoi Hilton. Those of us who were there that day remember the poignancy of the moment. Also, not many may recall that on 29.July.1967, then Lieutenant Commander John McCain, USN, found himself smack dab in the middle of the horrific flight deck conflagration aboard USS Forrestal (CV-59); he survived, obviously.
-- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton managed to end the Obama runaway and got herself back in the race for the Democratic Party nomination. This is looking more and more like a contested, brokered convention in August . . . probably to be decided by the Party leadership (the so-called Super Delegates).
-- First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev was ‘elected’ as President of Russia, replacing Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, who is expected to be named prime minister.

Just in case someone might like to hear my opinion about the Democratic Party’s primary voting issues . . . The American primary system has evolved to popularize the Party nomination process. No matter how we cut it, the primaries are NOT elections to office or position. They are internal party activities – the effort to determine the party’s chosen candidate to compete in the general election. There is wisdom and experience in the construction of the Democratic Party procedure. And, frankly, I do not much care whether members of any political party decide to choose their candidate by drawing straws, or playing tiddlywinks or rock-paper-scissors – that is their business entirely. I am not allowed to vote in the primaries as I refuse to join any political party. Given the potential for virtually tied or deadlock primaries, the super-delegate provision has wisdom behind it. The Party must decide who is their best candidates and represent them in the general election. If state memberships cannot decide, then the Party leaders MUST decide. This silly notion of simple popular vote negates the influence of the states as well as the Party. In the current kerfuffle, the Democratic Party organizations for Florida and Michigan chose to defy the National Committee rules and held their primaries earlier than authorized. They were warned of the consequences, and they freely chose to defy the national leadership. I guess they hoped the national guys would blink; they didn’t – too bad, so sad. This tempest in a teapot has absolutely nothing to do with voting rights, elections, or fairness, so all this yammering about the voters must be heard is absolute hogwash and even that does a disservice to the noble hogs. Florida and Michigan Democratic Party members should focus on cleaning out the leadership of their state parties that chose to ignore the agreed to rules. Iacta alea est (the die is cast).

Rumblings about one political party occupying the White House and controlling both chambers of Congress with a 60+ seat Senate majority ought to give us all pause for serious contemplation – the stimulus for compromise virtually evaporates. To me, any political party holding that level of dominance within the Federal government is particularly scary. I do not think it matters which political party acquires that level of control over the apparatus of State. I think the last time we saw that domination was the Carter administration – not exactly a hallmark of Federal governance. As we witnessed from 2001 to 2007, one of the principal differences between the political parties seems to be what or rather for whom they bleed the treasury to benefit; the secret, hidden earmark process invites, ney encourages, corruption, and the only remotely possible bulwark against that corruption is a strong opposition party. Congress loves to spend money on their pet projects, to impress their financial donors and cronies. As long as we have politicians who vastly favor their political party and their friends over the welfare of this Grand Republic, I shall advocate for opposition balance.

Here is a relevant question, since so many talking heads are getting huffy about Israel’s latest incursion into Gaza. What would we do if 122mm Katyusha rockets began striking border towns along the border with Mexico? Would be just stand around and whine about how unfortunate and downtrodden the Mexicans were, while innocent Americans were being killed or injured? Or, to put this is a different context, how many of us would do nothing if we watched Katyusha rockets being launched into the city from a field beside our neighbor’s house? The Palestinian people tolerate the violence of Hamas in their midst, as many Lebanese tolerate Hezbollah in their midst; and then, they are outraged when the Israelis defend themselves. The Gaza Palestinians are NOT the innocents they claim to be. The same principles apply in the current border confrontation between Columbia, Venezuela and Ecuador. Attacking someone and hiding across a border or among innocent civilians should be neither condoned nor tolerated; just as I would not standby and watch my neighbor attack someone else. We have a civic responsibility as well as accountability that apparently is not shared by other cultures and societies. I respectfully submit to a discerning audience that it is that civic responsibility that contributes to defining an advance community.

I have been watching and listening to the unfolding ricin incident in Las Vegas, that became public when police were summoned to a hotel on 26.February. The hotel room had been engaged by Roger Von Bergendorff, a 57-year-old graphic designer and pizza deliveryman, who had been admitted to a Las Vegas hospital in acute respiratory failure. Ricin is a derivative of the castor bean, usually a yellow powder, and quite toxic when ingested by or injected into humans. Preliminary reports eliminated a terrorist event, although probably in the context of the current War on Islamic Fascism; yet, there are indications this incident might be a white supremacist terrorism event. We need to know more about who this guy is and why he was in possession of ricin powder.

This week's U.S. Air Force procurement decision in the new Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) program has caused a significant disturbance in the Force. The Air Force chose the Northrup-Grumman variant based on the Airbus A330 aircraft. The competing Boeing system was based on their B767 aircraft. This decision would have been sensitive at any time in our history; it is an order of magnitude more sensitive in the context of the current presidential primary season, the impending presidential election, and the highly volatile debate over outsourcing, the faltering economy, trade deficit, et cetera. Having endured or watched a few of these major procurements, I believe the Air Force made the best choice given their range of factors. Further, free trade, international commerce and freedom of the seas have been essential elements of this Grand Republic since the Revolutionary War. We fought our first war as a nation over these principles – the First Barbary War (1801-1805) [NOTE: a war Jefferson fought although Congress never passed a declaration of war]. We have also attempted to insulate ourselves from world affairs several times in our history; all without success. So, today, to hear the talk of ‘save our jobs,’ ‘buy American,’ and all the wailing about outsourcing, I am perplexed, conflicted and disturbed. Sure, I want all American citizens to be healthy, prosperous and happy. Heck, I want all human beings to be healthy, prosperous and happy, but I am not so naïve to think any of these are within my sphere of influence. I have been unemployed. Such occurrences in any life or family are never easy or painless. My father was unemployed for a time in his life, and I can assure you those days were never pleasant. Outsourcing is a normal and natural process. No economy can sustain itself by paying workers 10-20 times what their jobs are worth in the marketplace. Globalization is not some new phenomenon concocted by evil, heartless, capitalist, industrial barons; it has been in existence since commerce began. What has changed is the speed and reach of communications, mechanization efficiency, the speed and capacity of transportation, and global community awareness. Free trade, like free speech, is not a convenience that we embrace only when it suits us. Our economy, our labor force, our laws, and our immigration process must change to reflect and represent our place in the world economy. The world is changing; so must we. We should albeit must be agents of change rather than attempting to withdraw into some imaginary shell. Rather than whine about a European airplane company deservedly winning a procurement contract, let us focus on helping our brethren learn new jobs that cannot be done elsewhere. We have long sought global markets for our products; now, let us act like we belong in the global marketplace.

I must admit that holding onto an aloof, sanctimonious position regarding so many of our societal issues must be comforting and reassuring. After all, being against war, against guns, hunger, poverty, or opposing abortion, or condemning end-of-life actions is effortless and easy. We hold hard positions on some of our most difficult societal challenges -- Social Security, immigration reform, campaign financing, earmark graft and corruption, and such. And, we pretend the seamier side of human life does not exist – prostitution, psychotropic substances, intoxication, and pornography among others. Hard positions make for hard feelings. One day, we shall learn to get down off our high horse and seek solutions to the ills that infect our souls.

Once again, a newspaper opinion column ignited my urge to write.
"Equal rights apply to Christians, too"
by Brent Castillo
Wichita Eagle
Published: Thursday, 6.March.2008; page:
http://www.kansas.com/opinion/castillo/story/332439.html
My letter to the paper:
You stated, “There are two things that our politically correct culture still targets with glee: adult Caucasian males and conservative Christianity.” I am certainly no fan or advocate of this silly notion we call political correctness. And, you may well be correct in your statement. After all, you are not alone in voicing that observation.
Our precious 1st Amendment rights – religion, speech, Press, assembly and petition – belong to all of us in equal measure. In fact, many of us have stood in harm’s way to defend those essential freedoms. “We hold these truths to be self-evident . . . .”
Yet, your opinion column fails to examine, address, recognize, understand or appreciate the underlying reasons for the perceived “anti-Christian” reaction by some in American society.
I respectfully submit that what you speak of as political correctness and “anti-Christian” behavior is in part backlash and to an extent defense of the Founding ideals of this Grand Republic – freedom for everyone, not just what is allowed under a Christian (or any other religion) umbrella. I join you in offense when a student is denied her freedom of speech, simply because she chooses to invoke a religious image. Yet, there is a world of difference between a student and a public school principal or teacher in such circumstances.
What some Christians, and apparently you among them, illuminate as “anti-Christian” oppression, is quite possibly resentment to having your version of Christianity, or Christianity in general, imposed upon them, injected into their lives, and especially with the consent of the State, implicit or otherwise.
The Pew survey reported in the Eagle pegs Christians as 78% of the American population. Such a majority, or even greater, does not entail the right to impose your values on private conduct of other citizens. So, if you perceive resistance, I suggest you examine why there is resistance. To be frank and candid, there are Christians who strongly oppose what conservative and/or fundamentalist Christians have been attempting to accomplish – marshalling the instruments of State to dictate their version of values, both public and private. I truly believe there would be less public resistance, if there was less intrusion upon our private lives. I urge you to think about it.

Comments and contributions from Update no.325:
“I think your logic is backwards. The jihadists whoever they are, have won so far with a policy that has caused Bush and cohorts to waste American blood and treasure in a fruitless attempt at empire building. We are broke and the Army is broke and a draft will be the next step- which hopefully will never happen (but this is a sticky issue), so McCain, as good as he sounds to you and your compatriots for his tough talk and blow ‘em all up attitude will recruit more and more people to the side of the folks that really hate us, and thus if there was a strategy that wanted to make things worse for us it will be to continue stay the course insanity. The extremists are winning this battle while moderates and people who know history and people who care about life, everyone's, are hoping we do not succumb to the fear mongering and jingoism coming from the war party. Other than that , you are usually right on!
“Was that you who was responding to this? "To the author of the baseless rot spewed about '...Libertarians, Feminists, and Homosexuals' in 'A Continuing thread...; . Very good response.
“In regard to our discussion about our military killing innocents and unarmed captives. This goes to the heart of the matter: are we virtuous, or are we not? If we are, then we don't condone being criminals or criminal activity, even in warfare. All wars have produced the horrors of murder, etc- war is indeed hell, and that is why we should have out grown it a couple generations ago. But we haven't and we won't. Only those kids coming home now, if they ever do, since their redeployment seems unending, can understand what war is. You note anecdotal instances of kindness, magnanimity which are indeed real, but you are too light on the bad stuff and quickly say it is aberration. I don't know if you are serious or delusional. Our kids are being told, on orders, to kill innocents and to shoot unarmed captives. This is a fact and I won't bore you with the details of how I know because I can't prove it without incriminating others, and besides even if I was waterboarded I'm not sure I could give you accurate information. My point is it is as real as all murder is in all wars- but the difference is today's war has a special meanness to it, and yet a callousness as well- mainly because we choose not to know about it. In past wars most people didn't know about the brutality, until Vietnam sent color moving pictures of it home, so their ignorance was just a simple fact. Today we can see what is going on, read about it, and then choose to ignore the court cases that show we have tortured, as a policy, murdered, as a policy, and thumbed our nose at the Geneva convention- ah! because this is a different war- this one is against something different than past wars- this is against an idea, not a state! And God knows how hard it is to kill an idea. So we throw our American traditions to the wind, break our own and international laws and invade a sovereign nation which had nothing to do with attacking us. This is a war that we started because we want an empire in the 21st Century and because we want to make sure we control the down side of the peak oil supply. In order to rally the moms and pops and the shut-in's who are staring at FoxNews all day we had to turn it into a crusade.
“You are mistaken if you take anything I say to be critical of the men and women boys and girls who don the uniform in service to our country. It is crimes that I am criticizing. If you or any member of your family was ordered to shoot unarmed captives, would you or they have done it? I sit here in my warm house with my coffee brewing and think I know what I would do. After all, what is the point of being free, supporting liberty, the rights of man, calling myself a Christian if I would shoot an unarmed man simply because I was ordered to do so? Am I just a robotron of killing? Or am I a man with a sense of right and wrong? Do I follow orders or do I stand on principle? Do I do it because I cannot see how I could possibly go against my superiors or against my comrades who are doing it? Fact is, I am no hero. I would follow orders, and that is my larger point. We should never have started this war.”
My response:
I have made no claim to being correct, righteous or even reflective. So, could my logic be backwards; yes, absolutely. After all, it is but my opinion.
You continue and repeatedly imply, if not accuse, the United States of ‘empire building.’ Would you be so kind to explain why you think this is the case? Perhaps I am blind to the obvious, but I can see no such evidence or rationale. In fact, if we were of the mind to ‘build an empire,’ we are going about it in a strangely odd and distorted manner. In fact, my opinion is quite the opposite; we seek to destroy those who wish to oppress. The jihadistanis may well be winning, but that is not clear to me. My criticism of the Bush administration is not over the choice or objective, but in the grotesquely inefficient manner taken to achieve the objective. Bush/Rumsfeld cost precious American lives; they shall bear that burden.
Re: our military killing innocent and unarmed civilians. As I am sure you can imagine, there are numerous citizen subscribers who are active duty, retired and former military personnel from all branches of U.S. and Allied services; they may wish to comment as well. Let us establish a few baseline facts. Have innocent, unarmed civilians been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Yes, absolutely, without exception. Unfortunately, ‘innocent’ and ‘unarmed’ are matters of perspective in this kind of war, and thus open to debate. A woman clothed in a head-to-toe Burka who runs toward me and fails to stop when ordered to do so in English and Arabic is no longer innocent or unarmed, regardless of what gender is under the Burka or whether s/he possesses a weapon; s/he is a threat, and I trust I would and any other soldier or Marine would act appropriately. Any military enlisted or officer who has served in the U.S. military and especially the combat arms in the last 40 years will attest to the training each and every one of us receives on the Code of Conduct, rules of engagement, laws of war, the Geneva Convention, et cetera. As I have acknowledged previously, there are murderers, rapists and thieves in the military; there always have been; there always will be. The military goes to extraordinary lengths to localize and prosecute those in uniform who commit crimes, even in combat. IMHO, I think the military has gone too far in prosecuting some incidents. I cannot and I am not asking you to compromise any of your sources. However, I would ask you see other opinions. Unless someone else can substantiate or corroborate such extraordinary accusations, I shall summarily reject and condemn such accusations. I cannot imagine any officer at any rank getting away with issuing such an outlandish order. That aside, I am sure some who have not served in combat would criticize my order to my Marines to shoot to kill anyone who threatened our safety or our mission. If that is ordering the killing of innocent, unarmed civilians, then I am a sinner, but I am alive and my Marines are safe for my sins. I ask you to stand back from the emotion of the killing and consider the basis for such claims. Less than 1% may commit bona fide crimes in combat, and there have been some in these battles; but, to condemn all as criminals is wrong.
Re: “the leadership promoting the war.” First, the leadership does not pull the actual trigger; they define objectives. I have far more faith in the conduct of our soldiers and Marines, that even if they were ordered to kill ‘innocents,’ they would withhold their fire. The difficulty in judging decisions in combat by those of us who sleep in our warm beds at night rests in the perception of threat. Such definitions depend upon circumstances, timing, resources, weapons, numbers, et cetera. I trust the judgment of our soldiers far beyond lawyers, politicians, judges and civilians sitting in their fancy chairs in their posh offices. Second, the relationship between the civilian leadership, the generals, the officer corps, and the non-commissioned officers down to the shooters with rifles in their hands is well established, consistent, time-proven and honorable. There are far too many checks & balances for such orders for indiscriminate killing to ever be executed even if they were ever issued. Third, as there have been in every war, there are those citizens who are transformed by the process of looking down the sight of a rifle aimed at a man’s chest and pulling the trigger. Are there soldiers who revile and negatively react to such experience; yes, absolutely, without question; and, they often make outrageous claims to rationalize their inability to perform. I could offer a few notable examples, but I think you can draw your own conclusions. Killing a man, a woman or a child is never easy, but it is necessary, and that is why we train a professional military; I trust their training and their judgment to identify and eliminate any threat regardless of gender, age, race, ethnicity or any of the other social factors. Someone who makes a threatening gesture toward a soldier in combat made a very poor, final choice.
I have repeatedly said that there is one very simple and easy way to judge the violence in any war zone – stop fighting. If you analyze U.S./Allied operations, I think you will readily find where there is peace, there are no offensive U.S. operations. Where there is violence, we seek out and destroy those who commit such violence. AQI will not allow peace to happen; they do not want peace; they want war, chaos, anarchy, fear and confusion . . . the conditions where force of arms thrives, e.g., the wild, wild West. We seek the rule of law by Iraqis, for Iraqis, and we seek to destroy those who want to deny freedom to the Iraqis.
We did NOT start this war. We resisted this damnable war far too long, and that reluctance to confront the oppressors three plus decades ago has cost us enormously today. And, again IMHO, our withdrawal from finishing the job now will only make that cost infinitely greater tomorrow.
. . . round two:
“You raise some interesting points but I think you missed my basic one and that is that we should never have started this war, i.e. an invasion of Iraq. You and I disagree on this and I doubt anyone reading this forum would agree with me. I feel the invasion was illegal (Congress did not declare it, having abrogated its Constitutional duty), and under our Constitution all treaties and agreements are the supreme law of the land- hence we broke international law by invading a sovereign nation, as Hitler did when he invaded Poland, under similar justifications, and as Saddam did when he invaded Kuwait. Your points about killing women and children if they are perceived as a threat to our military seems to reduce us to the level of those who we think are our enemy. You want to destroy those who seek to oppress. How can you know what is in the minds of those you are destroying? You casually brush aside the deaths of 100,000s of innocent civilians, need I add that most are women and children, because they seek to oppress? A few extremists wanted to do us harm. Bush invaded Iraq. Now thousands of extremists want to do us harm. What is the percentage in that? We are acting like the Israelis against the Palestinians. Is that a good thing? If you think it is not true that orders are not given to our soldiers to shoot unarmed captives who are on their knees with their backs to their shooters, then I don't know what to say but assume you think I am a liar. I can't control what you think. My contention is that this is a destructive policy to our cause and no matter how much it went on during the Viet Nam war, or any war, or how effective other nations who advise our military think it is, it is wrong. You praise the high standards of the fighting men and women of our military, as do I. It is the leadership which should be held accountable. I won't hold my breath. We all should read and learn from middle eastern experts who do not tell us what we already believe in order to get a more balanced understanding of the repercussions of what we do. I try to read both sides- Gingrich and Juan Cole. I bet you haven't read Juan Cole.”
. . . my response to round two:
Yes, we do disagree on the authority to invade Afghanistan and Iraq as part of the War on Islamic Fascism, but not entirely. I have long criticized the President for failing to seek and gain a full and proper declaration of war per Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution; by not doing so, enormous ambiguity was created. Yet, the President possesses expansive authority under Article II, Section 2, which is Bush’s interpretation, and to date, the Supreme Court has largely supported the President’s interpretation. Also, Article 51 of the UN Charter acknowledges the right of every nation to self-defense, which like the individual soldier facing a threat, is largely self-defined. All that aside, legal or illegal, right or wrong, once the trigger is pulled and troops go in harm’s way, my interest in the legality vanishes, and my only concern is winning the war as quickly and efficiently as possible to minimize the blood of our patriots; we’ll sort out the administrivia afterward.
The comparison of U.S. v. Iraq to Germany v. Poland (1939) is inappropriate for a host of reasons, unless you deny Saddam’s provocation, defiance, development & use of WMDs, sponsorship of international terrorism, ad infinitum. We gave Saddam a ridiculous number of warnings, second chances, and opportunities to join the community of peaceful nations; he chose a different path; he paid the price. If al-Qaeda had not been successful on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, we would probably still be whining at Saddam; 9/11 altered the context, and rightly so.
I continue to find it most troubling that you apparently see the United States of America as the aggressor, the occupier, the oppressor, the imperial colonialist, the rogue state. If so, I hope someday you will help me understand why?
Unless any citizen has stood in harm’s way as a soldier in combat, or a police officer responding to a disturbance, explaining a threat may not be possible. The truth is a threat can be defined by a myriad of factors including context, environment, appearance, actions, associates, and such. I have offered and can offer many more examples. Such judgments in combat have absolutely nothing to do with what the threatening person is thinking . . . kind of like a man in a riot raising a toy pistol toward a police officer – death by cop – doesn’t matter what he was thinking or whether he was even armed. He chose to take a provocative action; I reacted to kill him dead.
Re: “Bush invaded Iraq. Now thousands of extremists want to do us harm.” The weakness in the logic rests in the disconnection and ignorance of the decades of killing the Islamo-fascists have been perpetrating. As long as you see all these events as isolated, unconnected, unfortunate-acting-up by disenfranchised criminals, the disconnection is easy, and thus the image that Bush’s action in Iraq was wrong becomes easy to embrace. As long as we ignore the provocation of the Israelis by the Hamas & Hezbollah, we can readily see the Palestinians as oppressed. Likewise, as long as we choose to ignore the provocations of the Islamo-fascists and the mounting number of Americans who have died at their hands, it is easy to see the United States as the oppressor. Bottom line: I cannot and will no see the decades of provocations as disconnected. Therein lies the essence of our disagreement, it seems to me.
Re: “If you think it is not true that orders are not given to our soldiers to shoot unarmed captives who are on their knees with their backs to their shooters, then I don't know what to say but assume you think I am a liar.” I am not so foolish or immature to make such an allegation. I believe you believe what you say as true. I respectfully submit that such judgments depend upon context (among other factors). If I was the team leader of a small Recon, SEAL, SF or Ranger team (which I have done at one time in my life) in bad guy country, outnumbered and engaged, I would not and I trust none of my team would hesitate to eliminate enemy combatants – armed or unarmed, bound or free. A seven man Recon team has no capacity to take captives. My failure to do so might well lead to one of those captives being the determinant in the fight – context. Might someone on that team be offended by such an action? Perhaps. And, I respectfully submit, such an individual becomes a risk to the team. I used an example of a Burka-clad female running toward a checkpoint and failing to respond to warnings – context. This is why I contend that just because we have the Internet, YouTube, vidclips and such, giving us instant views of combat, does not give us the right to sit in judgment of Marines in combat making those instantaneous life-or-death decisions. You will also find that I am a staunch, relentless advocate for the defense of those Marines. We have soldiers and Marines facing charges today that I find revolting and reprehensible – combat in Fallujah or Baghdad is not crime in Kansas City. Yet, at the end of the day, I trust the generals to ignore the Press and popular outrage and to do the correct thing for those soldiers and Marines. So, again, no, I absolutely do not believe orders have been issued formally or by a wink & a nod to kill innocent, unarmed civilians. And, I do not believe you are a liar; I just think you choose to see that which you wish to see; which is also why I continue to attempt explanations . . . in hopes that (the general) you might see such events through a different lens.
Re: leadership accountability. I agree in the main. Yet, I do not agree in specific for the reasons I have offered. President Bush had the courage to do what should have been done in 1979 and subsequent. I have seen nothing that causes me doubt. Conversely, I have been and remain a vociferous critic of President Bush, especially during the Donald Rumsfeld debacle years, for his attempting to fight a war by half-measures. John McCain resisted the trigger pull as he should have . . . in a non-public, behind-the-scenes manner, but once the trigger was pulled, he has been an unwavering advocate for victory. John suffered the consequences of half-measures far more so than some of the rest of us, and he has not forgotten those lessons.

This next contribution follows a continuing thread from several Updates. To avoid any confusion regarding my possible complacency, the original contributor sought to void his anonymity within this forum with the subsequent comment.
“I apologize to you for what my at least 'felt' response was to the "Another Comment" message. I am just getting my own blog going and was not aware of the mechanism by which my attachments to you might be shared; though I have no objection to them being shared or available to anyone. I have made some minor revisions to my attachments which will also be attachments on my own blog, which I will re-include as attachments to this message.
“My Personal Blog will be:
http://groups.msn.com/ourmastermindclub3173.
“My commercial Blogs are:
http://www.hermanosborne.com/blog (don't have these perfected yet; and http://www.ourmastermindclub3173.com.
“My primary business site, still under development is:
http://www.hermanosborne.com.”
My response:
No need to apologize. I often have to walk a very fine line between free exchanges of opinions and ideas, and protecting the anonymity of contributors. I seek the vigorous public intercourse . . . not to belittle or disparage anyone’s opinions. The rub with freedom of speech rests with the freedom everyone enjoys to speak their minds, from their perspective and their experience.
I will be happy to include your website, blog & links, but that will eliminate your anonymity. I would like your confirmation of acceptability before I do so.
. . . and a follow-up:
“Yes, this is my confirmation of acceptability of releasing my anonymity, for you to include my websites, Blogs and links etc. Sort of a side note: I attended a Wednesday evening service in which the ministers' messages cited how at the height of the revolutionary battle when then General Washington's troops were engaging in the British in battle at New York against formidable odds, a goodly portion of the local American population their were watching the battle from the roof tops, unwilling to engage in the battle for their own freedom: I intend to dedicate my remain time on earth to preserve Our Nation as did our founders; I am not content to be a cowardly rooftop watcher as anti-Christian forces seek to dismember and destroy Our Nation.”
. . . and my follow-up reply:
As you wish, so it shall be. It is a good thing to engage rather than watch as "a cowardly rooftop watcher as anti-Christian forces seek to dismember and destroy Our Nation." An opinion column in our local newspaper spoke of anti-Christian activities; I wrote a response that will be in this week's Update; it says what I need to say.

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)