Yeah, Danny's right

OK, need to move that picture of me down the screen. So, without much time to write, I'll just cut and paste further opinions from my conservative relatives. One's on Clark, one is my uncle continuing the Iraq debate; they're both pretty short. Adam Dorris is in town right now, and I've had two relevant discussions with him about these things. First, I think reading the opinions of people with whom we disagree proves useful in strengthening our own arguments — especially when it comes from someone other than a pundit or party hack. Second, regarding my uncle's argument below, it becomes obvious that his emotions are very strong on the subject, as they should be, and I think this muddles his logic. I think the left could benefit from realizing that it can't simply continue to make what it believes to be perfectly rational, case-closed arguments and expect to sway people so emotionally invested. Bah, enough politics. I've got a great book to go read. You should check it out: In the Castle of My Skin by George Lamming. The descriptions in there are so beautiful they're off the chain.

From my cousin, age 30, on Gen. Clark:

Matt-

As I watched the recent war in Iraq unfold and our troops became bogged
down in a sand storm, news analyst Wesley Clark huffed and puffed about
mistakes made and predicted mass casualties (thousands). My first
thought was that he would run for president. No kidding. At the time the
Clinton's didn't have a dog in the hunt, but they do now.

What about Clark's strengths? He is a stickler for domestic policy,
particularly complex (yet reactive) public policy affecting financial
markets and trade. Impressed as I am by his recent treatise on WTO
penalties on U.S. corporations and his widely known views on American
anti-trust laws, I'd wager a guess that he is a puppet candidate intended to
push his party to the middle in a failing bid for the presidency in
order to counter the recent leftist takeover of the Democratic party.

What I do know is that the circus that is the Democratic party in this
country needs to take a good, long look in the mirror and figure out
whether it is going to base its platform on the subversion of minorities
and the elderly, or on giving the American people the tools necessary
to become self-reliant, free people. I choose the latter, which is why
I vote Republican and support the current Administration.

Hope school is going well.

-Michael

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings;
the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
--Winston Churchill

And from Jimmie:

Matt,

Understand your feelings, do not share your point of view. Leaders in Iraq had many years to declare and follow the UN-sponsored inspection process and demonstrate to the world that they didn't have WMD. They elected to challenge the process and in so doing raise "suspicions" and "perceptions" of those who suffered a major attack at the hands of like-minded zealots (guys who support Saddem's efforts) as we were engaged in activities in Afghanistan. Kinda strange that he would not allow UN-sponsored inspectors unimpeded access to storage sites even as we demonstrated our resolve in Operation ENDURING FREEDOM in Afghanistan if he didn't have WMD. Our President was faced with a very difficult delimma -- take action now or wait for another "incident" to occur somewhere on our homeland. Think you agree, waiting for a second attack was not an attractive option. It's particularly unattractive if you imagine the next incident/attack could have easily targeted say ... downtown Austin.

Regardless of military operations underway in Afghanistan, President Bush had to decide if he should act now or wait another day (a really tough position). The view you illustrate below advances the notion we could and perhaps should have waited until another day (Gen Clark says the same thing). History will never know if that was the better choice because we didn't wait. If you look at the problem/solution set from another angle, you'll see it based on a scenario much larger than the question of WMD. I believe the decision to attack was more a product of how "best" to protect US Citizens in their homeland. I could draw many analogies for you but guess you'd see my point of view if you can imagine the scenario outside the media-based WMD story and put it in a more personal perspective.

For instance, what if a known criminal (convicted murderer) was waundering your neighborhood? No argument that it's good to protect yourself early on. But if you come in contact with that presumably dangerous person, when is it a "good time" to take action? When the stranger is in your neighbors front yard, your front yard, your driveway, or your living room? There comes a point when negotiations waste vauluable time and may well get you in a position where you can no longer exploit your advantage(s). If you don't plan to accept the consequence(s) of inaction (e.g. let the bad guy kill you or someone in your family) you'll take action early on. From my point of view, it's best to presume bad guy has a weapon and will use it to do you harm (Gen Clark and I don't share this view). I'd drop the guy well before he entered my house (yes based on reputation alone). In short, I'd do what I could to demonstrate to all bad guys that it's a bad idea to seek refuge in my home or do harm to members of my family -- ever.

Our President elected to use the political process of which you speak (certainly a more aggressive tool but, like international diplomacy, war is recognized as an extension of the political process) to confront Saddem's dogged defense of his WMD program. Regardless of how large or mature his WMD program is/was our President sought to exploit our advantage and show the world of "convicted murders" we will not allow them to harm good Americans. In the end we've shown friends and foe alike we will not tolerate aggressive action against our Citizenry -- that may seem egocentric to those incapable of taking the same action (i.e. let the murder in their house to "talk sense into him/her) but I feel it is a very effective way of protecting our population.

As for the President's domestic program. I am a fan of leaders who spur people to action. As I understand, that's the principle upon which President Bush has formulated his domestic agenda. I think a government that perpetuates a social order that presupposes its citizens are incapable of fending for themselves is a recipe for destruction. It creates a population (or at least a large portion of the population) that becomes dependent on those who will "control" the means for the lesser of us to attain their inalienable rights. Given the fact that no one is perfect ... at the moment I feel none of those challenging President Bush for our Nation's highest office are more suited for the job than he, but it's early in the process and I'll keep an open mind and listen to the discussion/debates. I also plan to vote using my head and not my heart ... kinda frame the entire process in the reality I have come to know, not the world as I wish it to be.

Good luck in your journey,

Jimmie