Torture. Are you for it or against it in times of stress or war? If you have a known terrorist who might know about an attack - would it be right to cut his toes off one by one to extract the information and thus save lives? The good news is that 63 percent of our nation STILL thinks that is unacceptable. However, there is one specific senator . . .

Here are the words of the Republican chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, Trent Lott:

"Frankly, to save some American troops' lives or a unit that could be in danger, I think you should get really rough with them. Some of those people should probably not be in prisons in the first place."

He doesn't elaborate here. Was he talking about a slab? Remember, this is the man who thought Strom Thurman was cute when he ran on an anti-integration ticket.

More Lott. When asked about the photo showing a prisoner being threatened with a dog, Lott was unmoved.

"Nothing wrong with holding a dog up there unless it ate him.(They just) scared him with the dog."

"Lott was reminded that at least one prisoner had died at the hands of his captors after a beating.

"This is not Sunday school. This is interrogation. This is rough stuff."

Well, if your Sunday School was into showing "The Passion," perhaps it is.

He's a real credit to his party, isn't he? Well, actually he is. In the same poll that showed 63 percent of Americans saying no way on torture, more than 40 percent who claimed they were Republicans said they saw no problem with torture in times of war or terror stress.

War does awful things to our Nation.

This war is getting weirder and weirder. And, I think we have already lost it though none of the generals want to admit it.

Today, from the New York Times:

BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 27 — American forces and guerrillas loyal to the radical cleric Moktada al-Sadr agreed today to pull back from the holy Shiite city of Najaf, in a deal that signaled the end of a seven-week-old stand-off that has left hundreds of Iraqis dead.

The agreement, hammered out between Mr. Sadr and Iraqi leaders and approved by the Americans, calls for the Mahdi Army, whose fighters have held the city since April 5, to put away their guns and go home, and for the American forces to pull most of their forces out of the city. Under the agreement, the Americans can maintain a handful of posts inside the city and may still run patrols through the city center.

The deal also applies to the nearby city of Kufa, the site of Mr. Sadr's mosque.

In a major concession to Mr. Sadr, the Americans and Iraqi officials promised to suspend the arrest warrant issued against him for his suspected involvement in the murder of a rival cleric in April 2003. Since Mr. Sadr called on his forces to rise up last month, the Americans have said repeatedly said that they intended to "kill or capture" Mr. Sadr.

In a news conference today, the Americans and the Iraqis said Mr. Sadr's fate was open to negotiation. Some Shiite leaders said plans were in the works to offer Mr. Sadr or people around him positions in the new government, scheduled to take over when the Americans transfer sovereignty here on June 30.


Plans are in the works to offer Mr. Sadr or people around him positions in the new government? I thought we said we were going to either arrest him for murder, or kill him. Isn't that why the Marines have been dying and becomig wounded in that stinking town?

What the hell is going on? Did we just give up? Did we just now accept another defeat? Are we in fact already defeated and only the generals and George Bush don't know it?

One of the sadder results - a true casualty - of this incredibly stupid invasion of Iraq has been - is - the New York Times' Thomas Friedman. His columns about the Mideast and Islam were always provacative, even exciting when he optimistically predicted hope in solving the problems over there. But the Iraqi Incursion totally destroyed his credibility as he gushed about "opportunity" for the West in destroying Saddam and his WMD's, setting up a Jeffersonian democracy in the heart of Islam and then letting all those ugly old dominos fall as democracy sweeps across the Moslem world.

I wish he had thrown Israel into that scenario, but perhaps that is asking too much of him.

At any rate, it's interesting that on the same day the New York Times' editors took an extraordinary step - apologising to its readers for being duped and mislead by dubious Iraqi and Bush Administration sources prior to the war - that Friedman could write yet another column still brimming with optimism "THAT THE CHANCE IS THERE" to make it all right. The fact that the war was launched on lies, the fact that we are now an occupying force and not loved by anybody in the Mideast - except Sharon - does not seem to come into play. Hey, he says, it's great that we are THERE!

Loss of credibility - that's the least of his worries. People perceiving him as an idiot and Sharon's lapdog - that is more of a danger to a man I once respected.

Here is his latest column (and some of my comments sandwiched in):

THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: May 27, 2004

I'm glad the president gave a sober talk about where we're going in Iraq and in confronting terrorism. But I can't say I found it reassuring. (Well, dud!) I still don't feel we have a broad, workable strategy. We currently have two national commissions looking backward — one on how 9/11 happened, and another about why no W.M.D. were found in Iraq. Those are key questions. (This is as close as Friedman will ever get that he was duped like the rest of us. But the sad thing is: he doesn't care.) But what we really need is a bipartisan commission looking forward. I'd call it the National Commission for Doing Things Right. Its mandate would be simple: tell the country what U.S. policy would be if we were determined to do things right in confronting terrorism, no matter what the political costs — so we don't have to have yet another commission looking backward two years from now. Here's what I'd like to see:

• We would take all the money the Bush team has wasted on P.R. campaigns directed at the Arab-Muslim world and put it into three programs: a huge expansion of U.S. embassy libraries around the world, which have been cut in recent years (you'd be amazed at how many young people abroad had their first contact with America through an embassy library), a huge expansion of scholarships for foreign students to study in America, and a huge expansion of our immigration service so it can quickly figure out who should get visas to study or work in America and who shouldn't. Too many good students are getting shut out of the U.S. You don't get better P.R. from ads. You get it from bringing people into America or American libraries and letting them draw their own conclusions. (Libraries? I think part of Friedman's problem, and we all should have sensed this very early, is that he spends all of his time talking to fellow intellectuals, not the people on the street. The professors, all of whom have been educated in the west, were just telling Friedman what he wanted to hear. But hey, go ahead and strengthen the embassy libraries. More books will help the fires when the angry Islamics burn down our embassies.)

• We would adopt a 50-cents-a-gallon gasoline tax, the Patriot Tax (along with my wife's proposal: free public parking anywhere in America for any hybrid or other car getting more than 35 m.p.g.). A Patriot Tax would help pay for the Afghan and Iraq wars and help finance a Manhattan project to speed the development of a hydrogen economy, enabling the public to make a contribution to the war effort while lessening our dependence on foreign oil.>(Thomas, tell your wife that we have free parking anywhere on the Plaza, and most shopping centers in Kansas City. She would like it since most of the stores in NYC are also here. And the free parking is really helping keep down the number of cars . . . But hey, even though it is especially regressive and would hurt the poor, let's have the tax. Maybe it will help with the deficit created in part by this war you love.)

There is simply no way to stimulate a process of economic and political reform in the Arab-Muslim world without radically reducing their revenues from oil, thereby forcing these governments to reform their economies, and societies, to produce real jobs for their people. Is there anything dumber than the Bush campaign ads chastising John Kerry for once favoring a gasoline tax? Had we imposed a Patriot Tax a year ago, gasoline might still cost $2 a gallon today, but 50 cents of that would have gone to paying for American schools rather than Saudi madrassas.

• We would spearhead efforts in trade talks to reduce U.S., European and Japanese farm subsidies. Nothing would be more helpful to Pakistani, Egyptian and other poor farmers in the Muslim and developing worlds than no longer having to compete with our subsidized produce. (I am not even going to comment on this stupid idea. Seriously, has his brain grown soft?)

• We would make a serious effort to diffuse the toxic Arab-Israeli conflict, including using NATO forces to separate the parties. (Here is the main problem in the Mideast, and truly, one of the reasons one might justify the war in Iraq if you felt there was any justification. THIS IS THE BIG PROBLEM. And Friedman gives all of two lines in his lengthy column about it. Thomas, frankly you need to look a little inward and see if you have Leiberman Disease. How about separating Sharon from his Army?)

• We would spell out that the war on terrorism is a long-term war on radical Islam — and while force is necessary in that effort, it is not sufficient. We have to connect all of the above dots to strengthen Arab-Muslim moderates, because only they can take on their extremists. Unfortunately, the Bush team reacted to 9/11 as if all the old rules and methods had to go. I believe 9/11 was gigantic. But the old rule book — emphasizing allies, the Geneva Conventions, self-sacrifice, economic development, education, Arab-Israeli diplomacy — was and remains our greatest source of strength in the effort to promote gradual reform in the regions most likely to breed threats to our open society. (And libraries, Thomas, libraries. Don't forget the libraries.)

I think David Rothkopf, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said it best: "The answer for us lies not in what has changed, but in recognizing what has not changed. Because only through this recognition will we focus on an effective multilateral response to W.M.D. proliferation, the creation of real stakeholders in globalization among the world's poor, the need for reform in the Arab world and a style of U.S. leadership that seeks to build our base of support worldwide by getting more people to voluntarily sign onto our values. We need to remember that those values are the real foundation for our security and the real source of our strength. And we need to recognize that our enemies can never defeat us — only we can defeat ourselves, by throwing out the rule book that has worked for us for a long, long time." (Rule No. 1 - never invade a country on false pretences just to steal their oil. Thomas, you need to know that one, and then the other rules just fall into place.)

In case you missed this in Time:


E S S A Y
The False Controversy of Stem Cells
If you think it through, the case for embryonic research is an easy one
By MICHAEL KINSLEY

Monday, May. 31, 2004
Congratulations to representative Dana Rohrabacher, 56, and his wife Rhonda, 34, who gave birth to triplets last month. As we tend to suspect when a couple has triplets, the new parents used the services of a fertility clinic. Modern in-vitro techniques generally involve creating multiple embryos in the laboratory, transferring two or three and hoping that at least one will make it through to birth. Often it doesn't work. Sometimes it works unexpectedly well. Successful or not, the process creates many more embryos than babies. There is a built-in presumption — really, an intention — that even most of the transferred embryos will die. As for embryos that aren't transferred, they get destroyed or frozen indefinitely — unless, that is, they are used for stem-cell research.

So it's interesting that Rohrabacher has changed his position on the medical use of embryonic stem cells. The California Republican was a supporter of President Bush's three-year-old policy severely restricting government-funded stem-cell research. But he signed a recent letter to Bush from 206 members of Congress urging the President to reconsider that policy. Bush says he won't reconsider.

"Embryonic stem-cell studies are controversial because they involve the destruction of human embryos," the New York Times explained in a May 6 article reporting on the shifting politics of stem-cell research. (For example, Nancy Reagan, whose husband has Alzheimer's, has gone public with her opposition to the Bush restrictions.) But that can't be right. Fertility clinics destroy far more human embryos than stem-cell research ever would, yet they are not controversial. Death or deep freeze is the fate of any embryo spared by the Bush policy from the indignity of contributing to medical progress.

Stamping some issue as controversial can be a substitute for thinking it through. In the case of embryonic-stem-cell research, thinking it through does not require further study or commissions of experts. This is one you can feel free to try at home. In fact, thinking it through is a moral obligation, especially if you are on the side of the argument that wants to stop or slow this research.

It's not complicated. An embryo used in stem-cell research (and fertility treatments) is three to five days past conception. It consists of a few dozen cells that together are too small to be seen without a microscope. It has no consciousness, no self-awareness, no ability to feel love or pain. The smallest insect is far more human in every respect except potential.

Is destroying that microscopic dot the exact moral equivalent of driving a knife through the heart of an innocent 6-year-old girl? Some stem-cell enthusiasts think that even antiabortion absolutists can support stem-cell research, since it uses surplus embryos that are doomed anyhow. But that logic would justify Nazi experiments on doomed Jews in the concentration camps. If the microscopic dot is a human being with full human rights, the answer is easy: no stem-cell research.

But you don't have to be an abortion-rights advocate to reach the opposite conclusion. In fact, for abortion opponents whose views fall anywhere short of fanatical absolutism, the answer ought to be easy as well: full speed ahead. To the nonabsolutist, it ought to matter a lot that restricting stem-cell research doesn't actually spare the lives of any embryos. That means the lives of real people desperately awaiting the fruits of stem-cell research are being weighed against a purely symbolic message.

It also ought to matter to the nonfanatic that embryos are needed only to start the research process. Most of the research and all the treatments that come out of it will use so-called lines developed out of a few initial stem cells in the laboratory. That makes the stem-cell issue different from — and easier than — the one about fetal tissues a few years ago. Fetal-tissue treatments use brain tissue from several aborted fetuses for each patient. An embryo used in stem-cell research has nothing resembling a brain.

A difficult issue is one in which you hold two or more conflicting values. Stem cells are not a difficult issue: either you think a microscopic embryo has the same human rights as you and I, or you don't. Do you believe that a woman who gets an abortion should be prosecuted for murder, just like a mother who hires a professional killer to off her teenage son? Are you picketing around fertility clinics, which kill hundreds of thousands of unborn children — if that's what you believe a 5-day-old embryo to be — just like abortion clinics do? If so, you are entitled to oppose stem-cell research. If not, please get out of the way.

From the May. 31, 2004 issue of TIME magazine

I don't make these things up. This is from the Associated Press.

At a photo opportunity with seven Iraqi men whose hands were ordered cut off by Saddam Hussein:

"I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein."

The news is alive with disharmony. The two latest conversative GOP'ers taking on Bush: General Zinni and TOM CLANCY.

But I found this particularly interesting in a long interview on FOX:

In discussing the Iraq war, both Clancy and Zinni singled out the Department of Defense for criticism. Clancy recalled a prewar encounter in Washington during which he "almost came to blows" with Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser at the time and a longtime advocate of the invasion.

"He was saying how (Secretary of State) Colin Powell was being a wuss because he was overly concerned with the lives of the troops," Clancy said. "And I said, 'Look ..., he's supposed to think that way!' And Perle didn't agree with me on that. People like that worry me."

The guy is an idiot. Let me count the ways . . .

CARLISLE, Pennsylvania (Reuters) - Two rehearsals for his prime-time speech were not enough to keep U.S. President George W. Bush from mangling the name of the Abu Ghraib prison that brought shame to the U.S. mission in Iraq.
During the half-hour televised address, Bush mispronounced Abu Ghraib each of the three times he mentioned it while announcing U.S. plans to tear down the infamous jail and replace it with a new facility.

The prison, the scene of torture under Saddam Hussein and the setting for the Iraqi prison abuse scandal under the U.S. military, has a name that English speakers usually pronounce as "abu-grabe".

But the Republican president, long known for verbal and grammatical lapses, stumbled on the first try, calling it "abugah-rayp". The second version came out "abu-garon", the third attempt sounded like "abu-garah".

White House aides, who described the speech as an important address on the future of Iraq, said Bush practised twice on Monday before boarding his helicopter for his trip to the speaking venue at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

Thanks to USA Today for giving us the changes in message by the Bush Administration. This is only a small sampling.

But you get the drift.

Then: ''I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.'' -- Vice President Cheney, March 16, 2003

Now: ''On the ground in Iraq, we have serious and continuing challenges. Illegal militias and remnants of the regime, joined by foreign terrorists, are trying to take by force the power they could never gain by the ballot.'' -- President Bush, May 1, 2004


* * *


Then: ''The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.'' -- Bush, Oct. 7, 2002

Now: ''Some prewar intelligence assessments by America and other nations about Iraq's weapons stockpiles have not been confirmed. We are determined to figure out why.'' -- Bush, Feb. 6, 2004


* * *

Then: ''The oil revenues of (Iraq) could bring between $50 (billion)and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. . . . We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.'' -- Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, March 27, 2003

Now: ''Iraqi oil production has reached more than 2 million barrels per day, bringing revenues of nearly $6 billion so far this year, which is being used to help the people of Iraq.'' -- Bush, Monday


* * *


Then: ''Helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment. Yet whatever is required of us, we will carry out all the duties we have accepted.'' -- Bush, March 22, 2003

Now: ''It will be tough work after sovereignty is transferred, because there will still be people there trying to derail the election process.'' -- Bush, May 19, 2004

The President last night presented his first of several speeches outlining his "plan" for Iraq. Totally nothing new, other than his administration's view that it needs the UN. Shoot, those guys and gals will be lining up to help after the dissin' Bush gave them before the war. Oh, and he wants the prison in which we have been abusing Iraqis torn down. And rebuilt with American money of course.

This guy is a stitch.

Summing up the evening best is the New York Times editorial:

"If President Bush had been talking a year ago, after the fall of Baghdad, his speech at the Army War College last night might have sounded like a plan for moving forward. He was able to point to a new United Nations resolution being developed in consultation with American allies, not imposed in defiance of them, and to a timetable for moving Iraq toward elected self-government. He talked in general terms of expanding international involvement and stabilizing Iraq. But Mr. Bush was not starting fresh. He spoke after nearly 14 months of policy failures, none of them acknowledged by the president, which have left Iraq increasingly violent and drained Washington's credibility with the Iraqi people and the international community. They have been waiting for Mr. Bush to make a clean break with those policies. He did not do that last night. The speech reflected the fact that Mr. Bush has been backtracking lately, but he did not come close to charting the new course he needs to take. His "five steps" toward Iraqi independence were merely a recitation of the tasks ahead.">

Questions:

Why isn't there more on the weekend's Chalabi report that he was part of an Iranian plot to eliminate Saddam?

Why is the President of the United States running around on a bicycle in a race on his ranch, instead of minding business during one of our most troubled times? Uh, nevermind, I know that answer.

Has the administration FINALLY seen the light? Do the Bushies recognize that there is no way in hell that any kind of settlement is going to occur in Iraq without the United Nations? We'll perhaps see in tonight's speech.

In the meantime, Richard Clarke came to Kansas City Sunday night. I have these thoughts about his talk:

1. He is incredibly articulate, and he knows his story well. He talked more than 45 minutes without notes and never one digressed or wandered in his thinking.
2. He is not the stuff-shirt bureaucrat with an ego that I thought he might be. His talk was not about him, or how smart he was. It was entirely about how the Bush administration had led us into a war that no one other than the neocons wanted to fight.
3. He was very credible.
4. He has a lot more courage than most. He knew as soon as he spoke out that he was going to be trashed by the Bushies. "The remarkable thing is that both Paul O'Neill and I, despite the distortions and personal attacks, are now finding ourselves among the majority in our opinion about the Bush Administration and the war. We started off in the minoirity, but more and more people are coming forward to say the same things we have said - this Administration went to war without a plan and on very false assumptions."

Clarke said war with Iraq was inevitable once Bush became President. It was in the early planning long before any claims about WMD or 9/11. He said that the Bush administration decided to tie Saddam to 9/11 despite a total lack of evidence indicating a tie. He thinks the real reasons for the war was:

1. embarrassment over not finishing it off in the first Gulf War. He thinks this is Rummy's prevailing reason, as well as Chaney's.
2. A NeoCon reversed domino theory - develop a Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq and the rest of the Mideast will fall to democracy.
3. The just wanted to do it. They wanted to show the world that the dominant - in fact, only - super power could do whatever it wanted to do, i.e, if we stare, you better cower.

He thinks the war is a total disaster, and was doomed from day one. The American Ideal is not just tarnished, but totally destroyed. We are universally hated by the Islamic world, including Egypt, Morocco and Indonesia, all former allies and friends. And in fact the whole world is looking askance at us. He notes that the Islamic world had been warned by Bin Laden and his ilk about the Americans who wanted another Christian crusade and who wanted nothing more than to rob them of their land and oil. The Islamic world did not listen, until we did exactly as Bin Laden predicted.

Today, Clarke says, on every Arab television station are daily photos of collateral damage - dead women and children, and American soliders prancing around looking like members of the Wehrmacht.

For the second time in 50 years, this country has sent its 18 and 19 year olds off to become cannon fodder for a political theory that is completely without merit.

May the neocons rot in hell, but since I do not believe in hell, I guess that won't be happening.

Will the humiliation ever end. Not in Iraq. Here. The latest Iraqi prisoner photos are just revolting. I thought they could not be worse than the first two rounds, but they are.

One set of pictures, obtained by ABC News, show two American soldiers grinning like clowns as they stood over the ice-packed body of a dead Iraqi--one who died after being questioned by U.S. forces. What on God's green earth were they thinking. Are they pictures they planned to show their buddies back at the hometown bar in Tiddlywink, Pa. Were they planning to laugh it up as they described how they rammed home a billy club up some "camel jockey's" ass.

This is beyond disgusting.

I'm tired of hearing how these soldiers lacked the proper "training." I'm tired of reading (or listening to) interviews with family and neighbors say how nice they seemed. Anyone with half a brain would find this sort of thing sadistic. And they can't exactly argue that they're trying to extract information from a recalcitrant trainee, since the subject in question is quite clearly deceased.

Another, in this morning's Washington Post, has a soldier using a big dog to threaten a prisoner with hands tied behind him.

I don't want to hear one more Republican say that those opposing the war are giving heart to the enemy and hurting our boys and girls overseas. Some of those boys and girls have done a pretty good job of that on their own. I want to see all those good boys and girls at the prison to spend time in prison where maybe their cellmates can introduce them to what sodomy really is all about.

And the fuckin' officers that prompted them to take that action, too. All of them, even if they are wearing stars. Strip and send them into the showers with the rest of the federal prisoners.

And while we are at it, what the hell is going on with Ahmed Chalabi, the neocon's cover boy?

The Bush administration has suddenly turned on Ahmed. At one time, the Pentagon wanted the Iraqi exile to run the post-Saddam country, despite the fact that he hadn't been back there for decades (and, oh, having that little fraud problem). He was an influential voice in the war councils, egging the U.S. on about Hussein's WMDs with what turned out to be lousy intelligence. He and his group were getting $340,000 a month in taxpayer dollars. He was a prime source for the New York Times and most likely other news organizations.

So Ahmed, how's the golf swing?

Yesterday, U.S. forces raided Chalabi's home and two offices used by his Iraqi National Congress, seizing computers, files and dozens of rifles. The military got arrest warrants for 15 people on such charges as kidnapping and fraud. Chalabi must have been reading all those religious tracts that frequent the White House. Reminiscent of Moses, he order the Governoring Council to "let my people go." Seriously.

But even more amazing is the reaction of the Bushies, his one time friends. It can be summed us as: Ahmed who?

Whinny Press Secretary Scott McClellan refused to say what Bush now thinks of Chalabi, saying it wasn't the president's place, it's up to the Iraqi people, etc. Is this guy for real. We have not seen his like since the Nixon days.

But I like Rummy. "It is not for me to comment on this." Man, Rummy has an opinion on everything. Now he's humble? It must be the prison scandal.

They tout him as their golden boy, rely on him in the runup to war, then raid his house and act like he's just some schlepper not worthy of comment? Come on.

This from the New York Times:

"By all appearances, Ahmad Chalabi reached the pinnacle of influence in Washington four months ago, when he took a seat of honor right behind Laura Bush at the president's State of the Union address. To all the world, he looked like the Iraqi exile who had returned home victorious, a favorite of the Pentagon who might run the country once the American occupation ended."

And McClellen says George Bush doesn't have an opinion on this.

An interesting, and long segment on NPR yesterday explored the recruiting methods of the US Army to fill the needs of the volunteer ARMY OF ONE! It confirmed my feeling that most of the men and women grunts over there are poor kids seeking adventure away from their dreary lives, or need the money badly to finance their way through school. The recruiter in Texas hits the small campuses spreading happy talk about adventure, jumping out of planes, guarding your nation AND for $250 per month WHILE you attend school.

And so they go. It is all very understandable. They also had a kid calling his dad after signing up to let him in on the news. The father did not sound excited at all. But the kid ended the conversation, "well it's done. I'm in the Army now Dad."

At 18 you can make those decisions without any approval by parents. Check the list of the dead. An awful lot of 18 and 19 year olds mixed in those 800-plus. Very scary.

And in a few months, that kid may be in Irag, or Afghanistan, or Syria or wherever Bush's Masters of War pick in the near future.

This from the New York Times today:

WASHINGTON, May 20 — A series of Justice Department memorandums written in late 2001 and the first few months of 2002 were crucial in building a legal framework for United States officials to avoid complying with international laws and treaties on handling prisoners, lawyers and former officials say.

The confidential memorandums, several of which were written or co-written by John C. Yoo, a University of California law professor who was serving in the department, provided arguments to keep United States officials from being charged with war crimes for the way prisoners were detained and interrogated. They were endorsed by top lawyers in the White House, the Pentagon and the vice president's office but drew dissents from the State Department.

The memorandums provide legal arguments to support administration officials' assertions that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to detainees from the Afghanistan war. They also suggested how officials could inoculate themselves from liability by claiming that abused prisoners were in some other nation's custody.

We've heard that excuse before haven't we.

I am embarrassed for our nation. But the chagrin does not go very deep in the Republican Party.

From CBS's "Late Show" with David Letterman:

"How 'bout that George Bush. You know that George Bush. Oh man, I'm telling you, I wouldn't give his troubles to a monkey on a rock. And the White House is now saying that they still do not have a timetable for when the U.S. will be out of Iraq although they hinted that it might be early in the Kerry administration."

This from the New York Times about an issue that truly disgusts me: Catholic bishops saying they will withhold the euchrist from politicians who are pro-life.

Forty-eight Roman Catholic members of Congress who are Democrats have signed a letter to the cardinal archbishop of Washington, D.C., saying the threats by some bishops to deny communion to politicians who support abortion rights were "deeply hurtful," counterproductive and "miring the Church in partisan politics."


The letter is the first organized counter-punch by Democratic legislators since a handful of Catholic bishops set off an uproar in the church by declaring that they would withhold communion from politicians who favor abortion rights.

The letter's signers, including about a dozen who are considered anti-abortion Democrats, said the bishops are "allowing the church to be used for partisan purposes.'' They also question why these bishops made abortion a litmus test while ignoring politicians who voted counter to the church by endorsing the death penalty and the war in Iraq.

I like that about the death penalty and the war in Iraq. The Pope takes big issue with those, but apparently it's OK for Republican politicians to be for death . . . just not among sperm.

I hate feeling anti-Catholic, but this church is out of control (as are many protestant denominations too). The sex abuse scandal was glossed over. Forgive, says the bishop of Rome. Its continual backing of no contraceptives is having incredible impact on the poor, particularly in Africa where AIDs is rampant. Frankly, it's time has come and gone. Somewhere in about the 12th or 13th centuries, the Church of St. Peter just petered out.

Which is more relevant?-Islam or Catholicism? Both are the same in my book. A cult following that has not changed with the times and is no longer relevant in a secular world.

Just when you think things can't get any worse in Iraq:

"About 40 Iraqis were killed Wednesday by American forces in an attack near the volatile border with Syria. American officials said they had fired on a suspected guerrilla safe house, but Iraqis said the Americans had strafed civilians at a wedding party," says the NYT.

Some of those killed were children.

Lost among the debacle we call the Iraqi Incursion is the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Both problems are heavily financed and supported by the United States.

This morning at my Bishop Spencer Place board meeting, I brought up the subject of Bishop Howe's recent visit to Jerusalem. I expected a travelogue. Instead, he opened with, "I was never so appalled at the United States. We are financing total war against these Palestinians. This is not about security. It is all about a land grab by the Isrealis, and George Bush heartily endorses it almost on a daily basis. We (it was a major religious conference) were all moved by the Palestinians situation."

When did and where did the Isreaelis lose the high moral ground? We lost ours with the election of George Bush, and you have to wonder if we will ever regain it with the rest of the world. Even Blair is distancing himself from Bush's arm-on-the-shoulder support of Sharon.

When will this nightmare end? Hopefully in November.

The master of the backdrop photo-op has misfired again. The Bushies would dearly like to have back their well-planned "victory banner" photo-op aboard the carrier back. Oops, the war seemingly was just getting started.

And now we have this. I am amused.

(From the Washington Post White House Column)

When President Bush visited a Timken Co. ball-bearing plant in Canton, Ohio, a year ago, he told workers that their optimism about the future of their company inspired his optimism about the future of the economy.

A photo from his talk at Timken leads the White House Web site's "Building America's Economy Photo Essay." It shows Bush standing in front of a glorious red, white and blue "Jobs and Growth" banner.

As he said at the time, the "greatest strength of the American economy is found right here, right in this room, found in the pride and skill of the American work force."

Last week, Timken announced that the folks right there in that room are getting fired. Timken, the world's largest industrial bearings maker, whose chairman is a major donor and fundraiser for the Republican Party, plans to shut down three factories in Canton and eliminate 1,300 jobs.

It's a particularly tough setback for Bush because job loss is a key issue in Ohio, a critically important swing state come November.

Mark Naymik writes in the Cleveland Plain Dealer: "When President Bush needed a factory floor to serve as a prop for an economic speech last year, Canton-based Timken Co. opened its doors.

"But the maker of bearings delivered a symbolic political blow Friday to the president's re-election bid in Ohio, when it announced plans to close three plants in Canton and eliminate 1,300 jobs.

"Manufacturing plants have been at the center of the presidential debate in Ohio, which has lost about 155,000 manufacturing jobs since Bush took office."

Gloria Irwin of the Akron Beacon-Journal writes about why Timken closed the plants: "Costs of production at three Timken Co. bearing plants in Canton are far higher than at other company plants and at competitors -- partially because the union workers continue to receive full, company-paid hospitalization."

Thomas W. Gerdel writes in the Cleveland Plain Dealer that Timken plans to move production "elsewhere."

Timken is currently Canton's largest employer, but has 56 bearings plants in 27 countries.

Canton is in Stark County. Joe Milicia of the Associated Press writes: "Stark County is a bellwether county in a bellwether state, having voted for the winning presidential candidate in every election since 1960 with the exception of Jimmy Carter in 1976. Only two presidential candidates have won without carrying Ohio since 1892."

Here is the text of Bush's remarks in April of last year.

"Tim told me that this is a company -- we are a 'roll up your sleeves' company, a can -- it is a can-do environment," Bush said. "Which is one of the reasons I've got so much optimism about the future of our economy -- because of the 'roll up your sleeves' attitude by thousands of our fellow Americans, because of the business sense of 'we can do whatever it takes to overcome the obstacles in our way'. I know you're optimistic about the future of this company. I'm optimistic about the future of our country. . . .

"I appreciate the Timken family for their leadership, their concern about their fellow associates. They're working hard to make sure the future of this company is bright, and therefore, the future of employment is bright for the families that work here, that work to put food on the table for their children."

Even at the time of his speech, some workers expressed concern about jobs. The Associated Press wrote: "Bill Miknis, 50, a welder who has worked at the Timken Co. for 29 years, had a front-row seat for the president's speech at the company's research center in this northeast Ohio city. Calling himself a Bush supporter, Miknis praised the administration's work during the war with Iraq.

" 'But I'm concerned about the economy. I think we need to get the country going and get more jobs here,' Miknis said."

Opensecrets.org shows that the Timken Company and various Timken family members in Ohio have given more than $1 million in the past three elections -- as far as I can tell, pretty much all to Republicans.

I wish I could say this is an original post, but it is not. But this very relevant, on-the-money internet humor (I think it's supposed to be humorous, though considering the subject, it actually is very serious) comes from the inimitable John Solana, a Dallasite who does not wear boots or claims he's from Bush country.

WHAT MUST YOU BELIEVE TODAY IF YOU CLAIM ALLEGIANCE TO THE GOP

The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you’re a conservative radio host. Then it’s an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness.

“Standing Tall for America” means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.

A woman can’t be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans’ benefits and combat pay.

Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won’t have sex.

A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at heart.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

Global warming and tobacco’s link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush’s daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a “we can’t find Bin Laden” diversion.

A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

The public has a right to know about Hillary’s cattle trades, but George Bush’s driving record is none of our business.

You support states’ rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have a right to adopt.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the ’80s is irrelevant.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

Balancing the federal budget used to be important, until it became more important to balance the budget of Halliburton.

Keeping tract of all the latest bizarre happenings is taking more time than I have to give to this blog.

First, there is the ongoing spin regarding the prison tortures. The New Yorker has its Seymour Hersh piece indicating that Rummy is the No. 1 culprit, and there is a Newsweek piece quoting a memo from 2002 saying now is the time, Mr. President, to ignore the Geneva Conference and that the "new realism" allows us torture terrorists to get information. This apparently was put forward by Bush's LEGAL counsel, Gonzales, who some say Bush wants to appoint to the Supreme Court.

Are you kidding me?

And then yesterday Powell mea culpa'ed to the extreme. As one writer noted, Powell doesn't want to go down in history as having been a part of the big lie to the United Nations. He pointed fingers, primarily at the CIA.

And then on Meet the Press, there was this little episode (from the Washington Post):

Anyone who saw "Meet the Press" yesterday witnessed quite a moment:

A State Department staffer tried to pull the plug on Tim Russert yesterday.

Toward the end of a "Meet the Press" interview with Secretary of State Colin Powell in Jordan, the camera suddenly moved off Powell to a shot of trees in front of the water.

"You're off," State Department press aide Emily Miller was heard saying.

"I am not off," Powell insisted.

"No, they can't use it, they're editing it," Miller said.

"He's still asking the questions," Powell said.

Miller, a onetime NBC staffer who recently worked for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, also told Powell: "He was going to go for another five minutes."

Undeterred, Russert complained from Washington: "I would hope they would put you back on camera. I don't know who did that." He later said, "I think that was one of your staff Mr. Secretary. I don't think that's appropriate."

As the delay dragged on, Powell ordered: "Emily, get out of the way. Bring the camera back please." Powell's image returned to the screen, and Russert asked his last question.

What happened was that both NBC and Fox News were using Jordanian television facilities for back-to-back Powell interviews. Russert was allotted 10 minutes, and was asked to wrap when he went over by about two minutes. He said "Finally, Mr. Secretary," but abruptly lost his guest.

Russert was still puzzled afterward. "A taxpayer-paid employee interrupted an interview," he said. "Not in the United States of America, that's not supposed to go on. This is attempted news management gone berserk. Secretary Powell was really stand-up. He was a general and took charge." Powell later called the NBC anchor from his plane to apologize for the glitch.

State Department spokeswoman Julie Reside disputed Russert's characterization, saying that NBC "went considerably beyond the agreed end time. Other networks were waiting for their interviews and had satellite time booked and we didn't want to keep them waiting."

Asked why he simply didn't edit out the awkward interlude from the taped interview, Russert said: "It's part of the story."

Something to ponder:

The Bush hawks, so fixated on making the Middle East look more like America, have made America look un-American. Should we really be reduced to defending ourselves by saying at least we don't behead people?

I wish I had thought of that line myself. But it was Maureen Dowd.

Still, that is the central point to this entire debate about America. Do we stoop as low as the terrorist who we are pursing? Do we not have a moral ground to uphold?

Maybe the born-again Christian Mr. Bush can pray on that for an answer. He certainly will not come on it on his own.

Just when you think the Bush Administation cannot add more chutz to chutzpah, they exceed all expectations. In a Los Angeles Times opinion column, Lawrence Weschler notes that the Bush/Cheney Website's "Compassion Photo Gallery" is basically a bunch of pictures of Bush (and the first lady) with minorities.

"First one up: short-sleeved Bush, holding a black kid in his arms, a bleacher full of black kids behind him, and he's merrily waving to the crowd. Click 'next.' And it's Bush at a Waco Habitat for Humanity building site, his arm draped around a black woman, his other hand tapping the shoulder of another of the black construction volunteers. . . .

"And now, there he is again, reading to a different roomful of black schoolchildren. It's amazing -- photo after photo, 19 in all, and almost every single one of them giving further testimony to the astonishing capaciousness of the guy's Compassion, by which we are given to understand: He just has no trouble at all touching black people! . . .

"Why, the Compassion page even includes a photo of him standing next to his own secretary of State, Colin Powell!"

If we as a country were not in such deep shit, this would be incredibly funny. But it's not. I have not seen a lower time in America since perhaps the Iran hostage situation during the Carter administration, or deep in the Vietnam War when we were gathering up body bags in great numbers. Well, you could throw in the Nixon-Watergate Hearings, but in truth, those were fun days. Old Tricky Dick was getting his come-uppence. Perhaps this two will occur with Dubya, but I suspect our only way out is a total defeat of this incredibly incompetent man and the expunging of his evil puppetmasters, Chaney and Rumsfeld.

Stay tuned. It gets weirder every day.

But at least Friedman has come to his senses. There is hope.

I guess this should not come as any surprise, but our president is an idiot.

We've long believed that he seems out of touch, totally unaffected by events happening around him. Goodness knows (as Rummy would say), the pictures of the abuse at the Iraqi prisons might have SOME effect on him, but apparently not. It has not slowed his campaigning down a bit, and he seemed compelled to tell us how valuable Rummy is.

But the following is from the Washington Post today. It is the "White House Briefings" column.

Bush Prefers the Sports Pages
Tuesday, May 11, 2004; 10:55 AM
President Bush doesn't spend much time poring over news coverage because it would just muddle his thinking and bring him down, he told the author of a new, admiring book about his presidency.

In the second of three reports based on his new book, "Misunderestimated: The President Battles Terrorism, John Kerry and the Bush Haters," Bill Sammon of the Washington Times writes that Bush gets four newspapers -- and reads the sports pages. As for the front pages? He scans and skims.

"Mr. Bush thinks that immersing himself in voluminous, mostly liberal-leaning news coverage might cloud his thinking and even hinder his efforts to remain an optimistic leader," Sammon writes.

"I like to have a clear outlook," Bush told Sammon, who is also a political analyst for Fox News. "It can be a frustrating experience to pay attention to somebody's false opinion or somebody's characterization, which simply isn't true. . . .

"I don't watch the nightly newscasts on TV, nor do I watch the endless hours of people giving their opinion about things. . . . I don't read the editorial pages; I don't read the columnists."

"Yet Mr. Bush regularly monitors the news pages of a select few daily publications," Sammon writes.

"I get the newspapers -- the New York Times, The Washington Times, The Washington Post and USA Today -- those are the four papers delivered," Bush said. "I can scan a front page, and if there is a particular story of interest, I'll skim it."

"Mrs. Bush routinely delves more deeply into the news pages than her husband, who prefers other sections," Sammon writes.

"He does not dwell on the newspaper, but he reads the sports page every day," Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. told Sammon.

In an often-quoted January story in the New Yorker, Ken Auletta wrote about the "declaration of press irrelevance" by the White House.


Do you not find that a little disconcerting. Bush gets all of his news only through his advisors. Outside parties just "muddle" his thinking. How shallow can you be. Bush is setting new standards for shallowness.

Remember. It was only a year ago that the American military, and of course our own Donald Rumsfeld, a.k.a. "Rummy," promised that the attack on Iraq would be "shock and awe." And damn if they did not deliver . . . this week!

I've joined the rest of the world in shock over the torture of prisoners in a former Saddam hell-hole of a prison (now under new management, as John Stewart says). And I've joined the rest of the world in awe of Rummy trying to explain the unexplainable, to wit that he knew about the charges AND the pictures for a number of months, and yet he did not feel compelled to mention it to the Congress or even HIS President!

Shock and awe. You have got to give it to this administration. They do not renege on their promises.

A comment from House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) regarding Democrats who have called for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation for his withholding information from Congress AND the President:

"They (Democrats) want to win the White House more than they want to win the war, and our enemies know it."

I guess that's why all of us sunshine patriots are reacting the way we are about our military - our government - torturing prisoners of war. We're just a bunch of vilifiers, or traitors in DeLay's small world of knowledge. And they are POWs since our President insists that we are war (usually, daily). This is the worst thing I have ever heard, certainly ranking with My Lai. I think we have to go all the way back to the 19th Century to find worse. Our military and civilian dealings with the Native American tribes probably falls into a far worse category, but then again we haven't got all the facts yet on this scandal. Are we doing the same thing in Gitmo prison? If we are, then it is not just a small errant group. It will signal that its systematic, and then we have to look deep into our military. I fear that it is systematic.

Meanwhile, I am embarrassed to call myself an American. What on earth were those people thinking?

And we are toast in the Moslem world. Write off our ever having an opportunity to bring about peaceful change.

Send the troops home. Wrack up another defeat.

Cheers for Jon Stewart's team of writers who can find humor even during America's most humiliating moment. According to Stewart on "The Daily Show:"

"And so we went to war to close Iraq's torture chambers, but they are really not shut down so much as under new management."

Damn. I hate it when someone writes something that makes you have to re-think all your positions on an important issue. William Broyles Jr. is right on target, and sadly, I have to agree with him even though I have two sons of perfect draft age. I am also sending this to my two sons to see if they have an opinion. I wish everything was just black and white. Greys have always given me trouble.

A War for Us, Fought by Them
May 4, 2004
By WILLIAM BROYLES Jr.
WILSON, Wyo. - The longest love affair of my life began with a shotgun marriage. It was the height of the Vietnam War and my student deferment had run out. Desperate not to endanger myself or to interrupt my personal plans, I wanted to avoid military service altogether. I didn't have the resourcefulness of Bill Clinton, so I couldn't figure out how to dodge the draft. I tried to escape into the National Guard, where I would be guaranteed not to be sent to war, but I lacked the connections of George W. Bush, so I couldn't slip ahead of the long waiting list. My attitude was the same as Dick Cheney's: I was special, I had "other priorities." Let other people do it.

When my draft notice came in 1968, I was relieved in a way. Although I had deep doubts about the war, I had become troubled about how I had angled to avoid military service. My classmates from high school were in the war; my classmates from college were not - exactly the dynamic that exists today. But instead of reporting for service in the Army, on a whim I joined the Marine Corps, the last place on earth I thought I belonged.

My sacrifice turned out to be minimal. I survived a year as an infantry lieutenant in Vietnam. I was not wounded; nor did I struggle for years with post-traumatic stress disorder. A long bout of survivor guilt was the price I paid. Others suffered far more, particularly those who had to serve after the war had lost all sense of purpose for the men fighting it. I like to think that in spite of my
being so unwilling at first, I did some small service to my country and to that enduring love of mine, the United States Marine Corps.

To my profound surprise, the Marines did a far greater service to me. In three years I learned more about standards, commitment and yes, life, than I did in six years of university. I also learned that I had had no idea of my own limits: when I was exhausted after humping up and down jungle mountains in 100-degree heat with a 75-pound pack, terrified out of my mind, wanting only to quit, convinced I couldn't take another step, I found that in fact I could keep going for miles. And my life was put in the hands of young men I would otherwise never have met, by and large high-school dropouts, who turned out to be among the finest people I have ever known.

I am now the father of a young man who has far more character than I ever had. I joined the Marines because Ihad to; he signed up after college because he felt he ought to. He volunteered for an elite unit and has served in both Afghanistan and Iraq. When I see images of Americans in the war zones, I think of my son and his friends, many of whom I have come to know and deeply respect. When I opened this newspaper yesterday and read the front-page headline, "9 G.I.'s Killed," I didn't think in abstractions. I thought very personally.

The problem is, I don't see the images of or read about any of the young men and women who, as Dick Cheney and I did, have "other priorities." There are no immediate family members of any of the prime civilian planners of this war serving in it - beginning with President Bush and extending deep into the Defense Department. Only one of the 535 members of Congress, Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota, has a child in the war - and only half a dozen others have sons and daughters in the military.

The memorial service yesterday for Pat Tillman, the football star killed in Afghanistan, further points out this contrast. He remains the only professional athlete of any sport who left his privileged life during this war and turned in his play uniform for a real one. With few exceptions, the only men and women in military service are the profoundly patriotic or the economically needy.

It was not always so. In other wars, the men and women in charge made sure their family members led the way. Since 9/11, the war on terrorism has often been compared to the generational challenge of Pearl Harbor; but Franklin D. Roosevelt's sons all enlisted soon after that attack. Both of Lyndon B. Johnson's sons-in-law served in Vietnam.

This is less a matter of politics than privilege. The Democratic elites have not responded more nobly than have the Republican; it's just that the Democrats' hypocrisy is less acute. Our president's own family illustrates the loss of the sense of responsibility that once went with privilege. In three generations the Bushes have gone from war hero in World War II, to war evader in Vietnam, to none of the extended family showing up in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Pat Tillman didn't want to be singled out for having done what other patriotic Americans his age should have done. The problem is, they aren't doing it. In spite of the president's insistence that our very civilization is at stake, the privileged aren't flocking to the flag. The war is being fought by Other People's Children. The war is impersonal for the very people to whom it should be most personal.

If the children of the nation's elites were facing enemy fire without body armor, riding through gantlets of bombs in unarmored Humvees, fighting desperately in an increasingly hostile environment because of arrogant and incompetent civilian leadership, then those problems might well find faster solutions.

The men and women on active duty today - and their companions in the National Guard and the reserves - have seen their willingness, and that of their families, to make sacrifices for their country stretched thin and finally abused. Thousands of soldiers promised a one-year tour of duty have seen that promise turned into a lie. When Eric Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, told the president that winning the war and peace in Iraq would take hundreds of thousands more troops, Mr. Bush ended his career. As a result of this and other ill-advised decisions, the war is in danger of being lost, and my beloved military is being run into the ground.

This abuse of the voluntary military cannot continue. How to ensure adequate troop levels, with a diversity of backgrounds? How to require the privileged to shoulder their fair share? In other words, how to get today's equivalents of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney - and me - into the military, where their talents could strengthen and revive our fighting forces?

The only solution is to bring back the draft. Not since the 19th century has America fought a war that lasted longer than a week with an all-volunteer army; we can't do it now. It is simply not built for a protracted major conflict. The arguments against the draft - that a voluntary army is of higher quality, that the elites will still find a way to evade service - are bogus. In World War II we used a draft army to fight the Germans and Japanese - two of the most powerful military machines in history - and we won. The problems in the military toward the end of Vietnam were not caused by the draft; they were the result of young Americans being sent to fight and die in a war that had become a disaster.

One of the few good legacies of Vietnam is that after years of abuses we finally learned how to run the draft fairly. A strictly impartial lottery, with no deferments, can ensure that the draft intake matches military needs. Chance, not connections or clever manipulation, would determine who serves.

If this war is truly worth fighting, then the burdens of doing so should fall on all Americans. If you support this war, but assume that Pat Tillman and Other People's Children should fight it, then you are worse than a hypocrite. If it's not worth your family fighting it, then it's not worth it, period. The draft is the truest test of public support for the administration's handling of the war, which is perhaps why the administration is so dead set against bringing it back.

William Broyles Jr., the founding editor of Texas Monthly, wrote the screenplay for "Cast Away."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/04/opinion/04BROY.html?ex=1084691014&ei=1&en=e1ad9614f35dcf0d

My head is still spinning. We are trying to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people by being as awful in our prisons as Saddam was when he owned them?

Admittedly, pee'ing on people, making them stand naked with sacks over their heads, threatening to kill them or beat them, making them pile on each other in their naked state (apparently a very big cultural no-no) don't fall into the area of atrocities, but boy are they close.

And in case no one has believed the detainees being released from American holding camps, we now have pictures.

I am reminded of LBJ's alleged response about winning the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese. "We will win their hearts and minds when we have them by the balls." I think he was talking about the Viet Cong, but you never can tell about LBJ, who liked to train his hunting dogs to bark loudly by holding them up by the ears.

So George, before you leave on your campaign bus trip, do you have anything to say about the torture stories? Anything? Are we going to investigate anything, George?

And who the hell are these civilian interrogators that we have employed over there? What is all that about?

There is more than meets the eye here. I think we have been spending too much time with the Israeli intelligence officers. Perhaps we have picked up some very bad habits.