ALL TALK AND NO HAT

With 3000 dead US troops now confirmed, what plan is considered "reasonable" enough to endanger the lives of between 15-30,000 troops?

What sacrifice is Bush willing to make in order to try and pacify the out-of-control violence in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq?

What we've seen from the Bush camp is: "We need more time. We need more time. We need more time."

George, we've given you 4 years to find a plan for Iraq. You had none. In fact, you communicated quite clearly to us that you didn't need a plan, but "stay the course".

Well, "stay the course" isn't a plan.

Neither is another influx of war-weary troops.

Isn't it time you shuffled off your "cowboy" tactics and start engaging meaningful dialogue, while looking to other ideas as a way out of this failed war of yours?

America is patient, Mr. President. But we won't stand by and watch you sacrifice more troops for nothing at all.

We do have our limits. And you're pushing them.

Schuyler Thorpe

xxxth Street xx #X001

Everett, WA 98204

(XXX)-XXX-XXXX

SAY THAT AGAIN? NO RIGHTS FOR WHO?

I find it a bit perplexing. Here we are--living in a supposedly [[free]] country--where democracy and values of such are *observed*--and we pretty much grant everyone the right to do what they please--because...hey! We are Americans!

Right?

Well, I guess when people like this one writer ("Rapists, pedophiles shouldn't get rights") gets bored with their freedoms and democracy, they start to think about ways to *undo* the last 230 years upon which this country has stood for and was founded on in principle: Rights for all.

They want to start selectively turning a free society into a police-state mentality. (Has anyone seen V for Vendetta lately?)

I mean, why stop there? Why not start instituting new laws and regulations which pretty much tramples on the rights of all Americans? I mean, heck, we already have the Patriot Act and its future descendants ready and able to strip away our rights to privacy, search and seizure, and a whole lot of other niceties which our government is already infamous for--just to fight a bogus war on terror.

Where should we draw the line? People who break speeding limits? People who forget to pay their taxes? People who are late on their library books?

Maybe we should start stripping these people of their rights and nationality as free Americans--because they didn't follow the letter of the law.

Heck, I didn't like my freedoms and democracy anyways. Where do I sign up?

Schuyler Thorpe

xxxth Street xx #X001

Everett, WA 98204

(XXX)-XXX-XXXX

PLAYING "WHACK-A-MOLE" IS GOING TO DO US IN

I found it amusing when the US government announced the death of Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Osmani--after a recent air strike--was a major "victory" in the war on terror, and that his death would have profound implications on the war in Afghanistan in the long-term.

Funny, Bush said the same thing when Al-Zarqawi was killed in June 2006. ("A major blow to Al-Qaeda in Iraq."--in his words.)

Of course, it was said of the same when Saddam himself was captured, and when his sons were killed at the beginning of the Iraq War.

In fact, I recall many such "trumpeting" declarations by the US government every time some [[major]] domo/terrorist figure was killed by a US air strike.

But the government is failing to catch onto 2 important things:

1) Terrorism won't go away. It'll always be there--no matter how much military force is applied.

2) Believing that this is some kind of "whack-a-mole" game where the bad guys will lose and the good guys always win, is so...twentieth-century. In this day and age, terrorism has taken on a whole new dimension. And while most groups are now de-centralized and broken up into cells, killing a major figure like Osmani, or even Osama bin Laden, won't end the threat of terrorism.

It'll just mean that the cell Osmani was in gets a trained replacement and the war goes on. Nothing changes.

But being entrenched in Cold War tactics isn't winning any points for our side. In fact...has anyone noticed lately that we are eerily following the same pattern the Soviet Union took with Afghanistan in the 1980s?

And look at what happened to them.

Schuyler Thorpe

xxxth Street xx #X001

Everett, WA 98204

(XXX)-XXX-XXXX

RECENT STORMS HERALD THE REASON WHY WE SHOULD ALL PITCH IN

The recent pounding delivered by Mother Nature revealed a critical need by all citizens to band together and help their fellow neighbors in distress--regardless of the circumstances.

As things stand, Washington state is in a state of emergency. People are without food, shelter, or heat in this cold times. And while the power crews are doing the best they can, very few of us can get to shelters that have power. To solve this problem, wouldn't it be prudent to offer shelter to those who have power?

Even if it's by people we don't know?

I am by no means calling any one here a Scrooge. But think about it: We have it within ourselves to show a great deal of charity, kindness, and generosity in times of crisis.

And it's not just during the holidays we should be thinking about those who are still without power and shelter until Christmas, but during any time there is an emergency when a whole lot of people are easily affected, and cannot help themselves.

If we can band together and give each other a helping hand, we can certainly make a difference for some and maybe all if we're lucky.

This call to action isn't about who can be the most heroic, but who can do what's right and feel good about it afterwards.

So far--from what I see--it's been helping. But we can do better by showing we care by getting out there and give a helping hand right now.

What do you say? Are you game?

Schuyler Thorpe

xxxth Street xx #X001

Everett, WA 98204

(XXX)-XXX-XXXX

AT THIS STAGE, WE JUST CAN'T START OVER

As much as I respect Charles Krauthammer for his words of wisdom and source of endless wit, I'm a little concerned about his latest column piece.

In his words, he says, "they [US] must establish a new governing coalition in Baghdad that excludes Moqtada al-Sadr, a cancer that undermines the Maliki government's ability to work with us. It is encouraging that the president has already begun such a maneuver by meeting with rival Shiite and Sunni parliamentary leaders. If we help produce a cross-sectarian government that would be an ally rather than a paralyzed semi-adversary of coalition forces, we should then undertake part two: "double down" our military effort. This means a surge in American troops with a specific mission: to secure Baghdad and (together with the support of the Baghdad government - an essential condition) suppress Sadr's Mahdi Army.

The problem with the first part is that we are essentially telling everyone: "Hell, we fudged up, and so we have to hit the 'reset' button on this war's version of the Playstation 2; thus asking everyone to go back to the way things were."

Secondly, we can no longer reach across the divide and try to bridge cultural and religious differences in Iraq. That's been done already on so many fronts since the invasion--that it has failed!

And lastly, we've already tried three times this past year to secure Baghdad with a surge of troops. Remember? It failed miserably!

So what makes Charles believe that a third try is the charm--if the reality of this war has shown that nothing we've done these last 4 years has had any positive impact on the way this country's affairs has been mismanaged to date?

Schuyler Thorpe

xxxth Street xx #X001

Everett, WA 98204

(XXX)-XXX-XXXX

BUSH'S STUBBORNNESS IS GOING TO COST US SO VERY DEARLY

No matter what anyone says or does, Bush is hell bent on proceeding on the path of ruin and destruction of our nation's foreign policy for decades to come.

Even after the ISG's recommendations, and while watching the news conference with Bush and Blair, I got the sickening feeling that this man--this incompetent boob of a President--doesn't give one whit about what other people say or do. Bush is still committed to seeing any chance of victory come out of Iraq evaporate long before it even comes to fruition.

Heck, he's already indicated that he won't change course, won't consider anyone's ideas or proposals but his own.

And this is what worries me.

How are we going to get out of Iraq if he won't consider any sound alternatives from even his own father's handpicked study group?

Schuyler Thorpe

xxxth Street xx #X001

Everett, WA 98204

(XXX)-XXX-XXXX

SPACE TRAVEL NEEDS TO BE MORE THAN JUST AN IDYLLIC PIPE DREAM

Not to sound like a party pooper here, but I have some serious reservations about NASA's ideas to get a fully staffed lunar colony in less than 18 years.

For one thing, NASA's preliminary budget for the whole project is only $108B--far too low a number in my opinion; especially when you have to factor in whatever form the new CEV (Crew Excursion Vehicle) will take, plus the costs of completing the ISS (International Space Station)--if it will ever be completed. Secondly, you have to deal with the reality of NASA's budget problems and cuts in scientific programs.

Programs which will actually be needed in order to get to the Moon!

If it sounds like I am long-winded here, it's only because I'm still going around in circles trying to figure out just how much money we've thrown at these so-called "ideas" over the years, but wondering--if at all--if they will bear any real fruit in the future.

Given how Bush's pitch on putting man back on the Moon and Mars went, I don't think our space program will last another decade--let alone two.

We are simply too far gone as a superpower on all fronts. We don't have the extra resources to start resurrecting dead dreams and useless ideas--especially when we have an administration spending our tax monies faster than we can collect them.

Don't get me wrong: Going to the Moon is a great endeavor. But when you're tapped everywhere you look, how are you planning on paying for this pipedream?

Cut back on defense spending and invading of other countries?

Schuyler Thorpe

xxxth Street xx #X001

Everett, WA 98204

(XXX)-XXX-XXXX

NO 'GRACEFUL' EXIT STRATEGY FOR BUSH

By all accounts, Iraq is now gripped in a civil war. Both Sunnis and Shiites have been killing each other since we invaded Iraq on a hunt for non-existent WMDs. But when we toppled Saddam's government and installed a powerless new version, we essentially started a chain of events that no amount of 'good news' rhetoric or purple-fingered elections could easily dispel.

And now Bush has to face the consequences of his own stubbornness. By foot-dragging his way through Iraq and then blaming Al-Qaeda for all the ills this war has created thus far, our President now finds himself (still) without an exit strategy.

I for one do not believe that our troops were meant to get sucked into a civil war--one which is going to cost us more lives than 9-11 ever did.

However, simply ignoring reality and pretending that we can somehow 'salvage' this mess and bring our troops home to victory, is not very Presidential. But the longer Bush waits, the much harder it will be for us to get out of Iraq.

Schuyler Thorpe

xxxth Street xx #X001

Everett, WA 98204

(XXX)-XXX-XXXX