Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archives 01-10	500		2003/03/27, 02:09 pm
	Archives 11-20	500		2004/02/04, 02:28 pm
	Archive 21	50		2004/03/24, 01:16 pm
	Archive 22	50		2004/03/30, 02:34 pm
	Archive 23	50		2004/04/13, 07:43 pm
	Archive 24	50		2004/05/07, 02:59 pm
	Archive 25	50		2004/08/10, 09:35 am

U.S. leak 'harms al Qaeda sting'

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- The effort by U.S. officials to justify raising the terror alert level last week may have shut down an important source of information that has already led to a series of al Qaeda arrests, Pakistani intelligence sources have said.

Until U.S. officials leaked the arrest of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan to reporters, Pakistan had been using him in a sting operation to track down al Qaeda operatives around the world, the sources said.

In background briefings with journalists last week, unnamed U.S. government officials said it was the capture of Khan that provided the information that led Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to announce a higher terror alert level.

Khan is a computer expert who officials said helped Osama bin Laden communicate with his terror network.

Investigators found detailed surveillance information on certain targets in the United States, apparently conducted by al Qaeda operatives, on Khan's computer disks.

The unnamed U.S. officials leaked Khan's name along with confirmation that most of the surveillance data was three or four years old, arguing that its age was irrelevant because al Qaeda planned attacks so far in advance.

Law enforcement sources said some of the intelligence gleaned from the arrests of Khan and others gave phone numbers and e-mail addresses that the FBI and other agencies were using to try to track down any al Qaeda operatives in the United States.

Then on Friday, after Khan's name was revealed, government sources told CNN that counterterrorism officials had seen a drop in intercepted communications among suspected terrorists.

Officials used Sunday's talk shows to defend last week's heightened alerts, amid widespread claims the White House disclosed Khan's arrest to justify raising its terror alert level. (Full story)

But some observers have said that Islamabad should not have been compromised by political considerations in Washington.

One senator told CNN that U.S. officials should have kept Khan's role quiet.

"You always want to know the evidence," said Sen. George Allen.

"In this situation, in my view, they should have kept their mouth shut and just said, 'We have information, trust us.' "

Sen. Charles Schumer said he was "troubled" by the decision to identify Khan.

He said the public learned little from reports of Khan's role, "and it seems to me they shouldn't have put this name out."

"The Pakistani interior minister, Faisal Hayat, as well as the British home secretary, David Blunkett, have expressed displeasure in fairly severe terms that Khan's name was released, because they were trying to track down other contacts of his," Schumer told CNN.

Looking forward

But Pakistani Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmad downplayed the effect of the U.S. "outing" of Khan, saying Islamabad is looking forward and not back.

"We are moving towards the positive side," he said. "We've got positive information and we believe there will be positive results."

Pakistan continued its crackdown over the weekend, going after multiple al Qaeda cells around the world.

They are on the manhunt for two North African al Qaeda operatives -- Abu Farj of Libya and an Egyptian named Hamza -- who are connected to Ahman Khalfan Ghailani, who was arrested in late July.

Meanwhile, an al Qaeda operative believed to have been close to bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar was flown home to Pakistan after he was arrested in Dubai, intelligence sources said. (Senior figure arrested)

Pakistani intelligence officials said information provided by Khan not only contributed to the rise in the U.S. terror alert level but also led to 13 arrests on terrorism charges in Britain.

Four of the 13 have since been released, but British police have been given until Tuesday to question the remaining nine. (Full story)

British officials declined to comment.

CNN Correspondent Maria Ressa contributed to this report

Interesting. It never occured to me that the terror alert level could well aid the terrorists. Just imagine that you, as a terrorist, was planning a big attack. If the terror alert level goes up, you'd wait for a couple of weeks until things were back to normal.

Here we go again:

U.S. Forces, Close to Attack in Najaf, Suddenly Pull Back

NAJAF, Iraq, Aug. 11 — After spending today preparing for a major attack against insurgents loyal to the rebel Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sar, American forces called off the attack as it was about to begin.

Officers here described the reversal as a postponement and said the attack could still be carried out at any time. The abrupt reversal came after a day of hawkish announcements by American officers here.

.............

Sounds like Fallujah all over again, after making the Marines "hurry up and wait" a few dozen times, the White House will decide on a "strategic withdrawal". Betcha next week there will be a Najaf Security Brigade made of ex-insurgents and ex-Republican Guards. Plus ca change, plus le meme chose....

BS

On the other hand, getting "Al Sadr" could be the October surprise that the Republicans need, especially if they can't get Osama before the election.

The Bush administration have been presurring the Pakastani Government for arrest of Al-Qaeda "names" for some time now. This is particularly important now that Bush's poll numbers are dropping. It is important that the Bush adminisatrtion show that it's war on terror is yielding fruit, by broadcasting the names of AL-Qaeda captured suspects.

The sad thing is that Khan had been "turned" by Iraqi intelligence and agreed to work with the U.S. and Pakistani intelligence as a mole. One of the holy grails of any intelligence operations is to get an operative "inside" the enemy camp. Something thet U.S. Intelligence has failed to do. Khan would have been particularly important as his intelligence information operations were suppossedly used by more than a few Al-Qaeda cells, giving the US and pakistani intelligence unparraleled leads into the operating and sleeper cell identities

This has to be one of the most horrible intelligence gaffes by the Bush administration to date.

To burn an (potential) inside agent for the sake of re-election politics, is beyond stupid, and borders on the criminal.

But hey, nothing the Bush administration does surprises me anymore.

OG

OG:

Well, I hate to defend the Bushistas but in the case of the Khan debacle, it may actually not be their fault. Remember that the original leak was to the New York Times (and since WHEN does the White House leak stuff to the NYT?? Fox News and Matt Drudge is more like it). Anyway, the article cites a "senior United States official" for details on the documentary evidence found after the capture of a suspect, but this "United States official" is pointedly not cited as having given the name of the suspect. Instead, a few paragraphs further down, the Times reporters tell us:

The American officials would say only that the Qaeda figure whose capture had led to the discovery of the documentary evidence had been captured with the help of the C.I.A. Though Pakistan announced the arrest last week of a Qaeda member, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian wanted in connection with the bombings of American embassies in East Africa in 1998, the American officials suggested that he had not been the source of the new threat information.

An account provided by a Pakistani intelligence official made clear that the crucial capture in recent weeks had been that of Mr. Khan, who is also known as Abu Talha. The intelligence official provided information describing Mr. Khan as having assisted in evaluating potential American and Western targets for terrorist attacks, and as being representative of a ''new Al Qaeda.''

--------------------------------------

The story seems to be almost explicitly pointing to Pakistani sources--not American officials--as the ones who first gave out Khan's name. (The American source is then cited as neither confirming nor denying the name the reporters ask him about.) The WH later confirmed that Khan was the source, becuase by then the Paks had already leaked it. And now the Paks are screaming in order to cover up their own boo-boo. Of course, there's still way more to this story than meets the eye, who the hell knows what REALLY happened? Probably something completely different...

Anyway, popular opinion about the White House of "outting" the mole appears to be wrong. But am I upset about the WH getting tarred over this? No! I'm laughing all the way to the election... just hope to still be laughing on Nov 3.

BS

Badseed,

I see your point. But I still would not give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt. It may be that the NY Times has great contacts with the Pakistani intelligence, or even the Pakistani media. But the New York Times has a great working relationship with the the Bush administration. The Publisher is a Bush supporter, although the a significant part of the editorial staff is almost anti-Bush. The NYTimes has significant contacts with the high, policy level Bush administration members.

It may be a simple fact that some reporter called some contact in Pakistan or visa-versa and was given the name of the arrestee and his significance in Al-Qaeda. But that would have to be verified/confirmed by the administration...AND IT WAS!!.

It seems funny to me that the army/cia/intelligence community would go to great lengths to conceal the identity from the press and even the Red Cross, of a low-level Al-Qaeda operative they had on ice at the Abu-Gharaib prison and then let slip to the whole world that they had just captured a key lynchpin in Al-Queda terrorist operations.

The Bush administration must be terribly Machiavellian to let slip up an observation that they not only had captured a key Al-Qaeda operative, but turned him as well and then exposed him for some unfathonable clever intelligence reason. Or they exposed them for purely political reasons, to claim they CAN catch members of Al-Qaueda and boost Dubya's fast-fading re-election chances, if so they are incrediblely stupid.

I think the latter is more likely.

OG

Here's another possiblity, they didn't turn him, they just told the press they did to claim there were busy and now they will probably send him out in the world with evey arab extremeist looking for him just because he wouldn't talk

OK, folks, let me re-post what I posted here before the war. Most of this turned out to be pretty accurate:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

By Explorer8939 on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 02:20 pm: Edit

Let me give you my two pesos' worth about coming events:

a) Saddam is evil and should go.

b) He probably does have some anthrax lying around.

c) The missile stuff they are talking about today is no big deal, SA-2's have a range of 50 kilometers.

d) The war would be quick, although lots of civilians will be killed off-camera.

Having said that:

a) The war is a real bad idea, unless we can con lots of people from other countries in sending their troops to be killed alongside ours. There is no substitute for a UN resolution.

b) Clearly, Bush/Cheney want the Iraqi oil for Halliburton (Cheney's old company), that's why Bush wants a US commander for occupied Iraq.

c) If we go it alone (or almost alone) bad things will happen post-war. Bush doesn't talk about that.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


So, if some half-assed politico monger knew all this way back when, how come Bush/Cheney were so stupid?

BTW, my position and John Kerry's were the same at the time, anyone thinking that I flip-flopped or that Kerry flip-flopped has a comprehension problem.

How can anyone be so stupid and smart in the same post?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

By Snapper on Thursday, March 06, 2003 - 01:55 pm: Edit

Does anyone else think that if the Allied forces take more time in dealing with the issue of Iraq that more lives will be put in jeopardy?

IMO, the USofA is not going to play the role of appeaser with North Korea forever. In fact, I bet it's killing the current administration that our military isn't what is was 10 years ago and able to deal with all of these situations at the same time. Every day that passes North Korea's nuclear weapons program gets stronger and stronger and puts more and more people at risk.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It sounds like nobody wants to talk about Iraq anymore. Maybe things are not going so well. Perhaps they will get better in the future, but I don't detect the same enthusiasm for war that was here last year.

Well, about a month ago my brother came home on leave from Baghdad. Unlike the rosy picture that Bush, Rumsfield and the Generals are giving to the press, ask any soldier and he will tell you.

It is a class A clusterfuck.

My Brother told me that most of the troops are not fighting for democracy in Iraq, they are not fighting for the U.S in it's was against terrorism. He told me that the troops are fighting for themselves and their fellow soldiers and to just try and stay alive until this nightmare, shithole of a was is over. This is straight from a career soldier, with over 17 years in the military.

Three Marines were killed yesterday in Fallujah. This is the same Fallujah that the military told the press they had secured a month ago. This is the same Fallujah that saw the greatest massing of U.S. heavy armour since the fall of Berlin in 1945. This is the same Fallujah that the military has refused to allow the press or Red Cross access to , even to this very day. This is the same Fallujah which is handily being ommited by the military press corps daily breifings. Bush announced with glee a few weeks ago that the insurgents in Fallujah had been routed.

Most only fled to other Iraqi cities, but their remains enough insurgents left in Fallujah to make it a hot spot for weeks to come.

The plain fact is" that the U.S. is most likely losing the "occupation" of Iraq.

The best thing that could happen to the U.S. right now is that the Shiite Muslims will win control in the upcomming "elections" (ha-ha) and ask the U.S to leave, as they have announced that this would be there first course of action.

Reality:
Islamic Republic by 2006, maybe 2007.

A neo-con wet dream of a middle-east western-style democracy:
When pigs fly.

OG

Remember -- " Mission Accomplished " about 18 months ago ? Just like Vietnam it's important to keep the public believing we are winning.

Also just like Vietnam- you cannot tell the insurgents from the regular people because the insurgents are the regular people. They come and go with the population of Fallujah undetectable. The longer we are there the more people they will recruit and the more deaths we will suffer. GW will go down in history as an egotistical warmonger who brought about the needless deaths of untold numbers of Americans and Iraqis.

I still cannot believe he won the election because he was percieved as better equipped to fight the war on terror. He has done more to strengthen Osama than any other individual ever could. Oh yeah-- He has family values ! He obviously does not value the families of the dead and soon to die soldiers.

Iraq is worse than Vietnam because at least with Vietnam, part of the country was actually glad to have us there. Can we say the same for Iraq?

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nytimes/82602711.html?did=82602711&FMT=ABS&FMTS=AI&date=Sep+4%2C+1967&author=By+PETER+GROSE+Special+to+The+New+York+Times&desc=U.S.+ENCOURAGED+BY+VIETNAM+VOTE


You won't believe this story.

I saw the headline, but I didn't we read on, it was only because of a realization I had. I beleive Rodney King had it right, 'why can't we all get along. But too many people would rather put their faith in someone who says 'you are with us or against us'. But personally, I would rather get along then go along. Getting along goes a long way in my opinion. I go along respecting my fellow mans personal belief, than going along and believing whatever the popular belief happens to be.

National Democratic Party chairman...Howard Dean

All I can say is...... ARHHHHHHHHHHHH......ARHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH...ARHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Beach, I would really like to see Howard Dean as the D Party Chairman. If Howard Dean was the D candidate last year, you wouldn't have heard him saying 'I am ready to report for duty'. Even many republicans have got to be begging at this point for any politician to say what we are doing in Iraq is a losing proposition. Look at it this way from a so called left wing point of view - the left says this was a war for oil. But from what I see, even the oil companies aren't making much out of Iraq, maybe they are, but I haven't seen much about that. Even if oil companies are making money, I do know our current administration is asking for more money to continue peace and freedom (lmao) in Iraq. I haven't seen the state of union speech yet, but I can only imagine how much confidence and security George W has yet again given to the public.

The War in Iraq is one of the bigger mistakes that any US Administration has made in a long, long time. Anyone who believed their crap at the start has got to wondering WTF.

If anybody's noticed, the rate of casualties has approached those of the early days of the Vietnam War. For all the rhetoric about Iraq "isn't another Vietnam", the mounting evidence shows it is.

Case in point...My brother, who is "regular Army" and a career soldier, who has seen duty in Bosnia/Desert Storm, has, in his command chain, quite a few Vietnam Veterans who are nearing the end of thier careers and see the same thing.

In fact, his Brigade, as well as a few others commanded by former viet vets, have been conspicuously absent from the casualty roles! Why? Well it seems that these certain commanders have circumvented ol' Rummys war, by taking thier soldiers literally out of combat. They have requested, and received, the cushy assignments., ie., no convoy or patrol duty, troop posting in heavily fortified areas or in low/no combat area. Leaving the patrol duty and combat operations to the Gung-ho Army special commands, the Marines and the National Guard. We are not talking about a few platoons, but entire Brigades and Divisions.

The feeling is among many these commanders is to not expose thier troops to the insane conditions of patrol, convey and checkpoints and to get out with as few casualties as possible.

It is well known among those who are in the know (and among many of the soldiers soldiers) that some of the regular army commands that have posted in Iraq (and are commanded by vietnam era officers) will or have seen a greatly reduced amount of dangerous duty. These units also coincidentally have some of the highest re-up rates.

Most generals know that Iraq, to quote Clint Eastwood, is a "cluster fuck" and run by the neo-cons and brown-nosers in Washington. They will not openly question their Pentagon superiors, knowing that this is a lost cause (like Vietnam). Instead they will keep thier heads down, give some lip services, make some token apearances, but more importantly keep thier troops out of danger if at all possible by using thier seniority and knowledge of the system to circumvent a stupid war.

OG

Og; You may want to check your math.

The Vietnam war ended in 1975. However direct U.S. involvment ended in 1972. The first year U.S. military advisors were in Vietnam was 1961.

During this 11 year period there were 58,000 U.S. fatalities in Vietnam. That works out to about 5200 deaths per year.

This phase of the Iraq war started in March of 2003, during those two years we have lost 1700 service members or about 850 per year.

For a service member to be considered a Vietnam Veteran that person would have to meet at one of the following requirments.

A Vietnam era veteran is a person who (1)served on active duty for a period of more than 180 days, any part of which occurred between August 5, 1964 and May 7, 1975, and was discharged or released with other than a dishonorable discharge; (2)was discharged or released from active duty for a service connected disability if any part of such active duty was performed between August 5, 1964 and May 7, 1975; or (3) served on active duty for more than 180 days and served in the Republic of Vietnam between February 28, 1961 and May 7, 1975.

High year tenure in the military is 30 years, with most retiring after 20 to 26 years of active duty. The exception to this rule would be senior flag grade officers, or a reservist that volunteered to be recalled to active duty.

I seriously doubt that your brother has served with as you put it "quite a few Vietnam veterans"

RG.

There used to be a lot of Viet Nam vets here locally on the exit and entrance ramps to the freeways. I don't see them any longer so I guess they are commanding units in Iraq.

I had lunch with a 53 year old Lt. Colonel yesterday (Guard unit mobilized), so anything's possible. During Desert Storm, a good number of senior NCOs and O-5 and above were Vietnam vets, but there can't be that many around now, and the few who are certainly are not seeing any combat time. Maybe a few ancient E8's and E9's are still running around in staff positions somewhere, plus some flag officers, but that would be about it for active duty. Guard and reserves? There's a better chance there, and those guys are certainly in the mix.

Well "Quite a few" would be about 7-8 Senior Officers(those colonel and above) in his Division HQ, all above the age of 55, all were in their early 20's as newly commisioned officers, the latest serving in VN until 1974. The Chief NCO in his division is a Vietnam Vet (53 years old) . That may not be quite a few, but it's more than you (or others) realize!

The US BEGAN the pullout in 1972, but in 1974 there were approx 15,000 US personnell in VN or surrounding area and down to approx 1,000-5000 in 1975 and the fall of Saigon. (not all in-country, but in SE Asia., ie Thailand, Cambodia. Laos and S.V". There were still over 1000 US Military in Vietnam one week prior to the "fall of Saigon" ,the term commonly used to denote "the end of the Vietnam War". In fact,what people do not know is that there were several dozen US soldiers in Vietnam up to 4 weeks after the fall, mainly in the "friendly-held" areas by the S. Vietnamese army in the southern and southewestern part of Vietnam. When I worked for the DOD in 1977 I had a project (then classified) that catalogued the facilities captured by the AVN.

The remaining US military duties was the orderly "disposition" of US assets in the area., ie blow up/destroy many of the US built facilities, ports and airports that were still in the remaining South Vietnamese army's control.

Assuming you mean a "vietnam veteran" as qualified by the US Military as those qualified for the in-country Viet medal or the SE area of combat medal then the military regs regarding qualification as a "viet vet" is somewhat a joke. It explains quite clearly what the requirement's are for the vietnam medal, but quite often, the rules are bent.

Many soldiers who deserved the medal under the army regs, never got them for various reasons, and some received them when not deserved.

Personal case in point: My Dad, A WW2 and Korean Vet, was in the Air Force Reserve in 1972 ( now he's USAFR retired). On a whim by his then CO he was assigned to a 4 week duty station in Thailand for his summer reserve commitment. Once a week, the Army would require the Air Force to fly Army replacements into Thon Son Nut airbase on thier C-119's. This included one Friday when the airfield happened to be under mortar fire by the VC or "insurgents" (ah, those pesky insurgents) In thier haste to get the troops off and thier plane gone, someone slammed the cargo door on my dad's hand. On the way back to thailand, the pilot reported on the log (jokingly) that his loadmaster had suffered ligament damage to his hand a result of enemy combat. Well, to make a long story short, my father had to make the Air Force take back the purple heart they wanted to award him. They finally relented but instead, gave him his in-country medal. He spent maybe less than 12 hours actually in Vietnam but wwas awarded the medal anyway. My father nearly became one of the few soldiers/airmen ever ever awarded a purple heart for combat injuries in WW2, Korea and Vietnam. But he became an "official" Vietnam Vet when someone slammed a cargo door on his hand.

My cousin was a 23 year old 2nd lieutenant for the Marines in 1973, he served in Vietnam that year and was wounded (don't tell him and the other 15,000 servicemen in SE asia that thier involvement ended in 1972, he has the purple heart/bronze star to prove it!!) After a career that ended after the FIRST Gulf war, he retired as a bird colonel in 1999 (25 years). In 2003 he was called back into duty and has been in Iraq since 2003!. Keep in mind he was never in the reserves, but was just "recalled" into active duty by order of the President AFTER his retirement. The Pentagon refuses to list how many of these officers were "recalled", but Army Times thinks it may be well over 300+. But of course only a few of these may have been actualViet vets.

My cousin has confirmed basically the same thing by brother commented to me. He has told me that the Marines has brought in more "seasoned" career and retired officers, especially prized were those officers, now in thier 50's who had experience in insurgency warfare in Vietnam.

This came about after a bunch of gung-ho captains and majors caused unneeded and unneccesary casualties in various battles last year. As part of his recall the Marines have virtually promised him his "star". His requirement for this star? Directly from the lips of the Marines Ist Exp. commander:: "keep the casualty rate down!"

The first few years of the Vietnam war 62-64, the casualty rate for American soldiers, was aproximmatly what it is now around 700-1000 a year. Remember we are only half way through this calendar year and the "rate" is over 2 a day, the math here says 700+ a year!

The US increased the intensity of the Vietnam war to end it "sooner", and to "break the back of the insurgency"! (sound familiar!). They did this by dumping 10x the troops on the land, AND as the number of soldiers increased, so did the casualty rate.

My statement. if you read it right was we are suffering the same rate of casualties as the early part of the Vietnam War, not the middle or end. We didn;t know any better then, We should know better by now!

My brother's division has 7-8 Senior Officers that have served in Vietnam. None are in the Reserves, All have over 29+ years service time.

My cousin is the perfect example of a retired officer being sucked back in "involuntary", by orders of the president's "back door draft", simply because of his experience. 25+ years ago in Vietnam, in counter-insurgency. His directive and priority from his superiors is not "to put down the insurgency". "bring democracy to Iraq", "find Osama Bin Laden", or "find the insurgency leaders"!. No, his task is to "keep down casualties"

In Vietnam, it was the mid-grade officers who first identified that Vietnam was an unwinable morass. The couldn't convince the senior officers, who, looking for thier promotions, kissed up to the Army Command, who dutifuly reported back to the President and Congress that all was going well, give us more money!.

But the body bags, the draftees and the junior officers who were not career army, told the press and the American public, that all was not going well.

We cannot see the body bagsnow, Rummy learned in Vietnam that this is bad press, and hard to spin. We can't hear from the draftees, there are none, even those from the back door draft, cannot or are not allowed to talk. But some of those who have learned from the problems in Vietnam, maybe a few in number, but more importantly are in command, the line and senior officers over there now, and have taken steps to protect thier own, regardless of the Patriotic Zealots with the "Global War on Terrorism" "Iraqi Freedom"and other euphemisms.

It is beginning to look like the US Military's objective is not so much as bring about and preserve a Democratic Republic in Iraq, the neo-cons pipe dream, but rather, to just preserve the the US military.


OG

I have no military background, I can only imagine the difficult ethical situations and operating conditions many soldiers have to face and deal with on a daily basis. Thanks very much for your inside scoop and knowledge. It confirmed some of my suspicions of what is really going on over there. I truly hope for the best for our people who, IMHO, are being put in a context that will not lead to clear or victorious outcomes.

Sorry to hear that your brother got recalled.

I know of enlisted retires that were recalled for the first gulf war.

When I retired in 2000 it was made VERY clear to me that I was subject to recalled to active duty until 2010. I hope that it does not happen but if it does it will not be a shock.

However I would not use the term "Back door draft"

RG.

Roadglide,

If you suddenly find yourself manning a clipboard in Bahrain or Diego Garcia in July, when it's 120 degrees out and high humidity, you'll probably feel like you're being bent over and stuck up the ass. So I guess there is a "back door" aspect to it after all!

IRR is a bitch, I know the recruiters generally don't talk about that much when they sign kids up. It's a shitburger if you've done your twenty and are stop-lossed; you may have plans for a job, new place to live, etc, but you're probably not committed to anything. However, if you've been out a few years or even a few months, Uncle Sam isn't going to pay you your civilian pay/retirement pay combo, Rummy's boys won't be making a few mortgage payments for you, or the kid's tuition payments, anything of that sort. You'll get "counseling" and plenty of advice, and maybe your company will kick in more than the law stipulates, but for most things you'll be shit out of luck.

Funny one Cat; Of course last time I was in that part of the world it was in civies, and I had a passport that was black not blue.

It's called Fleet Reserve. The only good thing would be that the Navy, or in OG brothers case the Marine Corps will have to recalculate his retirment, and that will add up to a larger retirment check for him. The bad thing is it won't make up the loss in civilian wages.

One of my coworkers was activated for a year, when he came back his job was there for him, with NO loss of senority.

So at least I work for a good company in that aspect.

But the likly hood of me being recalled is very low. The reason I used it as an example was that OGs brother should have been aware that it could happen to him.
RG.

If someone want's to stay in 25 or 30 years to juice up their retirement numbers, that's cool, but if you wanted to do that, you would have done it in the first place, right?

Here's a little different perspective on what's going on in Iraq: http://hammorabi.blogspot.com. I seriously doubt Iraq is going to become another Vietnam, because every Iraqi with a brain knows the US wants to get the hell out of there. And most Iraqis are no happier with the "insurgents" than we are, as evidenced by the recent "Public Justice" post in that blog - ordinary Iraqi citizens caught 2 terrorists in the act and hung them in the street. Oh sure, they couldn't care less if the insurgents kill a few Americans, they might even enjoy the show, but they're killing a lot more Iraqis than GI's now. Whatever public support the "insurgents" may have had, they're pissing it away fast.

Hmmm ... an Iraqi propaganda site.

No too many rational people in Iraq would think that Bush and Cheney are going to let the Iraqi oil out of their hands, and thus our soldiers will be in Iraq as long as these two oil executives run our country.

Here is an interesting post from Snapper before the Iraq war:

"By Snapper on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 11:44 am:
I vote: I think it's in our best interest(YES).

Who cares if there's a link between Sadam and Islamic extremist. (Although the first bombing of the WTC was linked right back to Bin Ladin and Sadam.)

We know he is trying to get nukes.

We know he has chemical and biological warfare.

Who could he possibly want to use this stuff on? I think it's in our best interest not to wait and find out.

It's because of those who have that "let's give peace a chance" mind set that the people that died on December 7, 1941, February 26,1993 and September 11, 2001 died in vein.

How soon people forget.

BTW, I'll be holding a Pro-War rally in the Zona in about three weeks. You guys are welcome to join in the fun."

Its hard to imagine that someone could be so wrong, and yet competent enough to be a wannabe pimp.

Another bad prediction:

"By Tight_fit on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 10:17 pm:

Got a second question to add to the one right above. If we go to war and it ends fast and easy will Bush be reelected in 94 or will people immediately forget about foreign policy and solely concentrate on the economy? Second part of the question. If the war does end with a pop instead of a long bang how will the Democrats handle the whole event during the election? Will they simply ignore the war, criticize Bush's actions, or grab on to his coat tails while finding something else to attack? And how will our ex allies act if Sadam folds and WMD are, in fact, found to exist? My bets are that if this is over fast it will be just like yesterday's news with everyone forgetting whatever was said or done."

I guess the war did end with a pop (of sorts) but no one forgot about it.

Hey, you can't win them all. Explorer, don't you have anything better to do than read threads that are over a year old?

The point is to find out if you guys still support the war. Back in Vietnam, there were a lot of people who were all gung ho during the first couple of years and then changed to an anti-war position later on. So, is this happening in regards to this war, too?

I agree that the U.S. will never abandon the oil fields in Iraq. I'm not so ready to point the finger at the oil barons though. Seems to me that it's just good national strategy to be able to prevent the Mideast from shutting down the oil supply. Europe, especially, has always been very vulnerable to oil blackmail from the mideasterners.

Looking at things from another perspective. It's becoming more and more obvious that this is a Sunni vs. Shia war and when we do pull out of the cities, (to the oilfields...), there is going to be a massive civil war erupting.

Here's a couple of recent articles which discuss this:

Weekend of slaughter propels Iraq towards all-out civil war
7374-1698308%2C00.html,http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1698308,00.html

and then a day or so later:

Frustrated Iraqis ready to take law into own hands
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2005071809030002945365&dt=20050718090300&w=RTR&coview=

Scarus

... and our soldiers should die to prevent this because ............. ?

Maybe I am callous, but that's what soldiers do. Protect the national interest. I was taught that the western world would be completely dependent on mideast oil producing countries for the forseeable future. I just believe that that is now no longer true. I think that's an accomplishment.

I am not heartless, and do have a personal connection in that my daughter is in the Marines, and served in Kuwait during the invasion. Her husband has served two stretches in Iraq, and was recently honored in ceremonies in New York as a "Marine of the Year", for his front line combat experiences. That doesn't make me a celebrity, or anything.....lol, but I mention this to show that I have some understanding from Marines who have taken part in this war.

Of course, most of them, did not want to go over there, and risk their lives in the first place, but I think that many of them believe that they are serving a worthwhile purpose and don't want to simply evacuate, and let the chips fall where they may.

Scarus

Scarus, I don't know if you've been keeping up on current events, but oil is around $60 a barrel now - double what it was before we invaded - I'm sorry, "liberated" - Iraq. Seems like we're further up shit creek now than ever, except we've lost a couple thousand lives, ten thousand wounded, blown a couple hundred billion dollars and pissed off every country on the planet except for Israel.

Glad to see that with all of the cheap oil on the market now, we're no longer dependent on the Middle East for oil.

Sorry Explorer, but I can't help myself. After all what's fair is fair (especially with respect to re-posts) :-)

---------------
By Explorer8939 on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 08:31 pm: Edit

Anyone notice that the number of Americans being killed on a daily basis in Iraq is decreasing? Anyone noticed a reporter ever mentioning this?

I believe that all the Iraqis have going for them is surprise, and when we take the attack to them, they fold. It is possible that once the Shiites are routed that things will get quiet fast.

----------------


By Laguy on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 09:40 pm: Edit

Somehow I don't remember Bush telling us when we entered the war that we were going in there with the purpose of attacking the Iraqis and routing the Shites (sp?). I thought we were supposed to be going in to liberate them and to be greeted as heroes.

If you guys want to believe things are going in right direction in Iraq, and are on track, welcome to fantasyland.

Laguy,

I was speaking about the battles between the Shiites and the US Army, precisely at the moment when the Shiites WERE folding. I was actually 100% correct.

Scarus,

Is your point that the Marines support only just wars, or that the Marines support all US wars, or what? Were there wars that the Marines didn't support?

So, I have to ask the question: if some random monger knew this in February 2003, how come Bush and the geniuses that work for him were so clueless?

By Explorer8939 on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 02:20 pm:

"Let me give you my two pesos' worth about coming events:

a) Saddam is evil and should go.

b) He probably does have some anthrax lying around.

c) The missile stuff they are talking about today is no big deal, SA-2's have a range of 50 kilometers.

d) The war would be quick, although lots of civilians will be killed off-camera.

Having said that:

a) The war is a real bad idea, unless we can con lots of people from other countries in sending their troops to be killed alongside ours. There is no substitute for a UN resolution.

b) Clearly, Bush/Cheney want the Iraqi oil for Halliburton (Cheney's old company), that's why Bush wants a US commander for occupied Iraq.

c) If we go it alone (or almost alone) bad things will happen post-war. Bush doesn't talk about that. "

who said they were clueless? They lobbied for support by candy coating everythnig as politicians ALWAYS do and scare mongering tactics.

If someone is clueless it's
ANYONE who actually believed the PR babble coming outa DC.

What the heck. Defense spending is more or less the engine that financed my travels for the last three years. Always look for the positive.

"So, I have to ask the question: if some random monger knew this in February 2003, how come Bush and the geniuses that work for him were so clueless."

I won't speak to his advisors, but I do have a comment about Bush relative to the mongerer. Apparently, the mongerer had an IQ of greater than 100, which Bush does not seem to have. In other contexts perhaps this means we should feel sorry for Bush for being such a stupid person, but given his arrogance, I think the American public has the right to hold him accountable for his stupidity.

I hope and trust that answers all questions any may have on this subject.

Here is what I want to know. How come in the very first page of the archive here, posted in early 2003, some random monger posted here a pretty good analysis of what was going to happen in Iraq, but our leaders seem to have been completely surprised?

"By Explorer8939 on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 02:20 pm: Edit

Let me give you my two pesos' worth about coming events:

a) Saddam is evil and should go.

b) He probably does have some anthrax lying around.

c) The missile stuff they are talking about today is no big deal, SA-2's have a range of 50 kilometers.

d) The war would be quick, although lots of civilians will be killed off-camera.

Having said that:

a) The war is a real bad idea, unless we can con lots of people from other countries in sending their troops to be killed alongside ours. There is no substitute for a UN resolution.

b) Clearly, Bush/Cheney want the Iraqi oil for Halliburton (Cheney's old company), that's why Bush wants a US commander for occupied Iraq.

c) If we go it alone (or almost alone) bad things will happen post-war. Bush doesn't talk about that. "

Do you know the original name for Operation Iraqi Freedom? It was:

Operation
Iraqi
Liberation

>>Here is what I want to know. How come in the very first page of the archive here, posted in early 2003, some random monger posted here a pretty good analysis of what was going to happen in Iraq, but our leaders seem to have been completely surprised?<<

Here is one distinct possibility: Because our leaders are morons. In a twist of irony, Bush's naive and stupid ideas about bringing democracy to the Middle East by going to war with Iraq illustrate one of the primary weaknesses of (and arguments against) democracy: average Joe citizen is often incapable of judging who is competent to lead our (or any) country, and therefore democracy often leads to incompetent leadership. I'm not suggesting there is a better alternative, just that our idealized view of democracy is just that.

Laguy
The only interesting thing I have read from anyone in any of these endless arguments is the curiosity that the word democracy lined up 4 times in a row in your above post . What are the odds of that I wonder?

My valuable contribution to this thread.

Khun Mor:

Who set the margins on your computer? Some friggin' red-stater?

It wasn't but 18 months ago that I went to a private party with a couple of conservative Republican congressmen. They were in an exceptionally good mood, exulting about Democracy in Lebanon, Democracy in Iraq, Democracy in Egypt, things seemed to be going their way. They were going on and one about the Vision of George Bush.

It has since all turned to shit.

Laguy
Musta been Karl Rove.
The last four lines of your post all started with the word democracy. Just sorta stood out and looked odd.

Funny....so I tried sliding the sides of the window in and out 'til I could get it...

Sure enough, I got them to all line up on the left margin as well......

Now to find someone to explain the higher meaning of all of this....

Is Mr. Penman still around??

Here is proof that Bush thinks his supporters are *stupid*:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jq0j80UB_c&eurl=

Explorer,

Bush doesn't think his supporters are stupid!
He knows beyond any shadow of a doubt that they are.
This is about the only thing W & I agree on.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/11/opinion/polls/main2247797.shtml

Only 21 percent support the War in Iraq. This is really bad.

I TOLD YOU SO! There, I said it.

See the very first posts in this thread from 2003, if you have any doubts!

Mr. Nostradamus:

You are a flawed Nostradamus for sure. Here is what you said about the direction of the war:

By Explorer8939 on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 08:31 pm: Edit

Anyone notice that the number of Americans being killed on a daily basis in Iraq is decreasing? Anyone noticed a reporter ever mentioning this?

I believe that all the Iraqis have going for them is surprise, and when we take the attack to them, they fold. It is possible that once the Shiites are routed that things will get quiet fast.

My response:

By Laguy on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 09:40 pm: Edit

Somehow I don't remember Bush telling us when we entered the war that we were going in there with the purpose of attacking the Iraqis and routing the Shites (sp?). I thought we were supposed to be going in to liberate them and to be greeted as heroes.

If you guys want to believe things are going in right direction in Iraq, and are on track, welcome to fantasyland.

Well, after April 2004, there was a respite from the carnage, but it ramped up again afterwards. I guess I got one detail wrong, but my general message from before the war started was: this war sucks.

I wasn't sure then, and I'm not sure now, what you were basing your "respite from the carnage" conclusion on in May 2004.

http://icasualties.org/oif/Cumulative.aspx

I was talking to some of my hard right Republican friends, and I was really surprised at some of the comments coming from their mouths:

1. They said that my experiences and the things I have read were coloring my judgement on the war. They believe that American sentiment for the war is being colored by an extremely biased media.

2. They still believe that there are WMD in the Middle East. Since the WMD are still unfound, we have the right to invade any of the neighboring countries.

3. They believe that since Saddam killed more than 1 million people, and the war has only killed 1/4 million so far, that we are way ahead.

The sad part is that these people are wrong, but there is little satisfaction in being right. When I analyze these people, they think differently. They are rationalizing the war, rather than looking at the evidence. Since the evidence is so poor, it makes them make some extraordinary rationalizations.

I knew the conversation had to end when my friend said "Stop making me seem dumb." Of course, I felt like saying "Well stop saying dumb things." But I decided to move on. In this case, there is little satisfaction in being right.

I remember watching a PBS special on the first Gulf War that looked into the criticisms of Bush I for not toppling Saddam during that conflict. (The special was done WELL before the beginning of the current mess.)

From what I remember, the biggest fear most of Bush's advisors had was the Iraq, as they knew it, would disintegrate into multiple pieces without the strong hand of Saddam holding it together. They had a genuine fear of multiple religious-based countries forming out of the old Iraq that would destabilize the entire region. Bush’s advisors felt that as bad as Saddam was, he was better than the unknown that could come from his fall.

That little bit of insight is beginning to look very prescient.

EA

BT,

When my new Senator, Jim Webb, had his dustup with Bush a few weeks back at the reception for incoming Reps/Sens, all the Republicans were bitching about him not having any respect "for the President". Basically, they take a military perspective. You salute the uniform, not the man, even if you don't like the man, respect him because he's the President, yada yada.

Roll back 8 years and these were the assholes wanting to impeach Clinton for getting a hummer. I don't remember a lot of "respect for the office" back then.

As far as the war topic, I was an active participant on those threads 3.5 years ago and quite a few of us were on the money. Even Aldaran - who got booted off the board in part because of his intense flaming on the political threads - now is anti-Bush. It's tough when you lose confidence in someone or something you had blind confidence in.

There are many who insist that we never found WMDs because they were moved. That they're still there. Well, us looking for WMDs in Iraq is about as useful as when OJ says he's looking for his wife's real killer every day. Yeah, he sees him every time he looks in the mirror. And a lot of people are starting to hope that Bush realizes what he's done when he looks in the mirror.

History will not be kind to Bush II. The fact that the inevitable conclusion is slowly coming into focus - that we will slowly pull out and the country will only become more of a shambles - will haunt the US for decades. It's far worse than Vietnam, really. We didn't start Vietnam, we came in years after that debacle started. But we started the Iraq clusterfuck. We've caused a huge mess in Iraq, and created a whole generation of terrorists and extremists. The US standing in the world is the lowest it's been in decades, and to top it off oil is twice the price it was when it all began.

I, along with many others, are are not happy with the developments in Iraq.

Would like to play devil's advocate for a moment...

Right after 9/11, IMHO the general American public was feeling a lot of anger and wanted to the U.S. to lash out and make someone pay for the horrible act.

Meanwhile, progress on the Iraq WMD inspections were not getting results fast enough and the press is reporting that Saddam was not fully cooperating.

Perhaps Bush felt the only way to prove whether Iraq had WMD was to go after Saddam with force. Combine that with the anger of many Americans, Bush's decision was clear and Saddam "fit the bill".

***

What if Bush took a more cautious approach and decided not to go to war in Iraq and decided impose more sanctions and pushing for more inspections?

Imagine for a moment...that, today, Saddam was still in power and the World did not know if Saddam had WMD and American lives have not been lost in Iraq.

How would the general American public view Bush and his Administration?

Bush would be held in much higher esteem generally if he had not gone to war in Iraq. I think this is rather obvious given that only about 21 percent of the public approve of his conduct of the war and only 31 percent approve of his presidency (what is up with the 31 percent who approve?)

Keep in mind Bush did overthrow the Taliban government in Afghanistan in retaliation for 9/11 satisfying any psychological need for a response (although his failure to adequately follow through has placed Afghanistan in play again). Of course, capturing Bin Ladin would have been a more effective psychological boost for the U.S. citizenry and arguably helpful in the war on terror.

Clinton didn't pay a political price for following a policy of containing rather than overthrowing Saddam and Bush wouldn't have either. Although the containment policy did have its problems, we now know it was rather effective in preventing Saddam from acquiring or developing WMDs.

As to the media coverage of the WMD question before the war, this was skewed largely by information the Bush administration provided certain journalists, most egregiously Judy Miller of the New York Times, a journalist who deserves the equivalent of a reverse Pulitzer prize for eating the shit up. But it is important that most of the hysteria about WMDs was generated by the Bush White House and in the absence of this hysteria there would have been no outcry for military action against Iraq.

Looking at some of the archive posts on this subject, alot of you had more a problem with the french, mexicans, canadiens, democrats, etc. for not going with the Bush agenda in march 2003, than a problem with iraqi people.

It was a you are with us or against us ideology. And we were all supposed to clothe ourselves in red, white and blue. My, how times change.

I admit, I went way overboard bagging a troop on his report from the DR. I just felt really bad at the time, and we were stuck in less of a quagmire then. But apologies to you anyway, it was out of hand.

I remember the day Colin Powell went to the UN. One of my bosses took me with him to an audit. The guy was pretty clean on everything, but the auditor was adamant on a travel expense. Receipts and verification of a client meeting with him. End result, around $700 liability to IRS for my boss.

And as I was driving and listening to Colin Powell (making a case for the USA) about wmd in Iraq, I was overtaken. I just endured an argument with the government over what they saw as $700 owed to them. And just a few minutes later, I was listening to Colin Powell, making the case for the USA. He had less credible documentation than we had trying to combat threats to our nation, be it cheating the government on taxes or justifying a war.

Sadly, as it turns out, my boss paid his $700 to the USA for an overstatement of travel expense. But equally as sadly, or unequally as sadly, it sounds like since Colin Powell's statement to the world, we are 400 billion or so and possibly treading on 1 trillion because of his misinterpreted, faulty, misguided, etc intelligence.

I took off on this rant after I read solid808s statement about what if Saddam had wmd?

Dammit!! Whats it going to take? Do we need attack everyone and everything that may possibly be a threat to us?

LA Guy,

I am also curious about the 30% that support the war despite the evidence to the contrary. I have come to the following conclusions. Best I can tell, the remaining support for the war are coming primarily from uneducated whites that tend to vote republican. They come to this conclusion through a process of rationalization. They tend to be not as intelligent or as wealthy as the average American and do not have very good written or verbal skills.

Another segment are people that feel like the war is like a football game. I've certainly felt this way when at a football team. If you stop rooting for your team, they may lose, and then it will be my fault.

Solid808,

I feel that the United States would be much better off if WMD had been found. But the question remains whether we would have left after the WMD had been discovered. I don't think so but we would have perhaps more international support for this war.

The lesson to be learned is that the United States does not rule the world. Nor is it our role to rid the world of bad influences. Our role is the same and not more than any other country, which is to protect the freedom and the safety of our citizens. No more and no less.

If WMD had been found, things might be better, but they would certainly be worse than if we had done nothing. Or had done it with world support.

Bullitt,

I think of Colin Powell often throughout this mess. He is/was a good man, and he honestly believed that there was WMD, and he did the right thing by trying to convince the UN. The UN rightly so, felt that the evidence was not strong enough. Everything Powell did was right, what Bush did was wrong, which was enter the war and get rid of Powell.

Like Aldaron, I too was a strong Bush supporter but I have abandoned him and the Republican party. I reckon if WMD had been found we would still be in this mess, but at least we would feel like we had done the right thing by invading in the first place.

I for one think we need to put Saddam back in power, and issue him an apology and get the hell out. Problem is we dismantled his infrastructure which kept those lunatics under control. We probably should arm him as well.

Okay since I am advocating crazy ideas like putting Saddam back... Can we at least have Alderon back? I mean, hasnt he been gone long enough?

Well, GCL I'm glad to see you've moved on and have begun to expunge your demons. Wanting to have Alderon back without mentioning Turk555's name in the same breath/thought shows you may be on the road to recovery.

My heartfelt congratulations.

(Message edited by LAguy on December 13, 2006)

Well noone misses Turk more than me... well maybe you do, but besides me, no one. But Alderon was just angry and had anger management issues. Turk was delusional and consequently a LOT of fun. The fun part about Alderon was watching him go ballistic. The other 98 percent of the time he was fine. Turk on the other hand... ever single post a gem. Thank god I am not in the position of having to choose between them. Good lord, Sophie had an easier choice.

If you had married Samara, you would be angry as well

GCL: I'm intrigued by your suggestion that we reinstall Saddam. However, in order for this strategy to be effective I think there would have to be compromises on both sides. For example, Saddam had the habit of having both ears of his enemies cut off. I don't think the U.S. would tolerate him resuming this practice but in the new spirit of compromise perhaps a one-ear per person solution could be reached. I just hope Saddam is not too stubborn to agree to such limitations on his power.

Incidentally, if you think Alderon had anger management issues, just wait to see my anger management issues if South Dakota Senator Johnson dies and control of the Senate reverts to the Republicans as a result.

I think Tim Johnson will be ok, but if something were to happen, I can't help but think that Pat Robertson would say it was proof that god wants Republicans in control.

I hope you're right about Tim Johnson, Cat. What worries me is the news about his health as reported by the various news services, channels, etc. has not been real consistent. I'm concerned he may be worse off than most indicate and his people are holding back information. But I suppose we will know more within 12 or 24 hours.

The news on Johnson is not looking good. Your nightmare may come to pass Laguy.

On the Saddam issue; I know we are going to kill him and all next year and my dream will never happen. I also agree he was a thug dictator and a really bad guy and all. But we dont invade countries, occupy them, kill their president and throw them into civil war because of that. If that were the criteria we need to get busy cause there are a few more that need to be occupied.

One should remember that prior to the unprovoked invasion of Iraq, there were UN weapons inspectors in Iraq, and sooner or later, they would checked everywhere that we have checked for WMD. Its highly likely that they would issued a report that would have absolved Bush from not invading, had he decided to take that more intelligent approach.

Sorry GCL, but it looks like your dream of putting Saddam back in power ain't gonna happen. But looking at the bright side, there is still the possibility the ghost of Turk5555 will rise from the dead.

If you want the ghost of Turk5555 to rise, just do a Google search. You would be suprised at who you find.

Miracles do happen! I'm absolutely amazed.

He's a goofy looking fucker. I guess nobody ever told him to create different screen names/handles for different types of internet sites.

Writing business plans and tanning salon consulting. That's a winning combination for a small business startup.

Goofy looking indeed. Anyone else notice the irony of how the death of a dictator in a strange sort of way led to a re-emergence of the icon of idiocy, Turk5555? On this count, I'll have to grudgingly give Bush some credit.

Guys, I havent laughed this hard in weeks. This is comedy gold. Kudos to Roadglide for finding this. I will have a smile on my face the rest of the day.

His bio page is a little creepy... he alternates from talking about himself in the third person to the first person and back again to the third person.

Old Turk seems to be quite the Entrepreneur. Cha shing!

(Message edited by gcl on December 30, 2006)

(Message edited by gcl on December 30, 2006)

Or do you mean Sha Ching??

"Writing business plans and tanning salon consulting."

Hmmmm, I knew there must have been a reason he was electrocuted by a suntan machine while in the bathtub (see my Turk memorial--under trip reports--written shortly after his death.)

I think Turk5555 came up with this entrepenurial idea a while back but neglected to file a patent. Christine would have loved it, only from non-mongers of course.

In addition to his work in the suntan consulting industry, he apparently is also an accomplished artist. Here is one example of his work:


(Message edited by LAguy on December 30, 2006)

Well, let me try again.

I'm getting confused by this thread. The topic is "War and Peace" and has focused on George W's handling of the war. How in God's name does the last post relate to that??

One of George's goals of this war happened last night:
http://www.break.com/index/graphic_saddam_hussein_hanging_video.html

It looks like it may be the real thing.

RG.

W may have gotten Saddam, but it appears that Turk555(5) is not as dead as we thought. Talk about a real threat to world peace!

And I am concerned that he and Alderon could connect somehow...imagine what would happen then (setting aside the problems created if Samara joined in and formed a troika)!!! So it's clear that the world is a far less stable place now than it was before W invaded Iraq, and I blame W, Turk555(5), Alderon and Samara.

And for those who think my inclusion of Samara in this new "Axis of Evil" is due solely to the fact that she barfed on my while I was fucking her, you'd be right.

Two and a half years of marraige to Samara - I'm not a big fan of reality TV but there must have been some Kodak moments the last few years! - has liberalized young Alderon just a little bit. He doesn't like Bush much these days and after Samara he probably doesn't much like bush either.

LaGuy,
On the Tim Johnson issue. Unless he dies, there are no provisions to remove a sitting US Senator from office. And if the Senator is an invalid, then they can't sign their resignation letter.

There have been a couple instances in the past...one was another senator from South Dakota...where they either finished out their term or died and were then replaced.

Ticasonar: Yes, I know all that; its been reported in the media ad infinitum. My concern was and continues to be what happens if he dies. The latest reports I have read don't have him in great shape.

LAGuy,

He's actually in good shape and is ahead of schedule on recovery. I don't think he'll be up and about for a while but I don't believe there's an immediate likelyhood of him dying.

A large number of Republicans have operated over the past six years without the use of their brains. I think it's ok for one Democrat to do the same, at least he has a legitimate medical reason to do so.

Cat: Are you basing the Johnson prognosis on news reports or perhaps info you are hearing from persons close to the situation? What worried me recently was a news report a few days ago that said he had been sedated for much longer than what is usual for this type of thing, and that this was a bad sign (possibly reflecting concerns by his doctors that his recovery is not going smoothly).

People mostly. The fact that there hasn't been much in the press the last week or so is actually a good sign, if he was getting worse or in immediate danger of dying there would be a ton of stories per day.

"A clever montage of Bush administration falsehoods and denials regarding the Iraq War."

~Juan Cole, President of the Global Americana Institute

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ

In this day and age it is getting more and more difficult for the government or politicians to lie and then deny they said something. It is all on video and instead of being buried in a one time news report, it gets posted on Youtube or other similar sites to be referenced at any point.

Ask Hillary and the whopper she told about Tuzla.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ

The first video, however, is much more powerful in its impact in my opinion.Jon Stewart's comments in the beginning are especially insightful as well.

Thanks Xenono. Note though the second link is the same as the first, so you might want to re-post the Clinton link.

Doh!

Thanks. Here is the Hillary one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It6JN7ALF7Y