"ike milligan" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:nO7ih.1119$yx6.200@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Whether or not there were WMD there was a problem with lack of brains on
the
part of the top leaders.

You'll get no argument from me on that lack of brains part.

And the top leaders were put in place by people who
either lacked well-functioning brains or were too clueless to know how to
use their brains.

That as well is a point of truth beyond any possibility of
argumentation and stands as such to be expanded upon somewhat. What
we're really talking about here is the sort of brain that is at work in
the highest echelons of the two ruling parties, to put political
automatons like Gore and Bush up for the miserable non-choices of every
dumb-head of a registered voter in the first place.

And brain power doesn't much enter into it, in view of the success
these deal-makers and opportunists continually enjoy, whose mental
activity (such as it is) is entirely invested in behind the scenes,
under the counter deal-making and influence peddling. So, it would be
a terrible mistake to attribute such ever-continuing success to brain
power rather than ambition and greed. It's one thing to be smart and
quite another to be wily, power-hungry, cagey and acquisitive.

It might be suggested that in order for brains to be of any decent use
in the head of any individual, there must first be a clean, non-toxic
mental environment permitting for the brain and its understandings to
grow, thrive, prosper and produce. There is one necessary condition
for such a healthy brain-growing environment--it can only thrive under
the sunshine of principle. Logic won't work without it. So that is the
one thing missing from the money-grubbing, influence peddling
environment of political pandering. The last thing the P.R. people in
party politics have any use for are principles. Winning and losing is
everything; all means justify the ends. See Bush and the War in Iraq.

They knew George Bush for the clueless party hack he's been from square
one; that there was nothing they couldn't put past him; that he hadn't
the sense or learning to make decisions on his own and would therefore
depend upon the leaders of the Party for all of that. In short, they
knew they had their man in Bush . . . wrong word! They had their
mannequin in Bush, the best one to serve their grasp on power, in the
office of the President of the United States. So it goes always for
both parties, so long as the parties control the process.

Right now the adversary has better use of the brain and also the upper
hand.

True, very true.

I can't see much in the future about a change in that. Anyway it may be
late
to start using what you don't know how to use anyway.

Well, you just never know what might come about by pure accident. Two
of the best presidents we've had in almost two hundred years, Harry
Truman and Dwight Eisenhower got into office that way--through
mischance of war and death. Even the stinkers in the RNC campaign
committee could not pass up the certainty of political victory got from
the immense popularity of a victorious warrior who was a complete
stranger to politics. Every once in a while, along comes Caesar--or by
pure accident of human mortality, a Harry "Clau-Clau-Claudius" Truman.