George Bush's Resignation Speech

The speech George W. Bush just might give:

Normally, I start these things out by saying 'My Fellow Americans.' Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.

I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.

The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people. I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.

Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media.

Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.

We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this 'blood for oil' thing.. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq 's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell.

And don't give me this 'Bush Lied...People Died' crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.

Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named ' Clinton ' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

Now some of you morons want to be led by a junior senator with no understanding of foreign policy or economics, and this nitwit says we should attack Pakistan , a nuclear ally. And then he wants to go to Iran and make peace with a terrorist who says he's going to destroy us.

While he's doing that, he wants to give Iraq to al Qaeda, Afghanistan to the Taliban, Israel to the Palestinians, and your money to the IRS so the government can give welfare to illegal aliens, who he will make into citizens, so they can vote to re-elect him. He also thinks it's okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and we should stop our foreign aid to Israel

Did you sleep through high school?

You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic model s squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to outspend and out-tech them.

That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are.

They want to kill you, and the bastards are all over the globe.You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that.

When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight.. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.'

Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.

Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well FedEx a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.In this day and age.

It's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times, USA Today, or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you 'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol or Dancing with Stars.

I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that 's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching. I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from.

But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.

So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient for years. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.

Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.So that's it.

God bless what's left of America .Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you, kiss off.

PS - You might want to start learning Farsi, and buy a Koran.

Three Cheers for GWB

To this point in the Georgian crisis, George W. Bush has done and said everything right -- along with the remarkable Condi Rice. The Democrats, including Barack Obama, have offered no insights or suggestions. Instead, as usual, they sit and wait for something to go wrong so they can blame the ever-useful GWB.

At his best, GWB is leading a country called the United States of America. At theri worst (their "default position"), his opponents are preserving their "options," the better to protect their political futures. For all his deficiencies, GWB loves his country. I have seen no evidence that Obama loves his, whichever it might be.

Historians, rather than pollsters, judge presidencies. The first President I really remember was Harry S. Truman. He was in an endless war (Korea) where some 55,000 Americans died. His approval rating was much lower than GWB's. Now, many students of government see HST as one of our best Presidents -- I certainly do. In 1952, however, he was an object of widespread scorn.

There's a new book by Lawrence Freedman, a British subject, on what we've come to know as "The War on Terrorism." He points out that Presidents like FDR and HST faced a dangerous world, but one in which the issues (and the enemy) were much clearer. In our world, it's not that way. How will history judge GWB? Relatedly, how will it judge Bill Clinton and his own efforts against terrorism?

I'll have more Saturday on Bill Clinton's role in failing to prevent 9/11. He could have done much more; especially, he could have appointed better people at the CIA and FBI. Bush could have credibly blamed the Clinton Aministration for what happened on that September day. He chose not to -- and rightly so. He didn't need a divided country in a time of national catastrophe.

After Nov. 5, I'll give my own views on the two men -- Bush and Clinton -- and their respective efforts to protect the people of America. We haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11, and somehow I don't believe any credit should go to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid.

Obama?

Under his presidency I expect many gloomy speeches from the Oval Office, but the overall rhetoric will be high-minded. The body count, unfortunately, will be very high, since the folks at al Qaeda, Inc. see him correctly as a lightweight.

Someone once said, "Life is a terrible teacher. First, it gives you the test -- and only then does it teach you the lesson." George W. Bush might choose those words as his epitaph.

Response from Malia in Hawaii:

I'll be blunt; prior to 9/11, I had little time for or interest in politics. My time is still extremely limited but 9/11 was a turning point for me, the day MY world changed. What JFK and Martin Luther King meant to the 60's generation and Reagan to the 80s, Bush has come to mean to me. And I've got news for the nit picking media, I believe most Americans feel the same.

The 'Ask not what your country' and 'I have a dream' and 'tear down this wall' speeches pales to the '“I can hear you. I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.” The rhetoric spoken by JFK, MLK, Reagan was meant to inspire--to spin hope for a utopian world not yet realized...Bush's words went straight to a nation needing more than comfort.

Like a rising phoenix, Bush reminded America that she was more than a flashy rarity in governing experience, she was a nation capable of horrendous retribution and one that for all her desire to be one of the 'good guys' could set the world ablaze if pushed. I never forgot--and despite the years of safety that gave us back our self-centered world and allowed us to go back to blaming the powers for everything--I don't think most Americans have.

Do I underestimate Obama? Not at all. What I don't do is underestimate America. In the end, she will put aside her self-absorbed, busy concerns, google the two candidates, cross what they read with what they remember hearing.

Obama: In Hawaii..in Europe. A graduate of prestigious schools, with a highly educated wife and adoring children. Sounding like a throw back to the pre-9/11 'I have a dream' remake...as though the accomplishments in civil rights had never occurred...knowing little about our lives and our concerns TODAY.

McCain: Old like most of the voters who actually take the time to vote, ex-military who served in a war that millions got shafted over, with a second wife who finds no need to be anything more than supportive and kids that are serving in the military--just like NORMAL people. True, the guy isn't charismatic...he doesn't have people fainting in the aisle. You might say he's another Bush--without the "let's blame him for everything" factor.

But what the media won't tell you--probably because they see only their own world and pay little attention to anyone outside of it--being another Bush is good. Years from now, people are going to look back at the near 8 years of Bush's watch and it's 7 years of record breaking great economy (before Congress was handed to the Dems), when TWO nations (Afghanistan & Iraq) were given the Bill of Rights and did away with female apartheid, and NO MORE attacks on US soil; something NO ONE expected or dared hope in the days following 9/11. Someday GWB's legacy will join the other 3 mentioned men--only his will be earned and thus harder--but not impossible--to achieve.

OBAMA: A RADICAL BLACK SEPARATIST?

I'd like to ask every visitor here to join me as a member of the online group of McCain supporters. You can do so by going to: http://unitemccain.com. You'll be asked to contribute $10, which will go to the McCain effort to win the presidency. Thanks

"The [U.S.] government lied about INVENTING the HIV virus . . . " (Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, pastor of Trinity Church)

Is Barack Obama, a serious candidate for President of the U.S., a closet believer in radical Black separatism? I don't know the answer to that question. I have recommended recently that Obama, because of his close ties to Pastor Wright, should suspend his campaign.

Pastor Wright is scum, a man driven by deep hatred for white people. In one recent sermon, he said the following about the Clintons: "Bill [Clinton] did us [Black people] just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was ridin' [us] dirty . . . ."

Apparently on a preacherly roll, Wright then added the following: "God damn America."

A Christian minister, Black, White, or otherwise, doesn't say such things. And a congregation that hears such verbal slime doesn't whoop and holler in approval, as the attendees (was one of them Obama?) did at Trinity Church. That group of Yahoos is the one Obama called his "faith community."

Obama has called some of Wright's statements -- somehow, he doesn't specify which ones -- "unacceptable." He seems to feel such tepid comments on his part will distance him sufficiently from the man he now calls his "former preacher." In fact, Wright was his pastor for 20 years. He's the man Obama called his "spiritual advisor" and his "sounding board," and his metaphorical "uncle." Famously, he provided the title ("The Audacity of Hope") for the book that made Obama a multi-millionaire.

If John McCain's long-time preacher -- or Hillary Clinton's -- had made such hateful statements over many years, they would no longer be serious candidates for the presidency. Wright's remarks are racist and separatist, and for Obama to pretend he was unaware of his pastor's views is totally disingenuous.

If you look closely at Obama's speaking style, you can see he's learned a great deal from Jeremiah Wright. Like the pastor, Obama can work a crowd into an emotional lather. Where Wright denounces white people, Obama does the same with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the man he calls his "cousin."

The notion of Wright's being a man's "uncle" and Cheney his "cousin" is a scary thought.

Michelle Obama has talked about being ashamed of her country -- until, of course, her husband started winning primaries and caucuses (often in states that are mostly populated by white people) -- and one wonders how her husband feels about America. Of course, we know how Wright feels -- he despises his native land. To what degree does Obama agree with him?

Is he really just another cynical politician looking out for "number 1?" Is he someone, totally unlike this pastor and mentor, who seeks to bring us together? Or he merely an egomaniac committed mainy to advancing himself through carefully crafted rhetoric?

Can Obama really drop out of the presidential race? "Yes, he can!" And yes, he should.

Barack Obama's Farrakhan Problem

Barack Obama pedals away after responding to John McCain's charge that he lacks experience and maturity on matters of foreign policy and national security. Note: this site regularly posts humorous photos related to the Obama campaign -- scroll down to see.

In the Washington Post Op Ed section on January 15, 2008, Richard Cohen wrote an excellent piece about Barack Obama's uncomfortably close relation to Nation of Islam head Louis Farrakhan. In the recent debate, Obama said he "rejects" Farrakhan's strong support of his candidacy -- and then, when pressed, relunctantly said he also "denounces" the Black Muslim leader's anti-Semitic views.

Here's what Richard Cohen said about the issue:

"[Farrakhan] has vilified whites and singled out Jews to blame for crimes large and small, either committed by others as well or not at all. (A dominant role in the slave trade, for instance.) He has talked of Jewish conspiracies to set a media line for the whole nation. He has reviled Jews in a manner that brings Hitler to mind."

"And yet [Obama's minister and spiritual advisor Jeremiah] Wright heaped praise on Farrakhan. According to Trumpet [magazine, a Wright-organization publication], he applauded his 'depth of analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation." He praised 'his integrity and honesty.' He called him 'an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose.'"

"These are the words of a man [Wright] who prayed with Obama just before the Illinois senator announced his run for the presidency. Will he pray with him just before his inaugural?"

"I don't for a moment think that Obama shares Wright's views on Farrakhan. But the rap on Obama is that he is a fog of a man. We know little about him, and, for all my admiration of him, I wonder about his mettle. The New York Times recently reported on Obama's penchant while serving in the Illinois legislature for merely voting "present" [on 130 controversial issues] when faced with some tough issues. Farrakhan, in a strictly political sense, may be a tough issue for him. This time, though, 'present' will not do."

Steve says: Hillary Clinton has accused the press -- correctly -- of not pressing Obama on difficult matters, including Farrakhan's strong support of him. Specifically, media types have refused to ask Obama where he agrees with Farrakhan -- and where he doesn't. Why exactly should the Senator and, for that matter, his controversial wife, be immune from the hard questions posed to every other candidate.

Obama has mentioned that he can't be anti-Semitic because he has gained strong support from Jews in Illinois and nationally. However, his Jewish supporters, such as his national finance Chair Penny Pritzker, are far-Left types who tend to blame Israel for many of the problems in the region. .

Obama's heavy financial support from MoveOn.org's anti-Israel legions.

(Note: Ms. Pritzker, from Chicago, is one of the wealthy financial speculators who bears responsibility for the subprime mortage crisis.)

Richard Cohen describes Obama as "a fog of a man." In other words, it's often hard to tell where the incredibly glib, but insubstantial, Illinois Senator stands on any issue.

Consider Obama's recent statement (in the last debate) that he might re-invade Iraq if al Qaeda "establishes a base" there! That from the critic of George W. Bush's invasion of Saddam's nation. As John McCain pointed out, it apparently comes as news to Obama that al Qaeda already has a base in Iraq. Obama's response was to talk about mistakes made in 2002, which tells us nothing about what he would do in 2008 and 2009.

With Obama ready to invade our ally Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons, and to re-invade Iraq, he doesn't sound much like the anti-War candidate. In fact, he sounds like someone making it up as he goes along.

Here's the link to Richard Cohen's article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/14/AR2008011402083.html

HUMAN LIFE PROPOSAL -- Plus a Dim View of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama

IMPORTANT NOTICE: http://larryperrault.blogspot.com/ prints today (Tuesday) a letter by Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod -- the far right branch of Lutheranism) leader Dr. Laurence White (Houston) regarding abortion. I wrote a vigorous dissent on Larry's site, because I believe Dr. White is little more than a member of the pro-life "enterprise," rather than a person seriously involved in protecting the sanctity of life at all stages, from conception to natural death. Tomorrow, I'm going to propose a constitutional amendment on life -- one forbidding most abortions, those that occur in the second and third-trimester of pregnancy -- that has a decent chance of passing. This will be not be the imaginary "amendment" favored by some presidential candidates -- an amendment that has zero chance of ever passing. Instead, my amendment proposal will be one supported by the vast majority of Americans. I also support federal AND state legislation mandating the expenditure of money and the providing of counselling in order to encourage adoption. It's frankly immoral to approach the issue of abortion in such a way that it never gets resolved in a decent, humane way in keeping with the Bible (which doesn't say much about the issue, except perhaps for a few passages in Exodus) and the English Common Law that guided the Founding Fathers who wrote the U.S. Constitiuion. I hope at some point leading candidates for the Republican nomination -- including Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Duncan Hunter -- embrace a proposal something like mine. Ending legal abortion in the U.S. is part of a process, and it's time to begin it now!


Note: At the end of this piece I note what's going on at an important blog: http://outsideofthebox.townhall.com/

"Secretary Donald Rumsfeld flat-out refused to leave the building [Pentagon on 9/11]." -- Barbara Starr today on CNN

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one's self in the ranks of the insane." - - Marcus Aurelius

September 11: This is an important day in the history of the United States of America. "Time can never fully dull the pain," as Defense Secretary Robert Gates said this morning. Over the course of today and tomorrow, I'd like to share some of the memories that I have of that day and the ones that followed.

However, I'd first like to focus on the two main Democratic candidates: Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama. Granted, I've said some positive words about both of them, but here's the bottom line: I don't have much respect for either of them.

My image of Mrs. Clinton, who may very well be my President and yours, is of her making a statement that was shrill, cruel, and demagogic: "THIS IS GEORGE BUSH'S WAR!"

Oh, really?

Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, a country ruled by a bloodthirsty tyrant who had killed millions of people, launched two awful wars, and had a history of providing sanctuary to terrorists and using weapons of mass destruction. Mrs. Clinton voted as a result of the same intelligence information provided to George W. Bush.

In the United States, as Mrs. Clinton should know, when the President launches a military action, it is not HIS war, but rather OURS.

It's OUR war because we have a sacred responsibility to the men and women who are fighting it. It's OUR war because winning it affects the country's ability to function effectively. It's OUR war because we must refrain from statements that help the enemy. It's OUR war because comments made about it on purely political grounds are immoral.

In recent times, Senator John McCain said that there are consequences connected with the Iraq War that transcend his ability to become President. His point was that what happens to John McCain is a lot less important than what happens to our country.

Does Mrs. Clinton love her country? I have no firm sense of what the word "country" means to her. To people like John McCain, war hero, our nation means not less than everything.

However, if Mrs. Clinton believes the country has any more important duty than electing her President, she needs to let us know. Does she really believe Iraq is "George Bush's war" -- as opposed to the war of those fighting and dying in it? I don't know if such questions are relevant to "that woman," to take a phrase from her husband.

This is (mainly) a "warrior nation," as former Senator Moynihan called us. Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, testifying to a Senate loaded with people focused almost exclusively on the next election, represent that warrior nation. I'm a member of it, and so are most of you.

In contrast, Mrs. Clinton inhabits a nation that consists mainly of one person -- herself. She would no more fight and die for this country than she would convert to Republicanism. She may well become President, but she doesn't deserve it.

As for Senator Obama, my new correspondent Ancient Mariner -- a naval veteran -- is leaning toward voting for him. I ask the Mariner to think back to the early Democratic debate, where Obama confronted the question of what he, as President, would do if he heard that terrorists had HIT (with weapons of mass destruction?) two American cities.

He said he would launch an investigation of the intelligence services to determine who was responsible. As I put it, perhaps uncharitably but I believe accurately, he would conduct a witch hunt.

Would he respond militarily to such a terrorist atrocity? He didn't indicate that he would.

I fear that the world Barack Obama inhabits is one that reflects the Democratic bias to conduct endless, after-the-fact Senate and House hearings. It's not a world where the President devotes himself to PREVENTING attacks. It's not a world where the chief-executive takes personal responsibility for the bad things that happen on his watch.

Also, The Economist recently raised questions about Obama's comment that he would seek to impose "fines" on mortgage companies that had engaged in unwise lending practices. As The Economist noted, imposing heavy fines on mortgage companies short of cash and laying off workers would be extremely unwise.

What do I think of Obama's proposal that, under certain circumstances, we might invade Pakistan, an ally -- and one with nuclear weapons? I believe it borders on the preposterous. Let's see, the anti-war guy wants to invade Pakistan? It's senseless.

As readers of this column know, I'm often critical of (some) Republicans, (some) conservatives, and (some) evangelicals. However, I'm much more concerned about the Democratic candidates. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continue to make statements that raise questions about whether they're really ready to govern this country.

After 9/11, politics as usual -- iresponsible remarks about "George Bush's War" and speculations about invading allies -- is not acceptable. If Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe they are ready to hold the nation's highest office, they need to apply -- soon -- for membership in the Warrior Nation. They need to stop the political pandering and demagoguery -- now.


Note: This column is dedicated to Peter Paul Domiano, Industry, NY, 1st Lt. USMC, and Thomas Cartwright, Industry, NY, Captain, USMC, my friends, both of whom died for their beloved country in Viet Nam. Peter, a graduate of the University of Virginia, was the manager of our (very good) high school basketball team and brother of my classmate, Judy Domiano; Thomas. a graduate of Penn State University, was the brother of our class valedictorian, Richard, and a fellow basketball player at Rush-Henrietta H.S. At one point, Industry, NY, near Rush and Henrietta, NY, was the town with the highest per capita number of soldiers killed in action. "Time goes on, but some memories never fade." I'd also like to salute two other Marines, young ones, named Matt Franchik and Adam Giran, both very much alive (thank the Lord) & both outstanding football players on a "national powerhouse" in high school, and residents of Mt. Lebanon, PA. "Oh traveler, tell the Spartans we lie here obedient to their word." When compared to Senators Clinton and Obama, the superb human beings I've mentioned here might as well be from another planet.

Sanity Anyone? PLEASE CHECK OUT SANITY102'S BLOG (http://outsideofthebox.townhall.com/ ), ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ONES ONLINE. In recent days, she's done so wonderful columns. Note also Jim's comment there that the term "conservative" increasingly seems synonymous with "extreme right-wing bigots."

Here's a response I made to her recent writings: I agree with Jim, and I now avoid using the word "conservative." Increasingly, it refers to people loaded with malice and devoid of love or understanding.

Sanity, you are one of the most thoughtful people online. I believe the country faces a serious question of what we are to do with Moveon.org types (who did the recent Petraeus smear). You raise the "right" to abortion, which no Founder ever foresaw as somehow a "right."

The Constitution now provides other "freedoms" that the Founders never envisioned. Does anyone ever seriously believe that the Founders believed that "nude dancing" -- or things a whole lot worse than nude dancing -- constituted speech? In writing the Second Amendment did the Founders really mean that inner-city teens should all have a personal assault rifle -- something inconceivable in the 18th century -- to kill each other and police? They would be absolutely appalled. The U.S. has now become "Murder Central" for the civilized world, and that's something we can't tolerate.

If freedom of speech (and press) is a license to print things like "Petraeus or Betray Us," then it is a luxury we can't afford. We need to discuss these issues seriously rather than fantasize that the Founders would have been foursquare behind sleaze-bags dropping F-bombs on TV and America-haters defaming distinguished generals. I am going to keep recommending your site to everyone whose attention I can get. As Justice Arthur Goldberg once stated, "The Constiution is NOT a suicide pact."

Hillary Clinton: Has She No Shame?

"High-pocrisy! High-pocrisy and Mendacity!" ("Big Daddy" in Tennessee Williams' "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.")

I'll be adding to my "Hillary columns" over the weekend -- and probably into Monday, August 13. Like her husband Bill, Mrs. Clinton is very good at winning elections -- and at building public support for sometimes dubious political positions. Her goal this year is to convey an aura of strength, although not necessarily one of consistency.

For example, when she began her campaign to win the nomination, the far-Left in her Party wanted her to "apologize" for voting to authorize the use of force in Iraq. After all, John Edwards apologized, and Barack Obama claimed to have opposed the War almost from birth.

Why didn't Hillary Clinton take the easy route and apologize? Probably because she doesn't really regret her vote. For her to express regret would suggest weakness -- fallibility -- which, as a female candidate, she must avoid. It reminds me of Alexander the Great's philosophy of life: "The weak give what they must, the strong take what they wish." She has the largest wish-list in American politics.

Unlike Ann Coulter, Mrs. Clinton would never call John Edwards a "faggot." However, she certainly doesn't mind the public image of Edwards, "the Haircut Man" and eyebrow-plucker, as the incarnation of prissiness. She also doesn't mind -- and in fact is feeding -- the emerging perception of Barack Obama as "naive."

She knows that the real issue with Obama isn't whether he's "Black enough." Rather, it's whether he has backbone enough.

"She is strong, and they are weak." That's exactly the picture she wants to burn into voters' minds. An apology for her vote on Iraq? Surely not! A commander-in-chief, and that's what she aspires to, cannot be associated with weakness or indecisiveness.

Admittedly, I'm somewhat in awe of Hillary Clinton's political skills. However, that doesn't mean I revere her as a human being. The woman's reputation for ruthless is not unearned.

She loves having her cake and eating it too. She can vote to authorize the conflict in Iraq -- and at the same time say, "This is BUSH'S WAR." It's certainly not HER war. She just voted to let George W. Bush go to war. Get it? If the war had been a success, she could now be running as Mrs. George S. Patton.

Clearly, the "Hillary Express" is willing to leave wheel marks on GWB. Yet she's not even above occasionally pushing her own her own husband off the bus. Recently, she denounced NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. Only voters with relatively long memories will remember that NAFTA was one of the crowning foreign policy achievements of . . . President William Jefferson Clinton.

Fifty-plus years ago Judge Welch asked Senator Joseph McCarthy, "Have you no shame?" If we ask Mrs. Clinton -- the woman who always seems to have it both ways -- the same question I fear the answer will be: "Nope!"

Later this weekend, I'll discuss Mrs. Clinton -- the main apostle of socialized medicine in the U.S. -- denouncing as a "right-wing" falsehood the allegation that she favors, well, socialized medicine. Has the woman no shame?

Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA

NOTE ON HEALTH CARE:

"Statesman" (Matt) at http://senseinpolitics.blogspot.com/ asked for my response to his June 11 column on "health care mutual funds." In his proposal, people would make contributions that would be used 50-50 to purchase health insurance and to make investments. I urge you to read the piece, because it exemplifies Matt's creative approach to solving political and economic problems.

However, the major failing of health care in America is that it costs too much. The American people pay 50%-plus more for such care than individuals in other developed countries -- without receiving anything like 50% more health. Our life expectancy is about the same as our counterparts in France (where people drink a lot of wine, eat fatty foods, and smoke cigarettes). We don't get our money's worth.

In fact, that's the problem with HillaryCare and other Democratic proposals. They will sharply increase the overall cost of health care, reduce the amount of choice that exists, and FAIL TO IMPROVE THE OVERALL QUALITY OF CARE.

I have a sinking feeling that, no matter who wins the election in 2008, a decade from now those wine-guzzling, cigarette-puffing, butter-and-cheese-eating Frenchmen are still going to live as long (or longer) than we do.

The health care problem in America won't be solved unless we as a country drive down costs. We don't need Hillary Clinton with modest variations on the same old (bad) ideas. We need people like Sarah Palin, Michael Steele, and Mike Huckabee who are open to new ideas.

In tomorrow's column, I'll show you what some of those ideas might look like. Let me give you a sneak peek.

In August, 2005, I found out that I had adult onset diabetes. I needed a medication to keep down my blood glucose levels (which were rivalling those of Patty LaBelle in the TV commercial). My doctor suggested the "Cadillac" (supposedly) of glucose-lowering drugs: Avandia, a prescription medicine produced by Glaxo-Smith-Kline.

With me, Avandia worked fine. One big problem: it cost $150 per month -- $3 per day for an 8 mg. dose. It chewed up much of my insurance deductible.

When I found my new doctor -- an Air Force veteran, medical superstar, and a mother of three named Kathleen Osten. I told her I wanted a cheaper drug. She recommended generic Glucophage (Metformin). It turned out that Metformin lowered my glucose numbers just all well as Avandia, and it did so without the latter's potentially harmful side-effects.

How much does Metformin cost? At Wal-Mart, it's $4 per month -- less than 8 cents per day. If I bought it by mail order, it would cost less than 3 cents per day.

Avandia's world-wide sales are $1.5 billion-plus, and most of those revenues derive from the U.S.. My view is that Avandia is, for most people, an expensive and unnecessary luxury. The same appears to be true of several other drugs, including Lipitor, an anti-cholesterol drug with worldwide sales of $12 BILLION-plus.

As I'm indicating, there are some simple ways to produce major savings in health care. The Republican candidates should be putting more emphasis on them. I don't think we can rely on Hillary Clinton to tackle the real problems.