F......UP A TWO CAR FUNERAL POSSESSION

Anybody who watched Paul Bremer recently before a senate committee and doesn't simply put his/her head in his hands and figuratively cry is way beyond me. Obviously someone who screwed up as much as Bremer in Iraq is not going to admit it. We are into hindsight, of course, but what hindsight does is only reflect the lack of planning in going to war anyway.

Bremer said, "I've made mistakes." Well, Dud! Descriptions of loading 18 wheelers with pallets of cash, weighing tons didn't seem to even phase Bremer. He said something like, "Iraq was a country in chaos and a cash culture and we were trying to survive and look after the people." Oh, so you just hand out hundred dollar bills to the elite of Baghdad. The poor surely didn't get the bucks. Bremer says all of this with a straight face. Looking after the people: what people were those?

No accountability for all this cash. The IG who sat next to him contradicted him with the idea that he didn't have a clue where all that money went. I can remember reading about soldiers at some supply point in Iraq or maybe they were contractors playing foodball with bound up stacks of hundred dollar bills.What enrages me as an American taxpayer is that when I think of the working poor, the homeless and needy in our country who are trying to survive and we are giving out stacks of American taxpayers' money like it is a monopoly game. And, to make it worse, it probably went to the least deserving and worse still into the hands of possible terrorists. We simply don't know.

You have got to be kidding me! Here it is two years down the road and we have come out from under the ether. I am appalled and Americans who care should be too. Most who have any real interest in what has happened in Iraq commonly acknowledge that disbanding the Iraqi Army and purging the Baathists from the government was simply stupid. The thing I remember is reading about Bremer screaming, "I don't want to hear anything about Vietnam." Oh yeah, doesn't want to hear that Iraq has become Iraqnam. Guess what? Bremer got his "freedom" medal given by the Prez and would be off scot free were it not for the new Congress.

Bremer's admissions is but one more example of how Iraq has morphed into one disaster after another. And, we are still debating doing more of the same. If there has ever been a case for post Vietnam, this may be it. When we departed the scene in Vietnam, who knew what would happen. Some things were not pretty but our staying there would have only postponed the inevitable. As we have seen, Vietnam not only survived but has prospered and has even become our trading partner. We should be so lucky in Iraq. Let's hope with new leadership we are truly heading for a new strategy and it ain't surge.

IN MEMORIUM

Two recent deaths have caused me a moment of pause: two very different persons. Dale Noyd and Milly Ivins.

Dale Noyd singularly objected to the Vietnam war and it kind of personified his life. He was the only member of his class to be given a "Regular" (in his days, most commissioned officers received "Reserve" commissions) commission of his ROTC class at Washington State. He just missed the Korean war and it looked like a promising military career was ahead, once having received a medal for landing a badly damaged nuclear armed F-100 fighter at an English airfield. He even taught at the Air Force Academy. Then what should appear but Vietnam on the horizon. He couldn't bring himself to be involved, based on what he viewed from the beginning as an illegal war. Talk about a prophet. Eventually, he was court martialed, served a year in jail and drummed out of the service. Sad. He's probably smiling today remembering the two certificates he kept on his wall: his commendation for heroism and his dishonorable discharge.

Molly Ivins. I always liked her, her irreverent style and of late, vociferous objection to the Iraq war. How I always interpreted her was not so much objection to the war but the stupidity in how it was/is managed. I can surely identify with that: it simply gets worse and when you think it can't get any more out of control, it does. Molly got it. Her last column, which she maybe knew to be her last, said it all: "We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. Raise hell. Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous. Make our troops know we're for them and trying to get them of of there."

A LETTER TO THE SPEAKER

Dear Madam Speaker, as one of your constituents, I want to affirm you for going to Iraq to see for yourself what a collosal mess we're in. You are right on in your assessment. Training is a key and in my view should come via the Special Operations (Green Berets) soldiers who are trained themselves to do exactly what you have suggested. In my view, we should immediately begin a phased withdrawal of conventional soldiers out of Iraq. Iraq is Iraqnam because when we introduced conventional soldiers into that sorry war, it was lost.

I don't want to take up your valuable time by giving you anymore of my views and would only say that we are where we are and have to figure it out. More troops, regardless of what we call them, is idiocy at this point. All we are doing is putting more Americans at risk. It will not work. All along I have been proclaiming that we simply cannot win in Iraq whether we call the enemy insurgents, terrorists, or the Iraqi government in the form of militias. You cannot beat people who will blow themselves up and kill their own families and countrymen indiscriminately. Ideology aside, it simply cannot be done.

I don't know exactly how to say this gently because I cannot tell you how much I admire you: however, one thing that I personally think that Democrats have to keep in mind, we did not change the Congress for it to be business as usual. Increasing the minimum wage and many other programs are good and useful but getting us out of Iraq in one way or antoher is what we want. At the State of the Union meeting, to be honest, I was a little put out with all the kissing and hugging and bowing and scraping. I respect the presidency but let us not forget that we are exactly where we are because the "decider" and his minions simply decided wrong and over 3000 young Americans and no telling how many others will never get a chance to live out their lives in our great country. They have paid the ultimate price for his "deciding."

A last thing: for at least the last 10-12 years, I have been pushing Universal Service and actually wrote the enclosed Memoir to help me sell the idea. Universal Service's time has come. I could list all sorts of reasons that Democrats need a platform that goes back to JFK, "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." Based on the scores of people that I constantly buttonhole, I almost never run into anybody who doesn't say Universal Service is a good idea. For the life of me, I cannot understand why this is not embraced wholeheartedly by the Congress. The draft will not fly. (I actually wrote Congressman Rangel with my ideas and why the draft won't work) but giving youngsters a chance and a choice of how they give their service will. I hope you'll think about it. God bless you richly.

Soldiers put their lives on the line everyday

Dad, did you hear that Nancy Polosi is going to Iraq?

Yes, I read it in the paper this morning. Wow, hope she is careful, Iraq is not exactly the sort of place that Americans want to be these days.

Dad, think about this: soldiers are out there everyday, risking their lives. I don't think Nancy Pelosi is worth more than those brave Americans, do you?
**Daughter talking to her father

**daugher is "hardcore" Democrat and symbolically a Bush hater but like most Americans regardless of views, respect and understand that the soldier is just doing his job. She is also a big supporter of the Speaker of the House.

THE MILITARY AND A FREE PASS

I think much of where we are today in Iraq has to be laid at the feet of the military. By in large, they have had a free pass. We support the troops as they are just doing their jobs. But, what about the higher ups, mainly those at the top. Without a doubt, they have been pawns of the powers that be. Maintaining personal integrity for a commander is incredibly tricky. For General Officers at the top, especially, as they are political animals themselves. Does anyone think they got where they are in the system by bucking it. I don't think so! And, it is natural for military people to salute and drive on. To our discredit often, it is, "yes sir, yes sir three bags full."

Recently, I met a young Lieutenant and discussed extensively with him Iraq. He was a bachelor and had been there already. It was a frank and honest dialogue and I was impressed with his knowledge, commitment, and openness. After our conversation, I reflected on it: I was over the edge in not wanting to appear that I did not support him. Most Americans are the same way. We can't take a chance on denigrating the troops. Vietnam taught us that. I think the country has a collective guilt--they treated soldiers so badly after Vietnam, that "all" military is given a pass. At least on the surface. Soldiers are simply doing their jobs. When I asked the young Lieutenant, "do you and your soldiers worry that the vast majority of Americans don't support the war?" He said, "to be honest, we don't talk about it and just do our jobs."

IRAQNAM REVISISTED

IRAQNAM REVISITED

How in the world did we get to this point? The decisions of stupidity are legion, nothing new: not enough troops, disbanding the Iraqi Army, a strategy of "whack a mole" which has been abysmal. As I heard last week that some young Captain in Iraq said, "Our strategy is to send a few soldiers out in a hum V to get shot at or blown up." Now that's a strategy.

And, we continue to present rosy reports, Casey, the head guy in Iraq, who is retiring, echoed it again. "By the summer of 08, troops might be leaving. What is going on with this? I think he was relieved anyway in a bit of strategy even if we don't know what it is--make a few changes to make it look like we're doing something and see what happens.

THE DECISIONS AREN'T OURS TO MAKE

What amazes me is that we continue to act like we can arbitrarily make decisions. HELLO! Does anybody remember that Iraq has a duly elected government. The Premier is being called upon to get tough. Oh yeah, this will work; get tough with the very guy who is the driver behind him being in office. You have got to be kidding me. Get this, there are no less than 23 militias in Iraq and the Premier is going to disband them. PLEASE! GIVE ME A BREAK!

OUR LEADER HAS SPOKEN


The President has said we have three options: (1)do what we are doing, (2) cut a chogie (NC expression for get the hell out) out of Iraq, or (3)the surge. No, we have four and here is the plan that will work.

SPECIAL FORCES

Plan to stay in Iraq as long as it takes or somewhere close, 50-75,000 Special Forces soldiers who can fight the militias or keep the people from killing each other and train those who honestly might be willing to be trained. Simplistic. No, what people in Congress or even the military don't want to admit is that the Special Forces are trained for this sort of mission--a guerrilla war and they love it.

What we learned from Vietnam has totally escaped us and the military "brass" has to take a hit for this: leave guerrilla fighting to the Special Forces. The main Army should concentrate on big wars like WW II, to be fought for survival. Us Vietnam vets know the scenario. Vietnam began its eventual decline when we introduced conventional soldiers: young soldiers who are just bodies, trained as best we could but reluctant at best. We did a good job, carried the fight to the enemy but at the end of the day, we couldn't win it. In Iraq, conventional soldiers, as good as they are, are not going to win it either.

FANATICISM

We cannot beat fanatics, those who kill themselves, their families, their countrymen. We cannot beat young Arab men who have joined the fight because they have no future, no prospects and they are imbued with a religious fanaticism that reasonable people simply cannot fathom, i. e., 73 virgins waiting for them in paradise. Fantasy in a normal male is a powerful thing and in a sexually repressed male like these kids in the militias in Iraq, it is multiplied by the scores.

A TIME TABLE

So, how long will it take to get us to the point we can do this? Six months to a year, conventional soldiers can be out of Iraq and the Special Forces can be in place. What's happened to us in Iraq and Baghdad in particular is that we have given over the streets to the thugs, meaning the militias. They are unimpressed with our bravado, great equipment and fire power. They know they have us by the gonads. They are tribalists and we are trying to win their hearts and minds. Forget it! We can win the hearts and minds of a few civilians but for those taking the fight to us, we cannot.

We have got to get over ourselves. The militias/insurgents/terrorists are salvages. When I read the accounts of the killing of innocent Iraqis, I am amazed at what they will do to the poor civilians: students, kids. They don't care and are brutal to the max.

We slow this down by a highly trained force of Special Forces soldiers who understand counter insurgency and can take the fight to the enemy while keeping a low profile in training the Iraqis and winning some confidence of the people. This is a strategy and will work--two years. kt

JACK IS BACK FOR SURE

Our hero, Jack Bauer, of 24 has returned. And, Jack is in his best form. He is slightly aging but just as philosophical in getting the job done. It is fast pace and then more. My blood pressure goes up substantially during an episode. In fact, once I had to switch to something else to catch my breath. And, I constantly have to tell myself this is TV.

It is TV but 24 makes the mind go flying as well as the bodies on the show. It is terrorism at its worst. And, with the exception of the final victory, the "bad guys" are usually always winning. And, guess what they are: dark skinned and most likely have names like, "Ahmed." Well, we weren't attacked in 2001 by boys from Alabama, and to say that 24 does not add to ethnic harmony is somewhat a given. We did have Timothy McVey but we can say that in the final analysis, he spared all of us and chose to be out of here.

Here's what 24 does for me. It is a passing thought that maybe there is some element of truth what the zealots are saying about Iraq and Afghanistan: fight them over there or fight them here. No, I'm not backing up about Iraq but always want to be objective which us "drugstore cowboys" can afford to be: the thought is a "what if?" We have to admit that we have not been attacked since 9-11. For the entire TV program, 24 spells out the fact that an attack is eminent. It is chillingly realistic.

Should all Americans watch it? I think so or as much as they can take. There's something strangely compelling about thinking about the "what ifs" of terrorism. We have the evidence of its existence and possibilities: Spanish train blow-up, British subway, foiled airliner plots to name a few. And, those were not a TV show.

None of this glazes over the debacle of Iraq and had we fought that war with foresight and clarity, we might be in a different spot now. And, it is not going away. My suggestion is that the "powers that be" need to give an adjunct job to the writers of 24. Mostly what I think they could do is show us how to combat those who want to destroy our way of life and help us to go on with it. At the very least, we need to keep Jack Bauer handy. God bless us.

A REAL HERO

Today, we hear lots about heroes in connection to soldiers in Iraq. And, in a sense, it is good. It trivializes it a bit because all soldiers are not heroes just by the nature of being soldiers. They are doing their jobs, it is what they have chosen. Being in a war zone does, in some measure automatically qualifies a person as a hero. I believe it. But, like in all situations, there is a degree of danger, of sacrifice, and even of commitment.

Without a long definition of hero, let's say there truly surfaces on occasion someone who does something so sacrificially that hero is truly applicable. The soldier who risks his own safety to take care of his fellow soldiers, a soldier who without thinking places himself in danger--God forbid, jumps on a granade; a soldier who in the course of fighting stands in the "breach" so to speak and dukes it out with the enemy. To call someone who does this in war, a hero, is not a hard thing to do: they are heroes.

But, there's another type of person who fits in a different category. Soldiers are at war, it is the environment. What about the person going about his daily business and suddenly is hit with a situation. Take for example Wesley Autrey, the father of two children who, while standing on a NY City subway platform, jumps onto the tracks and saves a person who has fallen. What made him do it? Is he a hero? What! We can psychobabble all we want too but without a doubt, we are talking hero. Was it his Navy training, some sort of inner wired system that make him different. I don't know but he's a hero.

Wesley's individual sermonette to us has to be, "would we do as Wesley did, without thinking? Are we inner directed enough?" Let's apply the Biblical story of the Good Samaritan? A man has been beaten by robbers. Jesus tells the story to teach a lesson. Those who happened on the man crossed to the other side, even the religious types. Finally a Good Samaritan in Jesus story stops, helps and figuratively calls 911 and gets him looked after. Good story. However, to make it applicable to us, what about this? We happen by the man when he is being assauted by the robbers. What would we do? Wesley Autrey would jump in and help. Would we? God bless Wesley, his selfless act inspires me.

THE SURGE

This sounds a little like some TV show but the severity and stupidity of it means that we wish it were a TV show. I can hardly believe that I am the only one in America who gets this: in Iraq, we are not in charge. Now I don't know some of the operational issues that might be involved but this is not like we are "calling the shots" and can made decisions about what we are going to do or not do. In case people have forgotten and apparently many have, Iraq has a democratically elected government for better or worse. Listening to the pundits, you would think that all we have to do is make a decision and execute it.

WANT AN EXAMPLE

One word: Saddam. From various reports, we know there was a big dispute in giving over Saddam to be executed. In the final analysis, the elected government made the decision. The Ambassador and General Casey (both were on vacation or something) had no real say in what happened. But, at some level, the Americans made the decision to turn him over to the Iraqis, i. e., the government. From reports, we learn that Saddam thought almost to the end that the Americans would save him, Chalk up one more "sorry about that" for trusting the Americans at crunch time. Think Vietnam and all those Vietnamese left behind when we abandoned them to the Communists. Had it been up to me: noway would I have turned him over. Not that we need to have sympathy for Saddam but again, the issue is that we are not calling the shots. We have to get this in our heads.

The difficulties of our present position in Iraq are so enormous that it is hard to single out two or three and zero in on them. Putting more soldiers in Baghdad won't hack it. Americans, myself included, love to fix things and in this case, politics wants to fix an impossible situation. Thus, we are getting ready for the Powers that be to present a new strategy in Iraq. I hear you.

Interjecting politics into an impossible scenario, I see the dilemma of the Democrats. And, I confess that I am thinking on this. How can they fulfill the very reason that they have assumed the majority: squaring away the Iraqi morase and yet come across as also supporting the soldier? It is tricky.

SUPPORTING THE TROOPS

What I think we must reiterate over and over; in order for soldiers to be effective, they have to believe in their cause by in large. And, there is no doubt from everything I read that they do in fact, believe in what they are doing. They are surely doing their jobs. However, I still get emails, purportedly from soldiers touting the good and the difference we're making. I have no doubt to them, it is true. Recently someone sent me an email with a laundry lists of all the good things. I didn't verify it as I don't believe it totally anyway. There are still diehards who think we are winning in Iraq or if we stay long enough, we can win. These may be the same people who believe there was no holocaust or followers of ego maniac Pat Robertson. Who knows! Simply, we cannot win. We cannot defeat fanatics who will kill themselves, their family, their countrymen. Consequently, we cannot fix Iraq.

TAKING THE BROAD VIEW

Americans must take the broad view. I would compare it to responsible parents dealing with their children. Children don't often know what is best for them. They see pretty much what is in front of them. Therefore, parents have to do the right thing for their futures, their possibilities. This may involve decisions that are not popular with them, may OCCASIONALLY deepen the parental/child divide but the parent has to be the parent. This analogy seems to me to be appropriate to Iraq. We support the soldier, his sacrifice, his commitment and the fact that he/she is a professional, doing the job. But, a broader view must be taken.

SAYING I'M SORRY

As I've listened and read the various pundits and followed my news junkie addiction, I can't tell you the number of times I've read about someone saying I'm sorry. Mel Gibson, Michael Richardson, various others. What is this? Well, what can you do when you've messed up but say, I'm sorry. It is, in a sense, the human condition: screwing up. As far as apologies go, if someone messes up, better they say they're sorry than not--their screw-ups don't vanish with the "I'm sorry" but still , they've done what they can. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt.

A MALE CHAUVANIST THING

Recently in a Newsweek column by Anne Quinlen, I thought she put a little different spin on it. Not totally to my liking because let's face it, us male types somehow are a little or a lot turned off as writers refer to the gender, etc., in most everything. In her case, she had the audacity to say there's a type of masculinity, machismo American style that has to do with saying I'm sorry. I smiled as she is more right than wrong. It is probably in the same part of our midget brain as asking for directions.

PUBLIC "I'm Sorry"

The apologies I'd like to hear are the pols, however. Just once I'd like to hear a politician say, I screwed up. The closest I've heard lately came from Gordon Smith, who at the Senate’s lame-duck session, suddenly rose to give one of the most passionate and surprising speeches about the war in Iraq. For a Republican who had originally voted for the war, the "I'm sorry" words spoken by the Senator, were pretty dramatic. I was wrong and I'm sorry.

I AM NOT GOING TO ADMIT I MESSED UP

People in public life or private for that matter rarely say I'm sorry. Most aren't. Do you think the Office Depot guy who just resigned and will get millions in his golden parachute is in the least sorry that he is hurting the company. I don't think so. You better believe Presidents or countries don't apologize. I did read recently that some newspapers apologized for century's ago discriminating and other foibles. Better late than never, I guess.

Husbands probably say we're sorry more than most any of the species. Quinlan in her article dissects apologies and intimates that politicians are reluctant maybe because from then on out, they would be subjected to pundits, newspaper columnists and radio and TV screamers--bloggers. Even Smith was excoriated for being 4 years late or wanting to pass the buck to the President.

WHY NOT APOLOGIZE

If someone wants to question one's motives, there are plenty of venues to do it. What Quinlen seems to be implying is that pollutions and presidents don't apologize for political reasons, not that they might not believe they are wrong. Since we can't know their private thoughts, then we simply don't know why they are reluctant. We have history. I still feel badly that Bill didn't apologize to Monica.

I like what Samantha Power said in her book, A problem From Hell: America and The Age of Genocide (what a title?) "Whether regarding the Vietnam war, America's cold war assassinations, or our misguided former alliance with Saddam Hussein, American officials kept their eyes fixed on the future. They rarely admit responsibility for failure, for costly meddling or for large scale human suffering. They resist debate--internally or publicly--on how good intentions went astray. And they most certainly don't apologize to those harmed." And, who can forget Robert McNamara's words, I was wrong, terribly wrong. Thanks if a tad too late.

APOLOGIZING IS NOT A DREADED DISEASE

Quindlen quotes author, Deborah Tannen, who says an apology has four parts: (1)admitting fault, (2)showing remorse, (3)acknowledging damage and (4)indicating how it will be repaired. I'm wondering if Ms. Tannen shouldn't apologize for borrowing this concept from Alcoholics Anonymous.

I think saying "I'm sorry" is good for you and most of the time when you screw up, it will help the situation if you just say, I f..... up. When I was in the Army and the commander would summon me for what I knew to be an ass chewing, before he could administer it, I would say, "sir, I f..... up." More than likely it would take the wind out of his sails--he would say, go and sin no more.

We've screwed up in Iraq. I'm not sure establishing blame is going to help us much. But, maybe there is some machismo thing that says until we admit our screw-up, we are stymied in our efforts. However, based on our recent election, we now have a new congress elected mostly on the basis of admitting our screw ups in Iraq. Why can't we say this: We screwed up, we admit it and here is my plan for moving out. We're sorry but there's nothing else we can do. Out of here.

PRACTICING PLURALISM

In our Republic, we now know beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are governed by the very wealthy. Our new speaker of the House of Representatives is probably the weathiest member of Congress or one of them for sure. Is this bad? I don't know. What we hope is that in our very peculiar type of American pluralism, weathy means that pluralism is a cornerstone of governing. Plainly put, this means basically that in a land of various minorities, the majority insures that there rights are preserved. In our case, the poor or those who cannot or do not have a voice. This is very tricky in a country of 300 million citizens, not to mention all sorts of other groups who may not even be citizens but who have a stake, i. e., illegal immigrants.

To be honest, I think we are doing pretty good. But, I'm not sure that overall, it is good for us to have only the rich govern us. For someone who has never known the pain of hunger or the discrimination of race, can they truly look out for their interests?

SIX DAYS IS A BIT MUCH

Jesus only got three days and let's face it, 6 days for former President Ford is a bit over the top. In NC, we have this thing: never speak ill of the dead. And, trust me on this, we do not. In fact one of my favorite stories is about the preacher who is talking at this man's funeral. In the front row are his three young sons and wife. As the minister goes on and on, suddenly, the 12 year old gets up and walks to the casket and looks in. After the service, someone asked him, "Why did you go and look in the casket?" I wanted to make sure that was my Dad. Meaning, of course, that the words said about the Dad didn't match the kid's experience.

Former president Ford was a good man I think. He came along at a time in history when our country needed him and did the job. And, now, based on many revelations, we know how he thought about lots of things. We need to honor him and have--God bless his family.

PRESIDENT FORD, JAMES BROWN AND SADDAM

What a thought provoking time in thinking about those departing the scene: James Brown, celebrated with much adulation: a great talent--Michael Jackson showed up at his funeral extravaganza and danced. And, then there was Saddam that went to his reward amid the fanfare of a phone camera.

Now, here is the question that we all think about and nobody knows. For those of us of faith, what happens when someone kicks off. If they have "faith", we would say that this life is not the end. Wow, this is a heavy question. OK, we're going on the plus side for the former President and Brother Brown, even if James had a few jail visits. Saddam? I don't think so. So what? Hmmmmmmmmmm--maybe joins Hitler and several others who did awful things. I don't know.

WHAT ABOUT US?

Anytime we come to a time of national reflection, maybe it is time to project our own demise. When I "hit the road," I'd kind of like not much fanfare, keep it simple, don't make folks go to much trouble. I hope I've lived a good life and hope that it is not too much an effort not to speak ill of the dead.

SADDAM HAS BIT THE DUST

I doubt anyone I know feels sorry for Saddam. To say the guy was a brutal despot and dictator is almost synonymous with saying, "how about that?" By conservative estimates, he killed a million of his own people. Idi Amin does come to mind as worse and there are others I'm sure but for now, let's stick with Saddam.

Saddam views himself as a martyr. What I wonder is whether he still gets his 93 virgins; he does say that he is looking forward to seeing his sons. Now, that was a close knit family. Sounds almost like the Christian concept.

I must admit, however, that his hanging seems a little unseemly to me. I don't know exactly what I mean but watching all the news accounts as though this is some great victory brought back the same feelings with his capture. It was good riddance and kind of a shame that he wasn't killed in war or trying to escape or something. Still I didn't like the gloating. I thought then, "let's don't bring him back and give him a forum." The forum never happened mainly because Iraq and American involvement went to hell in a handbasket and Saddam became OBE (overcome by events). I must say too that Saddam being streached in the final analysis has something to say to us: the fact that we are involved with a country that hangs people has got to be a message. I guess the same as repression of women, neanderthal religiouos fanaticism, and violation of civil rights in the form of being killed--Oh well...

BRING BACK SADDAM

Well, that really isn't possible now, is it? But...Winston Churchill is said to have posited, "it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." I think that what he means is that democracy is still better than the rest. I do agree for us but as Iraq has obviously spun out of control into civil war, any form of government that spells order seems like a good plan. At least, to thinking and caring people but based on what we are still seeing coming from the "powers that be", not even the lower than whale manure ratings make a dent on their horizons.

I think we are surely at the point to rule out an American type democracy. Dud! Since theocracy looks like the future for a big chunk of Iraq, why not accept it and figure out a way to keep the warring sides to a minimum of killing. Every day, Iraq looks more like Deadwood, one of my favorite past TV shows. However, on Deadwood, they made zapping the bad guys an act of Elizabethan humor, except to the zapped. I don't mean to make light. But, after two supposedly free elections and I think they were, things have gotten worse. If we could find a benevolent dictator, this might be better. But, since there are no applicants for the job, we're in a dilemma.

WHAT ABOUT THE KISSINGER APPROACH

We didn't need a fancy commission to tell us what we needed to do or how we had screwed up. The Commander in Chief ain't home anyway as relates to the Commission. Did they get paid by the way? Howsomever, all we have to do is look to what Kissinger convinced tricky Dick to do about Vietnam: declare victory and get the hell out. I like it. kt

OPEN LETTER TO JOHN EDWARDS

Dear Mr. Edwards, as a fellow North Carolinian, I applaud your entry into the Presidential sweepstakes. I am often amazed why anyone would be in politics unless it is a "calling" and I think yours is. Unfortunately, for many, it morphs into a career and politics as usual. I hope and pray that your commitment is different.

My basic purpose for writing, doubting you will ever see this but you might, based on a recent Newsweek article. Your desire for the voters to see the real you. "Untucked." I like it. And, the idea of putting your campaign on "youtube" is right on--very creative from my point of view and I sent the link to dozens. I think that the transparency is truly the only way for a democracy and what you're doing is part of it. You have my support, I assure you.

My feeling is that you are saying some good things. I saw you in New Orleans. Right on. However, many are going to say those same sorts of things and what you need is something to get you out ahead of the crowd. Here's your issue in my opinion: UNIVERSAL SERVICE. Congressman Rangel has proposed a draft but it simply won't fly. Too much opposition even if I think it is a good idea. Unfortunately, in my estimation, those who are in opposition to the draft or may even oppose Universal Service, are in NC parlance, "cutting off their nose to spite their face." What "peace" groups or even others in opposition don't get is that If we had a draft/Universal Service, a President would think twice before he sent us to war.

However, all that aside, Universal Service would be good for the country. For the last 12 years or so, I have been promoting the idea that we need Universal Service-- something unifying and what better to do it than requiring those 18-26 to give 18 months to 2 years in service to this great country. My basic theme has been simply that it is immoral to ask such an infinitesimally small number of Americans to fight our wars. Columnist Ben Stein says it this way, "In the old days, the rich, the famous, they all put it aside to fight. Now who fights for us: "Southerners, Hispanics from New Mexico, rural men and women from upstate NY. Small town boys and girls from the Midwest. No children of the powers on Wall Street go off and fight? They 've left the burden of defending an affluent nation to those who enjoy less of its affluence. They don't want to fight for a system that made them rich or a way of life that made them princes of finance."

I would add, and not original with me, "the kids who are in the military today are those whose economic prospects are less than stellar. They are high-school graduates who're not going to college because of costs, many young parents who need a regular paycheck and health care for their families." According to DOD statistics, soldiers come from households earning between $32,000 and $33,500. " (The median American income is $43,300.) It is not that the Volunteer Army is not working. We have a military that is as good as we've ever had. Simply, they are not representative of our country and this is not right nor good for us.

The difficulty, in my opinion, with selling the draft is simply too much opposition to the military, war, etc. Few can argue with universal service. From various reports, we've got lots of activism: students are getting involved in Teach America and there's been a resurgence in the Peace Corp. And, your comments in New Orleans, who came? Many students showed up to help.

Without a draft or any sort of Universal Service, kids by in large don't have any incentive to serve. I talk to parents of kids who are draft eligible with great regularity and simply unless there is an unusual circumstances, they don't think about it. Thinking has changed and more and more parents of eligible kids see the advantage of a Universal Service. Having a choice is the selling point. I have a blog called AllServe and constantly get comments about what a great idea this is.

What would a Universal Service do for America's kids? Lots of things, something like a common interest and experience, something that is nonexistent in our culture. Universal service would make a difference in changing our fractured America--a youth culture built around service. What I am discovering is that many Americans will go for Universal Service if youth is given an option. If they didn't want to choose from a list, let them define their own. American kids are smart and creative, we might be surprised at what they come up with and how willing they are to serve.

This is an issue that is begging for someone like yourself to take up--it is the JFK "ask not what your country can do for you" theme. Universal Service could be phased in over ten years and promoted among our youngsters now. A success story and the way AllServe could work is an organization I've read about: Teach America. I only know what I've read. They are getting top graduates who could be in medical school or Wharton business or wherever--yet choose to do something meaningful before they start their careers. Teach America sends graduates into poor rural and urban schools for two years. For many, it has become a next step after graduation. These kids want to contribute to improving society while keeping their options open. At Yale for instance, Teach America, drew applications from 12% of the graduates, 11% at Dartmouth, and 8% at Harvard. All told a record 17,350 applied in one year.

Are our present kids a post 9-11 generation ready to opt more aggressively for public service? I think so. Many of those volunteering for Teach America don't know what they want to do. The thought is that not knowing what to do, why not take some time to do something meaningful for a couple of years and think about the future. The military is as I've said only one of the options. Universal Service will work.

There's probably some opposition to Universal Service or anything related but what the hell: us North Carolianians know a cause when we see it. Universal Service will fly and I think you are just the one to make it happen.

Are Things Worse Than Ever Before

I really don't think that our world is any worse than it has historically been. I use to do a sermon on the Second Coming and use the Biblical concepts of Jesus return as the end of the world. I believe in a theory of "end times" called the pre-millinial view of His return and basically means that the world gets so bad that there is no possibility of redemption and God ends it. Well, my belief is that we are not even close to that: there are lots and lots of good people in the world, many of them doing wonderful things.

IRAQ IS VIOLENTLY PETITIONING ITSELF

What those of us who care, especially about Iraq, get hung up over is the "looming" effect of this disaster. Overall, I think, it contributes to a feeling of "things are bad, so hopeless--the world is in a mess.

We are in a quagmire in Iraq with no real way out. The powers that be continue to be in maxed out denial, even with the midterm elections turning as they did which gives hope of change.

Iraq is violently partitioning itself in civil war (my thoughts but also heard a good story on NPR recently which confirmed my beliefs). Sunnis are being moved out of Shiite neighborhoods and ethnic cleansing is happening. And, GIs are dying.

DERELICTION OF DUTY

When news of Capt. Lucas McConnell's possible involvement in war crimes in Iraq broke in the spring of 2006, people in his hometown who had watched him grow up to become a high school football star and Marine were totally incredulous.
CHARGED WITH DERELICTION OF DUTY. What the hell is that? Lack of supervision, what? Basically, it sounds a little like the Marine mentality. I love the Marines but they have a tendency to overreact. In Vietnam, we called it the "put your head down and charge" approach. It was a euphemism for not seeing the big picture.

Marines are like most elite units, especially the 82d Airborne Division that I know a lot about: they are into suffering. How can we make this harder? Harder often equates to tougher in their minds. In this case, it means, sacrificing probably a good officer to show that they are "the Rocky Balboa" on their Marines who don't do their job. This young Captain was not even present at the supposely crime. Based on what little I know, if he is charged with dereliction of duty, what about all the other people above him right to the top.

THE CHAIN OF COMMAND

The difference in the military and often the civilian world is the "chain of command." In the military, somebody is always in charge. Every soldier, down to the lowest Private has someone checking on him. And, most of the time it works. In this case, it would have been almost impossible for this young Captain to know exactly what his men were doing and in between him there were several others in the chain of command.

Let's wait this out but what it looks like to me is a "rush to judgement" decision to charge this young officer. His career is ruined. Plus, let's face it: war is not a day at the beach. We need to wake up and smell the roses here. Iraq is a sad scene, any way you cut it. We are in a confusing mess. I sit here in the comfort of my home, getting ready for Christmas and soldiers in Iraq are dying, not knowing who the enemy is, doing their job. Any minute some situation can pop up and they have to decide--life or death, live or die.

And, here's another something that eludes those who have not been to war: when the right/wrong, sad, difficult decision has to be made at war, the soldier stands alone. In this case, there is no doubt the good Captain loves the Marines, devoted himself, Sempi Fi to the max. However, his "stuff" is in the street and he feels alone and sadly, he is alone.

I have little tolerance for this sort of Marine mentality. God bless this young Captain and all the soldiers fighting the battles in Iraq and often at home. kt

WHAT ARE THEY SMOKING

When I was in Vietnam, I took a drag or two of pot. It burned my throat and made me cough. So, forget that I have to defend whether I inhaled or not. But, if there's an American who pays any attention or watches TV or the movies or maybe inhales and doesn't think that many in our great country are involved with the "weed," they must have their ipods maxed out. And, if you watch an HBO series like The Wire, you understand the unbelievable pull drugs have on our society and how so many kids are crashing and burning.

Without exception, the "girlfriends" think we should legalize pot, take the profit motive out and the problem goes away. We're smart people and could figure it out. I doubt we'll do it as somehow following the old paths seem to be easier and the only ones we'll do. (I will have to admit, however, that I personally have never known someone heavy into drugs that did not start with pot, even though studies say this is not the case).

However, in Afghanistan, it ain't pot, rather the makings of the "hard stuff." Based on what I read, we have the resurging problem of the country growing poppies which becomes heroin--the country grows 92 percent of the world's heroin. Over 400,000 acres in cultivation. And, it is grown mostly by small farmers. The U. S. official position: it has to go, plain and simple. We spend millions to get rid of the poppies just as we do in California with pot and guess what: we can't eradicate it. And, in Afghanistan, who gets hurt? The small farmer. From what I read, one promising possibility might be in the legitimate production of poppies which would in turn be turned into codeine and morphine used for medical purposes. Makes sense to me.

This is an aside but just as relevant: what I think is a problem with government in general and this problem in particular is that we don't have any real thinkers who get themselves in a position that they can do something about problems that need "thinking outside the box." The best illustration of this shortcoming I know for my point is an episode of HBO's, The Wire. One of the police Captains decided on his own to legalize the drug trade in his sector which is only what he could control. Kids were dying, shooting each other while fighting rivals for the possibility to sell drugs. The police captain did it by innovative approaches to what was going on. Guess what: it worked miraculously almost but in the process, he got vilified and forced to retire. Get the picture, this happens over and over: government comes up with plans usually created by bureaucrats. The bureaucrats don't listen to outsiders or those with new ideas, it is business as usual and in this case, millions of dollars to eradicate and basically hurt the small farmer eking out a living under the worst of conditions in Afghanistan. Thus we hurt the very people we are trying to liberate and win over.

This sort of thinking in Afghanistan is probably what is going to sink our efforts in a country that had such great progress. Help.

WHEN YOU MESS UP

Mistakes and correcting them has always been a fascinating thing to me. What do you do? And, on a national and international level, wow, is it ever compounded. And, now we have the Iraq Study Group Report. It is not anywhere comparable to the 9-11 Commission Report, primarily, I think, because you can only say the same thing two or three different ways. We've f..... up and here are some possibilities.

Do we think that the Powers that be will listen. The signs don't appear hopeful, primarily because the lack of realism among the decision makers at the top is next to unbelievable. If we haven't discovered as of yet that we cannot control the situation in Iraq, what has to happen? Beefing up Baghdad with more troops surely is not going to do it. Two of the most promising recs: talks with Syria and Iran and a time table for moving out has already been ruled out. Boiled down to it, the 79 recommendations says we've failed and what do we do when we've messed up. Here are some recommendations.

It is as though the Prez gets his views from those who still scream and use the same rhetoric: retreat, surrender, etc. These zeolots were repudiated in the last election. For those Americans that care, we said, time to go in another direction. The Iraq Study Group confirms this.

Iraq is not like there is a military solution--that has longed passed even if it ever was an option. It is not like we are backed in a corner and can fight our way out. We can't. It is more of the same.

What the Iraqi war has taught me is how important electing the right person for President can be. In the past, I have pretty much thought that whoever is President, not a big deal; based on how complex our society has become, Presidents don't have all that much influence. However, what the President can do is send us to war. We are now in the throws of exactly how significant that can be. And, if this fact doesn't wake reasonable Americans up, I don't know what will. kt

WEALTH AND GIVING

When I use to be an active pastor, a friend of mine would send me $500 every year and tell me to give it out to the needy. I did and tried to give it to those who truly would benefit from some "found" money. I gave a $100 to Joe and Sarah. She was older, had lived alone for years and in some oddity, had taken in Joe that she found living on the river bank. Quite a pair and always scraping along the edges financially and in about every other way. And, then, John and Mary, had lost their house in a fire and after the initial burst of charity were barely surviving with their three kids. And, then I went down to the Tenderloin in San Francisco and gave the rest out to those on the streets. It made my friend feel good he said. The truth of the matter is that he should have been giving $50,000 (not to me but to some charity, he could well afford it.)

Many would say that is a no no--giving to feel good hardly seems the best motive. I guess the only one who would give a thumbs up is Thomas Hobbs, the 17th century German philosopher. Duty or in the Christian context, Christ commands it, is the best motive. Hobbes said no as he was in personal pain to see the plight of the poor and it made him feel good to give. Regardless, I can go with the Christ example or the feel good one if it helps someone. I still try to keep up the act even though my buddy is not sending me any bucks.

A recent, NY Times Magazine article dealt with the same general issue while demonstrating how giving by the wealthy could eliminate world poverty. Before your eyes glaze over with the idea that this is too lofty a notion, not really even if the concept is a little "head in the clouds". The author, Peter Singer, a Princeton Prof. has calculated what the rich would have to give to eliminate world poverty. Some of his illustions are really good. For instance, he compares wealthy giving or lack thereof (my interpretation) to walking by a shallow pond where a child is drowning. Would you go in to save the child? Well, many wouldn't or they aren't as it would mess up their nice shoes, clothes, etc.; however, think of what you could do--if you were wealthy and would wade in and save a life. Why not do it? You would still have plenty "preams" left as my brother would say.

These comments are pretty simplified but Bill Gates, for instance, has seen the "kid drowning." He realized that a half million children died a year from diseases that we have eradicated in America. They still die in the developing third world countries--they don't have the medicines to fight or prevent the diseases. The simple, sad, despicable fact is that the companies that make the medicines have no market in these countries and so kids die. Bill Gates Foundation provides the funds, creating the market and children are being saved. The analogy is that he is wading into the water to save the child. It is much more complicated but you get the idea.

Before we jump into the "nobody is home" look or say, the wealthy will never do this. Warren Buffet did. One interesting facet of the article is that the good Princeton prof only deals with the wealthy. His ideas present things I've never thought about: most of the wealthy would not have their wealth if we did not live in a country where it could be created. For instance, we have peace, we have markets, etc. and so there is the opportunity for those like Gates to make the money and so he owes something for this great opportunity. I like it.

LESS NOT MORE

When I hear or read comments of sending more troops to Baghdad to handle the violence, I honestly think that these people have their heads up their 4th point of Contact. (Airborne talk for head up their arsh). I can hardly believe it. It is as though there is absolutely no thinking. All of this in light of our top general warning that our military "will break" (his words, not mine) without thousands more active duty troops and greater use of the reserves. At least I think he is trying to be truthful.

WHERE ARE WE GOING TO GET THESE TROOPS?

The National Guard and Reserves, give me a break! The Reserves and the Guard were set up long ago as a strategic reserve but now we misusing them as an integral part of the nation's deployed forces. Long ago, during relative calm which always happens, the military was so reduced that it is closing in on ultra crisis as the General is politely saying. But, given all of this, there still seems to be a cluelessness that borders on stupidity at the very top about our soldiers.

It is very easy to see how some decision maker can sit in some oak paneled office or even the halls of Congress and hypothesize on sending more soldiers--troops that we don't have. And, without any regard to what these constant deployments are doing to morale and families of these soldiers.

THINK VIETNAM

Westmoreland calling for more and more troops and if you give us more, we'll be home by Christmas. What I'm not hearing is the military calling for more troops. What the "powers that be" still don't seem to get is that we can't beat these people. It is vastly different even than Vietnam. In Vietnam, we had enough troops to eventually take ground and keep it if we wanted too. However, the North Vietnamese or the Viet Cong (insurgents) did not stoop to killing their own people, women and children, kidnapping, etc. It simply didn't happen. There is no sacredness of li

HOPE AND FANTASY

The Iraq Study Group has done a good job. They have covered the territory in all directions. Unfortunately, they are not magicians, angels or miracle workers. Iraq cannot be reduced to a study group. Our choices are bad and worse. We have unleashed the very terrorists that we wanted to eliminate. Iraq is simply chaos, i. e., anarchy or civil war, take your pick. It is a lethal barroom brawl. It is Shiite against Sunni, (5 thousand years old) Shiite against Shiite, criminals, jihadists and fanatics of every sort against everyone. The police are criminals, the criminals are police.

A recent Newsweek, talked about the Prince of Baghdad, Moqtada al-Sadr, the cleric who controls the Maahdi army. The Prime Minister who the Prez says is our man in Iraq is controlled by al Sadr whose Army is probably better than the Iraqi Army. Are we getting the picture here? And, to sit around flailing the air and beating our chests is simply a waste of time. What to do?

Get out, no other choice. All along, I have said, we can't leave and we can't stay but now, we have to accept the fact that we can't stay. What the Iraq Study Group has done is the same that we have seen over and over with this debacle. Failure to face the reality of the fanaticism of the Islamic terrorists. Simply, you cannot reason with those who would kill themselves, their families, their own people. It cannot be done. All we can do is structure the situation to move out.

Will we see a blood bath? Not any different than what we already are: the Shiite will control the country, by in large. The Sunni's will resist as best they can until they get beaten down, and who knows about the Kurds.

Let's figure out how to position enough Special Operations troops around to keep some semblance of presence for awhile, rotate the troops out and don't replace them. Our military leadership is smart. What about this as an idea? As a prelude to gradually withdrawal: seal off the borders, thus keeping most of the outside terrorists at bay. Remove our troops from Baghdad, let the Iraqis give it a try in handling the city.

The idea that we should increase our troop level, even given my respect for John McCain, is about number one stupid. First of all, where are we going to get more troops? The same troops who have been in the crossfire would have to return. OUT is the only course of action given the total lack of sacrifice asked of Americans up to this time; and they are not about to want to "give at the office." Up until now, as someone has said, we've carpet bombed America with fiction about Iraq and so let's use the Iraq Study Group report to finally face reality.

CHAPLAINS ARE TARGETED

Recently, a snipers manual was discovered on the internet. It spelled out how snipers were to target doctors, chaplains, medics and engineers in Iraq. Killing chaplains would supposedly have a psychological effect. According to reports, there have been 16 definite sniper initiated deaths against the Americans. Also, a laundry list of other potential targets was listed: Unit commanders, officers and pilots, "the head of the snake." Whatever that is.

I loved this about the Special Operations Forces. "They are very stupid because they have a Rambo complex, thinking that they are the best in the world." Don't be arrogant like them? Also targeted are specialists such as communications officers to prevent calls for reinforcements--tank crews, artillery crews and engineers.

WHO PRODUCED THE MANUAL

A good question. Since America has no end to enemies. Who? I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that it is an insurgent sympathiser who wants to hurt America. Let's try some Islamic type living in America who has enjoyed the good life and wants to make a contribution to worldwide Islamic domination. The context of this manual for instance, is hardly written by an ignorant and sexually repressed Muslim Iraqi in Iraq fighting against the infidels but rather someone who is familiar with American culture, i. e., the Rambo comment.

Supposedly, there are 5 million radical muslims in the world dedicated to stamping out all vestiges of anything but Islam. I think we can reasonably be assured that a few of them live in our great country, have assess to the internet, and would create a manual for killing Americans in Iraq.

THE KRAMER RANT

THE SEINFELD CURSE

Kramer has figuratively stepped on his "copulatory organ" in real life. Kramer's rant will be in the lexicon before we know it--think Howard Dean's rant after a political loss and his wasn't even racial. The media grabs on to something like this and it takes on a life of its own with the help of a camera video, of course.

I've seen a bunch of the clips and unless someone has been exiled to Siberia, so have they. I really could care less about the celebrity angle but I, for one, think that things like this force us to discuss that which is almost never discussed. I guess that prejudice is somewhat underneath the surface and when a person loses it, the prejudice spews out. Mel Gibson and Kramer, this would be president guy in VA; one side of me things, give me a break, I mean "people can't take a joke." Me thinks, however, if you are African American, it cuts deep.

I've always liked Kramer and saw all the Seinfeld shows, still watch them. Elaine was my favorite, however--a show about nothing and it is a shame it is not still on, they could deal with racism in a show. I doubt even they would as it is such a volatile subject.

Although I will have to admit that race for the "white" world becomes a scary issue. As I've heard it said, whites think about race only when something like Kramer's rant surfaces but blacks think about it 90% of the time. I don't quite know what his means but think that somehow, one's skin color is part of who they are. I get it.

Sure, racism exists and what I don't understand about the "n" word is that it is OK for blacks to use it but nobody else. OK by me as I would never use it anyway. Growing up in the South, it was a derogatory term and I always associate it with the very worst in all of us. But, if you watch some of these HBO shows like The Wire, about ninety percent has to do with the "n" word.

Kramer needs to say he is an alcoholic, the devil made him do it or he is just a sinner. Well, I think he has, he's been on every show imaginable and has fallen on his sword over and over. What if he had called the hecklers MFs, would that have been better.

Here's my bottom line: in our society, let's don't do anything to make people feel bad. I'm always saying something I shouldn't and most of the time, apologize in advance. Keep the personal out of it. In this, the issue of the "n" word, let's never say it: and, what about this, a goal: we always see people as people, no color, just people.

OPTIONS

Ordinarily, I would think asking for options in the midst of a war is stupid to put it mildly. Think about it. What we learned in Vietnam, when you fight, you fight to win. If you don't, why do it? The suffering, the pain, the heartbreak. However, Iraq is so broken, what we have to do is put all "heads" together to try and figure the mess out. Iraq has become a tangled mess: complicity and incompetence has brought us to this point. There is no area of Iraq that is fixable. My interest lie with the Americans who are caught in this tangled mess, in the "crosshairs if you will.

In Iraq, like all of the Middle East, tangled is by far the best term. Nothing is as it seems. As someone has said, commitments are made, then broken, while the ground shifts in an instance, just like the desert sands. Nothing is more reminiscent of it than a story about a young military police Captain who commands an MP company in one of the districts of Baghdad. Her grandfather was in WW II, her Dad in Vietnam and here she is in Iraq. She came to the assignment full of enthusiasm, ready to use her training to teach the local police how to investigate crime, how to make sure they have a case and to do general policing work. What has happened is that the Police are under siege, not from petty crime but from armed militia, bombings, mortar fire. What the Iraqi police need to be trained in is how to be infantrymen, to fight, to protect. The local policemen have no supplies, no body armor, relatively nothing. Our young Captain is not equipped to do her job.

So, what does she do. She does what Vietnam vets learned in Vietnam. Quickly, in the Nam, we sized up the war and realized that we were in a "no win" zone. At first we fought, took the high ground and then the next day we left it and the enemy moved back in. How utterly stupid. So, what did we do? We did like the young Captain in Iraq is doing--you protect your men, you dedicate yourself to getting out of the situation alive. Forget issues of training, helping, leaving something behind better than when you found it. No way, get the hell out. It is where we are now in Iraq. Let's get the hell out.

How to do it is the issue: (1) immediately, (2) phased withdrawal, (3) send in more troops.
All of these positions require all kinds of caveats but let's select the lessor of all evils. Phased drawdown. Don't you love that word? Drawdown means slow reduction. Let's get the conventional troops out of Iraq immediately and leave 30-50,000 Special Operations soldiers , to include CIA trained (think Alfghnistan). Give them all the firepower that they now have to protect themselves. Make them advisers to the police and the military, reduce our physical presence, and prepare for a complete withdrawal.

What we do not have in Iraq is a possibility for a long term commitment. Based on a fanatical approach to Islam, foreign troops have to be gone. We are looking at somewhat of an Iranian Iraq, simply it is what is going to happen with the Shiite majority anyway--moving toward a theocracy. Will the violence be quelled? Who knows? Eventually, it will, I think. At this point, we have to admit, as my bud, Henry Kissinger said, we have failed. Is this so bad? Simply, we made a bad choice, to put the best spin on it, we can say, it was a grand experiment that went to hell. Next case.

The Prez Finally Makes It To Vietnam

The Prez Finally Makes It to Vietnam. Well, what do you know? It was a little late as far as the Vietnam war is concerned but I guess better late than never. At least he was not like the VP who had other priorities during Vietnam that kept him from serving.

I guess there is something to say that the President visited given the US exit, humiliating as it was. Amazing, how things change. Who is writing the President's speeches? He, in affirming Vietnam and its tremendous growth; and the fact that it is poised to rival economies like China, and Japan, is to be commended. But, he compared Vietnam's transition to a modern, growing economy that gave him hope about what could be rebuilt from the ruins of Iraq. Also, the American experience in Vietnam was that "we'll succeed (in Iraq) unless we quit."

With statements like these, I often would love to say, "Mr. President, I think you inhaled?" The comparison of success and failure in Vietnam and Iraq could not be more dissimilar. We made some basic errors in Vietnam that had we done differently, it is hard to know what would have happened. At a particular juncture, realizing that the South Vietnamese government was so corrupt, we should have taken over the country, done what we had to do and sorted it out later. Given who we are as a democracy that was nearly impossible. Add to this that we continued to make some basic mistakes that are very similar to what we have done in Iraq which drives us to think, Iraqnam.

The moment we introduced conventional soldiers into Vietnam, it became an American war. Had we left the Special Forces mainly involved with the South Vietnamese Army as advisers, it could have turned out differently. Not in winning but in staying. Ho Chi Minh always felt he could wait us out--had he concluded that we were not leaving, he would have sued for peace maybe and been serious about it. If history has shown us anything about Ho, it has been that he was practical. But, with conventional troops, the agitation of leaving from the homeland became more and more a piece of the puzzle. Americans have a hard time believing that there is an element of our society, i. e., military that loves war and were prepared to stay as long as it took.

One big difference in Vietnam and Iraq and what makes the comparison so fruitless is that the Vietnamese have always had a great sense of national identity. Whether North or South, always Vietnamese. They fought wars for years and the American war was just another one. For the North and South, it was a war of ideology, not culture.

There's surely more to it than can be delineated here. After the North was triumphant after we left, we had the reeducation camps, the boat people, and the transition to where they are today. Vietnam, especially the South, is bathed in a capitalist economy and anybody who has been there recently can attest to it. Iraq is fueled by tribalism, no real sense of who they are outside of the tribalism. They are Shite, Sunni, Kurds and this is not going to change, thousands of years of history illustrates it. Our leadership continues to be in a state of denial regardless of the evidence and statements from the Leader of the free world comparing Vietnam and Iraq reinforces the denial. Wake up and smell the roses.

Deep Kimchee

In Korea, the staple diet is an assorted number of very pungent veggies called Kimchee. Kimchee is best when fermented and is often done in earthen urns buried. When the fermenting process is somewhat worrisome and cumbersome, it is said to be "deep kimchee." The American and South Korea relationship is in deep kimchee. At our urging, the UN has put sanctions on North Korea in an attempt to stop or at least slow down the nuke process. South Korea has refused to cooperate. What does this say? Are we in deep kimchee? I think so.

Think about it. We have 130,000 troops stationed in Korea and have been there since the armistice in 1953. What is this? Ostensibly, we are protecting South Korea from a possible invasion. What? Deep kimchee. Does this make sense? South Korea has probably the best ground army in the world. They have conscription, they train, they are good. Why are we still there? And, why would we put up with them not even supporting our efforts to protect them?

Here is a suggestion. With the midterm elections, we expect that our world view of being the policemen to the hemisphere is going to change. Let's signal our change by getting out of Korea or greatly reducing our forces. Our own military is stretched to the max. We need more troops in Iraq. Let's take the ones from the ROK (Republic of Korea) and use them in Iraq. DEEP KIMCHEE!!

POLITICS IS SO CORRUPTING

I just hope that the Democrats are smart. The people put them in and can take them out. The one guy who has become my hero is this guy from AZ called Flake, don't you just love that name. I saw him on 60 Minutes, he is the guy who has made it a point to question all these "earmarks," the pork that congressman slide into various spending bills for back home, i. e., the famous one was Alaska, the bridge to nowhere. Anyway, this guy is a Republican and won overwhelmingly. What I think is a realization is that most people had rather Congress be honest than get all this pork even if it goes to their own district. For instance, I read that in 87, Reagan vetoed a bill because it had 152 earmarks and in 05, Bush signed one with 6,371. Democrats, we will be watching.

WAR BY COMMITTEE

War by committee. Well, we are finally to this. I might have in the past thought this was the most stupid thing I've heard. However, as I look at Iraq, there is nothing that does not need fixing. NOTHING! We are close to civil war if not there. I challenge anyone to suggest an area where things are positive (other than our soldiers): corruption and compromise in the Iraqi Army/police, tribalism, chaos, name any area. Consequently, war by committee--fresh ideas.

What we can't do is dwell on how we got to Iraq. Maybe after it is over but not now. We have to come up with an exit strategy. Thus far, all it has been is "hoping things will work out OK."

Getting rid of Rumsfelt is a start. I must admit I feel a little sorry for the guy.

This whole Iraqi quagmire is a little like a drama. If it wasn't so tragic, it should be a novel. What you have are these guys Rumsfelt, Chaney, Pearle, Wolfowitz, they, along with this charlatan, an Iraqi who has been gone from Iraq for thirty years, a guy called, Chalabi, (NY Times Magazine had a big story on him) talks these guys into making Iraq a passion, i. e., they definitely have weapons of mass destruction, people will welcome us as liberators, democracy will bring peace to the Middle East, etc. His organization is given 15 million dollars to prepare to run the country when in fact, he hardly has an organization. He becomes the architect of invading Iraq. A colossal liar at worst or extreme and smart manipulator at best. But, honestly, it is amazing, this is not some conspiracy theory: this is how they sold it to the President.

There is lots more to this historical miscalculation and to read the NY Times Magazine story is like reading a novel: Chalabi convinced smart people: Rumsfelt, Chaney, and the true believer, Wolfowitz and then they didn't have to so much sell it to the Prez as to give him the fuel to do what he wanted to do anyway. And, in the process, they forever tainted Colin Powell and Condi, the CIA, and all kinds of other lessor lights.

The enormous significance of "war by committee" and doing something new and plotting an exit strategy NOW is that daily young Americans continue to die and this is intolerable given the "broken nature of Iraq" over which we have no control. So "war by committee," let's give it a shot and use the motto of "Good" magazine, "America, love it or fix it.

HAVE YOU GOT YOUR TAMBORINE

Cool Ed. What else could we say. 60 Minutes did him proud. We'll miss him. Every week at our pad, here came Ed Bradley and we would invariably say, "what's with Ed and that earring?" Well, tonight we found out from Jimmy Buffett. It was something Ed wanted to do, part of being him. Ed was so good at what he did that we soon didn't notice and but mainly just liked to talk. Yes, we'll miss him and here's how we imagine it: Ed shows up to the great beyond and St. Peter says "Ed Bradley", I only have one question: got your tamborine? (Ed claimed he had no musical talent and loved shaking the tamborine). We'll miss you Ed, thanks for the memories--lots of
'em.

Restored Faith

I've just deleted a blog that I've been keeping for about a year called, Most Americans are Stupid. I started it one morning after one particular incident, can't remember what it was. The title sounds arrogant but the idea was that Americans kept voting for the same ones over and over: corruption, the mismanagement of the war in Iraq--any issue, it didn't seem to make any difference. The mantra of all elections are local kept sounding off. Most of my rantings fell on deft ears as I spent most of my time talking to myself but writing my frustrations out helped. Now, with the recent election, my faith is restored in the electorate. Sure, we didn't vote in great numbers, only about 40% but we "voted the bums out." Issues like the war, corruption, a total disregard for what the people wanted did make a difference. And, "No, all elections aren't local." Way to go America. HooooooooAhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!

DEMOCRACY

The wonderful thing about our country, among many things, is the idea that we have an election, you win, you lose, you are happy, you are sad, makes no difference, we just go on. There's no rioting in the streets, the transfer of power is just what it is. I often say to my buddies, "we could hire one of these planes and put a sign on it that says "the prez is stupid." Nobody would blink an eye. It really, with all our problems, is what makes our country great. God bless us.

COMMO

Communicating is really a heavy duty issue with the girlfriends. We all mainly try to talk at once and on occasion have to have a monitor. We had such an interesting talk this morning at the gathering of the "girlfriends." It had to do with styles of commo. Michael is the "in your face," adinfiinitum type. We have a little joke that he's suppose to keep me close by so I can say, "what Michael meant to say." Funny and then there is Gary who is of a nature to constantly skate around less they confront, which I understand. The thing that drives me crazy about Gary is that he is constantly giving us what I call his, "I think." Gary, have you asked Joan what she feels about so and so. No, not directly but "I thiink" she feels this way. And, then he takes it as that is the way it is. Funny. And, the flip side of the coin is that we are a bunch of old guys by in large just shooting the breeze.

In most ways, commo is about style. One of the difficult things is that we are all shooting for a balance. I basically believe that all of us would be better mostly if we had straight forward commo where we could discuss things openly. I've read John Powell's book, Why Am I Afraid To Tell You Who I Am several times. He's a priest and this is the first place I'd ever heard this: straight forward communication. It really is what most of life is about if you think about it: in relational issues.

Brokeback Mountain

I made the mistake of telling my "girlfriends I had seen Brokeback Mountain. Well, from then on it is "Katie bar the door" as my Dad would say--one a retired San Fran fireman, one has his own business--a precious jewels dealer and the other a retired CHPs (Highway Patrol) guy. They carried on about me seeing the movie and I had a hard time explaining it. Broken down, it really is merely a story of relationships, just so happens the priciples are men.

Each of the "girlfriends" had wild tales to pass along about gays. I fear slightly homophobic, based on one's definition. The fireman told the story about once when they went down to fight a fire, about eight buildings. One of them contained an S and M place with all the whips, leather, etc.; and, all the participants had pictures, really funny according to my bud.

And, of course, as a macho fireman would, he made a big laughing deal out of all the weirdoes. This led into a discussion of that whole scene from Pulp Fiction. Then the CHPs guy told about three of them chasing a guy into a gay bar in SF and all these guys in leather chaps with their rears hanging out and one guy with a lease, actually three tied around his "just guess" and said it was for him to be their slaves.

I often don't know what to make of such. Of course, in San Fran, the bizarre is normal. The interesting thing about the fireman's story is that some of the gays sued the City because the firemen took the pictures, wouldn't let them back in the place. And, they won. Well, that was fodder for the conversation. Got to love it.

Do All Older geezers really want younger women

Tried to talk to the guys about this NY Times Magazine about growing older, sex, etc.; this one writer is great. They gave me the "nobody is home look" but I persevered on.

The writer of the article was laying out Gail Sheehey who just wrote this book Sex and the Seasoned Woman. She did it in a subtle way, was very funny. The idea is that those like Sheehey are supposedly watching trends and they kind of put everybody in the same box--it is the concept of the eternal optimist as opposed to reality which most people aren't willing to face. Some things are just what they are, plain and simple: we age, we have wrinkles, adinfinitum. Good article and I love this statement, "here (Gail Sheehey)'s particular skill, in keeping with the desires of a culture frantically dedicated to the pursuit of silver linings--ever on the lookout for evidence that life is not hard, death is not final and it is never too late to make another better choice."

Good article with an overall theme of being who we are and not sweating the other stuff. Will have to say that most of the girlfriends are doing pretty well in terms of facing life. I also thought this was interesting: in an AARP survey, 80% of women said that there's too much emphasis on sex and is not all that essential for a good quality of life and even to a good relationship: 18% of the women surveyed said they would be quite happy never having sex again. OK!

The only thing I'd add is that all of this is a bit like so many things we read; writers, shrinks, whoever attempting to put all into the same bag. With my "girlfriends" I can tell you that with all BS aside, those guys, single guys: Michael, Gary, Larry, Dave, Saul, and Lee all have girlfriends close to their own age and are quality. They go against the trend that I read about in these stories of late about baby boomer men and women: men wanting younger women and older women having to take what's left. At least with the "girlfriends" doesn't seem to be the case. Oh well...

Living Life in the Fast Lane

The focus yesterday was on Leonard, who is 79, the top ranking tennis player his age in the State. He plays everyday. Such an interesting character. You simply cannot insult him and I've tried in a joking way. He's a diehard Republican and spouts the typical line. And, he just rattles on when everybody jumps on him. Yesterday, he and Andy (73) were sparring because Andy, in a rare event, had beaten him in tennis. And, the one who loses which is mostly Andy, has to buy the balls.

Leonard is an interesting guy who has lived quite the life. For instance, he was a Dixie cup salesman for over thirty years and as says, got fired. Why? He says he told them if they did not change, they would die: and, when he told them, they were number one in cup selling in the country and were convinced that styrofoam cups would never make it. Well, we know what happened. In fact, Leonard says he is the guy who came up with the idea of the Kentucky Fried Chicken bucket. He designed it and sold it to KFC. He tells this fascinating tale about talking with Colonel Sanders whose main thing was that he wanted to learn to cook chicken fast. The Col was definitely not a marketer. Leonard has this elaborate story about how he had to convince them that people would buy a bucket when Col Sanders said noway. Guess what? They did.

Then there's Larry who is always sharing about his love life. Well, we are asking? He works to keep himself "buff" and is for a sixty year old or close. He say he's spoiled as he had this younger romantic interest which was right down his alley and now, very tough to recover. "I've been to the mountain," he keeps laughing. Recently, he's had two dates as of late which didn't meet his standards. And, he definitely reminds me of my unmarried nephew who has these unbelievable ideas on what he wants in a women: one with an eighteen inch waist, big boobs, in great shape, never married, no baggage. Good luck.

Had breakfast with the buds, Gary and I had a long run. We spent a big portion of the morning discussing Iraq; what a mess. And, on every turn. Andy is pretty much an idealist, in a perfect world, everybody would love each other. I think much of it has to do with his background, being raised in Greece. I think I told you that as a twelve year old, he saw all the men in his village killed: it was in his book, I think. Michael is a little more practical: we are there and so don't tell me all this stuff about weapons of mass destruction, forget all that, yes, no, true or not, we are there. What is your plan? Gary is close to being a Bush hater. He, like Andy, also likes to deal in the "what ifs." My position is more and more fluid, to be honest. After watching Sixty Minutes and seeing the guy who was a big part of our getting in the war int he beginning, who literally convinced all the neocons as they are called, i. e., Chaney, Wolfowich, a few others that Saddam was a bigger threat than he was. Then, of course, he fell out of favor with the Bush crowd and they tried to discredit him. He reinvents himself in Iraqi and is now a leading minister, head of all the oil. Another example of how screwed up everything is. Weird to the max. I've always felt that we had to get Saddam at some point; get him now or later; but, the war has been horribly mismanaged.

The Ultimate Friend

Long before the Terri Schiavo's prolonged death of 15 years, death and how to die has been a topic of discussion. When I use to go into nursing homes and see acres of old folks or not so old who didn't know they were in this world, you better believe I thought about it. And, also, one of my best Army buddies developed early alzsheimers and it got me to thinking. Under what circumstances would I want to live or die if I had a debilitaing physical ailment. Basically two things would guide me: (1) if my mental capacity were so diminished that it was clear I was, "losing it." But, while losing it, I knew that I could still have some logical thoughts to make a decision. (2) That I had reached a stage where I was a burden to my family. Consequently, I was ready to go. I honestly believe that as a person of faith, "this world is not my home. I've lived a good life and so have no fear of death.

That being said, I would want a friend to do me in. I have such a friend. We are still working out the details: the commitment is there, it is just in figuring out the logistics and making sure it is not questioned and maybe even the "how."

I asked my man, Michael, does he want me to do him in if the conditions exist? No. What! The icon does not want to be done in. I am blown away; it almost equals my Marine buddy not believing in the draft.

In Lonesome Dove when Gus was hanging Jake, one of his former partners, Jake said, "Well, boys, I'd rather be hanged by my friends than my enemies." And when they hanged him, Gus declared, "Jake sure died well." Can't get much better than this.

I am putting this great statement on the Airborne Press website as it relates, "Every soul is divine though during the state of ignorance, it remains oblivious of its spiritual nature. In every heart the divine light shines with undiminished lustre. Hence all men are entitled to respect. The divinity of the soul is the unshakable basis of democracy, self determination, freedom, and the aspirations of modern minds. Shankara

God, Man, and the Universe

We hit so many subjects today that it's amazing. I had to institute the "raising your hand" rule as everybody wanted to talk. We had a non regular this morning. A great guy--the first time in a long time. Actually, we use to see him over at our old place (Shoreline Cafe--don't know why we quit. This place is a combination restaurant and health food store. NG (new guy) is a Muni (municipal buses in San Fran) mechanic. A gentle guy. He's a bachelor and we decided over an objection that he needs a girlfriend or at least start looking. He has pretty good criterion but not impossible: late thirties to early fifties, likes Asian but not necessary. Cooking would be an asset. Needs her to be financially solvent.

Ok, don't want to use real names here, especially of main parties involved but a heavy duty issue of jeolousy involved. Here is basic situation. One of the guys goes out with a girl on one day and almost immediately, she through a routine appointment has cancer. She goes through all the treatment and recently died. Very sad. But, through all the treatment, my friend sticks with her and even takes her to several appointments, nothing romantic, he is truly being just a friend: a standup guy. In the meantime, he gets a girlfriend who knows all about the friend with cancer. It doesn't seem to be a problem. The dying friend bequets her car to her "stand up" friend who has been there for her. The present girlfriend is having trouble with this and actually refuses to ride in the car. The "girlfriends are giving advice on this delicate subject.

Andy has some new insight. If it is a problem to the girl friend, he should sell the car and take the money and buy another. Michael thinks that the present girlfriend should be dumped. Dave thinks that it is a bigtime red flag. Afterall, the girl is dead.

Then we moved right into the Terri Schiavo case. All were in agreement that Congress had no business getting involved in this very private thing. And, even the courts but since they were, Congress should leave it alone. Andy thought it was because Bush was trying to please the right wing fundamentalists. Gary said he had already called his parents and made sure that all knew exactly what they wanted. He also related to us the big discussion he got into with his brother who goes to this fundamentalist church and does not see a feeding tube as extraordinary means. I kept trying to bring up Iraq but couldn't get it in. And, then Michael laid into Andy because he had a plaque put up with his name on it where he had donated 80 acres of land to a wilderness preserve. We decided that if our friend ever gets the vehicle, we will go to the place that Andy donated the land and have a ceremony over the it. I allowed as how I would try to get a rabbi, a priest and maybe even an Iman. Nobody was laughing.

Andy saw some guy in the next booth that he recognized from 45 years earlier when they use to sell cars together. The guy is a big time contractor and Gary gave him some of his architect cards. Michael gave Gary and I a bottle of Vitamin B and said we should start taking. Michael also gave me an article about the danger of vioxx which I no longer take.

OK, it has been about two hours and we are out of there. Gary and I go for a short run up this trail so Rascal, his great dog, a yellow lab, can romp. We run into a dogwalker with six dogs. They all go for a swim in this pond along with Rascal. Gary and I continue our talk. He tells me about another friend, child psychologist, that nobody likes, meaning girlfriend's friends. They want to have a party but don't want to invite him. The psychologist is dating one of the girlfriends. It was the girlfriend that introduced Gary to his present girlfriend. They don't like the psychologist because they think he is arrogant and thinks he knows everything. Plus, they think that his girlfriend is getting the short end of the stick. He doesn't want to get married, make any permanent commitment. I like the psychologist but simply ignore. The last conversation we had, thought it was really good inasmuch as he said something about war that really resonated with me. We were talking about gays in the military and I was getting beat up on pretty much by Gary's cousins; I think it is OK for gays to be in the military but in wartime, they need to stay in the closet. War is not a picnic and the soldiers who are really good soldiers are incredibly macho and just shy of being Montana militia men. The child psychologist says that war has to probably be looked at entirely separate from other things. In war, the normal rules just don't apply. I thought that was really good. This guy, the psychologist is one of the few people that I've ever seen when you can literally tell when he is not paying attention to you. His eyes shade over. Really.

WHY ARE WE SO AFRAID OF DEATH

The buds and I have been on a tangent of discussing death and dying. It came about for a couple of reasons. One of our regulars had a friend to die and has been pretty traumatic. He had only dated her once when she discovered she had a terminal illness. She put up a courageous fight for two years and all during the process, we discussed it. Our bud has been a "stand up" guy and has stayed her friend. Recently a couple of us attended her Memorial Service where he spoke and did a great job, to say the least.

Another reason is because several of us have seen Million Dollar Baby--a good movie; and, in many ways, very inspiring. In Million Dollar Baby, Hillary Swank, one of the best actresses around, plays Maggie. Morgan Freeman, Eddie; and Clint, Frankie--basically, Clint and Morgan play themselves. Clint protrays his"kind persona" towards Hillary as he does the prostitutes in Unforgiven.

Million Dollar Baby is a movie that ought to be reckoned with because it ultimately focuses on a central problem in our society and one where denial is rampant; mercy killing/euthanasia. With health care costs soaring and twenty million people without health care coverage, we are keeping people alive in artificial ways and long after their bodies would have naturally shut down. We are in a crisis and have allowed the right wing zealots, who purport to know what God thinks, and who wouldn't know an original thought if it ran over them, control the debate. We need to get off that dime.

I've been doing lots of thinking about the Terri Schiavo situation. I can hardly believe the President and Congress have decided to get involved. For all practical purposes, she has been brain dead for fifteen years. It has been a sad case anyway you look at it. A mother and father who are overwhelmed with grief and have become hard-core activists, I think, because of their grief. A husband who says his wife didn't want to live like this but nobody else knows if she said it or not. And, apparently, he is not so sterling a character. It has become a mess inasmuch as it shows again that most people have enormous difficulties in dealing with death.

As a young pastor, I can remember once saying to the wife of a really elderly husband who had just died, "he's better off." She immediately corrected me and said, "No, I don't agree, I would want him back under any circumstances." I don't understand thinking like that but I know that many feel that way--Terri Schiavo's parents!

Why really would the Terri Schiavo's parents persist so vehemently in keeping the daughter alive. I don't get it personally. I use to go into these old age warehouses called Nursing Homes where acres of old people would reside. They didn't know they were in the world. Many had not known who they were for years. Yet, the parents, religious zeolots, the governor of Florida, his brother, the President and Congress are poised to do whatever is necessary to keep someone alive who has not known she is in the world for fifteen years. Why?

Let the poor woman die! It's amazing that a movie like Million Dollar Baby defines the debate better in moral terms than the Church or certainly any of the zeolots. When Hillary aka as Maggie is lying in the rehab center, knowing she is in the world but not wanting to live in her present state, she makes the decision about her life--I want to die.

Does a person's life belong to them? Albert Ellis, long time psychologist and therapist, not to mention, one of my heroes, has argued over and over, “Yes, a person’s life belongs to him/her. He says, “If a person says they are going to do themselves in,” I will say, “I understand, your life is your own but you must understand that if you are successful, there is no turning back.”

Religion

I've been gone for a week to North Carolina visiting my brothers. How have these guys gotten along without me. Naturally, I'm the first to arrive--we have a system, don't be waiting around. I have my usual: double shot of wheat grass, large carrot juice, and oatmeal with blueberries, bananoes and cinnamon. We are talking healthy here! Michael drags in and then Gary and finally Andy. So, here we go with the relevant topic.

We start off talking about the war and then quickly transition to religion. I don't remember why. Andy is an atheist and thinks religion is the bane of society. "What we all need to do more is love each other and accept everybody and be happy." I told him he had been hanging out in Berkeley too long.

Not that he is wrong. Gary is a Methodist type. His girlfriend, is a former Catholic who at best, according to Gary, is an agnostic. Michael is a Jew but says he's a Buddhist, has done all sorts of things, Zen, etc.; we all agree that religion has been the cause of beaucoup problems as it is practiced in the world. As a Christian, I allow as how often it is a matter of how it is misinterpreted and one has to realize that religion and Christianity the way I practice it is based on faith. I mean, nothing to be proved, whatever.

What our talks do for me is allow me to really think about it, as these guys challenge everything. You could say that the sun is up. They would want to know how you know. My basic belief is that if one follows Christianity, then always deal with the first four books of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, these are the books that record what Jesus did and said. Can't go wrong if you are interested in the "basic." He was always the champion of the poor, the downtrodden, the disenfranchised. Whether it was the women of his day, the hated gentiles, whoever, always took the side of those who had no champions. It is only when what he did and said is interpreted is it a problem. Mostly the interpretation is by Paul, who is credited with beginning the concept of the Church. I see Michael's eyes glazing over?

Andy wants to talk about when he was a youngster in Greece. He was a twelve year old when all the adult men in his village were rounded up by the Nazis and killed. Where was God when all this was going on? I allow as that I don't think that God is very involved with us down here and we could say, "where was God when people are starving or the Germans zapping seven million Jews or some drunk father is abusing his daughter or the innocent die."

Michael thinks it is the Catholics. They brain wash from the get go and then spend all this time proselytizing. And, there seems to be something common with all Catholics, he sees it in how they see things. They can't quite get away from what they were taught and be open. And, what is it with the Pope trying to stay alive anyway?

I explain that the Pope in Catholic theology is viewed as Jesus on earth and in a sense, when he suffers it is Jesus suffering and now with this present thing, he is really replicating Christ suffering on the cross. They all look kind of skeptical. Definitely to be continued.

All this Commo

This is really a weird thing about what is going on in war. A friend told me that her daugher got a dozen roses yesterday--is this the weirdest thing?? You're at war, in a battle zone, and just dial up the internet and send flowers. Don't know what to say?

Well, I don't either. The jury is out as far as I am concerned. What happens to soldiers often when they are at war is the importance of the family is magnified. And, there is a certain solace in not knowing what is going on. In modern war, where soldiers have computers and email and can telephone home in an instance. Not sure this is good. I would view it as a distraction. Here they are, fighting. War is no day at the beach. It is life and death. They have a job to do and they need to be concentrating on it. And, to be distracted by a phone call, having to do email, etc. I'm thinking the jury is out on whether all this commo is good.

On Iraqnam

I think yo are exactly right. Urban guerilla warfare is not all that bad if they are not out fighting it. I think it is one of the mistakes we've made in Iraqnam. We have tried to keep the soldiers isolated and not secured the country. I mean, we are at war and the Iraqis can't defend themselves. They are not ready. If we have made the decision to be in Iraq, let's do the job. And, we're not doing it.

With drugs, with life, with whatever, being passive won't hack it. We have to get out there and chase it. The insurgents can kill at will without retribution and that is one of the reasons that Iraq is such a f...... mess. And, we have smart people over there, in our Army, and why they are being so muzzled amaze me but it also doesn't amaze me.. I tell you what I think it is: a kind of mentality that happens in the military, especially with the types of personality that end up at the top. They are a "can do" and yes sir, yes sir, three bags full command structure and this is not good. Our goal at this stage is to "get out." Or, it should be and how best to do that: they have had elections, have a semblance of a chance and we need to make sure that we give them a chance by securing the country and once we basically do that, out of there baby. But, it seems that I am the only one in America thinking this.