Only Edition

The Darkest Time

Bob Dole's observation is too sadly true. It's not that Wellstone was wrong by being in the minority; that distinction belongs to those of the well-recognized oligarchy, who, try as they might, can't bring the great majority to believe it's the welfare of the people who's interest comes first. Paul Wellstone was unabmiguously uncompromising on this point. And not that his views, being populist, were necessarily popular.

Sen Paul Wellstone:
7/21/1944 - 10/25/2002

Not only in the legislative, but in the popular view was Wellstone in the minority on a number of issues. Particularly when the issue touched on "national defense". The media have noted Wellstone is the only senator in a contested race to vote against an Iraq open hand for our government, but also voted against the 1991 Gulf War. People have noted in the last few days that the greatest terrorist acts by Americans on Americans have been committed by Gulf War veterans.

Though I never heard it reported from his understanding, I can easily imagine Wellstone knew soldiers aren't disembodied automatons, who do the bidding of their masters, and return to their homes untouched by the horror of their experiences. Rather than believe the the "glory of war" perpetrated by their masters, most soldiers bring their own frailties to and from the battlefield. The two terrorists we are referring to are, of course, McVeigh who on 4/19/1995, blew up the Federal building in Oklahoma City, and Williams-Muhamed, who in the first three weeks of this October, terrorized DC, and the Maryland and Virginia suburbs. The great lengths military apologists have gone to demonstrate Williams Muhamed did not receive his sniper training at Ft Lewis WA does not answer the question, "where then, did he receive it?" It's not a stretch to assume, at this early date, he was "trained" by emulating those, not unlike McVeigh, he looked up to, and could not ultimately join. Let's not blame the military for "creating" these people. Rather, let's challenge them on their inability to determine ahead of time who will be adversly affected by training in mortal combat. This calls into question the assumption that some lives are expendable. "Collateral damage" is no longer restricted to the combat theatre.

I like to think Wellstone would have led us to consider more than the great strain we place on our soldiers in deciding national policy. One would like to think there is some consideration for this view, that it figures in the debate.

One final challenge to some popular views of our two major political parties: there is little difference between them. To those whose investigation stops at watching Fox News, I ask you this: is the Republican Party capable of producing a Paul Wellstone?