What about Woodrow Wilson? Wilson totally mishandled foreign policy. He had the Congress declare war, when the army was totally unprepared to fight. No planes, no machine guns, no artillery!Every weapon of some quantity was obsolete, except the Springfield '03, of which there were severe shortages.

Don't forget that Wilson fought desperately to keep us out of World War I because he felt that it was our place, our duty, to act as a neutral arbitrater and to help the belligerents end the fighting.  He was also worried about the increasing chaos in Mexico which was undergoing something very similar to what Iraq is undergoing now, except their problems were the end result of almost serial revolutions and the resulting destabilization that sequed into constant wwarfare between factions rather than outside conquest followed by a total failure to have a plan for ensure stability and move into a different form of government.  He had to withstand  public pressure after overblown reports of German atrocities in Belgium, the German introduction of aerial bombardment of civilian targets, poison gas and flamethrowers, not to mention unrestricted submarine warfare and resulting incidents like the sinking of the "Lusitania".  There was also the infamous Zimmerman telegram in which the Germans purportedly offered to help Mexico regain the territories lost to the U.S. in the Mexican-American War of less than a century earlier if they would ally themselves with Germany.  So the U.S. only went to war, an not completely willing at that (the vote in Congress was nowhere near as overwhelming as for World War II) only after a long list of incidents and direct provocations.  Granted, that should have given the country plenty of time to get prepared, but don't forget that it is the Congress that has to provide the appropriations for the preparations and much of the country was not interested in getting in the war.  If you're going to condemn Woodrow Wilson as overrated, you'd be better off using his failure to get his pet project, the League of Nations, approved by the Senate.  But that may have been an impossible task.  Look at all the resistance today to really untilizing the United Nations as an instrument of controlling or reducing conflict despite the increasing level of conflict that we have been seeing over the last few decades.  At times this country talks a better game than it plays.

All good laws have a moral context but not all moral rules should be turned into law.  For example, “Thou shalt not kill” is a pretty much universally accepted moral rule that is also a common legal rule.  “Thou shalt not covet they neighbor's wife” and “Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother” are both very good moral rules but should never be written into law.  And the existence or non-existence of some form of God/Allah/Yawhew is irrelevent to a legal code while it is integral to the existence of a moral code.  The ultimate point is that a legal code is to govern public conduct so that society can function in something approaching a logical and predictable manner.  A moral code is to govern private conduct.  Hopefully much of the legal code will be based on a commonly accepted set of morals, such as “Thou shalt not kill” but you should be allowed to lust after your neighbors wife if you are so inclined.  You should even be able to act on it, and she should be able to return the favor, even if the husband considers it immoral, because their conduct would have no effect on anyone besides themselves.  And finally, I consider myself a highly moral person. I have a very strict personal code that I live by.  But I accept that not everyone agrees with some of my moral precepts and that's okay because their are many moral precepts that others believe in that I think are incredibly stupid and choose not to obey, and that is my right in this country.  And if that ever changes we are, as a society and a country, doomed.  Would you want Jerry Falwell determining what is right and wrong, what is legal and illegal?  How would you differentiate us from Iran, other than the clothes?  RELIGION MUST NEVER BE THE GOVERNING PHILOSOPHY OF PUBLIC LIFE!!!!!

I advocate Christians to seek office and to use their Christian principles and faith in Jesus Christ to guide their decisions as they represent their constituents.? I see nothing in the teachings of Christ that would be detrimental to a representative democracy.? Unless you don't agree with obedience to God, but our republic was founded on the principle that? a Creator endowed inalienable rights to us even if that language didn't get transposed onto the Constitution.? It is still behind the thought processes of the Founders.

But at the same time they did not use the term "God" at all in the Constitution, and the only mention of religion is in the 1st Amendment and says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" so while they may have believed in the moral philosophy commonly identified as Christian they most assuredly did not think it should be part of our governing philosophy.  They established this country as a nation of LAW not of philosophy or even morality.  I think they hoped that our laws would always follow a basic Christian moral code but they never put that in our governing document.  So religion and morality can play a part in our government and administration IF AND ONLY IF it is written into law.  On the other, every individual can follow any moral system he wants AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT VIOLATE OUR LAWS.  If you want to worship the devil and sacrifice chickens, knock yourself out, but if you are a devout worshiper of the Christian God but kill those who don't, you're going to jail.  The point is that anyone who attempts to force their moral beliefs on anyone else is in violation of everything this country supposedly stands for.  Convince, yes, convert, yes, argue with, great, but not force.

Well, as one of those who belongs to an "entrenched hierarchical" church, I differ greatly in my opinion of the role and activities of churches.? Churches respond to attacks on their dogma just as anyone else with an idea would respond to an attack.? I don't see anything wrong with that.? Churches have moral authority - sometimes this may seem strict - but they do not have political authority; that is, churches cannot force you to act in a particular way the same that governments can.? If you act against a governmental statute, you can be locked up.? Just as a person can move out of a country, a person has the free will to leave a particular church (although this can be difficult if we recall the recent case of a Christian convert in Afghanistan).The point you raise about Hezbollah and Hamas hits on a good point - that the religious person can be the most loving or have the best heart in the world, but he can also be the most dangerous person in the world.? However, non-religious people can be just as dangerous.? The people reportedly killed under Stalin could exceed those killed under Hitler by tens of milllions.

What concerns me is that churches DO have political power far too often.  And they often have that power indirectly so that it is not subject to the usual checks that government may be limited by.  It used to be the Roman Catholic church, then various Protestant denominations that ruled directly.  And it hasn't been that long ago that Catholicism dominated Ireland, Spain, and Italy.  It wasn't even that long ago, in historical terms, that we had state-supported churches in this country.  And now we have Islam being the defacto government in a number of countries.  The problem is that churches, by definition, are made up of true believers and true believers always make me nervous because they are absolutely convinced that they, and only they, have the ABSOLUTE TRUTH AND RIGHT on their side.  This makes them extremely dangerous.  Unfortunately true believers are not limited to religion - look at the McCarthy era in this country or the reign of terror that the IRA inflicted on Northern Ireland, or the original Reign of Terror.  Any group or organization that will not tolerate dissent because they are absolutely convinced that they know the TRUTH is dangerous because they are willing to do ANYTHING to suppress any inkling of that dissent.  Churches are more susceptible to this than  political parties because they have GOD ON THEIR SIDE.

Joe McCarthy knowingly and deliberately destroyed lives of innocent people for his own political gain.  That's evil, pure and simple.  But then he was only following in the less-than-illustrious footsteps of the Dies & House Un-American Activities committees.  In case you're not familiar with them, they were set up in the 1930s and '40s to hunt down Communists, Socialists, and other “subversives” which they interpreted to mean anyone that didn't slavishly worship at the altar of unrestricted free enterprise, that same economic philosophy that gave us various murders of labor activists, imprisoning of labor leaders, and last but certainly not least the Great Depression.  This same attitude had a rebirth under Reagan and the de-emphasis on policing the economy that gave us Enron, Worldcom, and one or two others that I can't remember offhand.  I'm am most definitely NOT saying that capitalism is bad, quite the contrary, but unrestrained and unregulated capitalism is very dangerous.  Study a bit of this country's labor history, when 10-year-old children worked in the coal pits, when a 60 hour work week was the norm (no overtime by the way), when workers were often paid in company scrip that had to be spent in company stores and you had to live in company housing and pay for it all at inflated company prices, when if you got hurt or killed on the job, well, tough s–t.  The bottom line is that dissent is not only NOT unAmerican, it is the very essence of Americanism.  The Founding Fathers were dissenters and rabble rousers and were undoubtedly consider very unBritish, but I think we're glad they were.  Now what McCarthy had in common with Hitler, FDR, and the current administration was the ability to wrap their policies in a rhetoric that harkened to basic values that most people believe in, the very same values that our Founders appealed to, things like freedom and security.  Where they differed was in their ultimate political goal.  McCarthy was after political power.  Hitler was after national unity as a prerequisite to conquest.  FDR was after national unity in the pursuit of his policy objectives.  The current administration seems to be in pursuit of some sort of American world hegemony built on their version of democracy, which apparently places absolutely no real boundaries on executive power.

It's the people who belong to the churches, who believe in the core of their philosophy, who practice the RELIGION, who do the good deeds.  The churches, the entrenched hierarchy, spend most of their time and effort attacking anyone who disagrees with their dogma.  Look at any of the major religions, how do they spend their time and money?  Attacking "heresy" and trying to convince more people to accept their dogma.  Good works are just another way to gain converts.  Hezbollah and Hamas do the same thing.  If you provide services that the people need they will support you and may be willing to die for you.  What's important is the philosophical underpinnings, the religion, and not the dogma that is all too often the whole focus of the hierarchy, but then that is what maintains them in their lifestyle, it is their career.

Yep, Old Hickory essentially said “You're screwed” to the natives.  And there was a time in our past when serving in the legislature at any level was considered a civic duty that required sacrifice.  It didn't pay that much and required that the member travel long distance by stage or train and live in a boarding house away from his family.  You did it for a few years and then went back to your real job – lawyer, farmer, whatever.  There were professional politicians and political machines – that goes back to the 1800 presidential race – but most were not.  It's principally been the last 50-100 years that being a politician has become a career for most of them and now it's getting to be a family sinecure in some instances.  The Bushes, the Kennedys, my home state governor is the son of Roy Blunt who is Majority Whip or some such nonsense.  What's really scary is I've heard of some talk of Jeb running in 2008.  I guess he would be placeholder until one of the Bush daughters get old enough, maybe Laura might have to fill in for a few years.  But perhaps the scariest change is that before 1980 I believe, no ex-Congressman worked for a lobbying firm since lobbyists were often considered not much better than pimps but that since then something like 30% of those leaving the House and Senate found jobs on K-Street.  So now, instead of men like Clay, Calhoun, Webster, or our former Senator Jack Danforth, we have people in our legislature who apparently look on it as prep school for lobbying firms.

Clinton is one of the great disappoints as President.  He had the potential to be a real leader of the country as well as his party.  He had charisma, real charisma.  He was smart, perhaps too smart.  But he lacked that hard moral center that the truly great Presidents have, men like Truman and Lincoln.  And he had what too many Americans have – a very weak moral  compass that allowed them to look at a situation and say “Well, it's not REALLY illegal so I can justify it to myself, so what the hell, let's do it!”  As for the whole impeachment thing – gee, a 50 year old guy diddled with a 21 year old bimbo, boy am I shocked.  I still maintain that his big mistake was, in that famous taped deposition where he categorically denied any sex with Lewinsky, he should have looked them dead in the eye and said “Anything that may or may not have happened was between two consenting adults and is none of your damned business.”  I think most Americans would have said “Okay Bill, now let Hillary chew on your ass for awhile, that's enough punishment.”Your comment about the security environment in this country is too true.  I also think its vastly overblown.  They made their point - they can hurt us and hurts us badly - but their real emphasis is getting us out of their part of the world.  The bottom line is that the terrorists can destroy American property and take American lives - occassionally in large amounts - and there is really very little we can do about it, although having government agencies actually TALK to each other would be a major step in the right direction.  But they can NEVER destroy us, but we can destroy ourselves by using the fear, the paranoia that the government is creating, to destroy ourselves.  The way we do that is violating every principle that this country supposedly stands for with things like invading a foreign country because we don't like their form of government, locking people up without the basic rights and guarantees that are in our Constitution, that were enunciated so brilliantly in our Declaration of Independence, by torturing those we have seized in violation of international law, by violating the civil rights of our own citizens, by allowing a President to sign a bill into law and then adding a note that it doesn't apply to him because he's, well the President, who apparently thinks he's king.  By doing that, we let them win.  And finally, would a Christian theocracy be any better than a Muslim theocracy?  Given the lessons of history I don't think so.  Look at the history of the Papal States.  They were a major political power for many centuries, waged war to gain territory.  The bottom line is that the best rule is still the Golden Rule - it's just unfortunate that so few seem to obey it.