No one messes with Bonnie. The newest employee at the University of Rhode Islandâs Peckham Farm is a four-foot-tall fuzzy brown donkey, and she appears to be taking her livestock-guarding responsibilities seriously. "Sheâs the boss," said URI senior Josean Velez, 22, a biology and animal science major. "Sheâs really protective. If youâre going after the sheep, sheâs going after you."
Marshall said that although not every donkey can work as a guardian, Bonnie was compatible with the farm and has done a "great job" in providing a second line of defense for the 22 adult sheep and 27 lambs, along with the rest of the livestock. "We havenât had any problems since Bonnieâs been here," Marshall said. And if a dog or coyote did approach the flock, Marshall said the donkey would bray loudly, stomp her feet and ultimately "eliminate him" if need be. "She can kick with all four feet," he said.
According to Marshall, Bonnie has adapted well to her new surroundings. "I think sheâs the coolest thing in the place," he said. The friendly donkey has a taste for treats. "If you have a carrot for her, sheâs your best buddy," the manager said.
Posted by: Chris W. ||
04/21/2004 11:26 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Seems like all my neighbours now have donks to protect their herds. Except when they start braying in the morning you would think someone was strangling cats. Hey!
Posted by: john ||
04/21/2004 14:27 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I'm wondering how big a farm on Rhode Island could be.
A STUDY of wild chimpanzees has provided evidence that girls have been faster learners than boys for six million years. Researchers discovered clear gender differences in the way young male and female chimps learn skills from their mothers. The findings, published in the journal Nature, mirror the contrasts in the learning abilities of human children, say the scientists behind the study. Professor Elizabeth Lonsdorf, of Chicagoâs Lincoln Park Zoo, said it suggested that young girlsâ superiority over boys in the classroom may date back to the last common ancestor of chimps and humans, about 6 million years ago.
Her four-year study of the apes in Tanzaniaâs Gombe National Park watched eight young males and six young females learn from their mothers on the use of sticks to fish for termites. Female youngsters enjoyed more success than males and mastered the task quicker. They picked up the skill at 30 months old whereas most of the males were twice as old. The difference was down to the greater attentiveness on the femalesâ part as they spent more time closely watching their mother. The male chimps had shorter attention spans and spent more time wrestling with each other and swinging in trees. Yup, thatâs me
The scientists concluded that the study added to evidence that sex differences in learning had been in existence longer than the classroom.
Posted by: tipper ||
04/21/2004 5:29:54 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
As this belly dragging, ANAL ORIFICE digging, EUropeon ape for a troll is going to be permitted to toss ITS excrement on the WAR on TERRORISM thread, rantburg joins all the other once outstanding web sites ruined by subhumans and the humans who did not have the GUTS to tell them to piss off.
#6
Apes learning aptitude is a great asset for the WOT : training female chimps to become moderate imams or mollahs is vital if one wish to win the heart and mind of the muslim world. And as a cheese eating surrendering *monkey*, I must confess it's always nice to hear about our bigger relatives.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
04/21/2004 11:37 Comments ||
Top||
#9
one word - FARK DOT COM. Most of these exact same stories are there. This site is not for cute little wierd stories, it's about war. This crap has a place, and it's NOT HERE, it's on fark.com.
A KITE-surfer was fighting for life yesterday after a freak wind lifted him 70ft and tossed him over a seafront chippie.(a âchip shopâ to the uninitiated)
An 80mph gust plucked teenager Ross Milton from a wave, carried him over the fish bar and smashed him into a wall. A second gust hurled the 17-year-old against ANOTHER wall. His helmet came off and he suffered severe head injuries. Rossâs dad Matthew, who is a GP, and mum Anne saw the accident from the beach at Aberavon, South Wales. Both were at his bedside last night. Rossâs grandfather Rev Harold Lindley, a retired vicar, said: âHe is a skilled kite-surfer. Weâre anxiously awaiting news.â
Hours earlier Ross, of Oldham, Greater Manchester, competed in the national championships of the British Kite Surfing Association. Chairman Paul Jobin said: âWeâre all in shock. Ross was in the wrong place at the wrong time.â
I seriously hope he pulls through. Youâve just got to love the Welsh.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
04/21/2004 4:49:33 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I do not have to love any freak from the UK. What does this TWIT'S misadventure have to do with the WAR ON TERRORISM? Kindly refrain in future from junking up the WAR ON TERRORISM forum with your sissy articles.
#2
Just a little comic relief, you understand. I was going to post something about 'The Mad Mullah of Surburbia' when this little chestnut caught my eye. You can't have war all the time. ;)
Posted by: Howard UK ||
04/21/2004 5:07 Comments ||
Top||
#3
This thread has the potential to run into the 100s. Lighten up A4391. Darwin award articles are semi-acceptable. And Fred has the last word.
Posted by: Rafael ||
04/21/2004 5:15 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Take your chestnut and dump it in another forum. There are a million comical sites on the WWW for individuals with a taste for inanity. This is the WAR ON TERRORISM forum. Kindly have the common courtesy to refrain from posting swill herein in future.
#6
Fred - over to you. Just thought the world needed a giggle. Have posted my mad mullah story to loosen the knot in Anonymous4391's panties.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
04/21/2004 5:26 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Anon4391, you sound curmudgeonly enough to be a real RBer.
Give yourself a name!
Posted by: Jen ||
04/21/2004 5:50 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Hey, Anon--If you had been here for any length of time, you would know people post crazy stuff like this once in a while. It's called "comic relief". If Fred doesn't like it, he'll can it. Newbies like you will have to like it or lump it. It ain't your forum.
Posted by: Dar ||
04/21/2004 7:02 Comments ||
Top||
#9
What has your knickers in a bunch today?
Lighten-up,A4391.Pokeing fun at the intelectually challenged is fairly comon around here.
Muhammad Bakar Yunus Al-Fallatta, who almost beat his wife Rania Al-Baz to death two weeks ago, has surrendered to police, according to the prominent TV presenter. Rania told Arab News that her husband who is facing charges of attempted murder, surrendered to police on Monday night. Al-Fallatta, who was carrying a prayer rug, told police he had acted in a jealous rage, she said. This could mean the charges would be reduced from attempted murder to wife battery, which carries a lighter sentence.
"What's the penalty for wife battery?"
"12 hours community service."
He will remain in custody until he is seen by a judge in four weeksâ time. The judge will decide in one sitting what happens to Al-Fallatta and also whether to grant Rania a divorce and, if he does, who gets custody of the children. âThey only questioned him for 15 minutes but did not take my statement. Nobody called me yet,â Rania said. On April 4, Al-Fallatta attacked his wife by pinning her to the floor and repeatedly smashing her face into the marble tiles and the walls while choking her. According to Rania, he stopped only to give her time to recite the shahada, âbecause,â he said, âI am going to kill you.â
Posted by: Fred ||
04/21/2004 08:59 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Rania yesterday said she was afraid for her and her childrenâs lives. She said there are hospital records that show that he had smashed her in the forehead last year, requiring her to be stitched. Al-Fallatta has also hit his five-year old son in the past. âHe hit him so hard that he almost ruptured his ear drum. His face was swollen for a few days,â she told Arab News.
He has also abducted the children and prevented her from seeing them for two months, she said. When she complained to police they told her since the children were with their father there was nothing they could do.
and yet she may not get custody...Islam, the religion of subjugation
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/21/2004 10:34 Comments ||
Top||
#7
She said there were no security guards outside her house despite the fact that Princess Sara Al-Angari, the wife of Makkah Governor Prince Abdul Majeed, had ordered 24-hour security for her.
Institutionalized violence against women is one of the principal reasons that fundamentalist Islam must be marginalized (preferrably out of existence) by all free societies.
#8
Zenster, if the Princess' husband ordered the guards, they would have been there. But a woman's orders don't need to be followed.
Besides, I'm sure the judge will take into consideration that he gave her time to say shahada during the beating. He'll probably take off 10 hours of community service for that.
.... The latest example of the royal kingdomâs continued repression of democratic voices occurred on March 16, when 12 Saudi reformers were arrested and charged with "undermining national unity and principles of the Islamic-based fabric of society." To date, three of the reformers â former university professors Abdullah Al Hamed and Metrouk Alfaleh and poet Ali Dumaini â remain in prison, while the others have been released under conditions that they cannot leave Saudi Arabia or talk to the media. They were also required to sign a letter of retraction vowing to cease from campaigning for reform. Among the 12 reformersâ "offenses" was their signing of a petition asking the House of Saud to adopt a constitutional monarchy featuring womenâs rights, religious freedom and freedom of the press. They also requested the implementation of local elections promised in October by the Saudi government (which, not surprisingly, have yet to be scheduled).
But of all the charges levied against the 12, the most scurrilous may have been the accusation that they planned to establish a human- rights committee independent of the Saudi government. Especially when, according to the Saudi ambassador to the United States, PrinceBandarbin-Sultan, "[Human rights organizations] are the foundation for successful and lasting reforms." Indeed, just last month, the Saudi government announced the formation of Saudi Arabiaâs first-ever human-rights organization, the National Human Rights Association (NHRA). The group, which consists of 41 members, will supposedly "implement international human rights charters signed by Saudi Arabia" and include a special panel to monitor violations of womenâs rights. ....
On March 21, more than 130 Saudis signed a petition calling on the Saudi government to release all imprisoned reformers and expedite democratic change. A similar letter signed by 800 Saudi activists was presented to Crown Prince Abdullah in February. ....
The Saudi governmentâs reaction to these incidents has been typical: threats, surveillance and arrests, tempered by press releases lauding the House of Saudâs own supposed steps toward reform. On March 17, a day after the aforementioned 12 reformers were arrested, Abdul Rahman Alahim, a Saudi lawyer and human rights activist, appeared on Al Jazeera television criticizing the Saudi government for its actions. The next day, Mr. Alahim was arrested as well. Mr. Alahimâs arrest preceded a March 19 visit to Saudi Arabia by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who expressed "concern" about the Saudisâ stifling of dissenting voices. According to Mr. Al-Ahmed, however, the United States could do much more to encourage change in Saudi Arabia. "The U.S. should make reform in Saudi Arabia a permanent item on its agenda," he says. "It should establish a dialogue with Saudi reformers and go public with its desire to see Saudi Arabia reform." ....
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
04/21/2004 7:35:08 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
Britain's political health has been damaged by government claims that turned out to be false, the arch-Druidbishop of Canterbury said in a sermon clearly referring to the official justification for war in Iraq. Restoring trust may require an admission of error, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams said Tuesday in Cambridge. He did not refer explicitly to Iraq, or to the case for war which he had publicly questioned.
"No, no! Certainly not! Just a general sermon on a point of Scripture, that's all!"
"Part of the continuing damage to our political health in this country has to do with a sense of the events of the last year on the international scene being driven by something other than attention," said Williams, who was appointed by Blair to the post of spiritual leader of the world's 70 million Anglicans.
I have no idea why...
"There were things government believed it knew and claimed to know on a privileged basis which, it emerged, were anything but certain; there were things which regional experts and others knew which seemed not to have received attention.
"But in the spiritual world, we can natter on like this forever without getting anything done."
"Forgetting the melodramatic language of public deception, which is often just another means of not attending to what is difficult and takes time to fathom, the evidence suggests to many that obedience to a complex truth suffered from a sense of urgency that made attention harder.
"But in the spiritual world, there's no urgency at all, and we'll take as long as we want to figure out what to say to our gullible flock."
"Government of whatever kind restores lost trust above all by its willingness to attend to what lies beyond the urgency of asserting control and retaining visible and simple initiative; by patient accountability and the freedom to think again, even to admit error or miscalculation."
"Especially when we can use an admission of error to tear out the throats of our political enemies."
The archbishop said "we do not usually look in our rulers for signs of advanced contemplative practice."
"And certainly not in present-day church leaders!"
"But we do say that credible claims on our political loyalty have something to do with a demonstrable attention to truth, even unwelcome truth," he said.
Tony delivered the truth, the Arch-Druid just didn't like what he heard.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/21/2004 12:06:24 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The archbishop said "we do not usually look in our rulers for signs of advanced contemplative practice."
Probably what Blair was thinking when he signed you up for the top spot. I know he's thinking it now.
#2
Yessiree - Druids worship trees. Therefore he's probably ticked at the fact that this war creates so much paperwork, even in the days of computers. Mr Blair just gave his usual surgeon's analysis to the noisy day in the "magic kingdom".
Probably not very contemplative in the eyes of "His Emenence".
Posted by: Fred ||
04/21/2004 08:49 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The movie?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
04/21/2004 9:06 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Police Academy XII: Zombies On Patrol
Posted by: Steve ||
04/21/2004 9:22 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I can't think of a better introduction to Haitian police work then being beaten to a pulp when you apply for the job.
Don't worry, boys. If you're selected to this elite force, you'll get your chance.
Via EURSOC:
Tony Blairâs decision to allow Britain to vote on the European Constitution has been met with dismay in other EU capitals. Franceâs president Jacques Chirac is reported to be in a particular fix. He is under strong domestic pressure - from what the Guardian describes as "virtually the entire French political class" to call a referendum. The president, still smarting from a spanking in Marchâs regional elections, and waiting with some trepidation for another in Juneâs EU vote, is wary of offering voters yet another chance to tan his hide.
#1
Boy democracy sucks when you're the one who's gotta do it.
If the Europeans (minus the Brits) don't start start empowering their lower classes, stop ghetto-izing their immigrants, and do away with their positively feudal school system (if you don't pass that test at 13, you go to trade school and become a high tech serf for the rest of your life), then they are going to be in a world of hurt.
Here are the choices: Facism, Islamism, or John Locke. (Psst. If I were you, I'd pick Locke.)
MANAMA, Bahrain - Pop star Michael Jackson's brother, Jermaine, in the Gulf to promote understanding between Muslims and his fellow Americans, said Tuesday that Muslims are "the new Negroes in America." Jermaine, a convert to Islam and dressed in white Arab garb, has been speaking about Islam and U.S. "adventures" in Iraq to enthusiastic audiences at Koranic centers and universities in the Gulf Arab state of Bahrain.
"Hey, you said this was a Jackson concert, where's Michael?"
"I think Muslims have become the new Negroes in America. They are being mistreated at airports, by the Immigration -- everywhere," he said. Jermaine, also a singer, told Reuters in an interview: "I do not agree with the U.S. government. What they are saying about Muslims and Arabs is all propaganda and brainwashing."
Ok, Michael isn't the crazy Jackson anymore.
"I don't think it is right for us to go to someone else's country and tell them what to do and how to do it," said Jermaine, who is a guest of the royal court in the pro-Western kingdom, which hosts the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet. He disapproved of Muslim extremism, which has been on the rise in the wake of the U.S. occupation of Iraq last year. "I understand their feelings but do not approve of their methods. Islam is a religion of peace. They are wrong," he said.
Another one of the "I disapprove of their actions, but" muslims.
Posted by: Steve ||
04/21/2004 9:43:49 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Jermaine shouldn't be rapping U.S. policy. The Jacksons made their fortune on pop and soul, not rap. If he starts doing rap, he'll alienate his fan base (all six of 'em).
Posted by: Mike ||
04/21/2004 10:29 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Look for the Jackson's "Defeat" tour this summer.
Posted by: Chris W. ||
04/21/2004 10:42 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Gerainium Jackson and his little brother, Toto, too...
#4
All I remember is an odd video of Injermain singing some song about "Thinking its Love", and one of the former "Love Boat" mermaids acting as though she was playing the drums. It made me wonder if he thought he could catch some fairy dust from Michael.
heh heh - "donât you know who I am???"
WASHINGTON -- The wife of a U.S. senator is in trouble with the law.
Wanda Baucus is the wife of Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana. She is accused of assaulting a woman Tuesday at Johnsonâs Garden Center on Van Ness Street, Northwest.
Mrs. Baucus was released Wednesday afternoon after an appearance in D.C. Superior Court. She was officially charged with assault in court.
The incident happened in the parking lot of the garden center.
Sources told News4 that Mrs. Baucus was upset because another customer was getting help with mulch ahead of her. Unbelievable! The nerve!
Sources told News4âs Pat Collins that Mrs. Baucus dropped a bag of mulch under the womanâs car, then struck the woman in the body and face a number of times. "mulch bitch!"
Collins reported that Mrs. Baucus drove from the scene, and returned a while later with her husband. That is when she talked to police about the incident.
A warrant for Mrs. Baucus was issued Wednesday and she was booked at the 2nd District police headquarters. From there, she was taken to D.C. Superior Court.
The judge released her on her personal recognizance on the condition that she stays away from the victim and away from the garden center.
The senator released a statement Wednesday, saying, "There was a situation involving Wanda last night. We are trying to sort it out, going through proper channels. I stand by her 110 percent, and she has my full support."
a 110%????? that explains our budget problems....
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/21/2004 11:05:18 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Damn but I feel sorry for Max lugging this crazy bag around. Here's what this friggin wingnut said last year:
"Is that so unusual -- being for peace? I thought we all wanted peace," Wanda Baucus told us yesterday. She said it was she, not her husband, who put up the sign.
"I want the people in Iraq to have peace -- the people whose lives are in turmoil because of the war, the children, their mothers, the farmers, the grandmothers and even the camels that are out grazing," said the 54-year-old Baucus, an anthropologist who has taught at Harvard as well as a painter who regularly visits the south of France.
While Isaac, her bichon frise, barked in the background, Baucus confided that she has been watching television with growing distress and having trouble sleeping -- though she's not worried about the prospect of terrorism in the United States. "I never think about it," she said.
"I don't think we have any business being in a preemptive war against Iraq," she said. "Anytime you drop bombs, there are going to be a lot of innocent people hurt. A billion Muslims all over the world are in pain to see their brothers losing their homes and their families losing the stability of their civilization."
She added: "Baghdad is where the beginning of civilization occurred, literally where the wheel was invented, where the very first city was built, where writing began, and it has a very deep and profoundly beautiful history -- which we should never take lightly, no matter who the existing president is."
Even if it's Saddam? "I think he is very proud of the history of his country. I think it's we Americans who don't know the facts about what anthropologists call 'the cradle of civilization.' When we watch the bombing on television, we really don't seem to understand or appreciate that some of these places are sacred. . . . I disagree with those who say that Saddam Hussein doesn't think about this. He cares about these places and their people."
She continued: "I don't think American lives are threatened by him. There is no evidence of weapons of mass destruction and we have no right to make a preemptive strike on another country and try to assassinate its leader. We have no right legally or morally. We are way out of line."
The senator declined to speak to us yesterday, but his chief of staff said in a statement: "Max and Wanda know they can agree to disagree. They respect each other's opinions and engage frequently in thoughtful discussions about any number of topics. And they learn from each other, which makes their marriage stronger. Max's number one priority is doing what's right for Montana and America. He strongly supports the troops and is praying for a quick end to the conflict in Iraq."
#2
This is obvious pandering by the DNC to gain the vote of the serial assaulters now that they have the hermaphroditic block and caucus of wrastling fans onboard.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
04/22/2004 4:14 Comments ||
Top||
EFL....
WASHINGTON - Though John Kerryâs wife is an heir to the H.J. Heinz Co. fortune, the food company and its executives are providing President Bush with money and a campaign issue â jobs flowing overseas â in this yearâs election. Brahahahahaha....
Members of the board of the Fortune 500 company and its corporate political action committee have donated thousands of dollars to Republicans in recent years, including contributions to the Bush campaign. The corporate PAC has given nothing to Kerry. Cue laugh track....
The Republicans are accepting the cash even as they criticize the Pittsburgh-based companyâs job cuts and overseas moves â part of an effort to taint the presumptive Democratic nominee with the conglomerateâs business practices.
While Teresa Heinz Kerry gained much of her $500 million portfolio through her Heinz inheritance, she does not serve on the board and is not involved with the management of the company. Even her late husband, Sen. H. John Heinz III, R-Pa., did not serve on the board.
No Heinz family member has been employed by the company or served on its board since H.J. "Jack" Heinz II, its chairman, died in 1987.
Heinz Kerry, who heads the separate Heinz Family Foundation and the Howard Heinz Endowment, owns less than 4 percent of the companyâs stock. Major Heinz stockholders include the companyâs top executives, led by Chairman William R. Johnson, as well as beer magnate Peter Coors and former Pittsburgh Steelers wide receiver and pro football Hall of Famer Lynn Swann.
During the campaign, Kerry has criticized companies that move jobs overseas or shift their tax status abroad to avoid federal taxes, calling them "Benedict Arnold" businesses. He has faulted the Bush administration for embracing a tax policy that rewards them. Never mind that more jobs are coming IN then are going OUT....
Republicans, in response, have pointed to the Kerrysâ ties to Heinz, calling the four-term Massachusetts senator a hypocrite for slamming policies that have poured millions into his wifeâs bank account.
Stuck in what it fears is a food fight is the Heinz Co., which is trying desperately to keep the campaign out of its ketchup sales. In the last few months, the company â which gets about 5,000 phone calls a month â has fielded 800 calls from consumers with questions or complaints about the companyâs connections to Kerry, his wife and the campaign, said spokeswoman Debbie Foster.
A look at the companyâs campaign donations shows a preference for Republicans. In the past six years, the Heinz companyâs political action committee gave more than $64,000 to GOP candidates, nearly three times the amount given to Democrats. It contributed $5,000 to Bushâs campaign. It has shunned the Kerry campaign, but the PAC gave $5,000 to the Massachusetts Democratic Party.
Johnson also put his money on the GOP, giving more than $20,000 to Republican congressional committees and candidates since 1999. Other board members have also contributed to Republicans, giving money to Bushâs campaign and Pennsylvaniaâs two Republican senators, Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum.
Company spokesman Jack Kennedy said Heinz is nonpartisan and the PAC gives money to both parties. The heavy Republican totals, he said, may just be an indication of where corporate facilities are located. ????
Determined to make clear that it is not connected to the Kerry campaign, the Heinz company has issued statements about the relationship. "We want to make sure people buy our products on their merit. Weâre an equal-opportunity condiment," Kennedy said.
According to Kerryâs financial disclosure report filed last May, Heinz Kerry owns more than $4 million worth of company stock. Heinz Kerry sold more than $14.8 million worth of Heinz stock in 2002.
Republican National Committee spokeswoman Christine Iverson said the GOP is not going after the Heinz Co. but "will continue to point out John Kerryâs hypocrisy when his record on the issues does not match his rhetoric."
Besides its name brands, Heinz also makes and markets OreIda potatoes, Smart Ones frozen foods and Classico sauces. The company has 50 affiliates operating in 200 countries.
#1
Company spokesman Jack Kennedy said Heinz is nonpartisan and the PAC gives money to both parties. The heavy Republican totals, he said, may just be an indication of where corporate facilities are located.
I had the same response, it makes no sense when read literally. Jack Kennedy (no relation to Captain Cutlass, I presume) may be alluding to the fact that many 'corporate facilities' are located overseas, 57 if the coincidental number seves my memory right.
My guess - maybe the heavy contributions will get them an ear with someone on a taxation committee so they can say 'reduce the tax burden on overseas operations!'.
#2
Good! Spin it any which way they want, it still brings this issue to the forefront and lets people know about it. Let the critics write about how great the choir sounds (no matter how bad it is). Thanks, Yahoo, for publicizing the event so that it becomes of interest. The more people take an interest in this, the better it will be for Bush.
Posted by: B ||
04/21/2004 15:34 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Food fight!
Posted by: Mike ||
04/21/2004 16:26 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I dunno, if I were GWB I wouldn't even bother with this "issue" unless Kerry brings it up, and if Kerry's smart, he won't.
#5
The heavy Republican totals, he said, may just be an indication of where corporate facilities are located.
IE they give $$ to local incumbents, in places where they have facilities. So if they have a plant in NY they give to Schumer, but if they have a plant in Utah they give to Hatch.
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January..... in the fair city of Detroit (Michigan) there were 35 murders in the month of January. Thatâs one American city folks, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq! Worst president in history?
The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor.
Liberals claim President Bush shouldnât have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Letâs clear up one point: We didnât start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11.
Letâs look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.
FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.
John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. I think history might show Eisenhower committed the troops and Kennedy was honoring that commitment.
Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Ladenâs head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.
Worst president in history? Come on!
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.
Weâve been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!
Posted by: Dan ||
04/21/2004 2:32:45 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
"In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people."
Iraq hasn't been liberated yet, by any reasonable definition of "liberation" -- no democracy yet, no indepedence, personal freedoms being restricted by the mullah's militias rather than Saddam's forces. The Taliban were defeated but haven't yet been crushed. As for the nuclear inspectors: please.
And if Al-Qaeda has been "crippled" I've admittedly failed to notice it.
I agree with you that Bush probably isn't the worst US president in history. But he's also far from the best.
"It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation. "
While this one has lasted for more than a year.
Iraq hasn't yet been "taken".
#7
Yeah, bush sucks, for example, aris kasaris is still on the loose, and he's done nothing about it.
Posted by: Comment Top ||
04/21/2004 16:31 Comments ||
Top||
#8
While this one has lasted for more than a year.
Iraq hasn't yet been "taken".
Because "taking" Iraq WW2-style wasn't the plan. Now if Iraq had been assaulted that way, it would have been a done deal a long time ago. The downside to that would be the multitude of complaints about doing it in such a manner.
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/21/2004 19:44 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Okay, I am going to come out firmly in favor of Aris, and against "Auntie War", whose disjointed mewlings are not even useful for comic relief.
Now that that unpopularity contest is out of the way, I got this same thing via email a while back. One thing that struck me was the bit "Truman ... started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us" which I thought was untrue, since I seemed to recall that we had *some* troops in Korea at the time. However, lo and behold, a little fact checking showed that the first substantial numbers of troops were sent on July 1, more than a week *after* N Korea attacked.
Posted by: Carl in N.H ||
04/21/2004 20:04 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Plus Carl, some high muckety-muck in the Truman administration (Sec State? too lazy too Google) had defined America's security zone in the Far East in a major policy speech and left Korea off the list. It didn't take Stalin long to move.
#19
..."Auntie War", whose disjointed mewlings are not even useful for comic relief.
Not entirely true, in my opinion. Yes, her run-of-the-mill drivel is just that; but once in a while she lets go with a real screamer, a titanic pie-thrower that's truly worth the wait. Her best stuff is when she gets really frustrated and tries to sic the Holy Trinity on us by damning us to Hell.
So far, alas, God doesn't seem to be taking her any more seriously than we do.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/21/2004 20:24 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Raj> Not sure -- it'd be a toughie. I've not studied Chinagate sufficiently but if the little I heard about it is accurate, then Clinton's worse than Bush.
#22
11A5S: I couldn't remember either, but great guess! It was Dean Acheson, Sec State, in a speech in Jan 1950. At least, that is what we were taught, but, things were probably a lot grayer than that.
Posted by: Carl in N.H. ||
04/21/2004 22:46 Comments ||
Top||
#23
Aris, I disagree with you on many, if not most, things, but an idiot, you're definitely not. Now, Antiwar may redefine the term as far as how low it can go and still have a vertebrae
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/21/2004 23:00 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Thanks for the info Carl. We've found out a lot since the USSR fell. I guess I haven't been keeping up.
Aris: I think that everything that the Clintons did paled next to "Travelgate." Travelgate unravelled after the leak about the $200 haircut on the tarmac at LAX. The Clintons blamed the Whitehouse travel office staff for the leak. These were five low-paid civil servants who could have made a lot more money elsewhere, but who worked at the WH for the honor of it. Apparently the leak didn't come from the travel office, and even if it had, the Clintons simply could have had them transferred. Instead, the C's accused them of embezzlement, had them arrested, made them do the perp walk etc. The charges were dropped against four of them almost immediately, and the fifth was found innocent after a short trial. To make matters worse, the C's hired some of Hilary's cousins to run the travel office after the arrests.
The C's abused their power, filed false charges, ruined the careers of five decent human beings, and used the highest office in the land to hire their relatives in the clearest example of nepotism in this country since JFK hired his very unqualified brother to be Attorney General.
To be honest with you, Whitewater, Monica, Chinagate, etc. just didn't bother me that much. I still think that Bill and Hilary should be wearing orange jumpsuits for what they did to those five guys. When the powerful clash, that's one thing. I mean those guys sign up for that sort of thing. They live for it. But when the powerful destroy the weak, the rule of law is undermined. It cannot be tolerated.
"We must not waver," President Bush said last week of the Iraq conflict, echoing a sentiment offered 37 years ago by another president about a different conflict. "We will not grow weary," President Johnson said of the Vietnam War. Times, Bush acknowledges, have been tough lately for American and other coalition forces in Iraq. Perhaps inevitably, comparisons have been drawn to Vietnam.
That's because there's never been another war, before or since...
Both Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell have been asked recently whether they see the possibility of a Vietnam-style "quagmire" in Iraq. Says Powell, "We must not suddenly lose the energy needed for this task by dragging out old labels, such as, `This is Vietnam.'"
Nor is it Roncesvalles, or Torres Vedras, or the Battle of New Orleans, or Gettysburg, or the Boer War...
Bush is vowing to stay the course in Iraq, brushing aside growing skepticism about the wisdom of his policies. Johnson showed the same mettle as he tried to defend, at huge cost, a beleaguered South Vietnamese government amid widespread restiveness among Americans.
Wow, man! That's scary! And you know what? The British public hated the Arthur Wellesly, because he was bogged down in Spain, with the Portuguese as allies and the only help the Spaniards could give was guerilla warfare, and Marshal Ney was gonna beat the crap out of him, and he called his troops "the scum of the earth" for being undisciplined...
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., is calling the Iraq dilemma "Bush's Vietnam." There are no assurances that the United States will be able to leave Iraq with all goals accomplished. Bush can only hope that it doesn't become the debacle that Vietnam was.
Actually, he can hope lots of other things. He can hope it's not as high in casualties as Tarawa. The Iraqis can hope that we don't do things to them that Hulagu did...
Polls show that about 40 percent of Americans fear Iraq will become another Vietnam.
What percentage fear it will become another Battle of Hastings?
The president says the violence in Iraq is the work of a small minority that is thwarting the majority will. Johnson invoked that argument repeatedly during the Vietnam War.
Oh, wow! Even more scary! I'll bet that's what Custer thought about Indians before the Little Big Horn...
As was the case in Vietnam, U.S. forces are trying in Iraq to walk the thin line between winning hearts and minds and convincing the armed opposition that resistance is futile.
I thought we were walking a thin line between winning hearts and minds and killing the losers?
Scale is a major difference between the two conflicts. At the height of the Vietnam war, there were five times as many American troops in Vietnam as there are in Iraq. Death rates among U.S. forces in Iraq, even with recent increases, remain far below those in Vietnam in the late 1960s. For every U.S. soldier lost in Iraq so far, more than 80 died in Vietnam. Casualties from the 1968 communist Tet Offensive in Vietnam dwarfed the recent bloodletting in Fallujah. Also, Vietnam was mostly a clash of political ideologies. In Iraq, there are elements of a clash of civilizations.
So was Nagasaki...
And, unlike today's volunteer armed forces, many Americans who fought in Vietnam were draftees. The United States tried for 12 years in Vietnam but never achieved its major objective. In contrast, Saddam Hussein was ousted a mere 21 days after fighting began in Iraq.
Too bad Saddam Hussein wasn't in charge of North Vietnam, huh?
America's problem in Iraq is the postwar. Six months after major combat supposedly ended, Congress appropriated $69.6 billion for military operations and reconstruction aid for Iraq; post-conflict Vietnam didn't cost America a cent and claimed no American lives.
Ummm... That's because we left.
Bush says failure in Iraq is unthinkable. "Every friend of America in Iraq would be betrayed to prison and murder, as a new tyranny arose," Bush said last week. "Every enemy of America in the world would celebrate, proclaiming our weakness and decadence, and using that victory to recruit a new generation of killers." Johnson had a similar view of retreat from Vietnam. He feared that victory for the communists would lead quickly to falling dominoes among neighboring pro-American countries and give inspiration to enemies of the United States everywhere. The communists took power in Cambodia and Laos in 1975, along with South Vietnam, but they got no further in the region.
What'm I missing here? Vietnam fell, and Laos and Cambodia both fell like dominoes. How much further were they supposed to get? When I left Thailand in 1972, the Thais were bumping off commies, and the Huks were still running around the Philippines. What they had going for them was that neither had a contiguous border with Vietnam, coupled with the fact that the Vietnamese were too busy "reeducating" people to pursue more foreign adventures. The political situation in China also had a stunting effect on the export of revolution business, as Chairman Mao eventually ground to his own halt in 1976.
Johnson's goal in Vietnam was limited: defend South Vietnam. Bush's far more ambitious agenda for Iraq is to create a democracy for neighboring Arab countries to emulate. Will Americans have the patience needed to achieve that goal? In Vietnam, war weariness set in, and America was out. Vietnam forced Johnson into retirement; he shunned a re-election bid in 1968. His Democratic Party, fractured over Vietnam, lost the White House that November.
It's been going downhill ever since...
In contrast, retirement does not seem to have crossed Bush's mind. Fellow Republicans are largely united behind him as he seeks another four years in office.
I think the populace is, too, except for dingbats who write stoopid articles like this.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/21/2004 08:43 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Fred, if I didn't know better, I'd think you were becoming cynical
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/21/2004 15:07 Comments ||
Top||
WASHINGTON (AP) - Amid questions about his military records, John Kerry's campaign on Tuesday provided documentation of Vietnam War injuries that included shrapnel wounds to his arms, legs and buttocks that earned him three Purple Hearts. Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan said the campaign was in the process of compiling the rest of Kerry's naval record and planned to begin posting it on Kerry's Web site by day's end. Kerry said all his military records are available to the public during an appearance Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." Meehan said the Massachusetts senator and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee requested a copy of his record from the Navy last month and received roughly 150 pages last week.
He served two tours of duty, four months on the USS Gridley frigate off Vietnam's shore and nearly five months as a swiftboat commander in the Mekong Delta. He volunteered for the second tour and earned all his medals during the second stint. Meehan gave The Associated Press 13 pages that included documentation for the Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. The documents also included declassified reports that briefly explain the injuries that led to Kerry's Purple Heart awards. They show Kerry had shrapnel wounds in his left thigh after his boat came under intense fire on Feb. 20, 1969, and he suffered shrapnel wounds in his left buttock and contusions on his right forearm when a mine detonated close to his boat on March 13, 1969.
The campaign could not locate a similar report for Kerry's original Purple Heart. As evidence that Kerry was wounded, Meehan showed The Associated Press a "Sick Call Treatment Record" from Kerry's personal files that included a brief written note dated Dec. 3, 1968, and stamped from the naval support facility at Cam Ranh Bay. "Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl bacitracin dressing. Ret to Duty," it said. The note is followed by a signature that appears to say "JCCarreon" and some illegible letters that Meehan said probably designate the medical official's rank.
More than a fingernail slash, at least.
Documentation for the second two injuries show that Kerry was deemed to be in good condition and returned to active duty after treatment. The documentation does not describe the severity of the injuries. A third Purple Heart meant Kerry could be reassigned out of Vietnam, and a document dated March 17, 1969, said Kerry requested duty as a personal aid in Boston, New York or the Washington, D.C., area.
Dead issue. Move along folks, nuttin' to see, keep moving, that's it ...
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/21/2004 1:07:22 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Bacitracin?
IN other words he got a bandaid and some Bactine.
Sounds like a scrape to me. And a small one at that.
Kerry is a self aggrandizing Boston blueblood liberal. YEah, just what we need as a president. Not.
#2
Hrrrrmph. So much for the "war hero" bullshit. Three wounds, none of them so serious it couldn't be taken care of just by going on sick call to get a bandaid and then returning to duty.
And demanding a Purple Heart for each scratch, and then demanding to go home once he'd got three Purple Hearts.
Not exactly Audie Murphy.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/21/2004 6:02 Comments ||
Top||
#3
No, no, no you don't understand. YOU AREN"T LISTENING. This macho military war hero stuff is something you have to do if you want to get ahead in New England politics. So I got in as an officer, got out without taking a bullet, and got down to the business of screwing Jane Fonda, dig?
The Kong and exploding mines or hash and a 25 year old Jane Fonda: which one would you choose, bro?
Oh, and, uh, Bush is Hitler! Power to the people!
Posted by: John Kerry ||
04/21/2004 11:26 Comments ||
Top||
#4
a 25 year old Jane Fonda was attractive and so was Mata Hari. . . .
In the summer of 2002, Amr Moussa, secretary-general of the Arab League, issued a stern warning to the BBC: a US invasion of Iraq would "threaten the whole stability of the Middle East." As I wrote at the time, "Heâs missing the point: thatâs the reason itâs such a great idea."
I thought about Mr. Moussa a lot this past week. I was invited to speak at the United States Naval Academyâs foreign affairs conference, a great honor for a foreigner. I wasnât the star attraction â that was Condoleezza Rice; I was merely a warm-up act.
Anyway, I was struck by a phrase in Dr. Riceâs address that I donât believe Iâve heard her use before. She was talking about the fourth plane on September 11th, Flight 93, the one that crashed into a field in Pennsylvania en route to destroy either the Capitol or the White House. If it had reached the latter, that would have been the "money shot" that day, as it was in the alien-invasion flick Independence Day â the center of American power reduced to rubble. What happened on 9/11, said Rice, was an attempt to "decapitate us." If not for quirks of flight scheduling and al-Qaida personnel management, the headlines would have included "The Vice-President is still among the missing, presumed dead" or â if theyâd got really lucky â that the presidency had passed to the president pro tem of the Senate, octogenarian West Virginia Democrat, porkmeister and former Klansman Robert Byrd.
In other words, if youâre wondering why this administrationâs approach to terrorism is so focused on regime change, itâs because the terrorists came so close to changing Americaâs regime.
Theyâve since managed to change Spainâs. So why should the traffic be all one way? About two weeks after 9/11, I came to the conclusion that almost anything was better than Moussaâs much-vaunted "stability." The fetishization of stability was a big part of the problem. Falling for the Moussa line would give us another 25 years of the ayatollahs, another 35 years of the PLO and Hamas, another 40 of the Baâathists in Syria and Iraq, another 70 of Saudi Wahhabism. Even another 20 years of Mubarak doesnât have anything to commend it. All stability means is that the most malign Middle Eastern tyranny â Saudi Arabia â has wound up being the wealthiest and thus is able to export its toxins around the world, via the madrassas it has built in Pakistan, South Asia, the Balkans, and North America.
WASHINGTON APPARENTLY reached the same conclusion â that anything was better than the status quo. Or, as Thomas Friedman put it in The New York Times this weekend, "President Bush has stepped in and thrown the whole frozen Middle East chessboard up in the air."
Thatâs why Moussa is so discombobulated. The Arab League (set up in a typically devious move by the British which, just as typically, backfired on them) was the preeminent body of regional stability. Its most recent meeting, scheduled to be held in Tunis, had to be scrapped because of irreconcilable divisions between the old-school thug regimes and the more enlightened members who wanted better relations with America and Britain.
Now itâs the EU Arafatistsâ turn to be discombobulated. In supporting Ariel Sharonâs planned Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, President Bush said last week it was time to recognize "realities on the ground" and "unrealistic" to expect a return to the armistice lines of 1949.
What this means is that, after half a century of formal neutrality on the issue, the US has stated the obvious: The "sensitive issue" of the Palestinian "right of return" is sensitive mainly because itâs a lot of hooey thatâs never going to happen.
Tough, but thatâs the reality on the ground. There is no point entering into negotiations predicated on not disturbing the fantasies of one side.
Iâve never been to Gaza, but I have mooched around the West Bank and, compared to such nascent nations as Slovenia or East Timor, itâs all but impossible to detect evidence of any plausible nationalist movement. Everywhere you go, you see the glorification of the martyrdom movement and the Jew-killing movement, and evidently those are such a hit that Palestinian nationalism has withered in their wake, except insofar as when all the Jews are gone, whatâs left will by default be Palestinian.
Ariel Sharon has decided that one cannot negotiate with a void, a nullity â and even sentimental European Yasserphiles might, in their more honest moments, acknowledge that the only way the Palestinians are ever going to get a state is if theyâre cut out of the process. So the Israelis are building their wall, and whatâs left over on the other side will either be a new state, the present decayed Arafatist squat, or an ever more frustrated self-detonation academy. But it will be up to the Palestinians to choose because theyâll be the ones living with the consequences.
BUSH HAS gone along with Sharon because it accords with his post-9/11 assessment of the Middle East: The biggest gamble canât be worse than Moussaâs stability. Indeed, the Israeli governmentâs new Hamas Assassination-of-the-Month program usefully clarifies the bottom line: A high rotation of thugs is better than the same thug decade in, decade out. Poor Rantissi, killed this weekend, seems unlikely to get the glowing send-off from European obituarists they gave to his predecessor, the "revered quadriplegic spiritual leader," Sheikh Yassin. Already, bigshot terrorists in Gaza are said to be reconsidering their applications for next monthâs vacancy.
Thatâs the bottom line elsewhere, too. If all else fails, then a modified Sam Goldwyn philosophy will do: Iâm sick of the old despots, bring me some new despots.
But it wonât come to that. In Iraq, Libya, Iran, Syria, and elsewhere, the old Middle East is dying, and what replaces it can only be better.
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/21/2004 20:19 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I generally agree: the tide of history will result in less dictatorial/fanatic regimes in the mideast as a result of the US shaking things up. I am concerned though that, in the medium-term, we could end up with more governments consisting of islamist fundamentalists. The people of the middle-east are basically conditioned to accept two types of authority: strong-man dictators and religious leaders. Liberal, moderate, democratic governance is beyond their experience. So when one authority is removed--i.e., Saddam, a strong-arm dictator--I think the easiest thing for them to turn to is religious authority. We are in a real battle to show them that they can, instead, turn to democratic authority and governance, with protection of minority (read Kurdish and Sunni) rights. We are witnessing a historic turning point. Like I said, I think inevitably the shift will be positive in the long term. What we should be anxious about is the intermediate term: will the Iraqis comprehend their own self-interest, and take responsibility for their future by stepping into the unknown by embracing rights-based democracy, or will they revert to the safety-blanket of blind discipleship to religious authorities. We shall see.
#3
good point sludj, perhaps the linchpin will be a long-term stationing of US military bases in free Iraq? Nothing focuses the mind so much as a cruise missile on the neighbors' lawn (to paraphrase Churchill)?
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/21/2004 21:17 Comments ||
Top||
#4
In the summer of 2002, Amr Moussa, secretary-general of the Arab League, issued a stern warning to the BBC: a US invasion of Iraq would "threaten the whole stability of the Middle East."
Referring to the moral cesspool of Middle East governments as any form of "stability" is like calling rigor mortis "muscle tone."
The advent of affordable technology that easily manufactures weapons of mass destruction has forever changed the world's ability to tolerate these violent stone-age cultures.
We no longer have the luxury of dabbling in old school moral relativism that gave these virulent barbarians any reprieve from forcible compliance with world standards of human rights.
These cretins now seek nothing less than global domination with their Neanderthal sensibilities intact. This cannot be permitted, even at the cost of obliterating those belligerents which refuse to lay down arms.
Free society must not be imperiled by any reticence towards annihilating these moral cancers before they metastasize into a cataclysm of vicious theocratic domination with unimaginable loss of human life throughout modern civilization.
#5
Steyn is a good guy for the Brigade to be exposed to. Midshipmen don't have regular access to TV, so printed news is very important ... I don't know whether Mids have access to the Web now. All we had was WaPo, AKA Pravda West.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
04/22/2004 2:52 Comments ||
Top||
Part of an e-mail (no link) I received today from Spirit of America :
barbara,
Normally, you wonât receive a message from us more than once a week but this a rare week... Last night the Wall St. Journalâs Dan Henninger was on Nightly Business Report on PBS. He spoke about Spirit of America and the donor response generated in large measure by his recent column. Itâs a great piece. Please read it below. The impact of Danâs column was augmented mightily by the relatively unsung efforts of bloggers and by many of you forwarding messages to friends and families. Glad we could help, Jim.
Here are the results. Overwhelming. Incredible. In the last five days we have received $764,408 from 4,088 donors. 764,408/4088 = 187. Given my paltry $20 donation, some people forked over big bucks to make this average. Go ahead, Donks and Arabs - spin this! (I know you will.)
Most of these funds are earmarked for the request made by the Marines for equipment needed to establish Iraqi-owned television stations in Al Anbar Province Iraq (described here). Our initial goal for this request was $100,000. The Marines are as stunned as I am. Me, too. But I shouldnât be. Americans are the most generous people on this earth, though youâll never hear about it from the "mainstream" press, particularly concerning our troops.
Iâll remove the expletives of joyful surprise and forward some of their comments to you next week. They are also developing ideas for the expansion of this initiative. More on that soon. We are pressing ahead with fundraising. We understand weâre at the very beginning of the effort needed to achieve peace and stability in Iraq. We understand that, too - too bad the LLL and the Euros canât figure it out. Or maybe they have, which is why theyâre trying so hard to prevent peace and stability in Iraq.
The Marines and others serving in Iraq have made clear that all the support we can muster will greatly assist their efforts to win the peace. No chance of donations from the Left, then. But there never was.
Rest assured we do not confuse success in donor support with the real results we all seek to achieve. The real work lies ahead. But the funding makes the results possible and we now have a great foundation to build upon. We are now focused on delivering the basic equipment requested for the first seven stations. Thanks to you we will have everything at Camp Pendleton by next Thursday (April 29). That delivery will make it 21 days from receiving the Marines request to fulfilling it. [emphasis added] Wow.
You can imagine what a response like this means to those on the front lines whose lives are at risk. Then letâs keep it up.
Two other items:
A number of bloggers have kicked off the "Heroes of the Blogosphere Challenge" - a very innovative collective effort to raise funds to support the requests we receive. It is the brainchild of Dean Esmay. More information is here.
We are behind in answering many of your messages. We apologize. Weâll reply to everyone that has emailed us with questions and offers of assistance as soon as we can. Take your time; youâre obviously busy right now.
Again, thank you for your support. No, thank you for the opportunity to support our troops.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut bskolaut@hotmail.com ||
04/21/2004 12:55:16 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Is it disgraceful that this stuff wasn't officially rolled out long ago or brilliant and absolutely characteristic that we can improvise it anyway with widespread modest private donations?
Both, I guess, but right now I'm thinking more about the latter.
As I asked on Robert Prather's blog when this initiative first came to light, where the hell is Voice of America? And why wasn't there a plan to get at least neutral (guess we can't hope for friendly) TV stations on the air right after we took over. It's been a goddam year.
Don't get me started.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
04/21/2004 13:49 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I'm actually happy that this will be run by the Marines and not VOA or some other gov't agency. Too many LLL's hiding in the bureaucracy...
#4
yup - I got this email today, too, and also only gave $20 (I'm trying to spread it around to USO, Red Cross, others, etc). For me the best part is it is run by the Marines and that LLL politicians won't be able to misappropriate the money for support of the perverse arts or some other nonsense.
No one likes to consider the possibility of nuclear war. But somebodyâs got to do it, and that sober duty fell recently to a special task force of the Defense Science Board, which has just recommended useful changes to the U.S. strategic arsenal to fit our post-September 11 world.
First we should note what the task force does not want to change--the high threshold for use of nuclear weapons. "It is, and will likely remain, American policy to keep the nuclear threshold high and to pursue non-nuclear attack options whenever possible. Nothing in our assessment or recommendations seeks to change that goal," the panel writes. "Nevertheless, in extreme circumstances, the president may have no choice but to turn to nuclear options."
The scenarios the task force envisions arenât, regrettably, all that extreme. High on the list would be eliminating an enemyâs weapons of mass destruction before it has a chance to use them on us. (Think rogue states and assorted terrorist groups.) Or removing an adversaryâs regime while saving a country (North Korea). Or ending a WMD war quickly (India-Pakistan).
The task force argues that we need a better nuclear doctrine than the mutually assured destruction, or MAD, of the Cold War. Current plans to refurbish the nationâs stockpile of nuclear weapons from the 1970s and â80s "will not meet the countryâs future needs," the report says. Large, high-fallout nuclear weapons designed to obliterate cities wonât deter terrorists who might doubt that a President would use them in response to an attack.
Rather, the task force wants to see the U.S. nuclear arsenal expanded to include more precise, lower-yield weapons--especially those that could penetrate targets buried deep underground where conventional weapons canât reach. The idea is to give a President the option of incinerating enemy weapons, leaders and command-and-control systems with as little damage as possible to civilians. Having the option of highly precise nuclear weapons with greatly reduced radioactivity would also make the threat of their use more believable to terrorists contemplating attacks on the U.S. or allies.
The panel has a host of additional recommendations that donât include nukes. It wants a new cruise missile with a conventional warhead that could be launched from an offshore submarine and strike a target 1,500 miles away in 15 minutes. It recommends that the 50 Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missiles now scheduled for deactivation be refitted with conventional warheads and deployed to Cape Canaveral in Florida and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. This would give the U.S. "a 30-minute response capability for strategic strike world-wide."
Like just about every report out of the Pentagon these days, the task force highlights the need for better intelligence. In the context of the U.S. strategic forces, the task force wants better human intelligence, better technology and more creative thinking. One recommendation calls for the development of "cyberspies"--electronic sensors that flesh-and-blood spies could place on potential targets and which could then be tracked and targeted from space.
The report hasnât got a lot of attention outside the Pentagon. Inside the building is another story. The Defense Science Board, chaired by William Schneider, is a prestigious body whose recommendations are taken seriously and often translated into action.
None of this is likely to go down well with critics in Congress who immediately deem any proposed change in nuclear policy to be provocative. They are already on record as opposing the Bush Administrationâs push for the development of new low-yield nukes.
The use of nuclear weapons remains a last resort. No American President wants to cross that threshold. But if he has to, to protect American lives, surely itâs preferable to have the option of using a highly precise, low-yield weapon that strikes a specific target than the Armageddon alternative that prevailed during the Cold War.
Posted by: tipper ||
04/21/2004 4:29:46 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Like a lot of people I responded to the neolithic behaivor in Fajullah by saying "just nuke the motherf*****s". Then more sane and rational thoughts set in. The djini is out of the bottle as far as nukes are concerned, they can't be uninvented. But that does not we sould be reduced to responding with just city busters if it ever came to that (although we do need to keep some of those too, I can think of a couple of targets off the top of my head). In the WoT the main problem is the enemy is so easily hid. Any government that supports terroists today is going to do everything it can to stay out of the crosshairs. I like the idea of converting the MX peacekeepers to conventional warheads, but even thirty minutes might not be enough lead time for a really high value target
excerpt from press briefing - Rumsfeld and Pete Pace
Q Do you remember saying, "You can take it to the bank. This is going to happen."
SEC. RUMSFELD: I donât remember saying it, to be perfectly honest. But I have said that, that phrase, in my life. But I could have said it about a dozen different things. In other words, it may have been about some discussion weâd had about an interaction with another country, a third country. It may have been about a comment that in the event the president did make such a decision, that the action would be followed through sufficiently that the regime would in fact be changed. As opposed to the implication from your question -- which I have not read the book -- that the statement might have been made in connection with a decision having been made by the president.
But my best recollection -- and I hate to use the word "certain" because no oneâs memory is perfect, but I canât believe the decision had been made by the president during that period. If it had been, I didnât know it had been. Therefore, I would never have said what you said somebody said I said --
Q Well -- (laughter) --
SEC. RUMSFELD: -- with respect to that aspect of it, a decision having been made.
Q Mr. Woodward says that youâre on the record on this point, and that he has mentioned several times that the Pentagon transcripts that are posted on the Pentagonâs website will back him up. Now, I have checked those transcripts and I see no reference to this incident. However, there are two transcripts posted. Did you meet with him more than twice, do you recall?
SEC. RUMSFELD: No, I didnât.
Q You only met with him twice?
SEC. RUMSFELD: I think thatâs correct.
Q So those transcripts are the complete record of what you told him?
SEC. RUMSFELD: Except for where I said "ah" or "uh" or something like that -- (laughter) -- and some person transcribing might have taken that out, or where the transcription was in error.
But I just -- here I am in a meeting in the vice presidentâs office. It is certainly not for me to communicate to someone from another country a decision by the president of the United States. That just doesnât compute.
-snip- later in the Q&A
Iâve just been passed a note via my friend, General Pace, that goes back to the question I answered on the Woodward transcripts, where I said something to the effect that the ahs and uhs were probably deleted, and Iâm advised now there is some banter -- not quite sure what that means, but -- and some discussion about a totally unrelated topic, and some items that were agreed between us to not be in there. But I can say -- that were off the record -- but I can say of certain knowledge that nothing was taken out that would naysay what I just indicated in my response to the question.
Q No 18-minute gap?
SEC. RUMSFELD: I beg your pardon.
Q No 18-minute gap? (Laughter.)
SEC. RUMSFELD: And you can take that to the bank. (Laughter.)
Thank you very much.Iâll be here throughout the administration. Try the veal.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
04/21/2004 2:22:45 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Woodward -- like all the other propagandists in the leftmedia -- makes up quotes, conversations, events, characterizations, etc to fit ITS agenda. I have purchased the book with the intention of SUING Woodward and the publisher for selling ME a defective product. I encourage others to do the same. Woodward can be sued into poverty.
#2
Love your plan, Anon4391!
Woodward is a fraud and I still hold him responsible for bringing down Richard Nixon in a bloodless coup.
Keep us informed about joining your action here at RB, would ya?
Posted by: Jen ||
04/21/2004 5:18 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Even George Will doesnt defend Nixon.
What aspect of Woodward's Watergate coverage was fraudulent?
The current book is heavily based on interviews with Bush himself, and actually makes Bush look pretty good. In particular it makes Tenet look bad on WMD, and makes Bush look properly skeptical.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan called Tuesday for a broad, new U.N. mission in Haiti to include 6,700 troops, more than 1,600 international police and experts to help turn the Caribbean nation into "a functioning democracy." The U.N. military contingent would replace the 3,600-strong U.S.-led multinational force sent to bring stability to Haiti after 200 years a three-week rebellion ousted its first democratically elected president-for-life, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, in February. About 2,000 of them are American troops. Annan said the transfer of authority to a U.N. force would take place by June 1, with troops in the multinational force withdrawing in phases as U.N. troops arrived "to avoid any security gap." In a report to the Security Council, the secretary-general said it was "unfortunate that in its bicentennial year, Haiti had to call again on the international community to help it overcome a serious political and security situation."
"Unfortunate," I suppose. But routine.
The U.N. special envoy to Haiti, Reginald Dumas, said last month that 10 international missions to Haiti in the last decade failed because there was no sustained commitment. The international community must allow for least 200 20 years to bringing peace to Haiti and raising living standards in the Western hemisphere's poorest nation, he said. Annan told the council the last U.N. mission, which ended in 2001, was "too brief and fraught with both international and domestic hindrances." The new mission must be a partnership with regional organizations including the Caribbean Community, known as CARICOM, and the Organization of American States, but most of all with the Haitian people, he said.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/21/2004 08:45 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Haiti's interim leaders are trying to start rebuilding, but Annan said the United Nations has not gotten a sufficient response to its appeal for $35 million in emergency relief needed to help the shattered country.
...and why do we think that is?
Call UN relief
That's the name
And away goes money
Down the drain
The old party of former Indonesian autocrat Suharto, leading the vote count from this month's parliamentary elections, will choose a candidate on Tuesday to compete in presidential polls in July. The five men vying to top Golkar's ticket at a convention in Jakarta are party chief and favourite Akbar Tandjung, retired army generals Wiranto and Prabowo Subianto and two businessmen little known outside the capital. Tandjung served as a minister under Suharto while Wiranto and Subianto were generals at the end of his long rule. Some 500 Golkar branch officials will vote later in the day, although opinion polls show no candidate beating presidential frontrunner and former chief security minister, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, or incumbent President Megawati Sukarnoputri.
The vote comes just days after Yudhoyono announced his running mate would be the respected Jusuf Kalla, who quit the cabinet as chief social welfare minister on Monday and who until the weekend had been scheduled to compete in Golkar's race. ``Golkar is showing it can move forward to become a modern party through a democratic mechanism, such as this convention,'' said political analyst Indra Piliang from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies.
Golkar is the only one of 24 political parties selecting presidential candidates through a multi-layered system, copying Western democracies. Others will mainly put their most popular personalities at the top of presidential tickets. Indonesians will directly choose their president for the first time on July 5, a ballot that has allowed a candidate such as Yudhoyono to steal a march on the bigger parties. Tandjung is expected to win Golkar's candidacy after the Supreme Court overturned a graft conviction against him earlier this year. He had been credited with navigating Golkar through a storm of criticism that followed Suharto's downfall in 1998. Tandjung insisted Golkar was the best qualified to lead Indonesia during its transition to democracy. ``We will never kill democracy. We must guarantee that democratic ways will continue. The government should not make itself distant from the people,'' Tandjung said in a speech.
During Suharto's 32-year rule, Golkar was his political vehicle and dominated parliament. It easily won five-yearly elections that were regarded as unfair. Golkar has distanced itself from Suharto, who backed another party in the April 5 parliamentary vote, while trying to tap into memories of Suharto's strong leadership. With some two thirds of the parliamentary vote counted, Golkar leads with 21.11 percent, followed by Megawati's Indonesia Democratic Party-Struggle (PDI-P) with 19.49 percent.
Tandjung's strongest challenge comes from Wiranto, a former military chief who has been charged in East Timor over alleged human rights abuses after bloodshed that followed the territory's vote to break from Jakarta's rule in 1999. Some Golkar officials believe Wiranto is best placed to compete against presidential favourite Yudhoyono, himself a former general. Yudhoyono will be the presidential candidate of the small Democrat Party. While opinion polls show Golkar has little chance of winning the presidency, its weight in parliament will force any president to accommodate it.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
04/21/2004 1:12:31 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
* Some insurgents arenât Iraqis at all, but instead are people who have traveled to Iraq since there arenât enough opportunities in their own country to be killed by coalition forces.
* That Sadr guy is kinda chubby. I donât know the relevance of that, but it is a fact.
* Know what? We should really just go ahead and make Iraq into the richest, most stable democracy in the world. That should piss off those filthy insurgents. Wankers.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
