Wirt wrote "
At the moment, the current Republican liturgy is:

     o The smallest possible government is the best possible government

     o The road to peace in Jerusalem runs (ran) through Baghdad

     o War is the natural state of mankind

For years now, the first objective has been best thought to be
achievable
through massive tax cuts. The Republican mantra has been for years now:
"starve
the beast." Unfortunately, such tax cuts for the wealthiest -- who
coincidentally tend to be the Party's primary supporters -- run afoul of
the necessary
promises for increased governmental spending for critical programs for
specific
problems and groups, leading to the massive budget deficits that have
been
characteristic of the last several Republican administrations.

The second objective has been governed principally by the hijacking of
the
party by the highly conservative religious right over the last quarter
century.
Throughout the 1990's, when the party was out of power, a
neoconservative
mindset was formulated around either the right-wing Christian philosophy
that the
Jews returning to the land of Israel -- in its entirety -- was one of
the
signals necessary for return of Jesus to this Earth, or that of the Jews
who saw
their mandate to once again regain control of the land that was promised
to
them by God. The Project for a New American Century, whose members
are/were
William Kristol, Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, Donald Rumsfeld, and others,
was founded
with this as one of its two central tenets, thus the attack on Iraq was
well
formulated as soon as the current administration took power in 2001. The
other
proposition was that the United States, as the sole remaining
superpower, must
return to a stance of strength, eschew diplomacy and project its might
into
every corner of the world.

The third objective, which is more of philosophy, is one of the two
basic
ideas promulgated by Victor David Hanson (Denys' favorite commentator),
a
second-tier intellect who teaches at one of California's premiere
universities, Cal
State Fresno. Dick Cheney has been one of Hanson's most ardent admirers
and
often quotes from Hanson regarding the idea that war is the natural
state of
mankind.

These ideas have evolved to be so completely antithetical to ideals of
John
C. Fremont and Abraham Lincoln, the founders of the modern Republican
Party and
who argued for the "better angels of our nature," that I'm sure that
neither
would now avow any allegiance to any part of the current party.

Wirt Atmar"



To which I reply simply: nonsense.

In fact, I haven't seen this much New York Times-inspired nonsense in a
long time.  The two Bush tax cuts were aimed directly at those who paid
income taxes.  If you paid taxes, you got a tax cut, irrespective of
your tax bracket, imagine that.  Also, it is fantasy to say that the
nation's wealthiest are all Republicans.  In fact, if one were to look
in the senate, you would see that 9 of the 10 wealthiest senators are
Democrats.  John Kerry the front-runner wannabe for the 'rats is amongst
the wealthiest in the senate, and like most good wealthy Democrats, he
did not build his fortune.  In Kerry's case, he first married a wealthy
daughter and more recently a wealthy widow.  Does the word gigolo apply
here?  :)  Kennedy, another wealthy Democrat senator, inherited his
fortune.

I am always amazed when I hear about the Religious Right.  I have heard
its rise, its demise, its rebirth and its death so many times, I can't
keep track anymore.  But just for giggles, could someone tell me who
runs the Religious Right?  And please don't answer Jerry Falwell; that
is bogus.  If the Religious Right is such a strong movement, it must
have a leadership structure somewhere.  My bet is that it is in the same
building as the leadership of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.  :)  Sorry
to break the news to you, but there is no such thing as the Religious
Right as a movement.

Wirt should also know, and I am sure that he does, that it has been US
policy to get rid of Saddam Hussein for several years now.  This was
voted on and brought into law under the Clinton administration.  Indeed,
Clinton was urged by John Kerry and other noted Democrats (who are now
opposing the war in Iraq,) to attack Iraq and get rid of the weapons of
mass destruction.  This started back in 1998.  When Bush took over, he
simply continued the plans that had already been drawn up during the
Clinton administration, and decided to get rid of Saddam for multiple
reasons, one of which was the intelligence reports about the WMDs from
ALL the agencies of the US, the UN and virtually every country on the
planet.  This same intelligence was presented to all the lawmakers,
including the Senate Democrats who are now opposed to the action in
Iraq, but who voted for it earlier.

Disappointingly, but not surprisingly, Wirt does an ad hominem attack on
a columnist, Victor Davis Hanson and displays uncharacteristic, for him,
elitism.  Wirt does not contradict VDH or offer alternative
explanations, he just calls him a second rate intellect.   I still can't
figure out why he did that, but there you are.

Finally, I am reminded of a post with which Wirt graced the list some
weeks ago, about the differences between colonels and generals and how
Wirt had had the occasion to meet several of the latter variety and how
impressed he was with them.  I would just reinforce that statement by
quoting from a general who I have been led to believe is greatly admired
by Wirt, General Wes Clark, a current 'rat presidential wannabe.
General Clark said on May 11, 2001 in Little Rock, Arkansas: "... And
I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell,
Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice..., people I know very
well - our president George W. Bush,  We need them there."


Denys

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *