Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Evidence We're in a Third--or Fourth--Turning - Page 192







Post#4776 at 12-02-2002 12:28 AM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
12-02-2002, 12:28 AM #4776
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Dominic:

Chambliss specifically said IN AN AD that he wasn't questioning Cleland's patriotism, IN SO MANY WORDS
And Lyndon Johnson said, IN SO MANY WORDS, that he wasn't going to send American boys to do what Asian boys ought to be doing; and Richard Nixon said, IN SO MANY WORDS, that he wasn't a crook; and Ronald Reagan said, IN SO MANY WORDS, that he didn't recall what was done in his own administration; and Bill Clinton said, IN SO MANY WORDS, that he did not have sex with that woman.

Deeds count for more than words, and questioning Democrats' patriotism -- implicitly confusing patriotism with warmongering -- is an old Republican tactic that, of course, cannot be openly acknowledged.

I don't question the Democrats' patriotism. I state, flat out, that they have none. No "question" about it.
You can get away with lying that openly and blatantly only because you aren't running for office yourself. Actual Republican politicians are more subtle.

Regarding the question of treason, I think it's valuable to note that this is the only crime actually defined in the Constitution. Treason, according to that document, consists of making war upon the United States, or, in wartime, taking the side of the enemy, to give him "aid and comfort." As we are not at war with Iraq at present, no support of Iraq can be treasonous.







Post#4777 at 12-02-2002 12:28 AM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
12-02-2002, 12:28 AM #4777
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Dominic:

Chambliss specifically said IN AN AD that he wasn't questioning Cleland's patriotism, IN SO MANY WORDS
And Lyndon Johnson said, IN SO MANY WORDS, that he wasn't going to send American boys to do what Asian boys ought to be doing; and Richard Nixon said, IN SO MANY WORDS, that he wasn't a crook; and Ronald Reagan said, IN SO MANY WORDS, that he didn't recall what was done in his own administration; and Bill Clinton said, IN SO MANY WORDS, that he did not have sex with that woman.

Deeds count for more than words, and questioning Democrats' patriotism -- implicitly confusing patriotism with warmongering -- is an old Republican tactic that, of course, cannot be openly acknowledged.

I don't question the Democrats' patriotism. I state, flat out, that they have none. No "question" about it.
You can get away with lying that openly and blatantly only because you aren't running for office yourself. Actual Republican politicians are more subtle.

Regarding the question of treason, I think it's valuable to note that this is the only crime actually defined in the Constitution. Treason, according to that document, consists of making war upon the United States, or, in wartime, taking the side of the enemy, to give him "aid and comfort." As we are not at war with Iraq at present, no support of Iraq can be treasonous.







Post#4778 at 12-02-2002 03:22 AM by Number Two [at joined Jul 2002 #posts 446]
---
12-02-2002, 03:22 AM #4778
Join Date
Jul 2002
Posts
446

Quote Originally Posted by AlexMnWi
Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Fuckin'-A told!!!

He won't, of course. How silly of you even to suggest it! After all, keeping his oil company CEO fuckbuddies in business is far, far important than avenging 3000 American lives already lost, and preventing the deaths of uncounted millions to come.

Besides, the woman-enslaving Saudis are our "friends"!!!

"Fuckbuddies"? Nice choice of language. Maybe that's why I hate posts like this one so much. The profane language makes it appear irrational.
Who really cares about the words? What matters more is the content - and what word would you use for "fuckbuddies"? Enlighten me here...
"I don't give them hell, I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." - Harry S Truman (Nomad born 5/84 :-))







Post#4779 at 12-02-2002 03:22 AM by Number Two [at joined Jul 2002 #posts 446]
---
12-02-2002, 03:22 AM #4779
Join Date
Jul 2002
Posts
446

Quote Originally Posted by AlexMnWi
Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Fuckin'-A told!!!

He won't, of course. How silly of you even to suggest it! After all, keeping his oil company CEO fuckbuddies in business is far, far important than avenging 3000 American lives already lost, and preventing the deaths of uncounted millions to come.

Besides, the woman-enslaving Saudis are our "friends"!!!

"Fuckbuddies"? Nice choice of language. Maybe that's why I hate posts like this one so much. The profane language makes it appear irrational.
Who really cares about the words? What matters more is the content - and what word would you use for "fuckbuddies"? Enlighten me here...
"I don't give them hell, I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." - Harry S Truman (Nomad born 5/84 :-))







Post#4780 at 12-02-2002 03:22 AM by Number Two [at joined Jul 2002 #posts 446]
---
12-02-2002, 03:22 AM #4780
Join Date
Jul 2002
Posts
446

Quote Originally Posted by AlexMnWi
Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Fuckin'-A told!!!

He won't, of course. How silly of you even to suggest it! After all, keeping his oil company CEO fuckbuddies in business is far, far important than avenging 3000 American lives already lost, and preventing the deaths of uncounted millions to come.

Besides, the woman-enslaving Saudis are our "friends"!!!

"Fuckbuddies"? Nice choice of language. Maybe that's why I hate posts like this one so much. The profane language makes it appear irrational.
Who really cares about the words? What matters more is the content - and what word would you use for "fuckbuddies"? Enlighten me here...
"I don't give them hell, I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." - Harry S Truman (Nomad born 5/84 :-))







Post#4781 at 12-02-2002 09:48 AM by Opusaug [at Ft. Myers, Florida joined Sep 2001 #posts 7]
---
12-02-2002, 09:48 AM #4781
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Ft. Myers, Florida
Posts
7

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
Regarding the question of treason, I think it's valuable to note that this is the only crime actually defined in the Constitution. Treason, according to that document, consists of making war upon the United States, or, in wartime, taking the side of the enemy, to give him "aid and comfort." As we are not at war with Iraq at present, no support of Iraq can be treasonous.
Actually, what it says is:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Doesn't say anything about being at war, but it does mention "adhering to (our) Enemies" and giving "aid (and comfort)". I would say that travelling to a foreign shore against the instructions of our government and allowing the inhabitants (with whom we have had extended military conflict for 12 years) to film and record propaganda of your visit is "adhering to (our) Enemies" and giving them "aid". At the least it's a debatable subject.

Lest you should revert to your earlier comments regarding being at war, recall that the Rosenburgs are quite dead, yet we were never at war with the Soviet Union.
Christopher O'Conor
13er, '68 cohort







Post#4782 at 12-02-2002 09:48 AM by Opusaug [at Ft. Myers, Florida joined Sep 2001 #posts 7]
---
12-02-2002, 09:48 AM #4782
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Ft. Myers, Florida
Posts
7

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
Regarding the question of treason, I think it's valuable to note that this is the only crime actually defined in the Constitution. Treason, according to that document, consists of making war upon the United States, or, in wartime, taking the side of the enemy, to give him "aid and comfort." As we are not at war with Iraq at present, no support of Iraq can be treasonous.
Actually, what it says is:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Doesn't say anything about being at war, but it does mention "adhering to (our) Enemies" and giving "aid (and comfort)". I would say that travelling to a foreign shore against the instructions of our government and allowing the inhabitants (with whom we have had extended military conflict for 12 years) to film and record propaganda of your visit is "adhering to (our) Enemies" and giving them "aid". At the least it's a debatable subject.

Lest you should revert to your earlier comments regarding being at war, recall that the Rosenburgs are quite dead, yet we were never at war with the Soviet Union.
Christopher O'Conor
13er, '68 cohort







Post#4783 at 12-02-2002 09:48 AM by Opusaug [at Ft. Myers, Florida joined Sep 2001 #posts 7]
---
12-02-2002, 09:48 AM #4783
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Ft. Myers, Florida
Posts
7

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
Regarding the question of treason, I think it's valuable to note that this is the only crime actually defined in the Constitution. Treason, according to that document, consists of making war upon the United States, or, in wartime, taking the side of the enemy, to give him "aid and comfort." As we are not at war with Iraq at present, no support of Iraq can be treasonous.
Actually, what it says is:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Doesn't say anything about being at war, but it does mention "adhering to (our) Enemies" and giving "aid (and comfort)". I would say that travelling to a foreign shore against the instructions of our government and allowing the inhabitants (with whom we have had extended military conflict for 12 years) to film and record propaganda of your visit is "adhering to (our) Enemies" and giving them "aid". At the least it's a debatable subject.

Lest you should revert to your earlier comments regarding being at war, recall that the Rosenburgs are quite dead, yet we were never at war with the Soviet Union.
Christopher O'Conor
13er, '68 cohort







Post#4784 at 12-02-2002 10:00 AM by Roadbldr '59 [at Vancouver, Washington joined Jul 2001 #posts 8,275]
---
12-02-2002, 10:00 AM #4784
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Vancouver, Washington
Posts
8,275

Quote Originally Posted by Number Two
Quote Originally Posted by AlexMnWi
Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Fuckin'-A told!!!

He won't, of course. How silly of you even to suggest it! After all, keeping his oil company CEO fuckbuddies in business is far, far important than avenging 3000 American lives already lost, and preventing the deaths of uncounted millions to come.

Besides, the woman-enslaving Saudis are our "friends"!!!

"Fuckbuddies"? Nice choice of language. Maybe that's why I hate posts like this one so much. The profane language makes it appear irrational.
Who really cares about the words? What matters more is the content - and what word would you use for "fuckbuddies"? Enlighten me here...
Number 2: "F*&buddies" in this context = close friends, business associates and acquantainces to whom one holds (an unholy) allegiance.

Alex: If you survive the Crisis and live to be my age, you may be surprised to learn that you have a few irrational-sounding impulses yourself. Meanwhile, listen and learn, kid :-).







Post#4785 at 12-02-2002 10:00 AM by Roadbldr '59 [at Vancouver, Washington joined Jul 2001 #posts 8,275]
---
12-02-2002, 10:00 AM #4785
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Vancouver, Washington
Posts
8,275

Quote Originally Posted by Number Two
Quote Originally Posted by AlexMnWi
Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Fuckin'-A told!!!

He won't, of course. How silly of you even to suggest it! After all, keeping his oil company CEO fuckbuddies in business is far, far important than avenging 3000 American lives already lost, and preventing the deaths of uncounted millions to come.

Besides, the woman-enslaving Saudis are our "friends"!!!

"Fuckbuddies"? Nice choice of language. Maybe that's why I hate posts like this one so much. The profane language makes it appear irrational.
Who really cares about the words? What matters more is the content - and what word would you use for "fuckbuddies"? Enlighten me here...
Number 2: "F*&buddies" in this context = close friends, business associates and acquantainces to whom one holds (an unholy) allegiance.

Alex: If you survive the Crisis and live to be my age, you may be surprised to learn that you have a few irrational-sounding impulses yourself. Meanwhile, listen and learn, kid :-).







Post#4786 at 12-02-2002 10:00 AM by Roadbldr '59 [at Vancouver, Washington joined Jul 2001 #posts 8,275]
---
12-02-2002, 10:00 AM #4786
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Vancouver, Washington
Posts
8,275

Quote Originally Posted by Number Two
Quote Originally Posted by AlexMnWi
Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Fuckin'-A told!!!

He won't, of course. How silly of you even to suggest it! After all, keeping his oil company CEO fuckbuddies in business is far, far important than avenging 3000 American lives already lost, and preventing the deaths of uncounted millions to come.

Besides, the woman-enslaving Saudis are our "friends"!!!

"Fuckbuddies"? Nice choice of language. Maybe that's why I hate posts like this one so much. The profane language makes it appear irrational.
Who really cares about the words? What matters more is the content - and what word would you use for "fuckbuddies"? Enlighten me here...
Number 2: "F*&buddies" in this context = close friends, business associates and acquantainces to whom one holds (an unholy) allegiance.

Alex: If you survive the Crisis and live to be my age, you may be surprised to learn that you have a few irrational-sounding impulses yourself. Meanwhile, listen and learn, kid :-).







Post#4787 at 12-02-2002 11:07 AM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
12-02-2002, 11:07 AM #4787
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

Rosenburgs

Quote Originally Posted by Chris'68

Lest you should revert to your earlier comments regarding being at war, recall that the Rosenburgs are quite dead, yet we were never at war with the Soviet Union.

They were tried, convicted and executed on the charge of espionage and not treason.







Post#4788 at 12-02-2002 11:07 AM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
12-02-2002, 11:07 AM #4788
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

Rosenburgs

Quote Originally Posted by Chris'68

Lest you should revert to your earlier comments regarding being at war, recall that the Rosenburgs are quite dead, yet we were never at war with the Soviet Union.

They were tried, convicted and executed on the charge of espionage and not treason.







Post#4789 at 12-02-2002 11:07 AM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
12-02-2002, 11:07 AM #4789
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

Rosenburgs

Quote Originally Posted by Chris'68

Lest you should revert to your earlier comments regarding being at war, recall that the Rosenburgs are quite dead, yet we were never at war with the Soviet Union.

They were tried, convicted and executed on the charge of espionage and not treason.







Post#4790 at 12-02-2002 12:12 PM by Opusaug [at Ft. Myers, Florida joined Sep 2001 #posts 7]
---
12-02-2002, 12:12 PM #4790
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Ft. Myers, Florida
Posts
7

Re: Rosenburgs

Quote Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari
Quote Originally Posted by Chris'68
Lest you should revert to your earlier comments regarding being at war, recall that the Rosenburgs are quite dead, yet we were never at war with the Soviet Union.
They were tried, convicted and executed on the charge of espionage and not treason.
I stand corrected. Let's dig 'em up and retry them.
Christopher O'Conor
13er, '68 cohort







Post#4791 at 12-02-2002 12:12 PM by Opusaug [at Ft. Myers, Florida joined Sep 2001 #posts 7]
---
12-02-2002, 12:12 PM #4791
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Ft. Myers, Florida
Posts
7

Re: Rosenburgs

Quote Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari
Quote Originally Posted by Chris'68
Lest you should revert to your earlier comments regarding being at war, recall that the Rosenburgs are quite dead, yet we were never at war with the Soviet Union.
They were tried, convicted and executed on the charge of espionage and not treason.
I stand corrected. Let's dig 'em up and retry them.
Christopher O'Conor
13er, '68 cohort







Post#4792 at 12-02-2002 12:12 PM by Opusaug [at Ft. Myers, Florida joined Sep 2001 #posts 7]
---
12-02-2002, 12:12 PM #4792
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Ft. Myers, Florida
Posts
7

Re: Rosenburgs

Quote Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari
Quote Originally Posted by Chris'68
Lest you should revert to your earlier comments regarding being at war, recall that the Rosenburgs are quite dead, yet we were never at war with the Soviet Union.
They were tried, convicted and executed on the charge of espionage and not treason.
I stand corrected. Let's dig 'em up and retry them.
Christopher O'Conor
13er, '68 cohort







Post#4793 at 12-02-2002 02:12 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
12-02-2002, 02:12 PM #4793
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Chris:

Unless we are at war, we do not have any "enemies." That is a word with a very specific meaning. Depending on how one interprets the declaration of war clause in Article I, Section 8, our last "enemy" was either the Taliban government in Afghanistan, or Imperial Japan.

The Rosenbergs were not guilty of treason, because the Soviet Union was not an enemy. (Ever.) Had they provided their stolen information to Germany or Japan, that would have been treason.

The very reason why treason was defined so strictly in the Constitution is because it is an easily-abused charge. And you propose to abuse it in classic form, by confusing dissent from current administration policy with betrayal of one's country. The Bush administration is NOT the United States. Like all elected (or selected) presidencies, it is a caretaker of the nation's government, provisionally in place and subject to review and dispute. Your interpretation of the concept of treason, to apply to dissent such as that of McDermott, is anathema to any reasonable ideal of freedom.







Post#4794 at 12-02-2002 02:12 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
12-02-2002, 02:12 PM #4794
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Chris:

Unless we are at war, we do not have any "enemies." That is a word with a very specific meaning. Depending on how one interprets the declaration of war clause in Article I, Section 8, our last "enemy" was either the Taliban government in Afghanistan, or Imperial Japan.

The Rosenbergs were not guilty of treason, because the Soviet Union was not an enemy. (Ever.) Had they provided their stolen information to Germany or Japan, that would have been treason.

The very reason why treason was defined so strictly in the Constitution is because it is an easily-abused charge. And you propose to abuse it in classic form, by confusing dissent from current administration policy with betrayal of one's country. The Bush administration is NOT the United States. Like all elected (or selected) presidencies, it is a caretaker of the nation's government, provisionally in place and subject to review and dispute. Your interpretation of the concept of treason, to apply to dissent such as that of McDermott, is anathema to any reasonable ideal of freedom.







Post#4795 at 12-02-2002 02:12 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
12-02-2002, 02:12 PM #4795
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Chris:

Unless we are at war, we do not have any "enemies." That is a word with a very specific meaning. Depending on how one interprets the declaration of war clause in Article I, Section 8, our last "enemy" was either the Taliban government in Afghanistan, or Imperial Japan.

The Rosenbergs were not guilty of treason, because the Soviet Union was not an enemy. (Ever.) Had they provided their stolen information to Germany or Japan, that would have been treason.

The very reason why treason was defined so strictly in the Constitution is because it is an easily-abused charge. And you propose to abuse it in classic form, by confusing dissent from current administration policy with betrayal of one's country. The Bush administration is NOT the United States. Like all elected (or selected) presidencies, it is a caretaker of the nation's government, provisionally in place and subject to review and dispute. Your interpretation of the concept of treason, to apply to dissent such as that of McDermott, is anathema to any reasonable ideal of freedom.







Post#4796 at 12-02-2002 03:29 PM by TrollKing [at Portland, OR -- b. 1968 joined Sep 2001 #posts 1,257]
---
12-02-2002, 03:29 PM #4796
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Portland, OR -- b. 1968
Posts
1,257

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
The very reason why treason was defined so strictly in the Constitution is because it is an easily-abused charge. And you propose to abuse it in classic form, by confusing dissent from current administration policy with betrayal of one's country. The Bush administration is NOT the United States.... Your interpretation of the concept of treason, to apply to dissent such as that of McDermott, is anathema to any reasonable ideal of freedom.
you go, dawg!

i don't really agree with what mcdermott et al. did, but i will defend to the death (or at least until i begin to chafe at the obtuse dullness of it all, at which point i'll just throw my hands up and say "whatever") their right to do it.


TK







Post#4797 at 12-02-2002 03:29 PM by TrollKing [at Portland, OR -- b. 1968 joined Sep 2001 #posts 1,257]
---
12-02-2002, 03:29 PM #4797
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Portland, OR -- b. 1968
Posts
1,257

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
The very reason why treason was defined so strictly in the Constitution is because it is an easily-abused charge. And you propose to abuse it in classic form, by confusing dissent from current administration policy with betrayal of one's country. The Bush administration is NOT the United States.... Your interpretation of the concept of treason, to apply to dissent such as that of McDermott, is anathema to any reasonable ideal of freedom.
you go, dawg!

i don't really agree with what mcdermott et al. did, but i will defend to the death (or at least until i begin to chafe at the obtuse dullness of it all, at which point i'll just throw my hands up and say "whatever") their right to do it.


TK







Post#4798 at 12-02-2002 03:29 PM by TrollKing [at Portland, OR -- b. 1968 joined Sep 2001 #posts 1,257]
---
12-02-2002, 03:29 PM #4798
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Portland, OR -- b. 1968
Posts
1,257

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
The very reason why treason was defined so strictly in the Constitution is because it is an easily-abused charge. And you propose to abuse it in classic form, by confusing dissent from current administration policy with betrayal of one's country. The Bush administration is NOT the United States.... Your interpretation of the concept of treason, to apply to dissent such as that of McDermott, is anathema to any reasonable ideal of freedom.
you go, dawg!

i don't really agree with what mcdermott et al. did, but i will defend to the death (or at least until i begin to chafe at the obtuse dullness of it all, at which point i'll just throw my hands up and say "whatever") their right to do it.


TK







Post#4799 at 12-02-2002 05:34 PM by elilevin [at Red Hill, New Mexico joined Jan 2002 #posts 452]
---
12-02-2002, 05:34 PM #4799
Join Date
Jan 2002
Location
Red Hill, New Mexico
Posts
452

Yep!

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The very reason why treason was defined so strictly in the Constitution is because it is an easily-abused charge. And you propose to abuse it in classic form, by confusing dissent from current administration policy with betrayal of one's country. The Bush administration is NOT the United States. Like all elected (or selected) presidencies, it is a caretaker of the nation's government, provisionally in place and subject to review and dispute. Your interpretation of the concept of treason, to apply to dissent such as that of McDermott, is anathema to any reasonable ideal of freedom.
Yes! Thank you for posting sense. Even if we do not agree with what McDermott et. al. say or do, we need to recognize that such loyal dissent can slow us down and keep us from making massive errors. Even if we do ultimately go to war with Iraq, we would at least be doing so with a clearer purpose if dissent is listened to and thought about.
Elisheva Levin

"It is not up to us to complete the task,
but neither are we free to desist from it."
--Pirkei Avot







Post#4800 at 12-02-2002 05:34 PM by elilevin [at Red Hill, New Mexico joined Jan 2002 #posts 452]
---
12-02-2002, 05:34 PM #4800
Join Date
Jan 2002
Location
Red Hill, New Mexico
Posts
452

Yep!

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The very reason why treason was defined so strictly in the Constitution is because it is an easily-abused charge. And you propose to abuse it in classic form, by confusing dissent from current administration policy with betrayal of one's country. The Bush administration is NOT the United States. Like all elected (or selected) presidencies, it is a caretaker of the nation's government, provisionally in place and subject to review and dispute. Your interpretation of the concept of treason, to apply to dissent such as that of McDermott, is anathema to any reasonable ideal of freedom.
Yes! Thank you for posting sense. Even if we do not agree with what McDermott et. al. say or do, we need to recognize that such loyal dissent can slow us down and keep us from making massive errors. Even if we do ultimately go to war with Iraq, we would at least be doing so with a clearer purpose if dissent is listened to and thought about.
Elisheva Levin

"It is not up to us to complete the task,
but neither are we free to desist from it."
--Pirkei Avot
-----------------------------------------