<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
Paul-<BR>
<BR>
The current US defense capability that we maintain continuously dwarfs that of any other nation on earth, and is the most fearsome war machine ever created by any nation in history. We are continuously ready for global warfare and are now "either a) warring, b) preparing for war,or c)getting warred upon." as you put it. <BR>
<BR>
Given the global empire of the US, the attacks against us are not always on US soil. But our interests economically, politically or militarily have been under threat or attack continuously since W.W.II, thus our need to control many nations on earth who might oppose our interests by devious or not so devious means: impose puppet governments, overthrow democratically elected governments, get other nations to conduct proxy wars (the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan who we supported with even Bin Laden rumored to have received CIA support in fighting the Soviets), support our favorite dictators who do our bidding, like our previous military support for Saddam in Iraq against Iran, etc.<BR>
<BR>
For someone who obviously thinks and studies these issues seriously, you gloss over and oversimplify with ease.<BR>
<BR>
Consider your reasoning here:<BR>
<BR>
"But I don't consider Bush irrational.(!!!)<BR>
If you place the security of the United States as the paramount duty of <BR>
the government and work with such logic,<BR>
his actions are reasonable"<BR>
<BR>
As the anonymous 20 year CIA veteran author of the upcoming book "Imperial Hubris" is quoted as saying, "The invasion of Iraq was a Christmas gift to Bin Laden." Assuming this logic, how is Bush's foreign policy "rational" in terms of the national security of the US? <BR>
<BR>
Bush's approach to the War on Terror has been a recruitment boon for Al Quada, and terror attacks world wide have increased. I assert emphatically Bush's foreign policy in terms of protecting the national security of the US is not sensible or rational, but quite mad, and not exclusively driven by the goal of success in the War on Terror, which is sometimes used as an ideological tool to justify other agendas.<BR>
<BR>
And your assessment that the invasion of Afghanistan "went off resonably well" means exactly what? Afghanistan is still ruled by war lords who are as tyrannical and brutal as the Taliban, while our puppet leader Karzai only rules Kabul during the day. Opium production has surged to record levels since the US invasion, jeopardizing overall economic development and fueling a criminal underground of massive proportions. The Islamic fundamentalists who have support among the tribes along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan still operate militarily, and according to the best intelligence, continue to hide Bin Laden, who was ostensibly one of the main goals in our invasion. Bush offered to not invade if the Taliban would give up Bin Laden. It appears one of the main targets of the invasion of Afghanistan still remains elusive. How does this current situation merit the description it "went off reasonably well?"<BR>
<BR>
You also write:<BR>
<BR>
"Can't say what exactly drives Bush with enviromental issues."<BR>
<BR>
You must be joking. Are you putting me on? I hesitate to tackle this statement because anyone with the slightest knowledge of the Bush administration knows corporate oil and energy interests are in bed with Cheney and Bush, and what drives the environmental approach of these corporate interests.<BR>
<BR>
Do you think if Iraq had not a drop of oil that we would have invaded?<BR>
<BR>
It is well known that a crisis point is coming when oil reserves and the global demands upon them will become critical, and render the nations who control major oil reserves the ability to dictate to the world who will or will not get the oil, and thus power over the entire global economy. And it will be very difficult to replace the cheap energy from fossil fuels with any alternative energy source. Sure the Bush administration will offer token support to hydrogen fuel research. It makes his administration look like they are supporting technology friendly to the environment, is warm and fuzzy corporate welfare, while they push for oil drilling in ANWR, and refuse to demand legislation to increase the fuel efficiency of the current US fleet of oil powered vehicles. If Bush wanted to stop our dependence on middle east oil right now his administration would have pushed for major increases in fuel efficiency. Why has this not happened?<BR>
<BR>
"This is probably to reduce dependance on Arab/Muslim oil" you write about Bush support for hydrogen fuels.<BR>
<BR>
Do you really believe Bush wants the US to not be dependent on middle east oil? The invasion of Iraq was in part to allow the US to control middle east oil, not reduce our dependence.<BR>
<BR>
And you must be aware of the financial ties between the Bush family and the Saudi Royals, which is another reason for Bush to not seriously seek reducing our dependence on Saudi oil. <BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>