Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Perhaps criticism from his own people will force Bush to awaken from his slumber on Iraq and acknowledge reality. McCain stated Bush is "not being straight on Iraq". Hagel says, "I do not think we can win" and reinerated the obvious, "we are in deep trouble in Iraq". Other republicans are echoing similar concerns. Bush, unfortunately, remains in his manic phase on Iraq and is currently extolling his "optimism" on Iraq...

Incredibly, Bush stated today the CIA "guessed" on it's intelligence report of instability and the threat of civil war in Iraq. The pessimistic assessment by the CIA of the situation in Iraq contrasted sharply with the optimism expressed on a daily basis by the president.
The truth is more likely that the CIA performed a critical analysis of the data and employed a rigorous methodolgy in deriving it's conclusions. This would have to be the case given the tactical and geo-political ramifications of their report.If the president believes the CIA is only "guessing", why doesn't he demand an investigation and a process that assures him of accurate estimations of the situation in Iraq? Why doesn't he offer his own sources of information to support his own conclusions?The frightening reality is he is "guessing" on the current situation in Iraq and basing his actions and policies without due regard for the inteligence report from an agency whose responsibility it is to provide credible information for branches of the government.
The action of the president in ignoring an intelligence report describing the probability of deteriorating stability and civil war in Iraq causes our civilians and our troops in to be in greater peril than the precarious environment that already exists at this time.

Ronald,
If you do a google search you will find various police groups including an association of police chiefs that endorsed Kerry shortly after he announced his position on the assault weapons ban law.(Unlike our commander in chief who ducked into a room to avoid a reporter's question on the subject and, heavens forbid, actually hold a press conference on it).
The fact is many groups endorse a political candidate throughout the course of an election year but it is NOT the ground breaking, earth shattering news event that YOU think it is. GOT IT? Or do I need to bold the print?

Well, it seems tests of our security precautions at airports revealed knives, guns and explosives could be allowed on airlines according to tests carried out by homeland security. They somehow slipped by our vigilant security forces.
It appears more tests will be carried out to see if corrections have been made.
What was that about Ronald stating guns and glock inserts being detected by x-rays/metal detectors,etc?...

Joe,
An excellent view of it. It has that on-rushing tidal wave of light effect that I sometimes see in M 82 under superb conditions with my 16" dob.
A very nice photo, well done!

As reported in the LA Times, "Bush now admits he was wrong to call the CIA report a guess". He admits he should have referred to it as an "estimation".
This is the intelligence report that denotes a pessimistic outlook on Iraq relative to political instability and the potential for civil war. The Times also states the obvious,"He doesn't believe it" but the Times also notes other reports indicate the same conclusions of the CIA report.
Again, if the president doubts the CIA report, why doesn't he demand an investigation on the inability of the CIA to provide him with accurate estimations of the situation in Iraq?
Why doesn't he provide the origins of his information that would lead him to believe his data is more credible than that of the CIA?

The LA Times carried an article about a month or so ago about the religious right and I wished I had saved it after reading your post. The article essentially stated the religious right was intending to send some of their members to act as spies to other congregations that might express a favorable opinion of the Kerry/Edwards ticket and report back to their leaders about the evil errors of their ways.
Why do they have an affinity for the republican party?

Assuming for a minute that the president of Pakistan was correct in his statements yesterday and his belief that the war in Iraq has made the world less safe and Bin Laden is alive and well(and by implication, doing what that MF normally does), I believe additional assumptions could offer a potential timeline of when Al Queda may strike the US.
First here are my additional assumptions: The polls are correct and the number one priority of the public is security and the belief that George Bush is the man who can provide it and this belief system prevails in the elections in November. Furthermore, the statement as reported in the Los Angeles Times is correct: "officials warn that the Bush administration's upbeat assessment of its successes is overly optimistic and masks its strategic failure to understand and combat the Al Queda evolution". Additionally, the CIA report(as well as others) is correct and civil war is likely in Iraq.
The beliefs of americans that we are safer as a result of our war in Iraq and the sense of security provided by the Bush presidency lulls the the country into a steady state of self-confidence and prosperity, in the eyes of the public.
IF the above is accurate, an enormous opportunity exists for Bin Laden to undermine the belief system of the american public and to dissolve the confidence of the public in its leadership. I would suspect an attack or series of attacks shortly after the re-election of Bush or after the inaugration of his presidency.

Well, it appears we forgot a lesson learned in WW2 when George Patton said he didn't want to pay for the same real estate twice meaning he didn't want to have take the same battlefield twice. It just makes sense.
Colin Powell announced today that US troops will have to enter "no-go" zones to tidy things before the elections (theirs and ours). This presumably means Fallujah where we have already taken casulties and where the Brookings institute figures 20,000 insurgents are hunkered down in their own turf. However, I have to cut some slack to the men at the top for being forgetful and not remembering what Patton said since WW2 was a long time ago.
Today, however, an Iraqi general was caught with his pants down, collaborating with the enemy. Didn't we learn that lesson from Vietnam or was that one too long ago as well?

A new poll reveals much about the thinking of the american electorate:
1. World Affairs: On who is less likely to alienate world leaders (even though he already has) George Bush!
2.Iraq: Should we send in more troops and who should do it? George Bush! How could it be any other way?
3.Terrorism: Who would fight it the most? George Bush. Afterall, he got us into Iraq!
4. The economy: who's the best: George Bush! Nevermind that silly 420 plus billion dollar deficit, Who's counting anyway?
5. Kerry was wrong for making anti-war statements about vietnam: you betcha! Nevermind history has PROVEN him to be correct...
6. Did the Bush presence (or more correctly, his absence) during vietnam affect your vote" No way!
7. Does Bush give you that warm and fuzzy feeling? Oh Yeah! I added this one but you know George does it the best! Nevermind Chenney, Rumsfeld and the others (who are they anyway?).
8.Will the debate influence your vote? There's a debate? Doesn't it come after the election?
The american electorate: informed, knowing and deftly stepping in. To it...