Text 6342, 126 rader
Skriven 2004-12-17 05:16:00 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av JOHN HULL
Ärende: Breaking News!
======================
-=> Quoting John Hull to Frank Scheidt <=-

 FS>> Good question.  I think the response would be far less general 
 FS>> than it was following the Jap attack of Pearl Harbor -- the World 
 FS>> Trade Center bombing elicited a lot of patriotism, but it didn't
 FS>> last.   During WWII, patriotism was strong all during the war.
 FS>> This time things have more or less gotten back to normal.  The 
 FS>> nation isn't mobilized the way we were in WWII.  Of course back 
 FS>> then our *freedom* as a nation was at stake.  There's no such 
 FS>> situation today.

 JH> First, teenagers in 1941 were a hell of a lot more informed, as a
 JH> group, than teenagers are today.  

I can assure you, John, we were one helluva lot more informed WRT 
the up-coming military draft which took place in 1940.

 JH> Second, patriotism was viewed not
 JH> only as a privilege, but one's duty in those days - as it should be at
 JH> all times.  

No question about *that*!

 JH> It isn't that way today because of 50 years of
 JH> anti-American liberalism poisoning the well.  And if you think I'm
 JH> making too much of it, just listen to what the Democrats say to this
 JH> day about the impeachment of Clinton, the 2000 election, and 2004
 JH> election, and a long list of other things that have taken place over
 JH> the last 50 years.

 JH> Our freedom as a nation is STILL AT RISK, even today - maybe even more
 JH> at risk, because damn few people seem to care that it is.
 
 BF>> I agree.
 
 FS>> There's no way terrorists can conquer the nation -- they can only 
 FS>> cause a lot of scattered misery.

 JH> Don't be naive, Frank.  They don't have to achieve a military victory
 JH> to destroy us, they only have to make us afraid of our own shadows,
 JH> raise the paranoia level such that people quit traveling, that people
 JH> no longer trust their neighbors or their government, and go back to
 JH> distrusting anyone who isn't the same race, creed, color, and religion
 JH> as themselves.  If they can destroy our morale, they will ruin us as a
 JH> nation - and the liberals are helping them every step of the way.
 
I'm not being naive, John.  I believe this nation is far too 
flexible for a few score terrorist attacks to scare us to that 
extent.  I agree that the liberals are helping the terrorists, 
though only incidentally.  Liberals, however, seem to be slowly 
decreasing in number.

 BF>> I agree.
 
 BF>>> And now even the Swedish PM, Göran Persson, have agreed to that 
 BF>>> the Americans were the once who did the transporting of the two 
 BF>>> Egyptians to Egypt. It's now up on the highest political level 
 BF>>> here.
 
 FS>> I'm surprised no mention of it has been made here ...
 
 BF>> As I have said before, it isn't *that* big here either but it's
 BF>> mentioned on the news.

 JH> It never appeared here because it couldn't be corroborated with any
 JH> degree of accuracy.  No newspaper is going to stick its neck out over
 JH> something like that unless they can prove it.  Besides, there are all
 JH> kinds of articles printed in the British press that never see light
 JH> here, why should Sweden be any different?
 
I've seen *nothing* about it here ...

 FS> OK, if it's merely an incidental item in Swedish papers it might 
 FS> just not have been considered of sufficient American interest for 
 FS> our "news"media to pick it up.
 
 FS>> Intense hatred is almost a mental flaw rather than merely 
 FS>> righteous indignation directed toward some injustice.
 
 BF>> When intense hatered turns into fanaticism it's dangerous.
 
 FS> True enough ...
 
 BF>>> I agree but that will never happend I guess. Fanatics will always 
 BF>>> exist in one way or another.
 
 FS>> Fanaticism is a mental problem ...
 
 BF>> That's very hard to do someting about. They don't listen to 
 BF>> logical reason. 
 
 FS> About all one can do is to assume a defensive posture.
 
 FS>> No president should be considered a fool for believing the 
 FS>> conclusions of not only his own intelligence serves but those of 
 FS>> several other nations also.  There are either fools involved, but 
 FS>> it's not the president.
 
 BF>> As the absolute highest chief he's responsible for his employees 
 BF>> and must take the blame for if they are incompetent.
 
 FS> Theoretically, yes, but consider if that's carried to extremes -- 
 FS> as the anti-Bush people do it -- an employee at the lowest level 
 FS> of any organization commits a minor crime, say, steals $5.  Would 
 FS> the president of that company be held accountable?  I don't think 
 FS> so.

 JH> He is responsible for setting policy.  It is the responsibility of the
 JH> various Cabinet Secretaries, department heads and supervisors to make
 JH> sure the jobs get done.  The mundane bureaucratic day-to-day tasks of
 JH> agency employees in NOT the responsibility of the president except on
 JH> the most superficial level. 

Of course.  Otherwise the larger the organization, the more 
people beneath the level of president, the more tenuous would be 
the job of the head of that organization.  One reason Ronald 
Reagan was so successful as president is that he delegated 
authority then left his subordinates to carry it out without 
further interference on his part.  Blunders were paid for by 
those committing the blunder.

... Epitaph:  FRED FLINTSTONE -- Yabba-dabba-done!

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)