You know, it is really disappointing to me to see articles like the one referenced above. We, as the United States, are expected to hold ourselves to the highest standard, a noble undertaking...

Well, we now have a president that isn\'t about making people feel good. He is about getting the job done. He is about defending our Constitution against the all enemies, foreign, and domestic (our liberal historian is a fine example of a domestic affront to our Constitution. Is he an ACLU member too?) How is it not noble to uphold freedom for all as the highest ideal? Why should we say all of the right things, like our previous Herr Schlickster, but do all the wrong things?

The simple fact is that the fanatics, the \"anti-American zealots, as Mr. Schlesinger refers to them, still made plans to assassinate the beloved Clinton on his trip to Indonesia (Al Qaeda), still attacked our embassies (Kenya and Tanzania), still attacked our country (WTC take 1, not 9/11). We are hated because we are infidels. We are hated because we stand for equality of women, for rights to vote and decree our own path, instead of leaving it all to Allah. We are hated because we tolerate all races, creeds, and cultural backgrounds. We are hated because we are not ethnically cleansed, or spiritually pure. We are hated. It has nothing to do with this administration, or this conflict. It has everything to do with our freedom.

Mr. Schlesinger tries to argue that Saddam is not at fault, and was not a threat to freedom for the 10 years that the UN threatened him but did nothing (Stop, or I\'ll say stop again!) (ahem... Clinton...). I believe this is a rearrangement of the facts. Saddam gives money to people trying to destroy the only democracy in the middle east. Saddam invades his neighbors every ten years or so. Saddam fashions himself as the next Holy Warrior, so much so that he has had the Koran transcribed in his blood. Saddam has financed and is linked to terroists, no matter what the popular press admits. Saddam has thousands of gallons of toxic agents that are outlawed by international law, and were found in 1991-1994, but are not accounted for now. Saddam has gone so far as to use these agents on people who disagreed with him in his own country. Saddam is, and has been, a threat to the ideals of freedom for all, and in particular, to countries we have strong interests in.

Mr. Schlesinger makes a failed attempt to reinforce the idea that \"containment plus deterrence\" is the proper foreign policy, simple because we won the Cold War. This is a distortion of the facts as well. We had to fight on a few fronts to check the Communist totalitarianism expansion. Is that merely deterrence? I guess it is convenient to forget Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. The Cold War ended because the other side was as scared as we were, and saw mutual deescalation as the only alternative to all out Global catastrophe. Saddam is not afraid, as ten years of shaking our fist but allowing him to execute hundreds of thousands of his own \"loyal\" country men, has indicated.

As a side note, another fine argument against th oh-so-learned Mr. Schlesinger\'s example of ten years of passive foreign policy resulting in failure is North Korea. The UN was watching, the whole time, and did not know North Korea was ready to be a nuclear power. Rah rah inspections! Woohoo! This leads to 2 possible conclusions. The inspection/deterrence is an inept failure and was improperly handled. Or, as an alternative, the UN is a sham, and was not interested in really finding out whether North Korea was up to its neck in illegal operations.

What this is all about, and I agree that idealism is the foundation of this thought, is that the United States represents \"letting freedom ring.\" At no time is it acceptable to let Rwanda conduct mass genocide while the UN turns its snobby nose. At no time is it acceptable to allow countries to develop weapons that threaten their neighbors (Read Iran , Egypt, North Korea, Iraq). Everyone is free to choose their own path, without the threat of your country being wiped off the planet by a dictatorial madman. Mr. Schlesinger does not appear to understand this.

As an editorial, that is Harvard for you. We Princeton folk aren\'t nearly as obtuse. Harvard leans so far left that they would probably have taken offense ot \"One if by land, two if by sea...\"

So, is it acceptable to let 60% of the Iraqi youth suffer from starvation because Saddam wants another palace the size of the District of Columbia? Oh sure, it is our fault that there were sanctions... Well, that is 1/2 true. The other half should describe how Saddam confiscated all funds for his military and other pleasures. How are we the oppressor here? If all of the \"anti-American\" zealots that Mr. Schlesinger refers to actually care about any human rights, then it should be an overwhelming recognition of the need for Saddam to be toppled.

No, they hate freedom, and for all the education Mr. Schlesinger supposedly has, he doesn\'t get that.

Oh, this is soildork, I am not hiding in anonymity. I didn\'t log in today.