Replies

I am joined in the “fray” as you put it. However, unless I misunderstand your views, I would be embarrassed to find you on my side. There is room in the large tent on the Right for serious people of many persuasions who wish to rein in an intrusive government, reduce the burden of taxation, and restore lost Constitutional principles. But we won’t do this with otherworldly debates about whether a joint congressional resolution includes the phrase “a state of war exists …” or not.

We are in a war. We have an enemy. This is demonstrated by the 3,000 dead on 9/11. By the bombings of our embassies and the attacks on our ships.

We either fight the war or we do not. Bush has been given the power to do so by a joint resolution of Congress, just as power was conferred on previous Presidents by joint resolutions. That, by the way, is the form that these things take: Joint Resolutions.

What seems to throw a lot of people is that we were not attacked by a country. We were not attacked by enemy missiles, tanks or planes. That is why it’s so difficult for people with fixed ideas of what war is to understand the current situation. They refuse to think outside the box. They want their enemies nice and neat, and their joint resolutions “just so.” Well, let your mind adapt. Learn to understand the current situation. It doesn’t require a fleet of aircraft carriers launched from an identified country to wipe out New York City. A people and a government that does not understand that is as dead as the Dodo. Especially when you have literally millions of people who want you dead and who dance in the streets and give their children candy when your buildings burn and your fellow citizens die.

moneyrunner said: "What seems to throw a lot of people is that we were not attacked by a country. We were not attacked by enemy missiles, tanks or planes. That is why it’s so difficult for people with fixed ideas of what war is to understand the current situation."

Crime and war are two different things. War may be fought because a government refuses to recognize the valid claims of the United States to hold people accountable for crimes. People who cause us to go to war may be held accountable for "war crimes" if they fall into our hands as a result of waging war.

Our government has the resources and the sophistication to be able to manage this distinction. Failure to manage it properly has the potential to destroy us.

The political decision to support a corrupt South Vietnamese government caused the death of many tens of thousands of Americans. I don't wish to see the repeat of such a mess. And yet a lack of clarity with regard to who is the enemy and what is a crime could lead to very serious problems "ending" the war.

moneyrunner said: "Especially when you have literally millions of people who want you dead and who dance in the streets and give their children candy when your buildings burn and your fellow citizens die."

Fine. Tell me whether the "celebrations" that you just described are an act of war or a permitted activity by a "neutral".

If it is an act of war, then it must be justified to use military force to stop it. If it is not an act of war, then we better learn to distinguish between "hate" and "crime". They are not the same. "Hate" is a thought. "Celebration" is a form of expressing joy. Thinking and expressing oneself are not crimes.