It is a shame because disarming

Iraq is actually a very good idea, and one which would justify the use

of force. President Bush's political tergiversation and international

high-handedness have created opponents for us all over the world, and

actually weakened the cause for which he strives. All he has left now

is the naked use of military force.

Les calls the U.N. "emasculated

and ineffective," inferring therefore its uselessness in settling

international disputes. History shows otherwise. The U.N. acts decisively

when it is led well. In this case the U.N. was treated as an afterthought

for both the institution and the idea of "common good" international

treaties. Mr. Bush only went to the U.N. after several months of bellicose

posturing had alienated the populations of most of our friends and all

the neutrals in the world.

I suppose my "vitriol"

was in response to the not uncommon belief that President Bush is some

kind of hero. He has displayed poor judgment, poor international political

skills, and ignorance of both history and world opinion. It's all well

and good to believe we can prevail alone in the world, but the history

of great empires and the reality of the world as it is dictate otherwise.

Les talks about checks and

balances. Why did Mr. Bush need his resolution immediately before a very

critical congressional election? His father refused to play politics with

so critical a venture! There never really was a debate, and the passions

feared by Madison in his explanation for the needs of a Senate were unleashed,

and Mr. Bush got his resolution.

As far as my alleged naiveté:

the word can mean simplistic, lacking sophistication, or it can mean ingenuousness

which can also mean open, honest or frank. I'm neither ignorant nor childish

so I guess, Les, you're asking me to lose my honesty, and you know what

the answer to that would be.

Now this notion put forth by

others that any protest against this action is unpatriotic poppycock.

It is our duty as patriots to oppose those actions by our government that

we determine will be harmful to the country as a whole. The present military

does their duty to the Constitution and those lawfully appointed over

them. To assume that any protest against the political actions taken by

a governmental body (or executive) is also a condemnation of the U.S.

military, provides patriotic cover for even the most outrageous acts that

could be perpetrated in our name.

And all this rubbish about

the military protecting your right to protest, therefore you shouldn't

protest, doesn't take my breath away with its logic. Freedom may be purchased

at the end of a gun, but it survives only in the hearts of those who continue

to will their freedom.

I admit that most Americans

support our going to war against Iraq at this time. Most Americans also

watch reality TV and read very little anything of consequence. Normally

the system of governmental push and pull (checks and balances if you will)

can make up for voter ignorance. In this case that system was undermined

at the outset, allowing our president a free ride to seeming national

perdition.

Has anyone stopped to wonder

why we can't seem to convince anybody besides the leaders of Spain and

the U.K. of the righteousness of our cause, when in 1991 almost the whole

world supported us? Could it be we've said the wrong thing, or said it

in the wrong way? The government can keep up this keystone cops act for

the amusement of the American public, but the rest of the world is not

amused.

And Les, I assure you, I took

nothing from President Nixon who resigned in my first year. I also assure

you that few of the public would believe that this war has been fought

exclusively with a military the Republicans claimed had been drained of

capability by the previous administration. Ignorance is not only bliss,

it seems to be Republican! I'd recount the votes in my time machine, because

there is no other way out of this god-awful mess.

Tim Parker

Peachtree City