Eclectic Views

    
Well, gosh, who'da thunk it? Looks like more than one error in the
fabled tale of Jessica Lynch:

<http://www.darnews.com/articles/2004/05/28/news/news6.txt>
  

    
Don't tell dave.  He'll spew again.
  

    
Another slip-it-out-the-back-door-on-Friday release from the White
House: Pat Tillman was probably killed by friendly fire:

<http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0529tillman29.html>
  

    
At least they're acknowledging it.  And by the way, I agree with
the statements by Republican Congressman from Arizona in that
article.  I don't knew when was the last time I could have said
that I agreed with an Arizona Republican, if ever.
  

    
If you mean this:

"   "It does seem pretty clear that he was killed by friendly fire," said
Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., a member of the House Armed Services Committee,
which was alerted to the information by the Army's Legislative Liaison
Office.

  "This does not take away one iota from the heroic nature and courage of
the man. The source of that fire is of little consequence in terms of
heroism,""


I agree wholeheartedly.
  

    
<chuck>, you've never agreed with John McCain?  About anything?

Even Barry Goldwater once said something I agree with: "you don't have
to be straight to shoot straight."
  

    
That Tillman was killed by friendly fire is an interesting fact, I guess,
but am I wrong in thinking it implies absolutely nothing about Tillman or
the Army or the Bush administration or anything else? As I understand it,
friendly fire is a fact of life in modern war, and there are always a
certain number of casualties from it.
  

    
No, I don't think it implies anything in and of itself. Rather, the
stealth release indicates apprehension on the part of tptb; anything
that can even vaguely be construed as bad news is being sneaked in the
back door.
  

    
The Guardian (UK) reports the following:

>>A senior US intelligence official is about to publish a bitter
condemnation of America's counter-terrorism policy, arguing that the
west is losing the war against al-Qaida and that an "avaricious,
premeditated, unprovoked" war in Iraq has played into Osama bin Laden's
hands.

Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, due out
next month, dismisses two of the most frequent boasts of the Bush
administration: that Bin Laden and al-Qaida are "on the run" and that
the Iraq invasion has made America safer.

In an interview with the Guardian the official, who writes as
"Anonymous", described al-Qaida as a much more proficient and focused
organisation than it was in 2001, and predicted that it would
"inevitably" acquire weapons of mass destruction and try to use them.

He said Bin Laden was probably "comfortable" commanding his
organisation from the mountainous tribal lands along the border between
Pakistan and Afghanistan. ...

Imperial Hubris is the latest in a relentless stream of books
attacking the administration in election year. Most of the earlier
ones, however, were written by embittered former officials. This one is
unprecedented in being the work of a serving official with nearly 20
years experience in counter-terrorism who is still part of the
intelligence establishment ...

The fact that he has been allowed to publish, albeit anonymously and
without naming which agency he works for, may reflect the increasing
frustration of senior intelligence officials at the course the
administration has taken ...

Anonymous, who published an analysis of al-Qaida last year called
Through Our Enemies' Eyes, thinks it quite possible that another
devastating strike against the US could come during the election
campaign, not with the intention of changing the administration, as was
the case in the Madrid bombing, but of keeping the same one in place.
"I'm very sure they can't have a better administration for them than
the one they have now," he said. "One way to keep the Republicans in
power is to mount an attack that would rally the country around the
president." ...

The complete story:

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,1242638,00.html>
  

    
With today's bombing, we have reached the grim milestone of 900 US
lives lost in Iraq, and no end in sight.

May their souls rest in peace.
  

    
Here's a useful site:  http://costofwar.com/
  

    
I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but the Center For Defense
Information has a very cogent speech by former Marine general Anthony Zinni
on the ten worst mistakes the US made in the Iraq war at

http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=2208

There is also a follow-up Q & A session at

http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=2228
  

    

Today the Democratic party is in congress, working on a resolution to oppose
Bush's "surge" proposal, which, as many have noted, is not the maximum
number of troops deployed during this war, and has many earmarks of more of
the same with more casualties.

Ron's citation in the post above, from 2004, is fascinating in the 
light of current events.

So much clarity in hindsight, even then.