9/11 Hearings
Here's a convenient chart:


Thanks to defective yeti via Wonkette and Instapundit.com:

The Truth about 3/11
I just ran across a feature written by the former Prime Minister of Spain, Jose Maria Aznar for the Wall Street Journal web site (registration required) via blogdex.net.

His second paragraph makes the right point:

"Its lessons are simple. If we want to stop terrorists from murdering us and from dictating how we lead our lives, we must confront them. Some think the solution is to sue for peace, to negotiate with terrorists so that they might go and kill elsewhere. But that way is unacceptable to me and to millions of Spaniards. Terrorism deserves only to be defeated. This is the debt we owe to the victims of the attacks, and to the society that mourns them."

Just as America experienced on 9/11, the Spanish disaster showed:

"...what's most noble in the human spirit: the selflessness of those who rushed to help the wounded, to give blood, to offer their help in hospitals, or simply to listen to those who needed relief. We shall never forget the professionalism of emergency service workers. We don't know exactly how many people died trying to come to the aid of other victims, but their courage demonstrates that you can find life in the midst of carnage, and that horror and fear can give way to a determination to safeguard liberty, our most precious asset."

Mr. Aznar gives a spirited defence of how his government responded to the emergency, and then ends with this:

"It is precisely for this reason that we must not send out confusing messages, messages that induce people to believe that we have to make concessions to those demanding that we kneel before bombs. This is not the moment to think about withdrawals of troops. And much less when the terrorists, with their message of death and destruction, have demanded that we surrender. To yield now would set a dangerous precedent that would allow our attackers to believe that they have imposed their conditions on us. It would allow our attackers to believe that they have won."

May all freedom-loving people heed his words.

Some People Will Do Anything To Get Elected
On a lighter note. This week in TIME magazine, the Milestones section had this:

"RE-ELECTED. CHEN SHUI-BIAN, 53, President of Taiwan; by a razor-thin margin, just one day after he was shot in the abdomen while riding in a motorcade. The opposition Nationalist Party, which until the shooting had been narrowly favored to win, called for the election to be annulled and suggested that the assassination attempt may have been a final-hour campaign tactic."

Wow. Some people take elections seriously.

Obsenity and Indecency
I love the PC crowd (that's political correctness). I wonder what would happen if I posted a picture of a burning cross here? Or maybe said the word "nigger" or some other degrading slur? (The truth is probably not much because my readership is currently not too many, although I appreciate each and every one.)

Of course, the smart ones know where I'm going. Obscenity and indecency are still in the news. George Carlin (he of the seven dirty words almost 30 years ago now for those of you who don't know) has been giving interviews. Here's what he said in TIME.com: 10 Questions For George Carlin -- Mar. 29, 2004:

"What has happened over the centuries is that a natural modesty that people have has been exploited by religion to be a kind of fear and shame and guilt about our bodies and the functions they have. Now it is probably a permanent feature of the psyche of people."

This next quote got me:

"There is no question that the repressive, Christian, right-wing, business, criminal, Republican section of our country has gained the upper hand. I think the Patriot Act has been exploited to put more severe controls on our behavior into place than they ever dreamed they would have a chance to implement."

Like the way he stuck "criminal" right in the middle there? He gives the reason he makes statements:

"I like to push people's buttons. I like to bother people's sacred values."

So a man who made his career shocking people wants to continue to shock. How surprising.

This is still in response to the "silly" "unimportant" incident of Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" during the Super Bowl. Howard Stern has jumped into the fray because in the current climate he has been dumped from some radio stations. Many wonder what's the big deal? Just turn him off.

Indeed, turn off anyone you find offensive. As Ben said in response to the post about the Super Bowl halftime show (second comment), "children see more nudity today than in the history of humanity" which I certainly agree with, but I disagree with his next, "and their sexual attitudes and yours and all of ours are healthier today for it." Is it really good for them? Or does a desensitization take place?

But furthermore, and more germaine to the point I want to make, what do we do with the concerns of parents like Mary Lou Retton, whom he mentioned. Where are the advocates of political correctness? They condemn and rightly the offensive speech, behavior and imagery I mentioned earlier, why not this? Because it is conservatives who hold these views and they are not part of their constituency.

The entertainment industry has to draw a crowd to justify its existence and make money. And how do they do this? Create buzz which occurs by doing something shocking. Do you think Howard Stern gives a rip about the First Amendment? No. He makes money by being a shock jock.

Once again!
You know, Richard Clarke may be right. Paul O'Neill could be right too. But you know what galls me? The timing. Why now? To sell more books, more than likely. Cynical of me, isn't it? Sorry. But there was a time when folks would wait until after presidents were out of power before they wrote books. Not any more.

It has already been mentioned first of all by SecurityFocus' George Smith on Feb 17 2003 some of Clarke's previous bits of wisdom. Just this past week in TIME.com: The New Terrorist Threat -- Mar. 22, 2004 he said:

"So, in addition to placing more cameras on our subway platforms, maybe we should be asking why the terrorists hate us. If we do not focus on the reasons for terrorism as well as the terrorists, the body searches we accept at airports may be only the beginning of life in the new fortress America." Let's find out why the poor terrorists want to bomb us.(Thanks to the Wall Street Journal for both links, although I had read the TIME article, I hadn't connected the author with Clarke)

Now let me make myself clear. I'm not disputing the facts here. I've read neither book. I didn't see the TV interviews. All I'm asking is, why now? That's what makes me suspicious. We all know that controversy insures sales, so why not write something controversial? Sales go up and you make money. Most people would think it's not wrong. On the contrary, it's a smart move, if all you're thinking of is the money. If you're thinking about the truth, you don't wait for the book. You blow the whistle shortly after it happens.

It stinks being a cynic ...

Victory for Terrorism? Or not?
By now, everyone is aware that in Spain, one of the "coalition of the coerced and bribed," as Kerry likes to refer to them, the government was voted out this past week. The opposition made a point of making the recent bombings there an issue. Did it influence the election? If polls can be believed (a question in itself), not too much. But there can be little doubt that it did. And it is a victory for terrorism and will cause the Europeans to fear standing up to Arab/Muslim people even more than they do now. Because whatever the real reason for the defeat of the former government, terrorists "will rightly perceive that they can influence elections through violence. This vote has greatly increased the probability of a pre-election attack -- here and in Europe." (Instapundit.com:)As further proof check out Yahoo! News (via Reuters) where a letter purported to be from Al Qaeda calls for a truce in Spain if they withdraw their troops.

Appeasement works, as long as you don't care what kind of government you live under.

Ben's comments (part 2)
Continuing my response to Ben's comments, I thought, first of all, that I had accidentally clicked on MoveOn.org's site. But it does show the depth of anger against this president. To be fair, Ben greatly moderated his thoughts in his reply to my last post. Is Bush perfect? Only the most naive would say so. Ben says that John Kerry admits "that the war was a big ... mistake," something "no Republican -- except for you, Dean, until you took it back" had the courage to do. I'm trying to search back where I thought the war was a mistake. Let me say it, the war was NOT a mistake, for the most part. The conduct of the war was NOT a mistake, for the most part. The preparation for the war and attempt to put together a larger coalition, right up until the war started, was NOT a mistake, in my opinion. And Ben agrees the war had beneficial results, he disagrees with the length of time given to finding a negotiated settlement and the breath of the coalition. Even John Kerry equivocates when asked about the war. He does not rule out unilateralism, in spite of his stump speech. It again seems like the main disagreement was how long Bush tried inspections and how many countries were in the coalition.

Were mistakes made? Only the most naive or a "Bush cheerleader" would say that none were made. But saying mistakes have been made is a far cry from saying "the war was a big ... mistke."

I believe this administration "didn't think things through enough" especially about this period of occupation. I think they were surprised by the lingering opposition to liberation. Whether they "don't currently understand the dynamics of the situation as well as their liberal counterparts" remains to be seen. To say that there are other "people who understand a situation better because they've studied it longer and had more successful experiences navigating it" would be a matter of opinion. Who had access to the intelligence, flawed as it was? Where were those opposed to the war during the debate and as the intelligence was looked at. Who are the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence committee?

"Losing the cooperation of most of the world" although not a laughing matter, is not an insurmountable problem. As I recall, "most of the world" was not with us in the First Gulf War, although I could be mistaken, and to accuse Bush of "acting like the unaccountable king of the ... world" is just extreme and seems irrational. And sad to read because it shows that irrational emotion is overruling logic. And irrational emotion begets extremism almost every time.

Again it shows the depth of hatred toward this man. And one has to wonder why. This seems more than politics, but I'll be hanged if I can figure it out....

Again, to be fair, Ben moderated some of his vituperation in his comment to my last post, which I was glad to see. Because, as I've written before, logical debate on issues is what's needed, not rhetoric and emotionalism. Not that we don't strongly hold our views, but like the strangest marriage I've ever seen, James Carville and Mary Matlin, those views don't ruin our relationship.

Ben's comments (part 1)
Ben seemed rather disturbed by a recent post of mine. He, frankly, berated me for somehow "cheerleading" for Bush. I must admit being surprised and puzzled. I was commenting on the Democratic candidate for president, not on how Bush handled the war, which Ben obviously disagrees with.

First of all to say the "John Kerry is not a presidential candidate" was a mistake on my part. He is obviously, as pundits like to say, the presumptive nominee for the Democrats, and I have corrected that on my post.

I'm sure I pale in comparison with Jon Stewart (of the TV program on Comedy Central) in the humor department. That's why he's got a job doing it and I don't! But I have no right to try humor (ok, maybe humor is too strong :-) )?

It's sad to hear that we conservatives have no sense of humor. But I do seem to remember that one of the more humorous and self-deprecating presidents in recent memory happened to be conservative. And most who know me could vouch for the fact that I have a self-deprecating sense of humor. Although I admit that my sense of humor is rather strange, another fact that those who know me would affirm. What can I say?

To deal with Ben's comments looks like it may take a few posts, since I don't like long ones. He does raise issues that I wanted to look at anyway, so over the next few posts might be a good time to do so.

More later then ...

The Passion of the Christ (part 3)
In this post, I look at some of those who saw no anti-Semitism in Gibson's film. First, David Warren:

"But the Gospel has its own deep "irony" -- for the mob was Jewish, and could only be Jewish, not only for its place and time, but for its liturgical purpose in a Passion drama choreographed not by Mel Gibson, but by God. In this drama of dramas, the Man who is the director is the same who is hanging on the cross. God had sent himself as Messiah, not randomly to wherever, but to his own chosen people, the Jews, and in the fullest possible knowledge that He would be rejected and crucified, even by them. He then rose from the dead, opening the portals of salvation for all men."

Michael Medved a Jewish movie critic, also weighed in:

"I became involved in the controversy. As a film critic and nationally syndicated radio host who also happens to be an observant Jew and longtime president of an Orthodox congregation, I felt heartsick over the denunciations of an unfinished movie almost no one had seen. In the past, I've supported and spoken for the ADL and I recognize its importance to the Jewish community. ...

"...it remains a difficult movie for any committed Jew to watch. In discussing my reactions to his work after the screening, Gibson insisted that his movie is meant to make everyone uncomfortable, not just Jews. For Jews, however, there's a special squirm factor in watching the officials of a long-destroyed Temple, which we still revere as a holy gift from God, behaving in a selfish, officious, and sadistic manner. I might have preferred a movie version of the crucifixion that interpreted the Gospels to place primary blame for the death of Jesus on the Roman authorities.

"Gibson, however, remained determined to bring to the screen what he considers the truth of the New Testament. Certainly, his account of the story--in which the Judean priests and the Judean mob force Pilate's hand in ordering the death of Christ--falls well within the Christian mainstream and corresponds to numerous references in the Gospels. Gibson's critics may resent these elements of the drama, but they must blame Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John rather than Mel."

Whether or not Gibson believes in some sort of Holocaust revisionism, his movie, for the most part spreads blame somewhat equally between many for Christ's death. There are some scenes I wish he had filmed differently, for example, the one at Jesus' flogging where Satan is shown walking among the Jewish leaders, but all were to blame in His death, not just the Jews. In fact, to me, it's the Romans who come off as being heartless and cruel, beating Jesus for the mere satisfaction of it.

Is This the Best They Can Do?
After all is said and done, it looks like the Democrats will be nominating John Kerry? Hmmmm. And can anyone remember any policies put forward by him other than getting rid of Dubya and the tax cuts for "the rich" (You know the definition of rich, don't you? It's anyone who has more money than I do).

About the only thing we really know about Kerry is that he served in Vietnam (you did know that, didn't you?), his face is "craggy" and he's from Massachusetts. You woulda thought the Dems could come up with someone better to run against Dubya. Of course, we have yet to see if a Bush can run a presidential re-election campaign and win.

If only Kerry had Howard Dean's fire, Joe Lieberman's morality, John Edwards' personality, Wesley Clark's (hmmm, get back to you on that), Al Sharpton's one-liners and Dennis Kucinich's charts. Then he'd be a candidate to contend with.

Of course their best candidate is the junior senator from New York, but she's not running this time, perhaps making the same mistake Mario Cuomo, et al, made in 1992, when Bush, Sr. looked unbeatable, but was upended by Clinton, whose presidency was undone by his, ah, indiscretions. Of course if Hillary is the best they can come up with, you have to wonder about the state of Democratic politics. But then again I wonder about the state of Republican politics.

John Kerry is not a presidential candidate. He makes Bush, Sr. look animated. The Democrats are in a tough fight, as they well know.

UPDATE: Ok, perhaps I overstated. John Kerry is not the best candidate the Dems could offer; Howard Dean was better, John Edwards was better, Dennis Kucinich was better. The question is: how did he become the candidate, if he's not the best one?

The Passion of the Christ (part 2)
In my last post, I began my own analysis of a very controversial movie, Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. In this post I would like to look at Mel Gibson's alleged Anti-Semitism and Anti-Semitism in the movie.

Most of the problem that people have with Gibson is that his father is a Holocaust denier or revisionist, that is, he disbelieves that the Holocaust is as bad as is claimed. David Frum's Diary on National Review Online had a very insightful look at what Mel Gibson said in two interviews; one with Peggy Noonan which appeared in Reader's Digest, the other with Diane Sawyer. Both women lobbed an easy question at Gibson, which he could have answered and set at ease any one's minds concerning how close he came to his father's belief system and both times he muffed the chance.

Here are other posts on this subject:
NZOOM - ONE News - Entertainment
Strange Women Lying in Ponds: More on Mel Gibson's Holocaust Statement
The Volokh Conspiracy
Ananova - Gibson defends father over Holocaust

The Ant-Defamation League has voiced opposition to the movie and has received Anti-Semetic responses to it. The Jewish community is traditionally against Passion Plays (Gibson's movie would be considered as one), and the reason is most passion plays refer to a verse in Matthew 27:25 where the Jewish crowd responds to Pilate's profession of innocence by saying "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"

Part of the problem with Passion Plays and Gibson's movie is that looking at a small portion of Jesus's life leaves out the greater portion and thereby a context for seeing how the Jewish people responded to Jesus as a whole.

The Passion of the Christ (part 1)
On Monday (Mar. 1), I went to see "The Passion of the Christ" a film produced and directed by Mel Gibson. It has been a controversial film from the outset. Mr. Gibson has been accused of making an Anti-Semetic film, being a Holocaust denier, trying to profit off of religious sentiment and probably lots of other things. People have said he won't work in Hollywood again.

Over the next posts, I hope to examine Gibson's statements, as well as make my own comments about what I saw in the movie myself.

First of all Gibson's reason for making the movie:

"My ultimate hope is that this story's message of tremendous courage and sacrifice might inspire tolerance, love and forgiveness. We're definitely in need of those things in today's world."

The movie website said:

"Gibson co-wrote a screenplay with Benedict Fitzgerald Wise Blood that drew faithfully from the Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as the script's main sources."

However, in reading articles about the movie on the internet I came across Tim Challies who said:

"Gibson drew heavily from Sister Anne Emmerich's devotional book entitled The Dolorous Passion of Christ. Emmerich is known as being a Mystic, Stigmatist, Visionary, and Prophet. She apparently received many visions in which God provided her details about Jesus' last days that are not contained in the Bible. ... Reading through The Dolorous Passion of Christ after seeing the movie I was shocked by how closely the script of The Passion of the Christ follows this book."

You can read the book here and look for yourself. I saw plenty of similarities in a short perusal.

Politics and Hypocrisy
They go together, don't they? Take the current presidential election. The Republicans have the one who avoided service in Vietnam. Twelve years ago it was the Democrats and the statements were dyametrically opposite. Now all of a sudden, Democrats believe in states rights (only on some issues, of course) and Republicans are for federal interventionism. Hmmmm.

It's almost enough to make you sick. Nobody is consistent anymore. Former war protesters are now waving the flag. Former believers in letting the states decide, now want to amend the Constitution. Sometimes you need a scorecard to know who believes what.

One reason is that subjectivism rules. There are no absolutes and whatever is expedient or convenient is held to. When there are no absolutes, anything goes. Rules? Ignore them. Laws, too. Only what I think is right is important. And don't tell me I'm wrong, because, after all, it's just your opinion.

Anyway, enough ranting (:-)for one post...

Just Rambling
I like to pick up the Sunday edition (page down one or two times to "Crossroads") of a nearby large city newspaper. It has a whole section of editorials that I read, usually one or two issues that has pro and con articles.

There were three articles on Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" (I'm not saying anything until I actually see it), two on Howard Dean's (how many times did the poor guy get called John Dean?) campaign, one on the primary system, pro and con articles on Cuban policy, education, Europe-US relations, citizenship, and of course Ralph Nader's announcing his candidacy. A couple of local ones, one on the Great Lakes specifically Lake Michigan were also there. There were many political cartoons also. A nice read on a Sunday afternoon while watching NASCAR and waiting for baseball season to start.

Take a look and see what I read.

Bush AWOL?
Well, I said previously that this would not go away. Suddenly the Democratic party, after so many years of being the anti-Vietnam War party are now embracing it and bashing Bush for serving in the National Guard. Of course in 1992, it was Bill Clinton's lack of service that was an issue with the Republicans raising the issue. Interesting how these things go, isn't it.

I have great respect for John Kerry and anyone who went to Vietnam and fought. Now, looking back on events, I also respect his opposition upon his return. He served and had every right to do so. I also now respect those who opposed and fled the country or suffered imprisonment. More should be done to honor their sacrifices for what they thought was right.

My wish is still the same and it seems it was John Kerry's wish at one time too. Let's heal the country about Vietnam and not continue to divide. Reportedly he gave a speech in 1992 after Bob Kerrey, running for president that year, criticized Clinton over his lack of military service.

Here are some of his reported comments from that speech:

"I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning."

"The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation.

"We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?

"Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam?"

"I would like to make a simple and straightforward appeal, an appeal from my heart, as well as from my head. To all those currently pursuing the presidency in both parties, I would plead that they simply look at America. We are a nation crying out for leadership, for someone who will bring us together and raise our sights. We are a nation looking for someone who will lift our spirits and give us confidence that together we can grow out of this recession and conquer the myriad of social ills we have at home.

"We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric."

I can only hope as Kerry becomes the nominee that he will heed his own words and urge those in his party to do so. And that the Republicans will cease trying to turn Kerry into something less than he is--one who served with distinction and even valor.

Been Away
Sorry, I've been away for some family matters for the past week. Hope to post again soon.

Super Bowl XXXVIII
I know by now that I was not the only one offended by yesterday's halftime show. NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue was also: "We were extremely disappointed by the MTV-produced halftime show. It was totally inconsistent with assurances our office was given about the content of the show.

"The show was offensive, inappropriate and embarrassing to us and our fans. We will change our policy, our people and our processes for managing the halftime entertainment in the future in order to deal far more effectively with the quality of this aspect of the Super Bowl."

As my friend at politicaldevotions.com (and credit Tim with many of the links I used here) would say, take action by contacting your federal and state officials. While you're at it, send one to CBS, its local affiliate and MTV as well as their parent company Viacom. Use the above link to also send an email to the FCC. And include the NFL. While you're at it send an email to AOL, the sponsor of the half-time program.

Some will think I'm being prudish or to quote a presidential candidate "silly". Fine. If I want to see a female breast, I know where to find them. If I want to watch performers grab their crotch, I'll tune in MTV (don't hold your breath). If I want to watch juvenile antics, there are plenty of channels to tune to. But if I want to watch a sporting event, that's what I want to see.

The US according to the primaries
A nice cartoon from Jack Ohman, The Portland Oregonian shows my feelings about the primary season. The pundits are looking at eliminating the rest of the field after Kerry became the front-runner. All of the candidates "must win" a primary in the next two weeks. Dean is running out of money and his campaign is "in chaos" because he got rid of Trippi and hired Leen.

And what do pundits know? They practically anointed Howard Dean after the Al Gore endorsement. And they had written off Kerry. Shuld we believe anything else they have to say?

Why the importance of the first two states? Americans love "a winner" and our attention spans are not too long. TV, being primarily an entertainment medium, knows this and wants to get things focused on the two main candidates.

NH Aftermath
Listening to the spin. Kerry of course, needs no spin; he's won both.

Dean on CNN: A Solid Second
Dean is done. He has money to keep on for awhile. He ranks no higher than fourth in three of the polls for Feb. 3 (SC, AR, OK).

General Wesley Clark for President - Official Campaign Web Site "Wes Clark fought a hard campaign in New Hampshire, the backyard of two other candidates. His competitive finish in the Granite State positions him well for next week's slate of nation wide primaries." Get real. Only a candidate would consider 12% total vote, 27% behind the winner and 12-13% out of second place, competitive. Clark will at least compete in the next states. He has raised quite a bit of money and is in for awhile. He leads in OK and is statistical dead heat in AR but fourth in SC.

John Edwards: "Thank You New Hampshire...
Thank you voters of New Hampshire! You kept the Edwards momentum incredibly strong and helped us more than triple our support in less than three weeks.
This campaign continues to shoot up." More campaign spin but Edwards is banking on SC where he leads the polls. He's also currently second in OK.

CNN.com - Lieberman: I'm exceeding expectations - Jan. 27, 2004: "'The standard for showing some strength here is to do better than expected. A week ago we were in the low single digits. After a very strong debate performance Senator Lieberman jumped up in most of the tracking polls,' " Lieberman had nothing on his website, which could be significant. He had to be hoping for better than he did. It's hard to talk about "Joementum" with a fifth place finish. Lieberman is no better than fourth in SC, AR and OK

Kucinich and Sharpton are fringe still. Sharpton is strong in SC.

As always, things may change. The other candidates may take the gloves off, now that Kerry has won two contests in a row.

UPDATE: My intention here was not to necessarily predict, but to show how the campaigns were interpreting results. If you listened to them all, you would have thought that all of them won here. Also Ben has added another thoughtful comment and I have responded to it.

UPDATE II: Of course, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on Comedy Central had their usual humorous take on the same subject.

Vietnam
It is amazing that almost 30 years after the Vietnam War officially ended with the fall of Saigon (Ho Chi Minh City), Americans are still polarized over it. Only this time, the roles are seemingly reversed. We find Michael Moore, a supporter of Democratic candidate Wesley Clark, accusing Bush of being a deserter (see the article FactCheck.org Bush A Military Deserter? Calm Down, Michael).

You wouldn't find too many Americans any more, I don't think, who would say that we prosecuted the Vietnam War correctly. Some say we shouldn't have been there at all, others that the war was micro-managed by politicians who were afraid of public opinion.

My own personal history is that after initially supporting the war, I became convince that our soldiers should leave, not necessarily because the war was wrong, but because the South Vietnamese seemed more interested in their own personal gain than in the successful prosecution of the war. I was eligible for the draft, but by that Vietnamization of the war was underway and my number was high enough that I was not called.

It seems like until the Vietnam War generation retires, we will fight this battle again and again in some way. This year, as with Clinton before, it's who went to fight and who avoided the draft. Only this time, the one who avoided the draft was a Democrat and this time he's a Republican.

Although it's a false hope, I wish we could put the Vietnam War behind us.

UPDATE: I think we'll probably hear about this again, especially if Kerry or Clark is the nominee.