The Bushies have a plan alright. Yes, indeed, they're over their head. Yes, indeed, they don't know what they're doing. But when you continue to ship sophisticated, advanced armaments to a country that's rapidly using them up, that's a plan.

And where are the Israelis getting the fuel to keep their planes in the air. Last report I saw about the viability of the U.S., petro-wise, in a major conflict, is was 30-60 days of intensive action. Contemporary fighter aircraft basically throw fuel on a very controlled fire and blow it out the back end. It's hard to believe that Arab countries are sending them fuel. Who's doing it?

Finally, the Bushies have been out-of-touch with the American public's belief system for a while-- look at the down-in-flames failure of the latest rash of false patriotic amendments, laws and resolutions. They probably do believe a wider war might save them.

Unfortunately, war involves all of us, regardless of whatever Deity Complex is possessing the closed circle at the top, deeply entrenched in what I call the "synergistic stooge effect", who, at this point, are probably most importantly talking only to themselves. It's time for us to put power-pressure on our own Congresspeople, and take to the streets-- before the start of that wider war.

This is a hard subject for me-- specifically, as an engineer. As a local political commentator, I was called after the south tower was hit by a local shock jock. He wanted to know my opinion on the environmental effects of such a catastrophe. Like most Americans, I was in shock. After he asked, my first response was "I think we're going to have other things besides environmental problems to worry about." My second was thinking "at least one of those towers is coming down." As someone with a BS in civil engineering, we had studied the towers, and failure from aircraft impact was a subject discussed-- and this was back in 1981.

My professional inclination holds the fire chief and various police captains who sent their men into the towers after the crashes as being professionally culpable for criminal malfeasance. The fire chief was killed when the building collapsed. In the end, the firemen and policemen called to the scene could do nothing to prevent the eventuality that happened. Professionally speaking, it is hard for me to believe that there was no one in the chain of command at either the NYPD or NYFD that wasn't a structures expert that should have been calling the shots with regards to the feasibility and action plan for such an event. Such a person should have viewed the tower collapses as highly probable-- not impossible, as was portrayed in the press.

But then I ask myself what would I have done had I been in charge? In such an emotionally charged situation, it can be unfair to judge men, confronted with such an extraordinary situation. Had they not sent their men in, what would have been the consequence had the towers not collapsed? It is the classic question of real leadership-- can one rely on their objective thought process in the midst of such a calamity? And should we hold them responsible if they do not?

The credit for saving the 47K+ people who escaped from the Towers rightfully goes to John O'Neill, the head of security at the Towers, who devised the escape plan, predicted the eventuality of the attack, and was Clinton's #1 guy in the FBI on Al Qaeda. He too was killed when the South Tower collapsed. I still am amazed at the fact that some 47K people escaped both towers in an orderly evacuation in about 25 minutes time. It is nothing short of amazing.

Regardless of how one feels about the leadership, the rank-and-file did what they had to do, what they believed was their mission. They followed the commands of a flawed leadership, and most were killed. Theirs was the ultimate, profound, noble sacrifice.

While Dorfman rightly sings the praises of various writers inking their thoughts on the fascinating madness of Chilean history, I'd like to add a different angle.

Chile is the Last Great Place. While other countries tumble in the Third World sinkhole of mega-cities and devastating environmental pollution, Chile, with some faults, stands out. It is California, Oregon, Washington State, BC, and Alaska upside-down. It has lakes like the Finger Lakes, with little development. Hard-pressed to see actual hardwood forests stretch into the horizon? Chile's still got 'em. Wild rivers aplenty-- I know, because I ran them. Clean water, and friendly people. Their own personal version of redwoods. A Fjord District. And an endless desert, if that's what you need for your own solitude.

We were driving back from a run down a river in the Lake District, to our generously defined 'hotel' (in reality a series of migrant worker-quality shacks), when we passed a farmer scything grain about an hour before sunset. Golden light spun through the dust, an classic pastoral scene-- except what was different was what followed in his tracks, across his plot that couldn't have been more than 4 acres across. Pink ibises and caracaras, a crested falcon, walked in a line across the acres, behind the farmer, like a marching band behind a conductor, gleaning insects and snails from the newly-cut wheat.

It seems from peering over the foreign-policy press that we have left Chile alone since our Pinochet days. There's not much oil down there, and the Central Valley of Chile has assumed the role of supplying us with produce in the off-season of our own Central Valley in California. Let's keep it that way. We can only hope that since that, under the current defective leadership in Washington, D.C., the nation's eye stays focused on the Middle East. South America in general, and Chile in particular, with our self-indulgent interference removed, finally seems on the mend.