drlogic

Actually, he is. I read all his posts. I've read most of them for some time now. He definitly makes much more sense than some of the whaky things I've see you post. You might wanna................ah, fugedabout'it. I would say, Igloo is more of a thinker. You're more of a feeler. If you have a problem w/ Igloo, PROVE HIM WRONG. Ya' know, it takes more guts to be friends......

Wow, you really are all that you're cracked up to be! I missed you Scooter. I've actually had to act my age lately on some of these threads. Looking forward to "chatting" w/ you. LOL

Yeah,,all southern conservative democrats.....They do exist ya' know. Ever heard of Zell Miller? Anyway?? You also forgot to point out that this is the 7th time he's gone after Delay. The previous 6 never worked out for him. Delay has won every one. The also went after Sen. Hutchison ® of Texas during her campaign. He made all sorts of allegations and then refused to take it to trial claiming he had no evidence. Funny part is, it was just before the election. POINT BEING: It was merely a TACTIC to drag her name through the mud to try to influence her election. Delay has played HARDBALL in Texas and been extremely successful. Don't you remember a bunch of Texan congressman/women fleeing to another state to avoid being present at a redistricting vote? The republicans have a SELF IMPOSED rule in the house of rep. which requires any leader to step down if ever indicted, pending the results of the ALLEGATIONS. House democrats don't have those same rules...hmmmmmmm???????? So, the previous 6 times this guy has unsuccessfuly gone after Delay it's been specifically because of that rule. The just wanted to see his power stripped from him. Thus far, NOTHING has stuck. Delay and the Repz have come out squeeky clean,,,EVERY TIME!!!! What makes this time any different? If I were a betting man, I'm put all my chips on the republican. Granted, anything can happen. WHO KNOWS? That's the point! It's an ALLEGATION and that's it. I know you want this to be true so bad you can almost taste it. My guess is, by the time Delay clears his name, the Demz will have another pseudo-scandal brewing to throw out there. WELCOME TO TODAY'S DEMOCRATIC PARTY! YA'LL MUST BE SO PROUD! lol Can't get elected, so you engulf yourselves in the politics of personal destruction. LOL From what I've learned, the ALLEGATION against Delay are so vague it's not even clear what he's done. No ones been able to CLEARLY state what he's ALLEGEDLY done? In the mean time, the press runs with it, the op-ed pages act as judge and jury and as this thread illustrates, people just assume A LAW WAS BROKEN w/ nothing other than an ALLEGATION to back up their assertion? An intelligent person would wait until all is known and the facts are on the table prior to jumping to any conclusions. Thus far, seems to me what is supposedly being alleged is COMMON PRACTICE in POLITRIX.

4 da' rekr'd,,,,, I have 2 kids, my 4 yr. old daughter loves Spongebob,,,,That fucker is a riot!

As do most congressman...but I digress.................. You say rich like it's a bad word...LOL Not everyone who's got money earned it the old fashioned way like Kennedy and Kerry, by inheriting it. LOL Anyway, you should probably rephrase that to "just like all politicians, specifically congressman and senators which always act as if they are immune to the law which they themselves write".

Seriously bro,,,yo,yo,yo,,,,check it.....LOL Freedom from the Russians? You bet! How's the saying go? "The enemy of my enemy is my friend?" Anyway............ We were protecting Afghan oil? For the record, Igloo is one smart mofo w/ his ducks in a row. He lays off the emotional half truths and sticks to the facts and historical references as they happened, not as critics viewed them.

Ain't POLITRIX lovely? Attack Bush and his admin, Delay and Frist while offering America alternatives which illustrate their vision and plan for a better future.......ooops, forget the last part. I guess we'll see where these accusations go and if it just a political tactic to deflect from their lack of a plan, vision and hope. Innocent until proven guilty right? Or does that standard not apply to anyone w/ a R next to their name? Personally I think this shows how effective Delay is. I also give credit to the self imposed Republican rule which requires he TEMPORARILY step down. I wonder if the other side applies the same rules for itself. Regardless, we'll see where this leads. I've yet to see the demz win at anything as of late so my money is on the guys w/ an R next to their name. Anyone takers on this bet?

I know, I just like to see them TWITCH (figuratively speaking, of course).

Your misleading picture of Saddam and Rumy in 1983 says Saddam had already used the chemical weapons (which critics still say "he never had"?? go fig'r??). Anyway, I did a google search on "Saddam Gasing Kurds" and this came back: On March 16th 1988, Iraqi jets bombed the town of Halabja with chemical weapons. At least 5,000 people were killed and 7,000 severely injured. Fourteen years on, thousands are still suffering the affects of the chemical weapons. http://www.khrw.com/crimes.html Interesting? As for the brilliant statement about the US funding terrorism(UBL), does the date and GeoPolitical climate of that time have any signifigance? Cold War, right? Enemy #1 USSR, right? UBL fighting the USSR, right? Did you not know this and mistakenly mislead or did you know this and intentionally mislead? Let's try a simple approach: If after graduating from highschool, you snap and become a mass murder is your highschool accountable for "training" you? Logic dictates that different times call for different measures. As a "proud American citizen, are you comforted w/ the notion that America is evil and deserves to be destroyed? (Note: You being one of Americas finest, this destruction of America includes YOU) Have you thought this through? Do you even care to think this through? If 9/11 happened in the 90's would you still be this "angry" and so critical of America?

Interesting????????? As far as whatever comments are posted on a picture, I wouldn't put too much credit on that. Seems like that can be written by anyone. As for the pictures of the dead,,,,I SAY SHOW 'EM! But show 'em ALL! You wanna show flag drapped coffins returning from Iraq/Afgan?...Fine,,no problem. But you better post the pics of the enemy beheading contractors and journalist. You better post the bodies jumping to their deaths on 9/11 and all the carnage that came w/ that day. You better show the aftermath of terrorists blowing up groups of children being given candy by US soldiers. In other words...SHOW IT ALL. At the end of the day, it will be clear that America and it's soldiers DO NOT target civilians and the inoccent. Shit happens during war, always has, always will. But to be fair and "objective", SHOW IT ALL!!!! It would be unfair to imply our soldiers are the problem when clear thinking adults know better. These may be true and they may be just as genuine as Dan Rathers documents, who knows? To be stuck on stupid and in the "mea culpa" crowd which always blames America first would be to do so @ your own peril. Another point is: There are bad people in every group of society....To paint an inaccurate picture which might tarnish the hard work so many brave soldiers do is the equivelant of implying all anglos are incest loving cousins, all blacks are crooks, thugs and crack heads, all asians know kung-fu, etc..etc..etc... Besides, as Americans, it's far more important to be a good American than a good "journalist". If posting these "claims" might bring harm or endanger our troops in Iraq, then being hellbent on bringing world wide publicity to it is not only irresponsible, it's Un-American. You might as well grap an AK-47, wrap yourself in your bed sheets and fight w/ the terrorists abroad. God bless America,,,and the internet.... ta ta for now ;]

Hi Scooter! It's me,,,Daddy! Missed you shnukums! LOL you still up to your shenanigans?

New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass III announces he is retiring after a brief transition period. http://www.cnn.com/ First Brown quits FEMA. Now the NO Police Super. Who's next? Blanco? Nagin?

Why would they do that? France is a pro-terrorist state.....Well, they don't publicy claim it, but their actions speak louder than words. Imagine that?

We'll see what congress approves. I wouldn't get my knickers in a knot over a "proposal". Here's a brilliant idea: Why don't we just raise taxes on all tax paying Americans and bring our economy to a grinding halt?

Great question! Since we're in the question asking mood, here are a few more: Why did the media report false events about rape and murder as facts possibly delaying available aid from FEMA? Why did they ignore the responsibility of local and state and unfairly focus on FEMA alone? Why did they imply the president intentionally delayed aid because he's a racist? http://bbs.clubplanet.com/showthread.php?t=282455 http://bbs.clubplanet.com/showthread.php?t=282081 http://bbs.clubplanet.com/showthread.php?t=281731

bush sr? a senator? I thought he was head of CIA? W was gov. of Texas, never a senator. regardless, it duzn't matah!

Those pesky little details......always seem to get in the way don't they?

That's good stuff bro! I've seen Hitchens on tv a few times as well. Clear thinking dude! He gets it and expresses himself very well!

No doubt,,,kooks exist on all sides. In my opinion, the difference I see is conservatives actually asking questions to try to get a the liberal critics to offer a better solution, to no avial. The left just name calls and makes crazy acusations and conspiracy theories galore. They've come unhinged. They refuse to think outside of themselves and their party.......hence, KOOKS. Those kooks on the far right DO NOT have nearly as much influence on the party leaders as the kooks on the left have on the democratic party leaders. NO DOUBT! As for the Bush quote on exit strategy,,,,,he was what? He was Governor of Texas then, right? How did this quote come about? Sounds weird to me so I don't think I know enough about that quote to opine either way. Twitching is term I use to describe some of the rabid Bush haters who sometime try to debate issues on substance only to eventually start "twitching" and resorting to "BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED! (twitch-twitch)HALLIBURTON! BUSH KNEW! (twitch-twitch)HALLIBURTON! NO WMD'S! HALLIBURTON! "(twitch-twitch). Take no offense. I just read your post and was distracted when you "though aloud" about me not knowing anything. I didn't find it constructive. You've just proved me wrong w/ your last post which seemed pretty honest to me.

"Somtimes I think you do not have a clue what you are talking about." You just couldn't help yourself. Just when I thought we might be getting somewhere, you started "twitching"........... 1st,,,news personalities don't really count. Unless they're propped up by politicians. 2nd, I'll play your little game, but don't play stupid. If you've been paying attn. you know I'm not exagerating. I'll see what I can find..... Don't compare apples to oranges. Especially in a post 9/11 world which I assume is EXACTLY where you and I part ways. I changed, have you? -And Hillary holding up the cover of the New York Post on the floor of the Senate - that cover said "Bush knew" that 9/11 was going to happen in advance. And Hillary Clinton saying "What did he know and when did he know it?" Look, I'm running into way too much stuff. What's the point of this again? If demz are going too far in their critique by saying things like Bush Knew and did nothing or Bush is a deserter or Bush let those people in New Orleans drown because they're black and don't vote republican,,etc...etc... Here's a pretty good site that's fairly objective pro/con for both reps/demz. http://factcheck.org/archive.html Your quotes question the actions. What I've seen for 5 yrs now is democratic party in complete shock that they lost in 2000, 2002,2004,,,and counting...........They stole majority in the senate by convincing Jeffords to switch from R to I. Only to lose the majority FOR GOOD next election. You're a bit blinded by your "dislike" of Bush. You don't want anything to do w/ any news that does any damage to the house of cards you've built based on hate and half truths. Simply put, I have no problem if one party or the other questions the POLICY, not the CHARACTER. The implications made by todays left are obscene. The people they embrace are far left kooks. Whether it's at a Kerry rally or screening of Fahrenheit 9/11. It screams of ignorance of the threats America faces today, post 9/11. To be so desperate to want to reacquire power AT ANY COST is repugnant. It all goes back to the main point about leading by example! Don't demand something you're unwilling to do yourself! Again, if you don't understand our mission in this war on terror, then try harder to understand it. We all know the critics side, Bush lied, people died, war for oil, payback for daddy, HALLIBURTON, etc.......I GOT IT! Now, you try our side and see if it makes more sense. Fighting abroad to avoid fighting terrorist here, surrounding Iran w/ countries/gov'ts friendly to America, etc....In other words....TRY THE PANORAMIC VIEW AND STOP LOOKING AT THIS THROUGH A SODA STRAW.

WOW! Amazing! Incredible how the press can paint such a horrible picture and go off on tangents pointing blame and screaming for scalps. Now what? Will they retract or correct their incorrect reporting? Don't hold your breath! How many people quoted this same news paper "Times-Picayune" when the news was grim and depressing? How many of those same people will quote them now? Am I hearing crickets! Was that a tumble weed blowing by? Silence is deafening!!! Attn TOOLS: You're wrong AGAIN! http://www.nola.com/newslogs/tporleans/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_tporleans/archives/2005_09_26.html#082732

No you can't. Find me equally as offensive rhetoric from the right. Republicans didn't do anything stupid,,,Clinton did! He could not control his urges. He was weak! Let's make sure we get that point CRYSTAL CLEAR! Clinton got the support from repz during Kosovo and bombings in Iraq. You can't just ignore the level to which "today's" democratic party has stooped. Bush is doing what he's promised. How strange? We did not start this war on terror but Bush has vowed to end it. A free Iraq, Afgahnistan and Pakistani gov't friendly to America leave Iran completely surrounded! This would pressure Iran to cut the crap and stop their wmd production and possible sales. THAT'S THE PLAN! That's the vision. Bold? YOU BET! Personally, I would expect nothing less from Americas leader post 9/11 (be it rep or dem). Anyone who does not understand this simply doesn't want to! Shortsighted in my opinion. What's the now famous line the General in LA keeps saying ?"STUCK ON STUPID"

right,,,just like demz need the black vote...by promising more handouts rather than a SOLUTION to make sure they educate themselves, avoid being parents by the age of 15, keeping a 2 parent house hold. Moms and dads that stay together, etc..etc..etc...It's always easier to try to blame someone else for ones owns failings. That's easy! Trying to solve it is the hard part. How long have Demz recieved the black vote and how much better is the black community because of democratic policies? I think politics is disgusting, but a necessary evil. Like making sausage right? If you saw how it was made, you'd never eat one! The process of politics is just gross! Truth be told, I can't remember republicans acting as classless as todays demz. Like Hilary implying to congress that BUSH KNEW about 9/11 and did nothing. Or the head of the DNC, Howard Dean suggesting on Meet the Press that Bush orchestrated 9/11. Most recently, Congressman Elija Cummins coming out immediately after the flood in New Orleans questions Bush's christianity and implying he purposely delayed aid because those people suffering in New Orleans were black and don't vote republican. Or current and former politicians going over seas and trashing this presdent claiming he authorized abuse of combatants and captured t errorist or that we went to war to steal oil...etc..etc. Those were all demz doing that,,,from Bill Clinton to current sitting congressmen/women. Saying that crap overseas and getting those comments spalshed all over Al-Jazzera,,,etc..etc..etc.............I could go on...and on....and on.....and on.....Point being,,,today's democatic leader HAVE NO CLASS! They trash the dept. of homeland security never once noting it was an idea proposed by Joe Lieberman.......Basically, they depend on their constituents being as ignorant as possible. An educated, independant, working, self reliant constituency works completely against everything todays democratic party stands for. Allowing that would be to render themselves irrelevant! So they keep promising more of the same and never delivering. Which brings me to my previous post in which I say that if only todays democrats were willing to abide by the same standards they demand from republicans, America would definitley be a better place. They're full of hate. No vision, no hope, no message and no solutions. Just more of the same political propaganda aimed at the poorest and most ignorant among us!

I'll conceed that point........ It's the demz who get all the airtime w/ all their accusations and trying to sell their propaganda ..........How long have they been in this war on poverty? How's it turned out for 'em? RIIIIIGHT!!!!!!!! Like I've posted before: If only democrats followed the same standards they demand of republicans, this country might just be a better place......it's all politics,,,all the time....9/11 politicize it. Tsunami, politicize it! Hurricanes, politicize it! War on terror, politicize it! The poor need more gov't assistance......OKAY,,DONE! But Mr. President? How can we afford all the assistance? I can only assume if Bush were to say,,,"I'll just raise taxes",,,Then the press follows that w/ "a-ah!!! gotcha! you promised not to raise taxes".... The president took too long to visit LA after Katrina, now when he planned to visit Texas today, the press is asking: "Aren't you just overcompensating this time around? Won't you just get in the way?".... etc...etc..etc.... Damned if you do, Damned if you don't! In a nutshell, that's why it's so diffuclt to get to root causes and solutions. Everyone's jockeying for political power. Being that Repz are running all the 3 branches, it's today's Demz who find themselves politicizing EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING in hope to regain some of that power.......Those who support these classless tactics then turn around and demand standards they've never been willing to follow themselves are what turns the average American off to politics.....and there's the rub. All in all, I think it helps the REP party. They (demz) would not be acting this desperate if they did not feel threatened. The gains REPs have made in the last 4-5 elections obviously threaten the left which explains all the emotional psycho-babble and all out attack on anything or anyone w/ a ® next to their name. It's just sad to witness. At the end of the day, Demz are gonna have to show what they've done to fix past problems and their plans for addressing future problems before America will hand the keys over to them. 24/7 bitching and name calling will not cut it. Simply put,,,,,,NO CLASS!!!!!

September 23, 2005 Strategy, Strategy Everywhere… …but not a drop of memory. by Victor Davis Hanson National Review Online In widespread public exasperation, everyone now has the answer for Iraq, but also a strange amnesia about why we are doing what we are doing. Trisection The trisectionists are again making their case. They urge the creation of three separate de facto countries — Kurdish, Shiite, and Sunni. The apparently logical and appealing argument is that a friendly Kurdistan and more or less neutral Shiite south could better protect themselves from an angry anti-American, pro-terrorist Sunni Triangle. We could back one, come to terms with a second, and consider the third an overt enemy along the lines of a Syria. But the existing problem in the Middle East stems from too much sectarian tribalism, not an excess of nationhood. How critical Iraqi resources would be split up, or how the peace would be kept by simply repackaging the problem, is never explained. Would Baghdad become another divided Jerusalem? Would populations be exchanged in the manner of Cyprus? Or would old land claims be perennially pressed as on the West Bank? In a cosmopolitan Baghdad, would someone of mixed parentage be considered a Shiite or Sunni? If the three sects cannot get along with each other inside Iraq, why would they outside when interested neighbors would draw them into their respective orbits to renew and expand the conflict on international terms? A Sunni/Zarqawi state would be hyper-Wahhabist in the manner of the Shiite south becoming ultra-theocratic, as any internal moderating force on the majority populations would be lost. India has far fewer problems from its own multimillion-person Muslim minority than from neighboring Islamic and nuclear Pakistan. A result of partition was to radicalize Muslims in their own country and give India a lifelong problem on its border. India is a success because it has more or less embraced pluralism and allowed Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, and Christians to live tolerably with one another — in a way that a nearly uniformly Islamic Pakistan never cared to achieve with non-Muslims either inside or outside its borders. The dismemberment of Yugoslavia in retrospect does not seem such a good idea. We almost destroyed the United States in 1861-5, and would again if we ever carved out separate White, Hispanic, and African-American states. Even an independent Kurdistan would not be for Iraqis only, but would soon draw in Turkish and Iranian Kurds as well — and thus might well incite a regional war that would destroy the prosperity well under way in northern Iraq today. And there is also no reason why an independent Kurdistan would not itself resume its long-standing civil war between various leftist and rightist factions. Divide et Impera The Romans’ old mantra of “divide and conquer†is also being raised. Apparently we are to modulate Shiite-Sunni hostility, in the hopes that the Shiites would counter Wahhabi-inspired terrorism, each side wearing the other out — and leaving us pleasantly out of the fray. But how forcing Iraqi Shiites further into the Iranian camp is a good thing escapes logic. I don’t see much difference between a theocratic nuclear Shiite Iran subsidizing Hezbollah and terrorist Wahhabis — but a great deal of difference between those extremists and Shiite and Sunni legislators now working out a compromise in Iraq. For all the present and legitimate criticism of our war, Iraq and Afghanistan are about the only places in the Middle East where Muslims are seriously fighting terrorists every day — and that is only because they are slowly becoming constitutional and trying to avoid descending into sectarian fiefdoms. We are still living down our earlier attempt during the Iran-Iraq War to play the two sides off each other while a million died. The legacy of that earlier cynicism was Iran-Contra, embarrassing feelers put out to Saddam that may have emboldened him later to take Kuwait, and general Arab distrust of American motives. Allowing Saddam to survive in 1991 (“to keep orderâ€), and then letting him butcher rebellious Kurds and Shiites was a tragic mistake. In the 1980s giving a blank check in arms supplies to Islamists to stop the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan proved a wise short-term move — but a foolhardy long-term strategic gambit. In short, divide and conquer simply embodies an updated version of the Cold War Realpolitik strategy of letting surrogates wear themselves out to our advantage. It is precisely that policy — however seductive to our own interests — that helped to bring us to our current dilemma. Departure A timetable for withdrawal before Iraq is acknowledged as secure is said to be soon on the Democratic agenda — a sure way to cut American losses, expenditures, and worry over Iraqis for quite some time. Nevertheless, why this “out of sight-out of mind†policy has not been quite yet raised by mainstream Democrats is obvious: Even the most diehard critics accept something positive is going on in Iraq that is a far cry from Vietnam. A sequence of planned steps will lead to consensual government: approval of the constitution, national voting for candidates, a public trial of Saddam, and the establishment of a large constitutional military. The Iraqi security forces are getting better, not worse; the population is souring, not sweetening, on Zarqawi; we are becoming wiser, not more ignorant, about fighting the insurgency; and decisions are increasingly made by Iraqis, while Americans have receded into the media shadows. To depart now would be to put all those scheduled landmark events into jeopardy, calling into question our past sacrifices and giving the enemy something they cannot win on the battlefield. In our despair over the sometimes depressing news from Iraq, and the hysteria of seeing everything from Cindy Sheehan to Hurricane Katrina used to deprecate the war effort, naturally we ignore our progress. We forget that the entire Middle East is not as it once was — whether we look at the Palestinian question, Libya, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Egypt. Does anyone really believe that Arafat undermining the Oslo accords, Libya with a nuclear weapons program, Dr. Khan operating full blast in Pakistan, thousands of Syrians in Lebanon, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Saddam’s Iraq, or a complete absence of democratic foment in Egypt would be preferable even to the turmoil of today? Yet these recent shake-ups had their origins only in American resolve. If we should now depart, things would insidiously revert back to the depressing pre-September 11 status quo — or worse yet. We forget that even then “stability†was only a veneer, masking a landscape whose final logic was 9/11. Stay the Course? Our current policy is not just correct because we are now wedded to it. In fact, it is a reaction to our past strategy of realpolitik coupled with appeasement. That strategy led us to 9/11 and a quarter century of terror originating in Iran in November 1979 — whether we define that history as cynical support for dictators, leaving after lobbing a few shells and bombs in Lebanon, Afghanistan, Somalia, or Iraq, or allowing wounded tyrants like Saddam to stay in power. Second, our efforts after 9/11 represent not the worst, but the best of America abroad. Millions just voted yet again in Afghanistan in one of the true revolutionary events of our time — mostly unnoticed by Western media. We forget that Iraq was not liberated until almost 15 months after Kabul. Yet it is already progressing down the same constitutional road. Despised Kurds and Shiites have achieved equal representation. And that topsy-turvy world has infuriated a once oppressive Sunni minority, formerly associated with Saddam Hussein, now in sympathy with al Zarqawi , the terrorist killer. Once unpopular because we were alleged to be cynical in our support of dictators, we are now even more suspect because we are proven proponents of downtrodden Kurds and Shiites in their efforts for political equality. Most Americans — since they are going to be disliked either way — prefer to be hated for their idealism rather than their cynicism. Billions in American material aid has flowed to Iraqis, even as the price of oil has skyrocketed, costing us billions more — so much for oil conspiracies and stealing Arab resources. In short, Iraq is not an imperialistic venture, but a messy, unappreciated attempt to make the United States more secure by removing dictators from their petrodollar-funded arsenals and leaving constitutional governments in their wake, while promoting social justice for the formerly marginalized. Note that so far there are none of the indications that would rightly tell us it is high time to leave Iraq: Polls don’t suggest that Iraqis want us out immediately; the parliament has not asked the United States to depart; President Talabani does not order us home; American military commanders and diplomats on the ground in Iraq have not concluded that success is impossible, and there is not a grassroots popular movement across religious and tribal lines to oppose the American-sponsored democratic reforms. Even though we have failed so far to marshal the strength to crush the Sunni insurrection, Iraq is still a far better place now than it was in March 2003, as most Iraqis agree. The Middle East is a better place, whether in Palestine, Afghanistan, or Lebanon. And the position of the United States, the object of unprecedented acrimony and invective, is better off — whether we measure that as the absence of another 9/11 attack, strengthening friendships with India, Japan, Eastern Europe, and the English-speaking countries, reforming the anti-American U.N., or making some progress in North Korea. But who is really angry at America since 2001? Al Qaeda, of course. Saddamites, especially. Radical Islamicists no doubt. France and Germany are also apparently unhappy: They lost plenty of oil business and loans in Iraq; they are facing the wages of not assimilating Islamic minorities in their midst; and they are fathoming that socialist and statist policies cannot be salvaged by cheap election-time anti-Americanism in an age when the United States is more eager to keep our distance from them than they us. Historic changes are underway in Afghanistan and Iraq. While we at home squabble and point fingers, the U.S. military fortunately continues in its difficult but landmark mission — and so far, thankfully, pays us all little heed. ©2005 Victor Davis Hanson