Keep up the good work - we enjoy your work.

God bless you and the United States of America.

and - oh yes- first.

You don't seem to have trackbacks but I want you to know that I wholeheartely agree with you and stated as such in my post on "Responsibility."

http://beyondtherim.meisheid.com/index.php?p=194

Thanks again, Bill. "Deterrence" made my month.
I promised to buy the book a year ago when you were discussing it. That promise stands.

BTW, not to quibble -- but you might want to fix your typo "Democacy in a time of war" above.

Great Job Bill! Great! I recently found your website, and as a current USAF pilot, I love the name! I also find myself agreeing and nodding as I read. You have a new fan! Maybe if I can find the time I will start my own blog, that is how much your writing has inspired me. I will be looking for the book also. And I have finally found the name of the corrupting influence on our country ... transnational progressivism. I thought about the Internation Criminal Court and how John Kerry supports it, how Bush doesn't, and how that courts jurisdiction will probably trample our constitutional rights. But that won't bother a liberal like Kerry, gotta keep the Europeans happy!

Great News, Bill!

As one who has (proudly) been here reading since nearly the beginning, I look forward to the book just as eagerly as I did a year ago. And although I'm not as optimistic as you that a Kerry Presidency (ugh... that gave me the willies just to type!) wouldn't sound the death knell of our Republic, hopefully we won't ever have to find out.

I've already printed all of the essays in Silent America and sent them downrange, where my husband, his best friend, and countless other soldiers in OIF are sharing and devouring them. We all will be buying the official bound book as soon as it comes out!

Here's to hoping we're a healthy nation...

Information. Free Flow. Self-Organizing Expert Systems. Great Voices otherwise lost in the chokepoint control of media. Voices breaking free as a force-multiplier.

All nine rounds in the ten ring.

Your last post is fantastic as always. The name of my blog follows your basic premise. Keep on posting!

Thanks DB. Fixed.

As any business owner will tell you, the best advertisement is word of mouth. A good friend recommended your site to me and I can say I haven’t been disappointed. A good blend of whit, well thought out dialog and a message dear to the hearts of so many of us.
Unfortunately, those that need to read it most find it too lengthy to follow as it is longer than their attention span - the length of a bathroom break.
Keep up the good work – it’s like a breath of fresh air.

Roger

I agree that we're dangerously close to riding that downturn in the "cyclical nature of civilization". Sometimes, it's necessary to be reminded, I think, of what is really important. 9-11 was a huge wake up call for a lot of people, but there's always people who sit up in bed for a minute, and just hit the snooze button. Here's hoping that we're not nearing the end of that nine minutes, when another wake-up call will be coming.

And the election is the sugar-coated topping on the real fight, a battle between moral certainty (yes, there really IS good and evil) and moral relativity (good/evil depends on your viewpoint). And too often, the people who are moral relativists are the ones telling morally certain people that they're wrong - relativity becomes the one over-riding good. Certain people have a hard time arguing with relativists - the rhetoric is more developed on the relativist side. Hopefully, by working together, we (all of us) can successfully combat the moral decay that eats the foundation of our society.

Finally ;^)

I'm with Zach, though the terminology got difficult, the point is fantastic. Also, I fear Roger's right. Those that really need to comprehend these facts don't have the patience to understand them. I know, I was one of them for too long. I, too, will be contributing to the sale-revenues of "Silent America" and prodding others to awareness. Thanks for the tools to do so.

Be sure to let us know when we can pre-order the book - I'm putting the finishing touched on my list of folks who will receive it as a gift. And I'm sure that having several thousand pre-orders pending couldn't hurt your negotiating position, either.

Oh to be so eloquent. Thanx for a smile and even watery eyes at reading your Deterrence essay.

A toast to a healthy people!

That is yet another contradiction I have noted. If one really believes in moral relativism, than one really shouldn't have any problem with us having absolutist moral beliefs, since they are as valid as any other.

Which is why I don't consider most of the Left to be genuinely relativist; they advocate an absolute philosophy too. Its just that one of its precepts is "The US is always wrong."

Awesome to hear the book is nearly ready, I know several who will absolutely love it.

Thank you for the countless hours you've poured into E^3. I've been reading since "History" and a new essay always brightens the day.

I'll be watching. js

Well, Bill, we were going to invite you and Dana over to feast upon the seared flesh of an immature, castrated bull. ELR is walking with the support of adult index fingers, and is saying "daa'ee" regularly. Of course, she's saying it to me, the cat, the apple juice and the diaper pail, but it's still adorable.

Now, that offer is off the table. Don't even think about it, you have more important work to do. When the book is off to the printer let me know, and we'll kill the fatted calf in celebration.

BTW, Caye says $20 million, 4 cats and 3 adults, not a penny less.

Richard,

thank you for rescinding that offer to Bill. The fewer distractions, the better. I hope to copyedit the last Whittle essay this weekend. (Just one more, Turbo!)

From a new fan, I came to your site about a week ago from a link.Everyday since I have dropped by to read more,or read again the words. Thanks for sharing the gift you have with all of us. I read in a post above that your essays are being sent to soldiers, if I was one of them, I would treasure the courage and resolve these words bring. Im not there with them but the words do the same for me. Thanks again Whittle.

Hi - I've recently found your blog also (think it was linked through Lucianne.com) and I click on it each day to hear more from you. I was mesmerized in reading your Deferrence Essay and became at times emotional also. I kept thinking "This is exactly "why" this election is what it is. I shared it with many -- Democrat and Republican. Thank you.

Magnificent work. Congratulations.

Thanks for your good work. Essays are difficult to write (or always were for me) but wonderful to read. More, please.

Do keep your site current as to the status of your book.

Bill: Don't give up! A friend of mine who was called to Afghanistan in 2002 wrote a book on the real truth of that war. Check it out at www.diggs.us .

Superb work. Keep it up.

Did you pass your Instrument check?

Oh great! Now Bill thinks that the world is going to end too. And I keep hoping that I will find a someone who DISAGREES with me about that.

Congratulations on finally getting to publication! Thank you for writing deterrance. I too look as a defining time, both for me and for this country. For me, it will help me decide what form my contribution will be, I already know what yours has been.

The new weapon is Information?
Your blog gets lots of hits?
Then...

That makes the new warrior... You!

This will certainly be news to the suckers in Iraq who thought they were the warriors.

A chickenhawk merely refuses to fight a war he advocates.

But you're a WEASELHAWK.

A Weaselhawk declares himself the Hero of the war he won't stoop to fight.

[INFANTILE POTTY-MOUTH DELETED HERE -- GHS].

Bill already said that he tried to join the Air Force on the day after 911. But they wouldn't take him because he's too old. So leave him alone.

To 'Dear Bill',
It is my honor to be the first to reply to your...um, diatribe.
By your post, one can assume you have served in Iraq? I have - that makes us brothers in arms I believe. As a brother, I would ask you consider Bill a brother as well for his words I know personally inspired me while there and continue to do so today.
Have you not served? Well then, I invite you to expedite to the nearest recruiter and demonstrate more direct resolve than a 'Fuck you, coward' posted anonymously in a comment thread.

Rob Thompson

Well, the second reply anyway...

Bill is not too old for the California Air Guard. ANG units are serving in Iraq today.

Furthermore, the Marine Reserve takes recruits up to age 45, and thru obtaining a waiver by taking a voluntary physical-- Bill could qualify for active duty. But first, he'd have to bother to join.

Additionally, an unprecedented number of private contractors are integrated into military operations in Iraq. Many veterans have found the contractors have looser age requirements than the active duty military; and have signed up to serve.

There is nothing stopping Bill from personally putting his own neck on the line, except Bill himself.

Instead, Bill reclines in Hollywood, all talk.

"There is nothing stopping Bill from personally putting his own neck on the line, except Bill himself.

Instead, Bill reclines in Hollywood, all talk."

I believe we addressed this earlier, from those that have no concept. Bill can really wash a plane well, but how best to use one's time? I know you attempt to humble my friend, but you waste all logic and ability in the attempt. It takes me about two posts to really understand the person posting, Bill has put his life and efforts on the line, as has ghs. Note this merit, they will never lose, not this debate, nor this war. We MAY "lose" an election, history will be that defeat, but we will never give up. We know that most just want to see themselves in print, some opine to greatness, some sense of being. What you really want is to be considered, just a nuance of worth lost. Bill got it, his place is to voice, he knows this now. My place is on the ground, doing the dirty work. "Where no man fears, is where we dwell, for no man survives this place of turmoil". Officers can be really stupid.

Rik

PS...fiddle at will

Amazing -- unless you're standing on the front lines, you're not allowed to express your opinion in a public forum. Is that it, "Dear Bill?" I presume then, based on that intelligent, issue-related, adult "opinion" you just expressed above, that YOU are in fact on the front lines right now yourself. Otherwise, that would make you a, what? A "roachhawk?"

And speaking of personal courage, your own intestinal fortitude shows through when you can't even muster the resolve to include your web address. Yep, a real pillar of conviction are you.

In the meantime, in order to NOT delete your entire "deep contribution to the political debate" here, I have elected to merely excise that one particularly infantile emission from your post. Hopefully that's okay with you.

Now, let's all grow up and get back to the issues at hand.

GHS

Huzzah! Looking forward to having the essays in dead-tree format!

Bill:

As a new reader, I say keep up the excellent work! You've managed to convey far more concisely than I've been able to exactly what we face. Get the book to the printer!

Wow, "Dear," projection much?

Looks to me like Bill has made you come face to face with your own cowardice, your own willingness to let your friends and family, everyone you know be killed rather than stand up to the forces which would rain darkness upon the world. I don't say "our" world, because you certainly live on a different planet than those of us here in the place I like to call "reality."

But in typical fashion, when someone shines a bright light into such a person's cockroach-like soul, they cannot deal with the message, so they must instead attack the messenger, projecting their own shortcomings as a human being onto someone better than themselves. Pitiful, actually, but not all that uncommon these days with the self-immolation I see coming from the other side.

Bill:

Two pictures leap to mind:

A yappy little cur tinkling in the dark on the bottom-most brick in the back of the Washington Monument.

FDR talking to George M. Cohan in Yankee Doodle Dandy. Take his words to heart, Bill; you deserve a share of them.

Dear Anonymous Troll
I insist this is not true, and Bill's boots could be on the ground in Iraq, if only he so desired.

Then you have no concept of how the military works. He could end up in Alaska for all you know.

So why aren't YOU on the frontlines? Well?

Thirdly: so far it is only Bill's friends who have defended his refusal to fight in Iraq. Until Bill speaks for himself, your explanations of Bill's (in)action are mere conjecture and hearsay.

Or knowledge that a cowardly little weasel like yourself lacks. Bill doesn't have to bother responding to you, little one. Find another way to validate your pathetic existence.

Such a shame that a comments thread like this one began as, could turn into what it has. Being that the damage is done, I would like to make one comment on what's here now. Whoever is posting using "Dear..." strikes me as someone utterly immature, factually ignorant and sadly obstinant. Wanna send out your opinion? Get yer own blog.

Looks to me like Bill has made you come face to face with your own cowardice, your own willingness to let your friends and family, everyone you know be killed rather than stand up to the forces which would rain darkness upon the world. --Hindmost

http://theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4041

Dear Dear,

In 1976, I took my physical for the United States Air Force Academy. I failed the flight physical for 20/25 vision in my left eye. I might point out to you that the greatest threat to our nation at that time was the delay in the release of the next Steely Dan album. I wanted to fly jets for my country.

In 1993, back when the national threat was the Deficit, I tried to enlist in the US Coast Guard -- because frankly, it didn't look like we'd need our military too much anymore, what with the end of history and all that. Again, thanks but not thanks.

I did something on September 12th that you did not do. I put my money where my mouth is. I now ask you to reply to me personally at bill@ejectejecteject.com, and we can make arrangements to discuss this personally. If you are under age 18 -- and this seems likely -- then disgregad the previous sentence.

By the way, that was your last post at this site.

They have brought down entire civilizations and led to dark ages that have cost this species very dearly. I think we stand at such a point today, and this election -- win or lose -- will not determine the outcome...although it might give us some indication of how sick or healthy we are at this pivotal moment in history.

Have you read a book entitled "Dark Age Ahead" by Jane Jacobs? (ISBN: 1400062322) In this book, the author details some of the alarming trends that signal an approaching "Dark Age" for North American civilization. Some very interesting info in there...

Are you seriously suggesting, that just because Bill might find himself sent to Alaska, rather than Iraq; he shouldn't bother to join the military?

No, I'm suggesting that your claim that "and Bill's boots could be on the ground in Iraq, if only he so desired" is complete and utter bovine excrement. HTH. HAND.

One does not get to pick & choose & veto how one is deployed. The US military is not a salad bar. Every grunt doesn't get to be general.

So why did you claim that Bill could be in Iraq "if only he so desired"?

Bill: But... you should've done MORE. Like find Mjolnir and become Thor's avatar, or get a copy of the supersoldier serum Captain America has! Or be bitten by a radioactive spider and start climbing walls! ;)

Wow, Mr. Anon Troll, you're for shizzy a member of the US Military? Gosh and golly, I wonder why I have a really hard time believing that.

And GHS, you really need to get some form of comment registration set up, just to deal with the levitra/online casio spam.

I took a look at the link provided by our anonymous friend, and then I deleted his last six comments because he pretty much makes his opinion clear in the first one. I'll let that stand. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and in the interest of honesty I'm happy to let people say what they think.

But this is not your blog, you sad and bitter individual. It's mine.

The link provided in his first comment belongs to a writer named Neal Stephenson.

I don't know if this guy is in fact Neal, but whoever he is, I hope he gets some of the attention he so obviously did not receive from Mom and Dad. He's just not going to get any more of it here.

Not a terribly happy sounding fellow, anonymous poster, although his commentary is full of the same sunny optimism I have come to regard as characteristic of the self-obsessed whiners and bitter ankle-biters that I seem to annoy so much.

Well, good. If I piss off guys like this then I am doing something right. Having heard from hundreds of active-duty military since I started Eject! Eject! Eject!, I am proud to say not one has ever said anything negative to me about anything I have written. On the contrary.

So if I have to chose my friends from among the airman, soldiers, sailors and Marines on one hand, and scowling, anonymous, sniveling brats on the other...well, I am happy with my choice.

He, clearly, is not happy with his. What a bitter little man. Perhaps it's genetics? Or maybe it's his lifestyle. Sir? Have you considered a low-bile diet?

Now back to the cave where you belong. I have left the link in place. I can't stop a raving lunatic from crashing an adult dinner party and shouting obscenities -- people like you exist, and that's just an unpleasant fact of life. I can, however, show you the door, and leave you scurrying and muttering out in the street.

Move along now. You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.

Nah, it can't be Neal Stephenson. I've read several of his books ("Cryptonomicon" and the three volume Baroque Cycle are all quite good), and this troll demonstrates none of Neal's skill with the English language.

And in the off chance it actually is Neal Stephenson, I'd just as soon pretend it isn't, lest I be forced to purge a portion of my bookshelf...

Keep up the good work, Bill. That bookshelf I mentioned has an open space for your upcoming title.

Bill, are you still looking at the comments? Freedom, pretty please.

"that I might be allowed to have a small, small voice in this critical time in history"

Sir, you have much more than a small voice. Your essays are wonderful reflections of the virtues on which this country was founded, and which continue to be its strength. They should be required reading for all citizens. Thank you.

Bill, I hesitate to add to the burden your little soul must be dealing with--- all that praise, and adulation! God knows, my response would be to go out and buy some gold chains and fake chest hair and go to a bar and tell pretty women "Hey! I'm a published writer! You know, I have three 3-piece suits! That's equvalent to a NINE-PIECE SUIT, fer Pete's Sake!"

Your essays are tremendous for their pure inspiration and resonance for folks who've been looking for someone to articulate the things they've been thinking. But they're equally great for another reason.

Consider the strategy and tactics of the war against the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq. It could be described as a provocation for terrorists seeking to bring down a high-profile, highly-regarded, trophy target. Draw them in, and chop’em up.

You have become such a trophy target--- it’s not just trolls “gnawring” at your ankles; there seem to be some fairly serious folks drawn to debate you in the comment stream. And that has been a benefit for all of us, to see the ideas challenged, and have a forum (?) in which many of us can weigh and test and wrassle with a whole range of ideas with other folks of mostly good will. Your essays set the high standards for the rest of us. Thanks.

There is a fight going on in Iraq, but there is an equally important fight going on here. Not with bullets and bombs, this is a war of ideas and words. Saying that Bill should shut up and go to Iraq if he believes so much in what he says, is IMHO just so much elitest crap, and a cowardly, sickly attempt to shame someone into silence.

While we're fighting for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, we can't forget that it's also important to fight for the hearts and minds of the American people as well. It's not just terror - it's the attitude that people have when they imply that we should cut and run. Sticking your head in the sand is always an option. But it's never a good idea.

In this particular war, speech IS action.

I too am a former liberal, but grew up in Levittown, NY in the 1960's and became seduced by the America haters and spent so much of my life looking down on normal Americans. Now they seem so decent -- like George Bush does -- 9/11 helped me see him as a decent person I do hope he wins reelection. It is sad that we have become such superficial tv watchers. I enjoy the honesty of your writing; you seem to articulate the bittersweet truth.

I really don't think you have anything to worry about - having just witnessed a similar election campaign in Australia, with similar polls and media, but a disasterous result for Labor (roughly equal to your Democrats).

The media are talking to each other and polling the wrong people, convincing themselves their man has legs, and (as in Australia) they'll be devestated when Bush strolls in. Even the debates - you can see what I'm talking about when the CNN poll on the last debate goes Kerry/Bush 76/13. Does anyone really think there is this sort of split in the voters of the USA? Another similar result was in Canberra, Australia's capital (like Washington DC) - unlike everywhere else in Australia, there was a swing TO Labor there. The New Class gravitates to the public service & hence to the capital, and believes it is representative.

I've never seen such a fundemental disconnect between the media and the people they are supposed to be reporting to - but it doesn't matter anymore, because no-one is listening to them.

He won't need Florida, but he'll get it - I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out a landslide for Bush.

Looking forward to your book. I thoroughly enjoy reading your essays.

In every Presidential election I've ever seen, the color blue has been used to designate states where the incumbent is leading, and the color red has been used to designate states where the challenger is leading.

Why has this system been abandoned this year?

My opinion: the mainstream media will use any device, no matter how petty, to help the Democrat candidate. I'm sure we'll see more of this.

First the bad news (well, the "stern talkin'-to" anyway):

Let us not forget that this is not the Official Republican Viewpoint Website, nor the Official George W. Bush for President site, nor any other formal private, corporate, or government organization's site. This is Bill Whittle's PERSONAL web blog, a site that he pays for out of his own pocket in order to express his own personal OPINIONS publicly -- in other words, it is his PROPERTY. And much like your own front yard, the extent to which he allows others to play on his property is entirely up to him.

He is under no compulsion, and certainly no obligation, to even allow counterpoints to be expressed on his bandwidth, just as any home owner would not be compelled or obligated to allow rowdy neighborhood kids to play in their yard or climb their trees all day. In fact, to achieve this blog's original objectives requires no comment streams at all -- just Bill's essays. Which is one of the main reasons that Bill does not participate much in the comments once the essay's been out for a couple of days. The comment sections are FOR US far more than for him -- agree or disagree intelligently, that's fine, as long as you're not tearing up the lawn or keeping the home owner up all night with juvenile noise -- but turn this into a food fight, and access to Bill's yard gets closed down for everybody. It'd be no skin off HIS nose to just shut the comments off completely -- it would save him time, aggravation AND money, AND it wouldn't slow down his essay-writing one iota -- but he'd rather not. He, along with most of US, enjoys the debate, learns something from the varied perspectives, and can use that to further clarify his own beliefs. But, preferable as that is, if all it leads to is a flame-war on his dime, why bother?

And I would think this would concern the dissenters moreso than Bill's supporters, since his supporters can appreciate and take heart from his writings with or without an opportunity to tell him so, but those who DISagree would lose the opportunity to rebut.

So how 'bout we all just "try and get along" here folks. Discussion can be heated and passionate and still be adult. And I'd THINK that everyone would want to keep Bill's yard open to play in.

Now the good news...

First of all, I can't TELL you the good news. It's Bill's next big writing project -- terribly hush-hush and all that -- slated to be posted AFTER the elections, and it's a pretty big "concept." Unrelated to the war, or Bush, or Left or Right -- a relief if for no other reason than THAT -- but potentially a real paradigm-shift for the way the voting public gets its information henceforth. Quite intriguing, as he described it to me over the phone. I can't wait.

In the meantime, he's a busy little bee these days, tidying up his little cyber-nest here for formal publication, and is DETERMINED to have it available well in advance of Christmas. So I think I'm gonna' leave him alone for a while.

Anyhoo, let's all take a deep breath, remember where and how old we are, and go from here.

Smile!

GHS

While we're waiting for Bill to 1) finish the book and 2) write a 170,000 word essay on The Next Big Idea (which really is very interesting) here's a short film that made me laugh so hard I nearly chewed my own foot off.

Fellowship/911
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2651184

Deterrence has always been the notion behind every law made and every action taken. Punish wisely so others obey. In your previous post you talk about intelligence and the Presidency. It's important to remember who is guiding the candidates as we think of deterrence. Bush clearly has the minds behind him that allow him to make the correct decisions. Kerry on the other hand, has gathered a group of trial lawyers that lack the REAL life experiences necessary to formulate appropriate policies.

cool..

With regard to nikita demosthenes' curiosity about the red-for-republican, blue-for-democrat coloring system, I developed two impish notions to explain it:

1. The newsmedia liberals who started this coloring protocol in (far as I remember) 2000 were sensitive to referring to themselves as "Reds," since they used to get that a lot back in the heyday of communism and it's more useful today to obfuscate the reference;

2. In military iconography, friendlies are colored blue while enemies are colored red. Sort of like Tom Brokaw referring to the Al Gore campaign as "we," as in "We just carried Pennsylvania."

JKS.

GHS:
Thanks for reminding those who need it that Mr. Whittle has the right to remove dog doo from his cyber-yard, so to speak. Not to mention the right to put a fence around his yard so the dogs cant crap in it any more.
Dear and anonymous...
Intelligent debates are a good thing, that is one of the many things that make the U. S. of A the best place to live (ever seen on the news the brawls that happen in some countries "Democratic" Governments?) As Mr. Whittle pointed out in "Deterrence", both sides and their viewpoints are needed to make this country what it is, and neither side, on it's own, could continue to keep America the Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave, without the other political party to provide (freely, without fear of reprisals) an opinion different than that of the party in power at the time.
However, disrespect is disrespect no matter where you are, or where your political affiliations lie. Mr Whittle is an intelligent man, a reasonable man, and even if you dont agree with his opinions, you should be able to come up with an intelligent, reasonable argument to his posts, rather than name calling and profanity. If you cant do that, find a dumb, ignorant blogger that you dont agree with to spew your grade school crap on, he might provide the kind of reaction youre looking for.

BTW....
Mr Whittle,
you ROCK!
And as long as you keep rocking the boat, I'll keep reading. I hope your book is out by Christmas, 'cause if it is, I'll be sending it out to my Republican uncles for Christmas gifts!

..........One of the few bright spots in my days is reading your posts. Aye, courage we will need and good patriots like yourself. March on Bill,.... Fights always begin with small frays and you continue to throw the small and sometimes large punches necessary to win the good fight.

Dear Bloggers,
"why" the insistance that Bill put his boots where his blab is, and go to IRAQ...? I fail to see the logic. He would only be one more log on the fire. I think that it makes far more sense for Bill to settle down with Dana, and sire 7 or 8 kids, which can then, reach the age of 18, and go fight in this same war. Don't worry, the war will still be on, and Bills' contribution to it, will be more generous.

Bill--

I can't thank you enough for you hard work. Your words are an inspiration to those of us who share your concerns. I wish I had an iota of your writing talent.

--Mitch

Dear Eve,

I have to agree with you on one point: it is certain that there will continue to be evil in the world for the foreseeable future. But then, that has been true since humans appeared on the planet.

The sarcastic irony of your post is not lost on the rest of us. You are being too modest and oblique in your method. Why not just boldly come to the point? Go ahead and remind us that Bill and any who support Bush for the invasion of Iraq are the only REAL problem in the world, in your sober calculations.

NO, Eve. Islamic fanatics have been killing those who differ with them since the lifetime of the Prophet Mohammed. They will very likely continue beheading and exploding people who disagree with them for many centuries to come. To suggest that this is a result of Bush's invasion of Iraq, or Bill Whittle's support of Bush, is nonsense.

This is the absurd "Chickenhawk" accusation that is thrown up against any CONSERVATIVE who supports the use of military force without being ready to instantly enlist in the service, or who did not actually serve in the military. Unfortunately, that argument must logically include people who did not serve, and argue AGAINST the use of military force. If having no military experience disqualifies you from supporting war, it likewise disqualifies you from opposing war. In any case, the "Chickenhawk" objection SHOULD have applied to Wm. J. Clinton. Remember him? He was the one who sent American military forces into Kosovo and Bosnia without U.N. Approval.

And, yes, the 38th Infantry Brigade, U.S. Army ("Cyclone" division, Indiana National Guard) are still in Bosnia-Herzegovina, as part of SFOR-15, as of March 2004.

We still maintain U.S. military forces in Germany 60 years after the defeat of the Third Reich. According to your reasoning, Eve, that means we should never have sent troops into Europe in WWII.

Eloquently, and what's more, well said. And I am a professional writer (technically, that is, 3 articles in aviation magazines thus far) so you may consider that as a high compliment. My first response is that of Bruce Willis in Die Hard : "Welcome to the party, pal."
And to that I add, the cyclical nature of civilizations should indeed be of concern. When John Kerry was testifying as to the horrible nature of the U.S. Military I was putting on my country's uniform and taking the oath, followed by 4 years of AFROTC on a college campus in the early 70's and 25 years on active duty in the USAF, fixing airplanes, launching rockets, and on one memorable Saturday morning, trying to explain nuclear rocket engine principles to a 3 star fighter pilot in the Pentagon. I have not been cyclical at all in my beliefs. I have worked, studied, defended, invested in my country my whole life. 9/11/01 came as surprise but not a relevation. The question is, though,... How much longer are the non-cyclical guys like me going to put up with what goes on? I am afraid that the election of John F'ing Kerry would be the last F'ing straw. You may get to see how cyclical things can get when we non-cyclical guys just quit.

Dear David March,

You seem to have misunderstood me. I have no problem with the United States using our Military for a just cause . You sit there spewing forth facts about our presence in Bosnia. How can you truly know unless you have tasted the dirt there. Let me inform you a bit, because "what" you lack, is proper information regarding the war in Iraq. The President of the United States knew, without a doubt, that there were NO WMD in Iraq.(Please look up the case of CIA Operative Valerie Plame and Ambassador Wilson) He chose to chastise the Intelligence Community for NOT FINDING WMD. That is "WHY" he rushed to invade "BEFORE" the UNITED NATIONS FINISHED INSPECTIONS.
He was also warned not to invade without the 250,000 pairs of boots on the ground. He was advised to send in a Special OP task force, to locate and remove Saddam Hussein, without the invasion of Iraq. He was also warned that upon invasion, the United States would be perceived as a Hostile entity by the entire Arab world.
You can not compare this war in IRAQ with WWII.
This was an invasion and occupation of a country that was no immediate threat to the United States.
The recommendations that you read above, were Mine,so I may write what is common knowlege now.
And yes, I have tasted the dirt of Bosnia.

You seem to have misunderstood me. I have no problem with the United States using our Military for a just cause .

Fine. Deposing a violent dictator, a mass murderer of his own citizens (including large numbers of children), a man who specifically declared his intention to become the ruler of the Middle East by military action, a man whose forces attacked other countries with both "ordinary" equipment and poison gas TWICE -- clearly this does not meet your criteria for a "just cause." That being the case, we could use a trifle of elucidation. What cause would count as "just"?

You sit there spewing forth facts about our presence in Bosnia. How can you truly know unless you have tasted the dirt there.

Worms do not necessarily control the activities of the gardener.

Let me inform you a bit, because "what" you lack, is proper information regarding the war in Iraq.

All eyes, dear.

The President of the United States knew, without a doubt, that there were NO WMD in Iraq.

Which is (1) a flat, no-shit, in-your-face lie and (2) irrelevant whether true or false.

(Please look up the case of CIA Operative Valerie Plame and Ambassador Wilson)

The self-important V. Plame, once an agent, retired to office work because of her incompetence, sent her husband, a striped-pantsed hack, to sit around the club drinking gin and tonic and inquiring of the old-boy network whether or not a particular clandestine deal had occurred; "Ambassador" Wilson never contacted any of the principals or made any inquiries as to the putative transactions. He then returned and lied through his teeth about it.

Not particularly impressive. Or conclusive.

He {Bush -- ed.} chose to chastise the Intelligence Community for NOT FINDING WMD.

Ah, that's a new one. Link to what you're misconstructing, please.

That is "WHY" he rushed to invade "BEFORE" the UNITED NATIONS FINISHED INSPECTIONS.

If you are trying to tell us George Bush invaded Iraq in order to eliminate Weapons of Mass Destruction, you are either a deluded fool or a simple liar. To the extent that WMD of any sort had any significance whatever, they were a pretext intended to give the French and Germans a fig-leaf to conceal the reasons for support, and that attempt failed.

All of the inspectors, including Mr. Blix, agree that the moment the "inspections" halted S. Hussein would resume his WMD programs with maximum priority, and that he had the wherewithal to do so. The U.N. Security Council, whose members and staffers were stuffing their mouths with both hands with the food intended for Iraqi children, chose to look the other way at the abuses and to endorse Hussein for his ability to deliver bribes. Again, neither impressive nor conclusive.

He was also warned not to invade without the 250,000 pairs of boots on the ground.

He was also advised to use fewer troops. He got a lot of different advice, some of which he followed, some of which he didn't. That's called "management." You should learn a little about it.

He was advised to send in a Special OP task force, to locate and remove Saddam Hussein, without the invasion of Iraq.

Which is specifically against United States law and would have constituted grounds for impeachment, which you (among others) would no doubt have been screaming for as soon as Saddam's body cooled if not before. Is this your reason for proposing this course?

He was also warned that upon invasion, the United States would be perceived as a Hostile entity by the entire Arab world.

And his reply was, "Well, D'uh." The entire Arab world had declared the United States a Hostile Entity (that's what "Great Satan" means) long before any invasion of Iraq, or indeed any operations in the Middle East, were seriously contemplated.

You can not compare this war in IRAQ with WWII.

I can compare it to any damn thing I want to. Who died and made you God?

This was an invasion and occupation of a country that was no immediate threat to the United States.

Which was specifically declared, by George Bush, in the State of the Union speech after which the authorization to do so was passed. This is supposed to be news to just who, precisely?

The recommendations that you read above, were Mine,so I may write what is common knowlege now.

Congratulations. You have just described yourself as a sore-headed ex-advisor whose advice was not followed. My heart bleeds.

And yes, I have tasted the dirt of Bosnia.

Good, was it?

Regards,
Ric Locke

Dear Ric Locke,

You seem a bit irritated. I am sorry if I have struck a nerve. You also seem armed by the Karl Rove info-center*wink*wink*

Well, my answer to you is, "LETS SEE". I hope and pray every night that I am wrong. I pray every night that we, as a Nation, did the "right thing". I pray that Humanity forgives us, for using our blood for oil, instead of saving the people of Darfur. As for the dirt in Bosnia, at first it was bitter, but I must say, that now, It at times, feels like "home".
If you have children, I would like to recommend a very useful video game, for the Holidays, "Full Spectrum Warrior". It is a great gift for any child, male or female, age 12 and above. It may end up giving them the edge, that will save their lives. The gift that keeps on giving.
Best Regards...

Heh, if Ric is irritated, its only because his sides hurt after laughing out loud at your post. Fact is, we've heard your arguments here over and over, and over and over they've been debunked. Give it a rest.

Thanks for the link to Halliburton though, I've been considering applying for an engineering job there after graduation. Useful info.

Dear Shiva,

I am glad that I could make someone happy!
If this sparks your plug, then, at least I was of some "use" today. As for the Engineering Career,
I wish you luck at Halliburton! They need a bevy of new engineers, they have been dropping like flies lately.

You seem a bit irritated. I am sorry if I have struck a nerve. You also seem armed by the Karl Rove info-center*wink*wink*

Ah, the old "I must have struck a nerve" claim, combined with the magickal invocation of Darth Rove.

Makes you look a wee bit desperate to discredit someone who doesn't agree with your annointed truth.

Dear Eve,

You prayers have been answered. You ARE wrong.

It's very telling that whenever criticism of the current administration's policy of preemption is articulated, rarely, if ever, is September 11, 2001 mentioned. There is, of course reason for this. Mention of that date would only serve to bolster this policy. The jihadists certainly were not expecting the kind of response that was given. They were HOPING, even INVITING an indiscriminate response. Instead what they got was a PRECISION response which has resulted, in part, with the first elections in Afghanistan in 5000 years, the first free elections in Iraq in over 30 years in 14 of its 18 provinces, and the giving up of Libya's WMD program. "Blood for oil," "no WMDs", and all the other false claims are the talking points of DU, MOVEON, and the donkey party.

Dear Bloggers,
I expected these responses, since, the chicken does not run after the rooster for nothing!
Go ahead, pluck my plumage. It won't be the first time I've been plucked today.
I actually wish that I could sit here all day and banter on. I do, have to *work* now, and I will check back from time to time. I do hope that if enough people can band their belief together, then
a "Cosmic Consciousness" effect will take place, and it will become true. We must , of course, have a Unified Vision, like the Jihadists, who pray for our downfall. That, is what this war is perceived as by the Arab world, "The Great Jihad" as foretold in the Koran. In the Western New Testament, it is called "Armageddon", and just think...if Kim doesn't get tired of rattling those nuclear chains in our faces, (To get our attention...he is insane, by the way) and decides to use one, to show the West, that He too...wants in on Armageddon, then You may live to see it unfold. But, of course, you knew that already.
Also, before I leave, I would like to say, that You can not Debunk affairs, that are still pending Legal cases in a Court of Law. To do so, would be....well, Un-American.

Bill, I'm not sure I completely agree that this election won't determine the out come.

The "liberal" movement is actually a cancer by all definitions. It produces nothing, helps nothing, and consumes everything. And all without any taking of responsibility for it's actions. Cancer cells don't care that they are killing the very being that gives them life. They only know that they want more and more of everything for themselves. And they don't want to do any work to get it. Just like in the human body cancer cells are produced daily, human society has always produced these types of people. But the Viet Nam war heralded the first time that they were able to come together and form a large clump that could fool Darwin into letting them survive. And their sucess at this, due in large part to Kerry, gave them a very strong foot hold. Hundreds of clueless men and women were converted to this cancer because it was "way cool, man".

This cancer has been growing and festering under the skin since then. Gaining in strenth in some area, losing in others, but slowly growing over all. But it hasn't had a chance to break out and openly take over. Most of the country looked down on them for good reason. Then along came Clinton and gave the cancer a huge foothold in politics. Here is a man who violated the draft and made publicly and blatantly lying in under oath not only and ok thing, but an expect one. And the cancer started raging over the body of the US. Those who have always hated America saw that. They could smell the disease. And like jackels going after a dying animal, they struck.

9/11.

Only their plans got messed up when Gore didn't get elected. The man in the hot seat wasn't someone who would cower and accept the event as something due us for our being evil. No, the body had rallied back against the cancer and stood strong on it's own two feet again, and struck back. The cancer-ridden giant _smashed_ two major strongholds of those who hate America. With, lets be honest, minimal loss of American life. For that mater, minimal loss of any civilian life too. And the ball-less children over there said "oops" and started to slyther away.

That is until the cancer decided to try and completely take over the body. It has it's new "Viet Nam". A rallying cry to bring in those who are not smart enough to read history and make their own decisions. Who want nothing more than to have a government tell them what to do and to take care of them. They actually look in longing towards what Iraq had under Saddam. "Those that he killed deserved to be killed because they weren't doing what he said to do." So the cancer raged up again and the jackels over there saw and smelled it. They see Bush as the last gasp of this giant. If they can only weather this storm a little bit longer, they can get the cancer in as president again.

And then it's all over but the dividing of the spoils.

Lets face it. If Kerry wins, we will be out of Iraq in a year. He says differently _now_ but he's a liar. He's been caught repeatedly lying. He changes his "mind" like a wind vane. And he is all buddy buddy with the French who have been now proven to have been working hand in hand with Saddam. He will gut our military. He will steal our money by raising taxes to unheard of levels. Yes, he will have to wait for a couple more years to get the majority he needs in Congress, but if the press manages to pull of the coup they are trying now, it will be childs play when it comes to those elections.

If Kerry wins in Nov, this giant will die. Not saying that a new one can't rise to replace it. But it will be very bloody and likely no where near as strong as the one it replaces.

Between 1954 and 1969, the U.N. admitted 53 newly independent nations, many of them conspicuously repressive dictatorships. During the same period, many countries slid into the grasp of repressive Juntas and dictators. Each emerging dictatorship sends a delegation to the United Nations, and those delegates enjoy the privileges and benefits afforded diplomats and ambassadors.

In exchange for the international legitimacy this bestows upon the ruling thugs, those countries in turn cooperate with UN bureaucrats in self-serving and lucrative schemes. Just for starters, the dues assessed primarily upon the richest nations provide princely remuneration and perquisites for the bureaucrats and staffers of the U.N. itself.

The most successful of those bureaucrats is the present Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, by a long road. He is the FIRST Secretary-General to have been elevated from the ranks of the U.N. bureaucracy itself, rather than from among the delegate-ambassadors sent from the various member states.

Think about that.

In a culture which penalizes failure, and constantly seeks scapegoats, what kind of person is elevated by the distilling process that rewards blandness, inoffensive vagueness, and amiable platitudes?

Kofi Annan emerged as the master of appearance of sincerety and concern and the master of elegantly rationalized restraint from actual commitment or action.

In 1994 when Hutu in Rwanda began slaughtering Tutsi tribesmen by the tens of thousands week after week, Koffi Annan was at that time in a position to have ordered action to temper or halt that slaughter, and CHOSE NOT TO ACT. The United Nations withdrew its troops when ten soldiers were murdered. The United Nations pulled out and let the genocide proceed, let EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND victims to be slaughtered in three months. Many of them were killed with machetes and garden tools, when a few regiments with small arms might have protected them.

Just a few years later, AFTER Kofi Annan had been given the leadership of the U.N., when the United States had been leading a NATO coalition to stem the massacre of Muslims by Serbian Christians, the United Nations grudgingly agreed to send peacekeepers. In one instance, they declared the town of Sreberniça a "United Nations Safe Area," and left a batallion-strength guard of Dutch U.N. troops in close proximity. When Serb forces attacked, the Dutch commander requested air strikes.

After his fourth request, he was told that he had submitted the request on a form that is incorrect (evidently by FAX!!), and he must re-submit for it to be considered. Eventually, two Dutch F-16s bombed the Serbian positions, but it was far too late. Serb General Radko Mladic and his troops had already taken the town and the surrounding area days earlier, and held 30 of the 350 Dutch troops along with some 20,000 Muslim men, women, and children.

The utter impotence and military bunglng of the United Nations (not any cowardice or lack of spirit by the Dutch troops as I used to believe) allowed Mladic and his murderers to slaughter an estimated 7,000 Muslim men in the four days from July 12 and July 16, 1995.

Red Vs. Blue--

It is NOT the case that Blue used to be "The Incumbent" and Red "The Challenger." I vividly remember that in 1980 blue was Reagan and red, Carter. Whatever anchorcritter I was watching griped that the big map behind him looked like a swimming pool. (Reagan swept the West that year except for Hawaii.)

sdippolitocyberian.com

I have about 2 million words of wisdom to spout, or two decent words that might be listened to. It seems I am out of space, but I will comment on my own favorites...David Marsh, nuff said.

Rik

As I read the posts here I noticed something that has been troubling me quite a bit lately. It seems that the average liberal (for lack of a better term) is usually the one who is trying to stifle debate. I have been noticing that they are usually the ones calling names when someone dares to disagree with them.

What has drawn me to this site is not my whole-hearted agreement with Bill (although in MOST areas I do), but that it is so very refreshing to find someone who can examine evidence from all sources and actually come to a rational conclusion all on his own.

Like Bill I have spent a lifetime learning HOW to think. I do NOT want to be told WHAT to think by anyone be they republican or democratic liberal or conservative. What I like most about Bills essays is that he uses independantly verifiable FACTS upon which to base his very logical conclusions.

I enjoy lively debate. Life would be terribly dull if everyone always agreed with everyone else. But why is it that the average liberal will not debate with facts and evidence but will resort to invective and name-calling almost every time? Could it be that they are not truly interested in debate and discussion? Could it be that they are only interested in being considered right? One of the things that makes this country what it is is that people are allowed to disagree, or does this only apply to fellow liberals/democrats?

I have read several articles lately that take issue with what the President says, when he speaks in defense of his views and his record.

Furthermore, an unflattering 10-page profile of the President, in Sunday's New York Times Magazine, notes that any executive's staff adopts the leader's posture. (If a new President likes to fish, all those around him go buy poles. If a President doesn't like details, his staff will embrace grand generalizations.)

Likewise, I have observed that rank and file partisan supporters-- average citizens-- are attentive to cues from their own side; and incorporate bits and pieces of the party line into their own thinking and argumentation.

A result of this phenomenon, is that astute criticisms of what the President himself says-- are often equally-apt as criticisms of the President's official and self-appointed defenders.

As a case in point, I suggest the following excerpt from the St. Petersburg Times' endorsement of John Kerry.

In particular, I think that the criticism stated below also applies to Bill Whittle's DETERRENCE essay. I think the reason Bill was so firmly negative toward Kerry; is the same reason that the President's campaign has been so negative.

Here's the excerpt:

"The best evidence of the poverty of the Bush administration's record is the Bush re-election team's incessantly negative campaign against John Kerry. The president can't very well base his campaign on the military and moral achievements associated with the war in Iraq. He can't hang his hopes on the economy, the deficit or health care reform (although his campaign uses skewed statistics to put the best face on those and other subjects).

So most of the president's speeches and campaign ads are devoted to bashing Kerry. Bush allowed surrogates to slander Kerry's service in Vietnam. Then he called Kerry a flip-flopper. Now he says Kerry is the most consistently liberal member of the Senate.

The cynicism and illogic of those attacks - nobody can be a flip-flopper and a left-wing ideologue at the same time - should be obvious. Voters who take the time to research Kerry's record and platform will see for themselves that the Democratic challenger doesn't fit the stereotypes the Bush campaign is trying to pin on him.

Kerry long ago broke from liberal orthodoxy on issues such as a balanced budget and welfare reform. In fact, if addiction to federal spending and big deficits is the mark of a liberal, Bush, not Kerry, is the biggest liberal in U.S. history. Kerry also has reached across the aisle to Republican senators on issues, such as normalizing relations with Vietnam, that should be above partisan posturing. "

FURTHERMORE,

Yesterday, the AP reported that the President unveiled an even more negative stance: Bush added that Kerry would lead the nation toward "a major defeat in the war on terror." Clearly, the President's rhetoric is close to Bill's.

The same AP piece also reported on a response made by John Edwards, who said:
Bush is trying to "con the American people into believing that he is the only one who can fight and win the war on terrorism,"

I think Edwards is right. That's exactly what the President and Bill are trying to do. And they are crying wolf.

Way to go Bill!!

Though I may not always agree, or always feel that you go far enough, I applaud your actions, both in your decision to post your essays on the internet, there to endure the slings and arrows of a possibly ungrateful public, and in your decision to have your essays formally published. Perhaps someday (and this someday may be sooner than any of us realize) people will look back on this time and be able to finger this website, and a select few others, and say "Here is where liberal socialism and America-Lastism finally met the beginning of their end. Here is where it all began."

I applaud your decision to take a very risky step, and to risk your own money to do so. I do, however, have a thought I wish to add--whether you use it or not is up to you, but I feel it should be mentioned.

Deterrence is not just about others fearing your response should they declare war. Deterrence is not just about being the biggest, the strongest, and the best at everything. Such thinking, and such methods, will lead only to more terror. Such was America's policy in the Pacific in the 1930s, and such threatens to be our policy in the Middle East today--especially if Kerry or some similar buffoon is elected. Just as in 1941, when the United States left Japan feeling trapped, backed into a corner, and without alternative, giving terrorists and their cultures the feeling that they have nothing to lose will only inspire more terror. Such people truly do not fear death, because for them it truly appears as the only viable exit. And fighting a long, drawn out war against those who do not fear death is a recipe for nothing more than further conflict.

Deterrence is also about demonstrating what you can do FOR a people or a culture. This is only common sense--if a nation feels that working with the United States will allow it the oppurtunity to improve its lot, then even if such improvement is (initially) marginal at best, the nation in question will be a lot more willing to work with us to solve the problems between our country and theirs. By rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, America demonstrates the rewards of working with her, instead of against her. It is no coincidence that in 1941 Germany waited to declare war on the US until AFTER Pearl Harbor--after World War I, the United States helped to rebuild their country, stabilizing the Deutschmark and, through millions of dollars of loans and assistance, helping in very large part to rebuild their economy. Even Hitler in his madness did not wish to offend America, a country so powerful it could afford to rebuild the economy of its enemy and [i]not see this action as creating a future threat.[/i] When one looks at this action from the perspective of the recipient, this action is truly frightening--far more so than all the bombs and planes and tanks and soldiers in America's military.

America has helped other nations even when to many it would appear against its best interests to do so. Japan in 1945 is one example, as is Germany in 1945. In 1922, British banks and corporations led the way in helping to rebuild Russia, [i]even though Russia was at that time ruled by an ideology that worked as a direct threat to the British government.[/i] As a consequence, when Germany invaded Poland in 1939, Stalinist Russia signed a non-aggression pact with Germany with the sole intention of buying time to consolidate a line of defense against the [i]British[/i], with a powerful nation openly dedicated to the destruction of Communism situated RIGHT NEXT DOOR. I will say it again--Stalin feared the British, who had almost no standing military beyond the Royal Navy at their disposal and who were an entire continent away, feared the British more than a powerful, revived Germany in the hands of a Fascist dictator who openly preaced hatred for the very concept of communism, and who furthermore regarded the Russians as [i]untermenschen[/i].
It is completely necessary for us to secure Iraq and for us to help them rebuild. Afghanistan, where American forces are meeting with significantly less resistance (or at least, less televised resistance), is a good start--America topples the Taliban, remakes Afghanistan into the second Islamic democracy in the history of the world, lends aid, expertise, and money to give Afghanistan a somewhat functional economy, and then leaves. But Afghanistan is on the fringes of the Islamic world, isolated from most of the rest of Islam. Such an example will be of limited value, much as the American attempts to rebuild Cuba were at the turn of the last century. Besides, Afghanistan can't really hurt American interests without resorting to terror, so what does rebuilding Afghanistan risk, hmmm? Nothing. But Iraq, with its central position, large populace, and potential ability to cause havoc in the central world of Islam, Iraq is a different story. If America can stay the course, turn Iraq into a functional democracy, and rebuild Iraq's economy, then America demonstrates the price of enmity--not only does one invite invasion, but one sacrifices any potential of long-term wealth for one's country. A rebuilt Iraq holds the ability, just through its very existence, to force the neighboring countries to at the very least toe the line and officially cooperate with America.
Conversely, the goal of the mujahadeen in their current activities is not to inspire hope, or to win fresh martyrs to their cause, or any of a thousand other aims ascribed to them by both liberal and conservative sides of the debate. The aim of the mujahadeen is to destroy any hope of a quick, graceful exit from Iraq in America (a demonstrably false hope in any case, but one the left seems to cherish nonetheless). By destroying that hope, and thus electing a man who promises, whether openly or through insinuation, to withdraw American troops, the mujahadeen destroy the hope of the silent majority of Islam. The Islamic moderates, who remain mostly silent as majorities tend to do, will despair of any hope of peaceful resolution of their difficulties if America withdraws. Without that hope, the majority of Islam suddenly has nothing to lose. War holds few, if any, risks for such people in such a situation.
Paradoxically, if America [i]does[/i] withdraw, it will be a shattering victory for the left, and a devastating, possibly even unrecoverable, defeat for America as a nation. It might very feasibly even be the beginning of the end for freedom and, indeed, civilization, on this planet for a long, long time. I wish this could be dismissed as simple exaggeration, but it is a very logical end result of the chain of events such a process would begin. Bear with me, as the logic train is, though quite simple, a wee bit longer than most logic trains tend to be, and the explanation will thus have to be slightly deeper than I would like, and will have to involve my repeating things that you already know. I will get to the good part eventually, I promise.
America is currently, and always has been, divided into three political/economic camps, representing the liberal camp, which consists of primarily the very poor (for America) urban and blue collar workers, and many the very rich, most of whom are also very, very highly educated and who have become rich not through an understanding of the system but by introducing a new element into the equation. Such people want immediate and radical change in a number of widely diverse areas, ranging from the enviroment to healthcare, from minimum wage increases to welfare hikes and beyond. This is the core constituency of the Democratic party today--young and old, these people believe that they are getting the raw deal, and they want it fixed.
On the other end of the spectrum are the conservatives. This group consists of mainly upper middle-class and people of extreme social mobility--immigrants, ex-military types, and businessmen. In other words, the people who are within sight of being filthy rich through their own labor, and who have no desire of seeing such a tempting prize put in a large safe and locked away for all time. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be filthy rich--it is the American dream, and this desire is what powers every functioning economy left on this planet. But for those to whom the ability to become rich is still open, well, they may be just a bit reluctant to have that beckoning morsal of the great American Dream confiscated for their own good.
In the middle, between liberal and conservative, lies the largest group. This is the moderates, the so-called silent majority that rarely if ever makes its opinions and feelings on an issue known. This final camp is made up of the middle class, some of the upper class, and forms a substantial minority at the least of the lower-level income families in America. This is the camp of those who probably will never substantially improve their lot (primarily due to a lack of drive), but who still dream of success.
The current politics in America consist primarily of the liberal left and the conservative right duking it out in the national arena, with the moderates split down the middle. If you don't believe me, all you really need to do is witness the elections of the past decade or so--and I don't mean just the presidential elections. Starting in 1994, Congress became dominated by the Republicans, a party which is supported primarily by the conservative section of the electorate. In 1996, Clinton won the White House in an overwhelming vote, but and the Democrats gained enough seats in the Senate to fillibuster (talk to death--the Senate requires a sixty vote majority to end debate and just vote on any bills which reach the floor) any legislation of which they did not approve, but the House remained Republican. Those who still remember Clinton's impeachment trial will recall that the Senate voted against convicting him with a slim majority, but that the numbers of Republicans and Democrats present on the floor were very close. The 2000 election demonstrated this again with Gore winning the majority popular vote, and Bush the electoral majority, but, again, by a narrow margin.
Currently, the conservative camp holds a