Oh yes, I should explain that parenthetical reference to Bill O'Reilly in my previous posting ...

I'll let the transcript say it all:

------------
From the September 25 broadcast of The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
------------

O'REILLY: I don't care.

E.D. HILL (co-host): Postwar?

O'REILLY: I don't care what Iraq was, I don't care what it will be. I just don't want them killing anybody or helping Al Qaeda. OK? Couldn't care less about the country. That is the no-spin honesty that you all come to expect from me.

How does one define "Victory in Iraq"?

Victory in Iraq as seen by President George W. Bush

While chatting with my more reactionary brother, Richard from Connecticut, earlier this evening, we realized that neither of us knew exactly why we were fighting in Iraq to begin with. Obviously, to define "victory in Iraq" one needs to know why we are fighting there to begin with ... right?

If it's somehow measured by time ... well, we've been there longer than the War in Europe during World War II. If it's hostile and non-hostile deaths to our fighting forces that Bush was after, he now has more American dead in the combined Iraq and Afghanistan Wars (Bush Wars I and II) than were killed on September 11, 2001. If he's counting freelance militias fighting among the Americans caught in the civil war there, it is estimated that there are 23 as of the end of this month. If it's dead Iraqis (Bill O'Reilly's measure), more than 5,000 Iraqis died in Baghdad alone in July and August. The National Intelligence Estimate suggests (states emphatically) that more terrorists are being generated daily by the war there than are being captured or killed.

And on and on it goes ... it's obviously all backwards.

Of course, with the Midterm Elections coming up in roughly a month, Mr. Bush is shouting "victory is coming; victory is coming ..." from the rooftops in a series of speeches that even exceeds the number of scandals among Republicans in Congress. Listen to his inspiring words:

"Victory in Iraq will be difficult and it will require more sacrifice. The fighting there can be as fierce as it was at Omaha Beach or Guadacanal. And victory is as important as it was in those earlier battles. Victory in Iraq will be a crushing defeat for our enemies, who have staked so much on the battle there. Victory in Iraq will honor the sacrifice of the brave Americans who have given their lives. And victory in Iraq will be a powerful triumph in the ideological struggle of the 21st century."

But now, Mr. Bush, please, please tell us ... what exactly will the above victory look like? How will we know when we have achieved it? We went into this war thinking we were ridding Iraq of its WMDs. There weren't any. We thought we were taking down one of Osama bin Laden's allies. Now, we know they were arch enemies.

What exactly are you telling the mothers, fathers, wives, husbands and children of those who are giving their all for your war? For what exact goal are they dying in Iraq?

Some of your staunchest supporters are stating that the "war on terror" is a never-ending war. If that's the case, where is the "victory," except in the pockets of the corporations who are manufacturing the weaponry and building new and more expensive bases in one of the least safe spots in the entire world?

Please don't tell us that "victory in Iraq" is measured by the falling gasoline prices or the new record highs that will be reached during October (in time for the elections) by the DOW Industrial averages.

God bless America! God help us all ...

Can you guess by the graphs below where we are searching for Osama bin Laden and the 9/11 terrorists?

The green line shows the intensity of the hunt for bin Laden and the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 ... The blue line shows the intensity of Bush's War -- the hunt for ... oil? Revenge? Legacy for being a "war president"? Whatever he hears in the earpiece attached to Cheney and Rumsfeld? ... Who in hell knows?

Read the news article from which I picked up this information.


Memorial Service in Iraq for our fallen in Bush's War (the blue line)

Sage asked ... Mediawingnuts replies ...

It seems to have started sometime before this event ...

Sage said in a comment in/on the previous posting:


"I wish you had given us a link to the article that you must be referring to as I am unaware of what you are talking about. Who is killing the HC concept?

7:01 PM"

First, to answer your question/request directly, here are a couple of links that I used in preparing the previous posting, plus one that's more recent (like today):

Link 1 Brings the matter of Habeas Corpus and the 48-51 defeat of Arlen Specter's amendment to the bill (the one now before GWB awaiting his signature) to us in a very personal way, I think.

Link 2 is a brief summary of the amendment proposed by Senators Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) that would have given suspected terrorists Writ of Habeas Corpus protections.

Link 3 is a somewhat biased view (biased towards life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ... or something like that), but can be summed up by Christopher Anders' quote at the conclusion of the article. He is the legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union -- not one of my favorite organizations usually, but he made the following insightful statement, "Nothing could be less American than a government that can indefinitely hold people in secret torture cells, take away their protections against horrific and cruel abuse, put them on trial based on evidence they cannot see, sentence them to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and then slam shut the courthouse door for any habeas corpus petition ... but that's exactly what Congress just approved."


Link 4 provides some insights into what the Jose Padilla (left) case was all about and what our Supreme Court had to say about it.

And yes, Jose Padilla is an American citizen ... although the Constitution of our country doesn't even require that!

A couple of additional quotes might help, Sage:

1. From the Magna Carta: Articles 38 and 39 of the Magna Carta said: "38 In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it. 39 No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."

2. In the Gospel of Matthew, Habeas Corpus was actually recognized, but not properly applied, when Pontius Pilate said to Jesus, "Do you not hear all of the evidence that is brought against you?"

[A total non sequitur ... Sage, if you don't mind my saying so, that was a superb quotation from the 1960's vintage Home Economics textbook on your blogsite. Where did you ever find it?]

A sad day for America ... Habeas Corpus is dead!

Americans may now be jailed indefinitely without having the council of an attorney ... not even hearing the charges against them in a writ of Habeas Corpus. I pray that you aren't pulled from a boarding line in an airport terminal or aren't hauled out of your home for posting a blog entry that is considered "unfriendly" to the current residents of the White House ... and then spend the next several years (under torture) wondering what it was that put you on "some list" -- a list that you can't even see with the current (still alive today, but not tomorrow) writ of Habeas Corpus rules applying. It's a truly sad day for America ... given to us by the Republican Congress despite the heroic efforts of Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), Judiciary Committee Chairman and a couple of other courageous Republicans, plus all of the Democrats. Although most Americans don't even know what "Habeas Corpus" means, the "Great Writ" dates back to the Magna Carta. A truly sad and humiliating day for the United States of America.

Bush and gang can't see Global Warming in front of their noses ...

look ... see!

---

...

Geez!

I might excuse Mickey Mouse, but goodness gracious ... Surely, Ann and Osama read the papers and even O.J. reads the back sections by now. And GWB could have Condi read the headlines to him, even if he's not "into reading newspapers" (a direct quote).

The journal, Nature, said today that "the Bush Administration has blocked release of a report that suggests global warming is contributing to the frequency and strength of hurricanes."

What evidence is needed? The lead researcher at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (in New York) that the global warming in only the last three decades has gotten the earth's temperature reaching the highest temperature in the current interglacial period. We're now about 12,000 years into the "current interglacial period."

In fact, we are now within 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (one degree Centigrade) of the maximum temperature reached by the earth in a million years!

In addition, the National Academy of Sciences estimated back in 2003 that some species of animals and plants have slowly (4 miles per decade -- not that slow!) been moving towards the North Pole over the past five decades as a result of the global warming. It's worse in the northern latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere -- largely due to excessive use of fossil fuels in the Northern Hemisphere.

All of the blame shouldn't go to the intellectual midget in the White House; his advisors surely could use waterboarding or sleep deprivation (with the new Congressional bills nearly completed) to get him to listen to them and not his brother, Jeb, who called the White House to say that this year proves that we are having fewer hurricanes ... and to ignore the global data collected and analyzed over the past half century.

Rumsfeld's new concept of warfare -- high technology and air power is sufficient -- is failing!

It seems as though ... just as Iraq's efforts were going down the rathole ... the "war in Afghanistan" (Junior Bush's "War I") is also turning south just as quickly. Everything seemed to be going so "swimmingly" (to borrow Condi's phraseology) in Afghanistan, and now it too is unraveling into a disaster of the first order: (1) the Taliban returning in force, (2) Osama and his henchmen finding sanctuary in Pakistan -- but close enough to conduct raids into Afghanistan, (3) women beginning (again) to fall under the dictates of fundamentalist Islam, (4) casualties rising almost exponentially, (5) Karzai's control (and ours) restricted to only a portion of one city -- Kabul, (6) the drug trade back to where it was -- and now, even supplying the world's largest portion of opium, and (7) the country's "legitimate government" (the one we installed) remains both corrupt and unbelievably weak.

How could this be?

Rumsfeld's concept of "modern warfare" consisting of small groups of ground forces ("I'll fire the next person who mentions the need for a plan for after the invasion!") following massive air power -- beginning with an unbelievable amount of ordnance poured onto the centers of the enemy's Command and Control -- was supposed to do the trick. Hellfire, Rumsfeld was quoted as saying, "a breathtaking accomplishment," even before Bush declared "mission accomplished!"

What happened?

Iraq (Junior Bush's "War II") has become the quagmire (Bush hates that word!) that we all see nightly on our television sets. And worse yet, the entire Muslim world seems to hate us even more today than they did before we showed them and the rest of the world what America's might was capable of doing on that glorious night in green and gray on our television sets as "Shock and Awe" unfolded.

The National Intelligence Estimate (declassified only yesterday) of the consensus analysis of our 16 primary intelligence agencies now bears witness to the failure of the "Rumsfeld Strategy of Modern Warfare." The Iraq War has increased the threat of terrorism rather than reduced it!

Where do you go after making mistake after mistake ... from the original invasions and attacks that had no moral legitimacy to the failed events and efforts after the "breathtaking" (Rummy's word for it) Shock and Awe? "what about after the fall of Baghdad, Iraq and/or Kabul, Afghanistan?" -- the question(s) that, if asked, would end your military career? [Rummy said, "I'll fire the next person who ..."]

Future Presidents (Bush's own words) will have to deal with that!

Good for you, Hillary ... you tell 'em!!

Hillary says it exactly right!

One quote from Hillary today says it all, I think:

"The Bush-Cheney administration has stretched our military to the brink, stretched the facts to fit their ideology, and stretched the patience of the American people with rhetoric rather than results!"

She was basically defending her husband's assertion that he had done more to get Osama bin Laden than the current administration. She also mentioned in passing, "I'm certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled 'Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the United States' he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team."

But it was the top quote (in boldened letters) in this posting that caught my fancy... and said it all.

Go get 'em, Hillary!

Guru Mediawingnuts' September Predictions ... including the "October Surprise"!

Guru Mediawingnuts ... Taken in Early 2006

.

My current (September) predictions for the 2006 Midterm Elections:

The Democrats will pick up more seats in the House of Representatives than I would have thought possible before last week's leaks from the April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate and before Bill Clinton KO'ed Fox News ... for the count!. I'm back to looking for the Democrats to pick up at least a dozen and a half seats making the makeup of the House as of 2007:

Democrats: 221
Republicans: 213
Independents: 1

The Senate is tougher for the Democrats to make headway, but The Republicans will find a way to allow the Democrats to actually take the Senate! You heard Swami Mediawingnuts correctly; we (okay, I'm biased and the pronoun, "we" is proper) will pick up a half dozen or more of the 33 seats being contested and the new makeup of the Senate in January of 2007 will be:

Democrats: 52
Republicans: 48
Independents: 0 [Lieberman loses]

Obviously, with that makeup, an impeachment by the House in late 2007 is back to depending more upon whether Dick Cheney is still hanging on to his job (still by a toenail) than upon the case made for impeachment in the spring and summer (of 2007) impeachment hearings; however, the Senate will not find the President "guilty" on even one of the several counts of Impeachment -- my current prediction is as many as five counts, and Bush will likely serve the last year of his term in the same manner as Clinton served out his final years in the Presidency ... that is, as an "impeached" man. The reason Cheney's hanging on to the Vice Presidency is so important to the outcome of the impeachment hearings in the House and the trial in the Senate is because the Democrats still fear running against the brilliant and (but growing less) savvy, Condoleezza Rice in the Presidential 2008 race.

Nonetheless, as the sitting Vice President, she would be tough enough; however, as the sitting President she'd be nigh unbeatable.

Guru Mediawingnuts has spoken!

As always, I'll pass on my brother's predictions (Richard is from Connecticut, you know) as soon as he passes them to me later this week. You can kick his butt directly by knocking on his anti-Rumsfeld door.

Ahhh yes ... the "October Surprise": Watch for Mr. Bush to put naval forces in position in the Persian Gulf to attack Iran's nuclear facilities (missiles and aircraft), but will hold off on any actual attack until after the November elections. He knows that a sudden jump in oil prices would likely soften the increase in seats gained by "moderate toughness" and he won't go further than bluster and intimidation ... in October, at least.

But ... watch for "something" to come out of the clear blue from special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald who has about had it with attacks from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter. With Armitage's help, he is liable to come up with a surprise indictment ... before the Midterm Elections!

Oh yes ... 2008: Watch for President Hillary Rodham to appoint Laura Bush as her Secretary of Education. Bill Clinton will still spend time in the ante room off of the Oval Office, but it will be someone other than Monica Lewinsky this time.

Guru Mediawingnuts has spoken!

Mel Gibson (and Mediawingnuts) likens Iraq War to human sacrifice ...

You tell 'em, Mel ... you're right on target!

Mel Gibson never seems to do things in a little way, does he?

Okay, I don't put much stock in the fact that the Mayan calendar ends in 2012 -- my older cats won't even make it until then!

But his making a very obvious parallel between the human sacrifices made by the Mayans before their civilization slid into obscurity and our sending soldier after soldier to Iraq to die for either the Sunnis or the Shiites (depending upon to which unit the soldier is assigned) in the Iraq Civil War is tantamount to "human sacrifice" for the contractors and others who are lapping up the enormous profits to be made from the 300 to 500 billion dollars we are shipping their by the boatload.

And Mel Gibson is no liberal. Remember how the liberals were on his case for depicting The passion of the Christ so closely with the Bible and also accused him of anti-Semitism at the same time?

Mel Gibson is an artist and he calls 'em as he sees 'em. What else do you call shipping young men and women off to Iraq for no reason? Okay, the Republicans call it a "mistake" and the Democrats call it deliberate oil-related mis-allocation of our military to a non-9/11 "enemy." In either case, it seems like the term "human sacrifice" fits perfectly.

Hopefully, we won't go the way of the Mayan civilization ...

Make up your mind, Mr. Joe Lieberman!

Lieberman both attacking and defending Donald Rumsfeld (only in Connecticut)

Catching Joe Lieberman (in the center of the photo, above, running for the Senate on the Connecticut for Lieberman Party) on the same platform two speeches in a row is becoming a game. Thank goodness (for Lieberman) he only has to woo the Connecticuttinians (new English word ... meaning "persons who bring money and jobs to Connecticut"). That means my brother, Richard from Connecticut, has to work harder convincing his wife that what's good for our country will, indeed, be good for Connecticut in the long run.

Of interest is the fact that Lieberman called for Rumsfeld to resign in 2003, then in 2004 said that Rummy should not be asked to resign, then last month said he should and now he is back on the Rummy bandwagon ... but barely hanging on after the National Intelligence Estimate showed that the war in Iraq has increased the level of terror against America and worldwide.

He can't bring himself to state that the war in Iraq is a "failed endeavor," but is getting closer and closer to endorsing Lamont's position ... but still asking people to vote for him and the Zionist lobby that supports him and will pay off Connecticut with lucrative navy and coast guard contracts -- ship building and the like -- if he's elected as an Independent.

Connecticuttinians are caught between the rock and the hard place on all of this, but my brother, Richard from Connecticut, may straighten things out there before November.

Maybe we should listen to President Karzai ...

Maybe ... just maybe ... we should listen to Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai. And that goes for me too -- I've often been too critical of him, I believe. My brother, Richard from Connecticut, suggested that he might be just the right man in just the right place over the phone and I almost discounted what he was trying to tell me.

Almost!

I did a little (a lot of!) digging this evening and realize that although we chose him, and essentially installed him, we did it for good reasons. Give this one to George Bush! Now, we have to support him before he is assassinated along with Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf.

He believes that Osama bin Laden and his top brass are hiding in Pakistan. Pakistan's president (Musharraf) believes this also or he wouldn't have signed a peace accord with the Taliban who are all over the upper northwest corner of his country.

Mr. Bush: listen carefully to what the other two presidents (M and K) have to say on the day after tomorrow and/or Thursday ... and then insist that they and you sign an ironclad pact to do whatever is necessary to put that terrorist (Osama been Forgotten) behind bars or under the ground. Agree to even pay for the gravestone, if necessary.

The key is that these two presidents have put their necks on the line for us more than once; it's time we did all in our power to help them out of their current dilemma.

And while we're at it, we should be thinking about giving additional aid ($$$) to Afghanistan. We've pumped $300 billion into favored contractors in Iraq; the least we can do is help to get Afghanistan back on its feet.

Just musing ...

Bill Clinton delivers knock-out blow to Fox News

By now, all of you have seen and heard Bill Clinton put Chris Wallace (of Fox News) into a death spin reminiscent of the movies of Japanese Zeroes going down in old black-and-white movies of the 1940s. This was shown on Fox News Sunday (Rated "R" for "Right-wing stupidity"), although it was taped on Friday, 22 September.

Thus, this is only a means by which you can easily access the transcript of that one-sided encounter that clearly points out the failures of the Bush Administration in going after and capturing/killing Osama bin Laden.

Clinton summed it up rather well with his comparison of Bush's miniscule efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan to get bin Laden versus his efforts (seven times larger and more Americans dead now than were killed on 9/11) to close out the Sunni-Shiite civil war in Iraq -- not even related to worldwide terrorism until we got there with "Shock and Awe."

I hope that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were watching Fox News Sunday yesterday.

Rumsfeld is dissed by generals/colonels ... yet again!

No need for me to add a thing. My brother, Richard from Connecticut, showed me the way, so to speak. Let the persons most hurt by Secretary Rumsfeld (left) and his decisions say it all.

A minority Senate hearing included the following:

Retired Major General Paul Eaton said of Rumsfeld "... Incompetent strategically, operationally, tactically ..." He went on, "Mr Rumsfeld and his immediate team must be replaced or we will see two more years of extraordinarily bad decision-making."

Retired Major General John R. Batiste said, "I believe that Secretary Rumsfeld and others in the administration did not tell the American people the truth for fear of losing support for their war in Iraq." [BTW, Batiste was the one who let the cat out of the bag as regards Rummy threatening the next senior military official to question "what about after the invasion; what about the occupation?" with being fired -- before the disaster that has taken place since Baghdad fell more than three years ago.]

Retired Colonel Paul X. Hammes put it succinctly. He simply said that not providing our troops with the best possible anti-armor equipment was a "serious moral failure on the part of our leadership."

All three of these true soldiers served in Iraq and were responsible for major operations and activities. Hammes is now a Marine Senior Military Fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies, National Defense University. Eaton was responsible for training the Iraqi military and for rebuilding the Iraqi Police Force. Batiste was commander of the Army's First Infantry Division in Iraq and also served as a senior advisor to then Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz

The Republicans are refusing to conduct hearings ... period! Maybe the recent National Intelligence Estimate (estimate/analysis of all 16 intelligence agencies) -- key elements released only yesterday -- were a factor in the Republicans backing away from this hot potato.

BTW, my brother, Richard from Connecticut, has waded in on this and recommends the Washington Post's story. He (bro from Conn.) now has a site dedicated to Rummy. How 'bout that?

Pelosi and Obama in 2008 ... something that both my brother, Richard from Connecticut, and I can agree on as a winning combo!

Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama ... the team for 2008!

Wouldn't you all say that it's time that we shied away from the tact of searching for the "most electable" candidates and went for the most American candidates?

No one can argue that Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama embody the desires of most Americans while having a deep-seeded care for those same Americans in their hearts.

We, as Americans, more than anything else, like to see, hear and sense hope and optimism in our leaders, together with that intangible love that so few politicians display. Clearly, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama embody these traits and ... so much more!

Nancy Pelosi, the somewhat liberal Congresswoman from California -- painted more "liberal" by the district that she represents than she really is -- has shown herself to be the member of Congress with greater leadership qualities than anyone else -- even more than Hillary who is still one of my heroes for having taken on the insurance and pharmaceutical companies in a losing cause way back in 1993.

And Barack Obama has demonstrated the vision that makes him a likely future president of the United States himself within a decade or so. Where Pelosi is street-smart, Obama is visionary; where Pelosi is practical and can "count heads" among her fellow Congressmen and women, Obama is thoughtful and deliberate and would provide that true "Vice President" that we have been lacking for almost six years now.

Neither of these great Americans even shows up yet in the polls, but Richard (my brother in Connecticut) and I will be watching to see the meteoric rise in their numbers over the next two years. As my brother reminds me, we should recognize that most Americans are moderates in their political leanings and who could be more moderate and common-sensical than these two great candidates for 2008?

Pelosi and Obama ... 2008 begins the real future of our great nation!

First, we learn that there was less torture under Saddam ... and now, we learn that terrorism is higher than before we mistakenly attacked Iraq!

What next? Now we learn that the Iraq War has actually raised the terror threat in America and worldwide ... as well as the condition(s) of most Iraqis. And no, this is not just some Democratic Party propaganda or some irrelevant commentator's best guess -- it's an official classified assessment of the war's affect of terrorism taken directly out of the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) received (but seldom read, I fear) by the White House and Congress as a consensus opinion of the sixteen spy agencies throughout the Government -- that's the CIA, NSA, DIA, FBI, etc, etc, etc.

If this report doesn't disconnect Bush's war/occupation of Iraq from the ongoing War on Terror [sic], I guess I don't know what will. This isn't a political issue; it's a disaster and a shameful loss of American and Iraqi life (plus others) that we are talking about.

What do we tell the families now? What do we say to the wives, husbands and parents of the young men and women involved in a conflict that is actually raising the terror threat?

Perhaps, Mr. Bush isn't at fault; after all, he has had to follow the directions of his handlers, the neocons (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc.) until now ... but with this report in his hands, he can try to rectify the situation ... now!

Osama bin Forgotten ... dead or alive?

Osama bin Laden ... dead or alive ... or just irrelevant?

Consider the sources: French, Saudi ... Reuters ...

Then again, August 23 is my "lucky day" every year and that's when l'Est Republicain gave as the date of his death. They went so far as to suggest that it was a waterborne disease that did him in ... typhoid maybe? I'll have to check with my "French informant," le Rouge et le Noir to know whether l'Est Republicain is another National Inquirer (rumor rag) or not.

I can state for certainty that the "Saudi Secret Services" (also known as the "Saudi Intelligence services") are pretty reliable when it comes to matters like this and they state that they are certain. Thus, I take it more seriously than most; I guess. After all, I lived there.

As for terrorism, it will continue for as long as the West regards Muslims and Arabs, in particular, as some kind of inferior beings.

When will we all learn that God gave the earth to all of us?

9/22/06 ... the new 9/11/01 ... by the numbers

A couple of weeks ago, I suggested that this day would arrive later in the month. It has.

According to the AP, 2696 American men and women in uniform have died in Iraq. Add to that the 278 who have died in Afghanistan and we see that the 9/11 death toll of 2973 was reached and passed sometime today.

My earlier numbers have obviously been updated.

American deaths as a result of the terrorist acts on 9/11 is now at 9/11 times two. Of course, the reasons for the ongoing carnage in both Afghanistan and Iraq are considerably more complex than they were when Mr. Bush ordered troops to Afghanistan to catch and kill or capture Osama bin Laden ... and the deaths of our boys and girls overseas measures little more than pain, but maybe ... just maybe ... Mr. Bush will notice the numbers and decide that enough pain has been sustained to even the score, so to speak, for the tragedy of 9/11.

War is a peculiar phenomenon. Enough is never enough!

Neither President Bush nor Pakistan's President Musharraf denied that our cooperation began with a threat to bomb Pakistan "back to the Stone Age"

Bomb this back to the Stone Age?

Maybe I was wrong in my defense of Richard Armitage some weeks ago ...

If he indeed did threaten President Pervez Musharraf that we would "bomb them back to the Stone Age" if they didn't cooperate with us in the "War on Terror," then he certainly went "over the top" as Colin Powell's deputy back in 2001.

Neither Bush nor Musharraf would comment on it (neither denied it!) when the question came up, but you can bet that some of my good friends in Pakistan (one of the editors of the main newspaper in Islamabad was a student and close friend -- a woman, no less, in a Muslim country) are even more disillusioned by our heavy-handed tactics with our "friends" and "allies" around the world.

So am I!!

Apparently, there's a book coming out by Musharraf that has the answer to whether that threat is real or exaggerated. He said that he was "honor bound" to Simon and Schuster Publishers not to say anything that would "give away" any revelations in the book.

To Mr. Bush's credit, he sort of shied away from the question and simply asked the television audience to "buy the book." LOL! He also said that he was "taken aback" by the wording of the threat ... which suggests that either Colin Powell or Richard Armitage (or both) stepped out of the box ... at least I hope that such words would not be in the White House "box."

Uhh ... this posting is bigger than it might look, I think. Remember ... Pakistan is a member of the Nuclear Club.

As the country goes ... so goes California!

You all thought that the title of this posting was backwards, didn't you?

But it actually isn't!! There's a bill on Governor Schwarzenegger's desk (passed by the California legislature) that would give all of California's Electoral College votes in a presidential election to ... the winner of the USA's vote. So instead of the old saw, "as California goes, so goes the nation" it could soon be the opposite ... "as the USA goes, so goes California!"

Yeh, it sounds weird, but it might finally put into the grave the antiquated manner by which presidents and vice presidents are elected in our country. And no one could accuse Arnold ("the Terminator") Schwarzenegger of signing the bill for selfish reasons since he is ineligible to be the President anyway. (He's not a natural-born citizen.)

The idea was hatched by the same guy who gave us the scratch-off lottery tickets and other peculiar inventions that no one thought would ever "go" anywhere. As long as I can remember (yes, ahem ... a long time), there has been talk of amending the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College. This scheme doesn't require anything that drastic and, if other states do something similar, the Electoral College will/could become obsolete within the current wording of the Constitution.

Weird, but true!

Four times in the history of our country (out of 55 Presidential elections), the winner of the popular vote was not elected, thanks to the crazy Electoral College manner of selecting the "winner." Of course, there is some electoral red tape involved like ratification by enough states to make up a majority of the Electoral College, but I've seen stranger things occur. For example, who would have thought on 9/11 that we would invade a country that wasn't even involved?

Arnold has until September 30 to sign the bill into law or not sign it. I'm holding my breath ... but not too tightly.

Okay, WalMart: (1) Provide a list of the drugs and (2) expand the program beyond the Tampa area ...

Am I the only one who wasn't "totally thrilled"?

First and foremost, why are you (WalMart) not providing a list of the generic drugs that you are beginning (today, according to the newspapers) to sell for $4 for a 30-day supply? And second, why are you only "trying it out" in the Tampa Bay area?

There are a lot of us for which such a program makes a big difference! Also, what kinds of profits are being made on the generics anyway, that you can reduce the prices on 291 of them to four dollars?

Something is rotten in Denmark ... but I haven't figured this one out yet.

Profiles of Capitulation

The torture deal ... Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator John Warner

I'm ill.

Gee whiz, what courage ... what greatness ... what a pile of baloney! And to think I headlined the last picture of these three as "Profiles in Courage for this year", or something like that. Yecch!

Yeh, that's right; the President can still go ahead with his waterboarding, out-of-sight temperatures, sleep deprivation, etc. -- as long as he doesn't murder or rape a detainee, he's in the clear ... going back nine years! No wonder he's so happy with the "deal" worked out between the Republicans in the Senate and the White House.

Thus, the United States of America will now be the first nation in the world to authorize by law violations of the Geneva Conventions. Great job, Senators!

As it is now written, the President will also have the authority to declare in writing what is and what is not a grave breach of the War Crimes Act. This makes the President (starting with the current one) his or her own judge and jury. The ACLU (not one of my favorite organizations, but right on as regards this issue) made a comment on the news along these lines (i.e., like the previous sentence).

Now we know what "compassionate conservatism" means ... "torture by fiat"!

Not much to say ... Furface is with Sweetheart today.

My "Lion King" is sitting tall in Kitty Heaven

Not much to add to what I wrote the other night. He lived through the night, but barely, and the vet was closed on Wednesday. I went out for a few hours and when I returned ... he was gone. I wrapped him tightly in plastic and he will be buried when the storms in the area abate. I hated to see the fleas and other bugs crawling on his eyes ... but then remembered ... he isn't "here" anymore anyway. His spirit is bringing joy and light to all of Heaven, I'm sure.

Goodbye Furface; I'll see you in a bit ...

UN inspectors suggest that torture in today's prisons/jails in Iraq are "worse than under Saddam Hussein"

As George Bush moves from reason to reason as to why we invaded Iraq, it only gets worse. First it was Saddam's WMD production and then it was his contacts with Osama bin Forgotten and then ... it was that the horrible conditions in Iraq under Saddam (upper left) were so bad that they had to be stopped.

And now we learn from the UN that "the situation as far as torture is concerned in Iraq is now completely out of control." Manfred Nowak, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and cruelty went further when debriefed in Geneva, "the situation is so bad that many people say that it is worse than in the times of Saddam Hussein."

Oh yes, he made mention of the US-held detainees too and they were receiving "inhumane treatment" also.

Who would ever have guessed that we'd screw the situation up so badly that the Iraqi people would dream of a return to Saddam?

Oh yes, thank my brother, Richard from Connecticut for directing me to a number of articles related to the situation in Iraq's prisons and detention centers today.

Kitty killing thief both asking us to stay the course in Iraq ... and running for President in 2008? ... Yeh, figures ...

Maybe this was a bad week for me to learn a sordid story of some of the past doings of Senate Majority leader, Bill Frist (above left) after losing Furface.

I happen to belong to PAWS in the Ocean Shores area and we do our best to find homes -- foster and permanent for stray cats and dogs in the area. We also watch out for (and care for,when necessary) any deer, raccoon, possum, etc. in the area who are in need of help.

Thus, you can imagine the sick feeling in my gut to learn that the man who is the Majority Leader in the US Senate (that's my Senate and your Senate!) stooped to the level of a person who would pose as a person who loved kitties so much that he was willing to adopt a stray or two ... or a half dozen -- or a dozen -- only to take them home,"love" and care for them for a few days and then ... ugh!

That's right, he would treat them as pets for a few days -- gaining their trust and love -- only to kill them when the time was appropriate, so that he could watch their hearts beat from the inside and make other ghastly observations. It's not that observing their innards was so awful; it was that he took them home, treated them as loving pets -- obviously not really loving these helpless kitties -- and then, when he had gained their trust ... slice and dice them for his own selfish purposes (to maintain his medical license in Tennessee).

Although it's impossible to even obtain a copy of an authorized "frist autobiography" today, his penchant for killing cats probably continues (if we could count the cats who have died in Iraq). Nonetheless, you Google around for "frist cats" and see for yourself how/why he killed (one-by-one) 12 - 14 of his family's cats (that he obtained illegally) -- he admits to being heinous and dishonest -- and is likely schizoid. He can be quoted on that last trait, by the way. "I was a little schizoid" he wrote in his questionable 1989 autobiography.

Now, as we hear Mr. Frist ask us to "trust him" in his support for the neocons as our young men and women are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, we should remember that he asked the animal shelters to "trust me!" and then asked the kittens to "trust me!" before picking up his knife and scalpel.

Let's see ... we all remember his frantic activities for/about Terri Shiavo (votes) ... and his trying to kill the filibuster rule in the Senate ... and his insider trading ... and, of course, his support for the wars overseas is in the current headlines ...

Is it only Republicans?

No,my brother, Richard in Connecticut would never kill a cat, let alone a dozen of them!

Hopefully, we'll see a change or two in November.

Is it because the black Sudanese in Darfur control no oil?

He had nothing to offer the West ...

Sadly, this -- the real crime of the past ten to fifteen years -- is seldom the subject of a headline or even a front section mention in our newspapers.

Best estimates put the death toll at around 500,000 although the numbers vary widely as a result of so little attention being given to the Sudan and Darfur, in particular. The boy above may not even be a statistic ... the saddest legacy of all to leave to a world bent on destruction, extraction of fossil fuels and only that religious hatred that is related to capital (money-inducing) resources.

We hear a lot of late about the Holocaust -- as well we should -- thanks to the blatherings of persons like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and the rightful refrain of the Jewish people worldwide ... "Let us never forget!"

But what about the dire situation in Darfur? Right now, as you are reading this, two and a half to three million persons are facing starvation in Darfur. Other populations in Africa are also endangered, but Darfur is where the heart of darkness is located at this moment.

Remember Rwanda? Remember Armenia? Remember the Gulags (not our current US Gulags) in the Soviet Union? Remember the Holocaust? Well, now is the time to focus on the horrors of Darfur ...

A TV special (George Clooney's documentary) was what really woke me up. Please, let's not let another million die in the Darfur region of the Western Sudan. With as many as three million persons displaced already by the ongoing conflict, the danger that our focus on Israel, Lebanon, Iraq (my own focus) and Afghanistan will allow it to happen almost transparently -- like the 800,000 who died (were slaughtered!) in 100 days in Rwanda in 1994 while our eyes were on (as always, it seems) the Middle East.

The problem, as best I can tell, is Sudanese President Omar al-Beshir who has stood against UN deployment in the affected region. Hmmm ... Sounds like a case for UN sanctions again, doesn't it? They worked with Iraq (until we preemptively invaded Iraq anyway) and they can and should be used in the Sudan.

A Pollution Tax ... Al Gore, September 2006

Al Gore is clearly not running for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008! He proposed a new "pollution tax" to replace payroll taxes at a high-level discussion relating to climate change and international development. He went further to make sure there was no misunderstanding or equivocation. He specifically proposed "a tax on pollution, including carbon dioxide to replace al payroll taxes, including social security and unemployment benefit taxes."

Many have thought that Al Gore would be the natural candidate in 2008; however, his seemingly "nutty idea" is one that he himself is taking very seriously as he repeats it over and over again in New York and will be stating it again during five scheduled congressional hearings during the Clinton Global Initiative ... over the next few weeks.

For Mr. Gore, the issue isn't Iraq; it's the planet, stupid!

Furface was gone ... and then ... I don't understand what God's purposes are ...

My "Lion King"

Before I left to teach this evening, Furface followed me from the bed where he was nestled under my chin to the front door. For the first time, I heard him cry. I told him I would be back within a few hours (four) and he sort of slunk under a pile of boxes just inside the front entrance. He fell twice. I knew his time was coming very soon.

As I was driving to school, I resolved to have the dear soul (sorry, fellow Christians, but my cats have immortal souls; I'd bet my life on it) put to sleep. I'd be at the vet's almost before he opened, I decided.

Anyway, I spent the two hours at Grays Harbor College and then drove home -- each way is roughly an hour, meaning I was gone from five till nine, more or less.

As I came in the door, I was shuffling into the dark house backwards with my briefcase and the newspaper when I felt something on the floor -- typical actually, since the cats are always rearranging their toys and my sweaters that are draped over chairs, etc. I don't know how many times I've fallen over completely on one of their balls or a milk bottle cap, etc.

But when I flicked on the light, my heart sank.

Furface was lying stone still on the floor stretched out and facing the door. I felt him and he was cold as ice. I shook him and his body remained stiff and still. I knew I had lost my best friend.

The other cats kept their distance as I just looked sadly upon the still body.

I decided that I would bury him first thing in the morning and would let him lie where he fell. He looked so peaceful there.

Then I came over here to the computer to create this posting. Tears were in my eyes, but I knew I had to do something or I'd break into a million pieces. I had just framed my favorite picture of him and was uploading it when I heard a "groan" from the direction of the front door. Sure enough, Furface was letting out a low-pitched cry while still lying stiff on his side. No movement ... just the sound.

I picked his very cold body up and it is lying limp on my lap with a heater blowing fiercely on both of us at this very minute. He may live the night; he may not. But he will be warm as I can make him against my body till morning -- once the heater puts some warmth into him.

He can't eat ... even earlier I tried my best and he would only fall over next to his dish. He only purred while we napped before I went to school. Hopefully, I'll hear him purr again tonight after he warms up some and we head for bed (I'll have to carry him; his strength is gone) in a little while.

Whatever, unless things change, it appears that he will go slowly sometime in the next few hours. For the moment my very best friend is lying stone still on my lap -- not even a sign of his breathing and no heartbeat that I can hear. Only a soft meow now and then from a foaming mouth that remains stone still, but open.

Why God wants him to live these few hours (or minutes) longer, I don't know. But thank you (in advance), Jesus, for answering my prayers as regards his dying a peaceful death.

I'll write again tomorrow ... or whenever ...

I'm not a Nancy Grace fan, but ....

Just about everyone is aware of the deep doo-doo that Nancy Grace, a tough prosecutorial-type interviewer is in after the suicide death of one of her interviewees, Melinda Duckett, earlier this month (Melinda's interview with Nancy Grace on CNN was on September 7). Melinda shot herself shortly after her interview with Nancy Grace. Actually, she committed suicide only hours before the taped interview was shown on CNN.

Nancy Grace, in her own (sometimes inflammatory) manner was going after the truth surrounding the disappearance of 2-year old Trenton Duckett while interviewing the boy's mother, Melinda ... and yes, went after Melinda as a policemen might go after someone who was the last one seen with the boy ... and who (quoted from ABC News) "admitted to her own lawyer [that] she grabbed a shotgun, diaper bag and the baby hours before he went missing and went on an eight-hour odyssey through a national forest and target practice." These were not necessarily her own words, but as best they could be characterized by ABC News.

In any event, not surprisingly, the police are searching that very area today with police dogs trained to find corpses.

Meanwhile, thousands of people are on CNN's case for not firing Nancy Grace.

The full and as yet unedited interview was clearly tough, but anyone who has ever watched Nancy Grace knows in advance that she will be tough. That surely must have included Melinda Duckett and/or her lawyers.

Don't get me wrong, after reading the interview -- one of the few I didn't see live -- I have to admit that it was quite a grilling (this is a link to CNN's full interview between Nancy Grace and Melinda Duckett), but that Nancy Grace did not act as judge, jury and executioner, as some are saying. Lawsuits will follow, but you might judge for yourself after reading the transcript of the interview. My personal take on it is that Nancy Grace (correctly) sensed something screwy about Melinda's evasive answers and pressed more aggressively -- as I myself tend to do under similar circumstances, although not involving murder or kidnapping.

In any case, it's very sad. I have no doubt that the 17 cadaver dogs that are searching the Farles Lake area in the Ocala National Forest will likely not find young Trenton. This is an area which is inhabited by alligators that could easily eat a young two-year old.

But whatever, Nancy Grace did nothing to deserve being fired, in my opinion. As I said, I'm not a great Nancy Grace fan, but tend to watch most of her shows, although I personally missed this particular one. She's really harsh at times and yes, opinionated; but that's why most of her fans "love" her (well, love her show) and watch her, I'm sure.

But whatever, we should all continue to pray that young Trenton Duckett is somehow found alive .... miraculously.

Would Jesus wear a uniform -- especially a military uniform -- and carry a weapon? Should we? Some Christians of note state contradictions, I think.

We don't even really know what Jesus looked like, do we?

I made the mistake of chatting with yet another brother of mine, Bill, who is one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Naturally, that raised (again) in my mind the question of whether I should have or should not have, if I had it to do all over again, belonged to the military -- in my case, as a civilian at Tan San Nhut Air Base in Vietnam and twenty years later with the Royal Saudi Air Force in Saudi Arabia?

Before I will ever again (you all remember my previous posting with some Bible verses, I'm sure) look at what I might or might not think the teachings of the Bible are, I think the following quotations of prominent Christians (found on the web) are worth reviewing:

^.Pope Pius XII declared at the beginning of World War II: "Everything is gained by peace, nothing is gained by war."

^.Pope Paul VI stated in 1965 during a UN assembly: "If you want to be brothers, put your weapons down. You cannot love with aggressive weapons in your hands."

^.Dwight D. Eisenhower expressed his viewpoint in this way: "There is only one solution for our generation: It is the return to a life based on Christ's Sermon on the Mount."

^.Martin Luther King, Jr. said in his sermon, "The Most Durable Power": "Always avoid violence. If you succumb to the temptation of using violence in your struggle, unborn generations will be recipients of a long and desolate night of bitterness, and your chief legacy to the future will be an endless reign of meaningless chaos."

^.Then again, former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt said: "You cannot rule a country with the Sermon on the Mount."

^.A Catholic Catechism, published in 1975 in Switzerland, stated: "The injunctions in the Sermon on the Mount are not to be taken literally, as this would lead to unacceptable circumstances both in private and public life."

^.The Book of Common Prayers reasoned: "It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars."

^.Francis A. Schaeffer said in "A Christian Manifesto": "I am not a pacifist because pacifism in this fallen world in which we live means that we desert the people who need our greatest help."

^.C.S. Lewis wrote in "Mere Christianity": "Does loving your enemy mean not punishing him? No, for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment - even to death. If one had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged. It is, therefore, in my opinion, perfectly right for a Christian judge to sentence a man to death or a Christian soldier to kill an enemy."

Complex issue, isn't it?

Yeh, I'm leaning (am already there, in fact) towards an attitude that I would be (would have been) serving my God more properly if I (had) stay(ed) clear of serving some military organization (again), yet I still feel the power of the slogan, "Support our troops," although that doesn't include my desire that we Americans remain as an occupier of Iraq, of course.

why? There seems to be a contradiction in all of this, doesn't there?

But, the verses from the Bible seem awfully powerful in that regard, in my humble opinion.

Just blogging in total confusion ...

Bush attends Literacy Conference today ... hosted by his wife

I just knew there was a reason behind my saving this picture on my hard drive all these years ...

Actually, all kidding aside, by attending Laura Bush's Global Literacy Conference at the White House, President Bush is promoting literacy "as a key to prosperity and liberty" -- the theme of the meeting. And yes, Laura Bush was a teacher, and so probably is a little more accustomed to reading books right-side-up than is George.

Non sequitur: I hate to even mention it, but Mr. Bush's schedule over the next two days includes an address before the United Nation's General Assembly as well as meetings with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and several other heads of government -- but not including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran (who is also there), the one leader with whom he should be speaking.

Off subject, but Bloggers are known for that ...

Bush says "let me do it my way" or I won't do it at all!" ... and we have 14,000 detainees in secret prisons?

President George W. Bush

At the same time that the European Union is condemning the US for its "secret detention facilities where detained persons are kept in a legal vacuum" not being in "conformity with international humanitarian law and international criminal law," President Bush is threatening Congress with stopping a major part of his "War on Terror" altogether if they don't approve his plan to weaken the Geneva Conventions and permit "aggressive techniques" (a.k.a. "torture") of detention and interrogation.

Threats don't work, Mr. Bush!

And neither do secret prisons through which hundreds of detainees have passed, and many have died!

The EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator, Gijs de Vries said it best: "secret prisons are illegal, immoral, and counter-productive in any strategy to win hearts and minds." What do you think the Iraqi family and friends of Waleed Abdul Karim (26 and found not to have any terrorist connections) think and say about America after he was released after a "year and a half of hell" in a secret location?

As for Waleed Abdul Karim, his mind is made up. "I will hate Americans for the rest of my life!" is the way he put it.

Although only 14,000 are currently in such prisons, tens of thousands more have already "been there, done that and been released." And our own Congress was totally unaware of even the prisons' existence until this month.

Something is very wrong.

Pope Benedict learning the meaning of "politically incorrect"

Pope Benedict learned a valuable lesson. Never ever make statements that portray the Prophet Muhammad as anything but a loving and gentle prophet of God whose actions in life were necessary to promote his new religion of peace -- displayed above on the left. His marriage to a nine year-old girl (and ten other "women") is largely fictional, according to Muslims outside of the Middle East as is his reputation as a person who espoused spreading the faith through the sword.

By the way, a very devout Muslim in Saudi Arabia said that Muhammad's youngest wife was not nine; she was eleven -- or at least that they didn't have conjugal relations until she was eleven. Also, he took her as a wife because she had lost her parents or something like that. I don't remember the exact story as regards why he married her.

And further, he reminded me that Muhammad had a total of eleven wives and the older ones often looked after the younger ones. His charity towards these women and girls is often misunderstood by Westerners and other non-Muslims.

There are excellent books about the Quran that carefully soften the tone of the Quran as written in Arabic, and it's these books that Pope Benedict should read should he want to avoid being the target of a Fatwah. The Muslims with whom I spoke about Muhammad in Saudi Arabia, for example, made it clear that Muhammad never had more wives than were necessary by the many-to-one ratio of women (girls) to men worldwide.

Mohammad Al Reeshi, a fine young officer in the Royal Saudi Air Force made a strong point of the fact that the one-to-one ratio between the sexes promulgated by Western propaganda was just that -- misleading propaganda. (And on this, I am not kidding!) He said that the current ratio is roughly four women for every one man worldwide.

In any event, Pope Benedict (below right) saw the error of his ways and apologized for quoting an obscure Byzantine emperor from medieval times in a recent speech. Muhammad was certainly not someone who introduced "evil and inhuman" teachings to Muslims. The beheadings of Pakistanis (mostly Pakis while I was there) in Saudi Arabia are supported by Republicans and other more conservative persons even in the West and multiple marriages (by men only) in some Western religions over the centuries give credibility to his prophetic insights. Even today, in America, there are small non-Muslim towns in the West that subscribe to multiple wives.

Islam's thesis that Christians and Jews are too soft in their treatment of sin is a main thesis of the current neocons who let all Hell break out in Iraq after the wonderful night of Shock and Awe, for instance.

"These words were, in fact, a quotation from a medieval text which do not reflect my personal thoughts" Pope Benedict stated over this past weekend. "I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address."

Unfortunately, several have died since he made the unfortunate statement/quote, including one Roman Catholic nun in a hospital in Somali -- an act of genuine peace by members of Islam, the Religion of Peace. That nun is at "perfect peace" today with Our Lord. It's a matter of "understanding" of the peace and beauty of Islam that is needed more than anything in these troubled times.

Both Richard, my brother in Connecticut, and I are checking this out as best we can ...

Richard sent me a very important email this afternoon that just might have some credibility. It's easier if you simply read it and judge for yourself. Most of the names and places (in America and Afghanistan) check out so far, but I'm neither the FBI or the CIA. The threat is of an American, Adman el-Shukrijumah (above left) and could be serious.

The site is at this link. An additional site is also quite helpful, I think, for those of you who wish to investigate. The four pictures (taken from the second article) might be helpful to any of you who might see this (possibly) dangerous person. Keep in mind that he might just as easily be completely innocent of any crime or perceived threat. Hoaxes on the web are rampant.

He looks so much like one of my younger students from last spring at Grays Harbor College ...

Spc. Harley Dean Andrews, 1984 - 2006

I wouldn't have even known about this young man except that his mother lives in Portland south of here and his picture popped up in the paper with a short squib about his being disillusioned with the war before he was killed on Monday when an IED exploded near his vehicle in Ramadi.

Twenty-two years old ... a man, yes; but for me who teaches young men that age ... a kid.

He didn't join the Army to be a hero -- he didn't even join the Army because he had dreamed of being a soldier. He joined because he hated school, was able to take the high school equivalency exam that the Army gives ... and "upped," largely to provide a future for his son (now one) since he felt he wasn't getting anywhere.

After enlisting, "he was proud to be a soldier!" his mother said.

He is a hero ... in every sense of the word.

Besides confiding in his mother that he was "disillusioned" about the war, he elaborated that it really "distressed" him. "it's just dirty!" is the way he described it to his mother in Portland.

He married a girl named Halley (their friends called them "Har" and "Hal") and their little boy, Ayden Dean, is one.

This is now Har's, Hal's and Aiden's war ... as well as President Bush's.

I can say that each time I read of another youngster who is killed in Iraq, I think of what John Kerry said as a demonstrator after he left the military during the Vietnam War era, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?....We are here in Washington to say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this country - the question of racism which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions such as the use of weapons; the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage at the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions."

That was in 1971! I honestly had forgotten the exact quote and its appropriateness until I read about "Har" and then went to Google to find it and re-read it. It's as applicable today -- especially after the vote by the Senate Armed Services Committee this week -- as ever.

Spc. Andrews had only a month to go before the end of his tour in October.

His funeral arrangements are pending.

Postscript to previous posting ...

Manor House of Baddesley Clinton (a relative of Bill's perhaps?)

The above suggests that, for those of you who are imagining a trench fed from the Tigris and loaded with crocodiles and man-eating lizards or the stuff of legends long past, the "moat" needn't be too bad looking.

Also, I received an email already that sent me scurrying to an AP story dated today that mentions a successful trench in the desert. Yikes! I was not only wrong, but ashamed that I hadn't remembered ... it was so close to where I lived for almost seven years. Anyway, the Prophet Mohammad protected the city of Medina (second holiest Islamic site just ahead of Jerusalem and second only to Mecca) with a number of trenches in 627 AD during the Battle of Khandaq. According to the AP story, the idea hatched by the Iraqis was inspired by the Battle of Khandaq.

That is truly embarrassing ... an old Arab hand like me ...

In my defense, I was never permitted to travel all the way into Medina (or Mecca) since I am not a Muslim, and had to stay on the perimeter road when trekking in that direction. Also, no large river goes through Medina, so ... I still don't like it ... even if GWB seemed to yesterday.

This is beginning to sound like we're in a hole in Baghdad ... with this proposed trench ...

Then again, if it worked for the Chinese ...

I don't want to sound like an alarmist, but the idea that the Iraqis are planning to build a 60 mile trench around "the entire city of Baghdad" is a sign that things are going from worst ("bad" and "worse" were both passed months ago) to "Oh God!" It's not that it hasn't been tried before -- I found the reference to Adolfo Alsina's trench (in the desert) that failed miserably. [I just love that Wikipedia encyclopedia!] But just imagine a trench around a city that sits on (both sides of) the Tigris River!

I wonder what our military in Iraq (from the commanders to the grunts) must be thinking as word of this plan is now out in the newspapers worldwide and with additional news/rumors that some members of the Iraqi parliament in Baghdad have a secret "evacuation plan" for themselves and their families -- some staying almost exclusively in the "Green Zone" -- for when the city "falls." I was unable to find a "western" source while searching the web for confirmation of that particular rumor, and don't really know how to evaluate Arab or Middle Asian sources. Presumably, some Shiites would go to Iran, of all places ... and some would go to Syria, while Sunnis would head south to Saudi Arabia or the UAE. [Interestingly, not a single news article mentioned any of them coming to the US, but I would guess that that would be logical if things really went kavoom there. I would think that we would certainly try to help those who have helped us at great risk to themselves and their families. But the idea that some might come here is only me saying that; there was/is no backup source for the meanderings of my own diseased mind.]

On top of that, we are redeploying our troops from nearly everywhere in Iraq (but especially from Anbar Province) into ... you guessed it ... Baghdad. And oh yes,the construction of the Taj Mahal (previous posting, although you might have to archive "June 2006" postings to look at it, depending upon your blog settings) in Baghdad continues with only non-Iraq labor including many American contractors -- we can't trust the Iraqis to even carry the mortar or serve as tea boys to the workers -- and that's a fact!

We'll have half our friggin' uniformed Army and Marine Corps on the inside of this trench (filled with the Tigris River, I suppose) with nothing but the most expensive boon-doggle in US history to stare at. I guess they'll be safe inside the trench, but I keep thinking of New Orleans and Katrina for some reason.

Listening to Mr. Bush speaking in the Rose Garden press conference yesterday just as I was getting google alerts on all of this news ... and it was still processing in my weak brain, I wondered, "How appropriate ... his being in a rose garden." Did he read that Pentagon Report last week? Is he listening to what the generals on the ground are saying? He mentioned the trench ... he called it a "berm," as I recall ... so he's somewhat aware. Or is he?

I'm just waiting for my good friend, Abdullah Al-Faras, or one of my former Royal Saudi Air Force colleagues to call me from Saudi Arabia and ask me if I was in some way involved ... and then start laughing uproariously. They will. I just know it ...

I wonder if the contractors will finish the Starbucks in time. Twenty-two buildings is a tall order even for a billion dollars.

September 2006's "Profiles in Courage"

Senators John McCain of Arizona, John Warner of Virginia and Lindsay Graham of South Carolina -- Republicans all ... and Patriots par excellence

They stood up against President George W. Bush (not pictured, but you might just "picture" him after reading the fourth paragraph of the previous posting -- he's seated on the wheelchair to the right -- use your imagination -- seated across from Saddam Hussein in a wheelchair wearing FDR's winter cape and top hat -- all checked out legally from the White House Museum) on a matter of American principles and their military code of honor.

At issue, of course, was Mr. Bush's insistence that we "adjust" our laws to make his and his neocon handlers' past illegal detention and torture crimes "legal" (retroactively, I guess, although that aspect has never been clear to me).

Anyway, these three fine Senators -- all combat veterans -- "supported our troops" in a very meaningful way. They, together with all of the Democrats on the Armed Services Committee, voted in favor of a bill that rebukes the President (and the real power in the White House -- Cheney and Rumsfeld) and his/their plan to reinterpret the Geneva Conventions. The three Republican senators, at great risk to their standing in the party, correctly opined (see, I do actually watch Bill O'Reilly and now use "opined" rather than "believed") that if the US were to unilaterally reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, so might our enemies while holding our uniformed men and women as POWs.

It should be mentioned that former Secretary of State (under Bush and a Republican also) Colin Powell urged the President to drop this sad idea -- along with the entire military judicial leadership -- all generals, admirals and 06's (essentially, full colonels).

Of course, many of our enemies have broken the GC in the handling of American POWs -- as have we with detainees in both Iraq at Abu Ghraib and at Guantanamo. But we -- as leaders of the "free world," should set the standard, not our enemies!

Unfortunately, Bush has vowed to fight this one through and is taking his case to the "people," whom he believes will support him, thinking that he, as Commander-in-Chief has the right to rewrite international laws and conventions. Sadly, he may be right about having the people's support for his having his way on this. I have heard many "so called" patriots state on Fox News, in particular, that "supporting our troops" means "supporting the president" on matters relating to the military.

We should all weigh in on this with letters to our congressmen/women and Senators.


No, this is not within the guidance of the Geneva Conventions, Mr. Bush!

Okay, we won! And ... okay, we lost! Now, let's get the hell outta the place!

It's a draw. We won the war! Hellfire, I believed that when I heard the President tell me that just after returning from combat in a jet plane onto the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln back in 2003. He was even wearing his flight jacket and scarf. And yes, we seem to also have lost a thing or two ... like favor with the Iraqi people and the rest of the world ... and almost 2,700 young Americans there -- not to mention more than a couple hundred thousand Iraqis -- since.

If Bush wants to help his party win seats in the November midterm elections, he should get Saddam out of that courtroom in Baghdad just long enough to sit across a table with him on the USS Abraham Lincoln and sign a formal surrender of Iraq ... and then immediately redeploy our forces out of Iraq. We could have the carrier anywhere Bush would want it in time to beat the November deadline.

He could even make it an historical photo-op ... sort of like the "mission Accomplished" banner photo-op ... except that this time it would be with a banner behind the two of them sitting at the table that reads, "Mission Over!"

But please. Mr. Bush: no flight jacket and grandstanding with a fighter jet this time. Too old hat! Get FDR's winter cape, top hat and lengthy cigarette holder out of the White House Museum and come rolling onto the deck fully attired and in FDR's old wheelchair that Cheney's been borrowing. That would get a laugh and set the stage exactly right.

The last I saw on the news this evening was that the number of Iraqis dying daily is at an all-time high and even one report that the Iraqi parliament is going to use some of that eight billion dollars we send them each month to dig a trench around Baghdad -- all around Baghdad!

It's sad that we will be leaving that billion dollar "Embassy" (22 buildings with everything from a swimming pool and fast food restaurants -- including a Starbucks -- to spas and SAM sites), but even that put money in the hands of the American contractors who contributed to the GOP in 2004 and are/were building it.

But surely, let's get out before the Iraqis build a friggen' trench around it!

No questions will be asked, Mr. Bush; no future president will blame you for not leaving the decision to him (or her) as you promised recently ... and the GOP will thank you for it after they win in November. And oh yes, dump Cheney and Rummy before November too and it will be a Republican landslide!

And we just might be able to refocus our forces, finances and fortitude away from Iraq's civil war and onto the real War on Terror!

My brother Richard from Connecticut reminded me of the last time I watched Ann Coulter on Hannity and Colmes ...

Yeh I know that the picture of Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity on the left is dated and blurry, but I wanted to leave you with something to smile about after thinking about what my brother led me to with a link in his email to me today.

I'm sure most of you living on the same little continent with me (between the Atlantic and Pacific Seas) remember Ann telling Kirsten Powers (guest hosting about two weeks ago) that "things are going swimmingly in Afghanistan." Well, that was the "subject line" of my brother's email.

Fact is things are not going swimmingly in Afghanistan or anywhere that Mr Bush and the neocons are pushing forward [sic] with their agenda. But to the point of the link: young women are again being murdered by their husbands, "fiancees," families and others in increasing numbers in Afghanistan as the Taliban is growing bolder in what can only be termed a dramatic resurgence.

"According to the AIHRC, some 185 women and girls have been killed by family members so far this year, a significant increase on the previous year." That was a snippet taken from the article to which I was led by my brother. The AIHRC is the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission -- and is on top of that and other human rights abuses taking place both inside and outside of Kabul -- a piece of Kabul being the only small chunk of ground actually in control by the Karzai government.

I don't have to remind any of you who are reading the daily newspapers and watching CNN that Afghanistan is raging at about the same Fahrenheit level as Iraq is (still) all of a sudden over the past month or so.

"Poor George, he can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.''

It is my loss that I never really got to "know" Ann Richards (left) while she was Governor of Texas. I was too busy running around the world doing my thing, I guess. But last evening I took time to watch a special on her and know now that she was something very special. Interestingly her famous line, "Poor George, he can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth!" was given at the 1988 Democratic Convention and was aimed at George Herbert Walker Bush -- Bush 41 -- and not GWB -- Bush 43 -- for whom the line really fits. We lose another really fine person, and only 73 ... sad.

"Incontinent Conservatism" ... Christopher Buckley, September 2006

With all of my concerns about Furface (last posting), I needed a laugh ... and the latest squib by Christopher Buckley (left) hit the mark.

For those of you unfamiliar with Christopher Buckley, he was a former featured writer for Forbes (and writes for the Washington Monthly) I believe that he is also a current editor of Forbes ... at least until we hear that he's been sent packing, and was a former speech-writer for George H. W. Bush (Bush 41 to some). Yes, he is indeed the son of William F. Buckley Jr. whom I featured in a previous posting. Like his father, he was a staunch Republican too, until George W. Bush (George 43) came along! At the end of his excellent "editorial," he makes a humorous reference to Federalist 76 and Federalist 78 ... is it time as Madison said in Federalist 76 to "Hand over the tiller of governance, that others may fuck things up for a change." Or was it Federalist 78?

Basically, he was asking his fellow Republicans to "quit while we're behind."

The key paragraph (not humorous at all) is worth repeating:

George Tenet's WMD "slam-dunk," Vice-President Cheney's "we will be greeted as liberators," Don Rumsfeld's avidity to promulgate a minimalist military doctrine, together with the tidy theories of a group who call themselves "neo-conservative" (not one of whom, to my knowledge, has ever worn a military uniform) have thus far: destabilized the Middle East; alienated the world community from the United States; empowered North Korea, Iran and Syria; unleashed sectarian carnage in Iraq among tribes who have been cutting each others' throats for over a thousand years; cost the lives of 2,600 Americans, and the limbs, eyes, organs, spinal cords of another 15,000--with no end in sight. But not to worry: Democracy is on the march in the Middle East. Just ask Hamas. And the neo-cons--bright people all--are now clamoring, "On to Tehran!"

That one paragraph sums up how many Republicans and former Republicans view their national leadership today--almost like a "cult" that, in some weird way, maintains the loyalty of the faithful in the face of a complete contradiction of republican (lower-case "r") principles and ... absolute failure!