[DeltAlum]

Here are a couple of opinions. They are just that. They are mine. They are not necessarily facts. I think they're correct, or they wouldn't be my opinions. Follow that? OK.

If George Bush The First had fully prosecuted the first Mid-East war, Sadam would not be a problem to us now. He would almost certainly be dead or in prison. Certainly, he would be out of power.

If the Bush girls in question are guilty of nothing else, they're guilty of being dumb. They're in the public eye. Jena in particular. If you're going to do something illegal -- don't do it in public. At least if you're the presidents daughter. Yes, that's a double standard. I don't know if it's fair. But when your dad becomes a politician, that's the way it is. They know it. Shoud Noelle go to jail? That's for a court to decide, not me.

There isn't much a parent can do, whether they're the governor or not, to keep their children off of drugs. I think we're pretty good parents, but our middle daughter got into drugs -- fairly heavily. We hated it, we fought it, but it still happened. No problems whatsoever with the other two. Any adict will tell you that they are the best con-persons in the world. My experience tells me it would be difficult not to have suspicions that your children are on drugs, but there really is often not much you can do about it. Thankfully, our daughter realized, before it was too late, what harm she was doing to herself and came to us to ask if we would pay for rehab. It was the happiest money I've ever spent. She never go caught. Getting caught multiple times may be worse than dumb -- on several levels.

Finally, as regards opposing a presidents policies. That's why we have a multi-party system. That's what the entire concept of checks and ballances and, yes, the loyal opposition is about. It's one of the important lessons we learned from our British roots. Presidents are human and can be as wrong as anyone else. They can get bad advice. War does not change that equation. Consider Vietnam. If a large part of a generation (mine) had not expressed (sometimes inappropriately, but that's beside the point) their displeasure, that could have gone on much longer with a much greater loss of life. For what? In the end, the outcome probably wouldn't haven been different. With history as its judge, it would appear that the majority of the Vietnamese people didn't feel very strongly one way or another about how we thought they should run their government. They simply wanted to live their lives. I also think it's important to remember that Vietnam crossed the terms of four presidents -- two Republican, two Democrats. (Before anyone takes issue, it's pretty well documented that the first "advisors" were sent by Eisenhower) In my opinion (there's that word again), "America, Love it or Leave It" is a dangerous concept when used in the context of not being allowed to express opposing viewpoints.

So, now you have my opinions. For whatever they're worth. But shouldn't all opinions be equal? And at least respected?


And now for the small print disclaimer. The author does not consider himself either Republic or Democrat/Liberal or Conservative. Since "Vote 18" was passed in time for the 1968 election, he has probably voted for an equal number of Republican and Democratic presidential candidates -- including one Bush. The reason he offers "opinions" here is that over the years, he has learned that neither his or anyone else's ideas are totally correct. Over and out.