'The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.' 

 Cicero, 55 BC

'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'

 Thomas Jefferson 1802

The Perpetual American Dilemma

As a race, we humans are incredibly adept in our developed ability to make true and witty observations of everyday fact - about our society and ourselves as a people, yet have managed to be equally clever in the avoidance of the lessons they teach. And we are particularly scrupulous as a society to make absolutely certain that, for the most part; we never apply those lessons to our political system or play any part in our choice of leaders.

The most telling example is the following English language idiom whose origin is traced back to the French revolution - "Let them eat cake.":

"You can't eat your cake and have it too."

Which was expressed well for the purpose of present day political connotation in the 19th century quotation :

These two literary quotes well describe the American mentality of wanting government services beyond those provided at this nation's inception, but not wanting to contribute for their provision any more than they did at that very time. And this unreasonable desire has continually driven them to seek out a Messiah who will provide this unattainable goal: big government and low or no taxation. Well good people, there is no such thing - so get used to the fact.

Materialism vs. Morality

"The higher the buildings, the lower the morality."

Noel Coward (1899-1973)

Regardless of how the American presidential race ends or who is sworn in as the new commander in chief on January 20, 2009, one glaring fact is patently clear: our Constitutional system of Democracy fueled by Capitalism is badly broken. And the only real question that remains of any valid issue - is the damage irreparable, or can it be repaired? In other words, can Capitalism rein supreme in the United States - ever again?

As a nation we have broken down on so many levels it becomes a daunting task to categorize the specific levels, but the most important are that of family unity, personal morality, education, infant mortality and general medical care.

Added to these obvious ills are the ones highlighted in everyday life by our newspapers and the media in general such as: an unhealthy percentage of Americas are loath to keep a gun in the house, for fear their offspring in a moment of anger will use it against them. And moral matters continue to decline on other social fronts as well.

A rapidly increasing percentage of Americans (both young and of a 'should know better age') leave the scene of an automobile accident, and instead of calling for help for their victims, either head home to parents seeking protection and false witness or call a lawyer. We also find ourselves living in an America where young mothers microwave their babies because they won't stop crying. And more and more cases of sexual affairs between high school and junior high school students and their teachers surface everyday, in intensity approaching a level of routine behavior.

Nor can we, or should we, ignore or forget the ever growing illicit drug use at all age levels of our population, that has become so prolific it now affects our athletes, from high schools to the professional leagues of all sports. Cheating is now not a mater of betrayal of honor, but simply - not getting caught.

Rush to Wealth - Dash to Madness

No one can build his security upon the nobleness of another person.

Willa Cather (1873-1947)

No truer outcome could have sanctified the words of famed American author Willa Cather, than the worldwide economic meltdown that has taken place, and which continues to bedazzle the egos and spirits of those modern day wizards who previously proclaimed their ability to forecast the trends of the stock market. Yet I am not a financial wizard, but I too saw it coming, most likely because I had my mind open to possibilities and the wise words of intelligent non-wizards.

I was attending a Brooklyn New York college in 1962, when I found myself in a position of having to wait for a girlfriend to exit her economics class lecture. The speaker on that rainy evening was a visiting industrial economics expert, whose name has long escaped my memory. However, by this circumstance of chance and timing, as a means of killing time I would be afforded the good fortune to, unexpectedly, audit his lecture.

Looking back, I now realize just how fortunate I was for this 'serendipitous moment in time.' I do not remember the name of this tall, unassuming crew-cut gentleman, but his words and thoughts are forever seared into my mind. I instinctively knew it was important, even though at the time, honestly, I did not know the underlying reasons why: it was just an unexplainable feeling.

The gist of what this unknown sage of almost half a century ago stated (to the best of my recollection) was the following:

He said that after World War ll, Americans rapidly gained to a great degree the fabled American Dream: the suburban home, the FDR promised two car garage - with two cars - and a chicken in every pot. But he stated, that would all soon end in the next 20 years or so. And I do remember these most disturbing words from this memorizing stranger:

"As soon as industry finds a way to reliably calculate to the penny the actual cost of the human workforce they employ, as they do the raw materials of their production (via the coming computer age), they will stealthily begin to institute a major downloading (aka downsizing) of the their numbers. And as more and more automatic systems come into play (like the ATM), that download will increase at alarming speed.

In time, the Middle Class will find itself destitute and scrambling for low-pay jobs (Minimum Wage) to keep afloat."

He then went on to describe how the level of the American Lifestyle that was achieved after WW ll, would be rapidly whittled away by a cost conscious and profit driven national corporate structure.

When queried by one of the students present as to what the government would or could do to stop such a devastating cost-cutting onslaught on the American Middle Class, the prophesying visiting lecturer fell lame:

"There will be virtually nothing they can do to stop private industry in their pursuit of greater profit and operating efficacy," he said. "When the moment comes they will be powerless to act. For should they attempt to do as FDR did during the Great Depression, their efforts would be regarded as attempts at privatization and socialism. And no matter what difficulty they were undergoing, the American public would never allow such a process to take place."

I might add here that most of the class appeared to regard his lecture as some sort of economic doomsday science fiction scenario. As far as I could tell, very few of them, as evidenced their random remarks, took his moving verbal essay seriously. And even though it disturbed me a bit from that very aspect, because, I was an avid fan of well thought out science fiction, Still I too found certain aspects of his predictions - not quite acceptable.

One point in particular that seemed almost unbelievable to me, was that the Federal Government would stand by and do absolutely nothing as such a massive disaster was delivered upon an unsuspecting Middle Class.

Of course, neither that lecturer nor I appeared to visit the possibility that the government would be in cahoots with industry in such a scheme. But then again, it was the early 1960's, the "Adventures of Ozzi and Harriet" and "Leave It to Beaver" (the icons of the American Dream) were still popular shows on television. And at the time when we should have been worried, the future ahead appeared, to all intents and purposes, quite rosy. But in the boardrooms of corporate America, they were planning for our future.

At the Abyss of Class Warfare

"We can have a democracy or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of the few. We cannot have both."

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis (1856-1941)

So clear and wise was that potent observation by Justice Brandies', we have to wonder why so many within the wealthy ruling class refuse believe it. Yes, there are many in our upwardly mobile society, including an unhealthy percentage of the Middle and Upper Middle Income (often regarding themselves as 'pretenders to the throne in waiting'), who view the justice's words as a sort of - socialist proclamation.

In fact, this limited yet powerful group in loose alliance, regard any outlook that threatens their financial wealth or right to gain such, as provocative revolutionary banter. And in other centuries and lands they manage to ban such rhetoric by alliance with the ruling monarchies and often the wealthy church. But in this land called America, the peasants once had the to form a democracy, firmly tied to a designed to be unbreakable document called a - Constitution.

And here we are, once again about to tread the almost certain road to social upheaval and destruction, by following in the bloody tracks of the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution and the Cuban Revolution. That little speck we can barely see in the not so far distance is a event in the dusk of history called - Class Warfare.

This time, however, it is not a disaster to be suffered by America alone, for virtually all of the developing countries have managed to work their economic woes into a social crag mire of their own. They have all tasted of the fruit of the Capitalism Tree - which allowed them to first gorge and, in the end, be poisoned by it.

Irrational Comparisons as Social Ethic

"The Americans make the Negro shine their shoes, then deride him because he's a bootblack."

Mark Twain (1835-1910)

How often do we hear those who are either well off or doing well economically use the term in reference to those who are not as - 'needing to pull their bootstraps up?'

Well for those who are not aware of it, the term is often taken out of historical context. In the days of Charles Dickens, those within their own economic rank, in reference to their peers, employed such a term. . And it was a good comparative reference, since the poor at the time believed in taking care of their own problems and not relying on the largess of others. After all, as hard and disgusting as some available jobs were, there was always work for those willing to take it on.

Unfortunately, that is not the case today, for we have developed into a society where those who are doing well pass cruel judgment down upon those who have fallen. And when those former economic peers ask for a hand up, they are accused to asking for some form of socialized welfare. Of course, those of us with our intellects and moral minds open know that this is not true. We as a supposed united nation have evolved to a radically different plane of daily existence in today's America.

Quite simply put, there are virtually no jobs to support the Middle Class American family in the modest 1950's to late 1960's styles they had rightfully become accustomed to. And that fact holds be they Lower or Upper Income Middle Class.

In short, both adults in an average two adult and one child household of the lower and 'middle'- Middle Class, have to work the equivalent of two low income jobs (one full-time and one part-time), just to make ends meet to maintain the lifestyle they managed to afford in the late 1950's to the late 1980's. These Americans now constitute the rapidly growing population of the - American Working Poor.

This rapidly accelerating sub-economic population and voting block is very angry, and they have every right to be so. Dutifully, they have sent their sons and daughters off to fight two useless wars (Vietnam and Iraq), worked hard at their jobs, paid their taxes and sacrificed to buy their homes and to educate their children.

Now they are being told that they shouldn't be living in the homes they worked and saved to own because - they can't afford them. They are being told that if they can't afford to pay for their grandchildren's' education, they are obligated to go into debt for life. They are told that even though their own government borrowed endlessly from the Social Security Trust Fund to the tune of a 3.3 Trillion dollar debt, the federal government is not obligated to repay that legitimate debt. And to add insult to injury, even though they have been paying into the Social Security System their entire working lives, they now stand accused of being part of an entitlement system that is really a Ponzi scheme.

While at the same time - in plain sight - they see a government not willing to pay back Social Security, or come to the rescue of strapped homeowners. But instead one that is willing to bail out the crooks and charlatans of Wall Street to the tune of $750 billion and growing.

ow can these people be asked to pull up their bootstraps? They have all they can do to remain afloat financially in this great Capitalist Empire we call - present day America.

Another of Twain's quotes that is appropriate for the times we live in is as follows:

"The Radical of one century is the Conservative of the next. The Radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them."

In reflection of that Mark Twain quote, so goes the history of America. The Founding Fathers were by all standards Liberals: in those days referred to as - Free Thinkers. They defied conventions that had been held for centuries under the false yoke of tradition, and in doing so they created what is probably the greatest humanitarian document in the history of the human race the - Constitution of the United States of America.

Knowing however that such a fragile document of workable ideals would require the greatest of protection from the temptations of both a citizenry and their government, the Forefathers almost immediately became Conservatives.

Clearly they set a standard: it takes both sides of the political isle to make a workable democracy. And that is a lesson we as Americans appear to reject time and time again.

In the Final Analysis

"Neither a Borrower, Lender nor Mortgage Seeker Be."

The American Banking System (2007-???)

The most deadly lasting affect of the George Bush Jr. era, will be the as yet un sated appetite for 'Middle Class economic blood' among those who presently occupy the boardrooms of Corporate America. Despite all that has taken place during the Economic Meltdown, these sharks would still like to get their hands on the funds available in the Social Security Trust.

They harbor the exact same feeding frenzy mentality the medieval kings and princes of old held for the peasantry in landlocked bondage under them, who they sometimes referred to as - their people - more as a point of ownership than as an equality of citizenry.

In a span of approximately 45 years (1945-1995) we in the United States have manage to achieve the American Dream and then - lose it. And the blame for this loss is split between the Federally Elected Ruling Class - Congress, and the voting populous in a relative ratio of 66-33: 66 percent on Congress and 33 percent on the voting public.

What we have allowed to develop in this crucible of democracy is a race of 'educated fools.' For far too many see in this miraculous gift of self government, nothing more than a shallow opportunity to vent their personal prejudices, be they cultural, racial or religious, upon their fellow man and woman.- via a Vote.

One final point of historical importance concerns the highly heralded - youth vote. Historically, youth as a political movement and force has an incredibly tragic and quite often bloody history. It is wise to remember that Russia's Joseph Stalin, Germany's Adolph Hitler, Communist China's Mao Tse-Tung, Cuba's Fidel Castro and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, among others, were ushered into office and the power by a wave of predominately youth driven movements. All of these men (initially including Hitler) possessing charismatic and ingratiating character appeal and mesmerizing speech making capabilities, rode into power behind a Socialist banner and almost immediately began making sweeping changes to their country's political and social landscape.

Think about those statistics for a moment and digest their implications carefully. In retrospect, when afforded the opportunity by history, very much enamored with ideals, youth has chosen very badly just about every time they have been handed the chance to make a difference in a society.

Now we have a new totally untested and inexperienced president, Barack Obama, who leans very much to the Liberal Left - almost to the point of positioning himself horizontal to a Socialist discipline. He has a charismatic personality that is ingratiating, and possesses a memorizing speech making capability. And he has advocated the making of sweeping changes to the American political and social landscape.

A scary comparison of historic parallels - isn't it?

"So? What's your point?"

Response by Vice President Dick Cheney in a recent televised interview, when asked about the 4000 plus American service men and women who were killed in combat in Iraq.

It Should Not Happen...But It May

I have long held the opinion that the Bush administration will make a military strike upon Iran before they leave the White House. That feeling has grown not only within my own consciousness, but in the trusted viewpoints of many knowledgeable and experienced individuals of the world scene - including the Iranians.

For a nervous Israel, watching the Iranians increase their nuclear capability, the window of opportunity is closing rapidly. At present they have in the palm of their hands a lame duck president who desperately wants to leave a positive legacy of some kind. Also, they are astute enough to realize that it is highly unlikely an incoming U.S.president, Democratic or Republican, will have the desire or backing to assist in another risky Mideast venture between two ongoing wars. And where else could the Neocons and the Israelis find such an Oval Office ally with a ruthless and callous disregard for human life, as they have in Vice President Dick Cheney?

Just how this will be done is open to speculation, but the corridor of possibilities is very narrow, as is the possibilities for world-wide consequences great. Options for an effective attack to knock out all or a significant portion of Iran's advanced nuclear facilities are limited and, from different perspectives, - the Israelis and the Iranians know this.

On the other hand, the Iranian capability to inflict significant 'next door' damage to our 'sitting duck' forces in Iraq is nothing to take lightly. What concerns most observers of the perilous brew taking place, however, is what comes along in the wake of such an attack on Iran? And, most of all, what comes at the end of the lull of a quick victory? In the end, it may come down to winning the battle and losing the war - again.

Why Suspicions of an Attack on Iran?

Strong indications of something significant is about to take place in the region have been exposed in recent news stories, and when strung together the revelations paint a disturbing picture.

March 12, 2008 - The USS Carl Vinson is headed towards the Middle-East. This will be the first time since February 2004 that US will have three major carrier groups stationed on and around Middle East. The move was announced by the Pentagon as a formidable strike force, in readiness, for operations against Iran and Syria who are in defiance on issues of Lebanon and Nuclear weapons development.

March 22, 2008 - Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has been chosen to become chief of U.S. Central Command.

March 22 2008 - Vice President Dick Cheney visits Israel. Supposedly, the US vice president was to focus in Israel on "ways forward in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and Israel's right to defend itself against terrorism and protect its citizenry," said spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride.

April 8, 2008 - A day before Israel implements a "routine" emergency drill, Israeli Infrastructure Minister Benjamin Ben Eliezer warned against an attack by Iran, which he said is unlikely to happen. Ben Eliezer stressed, however, that the nationwide emergency drill "is not aimed at threatening any of the countries surrounding us." But he offered a bleak scenario for Israel in the face of a future war.

"I predict that in the opening strike, hundreds of rockets will land in Israel," Ben Eliezer said. "There will not be a place in the country out of the range of the missiles and rockets of Syria and Hezbollah."

The real possibilities of a war with Iran, initiated by the U.S. in conjunction with Israel, are best expressed by the following recent publication from a reliable source:

A pre-election attack on Iran remains a possibility

February 05, 2008

By Leon Hadar

Leon T. Hadar is a research fellow at the Cato Institute, specializing in foreign policy, international trade, the Middle East, and South and East Asia.

"President Bush still believes the Iranians are developing nuclear weapons – and so do the Israelis. So for journalists to assume that neither the U.S. nor Israel will attack Iran before the November election could constitute another failure of imagination."

Cato’s Leon Hadar suggests questions the press should ask the presidential candidates about what they think the American response should be to various scenarios in the region – including a Gulf-of-Tonkin-like alleged provocation."

Influential Op Ed columnist David Ignatius also had written on this looming possibility of a war with Iran, before the Bush administration vacates the Oval Office. In a May 8, 2005 editorial in the Washington Post he made the following remark:

"Behind closed doors, we are praying that the Iranians will make a mistake so that you will have a reason to attack." (Click here to read the entire editorial)

Therefore, in the light of what we know about the man, what do you think Vice President Cheney's response would be. if questioned about the possible loss of several thousand more American lives in such a pursuit? I think most of you with clear, nonpartisan minds already know.

"So? What's your point?"

What Might America Gain From Such an Attack?

If the coming scenario holds, it becomes quite clear the Bush administration, after managing to shoot its way into the biggest military fiasco of this country's history, now feels it can shoot its way out - by shooting us into another boondoggle of equal or possibly greater proportions.

One point should be made crystal clear at this juncture of discussion. If we attack Iran, or we in any way assist Israel in an attack, we will be officially at war with Iran. So any planning of such a venture should take into serious consideration, from the very onset, that the Iranians have strong diplomatic and trade allies in the world. And although they may not come to their immediate aid in a shooting war - there are other steps they can take afterward that will, for some considerable time afterward, make it very difficult and costly for America.

In the gain column, an attack on Iran would interrupt the flow of weapons to the insurgents in Iraq; note, I said interrupt, not completely stop.

Although I must admit, I have never fully understood this ploy as a morally justifiable option. We have in numerous instances in the past supplied weapons to insurgents in other countries. Let's face it, we are engaged in a war with a country on the border with Iran and - we are the invaders. So why shouldn't they supply that country's citizens (the insurgents) with weapons, employing the same reasoning we did for doing the same with the Cuban rebels and the Bay of Pigs invasion?

Secondly, it would slow down the Iranian nuclear program considerably; note again, I said slow down, not completely stop. That's it!

What Are the Risks?

In the loss column, however, the repercussive political and economic debris of such a mindless Middle East adventure is considerably higher.

Iran is the world's fourth largest producer of oil, and is OPEC's second largest producer after Saudi Arabia. Therefore, at this point in the industrialized world's 'oil starved' history, the inevitable a shutoff of that nation's oil in the wake of an attack will have worldwide economic repercussions.

Our actions can possibly achieve what the Arab states have not been able to achieve among themselves, unity. Their leaders may not want it, but their large populations may demand it as retribution for such an attack.

Already the Venezuelans under the leadership of Hugo Chavez has hinted of the pursuit of nuclear weaponry. Such a massive attack - once again - on a sovereign nation that did not attack us, could fuel such ambitions in other countries with the resources to pursue them.

Finally, it should be remembered by all war hawks that the Russian government is an Iran backer, and is heavily involved in the Iranian nuclear program. Not only did they construct two of the main reactors that would be a prime target in any bombing raid, but at present there are hundreds of Russian technicians on the ground in Iran, heavily involved in reactor construction and maintenance training. And being it highly unlikely the Israelis or Americans will risk losing the critical key to success of an air assault (the element of surprise), more than likely many Russian personnel will be casualties of the attack.

Therefore, one must keep in mind that the Cold War between the U.S. and Russia is making a slow comeback, and the Russian state is still recovering from their humiliating ouster by former client, Egypt, and their military's embarrassing defeat in Afghanistan. Since these setbacks in the region, the Russians have been determined to establish a new footprint Middle East. Toward this end they have been assisting the Iranians in the construction of Russian designed nuclear power plants, and have made it patently clear they don't intend to be embarrassed in the region again. Obviously, in planning an air attack on Iran, serious consideration must be given to just how severely prestige sensitive Russians might react to so many deaths of their countrymen in a client state.

The Other Side of Armageddon Planning

"If Iran should attack Israel with nuclear weapons, we will obliterate them!"

Remark by Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton

When making such sweeping statements of intent, one is forced into the situation of dealing with the double edged sword immediately given birth to by the words. And in the Middle East this critical point becomes crucial due to the volatile nature of the area, and we are immediately faced with the shadow question such a statement creates:

If Israel, for whatever reasons, should attack Iran with nuclear weapons, will we obliterate them?

In a reverse scenario, however, should the Israelis go after Iran's deeply entrenched underground nuclear facilities, they would have to employ 'bunker busting' bombs. But many experts in such matters regard these bombs, by themselves, as not adequate to the mission. The only sure-fire alternative they suggest is for the Israelis to employ 'low yield nuclear - bunker buster bombs' as the only realistic option.

No matter how one should phrase it, this would mean that nuclear weapons had been used in the Middle East, and the option would then be open for any of the region powers to do the same. In essence, the game will have changed - forever.

If we as a nation seriously intend to leave that first statement on the diplomatic clothesline, then we better damn well have an answer for the second possibility.

For far too long we have dealt with the Middle East factions with two faces; one toward Israel as an undeclared ally, and the other toward the rest of the region as 'oil necessary' potential enemies. We pressure the Arab states and others to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1968, intended to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Only four countries refused to sign: India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel. Since that time, we have continually berated all of those countries for not signing the treaty, and actually going ahead and producing nuclear weapons - except Israel. When it comes to Israel's intransigent defiance on this as well as other matters we appear to, as the expression goes, turn a blind eye to their transgressions.

Clearly, any sane inspection of this diplomatically untenable regional approach, masquerading as foreign policy, will immediately ascertain that the status can not be allowed continue. The stakes are now too high.

On the Loose: Israel - The Paranoid Lone Warrior

In the drive to declare the Middle East as a 'Nuclear Free Zone', American foreign policy would appear to desire this state be achieved without any pressure on Israel to comply. But is Israel not, geographically, an integral part of this area of the world, located right smack in the middle of that region? And being fact, it makes no sense diplomatically or otherwise to allow them to have a nuclear deterrent, while demanding the Arab states not do the same.

The Bush administration has already compromised our neutrality (preserved and protected by every president since Truman), by openly committing to defending Israel. To then give them free reign to do whatever they want in the region militarily, knowing their penchant for brash and daring exercises of power, is suicidal for America's long term interests in the region. Why should any Arab leader or state be willing to negotiate with us for any reason, no matter how logical, under such a one-sided foreign policy?

Like it or not, the Israelis have to come to the understanding that, sooner rather than later, one of their Arab nation neighbors - will acquire nuclear weaponry. It's a given.

How many Syrian type nuclear facilities (built with North Korean assistance) can they detect and destroy before one manages to come on line? What happens if the Arabs buy working rights in a foreign reactor, or simply build one in a small neutral country to achieve their aims - like North Korea? It can be done!

Besides which, the 'Islamic Bomb' has already arrived in Pakistan. And with the price of oil spiking ever higher, relatively soon, an oil rich state can simply buy a nuclear weapon on the black market. It can be done!

If they truly want peace, they must come to the realization that it cannot be totally on their terms, there will be a rebirth of Palestine on their borders, and there will be a few other bitter pills to swallow.

First of all, they will never be allowed to keep all of Jerusalem - that important city must become the capital of both Israel and Palestine - at peace.

Secondly, they must be willing to share, equally, the Golan Heights with Syria. And third, like it or not, they must be willing to admit to their Arab neighbors, face to face, the fact that in 1948 they 'stole' the land they are on.

That the world colluded to let them take it as a guilt concession for the 6 million Jews who were put to death during World War ll, or that they had it 2000 years ago will be of no consideration in the final compromise. Other than the proposed option, their only alternative is to accept destruction at the hands of their Arab neighbors - sometime before the end of this century.

In any case, the economic umbrella afforded by the United States is being rapidly depleted by its own needs. Israel simply cannot live with so much of its GDP going to an ever increasing defense structure, or for that matter with an accelerating Arab population evolving within their borders. Time is running out for the Israelis.

What Can We as Citizens Do? - Absolutely Nothing!

Unfortunately, at this present politically precarious moment in time, as our economically and war battered country is caught up in a contentious run up to a presidential election, there is very little the average American can do to stop this coming war with Iran. On the other hand, as the inheritors of a 'lame duck' presidency, the Bush administration is relatively free to do just about anything - with particular reference to starting a third Middle East conflict.

My greatest fear is centered upon the planning phase of such a war. The Bush administration has continually demonstrated a remarkable determination (employing a - stay the course mentality) to plan such ventures totally in their own minds, rather than to a tactically required degree in the minds of their adversaries. Such deficit strategy of planning leaves us wide open to the maximum potentiality of the surprise factor.

What are the Iranians planning? What will can or will they do in response to the attack? We speak hopefully of the resident youth element of Iran, who do not hold the hatred of their seniors toward America. But speak not of their reaction to the deaths of their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and other assorted relatives in an American-Israeli air war. May I offer a clue: how did the political and generational adversarial factions within the United States react to 9-11?

We are now engaged in fighting and bleeding, both economically and militarily, on two distant war fronts: America does not need, nor can she tolerate or afford, a third.