Civil War ???

Colin Powell disagrees with the President. Who will be next?

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Wednesday at a business conference in one of the most exciting cities within which I have lived (Dubai in the United Arab Emirates) that the war in Iraq "could be considered a civil war."

Mr. Powell made the remarkable comment during a question-and-answer session after a keynote speech, according to David Hellaby, who organized the "Leaders in Dubai Business Forum." No cameras were allowed in to record the talk, but Mr. Hellaby was present and issued a press release quoting Mr. Powell.

Mr. Powell's comments are a direct attack at those of U.S. President George W. Bush, who said Tuesday that Iraq is not in a civil war. Of course, Mr. Bush blamed al-Qaeda extremists for the daily violence there.

Mr. Bush said Iraqis had "a chance to fall apart and they didn't."

Oh ... they didn't?

Excuse me, Mr. Bush, but have you been watching TV or reading the newspapers -- yes, I know you "don't do newspapers," but a moment or two wouldn't hurt.

Linkage of Three Wars Envisioned

Whudda thunk? Jordan's King Abdullah II comes up with "Theory of Everything" or maybe better phrased ... "Theory of Everyone" ... at war!!!

Jordan’s King Abdullah II has warned us rather emphatically that three civil wars could break out in the Middle East unless the international community takes urgent action. Maybe Abdullah is searching for the elusive "Theory of Everything" and should be/have been a physicist.

Speaking on US TV, he said the following:

[Quote from Seattle Post Intelligencer]

Conflicts in Lebanon, Iraq and the Palestinian territories could spin out of control. King Abdullah is this week hosting both the US president and the Iraqi prime minister for talks against a backdrop of escalating violence in Iraq. The issue also featured when the Iraqi president visited Iran yesterday.

The trip was due to take place at the weekend, but was delayed due to the curfew imposed after a series of deadly car bombings in Baghdad last week. They were the bloodiest attacks since the US-led invasion of 2003. “We could possibly imagine going into 2007 and having three civil wars on our hands,” King Abdullah told ABC television.

It is time that we really take a strong step forward as part of the international community and make sure we avert the Middle East from a tremendous crisis that I fear and I see could possibly happen in 2007.” A tentative ceasefire for the Gaza Strip is currently in place, but King Abdullah said the central issue in the region remained the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “Palestine is the core,” he said. “It is linked to the extent of what’s going on in Iraq.”

“It is linked to what’s going on in Lebanon. It is linked to the issues that we find ourselves with the Syrians. So, if you want to do comprehensive – comprehensive means bringing all the parties of the region together.”

Tensions in Lebanon between pro- and anti-Syrian groups in parliament have also escalated recently with the killing on Tuesday of Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel. King Abdullah will host US President George W Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki in Amman later this week. He said the US should look at the big picture in seeking a resolution to the problems in Iraq and bring in all of the region, including Syria and Iran. He said if a regional peace process did not develop soon, “there won’t be anything to talk about”.

Pressure is growing on the Bush administration to include Iran and Syria in helping curb the violence in neighbouring Iraq. Last week, Syria restored diplomatic ties with Baghdad after a long freeze.

The Iraqi President Jalal Talabani is also heading for Tehran on Monday for talks that have been delayed by the security crisis in Baghdad, where more than 200 people were killed on Thursday in a series of attacks.

On Sunday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his government would be prepared to assist if the US stops “bullying” Tehran, which rejects Washington’s allegations that it is seeking to build nuclear weapons.

[End of quote]

Focus Fusion -- Is it a hoax or is it for real?

Hmm ... is it really real?

I managed to get into Seattle over the T-Day weekend (America's Thanksgiving for those around the world) and a friend of a friend -- and a genuinely nice fellow named Cam, tried to introduce me to something called "Focus Fusion." Needless to say, my minuscule mind wasn't able to grasp what he was chattering about, so I dived to the web first chance I got -- which was today, thanks to my new job and a really bad snowstorm here in Western Washington.

The best reference (most readable) on the subject was a blog. of all things, and includes a schematic about three pages down. Hopefully, I will understand how sliding the two "pipes" (brass and copper) through one another create enormous amounts of "nuclear" energy. That may be in a distant future lifetime.

Basically, a plasma (consisting of very dense hydrogen-boron gas) is "electrified" by the diodes (the copper/brass pipes) and while heating (during a very short duration -- maybe a millionth of a second or so) creates energy as a part of what seems to be a rather strange ionization. During this ionization the nuclei of boron-11 (don't ask!) and hydrogen (only protons, of course) collide and fusion occurs as a nuclear reaction. The long and short of all of this and additional reactions in the course of the same millionth of a second or so results in new energy that can be tapped for things like heating infant incubators, curing cancer and making popcorn.

All at once.

For really good "pro" arguments for focus fusion, the LPP website is a good place to start inasmuch as it contains the usually answers to "frequently asked questions" which basically blames the slow movement towards the development of focus fusion on stupidity, selfishness and Big Government/money. Maybe it's real, maybe not. For sure, the arguments are compelling to the non-physicist like myself, and I will dig deeper.

Can't Senator McCain distinguish between the War in Iraq and the (forever probably) War on Terror?

As much as I admired the Senator's father thirty-five years ago (he was the CINCPAC while I was in Hawaii and Nam), some of Senator John McCain's (JM Junior -- left) views on Iraq defy understanding.

He believes that to achieve "victory," we must send more troops into Iraq. Victory over what? Admittedly, we have brought Al-Qaeda into Iraq as a result of our having toppled Saddam Hussein, but even were we to clean up the Al-Qaeda element now there ... and stop the Sunni-Shi'ite squabble at the same time ... we would not have achieved 'victory." We would only make our leaving more palatable for the period of time until Al-Qaeda re-emerged or we were faced with a new Shiite-led terrorist organization that was capable of connecting the Shiite Crescent (and likely headed by Iran).

My personal view is that "what will be will be" in Iraq and in the Middle East over the next decade or so, whether we stay and die ... or not. Better for us if we leave quietly and maintain air forces and special ops forces nearby to keep a closer eye on Iran.

From my brother Richard in Connecticut to us all ... and yes, I needed reminding!

I needed reminding. This in my email box just as I was about to unplug the CPU to drag it to Olympia tomorrow for massive upgrade.

My brother Richard from Connecticut is the best there is among the Ginger-and-white Cat Democrats, let me tell you!

From Matthew 25:
"36 I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.' 37 Then these righteous ones will reply, `Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing?39 When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?' 40 And the King will say, `I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters,* you were doing it to me!' "

Ginger and White Cats: 1 ....................... Blue Dogs: 0 !!

I will be away for a few days (Thanksgiving plus trying to upgrade my computer ... groan!) and thus, I can only leave you with the thought that America spoke up for Progressive Liberalism as represented by the Ginger-and-white Cat Democrats and thus ... the Blue Dog Democrats are going to have to tow the line ... or else!

Look up and meet your master, Blue Dogged! Look waaaaay up!

After reading the latest Blue Dog posting, and realizing that we have the women of America locked up on the side of righteousness, goodness and love ... I feel confident that the Ginger-and-white Cat Democrats will put Hillary in the White House in 2008.

See you all in a few days!

Maybe President Bush is right on this one ...

Seldom do I ever agree with some of the nonsense that seems to camouflage itself as "news," but watching Glenn Beck on Sunday night and having since read the transcript ... well, I have to saddle up with Mr. Beck on this one.
.
This was maybe the scariest hour of television I've watched since 9/11 and the early days of 2002 through mid-2003.
.
No, I didn't agree with every word that Binyamin (Binnie) Netanyahu (leader of the Likud Party in Israel) spoke to Glenn Beck, but I surely agreed with his characterization of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the current President of Iran, as a sponsor of terror and a serious "danger" to the entire world -- not just what we call "the Free World."
.
Unfortunately, are probably going to have to listen to the man (Ahmadinejad, photo to the left), while being very, very careful not to fall into a trap that would allow for his country -- or any rogue country to have nuclear weapons.
.
Mr. Ahmadinejad is not just another nameless terrorist; he's a highly radical Muslim who hates the Jews simply because they are "Jews." It's worth looking at a couple of comments made by Netanyahu over the past two weeks.
.
Netanyahu correctly compared Ahmadinejad with Adolf Hitler and the current times with the mid-to-late 1930s. Right on! But oh yes, Netanyahu highlighted one major difference. Hitler was already taking over large sections of the planet in 1938 while still working on the Atomic Bomb. Ahmadinejad might well already have the "bomb" by the time he makes his move ... if we and the world allow him to continue.
.
On that issue, I am in total agreement with our President when he states that Iran must not be permitted to develop WMDs ... of any kind!
.
Netanyahu might be wrong in stating that MA hates Israel because they represent us (America) -- but so what! Whether he calls us "the Great Satan" or a "patsie of the Israelis" makes little difference if he has missiles that can reach both Europe and America ... plus nuclear warheads.
.
Clearly, we must avoid at all costs a ground war with Iran (let's not repeat the mess in Iraq!) and use of nuclear weapons is certainly (I hope!) off the table. But we can, with or without Israel's help, destroy 95% of Iran's nuclear weapons building capability with conventional weapons while doing what we can to convince the Ayatollahs there that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a liability to what might be the most advanced country in the Middle East.
.
Whatever, though ... we should take Mr. Ahmadinejad at his word ... and soon!

Yeesh! They really want to go long??

The Washington Post (WP) was pretty grim with its characterization of the options under consideration by the Pentagon as regards where we go from here in Iraq.

.

Going "big" is more or less what Senator John McCain has been advocating, taking into realization that, if we plan to try to bring this thing to what GWB calls a victory, we need substantially more troops there. Going "long" is roughly what GWB referred to as "staying the course," but given no specific label in the days before the Midterm Elections. Going "home" is pretty obviously bringing the troops out of Iraq -- either over a schedule or immediately.

.

The only option that is simply ridiculous from Mediawingnuts' perspective is the "go long" option -- which, from all I've heard on the radio this morning is the "leading option" of the Pentagon. Doubtless, the Baker Commission (George H. W. Bush's study group) will choose some combination of "big" and "home" with much emphasis on working closely with Syria and Iran. The American people in poll after poll (including the Midterm Elections) are interested in bringing the soldiers home, either in a phased withdrawal/redeployment.

.

Of course, the military is only interested in variations of the "go long" option.

.

Yeesh!

Arnold (a.k.a. "Sweetie") was napping by the TV and turned to ask me, "Doesn't anyone make the connection?"

Ho Chi Minh looking "down" upon George Bush

To Mr. Bush's credit, he properly congratulated Vietnam for its movement towards joining the rest of the world ... and its movement towards a market economy. It's also to his credit that he made no direct mention of the war that dominated US headlines during the 1960s and 1970s. Of course, that allowed no possible connection (mental, logical, political or otherwise) between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War.

Clearly, he was "congratulating" the Vietnamese for their successes at home that were made possible by the withdrawal of our military forces between 1972 and 1975.

The unspoken question: "Will Iraq ultimately develop as a country in a more stable Middle East whether or not we stay for a short (or long) while longer ... dying at a rate of roughly three soldiers per day and after the deaths of countless Iraqi civilians as the occupation of Iraq drags on?" If so, and if the number of Iraqis who die over the next ten years would be roughly the same either way ... why are we continuing to witness and sustain such sad losses?

Will some future president sit at an economic conference in Baghdad in 2019 with a bust of anti-American cleric and 2006 militia leader, Moqtada al Sadr, looking down upon her as she "congratulates" the Shiite Kingdom of Iraq for its move towards greater accommodation with the Sunni Shiekhdom of Iraq ... and for hosting the second (or maybe the third) Middle East-European-North American Economic Cooperation (MEENAEC) summit?

If so, some aging 87-year old blogger's 12-year old cat lying by his owner's five-dimensional holographic television set might well ponder the question, "doesn't anyone notice the irony of that conference in Baghdad in light of the US-Iran War still raging in its seventh year?"

"Yes, Arnold!"

"purrrr ..."

Upside down and inside out ... nothing makes sense anymore ...

General John Abizaid, Commander of Central Command testifying before the House Armed Services Committee a couple of days ago

More is less and less is more ...

Only a year ago, this same John Abizaid, along with General George W. Casey Jr., was trying to convince us that the American troop presence in Iraq was "stoking" the insurgency and that a phased withdrawal was called for ... quickly! We all remember the response from Donald Rumsfeld and recent disclosures of the heads that rolled in the US military and the threats that came from the Secretary of Defense's office.

Well, now we are the heroes, according to General Abizaid and furthermore, we (the mighty US military) are all that stands between the ongoing insurgency and its becoming an all-out Civil War between the Sunnis and the Shiites.

And oh yes, we need roughly 21,000 more troops in the Anbar Province to stave off this aforementioned "Civil War."

Apparently, no one has gotten word of the election results of ten days ago to General Abizaid nor word that the oh-so-feared Donald Rumsfeld was fired by a combination of the American People and Laura Bush's insistence that her husband wake up.

Vice President Dick Cheney said that we were not going to "stay the course" but instead go "full speed ahead," and he apparently is still the guy in charge. Troop levels, according to General Abizaid will stay well above 140,000 with surges in the weeks ahead both necessary and expected.

More is less and less is more ... in that sense we are certainly "staying the course" ... the antigravity from the dark forces (see previous posting) occupying the White House still have the upper hand in our universe.

God, Cheney and Dark Energy ... a Mediawingnuts Perspective

Many of you are aware that the exploding Supernova shown above was one of the recent definitive events that allowed scientists to be assured that the universe is expanding ... but also that "God" (God's incredible plan) seemed to speed up the expansion process about five billion years ago (picture taken by Hubble Telescope "way back" in 1987).

There's no need to go back to the estimation of Hubble's Constant or Einstein's dismay that he (thought that he had) made a mistake ... but only to realize that he (Einstein) was in good company. As we now can state definitively that the War in Iraq has lasted longer than World War II and with the reports coming out of Berkeley, the Space Telescope Science Center and only last month at Mount Stromlo and Siding Spring Observatories in Australia -- published this week ... Mr. Cheney's prognosis that the war in Iraq might last "weeks rather than months" (stated almost four years ago) makes perfectly good sense.

And so do the data and statistical analyses of Karl Rove prior to the Republican defeats of November 7 when he stated "but my math shows" ... [that the Republicans will retain both houses of Congress].

The time line of the universe from the Big Bang through about noon on November 7 (shown below) shows the source of "Dark Energy" is indeed exactly at the intersection of the bisecting lines at the vertices of the triangle formed by drawing lines between Karl Rove's desk in the White House, Dick Cheney's pillow (where presumably he dreams of Dark Energy when he isn't dreaming about his next hunting trip) and Donald Rumsfeld's desk at the Pentagon. Look carefully at the right-center of the time-line chart and you can see a reflection of the surveillance (Big Brother's warrantless) "eye" at the White House. That (the source of the dark energy in the form of anti-gravity) can also be seen in the upper left quadrant slightly above the horizontal meridian of the photo of the 1987 Hubble photo at the top of this posting. See it?

[Note: Greg Davidson's Science News Metric Report says, "The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe [usually called "WMAP" -- the small image on the right side of the time line at approximately noon on November 7, 2006] had the most productive single year of any Explorer mission. [It] accounted for 1.1% of world science with discoveries relating to the shape of the universe, dark matter, and early galaxy formation."]



Specifically, what Dr. Adam Reiss of the Space Telescope Science institute said in the article linked to by this posting was, "if this was a crime ... we would ask, 'Was dark energy lingering around at the scene of the crime?' We might look for a pile of cigarette butts. We found the cigarette butts! Dark energy [Rove, Cheney, and Rumsfeld] was here, full of mischievous intent."

It seems that we now have sufficient "cigarette butts" to state conclusively that the same Dark Energy that expands and contracts space and time ... emanates from the current Republican Administration.

I'll double check these results with my brother Richard from Connecticut over the weekend after I've had a chance to eat and sleep a bit. But one way or the other, the pie chart shown below (derived from WMAP data) matches almost exactly with the data extracted from Karl Rove's data on electoral results -- where the "Dark Energy" clearly represents Republican votes as fed into the Diebold electronic voting machines on November 6 and "Dark Matter" clearly representing "Blue Dog" Democrat votes fed into these same machines. Progressive Democrats are labeled "atoms" -- both their label and their share of the pie being a reference to Karl Rove's (November 6) Projection of their influence in the current Administration.

Mediawingnuts is for John Murtha ... so there!

I may be sort of "out of it lately what with working long hours (alarm goes off at 5:00 a.m. and I come in the front door at 10:00 p.m.). That means I have seven hours to feed the cats (forget the kitty litter until the weekend -- whew!), eat a half a container of yogurt -- anything heavier makes me very ill for some reason -- and try to sleep for six hours or so without too many pits stops ... especially after 13 solid hours in my new work "environment." [No posting yesterday because I was in the commode emptying my stomach of three too-hastily eaten hotdogs with too much mustard the evening before.]

But even so ... I listen to the radio during the hour-long rides to and from work and feel very strongly that John Murtha would be a marvelous Majority Leader in the House of representatives and cap off a career that puts him in my personal "Profiles of Courage." Of course, he would work well with Nancy Pelosi, but of far more importance is his credibility in opposing the sad state of affairs in Iraq. After 37 years in the Marine Corps, he knows the complete insanity of war and certainly the insanity of a mistaken war.

My brother Richard from Connecticut highlighted Murtha's turning his back on his former "blue dog" allies, but I say, "the more power to him." Sorry Richard, but I am not an enthusiast of the blue dog Democrats' on-and-off-again hawkishness about a war that we stumbled into after being lied to about its necessity and then stood by and watched President Bush manage (the war/occupation) worse than any war ever ... anywhere and by anyone.

I hope that Murtha becomes the Majority Leader in tomorrow's vote ... and my stomach hurts ... I have to head for bed without eating (again), I'm afraid.

Is there an entirely new "Iraq Strategy" in the birth canal?

I really don't think so, but my brother Richard from Connecticut (who doesn't like commas) suggested I ponder the possibilities of a strategy utilizing negotiation and common sense rather than bullets and bombs -- more in line with what James Baker (upper left) and Lee Hamilton (right) are suggesting to President Bush these days.

On the other hand ...

Pressure is also being put on Mr. Bush from such unexpected quarters as Tony Blair (and others in the European Union) to look for an Iraq strategy that would allow the Middle East to slowly simmer for a while while cooler heads prevail ... rather than boil over into God knows what in the weeks and months ahead.

The "picture" I painted in the title to this posting is perhaps a little too graphic for what could be a stabilizing (and more general) "solution" to the problem if, for example, the Israeli-Palestinian issue could be made to be part of the resolution.

Actually, I see no efforts at so broad a "consensus solution" coming from the Blue Ribbon [sic] commission, but that is exactly what I read and hear coming from Europe. I wonder if the bi-partisan (that is, Democrats and Republicans -- not Tories, Labor, etc.) Baker panel could expand its membership to include a couple of members from the EU and ... gasp ... horrors ... Palestine, Israel, Iran and Iraq too ...

Obviously, this would bring into play such issues as Iran's nuclear program, Israel's treatment of Palestinians (both inside and outside of Israel!) and Hezbollah's de facto "ownership" of Lebanon.

Why not? They are all related and what I see as single-issue solutions have never been found in the past.

I've just put in a very long day (not yet complete) and am thinking rather stream-of-consciousness-like. Sorry. I'll wait until I come out" of the world I'm currently in -- different than anything I've ever experienced. But I do hope that cooler heads will prevail as regards the whole Middle East!!

Arnold (a.k.a. "Sweetie") ain't no friend of Blue Dogs!!

I don't recall whether I mentioned having acquired a kitty from our Ocean Shores PAWS group (local group devoted to helping and sheltering stray animals) that is a look-alike for Sweetheart (pbuh -- in Arabic: salla Allahu alayhi wa sallam) who passed away this past summer. I look into Sweetie's eyes and see Sweetheart every time.

Well, I mentioned to Arnold (whom I obviously call "Sweetie" in the house) that my brother Richard from Connecticut was a friend to (or at least watching carefully) a new breed of animal called, "Blue Dog Democrats." He even has a blog devoted to them!

Well Arnold (a.k.a. "Sweetie") showed his "manliness" (tomcatliness) instantly! "Blue Dogs? Why not orange and white cats?" He was quite upset (see above) and I'll have to call Richard sometime after I get through the next four days (very long days on the new job) and see if we can't negotiate a new name for his blog. I suppose that "orange and white catted" is already taken.

Cheney joins Osama bin Laden ... irrelevant to President Bush ...

Vice President Dick Cheney slips out back door ...

While my brother, Richard from Connecticut, begins to look at "conservative" Democrats, which he calls Blue Dog Democrats (where did that moniker come from anyway?), I'm still busy watching the fallout from last Tuesday's debacle at the polls.

A sign of the next two years was made clear by a quote from President Bush while Cheney and two Democrats (Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer) were in the Oval Office this past week -- after the election, "All three of us recognize the importance of working together to get things done!"

Three? Well, I guess Mr. Cheney is going to have to line up behind Mr. bin Laden, Mr. Rumsfeld and others whom the President has regarded as "irrelevant" before and after Tuesday's result were known. With Rummy, Mr. Bush couldn't even remember having said that he (Rummy) was safe through the end of his term.

I expect Mr. Cheney to do a lot of hunting in the weeks and months ahead before he resigns to make room for whomever Bush decides is best for his Republican Party and the nation.

"Longest and Cruelest" blockade in history ... maybe they're right!

Maybe for the Cuban people ... certainly not an 80th birthday gift for Fidel Castro

Whew! I'd say that while the Democrats were cruising to victory this week, another vote was even more overwhelming. By a 183-4 (with 1 abstention) vote, the General Assembly of The United Nations voted to urge nations to adopt new laws to ease -- or repeal old ones that imposed/impose -- economic, commercial and financial embargoes in accordance with those adopted by the United States against Cuba.

Our Ambassador to the United Nations (John Bolton) was able to get three additional votes (along with the US's) to vote against the resolution so that it wouldn't look too one-sided. Besides the US, the Marshall Islands (are they really a country?), Palau (where in the world is Palau?) and, of course, Israel voted against the resolution. But like Mr. Bush's veto should the new Congress try to do something really compassionate for the downtrodden, the United States has "veto authority" over the resolution because history (World War II) gave it a seat on the Security Council more than half a century or so ago.

Other lesser known countries (Russia, France, Britain, China, Germany, India, Iran, Canada, Mexico and 174 others) voted for the measure. The Federated States of Micronesia abstained (safe!) and Iraq was absent (surprise!) along with Cote d'Ivoire (how is that pronounced?), Nicaragua and El Salvador. 183 to 4 !!!

C'mon now! Isn't it about time that we lifted that stupid embargo? It was imposed originally to demonstrate our concern that Cuba was not moving towards democracy. Well, I lived in Saudi Arabia (no democracy there except inter-family votes on the third or fourth wives for princes) and what about China -- about a fifth or so of the world's population?

Let's get real and do something for the Cuban people. Fidel will probably have a heart attack if we dropped the embargo and we'd get two-for-one. Just read the list of countries approving the resolution -- at the bottom of the resolution -- and think, "Is this how we want to be viewed by the rest of the world -- a country that needs Saudi oil, so no embargo on them -- and China's cooperation (periodically) on the Security Council, so no embargo on them -- who has little or no regard for the harm done to the Cuban people as a result of a totally unfair embargo for more than four decades?"

C'mon now!

It's not the men and women of the military ... they have done their jobs with honor and courage!

Color guard at Arlington National cemetery

Disagreeing with why we went to war in Iraq or even how the tactics and strategy might be flawed, if they are, in no way takes away the honor, duty and courage of the US Marines, US Army, US Navy, US Air Force and US Coast Guard members who serve their country worldwide ... including the difficult tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Countless Americans have died over the past three centuries ... serving their country and their fellow servicemembers with unfathomable steadfastness. Today is their day. November 11, 2006 marks Veterans Day -- which began after World War I earlier in the previous century -- and marks their sacrifices today.

I had the honor of lighting the US Air Force candle at school day before yesterday ... dressed inappropriately, since I had no idea that they wouldn't find a "representative" of the USAF until someone remembered that "the old man who teaches math" was in Vietnam [1969-70] during that conflict and in Saudi Arabia [1990-1996] during the Gulf War -- although I was a civilian both times, but that didn't seem to matter at the time to the school officials.

Tears still came to my eyes as I remembered both conflicts and so much else ...

Take a deep breath today and remember those who have fallen and are still falling ... for their country and the guy hunkered down in the same Humvee ... with whom he had eaten breakfast that same day. Heroes all!

Yes, as we stood at attention during the "Star Spangled Banner" (for those around the world, that is our National Anthem) and other events, it mattered not that the other service representatives were in the Class A's and dress uniforms of their eras ... I simply held my breath and said a silent prayer for the fallen and falling.

A couple of small matters that were brewing while we were all preoccupied with the elections here in America ... let's start with Iran, okay?

Ali Larijani, Iran's Chief Nuclear Negotiator

During most of this month -- and it's only ten days old -- Russia has been trying to take out some key provisions included in the UN sanctions against Iran. And as of this afternoon, there were at least four and maybe five draft resolutions floating around with major differences from the draft resolution that I thought was "put to bed" with Russia's concurrence (or so I thought) a couple of days before our Midterm Elections.

I'd link you to the "latest" if I could identify which one was which at this stage. Be assured, I am working on that. Probably, this link to a compilation published a week ago will help.

But the Russian objections -- not to mention China's and, oh yes, Iran's -- are worth looking at. For that matter, the whole matter of sanctions against a country whose nuclear program has not been shown to be a "weapons program" is worth considering a lot closer now that "realists" are guiding Mr. Bush in his foreign policy.

The very fact that someone other than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (still a worrisome and dangerous screwball) is sitting down and discussing the serious rationality of the whole issue with the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov (left), should make all of the Western nations -- who are essentially trying to ward off a precipitous Israeli attack IMHO -- take serious note and maybe question the rationality of sanctions at this time themselves -- in particular, the US with half of its active military engaged next door to Iraq.

We threw sanctions on Iraq back in 1991 or so and backed them up with "no fly zones," UN inspections and harassment that didn't even permit Saddam Hussein to fly out of Baghdad ... and what did all of that buy us? Along came George Bush and invasion plans began to be thrown together in the Pentagon (long before 9/11, BTW) and those very restrictive sanctions are biting us in the ass right now as we are slowly learning that they didn't exactly win over the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people ... not to mention our bungled occupation since the invasion.

No, I believe that we're going to have to sit down and talk over the Iranian desire to have a nuclear program that includes (yes!) some level of enrichment of uranium and even think of coming up with a time-staged compromise that will have at least the UN Security Council in step with whatever is proposed for signature in 2007. Yes, I would want to carefully word any mention of the heavy water reactor at Arak. One of the more interesting by-products of heavy water reactors is ... uhh ... Plutonium.

But even the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (which Iran signed!) allows for that!

I'm not suggesting that we bend over and say "kick me!" ... only suggesting that during our preoccupation with politics, we have let Mr. Bolton and the neocons write a draft that, if signed, would put Iran in a tight corner. We can be tough and fair at the same time, can't we?

In the meantime, weren't Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's words today just a little familiar? He said something about our not being able "to do a damn thing on the nuclear issue" which reminds me of some things that the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini said after our embassy staff was taken hostage back in 1979. Hmmm ... almost the same crazy words.

And the chants in the streets in Tehran sound familiar too, don't they? Have you heard "Death to America!" before?

I'm only suggesting that Americans put the elections behind us and begin to watch how the White House is dealing with the various aspects of a much larger problem.

Please, Mr. Limbaugh, be a Paul Harvey ... tell us the "rest of the story" !!!

Rush Limbaugh tells his adoring audience that he will no longer "carry the water" for the GOP

Amazingly, the truth has finally come out. Many persons whom I know have told me that deep down, Rush Limbaugh is both intelligent and caring. The words below, spoken by Rush to us all (and playing almost hourly on liberal talk shows) seem to back up their contention. He was only doing as he was told to do ... "carrying the water .. of "undeserving persons" just as the generals who saluted and said "yes sir" to Donald Rumsfeld, no matter how cockamanied his ideas were at times, for some higher good that is impossible to be defined ... within the bounds of truth, common sense and our Constitution. And let's face it; even our President stood to attention and said "yes sir" to both Cheney and Rumsfeld when they gave him their final orders ... and "carried their water" for a higher good that, at the time, Mr. Bush couldn't quite wrap his mind around. But Mr. Bush's father has come to the rescue in the President's case and Mr. Limbaugh seems to have come to his own senses in his case.

Quoted from Rush's radio show on the "day after":

LIMBAUGH: Now, I mentioned to you at the conclusion of the previous hour that people have been asking me how I feel all night long. And I got, "Boy, Rush, I wouldn't want to be you tomorrow. Boy, I wouldn't want to have to do your show. Boy, I'm so glad I'm not you." Well, folks, I love being me. I can't be anybody else, so I'm stuck with it. But the way I feel is this: I feel liberated, and I'm just going to tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried. ... Now, I'm liberated from having to constantly come in here every day and try to buck up a bunch of people who don't deserve it, to try to carry the water and make excuses for people who don't deserve it. ... But now with what has happened yesterday and today, it is an entirely liberating thing. If those in our party who are going to carry the day in the future -- both in Congress and the administration -- are going to choose a different path than what most of us believe, then that's liberating. I don't say this with any animosity about anybody, and I don't mean to make this too personal.

I'm not trying to tell you that this is about me. I'm just answering questions that I've had from people about how I feel. But there have been a bunch of things going on in Congress, some of this legislation coming out of there that I have just cringed at, and it has been difficult coming in here, trying to make the case for it when the people who are supposedly in favor of it can't even make the case themselves -- and to have to come in here and try to do their jobs. I'm a radio guy. I understand what this program has become in America and I understand the leadership position it has. I was doing what I thought best, but at this point, people who don't deserve to have their water carried, or have themselves explained as they would like to say things, but somehow don't be -- aren't able to, I'm not under that kind of pressure.

End of quote

Now Rush, it's time for the "rest of the story." What legislation did you back with your words that you knew to be faulty and tell the American people how and why the legislation was faulty. What lies had to be told for the larger good?

Thanks for the apology, of sorts, but more is needed, I think in order to reestablish yourself as credible (if that's even possible) and to set your mis-directed listeners straight.

But my own bottom line to what you said is, "thanks!" It took a lot of courage to state what you did and for that both your listeners and all of us owe you a debt of gratitude.

Again, thanks!

Republicans seem to be shuffling about ... who's next to go?

John Bolton's working today -- an up-to-date photo ... how 'bout that?

There are lots of ups and downs these days, but not just the Democrats up and the Republicans down. Nosiree! I was on my way back from Olympia yesterday (lots of red tape vis-a-vis my new job) and chatted with my brother, Richard from Connecticut, while cruising along on US 12. He asked me who might be next to go after Rummy and I had to admit that I didn't have an immediate thought on the matter. He immediately popped up, "John Bolton"!

And sure enough, as if on cue, young George decided today to push forward John Bolton's nomination to be the US Ambassador to the United Nations. If you recall, he slipped John into the UN through a parliamentary trick called a recess appointment -- filling a vacancy while Congress is on recess.

His hope, of course, is to get Bolton confirmed before the new Democratic Congress takes over in January. Interestingly, he was afraid to push Bolton's name with his "own" Republican Congress in the past; what makes him think that the American people ... or Congress -- Republican or Democrat ... would dare to try to "sneak" Bolton through during a "lame duck session"?

He won't succeed, of course.

But the bigger picture is the bigger picture!

Bolton isn't the only nomination that is facing either the lame duck session or the new body that meets in January. There are 51 vacancies among federal judgeships and a couple of odd-ball other nominations hanging around, not the least of which is Donald Rumsfeld's replacement.

It's rumored (strong UPI and AP sources) that Cheney fought hard to save Rumsfeld, is opposed to the James Baker Commission that is working out an Iraq Exit Strategy as we live and breath today, and is still hoping (against desperate hope) that he can save Bolton's nomination.

Personally, other than his far too pro-Israel stance, John Bolton has been a surprisingly effective UN Ambassador for us. I didn't think he would ever get the sanctions through (against Iran) and has managed to get along well with the other members of the Security Council -- even taking them all to an NBA (basketball) game.

But ...

The fact is that there are clear ups and downs within the Republicans that fall along George Bush 41 versus George Bush 43 lines. I think we can expect to see names like James Baker, Brent Scowcroft and George Herbert Walker Bush himself suddenly step onto the stage as regards foreign affairs over the next few weeks ... and I still see Dick Cheney resigning (or worse) before his term is over naturally.

Two columnists (Tim Reid and Tom Baldwin) even broke Condoleezza Rice into three persons (this is not a Kerryesque religious joke!) whom he called Condi Mk I, Condi Mk II and Condi Mk III. [I retired from a long career with the military and liked their use of the "Mk-numbering" scheme.] Anyway, they saw Condi Mk I and Condi Mk III going up with only Condi Mk II going down. Although they didn't explain their humor or their rationale, I think we all know that the original Condi and the most recent Condi are the brilliant young woman whom we remember from the early days of GWB's time in the WH.

Their article from The Times Online (UK) is worth reading and I'll go back, find it and link you to it. It basically pitted the Republican "realists" against the hard-right neocons. Sorry that it took so long to find the article again. But I did, and here it is!

Anyway ... the fun is just beginning, isn't it?

Mission (Rumsfeld's anyway) not accomplished!

Rumsfeld leaves mess behind him ...

The question remains ... is Rummy being made the scapegoat for the disaster in Iraq ... or did he decide on his own to make his resignation a dramatic punctuation mark to the Republican disaster at the polls yesterday and the day before? We will probably have to wait until either he or President Bush writes their memoirs a few years from now.

But one way or the other, we see the influence of Mr. Bush's father, former President George H. W. Bush, becoming more and more evident with the nomination of Bob Gates, his father's CIA Director (Picture below), to replace Rumsfeld at the Pentagon.

After reading most of Bob Woodward's State of Denial, I can certainly imagine that the higher ranking (and lower ranking) generals and field grade officers in Iraq are cheering quietly (Rummy's still at his desk, so they still have to be careful) now that they can be assured that their concerns will finally get to President Bush.

Whether the relatively new US policy of interventionist invasions (wars of aggression) and indiscriminate bombing of civilian enclaves in a country that was not a threat to the US will continue is something that only Mr. Bush and future presidents can answer -- but for sure, Donald Rumsfeld was the original author of the new "strategy."


Robert Gates, President Bush's choice to replace Rummy in the Pentagon

Well, it's semi-official now ... Democrats have both houses of Congress

Senator-to-be James Webb celebrates apparent win

Hopefully, the results will stand and the White House will have its feet held to the fire during the final two years of President Bush's tenure. But with the results as of this morning, it does indeed look as though the US Senate will be held by the Democrats (including two independents) 51-49 and thus have such important powers as subpoena power to conduct oversight on the War in Iraq and Constitutional impropriety.

The new Majority leader in the US Senate would be Senator Harry Reid of Nevada (below) if things tally up in the final count as they are right now. As it is, James Webb (above) has a 7,000 vote lead (less than 1%) in Virginia (over Senator Allen) and the tightness of the race might still requite a recount.

Of course, we all hope that, if Webb wins, the Democratic Senate will put "oversight" ahead of "overlook" when it comes to hundreds of thousands of missing weapons in Iraq and more than a trillion dollars unaccounted for ... and a dozen or so other matters.

But anyway, here's hoping ...


Senator Harry Reid, Democrat from Nevada and likely new Majority Leader in the US Senate

It's a New Day for America and the World!

Okay, the divisive arguments and political debates are behind us ... the future is up to us all ...

No, Mr. Cheney, it's not "full speed ahead" ... and no, Ms. Pelosi, it's not a mandate!

It's up to the new Congress and Mr. Bush's handlers to help lead him in new and peaceful directions. Please look beyond the horizon and see that there's no need for 650,000 additional deaths in Iraq ... or needless restrictions to human rights (at home or abroad) ... or foolish deceit and self-guilt ... or useless mud-slinging ... or all else that has characterized the past several months.

The future is ours ... all of ours!

It will be a long night and maybe more ...

New Speaker of the House (to be), Nancy Pelosi (Dem-Calif)

Thus far, no real surprises with the Democrats taking enough seats to have control of the US House of Representatives and the US Senate an unlikely (but possible) Democrat majority too. Last I looked, it was 50-50 if the current persons ahead in the Senate stayed ahead, but any of three seats could fall either way. Of course, 50-50 would mean that Dick Cheney, who casts the tie breaker in tie votes, would give the Senate to the Republicans.

I think that's how I called it, including the two independent senators who won, but would be part of the Democratic caucus. It's only 10:30 p.m. on the West Coast and anything might still happen -- I'm crossing my fingers and toes that the three races that are too close to call might still (all) fall in the Democrat column giving the Dems a 51-49 advantage in the Senate, but that is unlikely. We might get two, but all three is a long shot.

But whatever, the Iraq War will still be ongoing tomorrow as will my kittys' insatiable appetites.

I'll sleep well tonight knowing that Nancy Pelosi is only two heartbeats from the presidency ... Congratulations, Nancy; you are a fine representative of your party and, oh yes ... the first female Speaker of the House ... ever!

Cheney out of cave ... goes hunting!

Thanks to Randi Rhodes and Her Website Editor's Minor Modifications ...

After all that he said during his interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, he better hide out in Wyoming for a day or two.

His key comment was, "It's a victory in Iraq and it's full speed ahead on that basis!"

Yeesh, "Stay the course" was bad enough, but "Full speed ahead"?

It's no wonder that Donald Rumsfeld isn't worried about the attacks coming at him from world leaders, the American people, the neocons who supported the war in the beginning, almost all Democrats and a great number of Republicans -- including a large number of those who are running today.

The Vice President is asking him to push harder on the accelerator. We may see 150,000 American troops in Iraq before the end of the month, no matter who wins the election today.

And, to make that point clear, he stated that the outcome of today's election was irrelevant as regards his and Bush's strategy in Iraq. He made it clear that the American people, the generals who are questioning the Iraq War, the neocons who are now questioning the Iraq War, even the new Congress that will be elected today are only caught up (now) in the voting and politics, but as for the Administration ... "We;'re not running for office, we're doing what we think is right!"

He even said that he'd refuse to appear if subpoenaed by Congress sometime after today (if the Democrats win and thus have the power to subpoena) during the rather arrogant interview.

As for his going pheasant hunting so soon after he accidentally shot his "best friend" in the face with a 28-gauge shotgun ... well, Randi made a comment on her radio show that is worth repeating ... if you want to be safe from his shotgun and happen to be in Wyoming later today, just dress to look like Osama bin Laden -- or a pheasant -- and you'll be perfectly safe. Hopefully, he'll keep both the numbers of dead and the numbers of seriously wounded on his hunting trip fairly low.

As for the real numbers (650,000-plus Iraqis, 2800-plus American troops, the wounded, etc.), watch for them to go up ... up ... up!

Serious wind and rainstorm hit western Washington ... may give GOP a Senate seat ...

Our governor (Chris Gregoire, Dem) has declared 18 counties (including Grays Harbor County where my cabin, cats and I sit ... surrounded by water) as "disaster areas" and the western part of the state is "Democrat country." The folks east of the Olympic and Cascade Mountains -- largely Republican -- just might give my old boss at Safeco Insurance Company (Republican Mike McGavick -- nice guy and great periodic lunch partner, but on the issues ...) an unexpected victory over anti-war Senator Maria Cantwell (Democrat).

The winds and rain have my cats terrified and that is the reason (at least 75% of the reason) that I am even out of bed at this ungodly hour in the middle of the night.

Maybe God is a Republican after all. (Obviously, that is a Kerryesque "joke" and nothing more.) But still, it is an ominous way to begin the "big day" (Midterm Election Day in America for those of you in Europe, Asia and elsewhere) and I just wonder what "surprises" are still ahead. The Democrats around America have actually worried about an "election miracle" that would keep the Republicans in power in Congress. Perhaps, but I don't remember that Jesus showed much interest in civic affairs during his teachings.

More on that later when I'm awake.

Update on "Bush's Brain" [sic]

Again, I need say (almost) nothing. The Vanity Fair article on Rove's psyche and effect on tomorrow's Midterm Election and past voting performance says it all! In fact, I recommend that you print a copy, unless you happen to subscribe to Vanity Fair.

Karl Rove (the handsome fellow with the green tie ... left) is a mixture of brilliance, down-to-earth savvy and the cunning of a Richard Nixon ... but obviously much smarter than Nixon in many ways ... and less worldly-minded in others.

The article must be read to be believed. I had no idea just how observant Mr. Rove was and still is. And it's that quality more than any other that comes through loud and clear. He almost doesn't need the sixty-plus polls that he reads daily to "know" what Americans are thinking and how they are leaning and how they can be made to lean with a word ... a sentence ... a smile or frown ...

Some of you know that I received my second master's Degree in Experimental Statistics at North Carolina State University and much of what I learned dealt with agriculture and how you could increase productivity by carefully dicing and slicing (or is it slicing and dicing?) the variables based on statistical observation(s) that went into productivity. It's both a science and an art form and Mr. Rove would have been our top student back in the 1960s, I believe.

But, his Achilles Heel (that's not from Vanity Fair, but deduced by Mediawingnuts) is simply that the tidal wave that he is working with is almost independent of how you slice and dice the data. It's independent of that well-timed Bushian smile or an over-used word or phrase (e.g., "terrorism", "cut and run", etc.) even a last-minute Presidential position on an issue ... Iraq or otherwise ... He might just as well try to use his cunning and observational powers to try to stop Global Warming.

Nothing can stop the Democrats from picking up a majority in the House of Representatives and either picking up a slight majority or making the Senate nearly 50-50.

You can book that one!

Le Rouge et le Noir views Saddam verdict slightly differently ... and more realistically!

The Iranians view verdict a little differently ... and yes, that is an Iranian noose!

I need say nothing. Le Rouge et le Noir has said it with dignity, clarity and power. [English is not his first language, as many of you who browse the comments already know -- but I couldn't have said it better! And this comment is entirely unedited -- by Le Rouge et le Noir or me!]

Quote begins:

"waiting for the article to come ;)

"seems mister Bush is very happy about someone going to be hanged.

my wife is very sad about it. First nobody saying anything about the war he created with Iran: 1 million dead, mostly young, few from her family: one gazed, many killed (don't know how).

"What makes her upset and me too... is that we know America and France and Germany ... gave the weapons and maybe asked him to attack Iran. They have a big responsability.. i was hopping one day soon it comes out but seems it will take long time.

"his advocates were killed : for me it is very strange. it looks more like some people have interest that some people don't know too much. no? maybe i exagerate but i can't believe they are killed because they don't do a good job (what i heard many times there).

"ok i go sleep and hopefully tomorrow my wife be less upset

take good care

Quote ends.

I read the accounts of Iranian children fighting against modern Iraqi weapons (including chemical weapons) with sticks and chunks of mud. The Arabs with whom I worked thought this was "funny" ...

I could not in a million years improve on Le Rouge et le Noir's English in his powerful comment! My love and heart goes out to the Iranian people who have suffered so brutally and for so long ...

And we ask [myself included at times] why the Iranians might be considering nuclear weapons? It's up to the West to provide a climate in the Middle East where the consideration of nuclear weapons is unnecessary -- for Israel as well as Iran ... and others.

And UN sanctions against Iran are not the answer!!!

Bush hopes ... Shiites in Sadr City Celebrate

The Iraqis in Sadr City (Shiite enclave) were pretty much happy with verdict!

But will Saddam Hussein's death sentence bring them peace?



Two days before Midterm Elections ... President George Bush was pretty much happy with verdict!

But will Saddam Hussein's death sentence bring him a Republican Congress for his final two years?

Or even a better question: Will Saddam's appeal process last long enough for his trial for the gassing of the Kurds to get under way and for embarrassing testimony surface as to where, in fact -- and from whom -- did Saddam Hussein purchase the chemical weapons used both on the Iranians and on the Kurds? Somehow, I doubt that the Cheney (Bush) Administration will allow the court (US chosen under Mr. Bremer) to permit Saddam to live quite that long ...

We all remember which previous and current SecDef was pictured shaking hands with Saddam after that deal was made, don't we? Mr. Bush might have to get both Saddam and Mr. Rumsfeld out of his political path quickly, me thinks!

I wonder if there was any left-over Anthrax powder from the mailbox attacks of September 2001 ...

Neocons reverse course ... breaking ranks with GWB!

Richard Perle (left) and most leading conservatives (most among the "neocon" branch of conservatives) are dissing President Bush and his Administration's handling of the Iraq War. In an upcoming Vanity Fair interview they are pretty serious in their opposition to the war and its management. Richard Perle, a leading Iraq War advocate three years ago, has stated that he would never have been an advocate had he known then what he knows now ... just how badly the "war" has turned out for both the US and Iraq.

Perle had been the chairman of the Defense Advisory Board in 2003 and was a leading proponent of the war at the time. The Vanity Fair article and editorial states emphatically that both the war and its primary supporter, Donald Rumsfeld, have "lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large."

Another Board member put it more succinctly, describing the President's foreign policy team as "dysfunctional." Fortunately for the Republican candidates on Tuesday, this editorial won't be seen by most Vanity Fair readers until after the Midterm Elections, and many will still be spellbound on Tuesday by both President Bush's insistence that we will win the war in Iraq and Secretary Rumsfeld's statement that the war is going "splendidly."

Saddam awaits the verdict ... and the World Holds its Breath ...

Saddam holds his breath ... Iraq braces and holds its breath too!

Well, the verdict will be sometime tomorrow, only two days before our Midterm Elections (good planning, Karl!) and it will certainly be "Guilty!" (... As indeed he is!) And, as expected, all Hell will break loose in Baghdad and in other Sunni-controlled areas in Iraq.

Of course, the tightest possible curfews will be in effect in Baghdad ... and in other places, as needed. But we all must remember that the curfew will be largely manned by Shiite militia members ... dressed in Iraqi military/police uniforms. Anything could happen!

The verdicts were set on this date (Mediawingnuts' birthday) quite deliberately and, despite the attempts being made by Saddam's attorneys for a 60-day delay, the odds are great that the verdict (verdicts actually ... there are seven other defendants) will be known within 24 hours from now. It will probably be handed down about 12 hours from right now--the last one to be handed down, according to the schedule.

And you can bet that, as important as the verdict (or verdicts) is/are to Saddam Hussein and his fellow criminals, the Republican candidates around America will be tooting their horns and taking credit for "winning the war." It holds some promise, I suppose, of being their "November Non-surprise."

And, in a sense, they will be correct about "winning the war," of course, since that could be construed as the "regime change" that Mr. Bush was seeking from about the time that we couldn't find the WMDs or tie Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Forgotten.

My biggest concern is the continuing carnage that seems unending in that broken and sad country. The flag-draped coffins continue to flow homeward with no end in sight. I doubt that the hanging of Saddam Hussein will bring a great deal of comfort to those families who are still losing loved ones more than three years after they cheered the president in his sexy flight suit and read the banner behind him that read, "Mission Accomplished."

Air Force Times (and Navy Times ... and Army Times ... and Marine Corps Times): "Donald Rumsfeld must go!"

Rumsfeld believes we are winning the war/occupation in Iraq

It's no longer just Rummy Watch or Mediawingnuts ... it's the newspapers that are on almost every desk in the pentagon and on military desks worldwide ... "Donald Rumsfeld must go!"

On Monday -- only one day ahead of the Midterm Elections -- the following editorial will be in all four newspapers listed in the title to this posting.

"It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.

"This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth: Donald Rumsfeld must go."

Of course, there will be considerable back-up information -- most of it provided by Rumsfeld's own uniformed military leaders -- and a very pessimistic observation (see previous posting) drawn from senior generals, the leaked National Intelligence Estimate and the newspapers' own analysts.

Bottom line on nearly every officer and enlisted person's desk on Monday morning, November 6, 2006 ...

"Rumsfeld must go!"

I looked at the NYT and completely missed the chart of the year ...

Blood red ... blood red ...

My brother Richard from Connecticut sent me the URL to this article and chart from the New York Times not once, but three times! When I looked at it the first time, I simply stared in disbelief. Yeh, I should have seen it coming ... I even heard Randi Rhodes chirping about it both in my sleep and after waking earlier in the week. Still, the fact that it was a slide from a classified briefing being given at the time by the United States Central Command (called "Cent-Com" ... and within a few miles from where my wife in Florida lives, although with a forward command center in Qatar) made it more real than real.

If you squint and look very, very carefully at the chart, the date that the briefing was given is in the very bottom-most left. October 18 was only two weeks ago and the direction and rapidity that the up-arrow below the rainbow colors is moving suggest that we are nearly at total chaos in our occupation/conflict in Iraq.

Like everything in the military these days, even conflict is "indexed" with color codes and weird little markers of odd shapes ... and references made to previous briefings that make the impact really shocking only if you have been watching the "briefing" every week for several months or more. The black arrow under the orange area on the "rainbow bar" shows that the bargraph of sorts is divided into pre- and post-Samarra regions if the arrow tends to move regularly to the right... and it does! "Samarra" refers, of course, to the attack in February of this year against the Shiite mosque in Samarra.

As most of you know, I am opposed to leaked classified information (presumably, this briefing was SECRET, but the chart is not marked with any specific classification ... probably UNCLASSIFIED in and of itself) being printed in our daily newspapers, but the import of this chart is devastating. As you all are probably aware, such charts are based upon both factual numeric data (KIA, wounded, civilian deaths, etc.) and subjective indicators such as a measure of how vitriolic the "sermons" at the Friday mosque services have been.

Admittedly, if you look at the colors in the small shaped codes on the left, you will see that other factors (than pure out-and-out chaos) aren't doing so poorly. The political/religious leaders aren't promoting the violence (green circles), for example, although their effectiveness in holding the violence down is "orange" and ... well you can read the chart as well as I can.

The bottom line of all of this -- the colors, shapes and legend -- is that the bright red just above the up-arrow for "current" (18 October) is about as bright red as the far right-hand end of the colored bar.

No matter how many times we hear "victory" or "splendid" or "swimmingly" or "improving" or ... we are sliding into total chaos.

I only wish I were lecturing particle physics wherein chaos is both expected and exhilarating ... and not posting information that the New York Times portrays as both SECRET and current vis-a-vis the carnage in Iraq. That red you see on the right-hand end of the bar is blood!

It's the blood of our sons and daughters ... and husbands and wives ... the blood of America!

And just what the hell does this have to do with politics or the Midterm Elections?

Nothing at all!!

Bill Clinton was/is an Evangelical Christian and he is a Democrat. He's also a sinner.

Ted Haggard was/is an Evangelical Christian and he is a Republican. He's also a sinner.

George Bush was/is an Evangelical Christian and he is a Republican. He's also a sinner.

I regard myself as a Christian (I'm not quite sure what the adjective "Evangelical" means) and I am a Democrat ... or at least will likely vote for more Democrats than Republicans this time around. I'm also a sinner.

In fact, all of mankind is "fallen," if I am to believe what I read in the Bible ... and it certainly appears that way to me.

But notice that none of the above states whether any of the people mentioned should or should not be elected to some political office (except me -- I should not be!) or whether the party which they currently belong to should or should not get your vote on November 7.

And by the way, didn't Jimmy Carter admit to being a sinner ... as did the Apostle Paul ... more than once?

Yet, I have heard almost nothing about the issues for two days now while the details of the Reverend Haggard's and Mike Jones' monthly sexual encounters over a three year period (if they even existed!) and Haggard's alleged purchase of methamphetamine have taken nearly all of the time of every left-leaning (liberal) talk show host or commentator since I first heard something strange about it in my sleep early yesterday morning. [I sleep with my radio on, besides all of my other sins ... past and present!]

What Haggard's sex life or alleged drug addiction has to do with the issues that we will be voting on is beyond me. But let me state a couple of little tidbits about the Reverend Haggard that might have a bearing on the elections.

1. He is in constant contact (phone call each Monday) with President Bush and has successfully gotten Bush's attention on the sad plight of the people of Darfur.

2. He believes, as I do, that government (Democrats, Republicans and Independents) can create the space to do "good." He specifically has mentioned "peace" as one of those "good" kinds of things that can be brought about through "good" government.

3. His belief in free trade stems from his recognition that everyone worldwide is equal and that, although certain goods may cost more here in America as a result of free trade, "aspirins, eyeglasses and food for everyone" will be made more affordable and available as a result of freer trade.

4. Haggard's first concern after the 9/11 attacks was that we, as Christians, should "serve the Islamic people" by protecting them from angry backlash.

And the list could go on and on and on ... a rendition in today's world of Jesus's Sermon on the Mount. You know, I'm really glad that he had those weekly talks with President Bush.

Maybe, as a good place for all of us to start before voting on Tuesday, would be to read the Book of Matthew (in the New Testament) and weigh the arguments of the persons running in your district/state with what Jesus taught us all.

And let the thirty million member National Association of Evangelicals and Haggard's New Life Church decide how they wish to deal with Mr. Haggard. It's none of our business! But whatever, we shouldn't judge anyone (Haggard, Jones or politicians who happen to be Evangelical Christians) until we remove the "plank from our own eyes."

One other little known Haggard quote which I've taken from the October 29, 2004 Rocky Mountain News:

"Whether Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Christian, if we give them government accountable to the people, give them free-market economics and let them worship according to their conscience, and a greater opportunity to raise their families as they believe, we will have a better society."

How many of the Air America crowd or other syndicated left-wing talk show hosts even knew he made that statement before they went on the rampage of the past two days?

I didn't until today.

And my prayers are with Ted Haggard and his family as he endures the humiliation and "attacks" from nearly everyone. "Dear Lord, watch over your child, Ted Haggard. Please bring him closer to You in every way. Let these days and weeks ahead be less painful for Mr. Haggard and thank you for the good that he has brought to us all through his cogent advice and consultation with Mr. Bush and others in power. But most of all, bring him to Your Salvation, dear Lord. I ask this in the name of Your Son, Jesus Christ!"

I suppose there's still time for a "November Surprise," isn't there?

Wow!

Maybe a missile or two, but "dozens"?? Yes, I was as surprised as anyone by the numbers of missiles and the inclusion of so many (they're still counting) Shahab-3 long-range missiles in the latest round of tests in Iran (how 'bout that; it wasn't North Korea this time!) ... all capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

Of course, the Iranians are only enriching Uranium for peaceful purposes (color television sets, self-cleaning kitty litters, electric can openers, etc.) and so the world can breath easily as they fire these 2000 km range missiles as part of ... what? The design of the Shahab-3 is likely a North Korean design (denied by Iran) and the timing and length (number of firings) of the tests are both highly suspicious.

The only words from Iran came from its Air Force Chief of the Revolutionary Guards, General Hossein Salami, who said, "A large number of advanced missiles, different in range, warhead and kind, were successfully test-fired at the same time."

At the same time? Wow! I'll bet le rouge et le noir got an eyeful while he's on holiday in Iran with his in-laws! It's a shame that the US-led maneuvers that were ongoing last week were completed on Monday; they would have gotten an eyeful too. Interestingly, the focus of those exercises was surveillance and they only missed today's fireworks by four days or so. The countries involved in the exercise in the Persian Gulf region (in alphabetic order) were Australia, Bahrain, Britain (of course), France, Italy and the United States (of course).

What next? The North Koreans seem to be complying with our desire for six-party talks, but the Iranians are acting like a sovereign country that isn't in our control as yet, although the UN's sanctions may slow them down a tad ... hopefully!

Considering that the likelihood of Iran possessing even one nuclear-tipped missile in less than four or five years, these tests raise more questions than they answer. The big question, of course, is "why?"

Surely, they haven't plans of raining conventional missiles on Israel (Tehran?), Saudi Arabia (their oil fields?), Bahrain (commercial facilities?), Qatar (US military facilities?) or the United Arab Emirates (ports, oil refineries and Islamic Disneyland) ... do they?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a nut-case for sure, but from all indications, he's not suicidal ... is he?

Just when it looked like the GOP might manage to hold on to both houses ... the November Surprise #1 pops forth ...

The Republicans stood to pick up a seat or two that went down the tubes over the past two or three days and then George W. Bush spoke ... and ... yup! He managed to even top John Kerry.

I was on my way into Aberdeen to fill out a million more forms relative to my job out at "the place" when my ears suddenly heard the President's voice on the local "news" (a.k.a. right-wing talk) station. Thank you 1450 AM !!!

He was really only answering a question, but he made it abundantly clear that he wants and expects both Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney to remain in their jobs until his term is over. If ever there was a case for shortening that term, Mr. Bush provided all the evidence that this old man needs. Interesting, isn't it? While his poll numbers aren't particularly good, they are still about twice those for either Rummy or the Vice Prince of Darkness (as several of the more liberal talking heads refer to the VP).

[By the way, I didn't even realize that Mr. Cheney's neck was on Bush's chopping block until Mr. Bush made his statement; I thought it was only Mr. Rumsfeld who was in some kind of "danger" of losing his job.]

My brother Richard from Connecticut is just about right on target when he says that this politician or that politician should just keep his or her mouth shut (Rummy, Kerry, Lieberman, Pelosi, Dean, etc.), but if any politician should keep his mouth shut about either Iraq or the devilish duo (Rummy and Cheney), my brother would agree it should be Mr. Bush. The last thing the Republicans want mentioned this week and during the coming weekend is Iraq. And now first, we have Kerry's one-liner that the GOP can't shut up about (reminding voters about Iraq) and then his own (the President's) decision to announce to the world that he wants Rummy and Cheney -- the architects of the broken war in Iraq -- around to the finish.

Not a one of them ... Bush or Rummy or Cheney ... can answer the question: "How do you define winning the war in Iraq?" Now, the question will be asked of dozens of persons running for either the US Senate or the House of Representatives. That's because Mr. Bush included the insane answer, "Absolutely, we're winning" in answer to a question about how the war in Iraq was going during the same White House interview. And he's sure of it because that's what he's being told by ... Rummy and Cheney, of course. (He obviously didn't stop and contemplate the meaning of 105 American soldiers dying in Iraq in October alone, did he?)

As most of you know, I own ... ummm ... [number is classified] ... kitties and often have to decide whether it's time to clean one or more of the eleven kitty litter boxes/pans that I have around my little cabin in the woods. Even the raccoons peeking in my front window know when it's time for me to clean one or more of the kitty litters.



Why can't Mr. Bush see what the raccoons at my front window see so clearly?

Last week, I saw on one of the Cable News channels that Cheney's national approval rating stood at 19% and Rumsfeld's was at 16%. Rummy is about as admired as the mold that forms under old linoleum under my back toilet and his ability to develop a winning war strategy for Iraq matches my ability to appreciate the random patterns of cat feces in the kitty litters that I have to clean daily.

But it was what Mr. Bush said today that is the issue.

At least I clean the kitty litters, Mr. Bush! It's time you cleaned the filthy kitty litters that you have throughout the White House, the Pentagon and ... oh yes, while you're at it, check those at the Department of Justice ... independent of which political party controls either or both of the Houses of Congress in January.

Start by asking Mr. Rumsfeld to resign ... and, in so doing, start supporting our troops in Iraq! No one want to be the last American soldier to die in a broken civil war between Sunnis and Shi'ites who have been fighting for centuries ... in a country a million miles from their families that wasn't even related to the attacks on 9/11. It's no wonder that Mr. Bush hasn't attended a military funeral; he doesn't know how to answer the grieving relatives' primary question .... "Why?"

Kerry apologizes. Issue over. Distraction ends ... now!

The door on this non-Issue is CLOSED!!

Sen. John Kerry apologized Wednesday for a "poorly stated joke," which the Massachusetts senator says was aimed at the president but was widely perceived as a slam on U.S. troops.

His formal statement reads: "I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.

"As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: My poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and [was] never intended to refer to any troop."

In the statement, Senator Kerry continued to accuse the GOP of using his gaffe to distract voters from the real issues of the various campaigns around the country.

"It is clear the Republican Party would rather talk about anything but their failed security policy. I don't want my verbal slip to be a diversion from the real issues. I will continue to fight for a change of course to provide real security for our country, and a winning strategy for our troops."

The White House issued a response today, saying, "Sen. Kerry's apology to the troops for his insulting comments came late, but it was the right thing to do."

Done. Ended. Finished.

Back to the issues at hand!