(The following article is re-printed here with permission from SANE: the original posting can be seen right here.)

By Colonel Thomas Snodgrass Fri, December 29, 2006, 12:01 am

Colonel T. Snodgrass, SANE's resident military expert and strategist, takes a hard look at the Limited War Doctrine and how it plays out in the Open Society Democracy.

A curious thing happened in American thinking about warfare in 1961 – the rules needed to be rewritten, or so thought “the best and brightest” civilian strategists that President Kennedy brought with him into the White House. In his The Best and Brightest book, David Halberstam covers how Robert McNamara, McGeorge Bundy, William P. Bundy, Dean Rusk, George Ball, et.al, arrogantly ignored the historical lessons of warfare and set about to change the rules of war. This change has had far-reaching negative effects, even to today.

What was at the root of their hubris?

With the advent of nuclear weapons, many civilian think tank warfare theorists believed that direct superpower confrontation had become too dangerous to contemplate. Thus was born “limited war” in the national lexicon of strategic thinking when the Korean War broke out in 1950 and President Truman limited the war objectives and means in order to avoid nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union. The Korean War began the change in the American concept of war away from total war, or what was called at the time “general war,” to a form of war that was more “civilized” and “less dangerous” in the minds of social scientists.

The problem of limited war from an American national interest standpoint was that it assumed U.S. enemies would likewise be restrained in objectives and means. This fanciful social science assumption rested on the unproven belief that no foreign national leader in his right mind would dare oppose America, following its World War II victory, once U.S. willingness to fight was made clear. However, the advocates of limited war never came to grips with what would happen if a Soviet Cold War client state refused to “play” by limited war “rules.” In other words, how and when would limited war be concluded when the communists were pursuing total war objectives and the U.S. was waging a war for limited objectives? This was the first appearance of an asymmetry in war strategies long before the now infamous contemporary asymmetry on the so-called Global War on Terror (GWOT) battlefield. The GWOT is more appropriately termed the war against Islam (and the Shari’a touting faithful), but we use GWOT due to its common use.

This disparity of total vs. limited war objectives first became apparent as the Korean War dragged on and President Truman’s administration could find no way to conclude the conflict. When President Eisenhower assumed the presidency from Truman in 1953, he quickly recognized the logical solution to the strategic conundrum was shifting U.S. war-fighting from limited to total war means, and he thereby ended the Korean War by communicating to the communists his intention of escalating with nuclear weapons if the communists persisted in their total war objectives. Civilian limited war advocates should have seen the glaring fallacy of their theory at this point, but they didn’t. For his part, Eisenhower did not believe that limited war could remain limited.

As a warrior who knew war first-hand, President Eisenhower opted for a historically-based defense doctrine of “Massive Retaliation,” which promised an all-out nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in the event of aggression. Throughout the better part of the 1950’s, Eisenhower’s national security strategy insured that there was no military superpower confrontation. Because Eisenhower had doubts that a “limited war” would remain such, his over-all national security policy, called the “New Look,” was based on the unstoppable nuclear striking power of Strategic Air Command. During this period of relative peace, Democrat political opponents and social-science civilian theorists were in constant chorus that the New Look Massive Retaliation was simply too risky for the country and the world.

In spite of the Massive Retaliation doctrine’s success in preventing conflict between the U.S. and Soviet Union, in 1961 President Kennedy and his civilian social-science theorists rewrote the rules of war, conceiving and implementing a replacement doctrine they dubbed “Flexible Response” to counter client proxy warfare. It was at this point that we completely departed from the strategic thinking that had won World War II. The change in mindset was profound. The fundamental change in the U.S. approach to warfare now had at its essence the new approach that America would answer communist aggression against its interests with only a limited force that was “proportional” to the threat, thus inculcating the institutional idea in the U.S. national security infrastructure that American military responses should only be gradually escalated according to the perceived seriousness of the crisis.

The operative concept was that an enemy would “receive the message” that the U.S. intended to act militarily to defend its interests, and therefore, would be deterred from escalating the crisis further. Then, after it was clear to the enemy that his limited war objectives could not be attained, negotiations would ensue that would end the crisis. “Message sending” to the enemy through gradual escalation became an integral part of U.S. national security thinking and strategy.

The Flexible Response doctrine did not contemplate that the North Vietnamese would “bear any burden, pay any price” to plant Vietnamese nationalist communism in the south of the former French colony. The obvious queries -- why Kennedy’s brain-trust thought that only the U.S. was capable of complete dedication to a political concept or military strategy and how this group of men failed to address how an armed test of wills between two completely committed opponents would finally be resolved -- both call into question the Kennedy crowd’s basic rationality and the quality and integrity of their thought.

Indeed, what it really suggests is a mind-set that believed that the whole of mankind operated under the same set of values they had. In other words, there is nothing really worth fighting for until the end. Total dedication to national existence and national goals are subject to compromise. If that was the view of the American leadership, they concluded, it must be the view of our enemies.

What were the results?

Ho Chi Minh set out with the total war objective to conquer South Vietnam, while President Kennedy, and later President Johnson, in accordance with the Flexible Response doctrine regarded the conflict as limited, and they answered Ho’s total war with limited war subject to a gradual escalation. Instead of sending the intended message of strength to the North Vietnamese, Ho correctly interpreted the limited U.S. response as the sign of a lack of will on the part of the American political leadership. Once it became evident to Ho that America would not use its massive military strength to destroy North Vietnam, and thereby end the conflict and communist rule, the North Vietnamese targeted the will of the U.S. body politic and pursued the war with impunity.

Amazingly, a weak American political leadership refused to even threaten the continued existence of the North Vietnamese Communist Government, thus encouraging and enabling Ho and his successors to drag the war out to the point that the war-will of the U.S. polity was eventually destroyed. In truth it was not the media or the political opposition that “lost the war,” as is sometimes alleged, it was a U.S. political and military leadership that was both too timid (a polite word for cowardly) to be successful wartime leaders and too blinded by their own hubris to understand that the impossible asymmetry in the objectives of the warring parties guaranteed that limited war was a sure strategy for defeat in Vietnam.

Given the long and sustained trend in this country to move away from a constitutional republic as designed by the founders with a safe distance between the national leaders and their constituents and toward an open society democracy where the “public voice” is heard daily in polling data and elections and statutory and constitutional referendums meant to directly affect day to day governance, it might be arguable that no sustained or prolonged war effort is today possible. But most assuredly, in such system, the “public” will never support a decision predicated upon a purposefully limited and drawn out war strategy. This was the absurdity of the Kennedy Administration’s limited war doctrine and it is the absurdity of the current administration’s limited-war-while-we-build-a-functional-civil-democratic-government-in-the-war-zone. What makes this latter doctrine even more irrational is that we accept the presence of our enemies in the government, such as al-Sadr.

Denial.

The failure to understand this issue and to blame the obvious failure to prosecute a war fully with but one goal of a military victory is manifest in both Left and Right on the US political spectrum -- among both Democrats and Republicans. On the Right side during the Vietnam debacle we heard that we were doing a splendid job militarily in Vietnam, and but for reporting to the contrary after the Tet Offensive by Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite and the rest of the main stream media that had a virtual monopoly on the attention of middle America, all was still well from the pro-war standpoint. This is a fairy tale. A poorly fought war, a Tet Offensive and media campaign to call the pro-war optimism into question, the constant demonstrations in the streets by the anti-war Left eroded public confidence in the political elite and their prosecution of the war. The public's lack of confidence was well founded.

Having fought a limited war to a standstill, the political leadership could not sustain America's motivation to continue and as a result there was absolutely no way to favorably conclude the war militarily. The American government’s loss of credibility with its own people foreclosed any military escalation against North Vietnamese capability to resupply its forces in the south. Such a strategy reversal would have been necessary to force a favorable military conclusion. America’s war-will was decimated because of the anti-war propaganda which capitalized on bad military strategy. For the North Vietnamese, the American government’s credibility problem at home was a clear sign that they just had to persevere until the Americans threw in the towel.

On the Left we have a slightly different twist on the same denial theme. The difference here though is the notion that the media and the demonstrators were correct. It was a bad war that could not be won militarily and we could only hope to negotiate a defeat with the rhetoric of a draw. An example of this mindset was on display in an interview for the Fox TV special “Give War a Chance.” In this special, Richard Holbrooke, would-be Secretary of State for John Kerry and long-time State Department diplomat, made the assertion that the U.S. had done everything possible militarily in Vietnam, purportedly establishing his point that only diplomacy could have provided the solution. Holbrooke, like his cheerleading Republican counterparts, apparently did not understand that the U.S. had made no effort to win the war using historically-proven military strategy, that is, destroy the enemy’s capability to wage war.

National Security rethinking – post-Vietnam to 9/11.

In the years following the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Colin Powell both recognized some of the shortcomings in the intellectual conception of U.S. national security doctrine that led to the Vietnam debacle, and they both attempted to correct these shortcomings by promulgating the “Weinberger Doctrine” in 1984 and the “Powell Doctrine” in 1991. Secretary Weinberger’s national security construct was in response to another defense debacle, the bombing of the U.S. Marine Barracks in Beirut, while General Powell’s preconditions for the commitment of American military forces came along during the build-up to Desert Storm. While both doctrines call for clarity of purpose in the U.S. use of force, they both nevertheless suffer from the debilitating constraint of continued limited war thinking and the inherent problems facing the modern democracy.

The Weinberger doctrine:

1. The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.

2. U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.

3. U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.

4. The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.

5. U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.

6. The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.

The Powell doctrine:

Questions posed by the Powell Doctrine, which should be answered affirmatively before military action, are:

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?

2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?

3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?

4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?

5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?

7. Is the action supported by the American people?

8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

Both doctrines are admirable in their attempts to clarify when and how U.S. forces should be used, but they are clearly meant for limited war contexts. We know this from the doctrines themselves and their historical context. Quite simply, the limited war doctrine reigns today; it has never been re-written. As a consequence, after 9/11 when the U.S. entered into the GWOT, our national strategic thinking was not geared for global war. Hence we have both opponents and proponents of GWOT measuring the “Battle for Iraq” and Afghanistan solely in terms of limited war. We continue to be trapped in the same mental box that pre-ordained our Vietnam defeat. It is not widely understood that Iraq is merely a campaign in the GWOT, not a limited “Iraq War.” Today we are battling the faithful Muslims of the world who wish a Shari’a-based worldwide Caliphate together with the foot soldiers of Iran, Syria, and al Qaeda in Iraq.

How Democracy fits in.

Moreover, the very idea that America can no longer fight a total war, but only a limited war, has grown out of the enormous democratization of our body politic. When World War I and World War II were fought, the national leaders and especially the Commander-in-Chief, had relatively few political constraints on their war making abilities and strategies. The average citizen simply did not expect to carry on a national debate about how to fight the war -- only that it ought to be won and won decisively.

The very fact that women had only a few decades earlier gained the franchise to vote (the women’s movement had not come to fructify as it did in the Vietnam era of the 1960s and 1970s), further illustrates this point. The whole debate over getting the “soccer moms’” vote by the political punditry drives the electioneering on both sides. War today is one part war strategy and five parts domestic public relations precisely because an open society democracy demands daily watering and tender-loving care. Courageous political and military leadership is at a great disadvantage in such a polity.

The retort to this by the democracy advocates is that this is why broad-spectrum democracies don’t fight wars. This is no doubt true, but hardly comforting when you are on the receiving end of foreign aggression. This is all the more troubling when the war is an existential threat. Long hard wars, especially against stubborn and ideologically committed enemies such as Marxists and the Shari’a touting Islamic faithful, even wars prosecuted with a total war strategy, will become decidedly more difficult when the political leadership and by implication the military as well are subject to the nightly talking heads and polling data. While the contemporary wisdom is that the greater the reach of democracy the better, this has never been established as fact or even as good theory.

To raise the democracy issue, however, is not to propose a solution. That is not a subject for a military strategist. But it is a fact and it is one the founding fathers and the generations thereafter did not face until the second half of the 20^th century.

Can we escape the limited war mental trap of our own making?

We have no alternative as a nation. We must! We have Muslim enemies within and without Iraq. In World War II the Vichy French, Hungarians, Romanians, Croatians, Iraqis, et.al, never attacked the U.S., but they were our enemies nevertheless because they were allied with the Nazis. Today Iranians, Syrians, Palestinians, et.al, are likewise our enemies because they are allied to the extent that they want a U.S. defeat at the hands of an Islam bounded by the Shari’a. So long as we continue to define Iraq as the only GWOT battlefield, we are again headed for defeat because of our failure to deal with the fact that warfare does not necessarily stop at national borders. Limited war paid homage to this fallacious idea at the Yalu and Parrot’s Beak, and was fatally wrong in both cases.

American politicians (with the exception of President Eisenhower and his administration), senior military leaders, think tank civilian warfare theorists, and media pundits have been mesmerized by limited war in their national security thinking since the outbreak of the Korean War. In Vietnam, successive presidential administrations failed the American people because they were unable to break the paralyzing spell of limited war, and we lost. In the global war against the Shari’a faithful Muslims, the stakes are existential and not limited, but our national political and senior military leaders are still in the paralyzing death grip of limited war conceptual thinking. If nothing changes, nothing changes.

______________________

About the author: Colonel Thomas Snodgrass, retired U.S. Air Force, spent 30 years in active military duty. He spent much of his time in the military as a senior intelligence officer and has been an instructor at several important war colleges. He is a highly decorated Vietnam War veteran and holds a Master of Arts degree in History and Political Science from the University of Texas.

From: Vic Biorseth
Date: Fri, December 29, 2006, 11:42 AM
Subject: Our Flawed War Doctrine
Comment:

Very well done; could not agree more.

This points out the need for a Commander-In-Chief with the guts to wage war as necessary, a legislature and court system dedicated to not interfering with any war effort, and the need to either somehow restrict, in time of war, or just ignore the free press. Once war has begun, popular opinion should never have anything whatsoever to do with the prosecution of it.

Since Korea - From Ho to Osama - our national enemies have had the luxury of being able to pay more strategic attention to American popularity polls and American elections than to their own very survival. They know that all they have to do, when not hiding among the populace, is dance back and forth across various international borders, and our forces will not follow, nor will they be able to go after any of the real strategic centers of the enemy.

I would like permission to re-print this article, with link back, on the Thinking Catholic Strategic Center website.

Regards,

Vic

Date: 05/07/2007 7:20 PM EST
From: Stephen
Email: stephen_dees@yahoo.com
Subject: on limited war doctrine.
Comment:

I find myself in a very different place than you.

I come from a military family. But, having lived "overseas" both in Western Europe and Eastern Europe and in Central America. I come away with a different take on things.

First, it is the way in which the multinationals' corporate interests are constantly touted as U.S. interests.

Second, the way that military conflict is initiated to assist in profits and boost the economy.

Third, in the way that American values and social mores are forcibly inflicted upon other peoples and countries.

Fourth, the way that the injured and killed military personnel's families lose the most in military conflict and the wealthy make such a perverse profit from it. But of course, then wars would stop cause Dow and others like Brown and root would make no money in the matter. No money no motive and its just that simple.

Fifth, the way that the conflicts are prolonged to extract the most possible profit from the matter. Never has a war profits tax been considered as a deterrent in the matter.

Yep, congress and the rich ought to be the front line troops, they gain the most financially in these faked up fracases and the common people should be left to do what they have always tried to do.

Just get by the turbulence of the day.

Stephen G. Dees

Date: 05/08/2007 8:30 AM EST
From: Vic
Subject: on limited war doctrine.
Comment:

Stephen:

All of that just appears to me to be a long string of some of the oldest and most common Leftie-Democrat talking points, designed to show America in the worst possible light when compared to any other entity at all. But, there is nothing but hot air to back any of them up. Let's look at them a little more closely.

First, it is the way in which the multinationals' corporate interests are constantly touted as U.S. interests.

Constantly touted? By whom? Where? Corporate interests, no matter where the corporation may be based, are business related. Millions of shareholders may be American and have American interests, but that is not why they bought their shares in the corporation.

Second, the way that military conflict is initiated to assist in profits and boost the economy.

Third, in the way that American values and social mores are forcibly inflicted upon other peoples and countries.

Forcibly inflicted? At the point of a bayonet? Could you please identify even one such historical event in any other country for me, because I can’t seem to find any historical record of any such thing ever happening.

Fourth, the way that the injured and killed military personnel's families lose the most in military conflict and the wealthy make such a perverse profit from it. But of course, then wars would stop cause Dow and others like Brown and root would make no money in the matter. No money no motive and its just that simple.

In the best of war situations, soldiers die in war. That’s the way it is. In the worst of war situations, civilians die in war. But I’m not sure I, or even you, understand the rest of that paragraph. The Dow measures the market, and it does so whether it’s going up or down, in time of war and in time of peace. “Perverse profit” is an interesting (and popular) Leftie, anti-Capitalist term, but until you get more specific I don’t know how to respond. I suppose you think that whoever fulfills a needed military contract should do so at a loss and go broke. “The Wealthy” remain, as usual, a vague term with no one identified. Who are they? The Rockefellers, or other old money Dems? George Soros, Bill Gates, or other newer generation Dems? Oprah, Cronkite, Whoopi and other celebrocrat Dems? Let me see even a short list of exactly who this demonic group, “The Rich”, are.

Fifth, the way that the conflicts are prolonged to extract the most possible profit from the matter. Never has a war profits tax been considered as a deterrent in the matter.

Who do you think is driving the bus here, our representative government or someone else? Who, exactly, prolonged any war America was ever involved in, from the American side, to extract the most possible profit? It’s so easy, isn’t it, to just toss around these vague charges with no specifics and nothing whatsoever to back them up.

Yep, congress and the rich ought to be the front line troops, they gain the most financially in these faked up fracases and the common people should be left to do what they have always tried to do.

Just get by the turbulence of the day.

Again, please identify “The Rich” who supposedly “faked up” any “fracases” because, again, purposeful vagueness and fuzziness point to entirely false premises that amount to nothing more than Leftie-Dem talking points, with nothing whatsoever to back them up.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Thu May 10, 2007 1:50:01 PM EST
From: Stephen
Email: stephen_dees@yahoo.com
Subject: Limited War Doctrine
Comment:

Vic:

All of what follows is in response to the various "challenges, allegations and denials of fact" which you offered in your response to my previous statement.

I previously tried to state the time of day, you have insisted I not only build you a clock, but tell you how it works. Ok, I am up to the challenge. Are you conversant in game theory?

To start with, I am neither right, left, or central, or anything categorical as it relates to the existing political alignments domestically. I belong to neither of the two major parties nor any other.

Most importantly I truly hope the "parties" end soon and the population takes control away from the two "machines".

I, by the way, am not holding my breath, till it happens. The population is not blind, they either just simply refuse to see or are powerless to act.

I find myself consistently confronted by two general choices concerning "voting":

a corrupt group of socialists/bordering on communists, hell bent to enact more expensive useless, bloated, stupid programs, poorly run and rampant with corruption or

a corrupt group of robber barons intent on establishing super-monopolistic goals which also destroy and diminish any prospective domestic competitive assaults that might potentially disrupt the present market partitions. This party has recently begun to throw out various socialist-oriented tid bits to appease the "populations" desire for more, worthless programs. To wit, the "no one left behind", cater to the brain dead, public mis-education system. In short, the "they are our sheep and we have a god given right, now and forever, to shear them" and any attempts to change that result in serious and negative effects.

I realized this many years ago when I found that at times the "right" was on "my side" and at others the "left" was.

Then I grew up. I realized, as all grown ups do, that the world works on the monetary enrichment principle. I also realized that any given issue may be twisted, manipulated, massaged, and modified to favor, or in my case, disfavor someone else.

By that statement concerning monetary motivation, when was the last time you spent, say, more than a continuous week's worth of time, of constructive process, that did not come down to making your preferred monetary denomination? Do you believe that anyone else engages in such non-monetary motivated philanthropic, altruistic, or moralist-based, behavior?

Vic are you aware that the Nazi's printed "Gott ist Mit Uns" on their buckles? How is that for a historical precedent concerning moral justification? Is it a matter of translation from German? The words are pretty close to the English version.

At the higher ends of the spectrum of commerce, meaning the large corporate office places, there are little means of truly "enhancing" the revenue stream. There exist no secrets, examine the quarterly or annual disclosure, to either the government or the stockholders.

Each competitive move sees a counter-move, hence in the advance realization of this and the fact that changes in product line cause costs, while stable lines of production are much more easily controlled, a general non-competitive approach is much preferred.

Despite all the supposed wizardry of the "great corporate team" it comes down to trend and cycle. There is really not much of a way for the Chairman "to get "it" in to, out of, "the ditch", if they just let the boat flow down the river".

An examination of the history of commerce in the United States, demonstrates, that at the larger corporate environments, the behavior is much closer to collusive restriction of trade than competitive.

All the Lee Iaccoca, William Gates, H. Ross Perot, William Buffet, "shinola" aside, it is a matter of market partition.

Competition and product distinguishment, as a means of doing so (revenue enhancement), died, many, many, years before I reached my age of majority.

So...... what do they do? They enter into "market stimulation", that includes the military industrial complex. I get a little little bit closer to the names, but not just yet Vic. Patience is a virtue!

Ask your preferred "military expert" what happens to the "new" weapons system, the second after part or all of it gets both used publicly and revealed and/or worse yet, captured, in the course of a conflict. How does it get exposed, by conflict, hence its usage is the means and manner by which it must be "replaced".

Then ask him what the current state of procurement with regard to the number of planes, and in fact the entire military air fleet, was/is slated to look like, if no major change, say as the basis of fatigue, lack of superiority or some other military criteria of degradation of quality occurs in the foreseeable future?

That's right Vic, they are and were going to cut the size of the fleet of planes and fleet diversity and therefore "weed some of the players" from the trough, before all this occurred! Imagine that! Just like what they, congress, were doing to the Navy, and the Army for that matter.

I refer to the procurement cycle and need for a larger, better "club or rock". Take as an example the "stealth fighter". I believe his "credits" refer to the fact that he has both an intelligence background and is from the Air Force. He should understand immediately the implications of what I am referencing.

He will fill you in on what happens. It means jobs and "product cycle" "opportunity" which results in more corporate revenue, but only if there is "market stimulation".

No wizardry, just simple supply and demand economics as it relates to, and plays upon, the "I have but one, and only one, hide" political thinking process. Also, it looks good on T.V., the "I must appear to be strong on defense" syndrome. Hells Bells even commie Hilliary got into the act! How's that for a "lefty"?

The person who originated the original blog entry is a military professional, supposedly, and, perhaps, based upon the various periods of time his commentary covered, is equally aware of a few facts which I will use on behalf of the defense of my original points. I suggest you solicit his input as to the veracity of my commentary.

Incidentally, "war mongering", and "profiteering" were termed long before my birth, hence some one else, along the time line of history, has seen, or at least attempted to allude to, the pattern of behavior.

As to your refuting the point of the corporations' intentionally positioning this country to go to war, via falsehoods and orchestrated scenarios, as well as prolongation, to extract profits, I have the following list as documented historical facts and actions which amply demonstrate and amplify my position.

Just to list a few:

And it goes on and on

My point, in the critical examination of the various decisions, developments and intelligence, they either led to armed incursion and arbitrary hand tying, based upon neither sound military judgment, nor simple prudence, and served for one and only purpose, to prolong the conflict, to extract the most dollar worth from the conflict.

In certain cases, they intentionally ignored accurate verifiable, intelligence available. To what purpose? I suggest, in the case of WWII, General Marshall, was a very, very, smart head of the joint Chiefs of Staff, so it was neither incompetence nor ignorance.

In each and every case, the known basis of the decision was influence exerted by one or in most cases several multi-national corporation(s).

In the time before the multinationals' existence, the process was more domestic than international, as the economic interests of the provoking party (ies) was domestic and not international. The point is not the territory affected, it is the pattern of behavior.

In each and every case, the American people were intentionally misled to manipulate their reaction, and to "seduce" their support, in a matter in which they were being defrauded and intentionally manipulated, to someone, or more accurately, something, else's monetary enrichment. You have asked for names I will get to that point later on.

For now, let us examine, the "nature of the game". The "moves on the chessboard", using game theory, and the objectives. The search for and your grant of names I consider a matter "de rigeur" and you shall not leave without having your curiosity, or your obtusity satisfied.

As to "Did it boost the economy?, In today's environment, hell if it wasn't for this current war, the current economy would be on its butt.

False? go back and look at what happened to the domestic economy after the closure of Vietnam conflict, one of the largest "recessions" in the history of the country. Support is removed, economy goes down. The war footing commentary aside, if all you have is a war foot, and you remove it, guess what happens?

Why, because the war was what, and is what, is keeping the economy going. Young and decent men, and now women, of moderate means, die for corporate profit. They even manufacture heroes according to E.E.O., politically correct criteria, in the process. The rest of the political doctrine concerning "the clear and present danger" line from Washington is dog manure.

Look at the current domestic automotive industry. Look at the heavy manufacturing sector. Look at the domestic textiles industry. Look at anything other than basic existence industries, by that, say housing starts, apartment complexes, shopping malls, food stores, pharmacies, hospitals etc.

You evidently did not notice the layoffs? Look at the rate of foreclosure of houses, of boats, automobiles. Those figures are down right? Nope!

Look at the cost of living, by the single barometer of true indication of affordability, by the "new consumers", meaning first time home buyers, and compare their income levels to the monthly mortgage costs which will be necessary to afford a single family dwelling. The true value of wages and the average wage rate in the United States, all on the up swing right?

Wherever you are obtaining your drugs, I need some of that! Because if you truly look, you will find a very, very, sick private sector income rate and employment picture, stagnant and dying.

Now, after painting the entire backdrop, back out the effect of the government procurement which is largely military industrial complex related expenses cycle. Whoa! And what do we have, a service economy of little to no worth to the working person as a means of viable employment in face of current costs.

Why? because those federal government jobs are mandated by congress to pay a federal prevailing wage. Hence an essentially higher level of profitability to the individual. The corporations which manufacture and service the military segment are pretty much the only portion of the manufacturing, meaning higher paying labor type jobs which remain in the domestic economy.

In the counting and massaging of the data, the government is pretty much the largest consumer in the domestic market place of manufactured products.

Hamburgers are now a part of the private manufacturing sector because they don't need those figures to bull crap the population, right?

Chinese trade has increased the domestic manufacturing sector jobs, correct?

The reason for the war is to make money for some while they keep the mind of the "unwashed, rabble" from going out and getting rope to hang their butts.

The problem is the tactic works. They are so concerned with their butt being on fire they fail to see their head is catching.

Just like, evidently, unfortunately, you Vic. But then of course I am familiar with the critical thinking protagonistic approach. But at this level? Come on Vic lets raise the ante and the level of dispute. Like how do intelligent people break this cycle and restore democracy?

How about new leadership, a renewed movement to prosperity based upon competition, free enterprise, the elimination of quota oriented HRS process and leaving some of the brain dead behind? How about instead of bailing out the Chrysler's we let the non-competitive corporations fail? How about insisting upon moving the level of the game up, instead of protecting existing market partitions and favoring the formation of super-monopolies? But, I digress.

Back to the main discussion line.

As to those social values and mores being inflicted. How would you like it if a Muslim came over here and told the "American female", if she did not wear a veil, she would be stoned to death?

How would you like it if someone came over here and told you your female offspring was worthless and should be placed into an orphanage, at birth, and used in prostitution rings, and the very fact of her birth should be concealed, so that your one, state authorized child could be a male from some future prospective pregnancy?

How do you think they, the Muslims, feel concerning the presence of women in their country who do not comply?

Have you ever met anyone who lived as a contractor in a Muslim country concerning their (the Muslims) perception of eating, hygiene, worship during the day, working hours, bribery as we see it, (gifting for favor as they see it), and all the myriads of ways that we differ from them? The truth is, the United States and Western Europe, is in their country not the other way around.

Some of the things said by none other than "libbist" western (meaning from the U.S. and Europe) women in Iran, in Saudi, in India, in Yugoslavia, and the expectations by the west for compliance to "modern" western values are "killing level" insults in those various countries.

It comes down to something as simple as why in the devil should I put the seat down after I am through in the rest room. Why don't you (female) leave it up, to make my next trip to the facilities easier. Its as subtle as that and just about as deep.

The very usage of a negroid woman as an ambassador is an insult. Not that the U.S. government's elected bozo doesn't have the right to name a bullfrog as his ambassador, if it so desires. No it is the expectation that the other side is supposed to talk with them.

If I named a chimp as my ambassador from "Stevaronia" and sent him to "negotiate" with you would you be pleased or insulted by my selection.

How about those schools being built by the military, are they built in the Muslim Style? No they are not.

Its like Brown v. Board of Education has gone global, complete with the bayonets used in that domestic issue. And speaking of point of a bayonet what do you think the U.S. is doing in Iraq right now?????

Are they or are they not using force of arms, meaning in every possible nuance, of the meaning, at bayonet point, by which to inflict upon portions of the population use of a form of government, people in government, and religious faith segmentation, none of which they voluntarily subscribe to????

If that is not "point of the bayonet" politics what in the devil would you call it?

Hey Vic, how would you feel if you were forced, as a catholic to accept a stupid butt, egomaniac Methodist as your president. Oh, yeah right, that's what you have huh?

Look at Kosovo, at Bosnia, Tusla, Ulcinj and Sarajevo.

I can understand your skepticism and ignorance, in this particular matter. Let me help a little here.

Long before the bullets started to fly in Yugoslavia, there was a problem. The problem was Albanians. The Albanians were coming into Yugoslavia illegally and in large numbers. they were largely Muslim in faith. They had been informed several times, nicey nice, that they: were there illegally were uninvited were affecting the domestic economy adversely were increasing domestic costs were undesired should go back to Albania, and do what should be done there, get rid of the crooks in charge.

Of course this bears absolutely no resemblance to the huge immigration problems of the U.S. in terms of Cuban illegals, Mexican, Honduran, Salvadoran, Colombian, and now, Argentinians.

But when the bullets started flying, and the U.S. and The U. N. stepped in, they forced the Serbs, to allow the Albanians, one of the groups they were trying to get rid of, to stay.

Now look at the U.S. illegal immigration problem. What do you think the attitude, of say the State of Arizona, would be in response to the U.N. mandating that the illegal Central and South Americans had to, not only remain, in the U.S., in Arizona, but should get all the benefits of the U.S. system of support, including override quota protection as minorities under the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the E.E.O Commission?

Do you think they would just sit there and take that crapola? Oh yeah, they are aren't they? Yep, they just "love' the bayonet approach of government. Yes, that is what has been done in Yugoslavia.

I could go back further in time. I submit the U.S. did do the same thing concerning Germany after WWII during the period of the armed occupation of Germany and the fashioning not only of their government but their very national constitution. Ditto what happened in Japan.

Nope, to the best of my knowledge, these various acts never made big headlines domestically, just like the insults in Iran and the forced changes in that country which led to the Shah's ouster by revolution. But go to Germany and/or Japan today, and ask the "hardliners" what they think, today, of that effort and how they feel they lost their national identity in the process.

There is an old saying "You play with a puppy don't be surprised if you get licked in the face".

YES DAMMIT! AT BAYONET POINT AND OUTSIDE THE U.S. THEY STICK THEIR NOSES INTO OTHER PEOPLE'S CULTURES AND FORCE THEM TO CHANGE BY MILITARISTIC PROCESS!

It is the gradual subjugation of the entire planet to see the things the way the U.S. sees them or get their butts kicked militarily.

I will not step into the arena of moral justification, moral prerogative or moral authority, what a load of crapola! This coming from a nation which practices economic subjugation and strangulation on its own people? No wonder the rest of the planet despises that flag now.

I simply make my point, it has been done, not once, and not singularly, on the basis of victory in conflict, it is done routinely. The point is one of subjugation of peoples by force and then the "re-education" of them to see things our way or else!

The military version of Dale Carnegie's "How to win friends and influence people". Or as Curtis Lemay, if I accredit properly (maybe it was an army general instead), used to say, "If you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds must follow!"

Yes, the government has and continues to do it. I could give a crap less about the various justifications, I say, said, and will say, they engage in the conduct. You said they did not, I would appreciate your acknowledgment that you stand "corrected" in the matter.

Don't get me wrong Vic, personally, in reference to the veil thing, I come out on the unveiled side. Always sort of impressed me as a blind date sort of thing. How else are you going to "avoid a beastie", if you can't see em?

But maybe it is an act of kindness, if most of them were ugly, maybe the best thing is to cover it all up?

Sounds sort of far fetched, but in my life, in years back, I attended some co-ed-present social gatherings that looked more like an agricultural exposition.

Veils would have truly helped, so it is possible, there was a common sense basis to their rules originally. But it is neither my country nor region nor anyone else's in the U.S.

Nor, as I have already pointed out, is such behavior the "first time". Look also at Formosa, Korea, the Philippines, Columbia, and the Boxer Rebellion in China. All various settings where the repetitive behavior has been exhibited.

Look at the American Indian and his/her life style prior and subsequent to Army and "Bureau of Indian Affairs" intervention. You will find they, the U.S. government, reacting to special interests, did have an involuntary, on the Indians part, "affair", with the American Indian as well. Some of the effects of the "affair" continue to this day.

Hell, not only does the government listen, they act to contrive an incident to satisfy the demand for action by the multi-national. It is time to face the facts, we do not currently, nor have the people of the United States had a government which represents its population.

It is and has been that way, since my arrival on the planet, more years ago than I care to share right now. I make that statement in reference to the words a government of and by the people.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Compare that to what is being done and I submit they sorely, intentionally, and completely miss the mark.

In two of the incidents of conduct, it justified entry into armed conflict on the basis of known at the time, and prior to military engagement, false information. I refer to the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the sinking of the Maine.

Now we have a third, a unique situation where the idiot in the white house actually attacked the wrong damn country, and then tried to point the finger at his political chums across the way and his own damn political appointees that he put in the very positions of influence. God, what an absolute idiot!!!!

Point being he had no military justification for his actions, it was a contrived case of unjustifiable, on any grounds, interference in the sovereign affairs of a foreign state.

Why? For the benefit of various corporate interests who were, then and now, in control of congress, and the white house. I find it incredulous that you take the position that you have stated!

How can a person, a thinking person, with an objective mind, in the face of over a century of historical incidents at their disposal, for review and contemplation, come to some other rational conclusion?

Want to go back even further? "How about there is gold in the Black Hills".

And the best one. "We are fighting this war to eliminate the slave conditions of the Negroid". What a crock!

Hell, they had Irish, Italians, Polish, Chinese, Germans, Scots, and others, located right there in their backyard. Dying from typhus, starvation, malnutrition, economic subjugation, pestilence and those were the better conditions.

I will just touch upon the rape of the pretty poor girls by the rich guys, the crippling and destruction of health because of unsafe conditions, the intentional knowing mass poisonings or the usage of children in absolutely horrific conditions of servitude.

Yet, they had to "march south" to "free the Negroid"!

People in the North, who lived in poop, never made poop, couldn't get out of the poop were not good enough to warrant the attention. Not just adults, children for Jesus' sake!! And they had to go hundreds of miles to South to cure the cause of their conflict? For the moral objective of "free the slave"?

If I had a lawn, I would request 500 pounds of that to put on the grass.

Right! The problem is one of good propaganda campaign, not the facts. Hell, the Negroids and other ignorant people still believe and try to sell that manure. Over a hundred years later!

I could give you facts, until both of us were dust.

As to my statement concerning the usage of fabrication of military conflict to boost and buoy the economy. I resubmit as evidence the state of the economy before and after the various conflicts which I have already referenced.

War is a business. When the bullets fly and the bombs go off, the helicopters fly, the tanks roll, the soldiers get shot, man oh man is there some money being spent! And who makes that money? YOU? ME?

Nope, people like us have to pay the bill, we obtain a debt, our children pay on that "mortgage" for a house they will never own, and in the current fiscal year, the multi-nationals get the profit. Just a few more words and then, by cracky, I'll give you "the list".

Do you childishly believe that the current war, in Iraq, has and is currently being used to secure natural resources for your benefit? Is your last name Rockefeller, do you have a controlling interest in Exxon/Mobil????

Tell you what, tell me when you get your check from the "deal" ok?

Do you believe that this conflict sprang from the despotic treatment by a leader of a foreign country upon its indigenous peoples?

Like Mexico, Honduras, and Salvador are not both closer and in worse shape and literally right next door!

Right, that is why the U.S. is in Iraq and not Tibet, or Columbia, or some other place. It is not for guaranteeing an oil supply to some super-monopoly right?

No, of course not, it is because the United States protestant run government is going to convert the Iraqis into Methodists or 7Th day Adventists or something other than what they are! It has a religious basis right?

I am merely demonstrating that a conjured lie or rather series of lies are given as the basis of justification for armed interdiction. An exposure of a longstanding problem with integrity, or in reality the lack thereof, by public officials and special interests. And the corresponding infliction of peonage upon a nation's people for the profits of the interests.

All of these, additional objectives along the way, merely demonstrate, the 'tune". The name of the tune is "I have control of the wallet and you, and your children are going to pay for my line of bull crap and you will not lynch nor imprison nor execute my worthless lying lazy egotistical ass".

Those are the effects of that prolongation

"In the best of war situations, soldiers die in war. That’s the way it is. In the worst of war situations, civilians die in war. But I’m not sure I, or even you, understand the rest of that paragraph. The Dow measures the market, and it does so whether it’s going up or down, in time of war and in time of peace. “Perverse profit” is an interesting (and popular) Leftie, anti-Capitalist term, but until you get more specific I don’t know how to respond. I suppose you think that whoever fulfills a needed military contract should do so at a loss and go broke."

Vic; I was referring to Dow Chemical, not the index, they make most of the chemicals used in the explosives that make all those really neat pictures we see on the news. But looking at the various high's in the military sector would help you in identification. I was specifically referring to the following: Halliburton a subsidiary owned by Brown and Root A corporation, in which Lady Bird Johnson held a significant interest in during the Vietnam era. Exxon/Moblil British Petroleum Royal Dutch Shell and the other oil companies including Marathon General Dynamics Northop Grumman Colt Hummer division Springfield Arms virtually all the manufacturers of MRE's, the Bradley, etcetera including right down to the BDU's which they are wearing. That includes all the turbine manufacturers, all the electronics manufacturers for radios radar infrared sensors, smart bombs and the whole kit and caboodle.

That's who I was talking about Vic, the military industrial complex and the oil folks.

As to giving them a "fair rate of return" that is the very reason behind the "War Profits Tax". To deny them that opportunity.

The military objectives were achieved some time ago, that came out of the very horse's ass that's sits in the white house.

They cannot disengage without putting the troops in "harms way" right? Ok then in that case make it a zero profit scenario.

Watch them execute the quickest damn withdrawal from an urban battlefield ever executed on the planet the day after the profit goes out of the effort.

Make those companies and their stock holders, among which are congressmen, suffer in ways which don't even, and never will, compare to the pain and suffering and contribution, of a father seeing his son come home in either a box or without his legs, arms or in some way not in exactly the same healthy condition in which he left the country. A son without a father, a daughter without her dad, a young mother forced to move on in life without her spouse.

Yes, a War Profits Tax, a deterrent to the means a manner repetitively used in this country to bolster profits at the normal person's expense. The proceeds used to make sure those in Walter Reed and other locations and their families are cared for in a manner consistent with the supreme and costly sacrifice which they have personally made.

Cover any and all expenses except bonus's for the executives. Make it a zero rate of return, but no negative (loss) process. A true empowerment of the "we all are going to suffer in this approach", including the rich. A you "bet your butt, I want it over as soon as possible" financial incentive.

Because, then they can get back to business as usual. Meaning making a rate of return consistent with their pre-war income. No money in it, mo monetary motivation for it.

So why do it?, hit those low life piles of garbage in the one way, which will guarantee they get the message. The message "You ain't gonna make a dime out of some one else's sacrifice".

As far a "the no-bid contracts given to Halliburton", now lets make them no money contracts, I guarandammtee you Cheney would be moving his rectum at supersonic speed then.

I took one look at the pallets full of cash wrapped in shrink wrap and I was immediately looking for a rope. It is all of the ugly profiteering that was Vietnam's trademark all over again.

Those Iraqis would be left with the smoking ruins to deal with, true. Do you believe if they pull out in the next decade that it will be anything other then another Lebanon over there for some time. Unless of course, as she most probably will, Iran puts her hand into to it.

A stupid incompetent protestant executive, as always, has lit a match to the fuse, they (the military) best take the rest while they can get it. Things are going to get busy.

I hope you see my points now. If nothing else you see exactly to what I was referring .

Stephen G. Dees Sr.

Date: Thu May 10 2007 4:00 PM EST
From: Vic
Subject: Limited War Doctrine
Comment:

My my.

[Factoid or list of factoids] followed by [Why?] followed by [Blah blah blah]

fails because all it produces is a conjecture with no evidence. If there is no real evidence, then it’s all just a lot of typical Leftist talking point blather.

Let me add a third column to your table with some brief responses to these items.

The simple fact of the matter is we get something less than 20% of our oil from the Middle East, and almost all of that is from Saudi Arabia, not Kuwait or Iraq or Iran. That a war could widen to involve Arabia and the whole world oil supply situation is not an insignificant thing; but to state that we went to war in Iraq 1 solely for oil, or for control of oil, is just a flagrant categorical lie. And to state that we went to war in Iraq 2 for control of oil, or just because President Bush lied about WMD is yet another flagrant categorical lie. I refer you to the Bush Lied People Died page for the long list of all the Democrats who harped and harped on Sadam’s WMD long before President Bush was President, or even on anyone’s radar screen. If you don’t believe that Al Queda was in Iraq before Iraq 2 then you haven’t been paying attention, and you haven’t read much on this site either.

Stephen, the state of a country’s economy before, during and after a war, no matter how consistent, does not automatically correlate to an economic motive for war, any more than numbers of TV antennas on rooftops correlates to cancer rates. I’m sure you would like for us to beat our swords into plowshares and be nice, and tax the Northrop and all the others out of existence in the rather naive belief that everybody else would just be nice and leave us alone. But the World just ain’t that nice. We were attacked in WWII. You can’t get around that. WTC 1 happened. So did WTC 2, on 9/11/01. So did a lot of other “incidents” that had nothing whatsoever to do with economics, and everything to do with ideology.

The Leftie bobble-headed idiot response to everything wrong in the world is to shout Big Oil! and Obscene Profits! to point an accusing finger at the un-definable They! who conspire to manipulate everything imaginable behind the scenes. But the price of gasoline is the same today in constant dollars as it was in the fifties. The price of a slice of apple pie in a restaurant, yesterday and today, contains more profit margin than a gallon of gas. So does the price of bottled water. Why aren’t you screaming about Big Water! being out to get us all?

I’m not sure where you’re going, or where you’re coming from with all this “negroid” business. For the record, the Civil War was fought to preserve the Union. The Union was in jeopardy over the sole issue of slavery. So, bottom line, the war was fought to end slavery and to preserve the Union, and it did that. It was a very simple, black and white, moral issue. What’s the problem?

Black people are human beings, and they remain human beings whether anyone likes it or not. Condi Rice is the President’s choice for Secretary of State. Get over it. When she speaks to foreign dignitaries, she speaks for all of us. If any of them don’t like her, then they have a problem, not her, and not us. She is who they need to deal with if they want to deal with us. I know how Lefties really hate blacks while pretending to love them, but you don’t even pretend to give a hoot or care for them at all; it looks like you have a personal moral issue to deal with here. They are and they will remain your fellow Americans, whether you like it or not.

Why should you, who claim to despise quotas and political correctness, seek solely a pure white male without blemish to be Secretary of State, to the exclusion of all others? Who is he supposed to represent? Only the unblemished white males, or all of us? Maybe we could give him different masks to wear to different countries, to try to please everyone all the time?

Stephen, some of your notions are just plain whacko. The Iraqi people voted, multiple times. Have you forgotten all the purple fingers? Are you ready to just let that all go, and leave them all to the mercy of a powerful ideology of terror, war and world conquest?

Regards,

Vic

Date: Fri May 11 2007 3:20 PM EST
From: Stepen George Dees Sr.
Email: stephen_dees@yahoo.com
Subject: Limited War Doctrine
Comment:

Right again Vic, evidently I don't stand alone on the oil issue, below this are some hyper-links from some other groups including a state Attorney General, who not only are consumed with the same "paranoia", as you allege, they are willing and are going to go into court, and make their point.

The links will allow you to understand that the conduct is neither national nor restricted to domestic borders. Are you going to attribute the legal case activity as being conjured? I see, you are not to be confused by the facts correct?

All these bad people, "leftists", as you conveniently pigeonhole them, are acting in reference to the very "delusions" which you obviously think I am suffering from. You obviously believe that both the Sherman and the Clayton Acts are both needless and unconstitutional. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Incidentally the present administration in California is some of your beloved fellow Republicans.

Oligopoly Watch BP already this year bought a 50% stake in the 3rd-largest Russian oil company, TNK. And Lukoil, the pre-merger #1 Russian firm is still available for ... www.oligopolywatch.com/2003/04/22.html - 21k - Cached - Similar pages

http://ag.ca.gov/antitrust/highlights.php Antitrust - Office of the Attorney General - California Dept. of ... The Office of the Attorney General announced in April 2006 that he will subpoena documents from all 21 California oil refineries, and obtain information from the chief executive officers and other relevant officials of oil companies operating in California, to determine whether the firms are profiteering and gouging consumers. Companies targeted by the subpoenas will include ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Valero, Shell, BP and others. The Attorney General also announced he has convened a multi-disciplinary task force from his antitrust, corporate responsibility, consumer law and criminal units to explore all potential law enforcement options in his ongoing investigation of California’s oil and gasoline market. In California – where seven oil companies control more than 95 percent of the state’s refining capacity – refiners’ margins historically have far outstripped the national average. So far in 2006, according to the California Energy Commission, the difference between the price oil companies pay for crude and the price they charge at the pump has spiraled upward by 130 percent. Meanwhile, the price for crude has risen only 14 percent.

www.citizen.org/documents/oilmergers.pdf - Similar pages From Public Citizen a watch dog group you may be already aware of the effects of the recently accomplished mergers are: "The largest five oil companies operating in the United States (ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, BP and RoyalDutch Shell,) now control: 14.2% of global production 48% of domestic oil production 50.3% of domestic refinery capacity 61.8% of retail gasoline market 21.3% of Natural Gas production" II

I notice in your response to the charge that the U.S. does not do things at bayonet point that you did not concede the fact that they do. Should I send you eyeglasses, news clips, someone to read to you personally and slowly, or what Vic? You made the allegation, I gave you over 175 years of history to support my original point and you ignored and failed to retract and state your error!

If you are going to oppose anyone posting their views on your blog why not simply put a disclosure in at the beginning. Something like, this is my blog and only my point of view will be allowed.

It is o.k. Vic. It is your blog. You can do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

III

As to the various historical precedents provided to you by myself, I suggest perhaps some good outside reading and a little academic pursuit of facts might assist you. Start with something completely verifiable in terms of both the lies, the intent and the effect. Damn I gave you a bunch of them.

Your answers, specifically the one concerning the usage of the atomic bomb, being a secret until used, are simply untrue. If no one knew about it at all, how did it get used?

Your position of total and complete secrecy is denied by the existence and the formation of the development team at Los Alamos, and discussions, then secret and now declassified, which took place within the military community at the time the option on usage was first presented. Yes, there was a very strong opposition mounted to oppose its usage. I suggest you do some serious reading in that matter as well.

As the easiest one to verify (all you have to do is contact your Air Force "expert" and ask him), I suggest the Tonkin Gulf incident, your response was wholly and completely irrelevant. It was investigated by the military and others, and it served as the basis for the beginning of the military deployment. You won't have to take my word for it Vic, you just should get a little better acquainted with reality and the time line.

What do you need? I begin to suspect I should send you a red tipped cane.

You might better place your efforts to a more intelligent dispute area. Facts are Facts, you hate to admit it.

Yes, lies to start a fight, and lies to prolong the conflict, to make profit Vic.

Not nameless profiteers as you so euphemistically allude, in your mindless babbling response, each and every one of the board members are indeed identifiable, the lists of stockholders can be obtained. So are their Political Action Committees and so are the various congressmen who are recipient from the proceeds.

Those same and additional congressmen are identifiable by the voting records, and by their public statements, Vic. My point you say you have no names and it is because you must be either illiterate of simple obtuse and belligerent.

Oh they all talk the talk Vic, just like you. But when it comes to compensating for contribution they react in the typical protestant selfish self serving manner. What a crock of crap for a government.

And that goes for both sides Vic including your sanctimonious hypocritical republicans for whom,I assume, you have elected to carry the banner. Good doggie!!! Want a biscuit??? How about a nice big milk bone????

IV

Relative to my commentary concerning "Saint Con. Rice", I have the following to offer you. I stated bozo had the right to name his ambassador. I said anybody, including a negroid female.

My point is he nominated someone where the currently most important issues, which he manufactured, were in a region of the world where they use a ranking system. And like most of the rest of the world, they have come to consider Negroid as a sub standard contact.

I am referring to a society which still uses Nubian females both as slaves and as a form of inexpensive sexual release mechanism. Just like in say oh how about 5th Ward in Atlanta Vic?

She comes out at the bottom of the pile in that regard. Again read and comprehend my words.

In his nomination, and appointment, did he or did he not, intentionally nominate someone, by race and by sex, that would be hard, if not impossible, for the other end of any conversation in that region to accept???

Yes, Vic it was a true Victory for Woman's lib and the Black Caucus and the rainbow coalition, all at once.

And you call me a "leftie"!

Incidentally, she got that job, at the expense of and in lieu of many better candidates, both republican and white who were better qualified for the job. Not me Vic. I had no damn desire for the job. Its like seeing a 4'3" wheelchair bond paraplegic get tapped to play basketball for the Nics, Vic. It does not affect me. I don't own the Nics, not into basketball so I hardly have to watch. But it does not mean I don't notice the anomaly in the selection.

A beautiful (See, Negroids can be republicans too!) political statement. See all nicey nice! EEO and Civil Rights and her PHD. My, My, My!

Now for a little matter of Reality 101 and consequences of action:

In relation to "Saint Con. Rice", I submit you have opened a line of examination in your response which must be fully and completely examined.

Who was the National Security Adviser at the time of the WTC situation? What was that person's constitutional responsibility in relation to that matter? Was the nation secure? I suggest, submitting, as evidence, two previously existing buildings and around 3000 body bags later, the answer is in the negative.

Pre WTC ACTION

Did a documentation trail exist which demonstrated "a clear and present danger" that had come into existence in a prior administration?

What, if any, procedures did the National Security Adviser implement upon the State Department, composed of virtually all Bush appointees at the effective levels, which safeguarded and secured the issuance of visas into this country, in response to the clear and present danger?

What recommendations were made concerning severely restricting further entry until and unless identities were verifiable?

Post WTC

Do you believe that a person who did nothing and allowed that to occur was then deserving of not only dismissal but also trial for criminal negligence?

Do you believe that Negroid