A lot of folks can't understand how we came to have an oil shortage here in America.

Well, there's a very simple answer.Nobody bothered to check the oil.We just didn't know we were getting low.The reason for that is purely geographical.

Our OIL is located in Alaska, California,Oklahoma and TEXAS.

Our DIPSTICKS are located in Washington DC.

I talked to my Mom last night. Apparently, my little brother saw a picture of a soldier killed in the Tikrit area that looked something like me. He called my mother all frantic.

Let me dispel all rumors at this point, the only person that can post on this blog is me, Kevin Robertson. I am not dead. The closest thing to a serious injury that I had in my 12 month deployment was the worst case of "jock itch" that I have ever had, or heard of. ... And that was when we were in Kuwait, waiting to move into Iraq.

I am fine. I am home.

I feel like Mark Twain ... "The rumors of my death are greatly exaggerated."

Come to think of it, from what I can tell, almost everything you hear coming out of Iraq is either greatly exaggerated or so slanted that it angers most soldiers.

I know that most of you back in the States haven't heard much good about what we have done in Iraq. (Thank you, CNN, or as I heard one intelligence officer say "The Communist News Network")

We have done some good, no matter what you don't hear.

This article points out some more:

It was at least the second time Assad had betrayed – and fooled – the U.S. and the former secretary of state. In 2001, Assad promised to close an oil pipeline from Iraq to Syria that Saddam Hussein was using to evade United Nations sanctions. The illegal oil, which accounted for as much as 20 percent of Syria's foreign-trade revenue, continued to flow until 2003 when U.S. forces shut it off.

Imagine this.

Never mind that most sources I could find said that the complex of palaces that I lived and worked on during my time in Iraq were built with "Oil for Food" money.

It was one of the worst kept secrets in the world that the "Oil for Food" program was not actually benefitting the Iraqi people that needed it. So, to hear about this corruption, is no real surprise.

Actually, given what is in the article, the word "corruption" is too harsh. Thanks to the lack of proper supervision, it was too easy to abuse the system.

Got into Rhein-Main Air Force base about 9:30 last night. Between getting back to Bamberg, and all the welcome home stuff, ended up getting to the apartment about 2:30 this morning.

Because we got in so late, I didn't have to go into work today. Tomorrow, we start 7 half days at work. The Army has a set amount of "reintegration" training we have to go through. Should be done with that Wednesday of next week, then 30 days of leave.

It's great to be home. The "boys" are very happy. I will post pictures when I can get them from Amy's digital camera, or have her post them on her blog, and I will link to it.

Insightful commentary about the Israeli-Palestinian situation.

That's right!

They should air an apologetic disclaimer!

Lord knows that no Muslim anywhere would ever take part in any terrorist activity! Especially not with a faith-inspired motive!

So, you think the Palestinian idea of peace means peaceful coexistence with Israel, still?

It's more like the Palestinians will live peacefully once Israel no longer exists. Until then, they have other things in mind.

These guys have their head in the sand.

There is no "forward area" here. If you are in Iraq, you are in a forward area.

If you get in a convoy, (which is often the only way to get from one base to another) then you are in a position where you might have to shoot someone, or someone might shoot at you. Not to mention getting hit by IED's.

These guys have no concept of the reality on the ground over here.

When your party's own history doesn't back you up?

The Dems must be apoplectic over this.

This could also be entitled: The Reader's Digest Version of the Jeff Gannon Controversy.

Here's an interesting tidbit that I didn't know:

Remember, Talon News existed a mere couple of days before "Gannon" was given White House press creds.

Journalists speak out on "Gannongate", and there is a link to where this discussion is taking place.

I haven't completely formulated an opinion on Social Security privatization, yet.

I know that I have not counted on those benefits (that I have paid almost 23 years for, now) being there when I retire.

However, something doesn't smell right with everything around the President's plan.

This article and daily Kos, and it's links are part of the reason.

I agree with what is said in the above link.

However

I think the real bottom line can be answered with two questions:

What would happen to someone that did everything he did, but was not, apparently, in league with the White House, or it's proxies?

Why isn't this happening to Gannon/Guckert?

It looks like some Congressman have already figured out that the President can't run for another term. (No one can put one by our legislators ... right.)

Back to business as usual, it seems.

Pork for everyone!

This Gannon/Guckert thing jsut gets uglier and uglier.

You have to ask, What were they thinking?

With all of the wannabe-journalists blogging out there, plus the real journalists sitting next to him watching him ask "cream puff" questions, did they really think no one would notice, or ask questions?

What did Forest Gump say? Wasn't it "Stupid is as Stupid does."?

Let's see here, "Just Say No" didn't work when the Republicans tried it in the 80's in regards to drugs. So, they have now applied it to sex.

When that doesn't work, they throw more money at the program, when they are cutting Veterans benefits.

Thanks guys, I feel really supported.

It was "support" like this that made General Patton say during WWII (when the French were our allies, and the Germans the enemy):

"I'd rather have a German division (14,000 - 17,000 troops) in front of me, than a French one behind me."

This one is hard to argue with.

Make sure you follow the two links in the article itself, if you follow the link.

I loved this.

Found this on the header to a site I was surfing.

I don't know the context, or whatever. But, I thought it was funny.

"The future will be better tomorrow." -- The President

He has to stop letting Yogi Bera write his speeches.

I guess this shows what goes around, comes around.

I wish that non-military people would check their facts before they comment on military practices.

This article is a perfect example.

Kos writes:
And while they're at it, how about they stop charging recuperating vets at Walter Reed for their meals?

The answer to that is the vets aren't really being charged.

The same thing was done to me when I had sinus surgery in 1991.

Let me explain.

A soldier that is not eating regular meals in the chow hall for one reason or another (i.e. he is married and lives in housing or off-post, not in the barracks) receives an allowance for food to make up for the fact that he is not receiving, for free, the three meals a day in the mess hall. This is known in the Army as Separate Rations.

The allowance is assessed daily. The daily amount is the equivalent of what it would cost to pay to eat three meals on that day in the chow hall, if you paid.

When you go to a military hospital, the chow hall in the hospital feeds you (duh!). Therefore, you are not entitled to the Separate Rations for that meal, or else, you would be, fraudulently, receiving a double entitlement, and abusing the taxpayer's money.

The people in the hospital are not being "charged" for their meals. They are being given meals, instead of being paid to get their own meals.

Progress Report

I'm still on my FOB. I did end my job officially on Thursday. I did mail off that last box on Saturday. I'm down to the stuff that I will carry onto the plane out of here (1 duffel bag, a ruck sack, and a carry-on (my laptop)).

I've managed to get and keep enough good will with the people that replaced the 1st ID crew at the MWR that I have no problems getting into the office when no one is using it, and using the internet line there. Which is what I have been doing to kill time the last few nights (including tonight, obviously).

The MWR's CD library has had a bunch of new contributions to it since I last went through it. So, tonight, I am reading some news (baseball news at the moment, may post some stuff on that later) and ripping CD's to MP3. I'm ripping B.B. King: Live in the Cook County Jail, at the moment.

There is a bunch of latin music that appeared. So, I am going to rip that. My wife, in particular, enjoys that. I like it, but not enough to invest much in it, in terms of CD's. I figure there is probably some stuff here that she will enjoy. So, I am going to take it back on my hard drive for her.

I'll probably be posting to the blog throughout the night. I haven't had much chance to follow the news over the last week or two.

After tonight, the next posts on this blog will probably come from Germany.

BTW, I have no idea why the first three CD covers are not loading in the box on the right. I checked that out earlier. There seems to be some problem with them on the service that hosts my pictures. Most everything else seems to be coming through okay, though.

When will these guys get it, and shutup?

Don't they realize that the reason that most of the people that read that novel in the first place only did it because of all the stink that they raised in the first place?

Don't they realize that all of this would be a dead issue, that Rushdie and his novel would fade into obscurity if they would just let go of it?

I guess the person that did this picture was right:

A on the Tagboard asked me my opinion of the speech by Congressman Paul that I posted a few days ago. I said that I would post my thoughts on it, so here they are.

Let me start by saying that I am a Libertarian, for the most part. I agree with the ideals of the Libertarian party, and the general Libertarian viewpoint. When I have taken the "World's Smallest Political Quiz" and items like it, I have always shown up in the results as a Libertarian of some sort. To many people, I have come across as a Republican. I'm not, and never have been. It's easy to make that mistake because the Republican party has done a good job of co-opting the Libertarian message into it's rhetoric. When you look closely at the behavior of the Republican party, though, you find it is anything but Libertarian.

The main problem I see with the agenda put forth by the Libertarian party is it's impracticality. The issues raised by Congressman Paul are a prime example of the kind of things that are impractical in the Libertarian party's platform. The Libertarian party has a utopian viewpoint, to a certain extent, that is almost impossible to put into practice in the type of time frame that they would enact it, if they managed to get elected into any type of national office.

Congressman Paul's reference to Washington's admonition about avoiding entangling alliances is interesting, in that this admonition is a cornerstone of the Libertarian view of foreign policy. In general, I agree with it. That is where the problems start.

Trying to make that real with the situation that America is in today poses two difficulties:

1) We are already involved in a number of "entangling alliances". Finding a way to extricate ourselves from those alliances without causing more problems than just maintaining the status quo would be difficult.

2) Once we extricate ourselves from our entangling alliances, there will be some situations where we will, to maintain our national security and our national ideals, have to become involved in the international arena more deeply than normal. Where do we draw that line? Let me illustrate, briefly. I think we will all agree that getting involved in WWII when we did, on the side we did was the appropriate thing to do. I think most of us will agree that getting ourselves involved in Viet Nam the way we were there was inappropriate. Not every totalitarian state in history or even the last 60 years has been a Nazi Germany, or, on the other hand, a North Viet Nam. Most have fallen somewhere in the middle. The question then becomes where is that line drawn that calls for us, as a nation, to become involved? That's a tough question and there are side issues that complicate it. "Ethnic cleansing", genocide, weapons of mass destruction, national security and economic interests are just a few of those issues.

Now that I have made things sufficiently unclear, let me state here that I agree with what Congressman Paul has to say about what has been done in our country in regards to personal liberty. The way that personal liberties that are guaranteed by our Constitution and are cornerstones of our American freedom, and ideals have been compromised by recent legislation that is supposedly "in our best interests" or in the best interests of our security.

Let me digress for a second. You have to understand some basic things about two documents that are cornerstones of the social construct that we know as America. Those two documents are the Declaration of Independence and the other is the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence is best understood if we think of it as America's mission statement. It has no legal bearing. It is not law. It cannot be used to defend one's self in a court of law. It's words and principles carry no weight in terms of what our government can and cannot do. It is a statement of the American ideal. The Constitution, on the other hand, is the foundation of American law. Every other American law has it's foundation in the Constitution. The Constitution is what gives authority to our government and it's various officials. No single government official or government institution has more power than the Constitution. Those officials and institutions, instead, draw what power they have from the authority of the Constitution. Therefore, the rights guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) have more authority than any government official or governmental institution.

Congressman Paul said, "Strict adherence to personal privacy annoys those who promote a centralized state." That's true. If you look carefully at what both of the major political parties have done over the last 30 years, you will see definite moves by both to create a centralized state. They have different goals and agendas in regards to a centralized state, but both are actively pushing for it. That is my main problem with both of the major political parties. They are pushing agendas that are, to put it bluntly, anti-American.

If you want, I can, at a later time, give you my opinion on all 34 questions that Congressman Paul asked. That will take more space than I wanted to devote at this time.


I will close this out by stating that I totally agree with Congressman Paul's final assessment:

Policing the world, spreading democracy by force, nation building, and frequent bombing of countries that pose no threat to us - while leaving the homeland and our borders unprotected - result from a foreign policy that is contradictory and not in our self interest.

I hardly expect anyone in Washington to pay much attention to these concerns. If I'm completely wrong in my criticisms, nothing is lost except my time and energy expended in efforts to get others to reconsider our foreign policy.

"Where do we go from here?" is always a good question to ask at times like this. To address both points that Congressman Paul closes with:

First, we need to do more effective things about our homeland and border security. Another bureau, intelligence chief, or whatever is not the answer. In my opinion, we already have too much of these. It's time to take action that will work. As for the situations that we are in due to the foreign policy, there aren't any easy answers on how to get ourselves out of those situations that will not make the individual situations worse than they are, or were to begin with.

Lastly, I don't think anyone in Washington will take up this discussion, either. It's not that these people don't know the answers. It's not even that they aren't asking the right questions. It's a situation where most of them don't even begin to think that there are questions to ask. At least, that is what their behavior says. The cynic in me says that the discussion will never take place because all of them have too much invested in the status quo to rock the boat by questioning it.

I think it is past time that we, the American people, send them a message through our votes. The message we need to send is a paraphrase of the speech that Michael Douglas gave at the end of the movie, "The American President":

You haven't been interested in our problems. You've just been interested in telling us who is to blame for them. And not because you couldn't fix it, but, because you couldn't sell it. This is a serious time for serious people and your 15 minutes are up.

Well, I am not working. I know I said last night that I probably would not be blogging much, but ...

I left work late last night. Slept late today. It was nice. Packed up what I hope is my last package to Amy. (Yes, there is another box going in the mail, dear.) By the time I was finished with it, the Post Office here was closed, and there was little else for me to do.

So, I came up to the MWR. Utilized my former position to get a private internet line that wasn't in use, and blogged my free time away.

Tomorrow, I am going to try to get my last box in the mail. My luggage is, basically, packed to get out of here. Other than a few last minute details, I have nothing to do except wait on a flight.

If I can get to it tomorrow or Sunday, I will post an answer to a's question on the Tagboard about the Congressman Ron Paul's speech that I posted.

To close things out today, there has been a lot on the news about Sec Rice's and Rumsfelds comments on Iraq, and what our government is going to do about it. I'd like to post a picture I found on the 'net on the subject.

There was some interesting commentary at the end of this editorial:

A footnote: It is true that yesterday's conviction demonstrates that the criminal-justice system can indeed work in some terror cases.

But it by no means follows that the War on Terror can be fought primarily as a law-enforcement exercise. The Clinton administration tried that after the first World Trade Center attack — and America got 9/11 as a consequence.



There's a place for vigorous criminal prosecutions in the War on Terror — as long as no one loses sight of the fact that there's also a critical role for the 101st Airborne Division.

So, the film that popularized porn is returning to the theaters.

Get this:

Five of the prints will be edited to garner an "R" rating, which allows admission to children aged under 17 if accompanied by an adult.

10 prints are being made of the film. You figure the "R" versions are going to end up about, what?, 5 minutes long?

Mexico said it objected to a clause that would allow a border fence to be completed in the Californian city of San Diego.

"We're against building any wall between our two countries because they are walls that increase our differences," Mexican Interior Minister Santiago Creel said.

You mean like the difference that we aren't Mexico and they are not the US?

Or could he be talking about the difference where there are thousands of Mexicans crossing the border to the US daily, but that isn't the case in reverse?

News from the other front in the war on terrorism.

Historical note: When the US occupied the Philippines after the Spanish American War, at the turn of the last century, we ended up fighting these same people for many of the same reasons they are fighting now.

A very good article on the current state of the war on terrorism.

It presents multiple sides of the issue.

He adds that if Mr Abbas cannot deliver, the likes of Hamas will argue that Israel only listens to the language of the rocket and the Kalashnikov.


How much do you want to be that Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Hezbollah do everything in their power to undermine this?

The history buff in me found this interesting.

I feel old.

Getting to "second base" used to be a lot more difficult than just hopping on public transportation.

Granted, Iran possibly acquiring nuclear weapons is not a good thing.

But, I don't get a warm fuzzy feeling about the rhetoric that is coming up about Iran. Not just from our President, but from other places.

As this story shows.

I think our current President was the best choice in the last election.

However, there are times that he provides some interesting material for comics. Here are some.

The following is a speech presented by Texas Congressman Ron Paul to the US House of Representative. I was amazed to see he was a Republican. What he says is classic Libertarian philosophy on civil liberties, free markets and foreign policy. For more information on what I mean, check out the Libertarian Party on the web.

Delivered to the U.S. House of Representatives.

America's policy of foreign intervention, while still debated in the early 20th century, is today accepted as conventional wisdom by both political parties. But what if the overall policy is a colossal mistake, a major error in judgment? Not just bad judgment regarding when and where to impose ourselves, but the entire premise that we have a moral right to meddle in the affairs of others? Think of the untold harm done by years of fighting - hundreds of thousands of American casualties, hundreds of thousands of foreign civilian casualties, and unbelievable human and economic costs. What if it was all needlessly borne by the American people? If we do conclude that grave foreign policy errors have been made, a very serious question must be asked: What would it take to change our policy to one more compatible with a true republic's goal of peace, commerce, and friendship with all nations? Is it not possible that Washington's admonition to avoid entangling alliances is sound advice even today?

In medicine mistakes are made - man is fallible. Misdiagnoses are made, incorrect treatments are given, and experimental trials of medicines are advocated. A good physician understands the imperfections in medical care, advises close follow-ups, and double-checks the diagnosis, treatment, and medication. Adjustments are made to assure the best results. But what if a doctor never checks the success or failure of a treatment, or ignores bad results and assumes his omnipotence - refusing to concede that the initial course of treatment was a mistake? Let me assure you, the results would not be good. Litigation and the loss of reputation in the medical community place restraints on this type of bullheaded behavior.

Sadly, though, when governments, politicians, and bureaucrats make mistakes and refuse to reexamine them, there is little the victims can do to correct things. Since the bully pulpit and the media propaganda machine are instrumental in government cover-ups and deception, the final truth emerges slowly, and only after much suffering. The arrogance of some politicians, regulators, and diplomats actually causes them to become even more aggressive and more determined to prove themselves right, to prove their power is not to be messed with by never admitting a mistake. Truly, power corrupts!

The unwillingness to ever reconsider our policy of foreign intervention, despite obvious failures and shortcomings over the last 50 years, has brought great harm to our country and our liberty. Historically, financial realities are the ultimate check on nations bent on empire. Economic laws ultimately prevail over bad judgment. But tragically, the greater the wealth of a country, the longer the flawed policy lasts. We'll probably not be any different.

We are still a wealthy nation, and our currency is still trusted by the world, yet we are vulnerable to some harsh realities about our true wealth and the burden of our future commitments. Overwhelming debt and the precarious nature of the dollar should serve to restrain our determined leaders, yet they show little concern for deficits. Rest assured, though, the limitations of our endless foreign adventurism and spending will become apparent to everyone at some point in time.

Since 9/11, a lot of energy and money have gone into efforts ostensibly designed to make us safer. Many laws have been passed and many dollars have been spent. Whether or not we're better off is another question.

Today we occupy two countries in the Middle East. We have suffered over 20,000 casualties, and caused possibly 100,000 civilian casualties in Iraq. We have spent over $200 billion in these occupations, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars here at home hoping to be safer. We've created the Department of Homeland Security, passed the Patriot Act, and created a new super CIA agency.

Our government now is permitted to monitor the Internet, to read our mail, to search us without proper search warrants, to develop a national ID card, and to investigate what people are reading in libraries. Ironically, illegal aliens flow into our country and qualify for driving licenses and welfare benefits with little restraint.

These issues are discussed, but nothing has been as highly visible to us as the authoritarianism we accept at the airport. The creation of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has intruded on the privacy of all airline travelers, and there is little evidence that we are safer for it. Driven by fear, we have succumbed to the age-old temptation to sacrifice liberty on the pretense of obtaining security. Love of security, unfortunately, all too often vanquishes love of liberty.

Unchecked fear of another 9/11-type attack constantly preoccupies our leaders and most of our citizens, and drives the legislative attack on our civil liberties. It's frightening to see us doing to ourselves what even bin Laden never dreamed he could accomplish with his suicide bombers.

We don't understand the difference between a vague threat of terrorism and the danger of a guerilla war. One prompts us to expand and nationalize domestic law enforcement while limiting the freedoms of all Americans. The other deals with understanding terrorists like bin Laden, who declared war against us in 1998. Not understanding the difference makes it virtually impossible to deal with the real threats. We are obsessed with passing new laws to make our country safe from a terrorist attack. This confusion about the cause of the 9/11 attacks, the fear they engendered, and the willingness to sacrifice liberty prompts many to declare their satisfaction with the inconveniences and even humiliation at our nation's airports.

There are always those in government who are anxious to increase its power and authority over the people. Strict adherence to personal privacy annoys those who promote a centralized state.

It's no surprise to learn that many of the new laws passed in the aftermath of 9/11 had been proposed long before that date. The attacks merely provided an excuse to do many things previously proposed by dedicated statists.

All too often government acts perversely, professing to advance liberty while actually doing the opposite. Dozens of new bills passed since 9/11 promise to protect our freedoms and our security. In time we will realize there is little chance our security will be enhanced or our liberties protected.

The powerful and intrusive TSA certainly will not solve our problems. Without a full discussion, greater understanding, and ultimately a change in the foreign policy that incites those who declared war against us, no amount of pat-downs at airports will suffice. Imagine the harm done, the staggering costs, and the loss of liberty if the next 20 years pass and airplanes are never employed by terrorists. Even if there is a possibility that airplanes will be used to terrorize us, TSA's bullying will do little to prevent it. Patting down old women and little kids in airports cannot possibly make us safer!

TSA cannot protect us from another attack and it is not the solution. It serves only to make us all more obedient and complacent toward government intrusions into our lives.

The airport mess has been compounded by other problems, which we fail to recognize. Most assume the government has the greatest responsibility for making private aircraft travel safe. But this assumption only ignores mistakes made before 9/11, when the government taught us to not resist, taught us that airline personnel could not carry guns, and that the government would be in charge of security. Airline owners became complacent and dependent upon the government.

After 9/11 we moved in the wrong direction by allowing total government control and a political takeover by the TSA - which was completely contrary to the proposition that private owners have the ultimate responsibility to protect their customers.

Discrimination laws passed during the last 40 years ostensibly fuel the Transportation Secretary's near obsession with avoiding the appearance of discrimination toward young Muslim males. Instead TSA seemingly targets white children and old women. We have failed to recognize that a safety policy by a private airline is quite a different thing from government agents blindly obeying anti-discrimination laws.

Governments do not have a right to use blanket discrimination, such as that which led to incarceration of Japanese Americans in World War II. However, local law-enforcement agencies should be able to target their searches if the description of a suspect is narrowed by sex, race, or religion.

We are dealing with an entirely different matter when it comes to safety on airplanes. The federal government should not be involved in local law enforcement, and has no right to discriminate. Airlines, on the other hand, should be permitted to do whatever is necessary to provide safety. Private firms - long denied the right - should have a right to discriminate. Fine restaurants, for example, can require that shoes and shirts be worn for service in their establishments. The logic of this remaining property right should permit more sensible security checks at airports. The airlines should be responsible for the safety of their property, and liable for it as well. This is not only the responsibility of the airlines, but it is a civil right that has long been denied them and other private companies.

The present situation requires the government to punish some by targeting those individuals who clearly offer no threat. Any airline that tries to make travel safer and happens to question a larger number of young Muslim males than the government deems appropriate can be assessed huge fines. To add insult to injury, the fines collected from airlines are used for forced sensitivity training of pilots who do their very best, under the circumstances, to make flying safer by restricting the travel of some individuals. We have embarked on a process that serves no logical purpose. While airline safety suffers, personal liberty is diminished and costs skyrocket.

If we're willing to consider a different foreign policy, we should ask ourselves a few questions:

1. What if the policies of foreign intervention, entangling alliances, policing the world, nation building, and spreading our values through force are deeply flawed?
2. What if it is true that Saddam Hussein never had weapons of mass destruction?
3. What if it is true that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were never allies?
4. What if it is true that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein did nothing to enhance our national security?
5. What if our current policy in the Middle East leads to the overthrow of our client oil states in the region?
6. What if the American people really knew that more than 20,000 American troops have suffered serious casualties or died in the Iraq war, and 9% of our forces already have been made incapable of returning to battle?
7. What if it turns out there are many more guerrilla fighters in Iraq than our government admits?
8. What if there really have been 100,000 civilian Iraqi casualties, as some claim, and what is an acceptable price for "doing good?"
9. What if Rumsfeld is replaced for the wrong reasons, and things become worse under a Defense Secretary who demands more troops and an expansion of the war?
10. What if we discover that, when they do vote, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis support Islamic (Sharia) law over western secular law, and want our troops removed?
11. What if those who correctly warned of the disaster awaiting us in Iraq are never asked for their opinion of what should be done now?
12. What if the only solution for Iraq is to divide the country into three separate regions, recognizing the principle of self-determination while rejecting the artificial boundaries created in 1918 by non-Iraqis?
13. What if it turns out radical Muslims don't hate us for our freedoms, but rather for our policies in the Middle East that directly affected Arabs and Muslims?
14. What if the invasion and occupation of Iraq actually distracted from pursuing and capturing Osama bin Laden?
15. What if we discover that democracy can't be spread with force of arms?
16. What if democracy is deeply flawed, and instead we should be talking about liberty, property rights, free markets, the rule of law, localized government, weak centralized government, and self-determination promoted through persuasion, not force?
17. What if Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda actually welcomed our invasion and occupation of Arab/Muslim Iraq as proof of their accusations against us, and it served as a magnificent recruiting tool for them?
18. What if our policy greatly increased and prolonged our vulnerability to terrorists and guerilla attacks both at home and abroad?
19. What if the Pentagon, as reported by its Defense Science Board, actually recognized the dangers of our policy before the invasion, and their warnings were ignored or denied?
20. What if the argument that by fighting over there, we won't have to fight here, is wrong, and the opposite is true?
21. What if we can never be safer by giving up some of our freedoms?
22. What if the principle of pre-emptive war is adopted by Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and others, "justified" by current U.S. policy?
23. What if pre-emptive war and pre-emptive guilt stem from the same flawed policy of authoritarianism, though we fail to recognize it?
24. What if Pakistan is not a trustworthy ally, and turns on us when conditions deteriorate?
25. What if plans are being laid to provoke Syria and/or Iran into actions that would be used to justify a military response and pre-emptive war against them?
26. What if our policy of democratization of the Middle East fails, and ends up fueling a Russian-Chinese alliance that we regret - an alliance not achieved even at the height of the Cold War?
27. What if the policy forbidding profiling at our borders and airports is deeply flawed?
28. What if presuming the guilt of a suspected terrorist without a trial leads to the total undermining of constitutional protections for American citizens when arrested?
29. What if we discover the army is too small to continue policies of pre-emption and nation-building? What if a military draft is the only way to mobilize enough troops?
30. What if the "stop-loss" program is actually an egregious violation of trust and a breach of contract between the government and soldiers? What if it actually is a backdoor draft, leading to unbridled cynicism and rebellion against a voluntary army and generating support for a draft of both men and women? Will lying to troops lead to rebellion and anger toward the political leadership running the war?
31. What if the Pentagon's legal task-force opinion that the President is not bound by international or federal law regarding torture stands unchallenged, and sets a precedent which ultimately harms Americans, while totally disregarding the moral, practical, and legal arguments against such a policy?
32. What if the intelligence reform legislation - which gives us bigger, more expensive bureaucracy - doesn't bolster our security, and distracts us from the real problem of revamping our interventionist foreign policy?
33. What if we suddenly discover we are the aggressors, and we are losing an unwinnable guerrilla war?
34. What if we discover, too late, that we can't afford this war - and that our policies have led to a dollar collapse, rampant inflation, high interest rates, and a severe economic downturn?

Why do I believe these are such important questions? Because the #1 function of the federal government - to provide for national security - has been severely undermined. On 9/11 we had a grand total of 14 aircraft in place to protect the entire U.S. mainland, all of which proved useless that day. We have an annual DOD budget of over $400 billion, most of which is spent overseas in over 100 different countries. On 9/11 our Air Force was better positioned to protect Seoul, Tokyo, Berlin, and London than it was to protect Washington D.C. and New York City.

Moreover, our ill-advised presence in the Middle East and our decade-long bombing of Iraq served only to incite the suicidal attacks of 9/11.

Before 9/11 our CIA ineptly pursued bin Laden, whom the Taliban was protecting. At the same time, the Taliban was receiving significant support from Pakistan - our "trusted ally" that received millions of dollars from the United States. We allied ourselves with both bin Laden and Hussein in the 1980s, only to regret it in the 1990s. And it's safe to say we have used billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in the last 50 years pursuing this contradictory, irrational, foolish, costly, and very dangerous foreign policy.

Policing the world, spreading democracy by force, nation building, and frequent bombing of countries that pose no threat to us - while leaving the homeland and our borders unprotected - result from a foreign policy that is contradictory and not in our self interest.

I hardly expect anyone in Washington to pay much attention to these concerns. If I'm completely wrong in my criticisms, nothing is lost except my time and energy expended in efforts to get others to reconsider our foreign policy.

But the bigger question is:

What if I'm right, or even partially right, and we urgently need to change course in our foreign policy for the sake of our national and economic security, yet no one pays attention?

For that a price will be paid. Is it not worth talking about?

(another email gem)

TRY THIS

Enter Mexico illegally. Never mind immigration quotas, visas, international law, or any of that nonsense. Once there, demand that the local government provide free medical care for you and your entire family. Demand bilingual nurses and doctors. Demand free bilingual local government forms, bulletins, etc. Procreate abundantly. Deflect any criticism of this allegedly irresponsible reproductive behavior with, "It is a cultural United States thing. You would not understand, pal."

Keep your American identity strong. Fly Old Glory from your rooftop, or proudly display it in your front window or on your car bumper. Speak only English at home and in public and insist that your children do likewise. Demand classes on American culture in the Mexican school system.

Demand a local Mexican driver license. This will afford other legal rights and will go far to legitimize your unauthorized, illegal, presence in Mexico. Insist that local Mexican law enforcement teach English to all its officers. Have a traffic accident without liability insurance.

Good luck! You'll be demanding for the rest of time or soon dead. Because it will never happen. It will not happen in Mexico or any other country in the world...Except right here...
Land of the naive. (Thanks to liberal Americans!)

I've been thinking over what I have done here for a year. My parents emailed me this. It explains rather well what my job has been. I've been "packing chutes".

Charles Plumb was a US Navy jet pilot in Vietnam. After 75 combat missions, his plane was destroyed by a surface-to-air missile. Plumb ejected and parachuted into enemy hands. He was captured and spent 6 years in a communist Vietnamese prison. He survived the ordeal and now lectures on lessons learned from that experience!


One day, when Plumb and his wife were sitting in a restaurant, a man at another table came up and said, "You're Plumb! You flew jet fighters in Vietnam from the aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk. You were shot down!"

"How in the world did you know that?" asked Plumb.

"I packed your parachute," the man replied. Plumb gasped in surprise and gratitude. The man pumped his hand and said, "I guess it worked !" Plumb assured him, "It sure did. If your chute hadn't worked, I wouldn't be here today."

Plumb couldn't sleep that night, thinking about that man. Plumb says, "I kept wondering what he had looked like in a Navy uniform: a white hat; a bib in the back; and bell-bottom trousers. I wonder how many times I might have seen him and not even said 'Good morning, how are you?' or anything because, you see, I was a fighter pilot and he was just a sailor." Plumb thought of the many hours the sailor had spent at a long wooden table in the bowels of the ship, carefully weaving the shrouds and folding the silks of each chute, holding in his hands each time the fate of someone he didn't know.

Now, Plumb asks his audience, "Who's packing your parachute?" Everyone has someone who provides what they need to make it through the day. He also points out that he needed many kinds of parachutes when his plane was shot down over enemy territory -- he needed his physical parachute, his mental parachute, his emotional parachute, and his spiritual parachute. He called on all these supports before reaching safety.

Sometimes in the daily challenges that life gives us, we miss what is really important. We may fail to say hello, please, or thank you, congratulate someone on something wonderful that has happened to them, give a compliment, or just do something nice for no reason As you go through this week, this month, this year, recognize people who pack your parachutes.

The guys at The Onion are hilarious!

(Warning: If you are not aware, before you follow the link above, The Onion is a site that does parodies of the news. They do not report the news.)

This is it.

I completed my last shift at the MWR palace a few hours ago. My steady access to an Internet line will end when I leave work tonight in a bit.

The unit that is taking over for 1st ID has been here a while, and is assuming complete control of the operations that my office was handling.

It's just a matter of days until I head out of here.

I have been living in a tent with the rest of my unit for over a week, now. We pack up the last of our equipment that will not travel with us tomorrow.

Things are rapidly drawing to a close for me here.

I look forward to resuming a normal life here in a week or so.

I probably will not be blogging much for the next week or so. This site will stay up, though.

I plan on maintaining it after I return to Germany.

It can take a bit for the video to load.

Rednecks are everywhere. It's a human phenomenon, not an American one.

How much you want to bet one of these guys said, "Hey, watch this!" near the beginning of the video?

Is it just me or does seem like it's a little late?

I think the Saudis have figured out that their previous approach to Islamic extremists is like holding an angry wolf by the ears ... you don't like it, but you don't dare let go.

Satan, I mean Bill Gates, speaks out of both sides of his mouth in this one.

First, he says Linux, and software like it discourages compatibility.

Then he says:

"The Internet is perhaps the most obvious example of this kind of interoperability, where any piece of software can connect and exchange data as long as it adheres to the key protocols," Gates said.

Make up your mind, Bill. Those internet protocols are Unix or Linux protocols.

So, it's better to let these guys go because they might be "emotionally scarred"?

Right.

The article included this:
The six experts noted certain positive moves at Guantanamo in 2004, including some detainees' release, but said these failed to dispel "serious concerns".

You notice they failed to notice that 4 out of a group of 10 last year returned to the Taliban in Afghanistan to fight the government and Americans there.

I guess they figure it's better for the prisoners to kill and maim Americans and their fellow countrymen than to be emotionally scarred.

Did you catch the part in there where the suit brought against Sec. Rumsfeld in German court was brought by a group out of New York city?

If their case was so strong, why didn't they use American courts?

(Click on the picture below for the full-size version)

Let's see here, Stalin, in his time in power, was responsible for, by all estimates, twice the amount of racially, and religiously motivated genocide as Hitler, but the spokesmen for the EU justice and home affairs commisioner said

the commissioner felt it "might not be appropriate" to include communist symbols in the context of discussions on xenophobia and anti-Semitism.

I guess Stalin's body count didn't get big enough TV ratings.

Interesting. But not surprising.

Notice that the National Bank of Paris is one of the firms associated with the corruption.

Even better yet, catch the final paragraph:
Mr Annan's son, Kojo, worked for a firm involved in the programme.

According to all of the Iraqis that I have met, the complex of palaces that I currently live on was built after Desert Storm, and was funded by Oil for Food money.

Did you see this news story?

Even more important, did you catch this part:

In a bid to avoid marginalization, a group of Sunni Arab parties that refused to participate in the election said Saturday they want to take part in the drafting of a permanent constitution — a chief task of the new National Assembly.

So, let me see if I have this right.

They boycotted the election, and urged their supporters, and all other Sunnis, to boycott, as well. Meaning they didn't run, and urged their supporters not to vote.

The election is for the National Assembly, or Congress. The primary job of this congress is to write an actual constitution for the country.

Now, these guys that didn't run, and whose supporters didn't vote, are "volunteering" to help with the writing of the constitution. The reason being that Sunni's were not sufficiently represented by the election.

Either these guys just don't get it, or they get it all too well, and are trying to hold the political process in this country hostage.

The end is in sight!

I can't tell you exact dates. However, the band from the division that is replacing us is here. They got here Monday. We moved into tents to prepare to get out of here Sunday. The person that is replacing my boss started work today.

We are doing what the military calls a RIP or Relief In Place. Basically, we train our replacements in what our job, locally, entails. Then, we turn it over to them.

According to what my Commander told me tonight, we should be in Germany by my next payday.

All the 1st ID folks are getting "short", and the short timer's attitude is kicking in. People that have been pretty squared away the entire deployment are starting to act stupid. My version of the short timer's attitude is to have little or no patience with stupidity. The two together have made for an interesting combination.

Thought the following picture applied well, though I don't really think I'm burntout, yet.