[Ohioan]

The only thing I would agree with Ohioan is that a certain level of healthy skepticism toward those who want to "do good" and "liberate the world", is warranted. However, when skepticism turns into cynicism, and the person believes that doing good is no longer possible or even be a goal and should be pursued, that all we are left with is doing nothing, then evil would have triumphed, because as someone once said "the only thing required for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

I am not sure why you think the above is in anyway applicable to my Feature. I am not suggesting that people should not actually do good. The term "do-gooder," of course, refers to people who think they are doing good and aren't. And that perfectly describes what President Bush is suggesting in his inaugural speech. We have already seen the results of the policy, in millions of dead, and millions more with broken hopes and dreams, from Dean Rusk's efforts to promote Democracy in the Third World in the 1960s, etc..

On the other hand, George Washington's proposed even handed policy towards the rest of the World, really did do good. We helped a lot of people by our example. We helped our own people thrive by not alienating others, with whom they had to deal. That type of doing good is what is called for, now and always.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[Truthsearcher]

There is where we disagree, I think we clearly are doing good, and I don't see what Dean Rusk has to do with anything. Without getting into whether Dean Rusk did good or not, even if he failed to do good, how would that have anything to do with whether GWBush is doing good or not?