On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:18:26 GMT, Joe Parsons wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:48:01 -0500, JohnH wrote:

snip

If not, then I
don't know to what you are referring. If so, then I will admit to having stated
as 'fact' an untested assumption. I should have said, "...to seemingly maintain
the party line."

Much more sustainable--even *with* the split infinitive[1].

Now I understand what Sister Isabella meant when she slapped me upside the head
and told me to quit splitting the damn (my emphasis) infinitives!

But you'd be opening a whole new can of worms: you'd have to define whatever it
is you're calling the "party line," then defend your definition as being
accurate, then defend your contention (even with some wiggle room) that his
statements were, in fact, motivated by some doctrinaire concerns, rather than
something other.

Not true. The "party line" phrase was used. No can of worms was opened. The
phrase was easily understood by those who read it. Both Harry and Gould have,
for some reason, been following this particular exchange. Neither of them
questioned the definition.

snip

I think your 'sense' is leading you astray. I believe I've made no claims to the
validity of the intelligence. I have stated that I believed that *Bush* believed
the intelligence, and therefore had not lied. At this point in the game, I
certainly would question the validity of the intelligence as do many others.

I can accept that.

snip

Thankfully, tendencies don't always lead to the expected fruition. I think you
would be hard pressed to find a case where I have called someone unpatriotic for
*anything* he/she may have said here. I have accused one person of telling a
lie, with reason.

Then I should clarify: I don't mean to imply that *you* have done that--and I
can see where you might think that's what I was saying. I apologize. Others
here *have*, however, and it's not fair to tar everyone with the same brush.

True.

Your bud, Harry, has made several posts without comment on the capture of
Saddam. As yet, jps has had no comment. Wonder why? Could it be because they
can't come up wit a way to put a negative spin on it?
snip

That is an example of an inference based on assumptions. It was not denied.

John, I *know* you can find more effective ammunition than that.

For what do I need ammunition? I'm not debating anything.

Of course you are. Not formally--but you have most assuredly been involved in
debating.

When I wrote, "I'm not debating anything," I used the present tense. Perhaps I
should have said, "I'm not debating anything with you at this time, therefore I
see no need for more ammunition." [You'll undoubtedly note that I replaced the
period with a question mark. I just couldn't leave that hanging in the wind!]

ould you have me list
all the posts in which Gould has supported Harry and vice-versa?

You know, I went back quickly to see if I could find cases where that had
happened. I didn't find any instances of Gould supporting Krause. He may be
aligned on certain issues, sure--but that, in my opinion, is a far cry from
"supporting" him, let alone being his "bud."

I think I can now understand the confusion about my use of the term 'bud'. Gould
tends to explain, somewhat, his position in his posts. I consider his position
somewhat 'left' or 'liberal'. Harry seems to be on the same side of the
political 'fence'. Harry often interjects inane, attacking comments into threads
in which gould is participating, with the assumed intention of sprouting another
flame war. Harry, in this manner, fits the definition of a 'bud', in my opinion.
He is often a small swelling or projection on the thread (plant) hoping to bloom
into something of meaning (to someone).

I might have said that Harry seems to fit "...any undeveloped or immature person
or thing," another definition of 'bud'. But I didn't.

I'm afraid my
ISP would balk at the size of the post! (In fact, I think they're starting to
look at *this* thread pretty carefully.)

Then you really need to think about getting a different ISP.

You didn't recognized the facetiousness of my ISP comment?


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:22:26 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

Joe Parsons wrote:



Much more sustainable--even *with* the split infinitive[1].

But you'd be opening a whole new can of worms:


Opening a new can of worms might help you, too, Joe, since the ones in
the can you've already opened have stopped wiggling.



Did GWB knowingly misrepresent the intelligence available at the time of the
decision to commit our country to war? There's no way to know for certain-

Sure there is. Bush simply has to tell the truth.



And I greatly appreciate your pointing out the error of my ways, minor though
they be (at least in this case).

Did your nose hit the pavement on this particular bow, scrape and
shuffle? Sheesh.





ould you have me list
all the posts in which Gould has supported Harry and vice-versa?

You know, I went back quickly to see if I could find cases where that had
happened. I didn't find any instances of Gould supporting Krause. He may be
aligned on certain issues, sure--but that, in my opinion, is a far cry from
"supporting" him, let alone being his "bud."


You need a real hobby, fella. I suggest collecting toenail jam. In fact,
you might consider going to toenail jam meets, where you might compare
your collection of toenail jam with the collections of the toenail jam
of others. I'm sure you'll find the support, alignment and "buds" you so
desperately seek.



I'm afraid my
ISP would balk at the size of the post! (In fact, I think they're starting to
look at *this* thread pretty carefully.)

Then you really need to think about getting a different ISP.

Joe Parsons

Wait, wait, the paint on the ceiling *is* starting to dry...and beige
was the right color.

Joe - If you have read the above, maybe you'll understand better the post I made
in response to yours five minutes ago.

We are talking a 'bud' here. Eventually it may bloom. God help us.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:25:47 GMT, Joe Parsons wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 23:04:11 -0500, JohnH wrote:

[snip]

Again, please check your punctuation, grammar, and spelling. I cannot understand
what it is you are trying to say.

Had he written something that was pure gibberish, rather than something that
might best (and charitably) described as "sloppy," your complaint might be
reasonable. But as it was, it puts you in a doubly unfavorable light: first, as
a person who'll resort to flames of grammer, punctuation, spelling and syntax,
rather than addressing some argument; or secondly, that you are unable to
parse/decode some moderately convoluted text.

Neither one advances your argument--just as the ongoing mean-spirited tirades
from *both* poles here serve only to further poison the atmosphere in a
once-useful and enjoyable newsgroup.

Joe Parsons

The possible spelling error(s) in this article are intentional. They serve as an
innoculation against speling flaims.

See, assumptions can lead one astray. You give me far too much credit. I, in
fact, could not, other than in a most general sense, understand what he was
trying to say. Therefore, I fully deserve to be placed in your 'unfavorable
light'. I think you and I simply disagree on what is 'pure gibberish'.

Could we agree that his rather convoluted writing in that post would require
more effort to decipher than you were willing to expend at that time? Because
it *is* possible to decipher it.

No. And, furthermore, I absolutely refuse to search for the post which prompted
my response. My response addressed his name-calling in conjunction with his
egregious (most charitably) use of language.

Addressing an argument requires an understanding of the argument. The language
used in the argument should, therefore, have some precision. We all make
mistakes. But, we don't all call others 'stupid' as we are doing so.

Ah! And therein lies the problem with personal insults and invective! It's not
too far removed from the person who whines and complains incessantly about
off-topic posting--while contributing to the same off-topicness he decries.

I am having trouble connecting the two previous paragraphs. If you mean the
hurling of invectives while engaging in a gross use of the English language is
problematic, then I wholeheartedly agree.


I believe there's a place for ****ing people off as an effective argumentation
technique--but I have yet to see that place here. I just see people hurling
meaningless insults, which draw more of the same.

Yes, some of the Democratic debates highlight the '****ing off' technique with
regards to Mr Dean. If you are referring to my post regarding grammar, etc. as a
'meaningless insult', then we disagree. The 'meaning' behind the post reflected
the 'stones and glass house' idiom. I would characterize that post as a
'meaningful rebuke', not as a 'meaningless insult'.

Joe Parsons

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

How is the snow in Steven's Pass? I wish I could somehow 'teletransport'
myself
to your neck of the woods when I wanted. Then I would have a boat on the
sound.

I've heard wild rumors to mountains to the east. Can't seem to get there by
boat, so I couldn't really say one way or the other.

(Actually, the ski season got started in late November.Earlier this year than
at some times in the past. Those of us who struggle to walk gracefully have no
business sliding down a slippery mountain on a couple of skinny planks- so I
don't ski.)

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:22:26 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

[snip]

Opening a new can of worms might help you, too, Joe, since the ones in
the can you've already opened have stopped wiggling.

[snip]

And I greatly appreciate your pointing out the error of my ways, minor though
they be (at least in this case).

Did your nose hit the pavement on this particular bow, scrape and
shuffle? Sheesh.





ould you have me list
all the posts in which Gould has supported Harry and vice-versa?

You know, I went back quickly to see if I could find cases where that had
happened. I didn't find any instances of Gould supporting Krause. He may be
aligned on certain issues, sure--but that, in my opinion, is a far cry from
"supporting" him, let alone being his "bud."


You need a real hobby, fella. I suggest collecting toenail jam. In fact,
you might consider going to toenail jam meets, where you might compare
your collection of toenail jam with the collections of the toenail jam
of others. I'm sure you'll find the support, alignment and "buds" you so
desperately seek.

Thank you *so* much for elevating the tone of discourse.

By the way, Harry: what *are* my political inclinations? And how do you know?

Joe Parsons




I'm afraid my
ISP would balk at the size of the post! (In fact, I think they're starting to
look at *this* thread pretty carefully.)

Then you really need to think about getting a different ISP.

Joe Parsons

Wait, wait, the paint on the ceiling *is* starting to dry...and beige
was the right color.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:37:10 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:18:26 GMT, Joe Parsons wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:48:01 -0500, JohnH wrote:

snip

If not, then I
don't know to what you are referring. If so, then I will admit to having stated
as 'fact' an untested assumption. I should have said, "...to seemingly maintain
the party line."

Much more sustainable--even *with* the split infinitive[1].

Now I understand what Sister Isabella meant when she slapped me upside the head
and told me to quit splitting the damn (my emphasis) infinitives!

But you'd be opening a whole new can of worms: you'd have to define whatever it
is you're calling the "party line," then defend your definition as being
accurate, then defend your contention (even with some wiggle room) that his
statements were, in fact, motivated by some doctrinaire concerns, rather than
something other.

Not true. The "party line" phrase was used.

Yes, it was--but by whom? (By the way: the use of passive voice is often a good
way to make a truthful statement without having to attribute it. But don't tell
anyone! Shhhhhh.)

No can of worms was opened. The
phrase was easily understood by those who read it. Both Harry and Gould have,
for some reason, been following this particular exchange. Neither of them
questioned the definition.

Someone's failure to rebut a particular comment does not conclusively prove its
merit.

snip

I think your 'sense' is leading you astray. I believe I've made no claims to the
validity of the intelligence. I have stated that I believed that *Bush* believed
the intelligence, and therefore had not lied. At this point in the game, I
certainly would question the validity of the intelligence as do many others.

I can accept that.

snip

Thankfully, tendencies don't always lead to the expected fruition. I think you
would be hard pressed to find a case where I have called someone unpatriotic for
*anything* he/she may have said here. I have accused one person of telling a
lie, with reason.

Then I should clarify: I don't mean to imply that *you* have done that--and I
can see where you might think that's what I was saying. I apologize. Others
here *have*, however, and it's not fair to tar everyone with the same brush.

True.

Your bud, Harry, has made several posts without comment on the capture of
Saddam. As yet, jps has had no comment. Wonder why? Could it be because they
can't come up wit a way to put a negative spin on it?
snip

That is an example of an inference based on assumptions. It was not denied.

John, I *know* you can find more effective ammunition than that.

For what do I need ammunition? I'm not debating anything.

Of course you are. Not formally--but you have most assuredly been involved in
debating.

When I wrote, "I'm not debating anything," I used the present tense. Perhaps I
should have said, "I'm not debating anything with you at this time, therefore I
see no need for more ammunition." [You'll undoubtedly note that I replaced the
period with a question mark. I just couldn't leave that hanging in the wind!]

I am not going to let you off the hook on that one, John. You made your
comments about spelling/grammar in response to some of basskisser's posts. I
simply observed to you that such an approach is beneath you. Technically, it
belongs to a class of logical fallacy called "fallacies of distraction."

ould you have me list
all the posts in which Gould has supported Harry and vice-versa?

You know, I went back quickly to see if I could find cases where that had
happened. I didn't find any instances of Gould supporting Krause. He may be
aligned on certain issues, sure--but that, in my opinion, is a far cry from
"supporting" him, let alone being his "bud."

I think I can now understand the confusion about my use of the term 'bud'. Gould
tends to explain, somewhat, his position in his posts. I consider his position
somewhat 'left' or 'liberal'.

Actually, these "discussions" really have little to do with the political
continuum. If I were to enthusiastically support[1] the current
administration's policies in the Middle East, would that make me a conservative?
How about if I also support reproductive rights (traditionally a "liberal"
position)? School vouchers? Gay marriage?

My position on any of these issues? I'm not sayin'. But slapping a label (e.g.
"liberal" or "conservative") on someone because of his position on a small
sampling of issues is not a good idea. I suspect that Mr. Krause believes me to
be aligned with you politically, since I don't insult you. So, let's say I
embrace every liberal cause that comes to the fore (do I? I'm not sayin');
Krause has already told us and demonstrated that he embraces an essentially
liberal political position. Would that make *me* "Harry's bud," as well?

Harry seems to be on the same side of the
political 'fence'. Harry often interjects inane, attacking comments into threads

I realize that you've put two unrelated thoughts into this paragraph--but do you
believe that a person's boorish behavior is indicative of his political
affiliation? If you do, then you'd have to include a great many other people
here into a "liberal" camp--and they may object to that classification!

in which gould is participating, with the assumed intention of sprouting another
flame war. Harry, in this manner, fits the definition of a 'bud', in my opinion.

Well, if that's your definition of "bud," I suppose that's okay--but if you mean
"bud" also to mean "friend," you're on shaky ground, I think.

He is often a small swelling or projection on the thread (plant) hoping to bloom
into something of meaning (to someone).

Actually, you've just described an edema--which could be apt, as well.

I might have said that Harry seems to fit "...any undeveloped or immature person
or thing," another definition of 'bud'. But I didn't.

("The jury will disregard...")

I'm afraid my
ISP would balk at the size of the post! (In fact, I think they're starting to
look at *this* thread pretty carefully.)

Then you really need to think about getting a different ISP.

You didn't recognized the facetiousness of my ISP comment?

*whoosh*

Joe Parsons



John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

[1] This is the Sister Isabella Memorial Split Infinitive

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:37:11 -0500, JohnH wrote:

[snip]

I believe there's a place for ****ing people off as an effective argumentation
technique--but I have yet to see that place here. I just see people hurling
meaningless insults, which draw more of the same.

Yes, some of the Democratic debates highlight the '****ing off' technique with
regards to Mr Dean. If you are referring to my post regarding grammar, etc. as a
'meaningless insult', then we disagree. The 'meaning' behind the post reflected
the 'stones and glass house' idiom. I would characterize that post as a
'meaningful rebuke', not as a 'meaningless insult'.

Okay. Maybe I just have gone about it differently.

Joe Parsons

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:27:49 GMT, Joe Parsons wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:37:11 -0500, JohnH wrote:

[snip]

I believe there's a place for ****ing people off as an effective argumentation
technique--but I have yet to see that place here. I just see people hurling
meaningless insults, which draw more of the same.

Yes, some of the Democratic debates highlight the '****ing off' technique with
regards to Mr Dean. If you are referring to my post regarding grammar, etc. as a
'meaningless insult', then we disagree. The 'meaning' behind the post reflected
the 'stones and glass house' idiom. I would characterize that post as a
'meaningful rebuke', not as a 'meaningless insult'.

Okay. Maybe I just have gone about it differently.

Oops. That should have been, "Maybe I just would have gone about it
differently."



Joe Parsons

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:25:41 GMT, Joe Parsons wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:37:10 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:18:26 GMT, Joe Parsons wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:48:01 -0500, JohnH wrote:
snip

But you'd be opening a whole new can of worms: you'd have to define whatever it
is you're calling the "party line," then defend your definition as being
accurate, then defend your contention (even with some wiggle room) that his
statements were, in fact, motivated by some doctrinaire concerns, rather than
something other.

Not true. The "party line" phrase was used.

Yes, it was--but by whom? (By the way: the use of passive voice is often a good
way to make a truthful statement without having to attribute it. But don't tell
anyone! Shhhhhh.)

I used it. The passive voice wasn't intended to hide attribution. The user of
the phrase, me, was obvious from the preceding paragraph. Perhaps you began
responding before reading the entire paragraph.

No can of worms was opened. The
phrase was easily understood by those who read it. Both Harry and Gould have,
for some reason, been following this particular exchange. Neither of them
questioned the definition.

Someone's failure to rebut a particular comment does not conclusively prove its
merit.

The question had to do with the definition of 'party line', not the rebuttal of
some argument.

snip
snip
snip
snip

Your bud, Harry, has made several posts without comment on the capture of
Saddam. As yet, jps has had no comment. Wonder why? Could it be because they
can't come up wit a way to put a negative spin on it?
snip

That is an example of an inference based on assumptions. It was not denied.

John, I *know* you can find more effective ammunition than that.

For what do I need ammunition? I'm not debating anything.

Of course you are. Not formally--but you have most assuredly been involved in
debating.

When I wrote, "I'm not debating anything," I used the present tense. Perhaps I
should have said, "I'm not debating anything with you at this time, therefore I
see no need for more ammunition." [You'll undoubtedly note that I replaced the
period with a question mark. I just couldn't leave that hanging in the wind!]

I am not going to let you off the hook on that one, John. You made your
comments about spelling/grammar in response to some of basskisser's posts. I
simply observed to you that such an approach is beneath you. Technically, it
belongs to a class of logical fallacy called "fallacies of distraction."

What hook am I on? To what does 'that one' refer? Are you discussing my comment
not debating anything? My comment had to do with this discussion with you. I
did not consider this discussion a debate, but more an exercise in semantics. I
made comments regarding basskisser's post, but I was not debating him. I made no
reference to the gist of his comments (which I couldn't understand anyway), but
to his name-calling while typing gibberish.

snip

I think I can now understand the confusion about my use of the term 'bud'. Gould
tends to explain, somewhat, his position in his posts. I consider his position
somewhat 'left' or 'liberal'.

Actually, these "discussions" really have little to do with the political
continuum. If I were to enthusiastically support[1] the current
administration's policies in the Middle East, would that make me a conservative?
How about if I also support reproductive rights (traditionally a "liberal"
position)? School vouchers? Gay marriage?

My position on any of these issues? I'm not sayin'. But slapping a label (e.g.
"liberal" or "conservative") on someone because of his position on a small
sampling of issues is not a good idea. I suspect that Mr. Krause believes me to
be aligned with you politically, since I don't insult you. So, let's say I
embrace every liberal cause that comes to the fore (do I? I'm not sayin');
Krause has already told us and demonstrated that he embraces an essentially
liberal political position. Would that make *me* "Harry's bud," as well?

You are preaching to the choir. I think you have, again, written a response
before reading the entire paragraph. As written, the paragraph provides a
background and rationale for my use of the term 'bud'. If each sentence is taken
separately, then yes, there are unrelated thoughts.

Harry seems to be on the same side of the
political 'fence'. Harry often interjects inane, attacking comments into threads

I realize that you've put two unrelated thoughts into this paragraph--but do you
believe that a person's boorish behavior is indicative of his political
affiliation? If you do, then you'd have to include a great many other people
here into a "liberal" camp--and they may object to that classification!

in which gould is participating, with the assumed intention of sprouting another
flame war. Harry, in this manner, fits the definition of a 'bud', in my opinion.

Well, if that's your definition of "bud," I suppose that's okay--but if you mean
"bud" also to mean "friend," you're on shaky ground, I think.

You made the assumption that I meant "bud" to mean "friend." As far as I know,
I'm the only person in the group who has even met Harry.

He is often a small swelling or projection on the thread (plant) hoping to bloom
into something of meaning (to someone).

Actually, you've just described an edema--which could be apt, as well.

Except that an edema is an abnormality. Calling someone an edema could be
considered name-calling. There is a negative connotation there.

I might have said that Harry seems to fit "...any undeveloped or immature person
or thing," another definition of 'bud'. But I didn't.

("The jury will disregard...")

I'm afraid my
ISP would balk at the size of the post! (In fact, I think they're starting to
look at *this* thread pretty carefully.)

Then you really need to think about getting a different ISP.

You didn't recognized the facetiousness of my ISP comment?

*whoosh*

Over whose head did the *whoosh* go? Yours or mine?

Joe Parsons



John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 07:55:37 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:48:01 -0500, JohnH wrote:


I think your 'sense' is leading you astray. I believe I've made no claims
to the validity of the intelligence. I have stated that I believed that
*Bush* believed the intelligence, and therefore had not lied. At this
point in the game, I certainly would question the validity of the
intelligence as do many others.

It may have been the intelligence process was flawed. I found these
articles interesting.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten...512fa_fact#top

I found the following interesting:

Capturing the 'Ace of Spades'
By Cal Thomas
Published December 17, 2003


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The ultimate weapon of mass destruction has been captured in Iraq. Saddam
Hussein was found hiding in a "hole in the ground," like the rat he is, in a
farmhouse on the outskirts of Tikrit. His end came not as a self-styled heroic
leader of millions, but as a wimp who resembled a bedraggled homeless man,
unable to muster the nerve to take his own life with the gun on his hip.
The arrest of Saddam is a triumph for the long-suffering Iraqi people and,
depending on the reaction of Iraqis and whether insurgents can be defeated, it
could be the ultimate triumph of the Bush administration's policy of
pre-emption.
The critics -- political and journalistic -- who said the administration's
efforts were failing have been proved wrong. These would include not only the
United Nations, but also France and Germany and much of the liberal media
establishment, especially the virulently anti-Bush and anti-American British
press.
Critics of American intelligence were also wrong. This was classic police
work as U.S. forces slowly and systematically interviewed people who provided
pieces of information that led to other interviews and ever-closer steps toward
their objective.
The immediate debate will be over how to bring Saddam to justice. For
political reasons, he will probably be tried in an Iraqi court and not a
Nuremberg-type tribunal. Some will call for a trial before a "world court."
Given the weakness of the Arab nations and much of the rest of the world and the
reluctance of most European countries to confront Saddam when he held power, it
is unlikely they could muster the fortitude necessary to give Saddam his just
deserts.
France and Germany must be nervous about what a trial could reveal about
their complicity in enabling Saddam for three decades. American companies and
politicians might also be concerned because their policies and decisions could
also be made public. Good. Embarrassment should not be a reason for any
cover-up. Like those in the West who enabled the Soviet Union for seven decades
and provided gas and armaments for Adolf Hitler's Germany, whoever helped Saddam
in his murderous ways should be exposed to the light of public accountability.
As important as the capture of Saddam Hussein is, the war against terror is
far from over. President Bush said as much in a statement from the White House
on Sunday. He again declared this is a different kind of war, and he reminded
Americans it will continue to be conducted "capture by capture, cell by cell and
victory by victory." The president wisely warned the public Saddam's arrest
"does not mean the end of violence in Iraq." Evil dies hard.
The hatred of all things Western, Jewish, Christian and modern is deep
throughout much of the Middle East. Children are taught to hate before they
learn to walk. The Arab and Palestinian media are packed with anger and
vituperation against the United States and the West. The danger, though, is to
think evil is incarnated in a single leader. Saddam Hussein is just one of many
tyrants who are threats to the freedom and existence of all humankind. Just as
other mass murderers rose to power after Hitler's demise, so, too, will new
tyrants step forward to inherit Saddam's bloody mantle.
Politically, Saddam's capture creates a predicament for the Democratic
presidential candidates. Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, said
Howard Dean "has gotten smaller" and is "the big loser." Mr. Dean has been
sharply, even personally, critical of the president for his Iraq policy and the
"failure" to find Saddam. Only Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut Democrat, can
claim a measure of support for the administration's Iraq policy, but it is
doubtful he will receive a political boost.
The man who has the most to worry about now -- aside from Saddam Hussein,
who it is hoped will be executed after he is confronted by relatives of those he
tortured, raped and murdered -- is Osama bin Laden. The steps he hears may not
be millions marching to his drumbeat, but the boots of American soldiers headed
toward whatever hole he has dug for himself.

Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated columnist.


The value of persistence
By Tony Blankley
Published December 17, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, what does the capture of Saddam Hussein mean for Iraq, America, Howard
Dean and the price of tea in China? The specialists came out of their spider
holes in Washington and elsewhere to start weaving their intricate webs of
analysis. For allegedly thoughtful people, it is wondrous how little thought
they needed to precede commentary. By about 9 a.m. Sunday, every network had
panels of these specialists explaining this remarkable event so that even we
simple-minded non area specialists could know for certain what the future would
hold.
There were some differences of opinion. But, by and large, those
specialists who one suspects were against the war in the first place saw dark
implications for America and President Bush. For them, the man who 12 hours
before was our greatest danger, was, by, say noon Sunday, a meaningless figure
who might not know anything much about Iraq. For these specialists, the world
had already passed Saddam by -- and in fact, the resistance was only likely to
increase. Pro-war specialists were more hopeful.
Obviously, it is too soon for empirical, scientific measurement of the
event's impact. Even the early polls mean little. The polls taken of Americans
during the day on Sunday couldn't help but capture a more positive public view
of Mr. Bush. Whether that uptick (or, arguably, surge) will weather the
following weeks and months of typically rough press coverage, who can know.
Likewise, whether Saddam cooperates and gives us vital information or not is --
at this early point -- still unknown even to Saddam himself. After all, it is in
the nature of professional interrogation to elicit useful information from
unwilling subjects. We can't know the future. But we can assess the event
itself, for its inherent nature.
In that regard, Saddam's arrest is a singular moment of perceived justice.
Except for the most devoted Saddam loyalists amongst his Iraqi fellow tribesmen
and Euro-American left-wing Bushophobes, the fact that this awful mass killer
will face the consequences of his actions in a court of law is a deeply
heartening assurance that the world is not completely unjust. We should not
underestimate the significance of this fact. In a world filled with daily
evidence that wickedness and brutality usually rewards people far more than
modesty and charity, the idea of justice accomplished can be very powerful. We
are, after all, homo sapiens -- thinking men. Ideas matter. The Soviet Union,
with all its nuclear weapons, tanks and millions of soldiers, collapsed when the
idea took hold of them that their system couldn't compete.
Not since the Nazi leadership was shipped off to Nuremberg has so major a
world villain been brought to justice. This fact makes the Iraq war a far better
thing than it was. Whether or not it turns out a geo-strategic success, the
Iraqi war has accomplished something very good -- it has delivered a deeply
deserved and yearned for justice. Howard Dean's line -- that it was the wrong
war at the wrong time -- has lost its thundering righteousness. Anyone with a
sense of justice and decency would be embarrassed to continue reciting that line
after Sunday morning. On Monday, Mr. Dean continued to thunder away. But even if
one agrees with his technical analysis (such as it may be), the moral quotient
has been subtracted from his message -- and his persona. Either he doesn't fully
believe what he continues to say, or, if he does, we must think less of him for
it.
The other useful idea that Saddam's arrest has presented the world is that
America cannot be stopped. By our sheer magnitude and organized persistence, we
will eventually find all enemies and accomplish all objectives. The Romans
sometimes were opposed by better generals and equally courageous warriors. The
odd legion might even be massacred. But they maintained a Roman Peace for half a
millennium by the perceived certainty of their ultimate success. Finding one rat
in a hole in the ground in the middle of a vast land cannot help but be a vastly
dispiriting fact to many of our current enemies.
Thus Saddam's arrest discloses to the world that America is both an
instrument for exemplary human justice and a remorseless, inevitably successful
enemy if we are opposed. That's not a bad day's work for the 4th Armored
Infantry Division.



Quagmire on their faces
By Thomas Sowell
Published December 17, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The capture of Saddam Hussein is good news to virtually everyone, except
those who have been looking for a quagmire in Iraq from Day One. Back when the
war was just getting under way last spring, a dust storm that temporarily
stopped the American troops advancing toward Baghdad was loudly proclaimed as a
quagmire by some media deep thinkers.
With all the complaints about what has not yet been done in Iraq, we need to
step back and think about the fact that less than a year has elapsed since the
war began. This should be in the Guinness Book of World Records as the shortest
quagmire in history.
Nothing is easier than to sit on the sidelines and demand there be a "plan"
showing what will be done when and how -- as if wars can be run on a timetable,
like a railroad. Even after the capture of Saddam Hussein, there is still a war
going on in Iraq -- a terrorist war fought by both outsiders and members of the
murderous old regime who think they can drive us out by making the country too
hot for us.
Like a baseball game, wars are not over until they are over. Wars don't run
on a clock like football. No previous generation was so hopelessly unrealistic
that this had to be explained to them.
The capture of Saddam Hussein should signal to both the terrorists and the
Iraqi people alike that the old regime is not coming back. Maybe that will save
some American lives.
What should be done with Saddam Hussein? For reasons unknown, the American
occupation authorities have suspended the death penalty in Iraq. But it would be
an abomination and a mockery if this man were allowed to live, after all his
mass killings of innocent civilians, including women and children.
It can only be hoped the trial and punishment of Saddam Hussein will be left
in the hands of the new Iraqi authorities, and that they have not bought into
the weak-kneed squeamishness that has saved so many murderers in the United
States and still more so in Europe.
The last thing we need is an international tribunal to try Saddam Hussein.
Do we really want the Libyans or the Cubans playing international politics with
this? Do we want some French judge to sentence Saddam to so many hours of
community service?
For that matter, do we even want American laws applied in a country with
such wholly different traditions? Certainly we do not need some lawyer like
Johnnie Cochran to obfuscate the issues or -- heaven help us -- a 5-4 decision
by our Supreme Court, after years of innumerable appeals.
Since stoning people to death is a tradition in parts of the Middle East,
that might be the most appropriate way to execute Saddam Hussein.
If each relative of someone murdered by Saddam were allowed to throw a
stone, the line might stretch back for miles. Television pictures of that line,
broadcast throughout the Arab world, could completely undermine any notion that
this is just an American vendetta against Muslims.
By the time the last person in line got a chance to throw his stone, Saddam
would probably already be dead. But it could still be a catharsis for those who
could feel they had done something to avenge their loved ones.
Presiding over a matter of this magnitude and applying traditional laws and
practices could help establish the credibility of the new Iraqi authorities. To
our inevitable critics in Europe and elsewhere, we could say: "This is not the
American way of doing things. But this is the Iraqis' country."
Moreover, some of our troops might start packing up while we were saying it.
We don't need to stay there any longer than is necessary for the internal
security of the country.
The worst thing we can do is bring in an international army of occupation.
The United Nations has already cut and run after the recent terrorist attacks in
Iraq. That is par for the course for the U.N.
There is something about international operations that attracts the
intelligentsia like a moth to a flame. But it has been known for centuries that
too many cooks spoil the broth -- and power in the hands of people who are
accountable to no one is still a formula for disaster.

Thomas Sowell is a nationally syndicated columnist.


Dean campaign calamity
By Martin L. Gross
Published December 17, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The capture of Saddam Hussein was magnificent news for America, for all in
the world who value freedom, and exceedingly bad news for the Democratic Party
and its leading exponent of defeat, former Gov. Howard Dean.
Ever since the anti-Americans took over the machinery of the Democratic
Party with George McGovern's disastrous campaign of 1972, the Democrats have
always been in the forefront of inaction and defeatism in world affairs,
culminating this year in the momentum of Howard Dean with his messages of fear
and antiwar propaganda. Our joint victories in Afghanistan and Iraq trouble
those like him who would rather see America lose, and thus advance anarchy and
tyranny in the world.
Mr. Dean has based his campaign on defeatism, on the theory America had best
leave the world to its most negative and destructive instincts, while President
Bush has brought the fight against Muslim extremism to its heightened need --
war against those who would enslave others, whether through secular murder or
religious intolerance.
Mr. Dean represents weakness and shallow opportunism in American politics,
yet he supposedly has the momentum that gives him a shot at the White House. His
goal is to embarrass America, to heighten the fears and tribulations of America
on the loss of every one of its sons and daughters fighting overseas --
culminating in our abandonment of Iraq.
Now that will surely not happen as America's goals are redefined and
strengthened by the capture of Saddam Hussein and by the exultation of the Iraqi
people at that happy event.
If the Democrats have even a vestige of political sanity left, they will
realize they are on the wrong side of history and will abandon Howard Dean as
swiftly as the Iraqis will now abandon Saddam and his evil memory. The Democrats
need to turn to someone with greater pro-American instincts, perhaps Joe
Lieberman or to the former minority leader, Richard Gephardt -- even though both
prostituted themselves by imitating Mr. Dean in seeming to gloat over American
difficulties in Iraq.
Of course, this does not mean that if the Democrats have the good sense to
dump Mr. Dean, who has been foremost in giving comfort to the enemy, that they
will take the White House. Good Americans, who value freedom and its spread
around the world, know action in face of danger is the best guarantee that one
day America will be surrounded by free people, and not by enemies, and they will
vote that conviction.
In this difficult world, we may be entering an era in which the Democrats --
through their own defeatism -- will gain an irreplaceable reputation for
cowardice and anti-Americanism. If they refuse to dump Howard Dean, they may be
signing their own fate as a retrogressive, unneeded force in American politics.

Martin L. Gross, the author of several New York Times best sellers on
American politics, and a frequent contributor to these pages, is a former
official of the Democratic Party.


Constitutional sleuthing
By Walter Williams
Published December 17, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to enlist the services of my fellow Americans with a bit of
detective work. Let's start off with hard evidence.
The Federalist Papers were a set of documents written by John Jay, Alexander
Hamilton and James Madison to persuade the 13 states to ratify the Constitution.
In one of those papers, Federalist Paper 45, James Madison wrote: "The powers
delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and
defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and
indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as
war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which last the power of
taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several
States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs,
concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal
order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
If we turned James Madison's statement on its head, namely that the powers
of the federal government are numerous and indefinite and those of the states
are few and defined, we would describe today's America.
Was Madison just plain ignorant about the powers delegated to Congress?
Before making our judgment, let's examine statements of other possibly
misinformed Americans.
In 1796, on the floor of the House of Representatives, William Giles of
Virginia condemned a relief measure for fire victims saying it was neither the
purpose nor the right of Congress to "attend to what generosity and humanity
require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require." In 1854,
President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill intended to help the mentally ill,
saying, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity,"
adding that to approve such spending "would be contrary to the letter and the
spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the
Union of these States is founded."
President Grover Cleveland was the king of the veto. He vetoed literally
hundreds of congressional spending bills during his two terms as president in
the late 1800s. His often given reason was, "I can find no warrant for such an
appropriation in the Constitution."
Today's White House proposes and Congress taxes and spends for anything they
can muster a majority vote on. My investigative query is: Were the Founders and
previous congressmen and presidents, who could not find constitutional authority
for today's bread and circuses, just plain stupid and ignorant? I don't believe
in long-run ignorance or stupidity, so I reread the Constitution, looking to see
whether an amendment had been passed authorizing Congress to spend money on
bailouts for airlines, prescription drugs, education, Social Security and
thousands of similar items in today's federal budget. I found no such amendment.
Being thorough, I reread the Constitution and found what Congress might
interpret as a blank check authorization -- the "general welfare clause." Then I
investigated further to see what the Framers meant by the "general welfare
clause." In 1798, Thomas Jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to
provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." The
Constitution's father, James Madison said: "With respect to the two words
'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of
powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would
be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of
proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
My detective work concludes with several competing explanations. The first
is that the great men who laid the framework for our nation were not only
constitutionally ignorant but callous and uncaring, as well. The second is it's
today's politicians who are constitutionally ignorant. Lastly, it's today's
Americans who have contempt for the Constitution, and any congressman or
president upholding the Constitution's letter and spirit would be tarred and
feathered.

Walter Williams is a nationally syndicated columnist.



John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD