John Milovich of San Francisco in his letter to the New York Times editors had this to say:

"Thomas L. Friedman's comments were scathing.  Many became wealthy, indeed fabulously wealthy, on the ignorance of borrowers and the opportunity of lax regulations.  The risk was bundled and sold on down the line.

"But the damning fact remains.  The equity of the wealthy who profited from this consensus greed is going nowhere, while this winter promises to be colder and darker for the rest of us as we open our pocketbooks to pay for it all."

J. Michael Gatch of Birmingham, Alabama in his letter to the New York Times editors explains:

Having grown up in and written about the Hollywood scene, I admired Paul Newman for standing up to the heavy weight imposed by international film stardom and remaining his own person.  Like so many great people a secret for accomplishing this status was never taking himself too seriously.

During the 1968 presidential campaign Paul Newman was one of the most deeply committed figures in the artistic community to urge an end to the tragic Vietnam War that was tearing out America's heart and soul as the death toll mounted in a campaign that realists observe, as they now do in Iraq, that there was no way to achieve "military victory" in the manner that super hawks believe could be realized.

Newman became a mainstay in boosting the campaign of Senator Eugene McCarthy, who surmounted astronomically low odds to playing a major role in derailing any thought President Lyndon Johnson had for winning another term.  McCarthy served as a forerunner of Barack Obama with his success in drawing young voters to his campaign.

Initially a scoffing mainstream media referred to McCarthy's efforts as a "children's crusade" with the Minnesota senator ultimately turning what was intended as an insult into a proud plus as he invoked the name with relish in campaign speeches.

You might find the above question absurd!

However, Morris Roth of Fort Lee, New Jersey in the Letters to the Editors of the New York Times on September 3 wrote the following:

"The Republican Convention dispels any doubt that Senator John McCain is running for President Bush's third term.

"Katrina, the economy, windfall profits for the oil industry as gas prices spiral out of control and eavesdropping on Americans -- but it is the war in Iraq that is Mr. Bush's albatross and everlasting legacy, which Mr. McCain supports at our peril."

How quick George W. Bush was to use the "appeaser" label on Barack Obama for his comment about speaking to those with whom one disagrees.

As Robert Parry was quick to point out, Bush's own family history should make him one of the last people to launch such an attack, given the record of his grandfather, banker and future U.S. Senator Prescott Bush, and his banking firm's helpful funding of the pig iron building element of Adolf Hitler Third Reich war machine.

There is another element to the latest throwing stones from his own glass house in this the latest huffing and puffing episode from Bush's pathetic fantasy land where confrontation with truth and logic result in swift banishment.

Bush, Cheney, Rove, Perle, Kristol and other members of the neocon Washington machine all believed that it was essential to secure victory in the Vietnam War if we were to keep the Asian wing of the vast Communist machine from America's front door.

The above headline was taken from a quote by the philosopher George Santayana.  How its profound truth resonates today.

President Lincoln wrote from Washington on August 23, 1963 to Horace Greely, "As to the policy I seem to be pursuing as you say, I have not meant to leave anyone in doubt.  I would save the Union.  I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution."

The U.S.A. was split apart regarding slavery.  Lincoln recognized that united we stand, divided we fall.  Lincoln recognized the authority of the Constitution created by the founders of our nation.

The conclusion of the Civil War united our nation and brought freedom to the slaves.  The price was high - the deaths of 620,000 soldiers along with an unknown number of civilian fatalities.

Earlier this week I watched a television interview of an author who had just completed a biography of the Bush stewardship.  The author indicated that Bush was initially leery of cooperating with him, but after two Oval Office sessions granted him four more interviews.  

Once that it was established that the author had been granted that kind of access it was evident that he was not likely to provide a critical analysis of a regime steeped in disaster.  One could scarcely imagine, for instance, granting Seymour Hersh six private interviews in conjunction with a book on the Bush White House years.

When asked about any discernible change he observed in Bush from the days when the author had previously interviewed him while he was Texas' governor, the author cited Bush's current interest in history.  The author stated further that Bush has become an avid reader on the American presidency.

Such responses would have indeed endeared the author to Bush, who doubtlessly feels that the sessions were worthwhile where creating a positive image of his stewardship is concerned.  

Joan Lough wrote a letter appearing in the Seattle Times on January 3, 2007 that accurately asked the paramount question regarding George Bush's desire to send more troops to Iraq:

"How can anyone be considering sending more troops into Iraq?  To me it has turned into a bottomless death pit for our troops, to say nothing of the Iraqis being slaughtered. Surely someone should be able to come up with a plan that allows the U.S. to get out of a combat situation and into a totally supervisory position."

It is somewhat confusing to objectively analyze U.S. foreign policy.  What was the outcome of Vietnam and why were we fighting there?  The much-heralded reason was that if we didn't stop Communism in Vietnam, the Asian nations would fall one by one to Communism in a Domino Effect.  

This ploy worked in that it kept us in Vietnam.  We were fed fear on the nightly news.  The media kept the focus on our horrific battles and hope was offered with the hopeful slogan that the end of the Vietnam War was nearing as the foreign policy "experts" could see "the light at the end of the tunnel."  

Nothing prompts a change of course faster than anticipated failure.  This rule is maximized in the realm of political office seeking.

Recently in this column points of common interest were revealed concerning Richard Nixon in the seventies and George W. Bush currently.  Nixon concluded a Vietnam peace with virtually the same terms Lyndon Johnson was offered during the 1968 election campaign.  We now know from Anthony Summers and other sources that Nixon and foreign policy adviser sabotaged through dealing with the South Vietnamese government.

No sooner was the Vietnam albatross removed than the Watergate scandal occupied a vise-like grip from which Nixon could never extricate himself.  The politician known as "Tricky Dick" had, in his anxiety to make his last election for the presidency in 1972 his biggest triumph, secured a landslide victory but became ultimately undone through his own excesses in seeking to secure that result.

It is notable that when Nixon resigned his popularity rating stood in the abysmally low 30's.  George W. Bush is mired today at that same woeful figure.  It is a critical point  considering that, just as the hardcore right wing Republicans were the only supporters left in 1974 when Nixon resigned, the same holds true today for Bush.  

One of the interesting U.S. Senate candidacies of the 2006 primary season along with Ned Lamont's challenge against Senator Joseph Lieberman in Connecticut is that of James Webb in Virginia.  Should Webb win the Democratic primary his opponent would be Senator George Allen, a Cheney-Bush Republican currently seeking to run away from his roots, given Bush's recent dismal polling numbers.

If one Democrat of all those seeking office at this stage of the 2006 political sweepstakes could be selected who would typify everything that strategist Karl Rove fears as a candidate it would figure to be James Webb.  

An even cursory analysis of Webb's personal and political biography reveals why Rove and the Republican attack machine would have significant reason to worry in the face of a Webb candidacy in the fall election.

James Webb is a Naval Academy graduate who fought in the Vietnam War and won medals for courage and valor.  Webb served with the 5th Marine Regiment in Vietnam as a rifle platoon and company commander, receiving the Navy Cross, the second highest award in the Navy, along with the Silver Star Medal, two Bronze Stars, and two Purple Hearts.  

The paradox is that the right has been proven wrong again and again, as well as hypocritical.  The hypocrisy was blatant in the case of the Vietnam War, a track record now being equaled if not surpassed by the Cheney-Bush brigade's actions and comments on the Iraq War.

Currently those who dare criticize Cheney, Bush and other administration operatives for rushing America to war on demonstrably proven false information are denounced as damaging America at a time the country is waging a war against terrorism.  

Better than a generation ago Nixon and his hired guns declared themselves to be seeking to perpetuate freedom on behalf of the "silent majority," and were allegedly being opposed by those who were accused of "running down America."

It was a period of turbulent division that saw scores of American young men leave the country and travel to Canada, some never to return, rather than go to Vietnam to fight in a war they genuinely believed to be wrong.  

George W. Bush's television appearance in which he shed tears on behalf of Dick Cheney's accidental shooting ordeal reminds me of a story I heard years ago that taught a valuable lesson.

The efficient taskmaster of the Nazi Auschwitz death camp was praised by Hitler for his efficiency in carrying out the mass executions mandated in the brutal regime's quest to "purify" society in the important early stages of what was intended by the Fuhrer to be a one thousand year rule.  

At one point the operational function had to be carried out by subordinates as the taskmaster took one week off from duties due to grievance over the death of his pet cat.  The story illustrated what happens when individuals become divorced from reality.  

While it is ordinarily commendable to grieve over a deceased pet, this grieving cat owner thought nothing of gassing scores of helpless individuals who had done nothing to personally displease him.

George Bush has been quick to preach sacrifice to the American people regarding Iraq.  His request harkens back to two statements I heard about war and peace that I never forgot, and that Bush has made germane.

I knew a Los Angeles travel agent who had been a World War Two member of General James Doolittle's crack Flying Tigers.  His Army Air Force plane was shot down during the war and he spent time in a Japanese POW camp.  "We people who have experienced and seen the destruction of combat are very careful about one thing," he told me.  "When we think people are too quick about advocating war we step back and study the issue very carefully.  When you've been there and seen the damage of war you're much more reluctant about advocating it and greatly concerned about seeking ways to prevent it."  

George W. Bush's recent comparison of the Iraq War he launched to World War Two touched off an outrage among many.  For one thing there was that uncomfortable comparison to the current conflict and Vietnam.  

In that instance supporters of that war fought in jungle tundra rather than in the desert terrain of the current conflict was supported on the basis of the "domino theory" of "If we don't stop them abroad we will have to stop them here at home."  In the case of the Vietnam War, proponents envisioned an Asian assault on the shores of San Francisco Bay.  Subsequent events proved such fears unjustified.

Those critics of Bush's latest comparison realize that he has his own domino theory with the issue of international terrorism.  The argument's flaw, therefore, is that Saddam Hussein was from a religious perspective perceived as a moderate Sunni and was a mortal enemy of Osama bin Laden and his radical fundamentalist Wahhabi Islam that is applicable to the al Qaeda leader's roots in Saudi Arabia.