If the folks at TAC believe they can demonstrate that they are truer to some timeless "faith" than anyone else, they have a tough road ahead. Buchanan claims he and his gang speak for genuine conservatives. He's free to make that claim. But let's look at some specific issues. On the question of a potential Iraqi invasion, for example, TAC's positions are indistinguishable from those of Noam Chomsky, Al Gore, former Clinton advisor and Democratic intellectual William Galston, and Lewis Lapham, the editor of the left wing Harper's magazine. Indeed Lapham and Buchanan, in the current issues of their respective magazines, make strong arguments against Iraqi invasions that happen to make the exact same points. Take another issue, such as global trade. It doesn't help matters for TAC that on trade issues, Buchanan's views mirror those of Ralph Nader.

The war will almost certainly be preceded by a lengthy disinformation campaign designed to keep Saddam guessing about U.S. intentions. That effort, some say, has already begun with the disclosure of plans to move a key military headquarters to the tiny Persian Gulf nation of Qatar and the continued leaking of ''war plans,'' including military training for Iraqi dissidents, to U.S. media. Says one former Gulf War planner: ''It's been wonderful to have all those stories out there to confuse Saddam.''

I wish the New York Times would talk of confidence intervals and sampling variability, but its editors have made a judgment that such discussions would lose too many of their readers. It doesn't. But this failure to talk about the uncertainties of sample-based estimates leaves the door open for sleazy attacks like Slate's.

This is the big problem I have with the anti-war people. There is a clear and present danger to the United States that in all likelihood will get worse unless some sort of immediate action is taken and the anti-war crowd's solution to that problem is **sound of crickets chirping**. Until the anti-war crowd has something of substance to say about a SOLUTION to the problem we're facing, there's no compelling reason to continue paying attention to their arguments.

No one is Pro-Abortion. I am not. I think it is unfortunate and sad, but my desire to keep it accessible comes from the same concern the Pro-Lifers have, preserving the integrity of life.

A similar ad hominem methodology can be seen at work among Buchanan's somewhat more extreme allies on the antiwar right, the paleo-libertarians and neo-Confederates whose main hangout is lewrockwell.com. For the neo-Confederates, the evil American empire does not begin (as it does for the Buchananites) with the Gulf War or the Kosovo War or the Cold War or World War II; it begins with the Civil War and Lincoln's unprecedented exertion of national power to suppress the Southern rebellion. The neo-Confederates hate Lincoln's policy both as unjust and wicked in itself and as prototypical of the current American empire and its client state Israel. Just as Buchanan smears the "rampaging bull" Sharon as the fons et origo of Mideast violence, the neo-Confederates rant about "the blood-thirsty Lincoln" as the sole cause of the South's ruin. This "blood-thirsty" slur contains two false inferences: that Lincoln's primary motive was to kill as many people as possible, rather than to save the United States from dismemberment; and that it was only the evil Lincoln (or Lincoln and his band of radical Republicans) who wanted a large-scale war on the South and forced the rest of the country to go along with that tyrannical policy. The truth, of course, is that it was the majority of the Northern people, Republicans and Democrats, who through their elected representatives supported the war; and that their motive was not to shed blood but to save the Union.

Like Buchanan when he blames Mideast violence on the "rampaging bull" Sharon, and like the neo-Confederates when they blame the Civil War on the "blood-thirsty" Lincoln, McConnell when he singles out the "War Party" is suggesting two slanderous falsehoods. First, he is implying that it is only a small group of manipulative ideologues, the (largely Jewish) neoconservatives, who support the overthrow of the Iraqi regime, rather than, as is the case, the majority of Americans. Second, he is implying that those who support a war on Iraq are motivated by a love of war for its own sake ? for what else is meant by "War Party"? ? rather than by a responsible concern for America's security. For McConnell to admit that the majority of the American people agree with Bush's Iraq policy, and that they do so for rational and patriotic ? not ideological or imperialistic ? reasons, would compel him to engage in rational and respectful debate with them instead of trying to provoke fear and hatred of a neoconservative bogeyman. Unfortunately, it would appear that such restraint is beyond McConnell's ability or desire at this point, as it is for many others on the antiwar right.

And a friendly Iraq, free again to trade and to make contact with the outside world, could transform the atmosphere of the Middle East.

To take one small example, Iraq would no longer be supplying the more thuggish elements around Yasser Arafat, or offering subsidies to suicide bombers.

And it might be noticed democratic forces among the Palestinians have begun to insist on a mini regime change of their own.

Just on the material aspect - I love it when people darkly describe the coming intervention as "blood for oil", or equivalent gibberish.

Does this mean what it appears to mean, namely that oil is not worth fighting over?

Or that it's no cause for alarm that the oil resources of the region are permanently menaced by a crazy sadist who has already invaded two of his neighbours?

The Pentagon was ''a better target''; the people in the towers ''never knew what hit them. They had no idea that they could ever be a target for somebody's wrath, just by virtue of being American. They took it personally. And actually, it wasn't a personal thing.'' As for civilian deaths in general: ''I'm pretty inured to the notion that in a war or in an armed struggle, people die. They're in the wrong place, they're in a nightclub in Israel, they're at a stock market in London, they're in the Algerian outback -- whatever it is, people die.'' She mentions Hiroshima and Dresden. ''So I have a lot of trouble figuring out why that is wrong, especially when people are sort of placed in a position of having no other way.''

The answer is yes, and we did it. I happen to be a professor of Constitutional law. I'm the guy that drafted the Use of Force proposal that we passed. It was in conflict between the President and the House. I was the guy who finally drafted what we did pass. Under the Constitution, there is simply no distinction ... Louis Fisher(?) and others can tell you, there is no distinction between a formal declaration of war, and an authorization of use of force. There is none for Constitutional purposes. None whatsoever. And we defined in that Use of Force Act that we passed, what ... against whom we were moving, and what authority was granted to the President.

At one point in the movie, a man who will remain nameless is injected with one of these devices by a dart gun, and it kills him. All very well, but consider for a moment the problem of cost overruns in these times of economic uncertainty. A miniaturized assassination robot small enough to slip through the bloodstream would cost how much? Millions? And it is delivered by dart? How's this for an idea: use a poison dart, and spend the surplus on school lunches.

Cage's ground-breaking silent composition, 4'33," was first performed half a century ago. The piano piece, divided into three movements, consists entirely of silent notes and takes four minutes 33 seconds to perform.

But this really isn't about the wisdom of physician-assisted suicide. (I have some doubts about it myself.) It's about the right of states to make their own policies. Under what clause of the Constitution does Ashcroft justify his intervention into Oregon policies?

However, just last Sunday, September 15, 2002, the Washington Post's lead story carried the banner headline "In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil is the Key Issue." The article then went on to describe how US oil companies were looking forward to taking advantage of the oil bonanza, which would follow Saddam Hussein's removal from office.

Apparently, so the article says, CIA Director James Woolsey, indicated that non-US oil companies who sided with Hussein would most likely be excluded from sharing in Iraq's massive oil reserves a*" reserves said to be second only to Saudi Arabia.

"The GOP hasn't done much wrong in the past 20+ years. "

Let's not get carried away. Consider that even this President has sold out the taxpayer in favor of the "family farmer", and sold out the consumer, the longshoreman, the manufacturer, etc., in favor of the highest paid laborers in the world - US steelworkers.

This type of economic liberalism is nemesis of the thinking man, in the GOP. Sadly, we (presumably deep thinkers) are forced to vote GOP, simply for the general move to lower taxes.

They've always known conservatism to be a powerful and popular political movement, frequently wielding the power of government, always and quite publicly challenging liberalism, and to a great degree the sole source of ideas in our recent politics. They've witnessed the victory of conservative ideals in the Cold War and in tax fights and over unionism and in welfare reform. The military actions they've watched have been either won or exited so quickly that dissent has been rare and rather quiet. They've been governed by a Republican Congress. They can easily imagine that soon conservatism will effect reform of education and Social Security and abortion law. In short, they've lived through twenty-two years that have been much different than the preceding fifty, when conservatism was routed and liberalism not only the ascendant ideology of the West but seemingly the only possible ideology of thoughtful men and women[.]

It probably won't get much major media play, because, according to the media, all Arabs oppose action against Saddam. If all Arabs oppose action against Saddam, this couldn't happen, so therefore, it didn't happen.

It is not only the comparison to Marxism that is skewed. Rather, his "logic" is more like an impressionist painting full of non-Euclidian twists to produce the image in the artist's mind, than any linear construct.