Any chance of thinking for ourselves?

[Khephra]

snip.....

Theodore Conant, a scientific generalist like Paul Davies, was a longstanding friend. He told me why his dad, James B.Conant, president of Harvard, had founded the committee (Ed: Committee on the Present Danger). Having played a significant role in the building of the A-bomb, the professor believed that the world had to be saved from it -- and that the US should have a standing army of up to 4million stationed in Europe, principally in Germany. This would, in Conant's view, block any Soviet expansionism while decreasing reliance on the very weapons he'd helped develop. These days the committee (whose distinguished membership includes Newt Gingrich, James Woolsey and Jean Kirkpatrick) has replaced the Cold War with "the test of our time", the so-called war on terror. In the event of a second term for Bush, they'll argue that the military efforts in Iraq should be redirected at Iran.

This would echo and amplify the advice Bush is getting from the neo-cons in the White House. And should Bush lose the election, the committee and the neo-cons will converge in attacking president Kerry. He'll become as much of a target as Osama bin Laden.

Which leads to the question for us during our election: would Howard sign up for another Middle Eastern war? Would Latham? Would Peter Costello? And shouldn't we be asking them, right now, of their intentions? Not that we could trust any answer from Howard who, remember, kept denying any commitment to a war in Iraq not long before the coalition of the willing invaded Iraq.

It's a question that US voters should also be asking Kerry. The would-be president wimped out when asked whether, in the light of everything we now know, he'd have invaded Iraq and said ... yes. This is a strange response given his change of heart on Vietnam. Still, it's unlikely that Kerry would be as susceptible to the wolfish Paul Wolfowitz or the Present Danger comrades.

more..........

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10687029%255E12272,00.html

[PATRICK]

1. Keep the untouchables busy

by supporting fratricide in the hard Conservative ranks for whom Reagan is a fantasy bubble and Christian Empire of permanent profit and war can occupy them like Dungeon and Dragons enthusiasts for many years to come- safely isolated in their ivory towers and out of true power.

There are ways to encourage the bloodbath just as there are boneheaded feelings to get along and work together with monsters.

Kerry's trap is being in media Purgatory trying to find the door. Once president he can make mistakes, but he will not be the Evil Emperor part II under the mesmerizing spell of RW snafu artists.

[WilliamPitt]

2. He didn't say...yes.

He said he would have voted to authorize force, because force was the only way to make weapons inspections in Iraq effective. Period.

Gratituitous distortion of statements clearly on the record do nothing to bolster the credibility of a writer.

[Khephra]

3. Sorry, I missed that. I was in a rush to leave when I posted it.

If I hadn't been rushed I would have caught it and I wouldn't have posted it.

[WilliamPitt]

4. Thanks

[bpilgrim]

5. still a bad answer considering what we now know

inspections weren't necessary since we NOW KNOW there were no WMDs.

thats what everyone is hearing and objecting too also the fact that we NOW KNOW bush was ugoing in inspections or no inspections.

bush has to be STOPPED and giving him the power to INVADE knowing what we NOW KNOW is not only foolish but DANGEROUS.

peace

[passive barbarian]

6. if only

Being neither a dem/lib nor a rep/con I am appalled
at how each side "see's" the other. It's the same hate
filled mischaracterizations coming both ways ad nauseam.

Please.

cheers, the passive action barbarian