Mickey

When you say that AQ "was" operating in Iraq, can you be more specific? Can you link us to the posts by all the liberals you claim blame the American Government for beheadings? Also, let me know if it is okay to blast an entire group based on the idiocy of a handful so I'll know that it is okay to blame all conservatives, yourself included, every time a conservative or two goes haywire and ties a gay kid to a fence leaving him to die, shoots a doctor, bombs a clinic or blows up a federal building. Rather than criticize liberals who believe that the war on Iraq was a mistake, care to comment on the growing amount of conservatives who have reached the same conclusions? Clearly your well thought out philosophy is that any position that any liberal takes is wrong and any position taken by any conservative is right so I think it is of interest as to how you incorporate conservatives and liberals agreeing with one another in that belief system. The author of Imperial Hubris refers to the Iraq war as the greatest gift that could have ever been given to AQ and OBL. He is a CIA officer with over 20 years experience studying Islamic fundamentalists and jihaddists. Politically, he is to the right of Jesse Helms. Is he too stupid to fathom the nature of the threat against us? I think that reasonable minds may differ on whether invading Iraq was or was not a mistake and that the issue, depending on how things go, is still in doubt from a historical perspective. Dismissing any view on the issue simply because the person expressing the view is a liberal is a good example of the all too sophomoric posts that dominate the board.

Richio, try to understand this: When a bunch of murdering bast@#$@#$'s behead someone, it isn't exactly a surprise to anyone. It is what murdering bas@%@#$'s do. When the United States of America, the champion of the rule of law and freedom abuses prisoners, it is shocking, unexpected and a scandal. Those prisoners suffered abuse far worse than what you refer to and it has been documented. The Army's own report (Taguba Report) concluded that the following abuse occurred: (S) Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet; (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees; (S) Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing; (S) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time; (S) Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear; (S) Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped; (S) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them; (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture; (S) Writing "I am a Rapest" (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked; (S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee's neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture; (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee; (S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee; (S) Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; (U) Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol; (U) Pouring cold water on naked detainees; (U) Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; (U) Threatening male detainees with rape; (U) Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; (U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick. (U) Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee. Rap, sodomy and beatings. That is just a little bit more than forced cross dressing don't you think? Here is a finding in the same report that I find particulary worrisome as it involves secret prisoners, unaccounted for and hidden from the Red Cross: The various detention facilities operated by the 800th MP Brigade have routinely held persons brought to them by Other Government Agencies (OGAs) without accounting for them, knowing their identities, or even the reason for their detention. The Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center (JIDC) at Abu Ghraib called these detainees "ghost detainees." On at least one occasion, the 320th MP Battalion at Abu Ghraib held a handful of "ghost detainees" (6-8) for OGAs that they moved around within the facility to hide them from a visiting International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) survey team. This maneuver was deceptive, contrary to Army Doctrine, and in violation of international law. I won't bother with the report's findings with regard to shooting of detainees. Plenty of detainees, the ones that were recorded as being there anyway, were shot and killed. I'd like to think that all the reports of their deaths are accurate so as to conclude that all were justified killings but since the same people that were sodomizing detainees with glow sticks were the ones making the reports and doing the shootings, I see no reason for confidence in the accuracy of those reports. Frankly, I am not going to lose any sleep over even the worst abuses at that prison out of any concern for the detainees. Admittedly, I am just not that altruistic or dedicated to international law. What bothers me about it is that it is going to cost American lives. It makes it that much easier for OBL to recruit fighters to go to Iraq. It makes it that much easier for the insurgents, terrorists, Baathists or whoever is accomplishing all this mayhem in Iraq to oppose us and the puppet government we are trying to install. What those soldiers did will cost us more lives than a traitor turning his weapons on his own men. I can't fathom how anyone who claims to "support our troops" would be dedicated to minimizing what those idiots at Abu Ghraib did given how much they have endangered the lives of our troops. Blaiming the media, lying about the extent of the abuses or whining that the world is holding the United States to a higher standard than it is holding a gang of head chopping thugs isn't going to accomplish very much. If defending a bunch of melon headed guards who are endangering the lives of front line troops is your idea of supporting our troops, it is support I think we could do without. I think you could support the front line troops better by insisting on the full prosecution of the idiots undermining their mission by indulging their penchant for sadism.

There has not yet been devised an offensive system that can succeed without blocking. We had arguably the worst offensive line in football last year and the only changes we made (besides McNally) were to exchange a once great aging vet for a never great aging vet and a no-talent nobody named Pucillo for a no talent nobody named Smith. Add in that our starting RT missed all the mini-camps, showed up for training camp an out-of-shape head case and spent a lot of time in camp nursing minor injuries and it should be no surprise that this line is still bad. Bad offensive line = bad offense and it doesn't matter who your QB is, who your starting RB is, whether you have a deep threat, whether you run a lot or throw a lot. None of it matters if you can't block. I watched a little league game Saturday and in the entire game I only saw three effective blocks thrown. That's it, three. A touchdown was scored on all three of those plays. Football is essentially blocking and tackling. We tackle but we don't block and frankly, it is as simple as that. On the good side: Despite the ugliness, things actually aren't as ugly as they were last year. We are not turning the ball over anywhere near as much as we did and as a consequence, we were actually in both of these games right down to the wire. The offense doesn't have to get a lot better, just a littel better would do it. It think that the line will improve as the season goes along and McNally has more time with them. Things we need to do more of: Take a shot deep now and again on first down. Moulds and Evans are talents that are going to waste. "quick openers": These are running plays that are straight ahead with straight ahead blocking, no pulling or trapping. Defenses are bringing run blitzes against us and getting penetration. We can exploit that by getting the ball to the line quicker, before the penetration happens. When defenses committ a lot of people on the line to stop the run, they can be very vulnerable to a quick hitter because once you get past the line of scrimmage, there is nobody back there. How often have you seen a long run on third and short because the back got through the first wave. Our TE's are pretty bad. Let's play more 3 WR sets. Special Teams follies: We have got some players on special teams, that much is clear. I have no problem spending even more time during the week working on returns, maybe even some flim-flammery like reverses and what not. They clearly have the potential to make big plays, lets invest a little more in them and see if it pays off. Things we need to bury: Rolling Drew out. He does not throw on the run very well and our line doesn't block any better on the run than it does trying to establish a "pocket". WR Screens. Unless we can figure out how to run that play and when to call it, cut it out. If anything, try it to someone other than Moulds, defenses are expecting it. Throwing on 3rd down when we are just in field goal position. Odds are we won't be after the play. Penalties in the red zone. Moulds' 5 yard penalty on 2nd and goal from the 6 was inexcusable. Putting in the third string safety on a critical play. If we are going with 7 defensive backs, those backs should be Reese, Wire (until Milloy is back), Vincent, Clements, Thomas, McGee and either Greer or Priloeau. Baker should not be on that list. Wasting timeouts. Starting our off season shopping trip a little early: Offensive lineman A TE that can block and catch We still need a LB that can pressure the QB better on blitzes. Posey isn't getting it done.

We can only speculate as to why these people are willing to risk their lives this way. Maybe they are so desperate for a job they will risk anything to work, maybe they are committed to trying to make a new Iraq. I don't know. The motivation is meaningless, the bravery is there either way. My point in posting this information though is, in part, to show that we can't protect the people we need to protect even when we know in advance the targets they are hitting and the tactics they are using. Even with that knowledge, far more than we would usually get, we still can't stop it. That fact has implications that are frightening and far ranging. Some questions that are raised: How many people have to die there before the Iraqi's conclude that as bad as things were under Saddam, they weren't his bad? At some point, aren't the Iraqi's that are with us going to decide that they can't afford to support us? Might not the Iraqi's eventually prefer to submit to an Islamist insurgency sponsored largely by AQ rather than continuing to endure this? If any government that is unable to provide for the security of its people is ultimately billsfanone to extinction, isn't the Iraqi government a waste of time, money and lives? I am hoping that in time things will get just a little bit better and better and better until the Iraqi government can truly be said to be stable and in charge. That doesn't look to be a very realistic goal at the moment. I guess we just have to have faith but that won't be enough forever. There has to be a lot more tangible progress and soon for hope to survive.

Suicide bombers, on foot and in cars, have been concentrating on police recruiting facilities in Iraq: In February they killed 47 in Baghdad at a recruiting center. A few days later, another 53 killed just south of Baghdad. In June, they killed 35 waiting to join the Iraqi military. On July 28, they killed 68 at a police recruiting center in Baqouba. They killed 20 at a police training facility in Kirkuk earlier this month. Another 47 killed yesterday in Baghdad waiting to sign up with the Police. That is 270 people we couldn't protect even at known, obvious targets like police and army recruiting centers. I am no expert on anti-suicide bomber tactics so I am not suggesting that there is some way to prevent these. Quite the contrary. How long is it before we start seeing these kinds of attacks here in the US? Do we really think that the reason we haven't so far is due to our vigilance rather than a decision by AQ to not use them here....yet? Are we ready for life like this? Amended, 9/14/04 10:09 pm: 12 killed in police van (11 officers and 1 civilian)in Baqouba, attacked by gunmen. Oil pipeline junction was blown up today in Beiji, 155 miles north of Baghdad. Make that 282 dead. Amended 9/18/04: 20 people waiting in line to join the Iraqi Nat. Guard in Kirkuk were killed by a suicide car bomber today. Meanwhile, 2 Americans and 1 Brit were recently kidnapped were shown on a video clip by Al-Jazeera. Captors say they will be killed in 48 hours if female Iraqi prisoners are not released. Make that 302 dead.

Check the Washington Times Article where the President's spokes person was quoted as saying the same thing if you don't beleive the link to the anti-Kerry guy apologizing for wrongly stating that Bush signed the 180. Bush didn't sign Form 180 You might want to read Al Franken's version of the Wellstone funeral, he was actually there. Biased? I am sure he is as were the reports of what went on there that you have read. No solutions, only criticism? You use health care as an example. Good, lets start there. I seem to recall quite a major effort by the Clinton administration on that score. They got shot down but they tried and those who crapped all over their idea certainly had no solutions of their own and still don't. Maybe you could tell me what plan the Republican party has offered in the last 12 years with the goal of solving the problem of the uninsured? The Clintons spent every ounce of political capital they had trying to get something done on that issue. No one else has had the guts to go near that problem since. The right was full of criticism on that issue and totally bereft of solutions themselves. The very thing you are taking democrats to account on. As for the "custom made to inhale inflammatory rhetoric", surely you are talking about the rank and file of the Republican party? Afterall, someone is listening to Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh and the rest. Republicans invented the inhalation of inflammatory rhetoric. Didn't Coulter write a book accusing every democrat in the nation of treason? Do you seriously not see that as inflammatory? This is the party that still thinks Hillary killed Vin Foster for gods sake. I am sorry but if you can't see the irony of your criticism of the democratic party in this post, I just don't even know where to begin. I think the right has some worthwhile leaders but they have no chance given the state of the party now. McCain is one good example. Bush and his tactics creamed him. His honor and straightforward manner, his intelligence and service to his country were no match for Bush and his Lee Atwater style politics.

Would you agree then that the government we install will not last longer than the presence of our bayonets? That is anonymous' point in "Imperial Hubris". As for the "we won", that is not my claim. Rumsfeld and Karzai had this to say last February: "I'm not seeing any indication the Taliban pose any military threat to Afghanistan," Rumsfeld said. Karzai: "The Taliban as a movement does not exist any more". Anonymous strongly disagrees. Who is right? I don't know but the President having to hide in a palace surrounded by foreign body guards is not an encouraging sign. For a group that doesn't exist anymore, they seem to get around.

I have made the argument here, taken from "Imperial Hubris" that the democratic government we installed in Afghanistan is not likely to last munch longer than our willingness to keep that government in power by force. President Hamid Karzai has been mocked by the Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan (yes they are still there despite claims that they were "decimated") as nothing more than the mayor of Kabul. Another assassination attempt was made on his life yesterday. The situation now: "After the Kandahar attack, his security was dramatically tightened and he has since rarely been seen in Afghanistan outside his heavily fortified presidential palace, where he is protected by U.S. bodyguards." Karzai I don't get it, I thought we won this war? Why can't the President of Afghanistan leave his bedroom? You have to admire his bravery but the reality is that we may very well be deluding ourselves if we think that we can impose secular democracy by force on the Afghan people.

Well, they are lilly-white, at least give them that.

Here is a link to an anti-Kerry site where the author issued an apology for having made the oft repeated claim that the President signed a Form 180: Bush did not sign a Form 180 as claimed As for the FOIL request and to what extent service records would be obtainable through that device: this is a not a question either of us can answer off the top of our heads. The media has made such a request for Bush's records and have apparently won so I don't know why you would conclude that a FOIL request would not get those records for Kerry. I don't want to sound dramatic but frankly, these are McCarthy-ite tactics. The idea that if someone doesn't make all of his private business public he must therefore have something to hide is an exercise I find repugnant. Such tactics leave a person in the position of having to sacrifice their legitimate rights to some degree of privacy or to allow people to hang you with innuendo. The whole business stinks. At least on a FOIL request, there is a Judge limiting the disclosure in some way and every one gets a chance to make their arguments for or against disclosure. Neither has given wide open, no holds barred access to all their records. I have never once complained here or anywhere that Bush was keeping records secret that would hang him, that he was hiding something. You have never stopped with this Form 180 thing for Kerry yet have not balanced that with the same criticisms of Bush. If you think they should both sign the form, fine, post away and make all the same negative inferences, justified or not, by their refusal to do so as long as you do it for both.

It all depends on the format and the questions. The more scripted the responses are allowed to be, the better it will go for Cheney. If it requires quick thinking and rapid fire responses, Edwards could do very well. I expect that it will be inane questions followed by canned cliches sprinkled with "hook" lines like: Where's the beef?, You are no Jack Kennedy, fuzzy math, etc.

Actually, that form is to allow others to get your records or to get them for yourself. Bush apparently didn't sign a release that let everyone get them, he signed the form to get them for himself and then he released what he wanted. Kerry released all his records. Both basically got the records and released what they wanted claiming to have released everything of any value. It is not even clear as to whether the President signed the form: "At the White House, press secretary Scott McClellan said he couldn't say specifically whether Mr. Bush signed Standard Form 180, but the president did request and release his own military records in February." (Washington Times 8/18/04). Much ado about nothing. Now leave Sandra to me, I happen to know she is a big time liberal Hollywood elite.

These were not "released", they were pried loose at the end of a lawsuit, a FOIL request. Has anybody done a FOIL for Kerry's records, I imagine they have. I also imagine Sandra Bullock in a bikini, emerging from my pool, her supple thighs glistening in the..... but I digress.

God wills it, it is done.

"It's for our country, it's for our children, our grandchildren that we do the hard work of confronting terror." The whole sentence qualifies and it doesn't matter who said it so I won't bother giving the source. It could have come from anyone looking to say something without saying anything. You can't disagree because then you would be for terror and against our country, our children and our grandchildren.

Well, my understanding is that the Bush girls have switched to using sport bras and so naturally that would have the effect of ...... oh, wait, that's not what you meant is it? My bad.

Done. Including all derivations: he can't run from his record, I am proud of my record, our heritage, honor our history etc.

I know, ever since they canceled "Real World: The Republican National Convention" there is nothing left but Seinfeld re-runs.

Sorry, I have consulted with Imam Cheney and Saheykk Rumsfeld and it appears that "Flopenstein" has been done to death, all praises be to Lee Atwater. However, we are willing to give you a limited (10 days) exclusive grant on "serial switcher". Peace be with you.

...and that would be bad because......?

I hereby declare a Fatwah against the use of political cliches meant to trigger the juices of you Pavlovian slobber dogs. Use of the following catch phrases are hereby forbidden: gutted the military (refers to any attempt to limit the cost of any military program) activist judges (ie, any judge who issues a ruling with which you disagree) in the pocket of special interests (ie, every ones interests but your own) legislating from the bench (used to describe any ruling you don't like) tax breaks for the rich (tax breaks for anyone but you) risky tax scheme (any scheme that doesn'e benefit you) for our children (used to support any and every proposal under the sun) protect the family (used to support any and every proposal under the sun) alternative lifestyle (any lifestyle that isn't like yours) moral relativism (the moral code everyone lives by and everyone condemns) if it feels good do it (blanket condemnation of what everyone else does for fun) keep America safe (may be used to justify any proposal no matter how unrelated) voo doo economics (any one else's economic plan) failed policies of the past (those who proposed them are dead so they can't object) flip flopper (others filp flop, I "wisely reconsider") compassionate conservative (focus groups loved it) protect marriage (by preventing it from occurring) creating opportunity (bippitty boppitty boo) diversity (because merit alone just isn't interesting enough) political correctness (the damnable theory that has lost us ni##er jokes forever) left/right-wing media bias (any report that doesn't agree with you) anything Richio says I am accepting applications for alternatives but I am the sole judge and if you don't like it, get your own Fatwah, this one has been copywronged.

The 98th Division of reservists is headed for Iraq. I gather they are not a combat unit but instead a training unit. They are going to train Iraqi troops. Here is the link:Rochester Unit Headed for Iraq

Making nice with North Korean leaders? He was born in 1943 and the Korean War took place between 1950 and 1953 so Kerry was meeting with North Korean leaders when he was 7-10 years old? Okie dokie. Then again, you were never a stickler for accuracy were you? Viet Nam, Korea, what's the diff right? Thanks for the breaking news.

What happened last night was an interview, not testimony. Whether or not the information she has to offer would be allowed in court depends on too many variables to bother going in to. Depending on precisely what she says and the purpose for which it is being offered it may or may not be hearsay evidence. The inquiry wouldn't even end there. The hearsay rule has many, many exceptions and the the testimony might, again depending on a lot of variables, qualify under one of those exceptions. The question is not whether the information would "hold up" in court, the question is whether, if admitted into evidence, would a jury believe her or not? Nobody knows the answer to that, we can only speculate and give our own opinions. You clearly are not going to believe this woman no matter what she has to say and others are going to believe her no matter what doubts are cast on her story. There are probably some people in the middle who could actually be objective about this but they aren't likely to be found posting here. This is why we have jury selection, even those who claim to be entirely unbiased are likely to be biased as hell. Of course, thats a biased opinion on my part...

Kelsay, "well above average"!?!?!? Where does that come from? He has played one game as a starter and only barely beat out a guy who is considered to be a major bust. He had a decidedly average performance against the Jags whose offense is appallingly bad. I have high hopes for Kelasay but for now, he is, at best, barely adequate.