We signed a UN treaty on 1/27/67 with this title: "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies". It went into effect on 10/10/67. How does the reported Bush plan conform with this treaty? Sure seems to clearly violate the letter AND the intent of what is indisputably the law of this country! (But Dubya and Co. probably consider this treaty just as "quaint" as the Geneva Conventions, and would feel free to ignore it too.)

Here are the first three articles of that treaty:

- - - - - - -

Article I

The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind.

Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies.

There shall be freedom of scientific investigation in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and States shall facilitate and encourage international co-operation in such investigation.

Article II

Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.

Article III

States Parties to the Treaty shall carry on activities in the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, in accordance with international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international co-operation and understanding.

For the record, here's the link to the entire outer space treaty, from our own State Dept. website:

http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/5181.htm

It's usually "remembered" that Nixon claimed to have a "secret plan" to win and/or exit the war in Viet Nam when he ran in 1968 -- there's some dispute about this, though, and Nixon apparently never used the words "secret plan".

However, as we know, perception quickly becomes reality, especially these days. Someone with a better sense of humor than I have needs to come up with a clever quip about spin-and-dry cycles, "permanent press" (as in the fourth estate, of course), etc. Tim? Anyone?

Maybe "spin-and-lie cycles" would work for starters...

One of my first memories of politics was becoming thrilled with Richard Nixon in 1968 while I was an 8th-grader. His rhetoric and promises regarding Viet Nam sure SOUNDED good at the time, but 13-year-olds then were just as easily fooled as they are now. I'm a bit embarrassed to admit I ran a classroom campaign for Nixon, who did win majority support among my fellow students. *sigh*

No reason anyone should or could be fooled by Sen. Burns' idiotic comments now, though. The Bush crowd hasn't a clue. Now we all wait for the grown-ups led by James Baker to give Bush43 a healthy dose of reality about Iraq -- the only problem is, this won't occur until after the November election...

Let's not overanalyze this, folks.

The PERFECT allegory for the situation in Iraq, right from the first day of the Bush43 presidency, is the annual "Peanuts" event where Lucy entices Charlie Brown into trying ONE MORE TIME to kick that blasted football. Dubya (and his cronies) are Lucy, and this naive, trusting country is Charlie Brown.

Against our better judgment, and relying on equal parts hope, trust and foolishness, we decide to take one more swipe at that darn football, only to have it yanked away once again at the last moment.

As any sane, reality-based person would have predicted, we land on our collective backsides with a "WHAM!" So it has gone, and will continue to go, in Iraq as long as the same discredited Bush43 crowd leads us -- and as long we agree to follow.

Perhaps the only consolation is that our national Charlie Brown is starting to recognize, at long last, our presidential Lucy for what she is -- an incorrigible liar far more adept at talking than doing anything constructive.