Hi Perry,

I'm glad at least a few americans are thinking. If I watch the news about the american elections I get sick. What I see is a hollywood show that has nothing to do with politics anymore. Only about giving a good show and raising an athmosphere, making the other guy look bad, lie and distract people from the real issues. It is already the second time that the republicans played dirty in a commercial by putting in hidden messages (RATS incident four years ago, and the artificially changin video records to increase the number of attendences).

And what to think about this (from the dutch news): Since the last elections, the electronic voting systems are going to be used more in the US. Currently only three manufacturers have been granted a licence to manufacture the voting machine. Appart from the fact that testing these machine went very bad (Crashing), the software of one of those machines leaked to the internet, showing terrible source code. Even worse is that the director of one of those companies publically has announce to support bush.

I know I'm going to raise hairs here. But I really see some silularities in some people from the 20th century that won elections this kind of way, and were responsible for millions of death.

I'm beginning to realize that the actual state is that you live in a dictatorship disguised as democracy. How could it have come this far ?

< Wait let me get my firesuit on ... >

Walter,



>"But the administration had its agenda and its priorities, which were focused completely on missile defense, to the point that on September 11, Condi Rice, the national security adviser, was scheduled to give a speech at Johns Hopkins University focused entirely on missile defense and how it was the cornerstone of defending the United States.
>
>The Bush administration didn't get what was happening. Ironically, a Republican administration, given what happened when President Bush's father was vice president, all of this playing out in Lebanon, it didn't understand that the attacks that we had seen in the 1990s were only the beginning.
>
>Inside the Defense Department, about this time Wolfowitz, Feith and others are kind of pinning the tail on Saddam. They continue to argue for, plan for, hope for Saddam, Saddam, Saddam. Did you know?
>
>I didn't think that the Bush administration was inevitably going to attack Saddam Hussein during the first eight months of the administration. There weren't the grounds to do it. It was a 9/11 world that made it possible, creating that link with Saddam Hussein and terrorism, making it possible for the United States to launch a military attack. After 9/11, the world stood behind us in dealing with the Taliban in Afghanistan and trying to destroy the camps that bin Laden had in Afghanistan. And that created the environment that the United States could take the case to the United Nations, make the argument that Saddam Hussein was part of the larger war on terrorism and that he had to be dealt with."
>
>This is from an interview with a Wash. Post reporter for the documentary on Rumsfeld (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/). They discussed the Afganistan/Iraq fight, but the focus of the story was Rumsfeld's rise and not so much fall, but how he is now further back in the shadows now that Iraq is not going as hoped.
>
>This is something I have great issue with. How many people have come out and said how there were elements within the administration that immediately focused on Iraq on 9/12? Once 9/11 happened they continually hammered on Iraq until they were able to get Bush to sign off. Yet this topic is hardly discussed.
>
>Why do you have issues with Albright and Holbrooke. I saw Albright on the Daily Show last week. She seemed quite with it to me.
>
>Besides Iraq, the Los Angeles Times has, what I think, is a very well done article on their front page today. You could probably find it online if you wanted to view it. The heading is "Why This is About Bush". They author goes on to discuss how most analysts, both Democratic and Republican, agree that Bush has gotten to where he is today by totally focusing on his core group of supporters. He is totally focused on expanding his base with Republicans and Conservatives. In the process he has created sharp dividing lines within the USA, and the world. It is interesting that they say he is loosing support among educated people. I just don't see how you can support this administration if you do even a couple of hours of research into their policies.
>
>I am curious what the atmosphere is like in OH these days. I don't get to see much of the battle that you swing staters are part of.
>
>
>
>>I guess it's the attribution of motive I have the most problem with - even where I disagree. I don't think it is an ego thing - at least not anymore than it is with any intellectual defending the conclusions of a lifetime of studying and working in a field. I confess I was stunned when I read in Woodward's book that on 9-12 attacking Iraq was raised. It should be noted that according to Woodward ( and you know he had Powell as one of his sources ) the President was the one who derailed that idea immediately. Rice is a heavy hawk ( being a Russian expert can do that to you ) but she's not a neocon in this respect. She's Bush's consigliere.
>>
>>Wolfowitz is an interesting case. I find him interesting becaue I really do believe he's an idealist. Whether he is right or not remians to be seen. I don't think you'd find his earlier stuff that disturbing. He was at least thinking about the area in terms of reversing a direction that lead to 9-11. Very big picture strategic thinking ( think Kennan, Marshall ) goes in and out of fashion. I remember Zbig during Carter saying the best we could hope for vis a vis the Soviets was to temporarily slow the spread of communism. Kind of scary, but you couldn't get tenure at an Ivy League school if you doubted it. ( of course you couldn't get tenure if you did not accept the innocence of Alger Hiss - and probably still can't - Venona be dammed. )
>>
>>As far as risking lives goes, that's a tough one. I do think sometimes a choice that looks like war vs peace can actually be a choice of war on our terms or war later on somebody else's. I think the concern about Saddam was about a general war in the middle east. Everyone seems to forget there are people in Tel Aviv who had already decided at what point Saddam was going to have to be stopped. Properly armed, he was going to try the Salah a'din thing again. A great number of lives would be at risk. Remember what the casualty figures were in Iran-Iraq. Now add Israel and a whole lot of nukes and sarin.
>>
>>I'm troubled by a lot of what i have seen in the last three years. But I also am troubled by hearing people like Madeline Albright and Richard Holbrooke say things that tell me they don't get it.
>>
>>I don't think we have a perfect choice this time. I don't know what a change of administration would mean to national security. I think Kerry's most fervent supporters (or at least those who are fervent because they couldn't have Dean) would be burning him in effigy a year from now.
>>
>>Whatever the outcome of this election I am going have mixed emotions about it.
>>
>>But I think whatever the outcome we will come through it. I remember 1968 too well to see this as an even moderately equally scary time.