Grandma in Iraq

Suzanne Fournier of Alexandria, grandmother of 15, posts from Iraq. Fournier is the Public Affairs Officer for the Gulf Region Southern District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Iraq.

THURSDAY, APRIL 06, 2006

Building roads to villages

I’d like to show you a few pictures from my trip to Diwaniyah last week. I had the opportunity to visit some road projects we are building in two different rural areas. While the engineers were evaluating the contractor’s progress, I got a chance to build relationships with the community by giving out school supplies, balls and stuffed animals to the local children.

These boys are clearly pleased to have a soccer ball; they were all set to start playing a game when I indicated that I wanted to join them. Fortunately for me, we didn’t have time to start a soccer game-- young boys and soccer-- I know when I’m out of my league.

This is what Iraq calls a mud school. The brick are made from mud and dried, the floor is mud and the roof is made up of a number of materials. The support beam is actually a shaft out of a truck, the cross beams are the trunks of date trees and in between, they have laid mats, date leaves and reeds with mud to form a roof. This school has 175 students, there is no running water, electricity or bathrooms. You can imagine what happens to the school when it rains. I wish we could replace every mud school in Iraq, but unfortunately, we can’t. As it is, we have replaced or modernized over 800 schools in Iraq. We are going to replace this one. I’d love to be here to see these children when they get to attend their new school.

The kids are delightful, full of fun and so many beautiful, happy smiles. All the children were barefooted and a little ragtag as playing children always are. Brothers and sisters are urging and helping the little ones come from their homes to see us so they could claim a teddy bear or some school supplies too.

This particular area grows grain, vegetables and rice and they have many sheep. In fact almost all of Iraq has sheep, every time I go out I see shepherds tending their flocks, caring for them as they graze. This whole area is very rural, and the road will allow better access to markets so farmers can sell their produce. They can also have reliable roads to get to their mosque, children can get to school and the sick can get medical care without having to worry about the rains. Dirt roads are not reliable here when the winter rains pour, flooding the area and making the soil sticky, like glue.

Here is another village where we are building a road. This area is somewhat different from the first, they have a canal that separates the community. There are many date trees and in fact, the contractor had to remove some date trees to put the road where the community wanted it. Iraqi people are resourceful, the date tree trunks are now being used as bridges across the canal. This style of home is very typical in Iraq, most people sleep on blankets and mats. During the day they frequently hang the blankets over the walls for airing. Notice one of the homes has a satellite dish, this is becoming a very common scene in Iraq. They may not have many possessions, but Iraqi people crave infomation. Perhaps it is because it was denied to them for so long under the Saddam regime. It is amazing how much we take for granted.

A canal in an area like this is used for drinking water and cleaning. Here a woman fills her containers with water. I have frequently seen woman balancing jars of water on their heads as they walk to their homes. This community is very blessed to have such a close source of water; many other communities need to go much further to retrieve their water. They have more cows here than I've seen in most communities in the south. I almost always see a few goats and of course sheep, lots of sheep.

We had a similar reception in this community. The children came running as soon as we stopped the cars. Young and old met together, we shook hands, the children eagerly accepted school supplies, candy and balls, while the adults smiled proudly showing off their babies.

This young man was lucky enough to get a basketball. I enjoyed his smile as he clearly claims his new possession.

It is easier for us to travel to rural areas than it is to move through the crowded cities. I'll show you a little about traveling in cities in the next blog and try to provide a few snapshots of urban scenes.

Let me close this blog with a picture of a beautiful baby and her proud Dad. Here my friend Russ gave the Dad some candy for his child. Babies are the same everywhere, we all love and cherish them. posted by Suzanne Fournier @ 5:59 AM 149 comments

149 Comments:

At 8:34 AM, Anonymous said...

This blog is a sham.

At 8:37 AM, Grandpa in Cincy said...

Attention Enquirer Editors, Take this blog down before the national media picks up on this PR debacle.

At 8:54 AM, Anonymous said...

Hey! Here's an idea: Why doesn't The Enquirer/Cincinnati.com start a blog called "Grandma in Over-The-Rhine." I'd love to hear about all the nonviolence that's happening there.

At 9:00 AM, Jeff Hamilton said...

propaganda: n. the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

At 10:12 AM, Susan Forman said...

This post has been removed by the author.

At 12:17 PM, Anonymous said...

>I wish we could replace every mud school in Iraq, but unfortunately, we can’t. Putting aside issues of security--I know, I know, that's not possible--why can't replace _every_ mud school? What would it cost? Say, a billion dollars? (And that seems wildly over the top.) Why not track down the missing money from the CPA, take the people who stole it to court, and then use the money to replace _every_ mud school. Considering the scope of the war and how reasonable you make reconstruction sound, it seem like the least we could do.

At 12:21 PM, smintheus said...

I wonder whether the US Army Corps of Engineers PR department has any pictures of Iraqi children who are not smiling and whooping it up? For example, children who are injured in the civil war, or grieving over slain parents? I've seen quite a few such pictures on blogs and in (foreign) newspapers, but not a single one on this web page. Grandma, you claim that your reporting is valuable because you're on the spot and have inside information. So are all those reports of child casualties and devastation false? Or do you just not have any information about those things? Or perhaps there's another possibility...you just don't propose to talk about such unpleasantness? "Fair and balanced." It isn't just for Fox News anymore.

At 12:43 PM, Anonymous said...

If you all want to see torn up bodies, dead children, and all that, just turn to most National media. You can see it almost every night. What you don't see is what Granny is reporting on. What is wrong with a Grandma wishing that all these children had nice schools? Whe is one person. She can't change the world by herself, but she does bring smiles to children's faces. Really, there is no use trying to defend her, you have decided that since she wears a uniform, she can do no good? Granny, ignore them, keep up the good work, I love your blogs and the pictures. Remember, to some people, no good deed shall go unpunished. God Bless; B. Richards

At 1:27 PM, skipsailing said...

It takes a very sad person to object to this blog. Sad, angry and self righteous people such as those that object to this blog will never admit that things are going well in iraq. They can't because they have staked their reputations on predictions of gloom and doom.

further, they cannot admit that Saddam ravaged the country for his own purposes while leaving ordinary iraqis either destitute or dead. Those posters here who crave visions of maimed and dead bodies (well first, they need help) should peruse the various terrorist web sites, since its the terrorists who found the killing of children useful. One particulary egregious example was the purposeful car bombing of children who had gathered around a US military vehicle in the hopes of a gift. Not only did that attack slaughter innocent children but the US foiled a follow up plan to suicide bomb the funeral of these slain kids. Honestly, how sick can you be to revel in that death and gore while repudiating the scenes posted here? Are you so blinded by your hatred that you can no longer tell right from wrong? I think so. In a few days the naysayers posting here will find something new about which to be righteously indignant. They will wander off to spew their venom elsewhere leaving the blog to those of us who find it encouraging and valuable. Grandpa in cincy, time to use your head. Act your age gramps, The national media is being embarrassed daily now and they are finally starting to recognize it. I wonder how the NYT will explain a 40% drop in stock value at the next board meeting. I wonder how CNN explains its loss of the top position on cable. do you really think Katy what's her name will revive C BS after Ratherquiddick? jeff hamilton has only one thing to say, and there's a mercy. And of course our dear smintheus, who has arrogated unto himself the job of deciding just exactly how this blog should be run.

At 1:38 PM, Anonymous said...

Skipjack, You a sad, blind fool. Pull your head out of the ground, or out of your ass as the case may be. This Propaganda Blog should come down. What an embarrassment to journalism this is. The Enquirer sucks.

At 1:39 PM, Kathi said...

Suzanne Thanks once again for your posting. As a mother and soon to be grandmother, it was important to me to read the viewpoint of someone like you. I haven't even bothered to find out what all the hullabaloo that all the snarky, nasty, and small minded commenters are raving about is. Sounds like a manufactured tempest in a teapot. I agree there has to be a way to halt anonymous comments, check with Blogger. To SKIPSAILING....I am still rolling on the floor laughing over your comment on the previous post regarding journalist ethics:) Thanks for making my day! And I am hopeful that you are right, and that in a few days the people who have spewed such vitriol in the comments will have found somewhere else to spew. God bless you,Suzanne!

At 1:41 PM, Anonymous said...

inundate this right wing propaganda blog with postings until it crashes or the fishwrap takes it down!

At 1:49 PM, Anonymous said...

I agree, there's plenty of news out there that highlights the civilian and military casualties in Iraq, but very few that highlight the good that is taking place as a result of the hard work that our Soldiers, Sailors, Airman, Marines and members of the U.S. Government are doing in that country. And similar efforts are taking place in many parts of the world to include Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa. And speaking of death and destruction in Iraq, where's the national media coverage of all the murders, rapes and robberies that occur in this country every day? In this country where we are supposed to be safe and secure? Where is your outrage at this lack of news coverage? Other than the most heinous of crimes, the rest go virtually unnoticed and unreported. Do you know how many people are murdered every year in this country? In 2004 there were 16, 137 murders, 94, 635 rapes, 401,326, robberies and 845, 911 assaults. Put things into perspective. Life is better in Iraq than it has been in years, but our media focuses our attention on the negative and the insurgents want the U.S. population to focus on the negative. The more we see the negative the less and less supportive the average U.S. citizen will be to support the war. That’s what the insurgents want and they are winning. Is that what we want as a country and as a society? We better start getting serious about this war and about the consequences of loosing it and realize that

these terrorist’s goals are much broader than simply kicking us out of Iraq. They are looking to take what you have. Western news media has habitually reported on the most negative aspects of human behavior because that's what sells papers and gets ratings -- "if it bleeds it leads." That's never going to change. So if someone wants to highlight the good taking place in a war zone such as Iraq, more power to them. And I don’t care if she is a public affairs office or not. She has a right as a citizen to speak her mind. I just hope that those who read her posts are open minded enough to listen. As long as what is written about is truthful and factual I think it is useful, fair and much needed. Hang in their Grandma, you're doing great!!! S. Campbell

At 1:49 PM, College Hillbilly said...

Right on, anonymous. Free speech is a precious, finite commodity. Allowing someone else to give their perspective from Iraq erodes all of our rights to sit on our couches and criticize the war. We should not stop at debating this issue with facts. We should attempt to shout down anyone who disagrees with us.

At 1:59 PM, Anonymous said...

I love this blog! You go girl!

At 2:20 PM, Nicole said...

My mother is indeed a real person, and a real Grandma. She is a generous, beautiful and amazing woman who truly believes in her job. She loves her job with the Corps of Engineers and she loves to tell people about the good things that they do. That's all this blog is about. It didn't pretend to be anything but that. We all know bad things are happening in Iraq. We hear about it every day on the news. Isn't it slightly refreshing to hear about some of the good things in Iraq? Even for us liberals? Personally, I would like to hope that some good is coming out of this war. My mother is giving us a glimpse of some of the progress that IS being made. Love you, Mom! Can't wait to see you when you get home!

At 2:25 PM, Anonymous said...

800 Mud Schools - 300 BILLION DOLLARS 3 year quagmire - 40000 DEAD 1 Muddy faced smiling future suicide bomber - PRICELESS

Here little boy. $5000 soccer ball for ya. Courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. We'll have your daddy back from sexually humiliating bag-over-the-head run-naked through excrement incarceration at some future date. Because... we care. I remember reading about the 3rd Reich in school. The ascendancy of the National Socialist party through the 30s, and day after day in class, I was thinking, how could people just accept all this. Without a word. Without speaking out. Without standing against it. Little by little, incrementally, the mounting lies, the belligerence, the sheer insanity of it all. Friends, we keep acquiescing to this INSANITY, we will look back 10 years from now and wonder sorrowfully why we stood by without doing something. It's time to be heard. SUZANNE: You don't round up and arrest and kill and slaughter whole clans and then walk around soothing nerves with SOCCER BALLS. You don't plant a boot on someone's neck and hold a gun to their head and smile at them and say, 'we're here to help you.' You don't enter a stranger's house uninvited, with a metal smashing fist blasting your way through the countryside, and expect to change people's minds with SOCCER BALLS. In 2003 the insurgency was estimated to be 20,000. In 2004, the insurgency was estimated to be 20,000. Three years later, an alleged 40,000 insurgents imprisoned or killed, and today, the insurgency is estimated to be 20,000. Where DO they all come from? Little kids kicking around your $5000 soccer balls. The brutal stupidity of this whole mess is so sickening words do not suffice. But LET'S DO be PERFECTLY CLEAR about this. This isn't a republican

mess, a democrat mess, an administration mess. The Military Industrial Complex of this country, with the full support of the House of Representatives, the Senate, the White House, the Supreme Court, the National Media, has signed off on this CATASTROPHIC mess, and is throwing out our good name, our freedoms, our proud heritage, our financial solvency, our sense of decency, ALL OF IT, in less than a generation, for........... WHAT??????? Soccer balls. Water pipes. Mud fields. Dirt roads. And miles and miles of corpses. DISGUSTED

At 2:44 PM, Anonymous said...

I see you drank the purple terrorist Kool-aid and that you have your facts wrong. This is a long war and it is a struggle that we can't afford to loose. You're making light of something that deserves much more respect. As usual, you’re heavy on the vitriolic rhetoric, but light on facts and reasoning...One point you make is well said, "where do they all come from?" It is that exact point that should concern us all. Until we can stop the newly recruited extremists, we are not going to be safe and running away isn't going to solve the problem. This country must stay the course...

At 2:46 PM, Anonymous said...

What an immature response...

At 3:49 PM, Anonymous said...

BOOM. Okay. Gauntlet. Let's do it. Right here. Right now. FACTS. Let's discuss FACTS. Fire away. FACTS. DEBATE. Can't wait. No namecalling. No B.S. Facts. Sweet sweet scientific FACTS. FACT: The U.S. has a current national deficit of 8,000,000,000,000 dollars... and counting. FACT: In order not to DEFAULT on the debt to pay for this DEBT, your sleazeball political representatives had to raise the debt ceiling. No debate on it, no arguing about it. Raised it, there you go. Sweet sweet soccer ball granny's 15 grandkids got handed a sweet sweet little present of $40,000 DEBT... EACH. There you go grandkids. Gramma loves you. PAY up. 40K. Let's go. PAY. FACT: The PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA is the NUMBER ONE buyer/owner of U.S. Treasury bonds that help PAY for this ASTRONOMICAL DEBT. WITHOUT Chinese bond purchases, you don't get your rifle ammo, you don't get your soccer balls to Iraqi suicide bomber babies, you don't get your fancy 82nd Airborne, you don't get your 12 aircraft carriers patrolling the high seas in search of evildoers. Without the COMMUNIST Chinese paying OUR debt, you get SQUAT. FACT: On September 11, 2001, four commercial U.S. airliners, commandeered by 19 Saudi and Kuwaiti nationals who trained in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Germany, and Florida, were exploded into targets across the Eastern seaboard, which was observed by Israeli

Intelligence agents, who were arrested by U.S. federal officials, interrogated, and then released. Poof. Gone. FACT. IN RESPONSE to this, our great and grand and benevolent masters chose to launch a military invasion of a former strategic ally, to wit, IRAQ, a country we supported financially, militarily and economically for over forty years, through a political ally WE installed and supported, to wit, one Saddam Hussein, who merrily gassed Kurds with happy recklessness , to which we responded with...................... MORE military support, a country we then turned our backs on on the drop of a dime, and have held in a VICE GRIP since 1991 with aerial overflights, tactical BOMBINGS, weapons inspectors, covert operators, and economic sanctions. A country we WHOOOPED in less than 100 hours in 1991, and after 12 years, with ALL that military and economic and political pressure, mysteriously ends up SMACK DAB in the center of our target ring, because, and get this, thousands of surveillance flights by the U.S. Air Force over the course of 12 years, dozens of Special Operations forces cruising freely through the country, international weapons inspectors somehow MISS the evil and satanic Saddam Hussein SECRETLY building.... drumroll.................. weapons of MAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSS destruction.......... under our VERY noses for 12 years no less. And THREE YEARS later, after OWNING every single last square inch of Iraqi real estate and the entire population under our boot and at our beck and call, we manage to find exactly NOT ONE OUNCE of ANYTHING of these alleged WMDs. And I am of course ASTOUNDED by this. WOW. What a SHOCKER. There you go. Debate. Go. Do it. Argue. Reason. What? WHAT?

At 3:51 PM, JM said...

The person who posted the endless "Bring down this blog" post may be immature, but he/she also has a valid point. Nothing against grandma as a person, but this blog has NO reason to be on a news-related site.

At 4:14 PM, Anonymous said...

Suzanne Fournier should sever her ties with the Enquirer and run her blog independently. It is her affiliation with the Enquirer which, by hosting her blog, is providing tacit endorsement of her point of view. What if the Enquirer hosted a blog covering medical issues written by a PR flak for the pharmaceutical industry. It would stink, just like this does. Ms. Fournier is not a reporter for the Enquirer and she is not a disinterested party. She has every right to express her opinions and to push the Army's agenda. What she shouldn't be doing is using a major daily newspaper to promote that agenda. The longer the Enquirer keeps this going, the more of a joke they become. It's their reputation that's going down the toilet.

At 4:17 PM, Rob Bernard said...

You want to discuss facts Anonymous 3:49? How about we start with your name?

At 4:19 PM, Anonymous said...

When it comes to bad timing, you've got to hand it to the Cincinnati Enquirer. Just as the rest of the country is finally joining the world and turning against Bush-Cheney and this disgraceful failure of a war, the Enquirer decides to defend an Army propaganda blog. As the bumper sticker says, you can't fix dumb. And still neither the paper nor Ms. Fournier will say who at the Enquirer hired her. When will we get an answer to that question, Ms. Fournier? You have time to post all your happy snapshots. Why are you refusing to answer the question?

At 4:33 PM, Anonymous said...

FACT. Anonymous has written more in the comments than Granny has in her blog. FACT. Anonymous demands Granny identifies herself before she can write what she sees first hand. FACT. Anonymous refuses to identify himself but writes whatever he believes.

FACT. Many of his facts are wrong. FACT. If and when he grows up, he will look back on this in shame, else why remain anonymous. Puberty is tough, isn't it, anonymous. SPECULATION. Anonymous has a fair chance of becoming a man before his mother will.

myblg4u

At 4:38 PM, News Junkie said...

Ah, yes, all you Enquirer-bashers. But this blog has nothing to do with the Enquirer. From the Editor & Publisher story: Callinan stressed, however, that the blog is a separate entity from the Enquirer. He pointed out that, while both are on Cincinnati.com, the blog and the Enquirer's Web site, are separate. "There are a lot of things on the Cincinnati.com portal that our newsroom is not generating," he added. "This one was just one more voice." Managing Editor Hollis Towns said many in the newsroom did not know about the blog until the recent controversy. "There were a number of people who were unaware of it," he said. "The newsroom does not direct content on the Web."

At 4:41 PM, skipsailing said...

The thing is, anonymous postings are really not very helpful. One anonymous poster attempted to goad me. sorry old chum, I don't respond to anonymous. If you'd like to engage in a discussion, get a blogger ID and we'll have at it. but if you lack the courage to do that, well I just can't see spending my time dealing with you. It is simply amazing to me that the anti war crowd has sunk to this nadir of decency. This level of anger and vitriol smacks of desperation and that is not surprising. It is clear that iraq is creaking and groaning its way toward a new day. that new day will be without a Saddam hussein or the dictator Dujour but it will be with hope for the future a hope that NO ONE in Iraq had prior to the co alition's arrival. why is the left, which was founded on such lofty priniciples, so willing to condemn the people of the Middle East to grinding poverty and oppression? What happened to the values that used to animate you? Frankly, the pictures here are not uncommon elsewhere on the web. this is one of the biggest problems that the national news organizations face. There is a flood of photographs and videos being brought home by our people in Iraq. these tell a story that is much different from what the MSM (apparently) has shared. Recently I had the opportunity to review thousands of photos taken by members of our military and I was amazed. Further, those that find this blog to be "propaganda" should go visit some other milblogs. There you will find that the activities highlighted

in today's posting are a common part of what our military does everyday in Iraq. When this war first started the anti war crowd insisted that the US military win not only the fighting, but hearts and minds. It is quite clear that these magnificient people in our military have indeed won both. Yet here we see the same old thoughtless bigotry. Our military is viewed as baby killers or murderers or worse, yet anyone with a few minutes and a web connection knows that this is simply not the case. the anti war left routinely, and thoughtlessly, accuses our military of doing EXACTLY what Al quaeda does as often as possible. In fact Al Quaeda in iraq was so brutal and so savage that even the Sunnis have turned their backs on them. the Iraqis will have peace, in fact the vast majority of them already do, and they will have a chance at prosperity that will shame the neighboring governments. Mesopotamia was once the cradle of civilization, Baghdad was once the center of learning for the region and many in Iraq dream of day when that glory returns. do they have a long road ahead? of course, but as we all know, the journey of a thousand miles begins beneath one's feet. so let them take their first few faltering steps. Let them learn new ways of resolving conflict and making decisions, let them grow and join the modern world. We in America should be proud of the great gift we have given the Iraqis. We should be proud of the men and women who went there to fight and to heal. We should be proud that our mission wasn't simple revenge or threat elimination but a great experiment to see if a great people can bestow a great gift on others in need. what is so wrong with this? why is the american left so angry about

what we are doing here? It seems to me that this is exactly what the movement set out to do all those years ago in San Francisco and woodstock. How far have you strayed from your noble heritage?

At 5:03 PM, Anonymous said...

Yes. What's your name. The bootstomp of every fascist in history. Ausweiss Bitte. Like the string of vowels and consonents is going to change anything. Four counterposts and nothing but name-calling and slanders. My facts are wrong? Prove it. Or not. Your slandering maligning rhetoric speaks for itself. My name? My name is U.S. Army Veteran. My name is Honorable Discharge. My name is Tax Payer. My name is Registered Voter. My name is Federal Firearms Dealer. My name is Firearms Owner. My name is Patrick Henry. Save your leftist Commie shill rhetoric for your baboon conventions. I probably own more firearms than the lot of you combined. Men and women in my family have served this country in North Africa, France, Germany, Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq. You don't get to wrap yourself in MY flag. It's precisely because my family has served in every single major TO since WWII that I REFUSE to allow one single more member to go off to bleed or die for some political shill's financial self-aggrandizement and enrichment. You sad Commie pigs are so high on federal handouts and so politically illiterate you make Joseph Stalin look like a Goldwater Republican. Not a single one of you has answered.

More slanders. Go for broke. Knock yourself out. No debate. Nothing. Just a pack of illiterate jabbering baboons high on Commie Chinese bond buyouts baring their teeth. Boy oh boy am I scared. Yawn. I knew it. Civics lesson concluded.

At 5:06 PM, skipsailing said...

Nicole, your mom is doing a magnificent job. her task in Iraq is important and thoughtful people will value her for her efforts. As to the thoughtless people here, I will give you the same advice I posted yesterday: Nihil illigitimata non carborundum. Kathi, thank you for the kind words.

At 5:30 PM, smintheus said...

The point of objection is obvious, to anybody who's willing to consider it: That this blog is propaganda by an Army Corps propagandist, and it's linked to the Enquirer. Nobody is objecting to good deeds in Iraq, nor belittling service to one's country. Nor is anybody objecting to Grandma in Iraq having a blog per se, nor telling her what to write or think.

The objection is simply that this is government propaganda. Witness the absense of any discussion on this blog of the war, the civil war, or the effects of warfare on Iraqis, except the good deeds of Americans there. The attempt of the Enquirer to distance itself from these blogs is laughable. Anybody checked out any of the other blogs hosted at this site? No connection to the newspaper? Hah. The Enquirer never would have gotten involved in the controversy if they weren't already involved in the blog.

At 5:49 PM, mintmilano said...

I'm going to try and quantify some of the things that are wrong with this blog. 1) the personalization of the author as a woman and specifically as "Grandma", which is obviously designed to emotionally manipulate the reader, lower their standards as to what to expect as far as the quality of authorship ("it may not get a pulitzer, but hey, she's a grandma ! and she's over there !") and make it hard to criticize her. Is it relevant to the topic ? No. Lots of women that have all kinds of jobs around the world, including some very dangerous ones, happen to have grandchildren. I get the feeling they'd put up a blog about Iraq written by a small, big eyed puppy if they thought they could get away with it. 2) no bad news. I mean, She's been over there for a while, there's just no way she hasn't seen some very real horrors. If you were writing honestly about your experiences, for the primary purpose of expressing

what it is actually like to be there, don't you think those might come into it at some point ?

At 5:57 PM, Reginald Van Gleason IV said...

-Yea skipsailing, you are not anonymous at all, are you? -'The Long War'; Bushco's 5th attempt to find a brand name for this 'war' that will catch on. Keep looking boys. -This blog is written by a quisling propagandist, and hosted by a biased hackneyed rag. RVGIV

At 5:58 PM, skipsailing said...

Jeeze, smintheus, you really have whining down to a science don't you? if you think this is propaganda, then don't bleeping read it. Take it off your favorites list and move on. How hard is that to understand? Here's your money quote: "The objection is simply that this is government propaganda." Again, if you find it so objectionable go away and find something more to your tastes. and even if it is "government propaganda" so what? will the earth come to a screeching halt because your overwrought sensibilities are some

how offended? As I stated earlier, the paper that hosts this has no obligation to meet your standards at all. Is this all about being fair smintheus? Well if you want fair go to your mother. Life ain't fair. Grandma's got a blog and all you've got is an objection. Nope, don't seem fair, does it? I would ask you to bear something else in mind, and I share this with the other vituperative posters here. You are a guest. This is someone else's place, not yours. do you routinely visit people's homes to tell them how they must order their lives? Have you wandered over to your neighbors house to offer unrequested advice? Are you a busybody, running about telling everyone what they must do to insure that you never have an "objection"? what about simple politeness to your gracious host Smintheus? is that not something you are capable of? have you read the posts of the author's daughter? Does it fill you will glee to know that this woman feels compelled to respond to your boorish behavior? have you no shame? have you no self control? yesterday you remarked that I built a psychological profile for you. Well I'm about to add another detail: Grandma here has more courage than you. Not only does she have a better job than most, one that she clearly enjoys, but she's also working in a dangerous place while you sit in your arm chair doing the only thing you know how: bloviate.

You've said your piece, your "objection" is noted. so what?

At 6:02 PM, Anonymous said...

Anon 349, you ripped more holes in one post than the entire national media in three years. Good going. There's the Enquirer's lesson right there. Some anonymous blog post asks more hard questions in one single posting than your entire editorial staff since the start of the war. And you wonder why the Internet is winning over print media. For shame.

At 6:18 PM, mintmilano said...

Hey skipsailing... this isn't somebody's house. It is a pack of lies that we are all PAYING FOR with our tax dollars, published on this website for the express purpose of deluding people like you. As you say, how hard is that to understand ? I'm paying Gramma's salary, so I'm entitled to rate her job performance. I'll be brief, it sucks; this is because she lacks a basic understanding of the role and responsibility of the profession. She's doing it the wrong way because she is doing it for the wrong reasons. "As I stated earlier, the paper that hosts this has no obligation to meet your standards at all. " nonsense. Despite their ongoing failure, they have a deep obligation,

and at least some of them are well aware of it. The free press is the only constitutionally protected industry in the US and is a big part of what we wave around all the time when we tell everybody else how much better we are than them.

At 6:21 PM, Anonymous said...

Skipjackass is one sad sack of crap, isn't he? He is so blindly allegiant to Bush, the war in Iraq and the repugnant party that he has stuck his head deep into the ground to avoid running into any facts. He has become obsessed with this blog, and he is defending it as though it were his own offspring. Meanwhile, The latest CBS News poll finds President Bush's approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 34 percent, while pessimism about the Iraq war has risen to a new high. 69% of America now opposes the war in Iraq. Sorry skipjackass, there is a wind of change blowing, and your corrupt GOP overlords are going to be kicked out of power this November. Then we will impeach this lying, cheating lawbreaking bastard of a president. BRING THIS PROPAGANDIST BLOG DOWN INDEED!!!!

At 6:36 PM, Anonymous said...

Not sayin that these are great debates or anything, far from it, just wanted to point out that during the Federalist-Anti-Federalist debates preceeding the drafting of the Constitution many contributors posted

anonymously under pseudonyms. It was common practice. So I don't really see how establishing identity over the internet for a bunch of comments is going to prove anything one way or the other. In the end, the arguments should speak for themself on the strength of their ideas.

At 6:36 PM, Anonymous said...

Editor & Publisher is continuing to follow this story. They published this second article today.

At 6:41 PM, Anonymous said...

Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new antiU.S. jihadists. These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced and focused on acts of urban terrorism. They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries. -Porter Goss, CIA Director We are not going to win the War on Terror just by killing people abroad, even if they are terrorists. It's not enough.... It's not like we can single out, if we could just kill, it's not World War II where there were certain number of enemy formations, or factories to produce aircraft and once you eliminated these you could be pretty sure that the situation would appear different to the enemy leadership. This is not that kind of a conflict.

When we kill people, we make enemies! And when we kill the wrong people, it's even worse and less defensible. -General wesley Clark “[Iraq] is far graver than Vietnam. There wasn't as much at stake strategically, though in both cases we mindlessly went ahead with the war that was not constructive for US aims. But now we're in a region far more volatile, and we're in much worse shape with our allies.” -General William Odom Of particular concern has been the conflation of al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq as a single, undifferentiated terrorist threat. This was a strategic error of the first order because it ignored critical differences between the two in character, threat level and susceptibility to U.S. deterrence and military action. The result has been an unnecessary preventive war of choice against a deterred Iraq that has created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic terrorism and diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable al-Qaeda. - Strategic Studies Institute of the Army War College I'm not the expert on how the Iraqi people think, because I live in America, where it's nice and safe and secure. -George w. Bush

At 6:47 PM, Anonymous said...

The Cincinnati Enquirer looks like groveling administration toadies in front of the entire publishing industry. The second Editor & Publisher quotes Peter Bronson: "I don't see a problem with it as long as it is clear who it is."

Why is Bronson quoted? My bet is it was Bronson who invited Ms. Fournier to publish her blog on the Enquirer's real estate. Then when the booboo hit the fan, he got the honor of giving a quote to E&P. The Enquirer has been on its knees ever since Lindner took them to the cleaners. Now the rest of the country is getting a whiff of how they operate. Callinan, don't be an idiot. Look what happened to the WashPost with their fake right wing Ben Domenech blog. Pull the plug on Grandma. Reporters and editors are laughing at you.

At 9:20 PM, Great Defense! said...

I like how Hollis Towns defends the paper by making its reporters/editors sound like aloof, out-of-touch people who don't even read Cincinnati.com. What a pathetic and backhanded defense.

At 10:31 PM, Nicole said...

Well, I hate to spoil the party, but my mother's service is done, so this blog is soon to be history. But, keep up the debate. People who love America ask a lot of tough questions. We want our country to do good and to be better. And that's why we get involved. That's a patriot, if you ask me.

But, you'll have to move the debate elsewhere. My mom's coming home.

At 10:45 PM, Anonymous said...

People who love America ask a lot of tough questions. How about you or your mother answering one, Nicole? Your mother's been ducking it all week. Who at the Enquirer gave her the go-ahead for this blog? Or does asking that question mean I don't love America?

At 10:55 PM, Anonymous said...

Sounds like the editorial board at the Enquirer was getting the whirlies so they gave Granny an honorable discharge!

At 11:00 PM, Anonymous said...

You gotta love the Enquirer. Bush's approval ratings are in the toity, Libby admits that Bush & Cheney ordered the Plame leak, but Tom Callinan wants to give a big wet one to Fearless Leader.

Tom and Peter Bronson, you blew it - as Cheney would say - Big Time!

At 11:07 PM, furtail said...

Nicole, Momma can't take the heat so she's leaving Iraq, and, consequently, the blog is coming down? How incidental and timely. Your momma had an IMPOSSIBLE job. I hope she doesn't waste her time or my money on any stupid assignments in the future. Sincerely, A taxpayer

At 11:11 PM, Missy Van Eaton said...

Hey, I really enjoy the photos and it's fantastic to see read your stories. I hope that you will put your works together on paper when you get back home. Despite the crap some of the naysayers post here and in other blogs, there are many hundreds of thousands of grateful families who support your efforts. Keep rockin!

At 12:17 AM, Anonymous said...

Note that a national journal, Editor & Publisher, has run two lengthy articles on this controversy, yet the Enquirer has not reported the story about itself. One thing everybody agrees on, including Ms. Fournier's husband, is that the Enquirer sucks.

At 8:37 AM, skipsailing said...

Gotta love mintmilano, such a wonderful person. It must be a pleasure to around you. first: do you really pay taxes? how unique among your peers that must be. Next, it still doesn't matter. you haven't established, beyond your thoughtless exhortations that this author was paid by her employer to produce this blog. If this is so, I haven't seen the evidence, but if you've got it, do share. My personal favorite is the bit about having the right to judge her performance. Oh really? Tell us Mintmilano, do feel the same about every other government employee? Do you routinely criticize the guys in the police cars or the fine folks at the IRS? Can we expect to see you explaining the intricate details of letter carrying to your postman? YOu do get mail don't you?

That's among the silliest things I've heard. Now when will you address my question? Why are people like you so opposed to the US doing good in Iraq? My suspicion is that this blog's contents simply doesn't fit into your paradigm for the US or the US military. And as another poster pointed out, rather than debate, you'll attempt to simply shout it down. Like the unruly kids on a college campus who are fervent believers in free speech as long as its the free speech they want to hear. Hopefully some of the angry posters here will grow up. I don't have much hope for a few of you but some of you might actually one day mature enough to take a place in adult society. Another truly amazing point that dear Mintmilano makes is this: "...this is because she lacks a basic understanding of the role and responsibility of the profession. She's doing it the wrong way because she is doing it for the wrong reasons." It seems to me Mintmilano that you are being quite bigoted here. Let's examine your position for a moment. Is there some special religious sacrement that reporters must train for before they may 'report'? Is this process designed to insure that reporters perform only in a manner acceptable to you mintmilano? If this is so, how do explain eason jordan and jayson blair? How do you explain the almost daily retractions that the grey lady is forced to make? there's nothing oh so special about being a journalist. There's no secret society with a special handshake and a code of ethics. I've said it over and over: jouralistic ethics is an oxymoron.

Don't beleive me? Ask Dan Rather and Marla Mapes. They know all about journalistic ethics. YOu've arrogated to yourself the role of judge and jury. Everyone on the federal payroll must perform according to your exacting standard. But that's not enough, oh no. Now you're going to tell anybody in the media how they must behave. what's even more amazing is that you're not only quite willing to dictate performance standards to all and sundry, you are even intent on insuring that everyone's motivation is politically correct. But you're not arrogant at all are you mintmilano? You're just your average american guy with a deep sense of righteous indignation, right? somewhere in Indiana Ernie Pyle is rolling over in his grave.

At 9:06 AM, Smedley Darlington Butler said...

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China

in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. - Smedley Darlington Butler (July 30, 1881 – June 21, 1940), nicknamed "The Fighting Quaker" and "Old Gimlet Eye," was a Major General in the U.S. Marine Corps and, at the time of his death, the most decorated Marine in U.S. history. Butler was awarded the Medal of Honor twice during his career, one of only 19 people to be so decorated.

At 9:08 AM, Dwight D. Eisenhower said...

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction... This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.

- President of the United States (and former General of the Army) Dwight D. Eisenhower in his Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961

At 9:43 AM, Anonymous said...

Jason Blair may have made up stories out of journalistic laziness. That is not propaganda and your tax dollars did not pay Jason Blair's salary. It is conservatives such as Armstrong Williams who was paid $240,000 in taxpayer money, quietly siphoned from the U.S. Treasury via global PR agency Ketchum Inc that shows a pattern of disinformation. Nice work if you can get it. Apparently only conservative mouthpieces can. In 2002, syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher repeatedly defended President Bush's push for a $300 million initiative encouraging marriage as a way of strengthening families. "The Bush marriage initiative would emphasize the importance of marriage to poor couples" and "educate teens on the value of delaying childbearing until marriage," she wrote in National Review Online, for example, adding that this could "carry big payoffs down the road for taxpayers and children." But Gallagher failed to mention that she had a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the president's proposal. In 2004 alone, the Bush administration spent more than $88 million on public relations contracts, drawn from a slush fund that’s used more than $1.6 billion in tax dollars to sway public opinion. It’s unclear exactly how much public largesse went to create “covert propaganda;”

but we know that at least three pr firms quietly pocketed tens of millions of dollars each to deploy faux journalists to flack for the conservative policies favored by the president. Whatever salary Grandma in Iraq receives comes from tax payer coffers. She is like P&G claiming that only Tide will get your clothes clean. Nothing she writes will be anything other than "happy horses**t". And let's not even get started on man whore Jeff Gannon.

At 9:50 AM, skipsailing said...

Yes, Dwight Eisenhower. I've read much of his writing. In crusade in europe he wrote: "The compelling necessities of the moment leave us no alternative to the maintenance of real and respectable strength--not only in our moral rectitude and economic power, but in terms of adequate military preparedness. To neglect this, pending universal resurgence of a definite spirit of co operation, is not only foolish, it is criminally stupid. Moreover, present day weakness will alarm our friends, earn the contempt of others, and virtually eliminate any influence of ours toward peaceful adjustment of world problems. The lessons of 1914 and 1939 remain valid so long as the world has not learned the futility of making competitive force the final arbiter of human questions." Crusade In Europe, doubleday 1949 page 476. What are the lessons for us today? First that our enemies will respond to weakness with contempt. Witness

OBL's sneering assumption that we would cut and run after an attack. His contempt for us lead directly to 9/11. Next, that unilateral disarmament might remain a lofty goal, but we still lack the necessary preconditions. That "spirit of co operation" is simply not universal yet. Finally, Eisenhower correctly points out that America must maintain three sources of influence: our military, our economic power and our moral rectitude. Despite the yammerings of the world wide socialist movement and its lackey's here in America we are doing well in all three areas. Thanks for bringing up Eisenhower.

At 10:28 AM, General Wesley Clark said...

Operating on the theory that if you say something enough times people will believe it, the Bush administration and its allies have in the last few years confidently put forth an array of assertions, predictions, and rationalizations about Iraq that have turned out to be nonsense. They've told us that Saddam's regime was on the verge of building nuclear weapons; that it had operational links with al Qaeda; that our allies would support our invasion if we stuck with our insistence about going it alone; that we could safely invade with a relatively small number of ground troops; that the Iraqi people would greet us as liberators; that Ahmed Chalabi could be trusted; that Iraq's oil revenues would pay for the country's reconstruction; and that most of our troops would be out of Iraq within six months of the initial invasion. - General Wesley Clark, Washington Monthly, May 2005

At 11:02 AM, Paul Krugman said...

Paul Krugman talks about the failure of Conservatism as a movement to address the problems of our country and of the Iraq War. The Republicans have been in power for six years. In that time, they have totally failed to address the problems of this country, especially the problems of Iraq. Conservatism is based on voodoo economics, or the theory that lower taxes will sitmulate investment into the economy, which results in more money coming into the coffers than what would have come out of higher taxes. But that is simply not the case. The two people most faithful to this line of thinking are Bush and Reagan. They were also the two Presidents who had the largest deficits in US history. Conservatism rejects the notion of the welfare state, or the notion that government must provide for the poor. It believes that people are responsible for their own welfare and that only people unable to take care of themselves should get governmental handouts. But this ignores the fact that we tried this method for 150 years before the Great Depression struck. As a result, we were always stuck in a cycle of boom and bust, where people lost their jobs and where countless lives were broken. Let us apply this twisted reasoning to Iraq. You would think that the Iraqi people would be able to find jobs on their own; right? Wrong; unemployment is anywhere between 40%-70%. There is no electricity, water, or phone service worth speaking of. This is similar to the times before the Roosevelt administration, where private companies would not invest in rural electrification, phone service, or water. The government stepped in and provided those services. If you think about the Great Depression, where the old were left to die, the poor were left to starve or work for unsafe coal mines, where accidents like the

West Virginia disaster happened on a regular basis, or banks could fail and you would lose all your money, that is what this country was like before we came to power in 1932 and fixed these things. And this is the sort of thing that is happening in Iraq as well. Iraq and Katrina are living examples of a failed ideology in action. In both Iraq and Katrina, people have had to fend for themselves in third world conditions because, after all, conservatism teaches that it is your fault for being poor. Or immoral, one of the two. The Republicans are the ones who would take the money out and leave people to sink or swim. By contrast, Democrats are the ones who would put the money in. We would spend money that would actually go towards the rebuilding of Iraq, not line the pockets of Halliburton. We would give people the resources they need to succeed in life. Not only that, we would raise the minimum wage so that it would be financially beneficial to get off of welfare and into work. The UK set a minimum wage that is double ours in 1997; the unemployment rate dropped from 6% then to 3% today, they wiped out their deficit, and employers hired more people to meet the demand of people who had more disposable income and wanted to take advantage.

At 1:18 PM, strykeraunt said...

WOW! What the heck happened!! I was away from reading your blog for a few days and was shocked to see comment section when I returned. I understood from your articles who you were from the beginning and, therefore, don't get what all this flack is about. The first time I came to your blog I sent you an email to find out if you could give me information about obtaining a job with the Corp of Engineers in

Iraq...that was back in December. For those who may not understand, the Corp is not a part of the active military branch, instead it is a civilian branch that works on construction and reconstruction projects throughout the world. The Corp of Engineers are NOT combat engineers. A public affairs officer in this organization would know more about the reconstruction efforts than any other operation intended to root out terrorist. Suzanne is sharing information in regards to the area of Iraq in which she works. It would be irresponsible of her to post information about areas outside of that sector. In addition, someone mentioned in the other comment section that someone who is serving in Iraq does Suzanne, I understand that some of the information you post is (sadly) what some people really do not want to read about. They are so stuck on the bad that they don't want to read about any good...they do not want to know there is good happening in Iraq. However, people can either choose to come here or not. What I found really sad is that I often had the feeling you were posting for the benefit of your grandchildren and other family members. Your family members don't need to see this kind of bashing against you. I have been a family member of someone serving in Iraq and know how I would feel...and so it really saddened me to see what has occurred here. Nicole, I can truly understand the enormous pride and fear that you are experiencing right now because I have been there myself. Your mom is a very honorable person, and does not deserve the treatment she is receiving by some who have chosen to comment here. I also read your post that she is coming home, Woohoo!! Suzanne, Take care and stay safe.

At 2:14 PM, skipsailing said...

Let me answer "cyber Joe"'s question about the sunni and shia. An aquaintance recently asked me the same question and I thought about it for a while and came up with this answer. What if the man who raped your daughter then tortured her then killed her was walking around in America," I asked. "Would you feel compelled to kill him?" Perhaps not, we're Americans and Americans for the most expect our judicial system to deal with criminals. Now what if you're part of the muslim/arab culture? what if you've been raised on a thousand years of blood feuds and political violence. Are you going to wait for some new judicial system or are you going to seek vengeance on your own? the Sunnis made a few critical miscalculations. They bet that they could kill enough Americans to drive us out. That didn't work as my posting about fallujah clearly describes. then they bet on Al Queada. that didn't work as the recent spate of red on red fighting clearly illustrates. So now the Sunni, who are a minority in Iraq are facing a majority of people who are justifiably angry.

The kurds were gassed, the shia were butchered and the marshes were drained, all at the hands of Saddam and his coterie of Sunni supporters. What is amazing about all this is actually how LITTLE violence there is considering the endless provocations the iraqis currently endure. To bring an end to this will require a reconciliation, a healing, a catharsis. Saddam's trial offers such an opportunity. Were I in charge in Iraq I would immediately declare Ramzi Clark and his fellow traveller PNG. I would move through the trial swiftly and follow it with a very public hanging. Joe, there is a saying that you should bear in mind: he who forgets history is doomed to repeat it. The italians hung mussolini. Where is pinochet now? The fall of a tyrannt naturally leaves a vacuum, and the people who lived under his sway must muddle through. The iraqis need a catharsis. they need an opportunity to heal the wounds that thirty years of Saddam created. they see the opportunity that co altion gave them and they will work hard not to capitalize on it. The people of iraq have to make so many changes at once I am impressed with their desire to see it all through. the muslim faith must change as well. They must wrest control of Islam from the madmen who have highjacked it. They must find away to adapt their faith to the modern world. I believe they can do this. I have faith in people and their common sense.

So there Joe.

At 3:28 PM, Anonymous said...

Skipsailing is a fool. He is also blind to all the facts involved with Iraq, the Mideast in general and he has obviously pledged his blind support to this corrupt administration, and he is going to go down with the ship. Your brain has gone soft from counting all of those beans.

At 4:13 PM, Anonymous said...

skipsailing presumes to know what Iraqis want or need but can't fathom or deal with or understand the average American opposed to this perverse and sick farce and holds us in contempt and can't answer the simplest of questions. I laugh out loud every time I listen to one of these little RISK-playing Napoleons carving up the globe and making benevolent suggestions what other people should want/need/like/dislike according to the Napoleonic creed of empire ('were I in charge' BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA.... SIEG HEIL Adolf! Hang 'em all. And then you can get busy hanging all those loathsome libruls and gays and 'difrunt' longhaired hippies, and the protestors too, oooh, ooooh, and let's not forget ANONYMOUS internet posters, hang 'em all!!!!!). Contemptible idiot. skipsailing.... GO. GO! GO to Iraq. Heaven forbid, don't let ME stop you from going. GO already. Go run the country. Go hang all the dictators

and the dictators' little supporters, present and past. Make sure you hang ALL of them too. Would be quite a sight.

At 5:09 PM, furtail said...

A sobering report in today's headlines from Salon http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8GS106G0.html

At 5:27 PM, Anonymous said...

Dear Granny. Glad to read you're coming home. I am sure you will have memories of a lifetime, and many Iraqis you have dealt will will remember you kindly. As for this anonymous person ranting and raving about your blog, do not forget that some people cannot stand, or maybe, understand, people who do good. Let's not forget that John F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, John Lennon, the victims of the Oklahoma Bombing (and many more) were all assasinated by Americans. Mohandis K. (Mahatma) Ghandi, one of the the greatest peace activists in history. was assasinated by a fellow Hindu. And the greatest peacemaker of all was crucified by his own countrymen.

You have tried to bring some good to the world, in your own small way and that brings out the hate in people. How sad for them. This vile being spewed out is not only against you and the Enquire, but to intimidate, and to try to prevent, anyone else from writing good news. Water always seeks it own level, and hateful people only want hateful news. You have done good things for your country, and don't let anyone take that away from you. Thank you for your service to America, Iraq, and the people of the world who want Peace for all. God bless you and your family. B.Richards

At 10:08 PM, elendil said...

You can put as many pictures of happy smiling children on your blog as you like, it still won't change the fact that (a) this war was built on a lie, (b) you have destroyed a nation and destabilised a region, and (c) you have blood on your hands. Reality's a bitch, mark my words, and you'll have some 'splaining to do when the blowback kills another 3000 people.

At 9:39 AM, skipsailing said...

Personally, I'm a big fan of writing that emphasizes and economy of words. Elendil's post really demonstrates how this can be done.

Within a few short paragraphs she repeats all the main themes of unhinged left. Let's take them one at a time. First we have "bush lied to start the war". This one's been around a while and for the more thoughtless of the KOSkids it's tried and true. Or is it? In order to believe that Bush lied one must have a deep understanding of how all this works. You see the Bush lied thing goes this way: First, the president lies about, oh say WMD. Then the president sends hundreds of thousands of trained personnel to Iraq KNOWING THEY WON'T FIND WMD. NOw there's evil genius at work, right? I predict that the response to this from some anonymous poster will speak to the good old "bushchimphitler" routine. The KOSkids are nothing if not predictable. Then we get the complaint that the US destabilized the region. This is far more troubling to me. First, the KOSkids cannot be made to understand that destabilizing the region was EXACTLY what needed to happen. It was a bubbling cauldron of hate and leaving it as it was only meant more 9/11's. Another troubling point is that stability in the region basically means oppression for it's people. The american left, which was founded on some very lofty priniciples, is so angry at "bushchimphitler" that they will gladly abandon thier woodstock ideals and condemn the people of Iraq to life under a murderous tyrant. In so doing they also willfully condemn everyone else in the region to short brutal lives at the whim of such wonderful people as Bashar Assad and ahmenadinajad. Further, just how stable was it anyway? Iraq was a regional bully. syria was slaughtering lebanese to retain power, the iranians spread hate

throughout the world while the feckless saudis bought peace for themselves by bankrolling a wahabbi expansion. condi rice got it right: for years we traded stability for democracy in this region and got neither. What is it with the anti war left that makes them feel proud of condemning others to lives of poverty and hopelessness? Where did they lose their moral compass? And then, elendil gives us the standard threat. We are exhorted to "mark" the words. Yes, the blow back from our actions in iraq will be terrible. Oh really? what this says is simple, fighting terror only creates terror therefore not fighting terror is to be prefferred. Of course that also means that we are then laid open to attack after attack but the KOSkids are convinced that only nasty neo cons will be killed, not them. They are safe because the next batch of fanatic suicide bombers will pass over the student union and destroy something else. Too bad, I guess, about the people who do get killed, but according to elendil, we simply cannot fight terror. Here's a question elendil. Where are these teeming masses of angry arabs and muslims intent on killing us? Are they massing at the iraqi borders with tablecloths on their heads and AK47's in their hands, just waiting for a chance to fight America's military? Oh yes, there was the one erruption of anger. Perhaps you recall it. It was the portion of the so called arab street that ran through amman jordan. Those people took to the streets to express their rage. the problem was, elendil, that the were angry with Al Qaeda, not us. the Jordanians declared Zarqawhi PNG and shortly thereafter Mr Zarqawhi fled Iraq for parts unkown. funny isn't it, that the guys on top never get themselves martyred?

Nothing like bombing and beheading to cement the old public image, eh? So you see, all these standard lines that the KOSkids hand out simply don't stand up to thoughtful scrutiny. I for one and damned glad that the adults are still in charge her in the US.

At 11:55 AM, Nicole said...

Thank you for all the support and encouragement here for my mother. To those of you who have been reading her blog since September, I hope you enjoyed it. It really was a personal thing for her, written mostly for friends and family, but also for anyone else who wanted to learn about a few good things happening in a war-torn place. Her main job in Iraq was as a liason between the Iraqis and the Corps of Engineers, which kept her pretty busy. So, this blog was truly done on her own time. As those of you who read the last article know, she was supposed to come home in January, but chose to stay an extra couple of months to complete a few more projects and to help train her replacement. Remember, if you have children who are outgrowing their clothes and shoes, you can still donate them to the distribution center, even though my mother is leaving. Even stained, soiled or things that need mending are welcome. The particulars are in the November archives under

"Thanksgiving Request." This truly was my mother's favorite project and I know she wants it to continue after her departure.

At 5:04 PM, Anonymous said...

Skipsailing, You are a chickenhawk, just like Bush and Cheney. Why don't you go and enlist in one of the services, or at least in the reserves. Then at least you won't look like such an enormous hypocrite and a fool. Before you ask, I served 14 years as an officer in the US Navy, then 7 years with the State Department. How about it Chickenhawk?

At 5:25 PM, Anonymous said...

Here's another on for you Skippy; "Why I Think Rumsfeld Must Go" A military insider sounds off against the war and the zealots who pushed it By LIEUT. GENERAL GREG NEWBOLD

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1181587,00.html Posted Sunday, Apr. 09, 2006 Two senior military officers are known to have challenged Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the planning of the Iraq war. Army General Eric Shinseki publicly dissented and found himself marginalized. Marine Lieut. General Greg Newbold, the Pentagon's top operations officer, voiced his objections internally and then retired, in part out of opposition to the war. Here, for the first time, Newbold goes public with a full-throated critique: In 1971, the rock group The Who released the antiwar anthem Won't Get Fooled Again. To most in my generation, the song conveyed a sense of betrayal by the nation's leaders, who had led our country into a costly and unnecessary war in Vietnam. To those of us who were truly counterculture—who became career members of the military during those rough times—the song conveyed a very different message. To us, its lyrics evoked a feeling that we must never again stand by quietly while those ignorant of and casual about war lead us into another one and then mismanage the conduct of it. Never again, we thought, would our military's senior leaders remain silent as American troops were marched off to an ill-considered engagement. It's 35 years later, and the judgment is in: the Who had it wrong. We have been fooled again. From 2000 until October 2002, I was a Marine Corps lieutenant general and director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After 9/11, I was a witness and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq—an unnecessary war. Inside the military family, I made no secret of my view that the zealots' rationale for war made no sense. And I think I was outspoken enough to make those senior to me uncomfortable. But I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat—al-Qaeda. I retired from the military four months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy. Until now, I have resisted speaking out in public. I've been silent long enough.

I am driven to action now by the missteps and misjudgments of the White House and the Pentagon, and by my many painful visits to our military hospitals. In those places, I have been both inspired and shaken by the broken bodies but unbroken spirits of soldiers, Marines and corpsmen returning from this war. The cost of flawed leadership continues to be paid in blood. The willingness of our forces to shoulder such a load should make it a sacred obligation for civilian and military leaders to get our defense policy right. They must be absolutely sure that the commitment is for a cause as honorable as the sacrifice. With the encouragement of some still in positions of military leadership, I offer a challenge to those still in uniform: a leader's responsibility is to give voice to those who can't—or don't have the opportunity to—speak. Enlisted members of the armed forces swear their oath to those appointed over them; an officer swears an oath not to a person but to the Constitution. The distinction is important. Before the antiwar banners start to unfurl, however, let me make clear—I am not opposed to war. I would gladly have traded my general's stars for a captain's bars to lead our troops into Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban and al-Qaeda. And while I don't accept the stated rationale for invading Iraq, my view—at the moment—is that a precipitous withdrawal would be a mistake. It would send a signal, heard around the world, that would reinforce the jihadists' message that America can be defeated, and thus increase the chances of future conflicts. If, however, the Iraqis prove unable to govern, and there is open civil war, then I am prepared to change my position. I will admit my own prejudice: my deep affection and respect are for those who volunteer to serve our nation and therefore shoulder, in those thin ranks, the nation's most sacred obligation of citizenship. To those of you who don't know, our country has never been served by a more competent and professional military. For that reason, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent statement that "we" made the "right strategic decisions" but made thousands of "tactical errors" is an outrage. It reflects an effort to obscure gross errors in strategy by

shifting the blame for failure to those who have been resolute in fighting. The truth is, our forces are successful in spite of the strategic guidance they receive, not because of it. What we are living with now is the consequences of successive policy failures. Some of the missteps include: the distortion of intelligence in the buildup to the war, McNamara-like micromanagement that kept our forces from having enough resources to do the job, the failure to retain and reconstitute the Iraqi military in time to help quell civil disorder, the initial denial that an insurgency was the heart of the opposition to occupation, alienation of allies who could have helped in a more robust way to rebuild Iraq, and the continuing failure of the other agencies of our government to commit assets to the same degree as the Defense Department. My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions—or bury the results. Flaws in our civilians are one thing; the failure of the Pentagon's military leaders is quite another. Those are men who know the hard consequences of war but, with few exceptions, acted timidly when their voices urgently needed to be heard. When they knew the plan was flawed, saw intelligence distorted to justify a rationale for war, or witnessed arrogant micromanagement that at times crippled the military's effectiveness, many leaders who wore the uniform chose inaction. A few of the most senior officers actually supported the logic for war. Others were simply intimidated, while still others must have believed that the principle of obedience does not allow for respectful dissent. The consequence of the military's quiescence was that a fundamentally flawed plan was executed for an invented war, while pursuing the real enemy, al-Qaeda, became a secondary effort. There have been exceptions, albeit uncommon, to the rule of silence among military leaders. Former Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki, when challenged to offer his professional opinion during prewar congressional testimony, suggested that more troops might be needed for the invasion's aftermath. The Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense

castigated him in public and marginalized him in his remaining months in his post. Army General John Abizaid, head of Central Command, has been forceful in his views with appointed officials on strategy and micromanagement of the fight in Iraq—often with success. Marine Commandant General Mike Hagee steadfastly challenged plans to underfund, understaff and underequip his service as the Corps has struggled to sustain its fighting capability. To be sure, the Bush Administration and senior military officials are not alone in their culpability. Members of Congress—from both parties— defaulted in fulfilling their constitutional responsibility for oversight. Many in the media saw the warning signs and heard cautionary tales before the invasion from wise observers like former Central Command chiefs Joe Hoar and Tony Zinni but gave insufficient weight to their views. These are the same news organizations that now downplay both the heroic and the constructive in Iraq. So what is to be done? We need fresh ideas and fresh faces. That means, as a first step, replacing Rumsfeld and many others unwilling to fundamentally change their approach. The troops in the Middle East have performed their duty. Now we need people in Washington who can construct a unified strategy worthy of them. It is time to send a signal to our nation, our forces and the world that we are uncompromising on our security but are prepared to rethink how we achieve it. It is time for senior military leaders to discard caution in expressing their views and ensure that the President hears them clearly. And that we won't be fooled again. From the Apr. 17, 2006 issue of TIME magazine

At 6:47 PM, skipsailing said...

it's really pretty simple. If you'd like to take my on, get a blogger ID.

I don't respond to "anonymous". anyone who lacks the courage to even invent a screen name is simply not worth the time. Oh, as to the chickenhawk charge, I find I'm a bit too old for military service. They simply won't have me. But I'd give my front seat in hell (My mother assured me that I have one!) to be embedded with the marines.

At 7:36 PM, Reginald Van Gleason IV said...

Skippy, What a load of shit, YOU ARE ANNONYMOUS. You are also an idiot and a fool. Why don'y you have the courage to post your real name? Cutting and running?

At 8:22 PM, Anonymous said...

He's a cut & run coward, Reggie. He also believes whatever Fox news, Bush, Cheney or other repugnants tell him to believe. His whole republican world is crashing down around him and he is lashing out at anyone he can hold responsible. He is going to stroke out next November when the Dems retake control of Congress. Bush's impeachment hearing will be the end of him. Good riddance to him and his breed of egocentric philistines!

At 10:22 PM, Anonymous said...

Skippy, where is all of this liberal media you keep ranting about? http://mediamatters.org/ You just can't stand to heat the truth, so when you do, it'd the 'liberals fault'.

At 6:18 AM, skipsailing said...

well Reggie, old boyu, here I am. As I said, any who'd like to take my on, get a blogger ID. As for you mr Van Gleeson. Tell us, do you kiss your mother with that mouth? Is this extent of you abiilty to engage in discourse? It seems to me that you have no cogent answers to the points I've made. Why else would you need to use bad language and ad hominem attacks? If you could actually develop an argument, support a thesis or otherwise put forward a reasonable opinion I'm sure you would. since you don't the obvious reason is that you can't. this blog isn't about me, it's about Iraq. Why not share with us some specific insight you might have about the doings there. Got a theory? or just DU talking points?

It's well understood at this point that the all the shouting on the left is simply a cover up for the bankruptcy of thier POV. Personal attacks are simply the only thing you've got left. Just look at the venom you and yours have spewed in the general direction of the author of this blog. You folks can't stand the idea that good might getting done in Iraq, it doesn't fit in your mental model of the world, therefore it's all lies right? Hopefully at some point Reggie old boy maturity will set in. perhaps not, but I have hope that you'll wise up someday.

At 9:48 AM, Anonymous said...

Suzanne, you are a lackey and a fraud.

At 10:16 AM, stcampbell01 said...

It's clear from this blog that the leftwing approach is to use namecalling and vehement rhetoric to attempt to insult and ridicule free speech and belittle Democratic values and hope that by doing so they’ll change our minds? What a novel approach. Grandma, Nicole, skipsailing, etc. have more class than Reggie and the many anons on this blog could ever hope to have. Grandma is a class act and she went into harms way to tell a story and she has done that rather well. What do the rest of you have to say for yourself? Have you ever served your country anon?

I will say that there has been some good debate, but unfortunately most of it has been meaningless, vitriolic, leftwing drivel not worthy of acknowledgement. As skipsailing said, if you don't like what you read here, don't read it. If you only appreciate bad news, you have many other options so use your God-given power of choice and choose to go somewhere else. If you want to have a healthy debate, then keep it healthy. If you're angry about Grandma's blog fine, but she's come clean so get over it already. It always amazes me how the left is so willing to ignore the dangers that face this country...Where was Bill Clinton when bin Laden was creating is network and support base and training his army of extremists? What were dems doing then? I'll tell you what they were doing...too little too late...they were launching a few cruise missiles trying to plug holes in a dam of violence that has broken. It’s only going to get worse and the dems they won’t do anything until it’s in their back yards and people are dying Americans are dying in droves…

At 10:35 AM, stcampbell01 said...

Glad to hear that you are coming home Suzanne. I hope you have a safe trip. We will all miss your blog and the great stir it created. It did bring some visibility to the "good things" that are happening in Iraq.

At 1:16 PM, seguin said...

Thanks for telling us some of the work our boys are doing Grandma. Sorry about the jackasses that are comparing this nation to Nazi Germany (freaking nutjobs), but certain people are going to believe

whatever tripe is handed to them by Ward Churchill types no matter how hard you beat them over the head with truth.

At 1:38 PM, Neal S. said...

Suzanne: Hope you make it through all of the rants to see that we're glad you're coming home safely. Those of us who have worked with you know the kind of professional you are, why you went to Iraq and the integrity of your words. Everyone else is just guessing. An Army PA professional.

At 6:21 PM, Reginald Van Gleason IV said...

The Skipper is a Cut & Run Coward. This blog is pure propaganda from a quisling hack, hosted by a 2nd rate biased rag.

At 7:56 PM, Kurd Tikrit, Iraq said...

Hey Anonymous at3:49pm,

You want to talk "FACTS"? I am shocked. Vicious Liberal Idiots never want to talk "facts". The #1 supplier of weapons to Saddam Hussein from 1979 to 1988 was The Soviet Union. China was #2 and France was #3. Where was the U.S.? If you do the numbers from when Saddam Hussein became President in 1979 the U.S. is at #11. http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/TIV_imp_IRQ_70-04.pdf Top Weapons Suppliers to Iraq from 1979 to 1990 I did the numbers and if you only look at the years Saddam was President from 1979 to 1990 the U.S. drops from #9 to #11 and Great Britain was #17. #1. USSR 26,102 #2. CHINA 5,736 #3. FRANCE 5,111 #4. CZECHOSLOVAKIA 2,095 #5. POLAND 640 #6. BRAZIL 617 #7. EGYPT 350 #8. DENMARK 351 #9. AUSTRIA 190 #10. ROMANIA 186 #11. U.S. 75 #12. GERMANY 52 Top weapons suppliers to Iraq, after 1988 gassing of Kurds ($m.): #1: USSR 1,570 #2: France 363 #3: Poland 218 #4: Egypt 47 #5: Czechoslovakia 45 #6: Germany 31 #7: Brazil 25

#8: China 23 #9: Switzerland 8 #10: Spain 2 The U.S. and U.K. STOPPED all arms sales after the 1988 gassing of the Kurds. Saddam's #2 General in the Iraqi Air Force has recently testified that he personlly oversaw 20 planeloads of WMDs secretly flown into three sites in Syria. The 20 planeloads were disguised as "humanitarian relief" when he was under SANCTIONS??!! Saddam didn't have enough relief supplies for his own people, which is what he used for excuses to let his own people starve, but then he has enough to send extra reliefe supplies to Syria? http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/ACOS64BRQW?OpenDocument&rc=3&cc=syr http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/OCHA64C4DH?OpenDocument&rc=3&cc=syr Here is a NY sun article on the subject: http://www.nysun.com/article/27110 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1511540.stm Saddam Hussein broke the Cease Fire Agreement numerous times and in this BBC article Tariq Aziz actually brags that they were able to "upgrade their technology during sanctions" to shoot down a U.S. Plane. After Iraq's General Sada tranported those Chemical and Biological Weapons to Syria 10 al-Qaida terrorists were captured with 20 tons of Chemical Weapons in Jordan. They were planning on attacking the Jordanian Intelligence Office, the U.S. Embassy, and Jordan Government Buildings. The al-Qaida terrorists admitted in a televised interogation on

Jordanian TV to receiving thoses weaposn from Syria. Some of the captured Chemical Weapons had only EVER been developed by Iraqi Scientists. http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/200404/27/content_326599.htm http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3635381.stm But the spineless "anonymous" wants to threaten an American Hero who is only reporting her first hand stories. What a creep you are. I bet spineless anonymous wishes Saddam Hussein was back in power. He only killed 400,000 of his own people. He never did anything to Americans right anonymous. He only put bullets into women's and babie's heads or buried them alive. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3738368.stm Right anonymous it was none of our business Saddam only killed his own people? Did you support President Clinton bombing Iraq for 4 days straight in December 1998? http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/ the video of President Clinton's speech is on the right. President Clinton stated, ""Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons." President Clinton also stated,"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors,"

Did you support the majority of Democrat and Republican leaders voting for and President Clinton endorsing and signing the "Iraqi Liberation Act", which officially endorsed REGIME CHANGE FOR IRAQ? http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/01/981101-in.htm President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act stating, "8 million will go to Iraqis wanting DEMOCRACY and to help them oppose Saddam. Regime change is the only option for Iraq." The drum beat for the Iraq War was started in 1998, 1999, 2000 by DEMOCRAT LEADERS.

Before 9/11, before 1998, 1999, and 2000 the Clinton Administration and leading Democrat leaders began the drum beat for the Iraq War and the fear mongering of Iraq's WMDs BEFORE BUSH SAID or DID ANYTHING or became President. Did all these Democrat leaders lie also?

Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998 "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors." Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998 "The (Clinton) administration has said, 'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."

Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998 Remember Clinton's national Security Advisor? "Saddm will use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."

Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998 "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

Dick Durbin > September 30, 1999 "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."

Al Gore > December 16, 1998 "[i]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..." John Kerry > February 23, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."

Nancy Pelosi December 16, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998 "We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century.... They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

http://www.whosaiditiraq.blogspot.com/ Fact, fact, fact, fact, fact.....

Clinton lied and people died! Gore lied and people died! Albright lied and people died! Kerry lied and people died! Sandy Berger lied and people died! Boy did Sandy Berger really lie. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/08/berger.sentenced/ I would like to know what damning classified documents Clinton's buddy, former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, DESTROYED from the National Archives????

At 12:30 AM, Anonymous said...

Kid Ti-Shit, Who gives a crap if we were the #1, #11 or #30 arms supplier to Iraq; the fact remains that WE ARMED THEM. We also armed Iran illegally and then funnelled the money to the contras. Forgot that one didnt you? There were no WMD's, the 911 commission, the Pentagon & even Bush & Cheney have said that Iraq had nothing to do with 911. We invaded Iraq with no plan for the aftermath and we dropped the ball on Afghanistan and let Bin Lauden ecscape. You are one blind fool Ti-Shit.

At 12:31 AM, Anonymous said...

'American hero' my ass!

At 1:47 AM, Eagle said...

This is a great blog, interesting and great pictures.

At 1:49 AM, Eagle said...

Anonymous 12:30 AM Russia, Germany and France helped bolster Saddam's regime and arm it, despite U.N. sanctions on Iraq on which they signed off. Also, Dutch businessman Frans van Anraat continued to supply industrial chemicals to Iraq after an export ban in 1984.

At 2:26 AM, Kat said...

Dear Grandma in Iraq, I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your posts. I've been coming over here from mudville gazette and reading your posts regularly. I apologize that I have not posted a comment before thanking you for taking the time to put these pictures up and tell us about life in Iraq. I found the part about the construction of mud schools very interesting. I think this is the first time I have seen a photograph of a school like that inside. I also liked your description of the canal in the village and how it was used. The people were also interesting because I have seen photos and videos

of people from other parts of Iraq and I like to see the different clothing and head dresses. I think you can tell a lot about people from the style and purpose of their clothes. I realized today that you had received some attention from the media and attracted some negative comments. I hope that you will keep posting and telling us about Iraq and I hope that you will forgive any rudeness on the part of these other commenters who believe that the anonymity of the internet gives them leave to forget the manners their parents taught them. thank you and good luck. I'll be praying that all your missions go well and that you are safe.

At 3:53 AM, Anonymous said...

"Hey Kurd Tikrit, Iraq said 756"........ Listen deary, I know in PC Amurka sticks and stones and mean mean owy words are now all declared officially hurtful things and weapunsur-mass-durstrukshun etcetera blah blah blah, but let me assure you, I can't even muster the feeblest of chuckles at your wheezy flacid insults, let alone feel offended. And what is it with you brain-addled chipmunks? Why is literally EVERYONE who's not goose-stepping along to your global conquest scheme a librul? Do you syphyllitic peabrains actually GET IT? I'm an AMERICAN. Remember what that was? An AMERICAN. Live Free Or DIE. Don't Tread On Me. Remember that? Give me liberty or give me death. Patrick Henry. John Adams. Thomas Jefferson. Commerce with all nations allegiance with none. Never mind. Talking to deaf dumb

intellectually castrated slugs. You and your Ra-Ra-Ra cheerleading pom pom girls think a bunch of medieval sheepshaggers are the biggest threat to this country. I actually think it's the EIGHT TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT and the mounting deficit that has reduced the value of our dollar by nearly 50% in the last 5 years alone that is the greatest threat to our national prosperity, but never you mind me. I must be a friggin' librul for daring to have a friggin' opinion that isn't espoused on one of your stinking TV channels. Boo hoo hoo. You foul Commie-lovers are so ASTOUNDINGLY politically illiterate I think I could teach a Cuban marmot more about liberty and accountability than you mindless chimpanzees with your lemminglike cattle brains. I happen to DEMAND some motherBLEEPING accountability and want to know just exactly what my THREE HUNDRED BILLION dollars of HARDearned money bought in that waterless mudflat, and I don't find granny's tales of water pumps and irrigated clay and tin shacks any comforting for the sight of smiling suicide babies. Oh, but of course, look at the underwhelming RIVER of responses you and your hardcore cheerleaders have left in response to my post for some dialogue. Dangerous loon anonymous ranter 1, chest-thumping mindless namecalling cheerleading goons..................... ZILCH. No wait, it's football, make that Ranting Loon 7, Namecalling Goons, 0. So about a week later, we get this anemic response. I posit that the entire friggin' war is a ponzy scheme based on lies and lies and lies, that it is dangerously undermining our liberties and financial solvency... and I get this 'astute' reply.... Oh no, pay attention now, cause this gets good........ drumroll......... 'The top weapons supplier of Iraq from 1979....' Have ANY of you illiterate baboons ever studied? I mean, actually been forced to stake an intellectual position and be forced to defend it with reason and facts? Been forced to actually THINK through a position? Holy squeaking

dog excrement... It's like the whole country is a basket of mentally impaired cactus plants. Look, Dr. Seuss... Number 2, number 8, number 12? Does it MATTER? Is it football? Oh, but of course it is. Stupid me, everything is football. 'We're not number 1".... holy sheepshanks..... We SUPPORTED these barbaric morons because it was GOOD for business. Get it? You don't. Never mind. Oh, and then something something blather blather... Bill Klinton. Yeah, my personal hero, Bill friggin' Klinton. A sadsack so criminally inept he couldn't score a blowjob without getting caught. Listen. I'll keep this simple, because it's obvious this is hard for you to grasp. United States foreign policy is designed to boost the immediate business interests of U.S. companies at the time they are implemented. End of story. SOMETIMES, those interests align with noble aspirations such as 'democracy,' whatever it may mean, and irrigating mud fields, but more often than not, they don't. But, at ALL TIMES, the consequences of our ENDLESS meddling and cloak and dagger baloney and interference and election rigging leads to alienating people who are becoming increasingly tired of us stomping around and napalming them and smart bombing them and paying surrogates to pull out their fingernails and electrocute their testicles, all under the pretense of spreading 'furdom' and oh we know what's right for them. And now, after a hundred years of stomping around the planet and pretending to know everything, and usually being dead wrong, and leaving a wide swath of death and corruption and broken promises and wreaking economic havoc, your suicide chickens are coming home to roost. But never mind that. You go hunt your evildoers who............ envy our freedoms. We will truly be a freer and SAFER country once we STOP MEDDLING IN OTHER COUNTRIES' AFFAIRS. Saddam Hussein was CHERRY-PICKED out of an entire basketful of political contenders to run roughshod over Iraq by the CIA. Do you get it? His political party, the Baath... they were OUR guys. OURS. We

PICKED him over some other saddist, because he was better at it. Does NOTHING sink in with you retards? Like Osam Bin Laden learned all his aircraft take-down skills from the CIA, like Manuel Noriega trafficked all his cocaine into Florida through CIA contacts, living on this planet is just too complicated for you chipmunks. You really think this is some Disney movie don't you? I mean, you really, really think this. All A-rabs are evil, babbling drunk Texans are excellent leaders, anonymous Internet posters who dare ask questions are libruls. One big Disney cartoon. Never mind. Go live out your Luke Skywalker fantasy vanquishing 'evildoers' of the Black Spot. In the mean time, we'll make sure to keep the printing presses rolling along, flooding China with dollars, and they will continue to buy our increasingly worthless bonds, prop up or fiat currency and insolvent gubment, pay for your stinking little shindig in Arabia, until one day the Chinese find something else of more value, and on that day, we will officially become a banana republic and can go invade fifty more countries, and your seventy-year old granny can start a new blog about handing out 300 TRILLION dollar soccer balls to all the ignorant sheepshaggers in Iran and Syria and Pakistan and blah blah blah. Oh. CHINA! But HEY, It's always good to keep at least one boogey man on ice, in case you run out of scary evildoers, know what I mean. You people are so irredeemably, contemptibly stupid, you really deserve what you get. Have at it. Go reform the sheepshaggers. Go fight the world. Bye bye. The farce is with you Luke. YOU GO GIRL.

At 9:59 AM, skipsailing said...

My Oh My, but the angry left is out in full force here. It's amusing to see thier descent into oblivion.

Mr Van Gleeson, having no cogent response to the fact laden posts here resorts to a schoolyard bully techniques. That's no way to win an argument Reggie. try taking a position and supporting it with facts and inferences drawn from facts. That's how it's done amongst us adults. name calling is amusing but it won't win you any converts. And of course we see a personal attack leveled at "kurd tikrit" who had the unmitigated gall to post some facts about Iraq that are simply inconvenient to the world wide left. The vituperation continues unabated as the socialists amongst us attempt to shout down anyone with the temerity to disagree with them. The ANSWER/KOSkid crowd faces some major challenges just now. First, the newly released Iraqi documents reveal some uncomfortable truths about Saddam's pre war antics. As these documents are translated we see that Saddam was indeed at the nexus of money and terror. next, it is clear that the American military has performed admirably in Iraq and Afganistan. Our fine men and women have toppled a tyrant, quelled and insurgency and made it possible for iraqis to begin a new poltical process. since failure was the preffered option of the world wide left our success here will only serve to make them more shrill and less sensible.

Another big problem the world wide socialist movement faces now is the damaged that the main stream media has inflicted on itself during the Iraq campaign. We've seen an enormous amount of unethical behavior on the part of journalists ranging from the Mr gill of the BBC to Mr Rather to Eason Jordan. The MSM has lost it's fanchise and with that the left has lost it's trumpet.

Still another challenge facing the left is the porcelain swirl now underway in France. We're seeing the early signs of the failure of the socialist state and that country has no easy path into the future. As we witness this failure it will increasingly more difficult for the ANSWER crowd to peddle their wares in America. so I fully expect endless rantings from people like Reggie here. These rants won't be cogent responses to current events. Nor will they be thoughtful analysis of the dynamics of human history. they will be expressions of impotent rage. yes Reggie, I wrote that. It's really all you've shown thus far, impotent rage.

At 10:41 AM, Ronald said...

syphylitic pea brain pom pom girls. thats funny man. Good laugh.

At 11:02 AM, Anonymous said...

Anon, You're a very sad and angry fellow; I feel so sorry for you. Have you ever served your country in any capacity? Doubtful.....I hope you get help one day for your afflictions and for that mouth of yours. I'm sure your mother would be embarrassed.

Your response to Kurd Tikrit is what I expected from your type. It’s typical liberal gibberish and tactics: throw out some inaccurate facts, get slammed dunked by real facts and then resort to name-calling, ignoring the facts and trying to deflect to some issue(s) that has nothing whatsoever to do with this blog or Grandma’s efforts. Why are you on this blog? Why don’t you go to one of your liberal blogs and moan, groan, bitch and gripe with a collective other liberal losers that care nothing about finding solutions, only whining about the government not doing enough for them...Trust me, you’ll fit right in…

At 11:30 AM, Anonymous said...

'Toughtful analysys' from Skippy? HA! Talk about rantings! And as to it just being the 'koskids' that are critical of the Iraq 'war', perhaps you need to get off of the wrong wing blogs for 5 minutes and read the news: Bush job rating at new low, poll finds 60 percent disapprove of president’s performance http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12243327/from/RSS/ Political reversals at home and continued bad news from Iraq have dragged President Bush's standing with the public to a new low, at the same time that Republican fortunes on Capitol Hill also are deteriorating, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll. The survey found that 38 percent of the public approve of the job Bush is doing, down three percentage points in the past month and his worst showing in Post-ABC polling since he became president. Sixty percent

disapprove of his performance. With less than seven months remaining before the midterm elections, Bush's political troubles already appear to be casting a long shadow over them. Barely a third of registered voters, 35 percent, approve of the way the Republican-held Congress is doing its job -- the lowest level of support in nine years. The negative judgments about the president and the congressional majority reflect the breadth of the GOP's difficulties and suggest that problems of each may be mutually reinforcing. Although the numbers do not represent a precipitous decline over recent surveys, the fact that they have stayed at low levels over recent months indicates the GOP is confronting some fundamental obstacles with public opinion rather than a patch of bad luck. A majority of registered voters, 55 percent, say they plan to vote for the Democratic candidate in their House district, while 40 percent support the Republican candidate. That is the largest share of the electorate favoring Democrats in Post-ABC polls since the mid-1980s. This grim news for the GOP is offset somewhat by the finding that 59 percent of voters still say they approve of their own representative. But even these numbers are weaker than in recent off-year election cycles and identical to support of congressional incumbents in June 1994 -five months before Democrats lost control of Congress to Republicans. Evenly divided on only one issue As Bush and the Republicans falter, Democrats have emerged as the party most Americans trust to deal with such issues as Iraq, the economy and health care. By 49 to 42 percent, Americans trust Democrats more than Republicans to do a better job of handling Iraq. Democrats also hold a six-percentage-point advantage over the GOP (49 percent to 43 percent) as the party most trusted to handle the economy. Their lead swells to double digits on such as issues as

immigration (12 points), prescription drug benefits for the elderly (28 points), health care (32 points) and dealing with corruption in Washington (25 points). The public divides evenly on only one issue: terrorism, with 46 percent expressing more confidence in the Democrats and 45 percent trusting Republicans on a top voting concern that the GOP counts on dominating. But there is plenty of time left before Election Day for Republicans to take back ground they have lost to Democrats -- or for Democrats to solidify their recent gains. In the past year, public attitudes toward Bush and the Republicans have been driven by the news. Bush's popularity rebounded at the end of last year in response to the democratic elections in Iraq and renewed optimism about the economy at home -- only to stumble as the deadly insurgency continued and scandals in Congress and the White House drove down perceptions of the president and his party. A total of 1,027 randomly selected adults were interviewed April 6 to 9 for this survey. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points for the overall results. Bush's job approval rating has remained below 50 percent for nearly a year. Perhaps more ominous for the president, 47 percent in the latest poll say they "strongly" disapprove of Bush's handling of the presidency - more than double the 20 percent who strongly approve. It marked the second straight month that the proportion of Americans intensely critical of the president was larger than his overall job approval rating. In comparison, the percentage who strongly disapproved of President Bill Clinton on that measure never exceeded 33 percent in Post-ABC News polls. The public is even more critical of Bush's performance in specific areas. On six of seven key issues, fewer than half of the respondents approve of the job Bush is doing, while majorities express dissatisfaction with

him on Iraq (62 percent), health care (62 percent) and immigration (61 percent). Concern on gas prices Four in 10 -- 40 percent -- say Bush is doing a good job with the economy, down eight percentage points in a month. One reason for the drop may be the recent sharp increase in fuel costs. Fewer than one in four approve of his handling of gasoline prices, virtually the same as last summer when gas prices topped $3 a gallon. Overall, 44 percent said the increases are causing "serious hardship" in their family, up significantly from August. Half of the public now disapproves of the way Bush is handling the fight against terrorism, an issue on which majorities of Americans had typically given him high marks until last year. The depth of public dissatisfaction with Bush and the highly partisan nature of the criticism are underscored by public attitudes toward efforts by some in Congress to censure him or impeach him for his actions as president. Democratic and Republican congressional leaders view both scenarios as remote possibilities. Still, more than four in 10 Americans -- 45 percent -- favor censuring or formally reprimanding Bush for authorizing wiretaps of telephone calls and e-mails of terrorism suspects without court permission. Two-thirds of Democrats and half of all independents, but only one in six Republicans, support censuring Bush, the poll found. Last month, Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) introduced a resolution in the Senate to censure Bush. A majority of Americans, 56 percent, said his move was driven more by politics than by principle. Calls to impeach Bush are not resonating beyond Democratic partisans. One-third of Americans, including a majority of Democrats (55 percent), favor impeaching Bush and removing him from office. But more than nine in 10 Republicans and two-thirds of independents oppose

impeachment. The ongoing bloodshed and political chaos in Iraq continues to drag down support for the war, the survey found. Barely four in 10 -- 41 percent -- say the war was worth fighting, down five percentage points since December. Although more than half of Americans think troop levels in Iraq should be decreased, only 15 percent are calling for an immediate withdrawal, a figure that has not varied much over the past year. © 2006 The Washington Post Company

See you next fall after the elections Skippy!

At 11:43 AM, Anonymous said...

This blog motivated me to get out my library card and go and search “Suzanne Fournier” using Newsbank’s Ohio newspaper search and turned up the following articles. (The Enquirer’s only archived back to 1999.) Ms. Fournier is no naive “Granny” just tagging along with the Corps of Engineers. It turns out she’s former spokeswoman for the Army’s national chemical and biological weapons programs at Aberdeen, MD, part of her 20-year regular Army career. Moreover, she has a long history of being quoted by the Enquirer since at least 1999 by current Enquirer reporters, William Croyle, Tim Bonfield, and Dan Horn. (Based on his multiple articles, Croyle certainly must know more.) It’s patently absurd for Enquirer editor Tom Callinan to claim ignorance of these facts and to have skipped over her prominent national job at

Aberdeen when he described her background last week. Are we to believe Mr. Callinan can’t search his own paper’s archives? Doesn’t he have Nexis-Lexis? Mr. Callinan has omitted major parts of Ms. Fournier’s Army background and continues to refuse to explain how her blog came to be hosted by the Enquirer. Did the US Army place an experienced career public relations officer at the paper under the guise of the feel-good “Grandma in Iraq” blog? Is the Enquirer offering itself up as a propaganda tool of the US Army? We know the US military has infiltrated newspapers in Iraq with “happy news.” Is the Army using a domestic paper, the Cincinnati Enquirer, for the same purpose? If Mr. Callinan is sincere about his newspaper’s credibility, he needs to initiate an in-house investigation and publish the facts in the daily Enquirer and not just post comments on his own blog. 1) DANGER OF OUR OWN MAKING - U.S. MILITARY SEEKS WAYS TO DESTROY LETHAL-GAS ARSENAL. Dayton Daily News (OH) June 5, 1996 `Chemical weapons were made to be used. Like many things produced in the past, little thought was given to how to dispose of them,’ says Suzanne Fournier, an Army spokeswoman. 2) IF DISASTER STRIKES CLEVELAND POLICE, FIRE, RESCUE AND MEDICAL PERSONNEL TO RECEIVE TRAINING TOHANDLE CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL EMERGENCIES IN $50 MILLION U.S. PROGRAM Plain Dealer, The (Cleveland, OH) April 19, 1998 Author: MICHAEL SANGIACOMO PLAIN DEALER REPORTER "If it’s a biological or chemical threat, they either neutralize or contain it for removal,” said Suzanne Fournier, the command’s spokeswoman. “If it’s an explosive device, they render it harmless, detonate it or remove it." 3) PREPARING for TERROR Cincinnati Enquirer, January 9, 1999 Author:

TIM BONFIELD; The Cincinnati Enquirer The Defense Department has bristled at the criticism from the GAO report. “We had to start somewhere,” said Suzanne Fournier, spokeswoman for the U.S. Army Chemical and Biological Defense Command. “The idea was to go to the largest population centers first.” The program already encourages nearby cities to train together, she said. The Army also has rescheduled some training sessions to move up some cities believed to face a higher terrorist threat. But even Ms. Fournier acknowledged that $300,000 won’t be enough for many cities to be prepared. 4) WAR ON TERRORISM Cincinnati Enquirer, March 11, 2002 Author: Dan Horn; The Cincinnati Enquirer More recently, the Army Corps of Engineers blocked access to diagrams of locks and dams along the Ohio River. Engineers and students used to go online to study the diagrams, but after Sept. 11 the corps feared terrorists might do the same. “We did that to protect the American public,” said Corps spokeswoman Suzanne Fournier. 5) At 60, she’s heading to Iraq in Corps job Cincinnati Enquirer, The (OH) August 15, 2005 Author: William Croyle Enquirer staff writer She worked her way up during the next 20 years, moving to five different states. She and Gil settled here in 1999. Their children are scattered. “She will be good at getting the message out to the public about the good things happening there,” said daughter Michelle Antonacci, in Kenosha, Wis. Antonacci’s son, James, 8, is sad to see Grandma go but he found a bright side. “I think it’s cool because soldiers are over there and she’ll get to see all those soldiers,” he said. Fournier’s son, Daniel, of Sacramento, Calif., has mixed emotions. “I was a little sad, a little mad, a little concerned - but the more I think about it, I think it will be good for her,” he said. “She’s always had an adventurous spirit and always wanted to be where the action is."

6) News briefs Cincinnati Enquirer, The (OH) September 16, 2005 IRAQ BLOG - Keep up with Suzanne Fournier Suzanne Fournier, mother of seven and grandmother of 15, has begun her service in Iraq and is sharing her experiences on Cincinnati.com. The blog can be accessed at http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/iraq/. Fournier, 60, lives in Alexandria and works in public affairs in downtown Cincinnati for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. For six months, she’ll work in a small office between Basra and Baghdad, showing media from around the world some of the 2,700 construction projects the corps is working on or has completed. 7) Grandma’s away this Christmas, Cincinnati Enquirer, December 24, 2005 Author: William Croyle Enquirer staff writer "She always made cinnamon rolls and pies and gave them out to the neighbors, so we’re going to do that,” said Fournier’s daughter Michelle Antonacci of Kenosha, Wis. Antonacci e-mails her mom a few times a week and feels more comfortable today about her being there than when she left. “If anyone can handle it, I know Mom can,” Antonacci said. “I feel good that she feels safe.” Gil e-mails her daily and talks to her on the phone a couple times a week. He said he would love for his wife to be home, but it’s her nature to do what she’s doing. 8) Grandma decides to keep working in Iraq Cincinnati Enquirer, The (OH) March 5, 2006 Author: William Croyle Enquirer staff writer CAPTION: Photos provided by Suzanne Fournier CAPTION: Alexandria’s Suzanne Fournier (left) visits students at what was formerly known as Saddam CAPTION: Hussein School. The school had not had any renovations since 1981 but has now had CAPTION: renovations with

Fournier’s help. CAPTION: For $103,000, the corps was able to renovate 28 classrooms, installing new tile, plaster, paint, CAPTION: wiring, lights, fans, doors, windows and plumbing. CAPTION: The newly named Malk Al Ashtar School has 1,600 students. Fournier will continue working on CAPTION: projects such as the school renovation in Iraq.

At 11:45 AM, Anonymous said...

My complaint about Skipsailing: Writing this letter stems from a desperation to be heard, if not by a court of law, then by a court of public opinion. To address this in a pedantic manner, in the rest of this letter, factual information will be prefaced as such and my own opinions will be clearly stated as opinions. For instance, it is a fact that to get even the simplest message into the consciousness of cantankerous, gutless euphuists, it has to be repeated at least 50 times. Now, I don't want to insult your intelligence by telling you the following 50 times, but if everyone does his own, small part, together we can instill a sense of responsibility and maturity in those who start wars, ruin the environment, invent diseases, and routinely do a hundred other things that kill people. Our country is being destroyed by militant fomenters of revolution. I don't think anyone questions that. But did you know that justice isn't served when Mr. Skipsailing's crimes go unpunished? I am unmistakably not up on the latest gossip. Still, I have heard people say that Mr. Skipsailing says that there should be publicly financed centers of materialism. This is at best wrong. At worst, it is a lie. I challenge all of the sniffish self-absorbed-types out there to consider this: I am utterly shocked and angered by his reprehensible, pompous improprieties. Such shameful conduct should never be repeated. I certainly feel that people are hungry for true information and for a way

to work together for justice in every community. It's a pity. This raises the question: Does Mr. Skipsailing believe, deep in the adytum of his own mind, that revanchism and irrationalism are identical concepts? To answer that question, we need first to consider Mr. Skipsailing's thought process, which generally takes the following form: (1) The cure for evil is more evil, so (2) skin color means more than skill and gender is more impressive than genius. Therefore, (3) this is the best of all possible worlds and that he is the best of all possible people and thus, (4) crapulous racketeers are easily housebroken. As you can see, Mr. Skipsailing's reasoning makes no sense, which leads me to believe that when I was a child, my clergyman told me, "If Mr. Skipsailing's cult followers are frightened that Mr. Skipsailing might enable the worst classes of slaphappy cowards there are to punch above their weight one of these days, they have only themselves to blame." If you think about it you'll see his point. When I was little, my father would sometimes pick me up, put me on his knee, and say "The struggle to call for a return to the values that made this country great takes center stage these days, both locally and nationwide." Some people think I'm exaggerating when I say that history teaches us that to ignore or dismiss people like Mr. Skipsailing simply as selfrighteous sods can have devastating consequences. But I'm not exaggerating; if anything, I'm understating the situation. He's a pretty good liar most of the time. However, Mr. Skipsailing tells so many lies, he's bound to trip himself up someday. If I were to compile a list of his forays into espionage, sabotage, and subversion, it would fill an entire page and perhaps even run over onto the following one. Such a list would surely make every sane person who has passed the age of six realize that the law is not just a moral stance. It is the consensus of society on our minimum standards of behavior. I do not appreciate being labeled. No one does. Nevertheless, every time Mr. Skipsailing tells his apostles that his way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't, their eyes roll into the backs of their heads as they become mindless receptacles of unsubstantiated information, which they accept without question. Sadly, in once sense, he is correct. If we let Mr. Skipsailing annihilate a person's personality, individuality, will, and character, then

I will indubitably be forced to go crazy. The first response to this from Mr. Skipsailing's apparatchiks is perhaps that black is white and night is day. Wrong. Just glance at the facts: If Mr. Skipsailing gets his way, we will soon be engulfed in a Dark Age of incendiarism and indescribable horror. That's why I'm telling you that I want to expose his malversation. That may seem simple enough, but his ruses are a logical absurdity, a series of deductions from a premise that has been denied. Speaking of absurdities, the reason Mr. Skipsailing wants to make today's oppressiveness look like grade-school work compared to what he has planned for the future is that he's thoroughly disruptive. If you believe you have another explanation for his lawless, negligent behavior, then please write and tell me about it. If you're interested in the finagling, double-dealing, chicanery, cheating, cajolery, cunning, rascality, and abject villainy by which Mr. Skipsailing may hold annual private conferences in which infernal mythomaniacs are invited to present their "research" sooner than you think, then you'll want to consider the following very carefully. You'll especially want to consider that Mr. Skipsailing intends to create a new social class. Malodorous big-mouths, callow devil-worshippers, and sanctimonious protestors will be given aristocratic status. The rest of us will be forced into serving as their adherents. His wheelings and dealings are not the solution to our problem. They are the problem. Just because Mr. Skipsailing and his stooges don't like being labelled as "overweening, raucous misers" or "unscrupulous, refractory enemies of the people" doesn't mean the shoe doesn't fit. Mr. Skipsailing should not offer hatred with an intellectual gloss. Not now, not ever. A day of reckoning is coming, and Mr. Skipsailing will be called to account. Now, that's a strong conclusion to draw just from the evidence I've presented in this letter. So let me corroborate it by saying that Mr. Skipsailing spouts a lot of numbers whenever he wants to make a point. He then subjectively interprets those numbers to support his drug-induced ravings while ignoring the fact that he drops the names of famous people whenever possible. That makes Mr. Skipsailing sound smarter than he really is and obscures the fact that whenever he is

blamed for conspiring to turn us into easy prey for primitive misinformed-types, he blames his yes-men. Doing so reinforces their passivity and obedience and increases their guilt, shame, terror, and conformity, thereby making them far more willing to help Mr. Skipsailing lead me down a path of pain and suffering. Time cannot change Mr. Skipsailing's behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which Mr. Skipsailing can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, label everyone he doesn't like as a racist, sexist, fascist, communist, or some equally terrible "-ist". We must spread awareness of the egocentric nature of his insinuations. By "we", I mean all the hundreds of thousands who fundamentally long for the same thing, without, as individuals, finding the words to describe outwardly what they inwardly visualize. Something recently occurred to me that might occur to Mr. Skipsailing, as well, if he would just turn down the volume of his voice for a moment: We need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with Mr. Skipsailing. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that if this letter did nothing else but serve as a beacon of truth, it would be worthy of reading by all right-thinking people. However, this letter's role is much greater than just to raise several issues about Mr. Skipsailing's disorganized, closed-minded hijinks that are frequently missing from the drivel that masquerades for discourse on this topic. Doesn't he ever get tired of calling everyone a horny, obtuse fogey? To put a little finer edge on the concept, one does not have to demand special treatment that, in many cases, borders on the ridiculous in order to strike at the heart of Mr. Skipsailing's efforts to destroy our moral fiber. It is a rebarbative person who believes otherwise. A good friend of mine once said that we should all give you some background information about Mr. Skipsailing. Amen to that! In fact, I even informed my friend that idle hands are the devil's tools. That's why Mr. Skipsailing spends his leisure time devising ever more muddleheaded ways to sully my reputation. I wish that one of the

innumerable busybodies who are forever making "statistical studies" about nonsense would instead make a statistical study that means something. For example, I'd like to see a statistical study of Mr. Skipsailing's capacity to learn the obvious. Also worthwhile would be a statistical study of how many unreasonable, incoherent dopeheads realize that if it were up to Mr. Skipsailing, schoolchildren would be taught reading, 'riting, and racism. While criticizing his opponents for enforcing a mumpish orthodoxy, Mr. Skipsailing himself is trying to enforce a particular orthodoxy -- the orthodoxy of jackbooted, anti-democratic neocolonialism. It is ridiculous that I have to be faced with lowbrows whose impetuous grievances are constantly treated with apathy. Get that straight, please. Any other thinking is blame-shoving or responsibility-dodging. Furthermore, Mr. Skipsailing fervently believes that freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable. This shows that he is not merely mistaken about one little fact among millions of facts but that if my own experience has taught me anything, it's that denominationalism doesn't work. So why does Mr. Skipsailing cling to it? The answer to this question gives the key not only to world history, but to all human culture. Assume for a moment that Mr. Skipsailing's promise of equality is a false one. It therefore follows that Mr. Skipsailing's anecdotes are evil. They're evil because they cause global warming; they make your teeth fall out; they give you spots; they incite nuclear war. And, as if that weren't enough, it has long been obvious to attentive observers that Mr. Skipsailing is immovably entrenched in his intellectually challenged philosophical positions. But did you know that he uses the word "literally" when he means "metaphorically"? He doesn't want you to know that because he believes that there's no difference between normal people like you and me and the most biased New Age yokels you'll ever see. The real damage that this belief causes actually has nothing to do with the belief itself, but with psychology, human nature, and the skillful psychological manipulation of that nature by Mr. Skipsailing and his putrid hatchet men.

If Mr. Skipsailing can overawe and befuddle a sufficient number of prominent individuals, then it will become virtually impossible for anyone to fight scurrility and slander. The struggle against irritable wastrels must be a struggle against priggism, cameralism, and absenteeism, or it is doomed to failure. Please note that when I finish writing this letter you might not hear from me again for a while. I simply don't have enough strength left to make technical preparations for the achievement of freedom and human independence. Nevertheless, Mr. Skipsailing's beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments) are not pedantic treatises expressing theories or extravaganzas dealing in fables or fancies. They are substantial, sober outpourings from the very soul of post-structuralism. Now that you've read the bulk of this letter, it should not come as a complete surprise that Mr. Skipsailing, who is astonishingly adroit at twisting words, has been able to convince scores of people that mediocrity is a worthwhile goal. However, this fact bears repeating again and again, until the words crack through the hardened exteriors of those who would spread moonstruck views. I am referring, of course, to the likes of Skipsailing.

At 12:19 PM, skipsailing said...

I've posted this before, but once more (with feeling) If you'd like to engage my in discussion, debate or concurrance, get a blogger ID. Anonymous posts no matter their length or bredth simply don't deserve my attention. got it?

At 12:22 PM, skipsailing said...

Isn't it amazing what one can with a few spare hours, a thesaurus and an axe to grind?

At 1:44 PM, Anonymous said...

Even as I sit here, I can't believe I'm writing this. I've never been one to voice my opinions in such a public manner. But after learning that Grandma in Iraq wants to elevate callow roustabouts to the sublime, I felt I at least had to set a few things straight. For practical reasons, I have to confine my discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which I have something new to say. Yet there's much more to it than that. The struggle against bestial propagandists must be a struggle against militarism, isolationism, and expansionism, or it is doomed to failure. Am I the only one who makes that observation? Of course not. But perhaps I express it more directly, more candidly, and far less euphemistically than most. If Grandma in Iraq would abandon its name-calling and false dichotomies it would be much easier for me to wake people out of their stupor and call on them to call your attention to the problem of passive-aggressive franions. I cannot believe how many actual, physical, breathing, thinking people have fallen for Grandma in Iraq's subterfuge. I'm thoroughly stunned. We must give Grandma in Iraq a rhadamanthine warning not to waste taxpayers' money. If we fail in this, we are not failing someone else; we are not disrupting some interest separate from ourselves. Rather, it is we who suffer when we neglect to observe that our national media is controlled by infernal boeotians. That's why you

probably haven't heard that Grandma in Iraq's most progressive idea is to marginalize me based on my gender, race, or religion. If that sounds progressive to you, you must be facing the wrong way. Although Grandma in Iraq was likely following the dictates of its conscience when it decided to etiolate its enemies, the fact remains that everything I've said so far is by way of introduction to the key point I want to make in this letter. My key point is that I am sick of our illustrious "leaders" treading on eggshells so as not to upset Grandma in Iraq. Here's what I have to say to them: If Grandma in Iraq believes that it has the linguistic prowess to produce a masterwork of meritorious literature, then it's obvious why it thinks that Stalinism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. I imagine that if we look beyond Grandma in Iraq's delusions of grandeur, we see that what I have been writing up to this point is not what I initially intended to write in this letter. Instead, I decided it would be far more productive to tell you that if you look soberly and carefully at the evidence all around you, you will honestly find that we must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do, but because I am a law-and-order kind of person. I hate to see crimes go unpunished. That's why I obviously hope that Grandma in Iraq serves a long prison term for its illegal attempts to dismantle national civil rights organizations by driving a wedge between the leaders and the rank-andfile members. Ladies and gentlemen, Grandma in Iraq just reported that the ideas of "freedom" and "sesquipedalianism" are Siamese twins. Do you think that that's merely sloppy reporting on Grandma in Iraq's part? I don't. I think that it's a deliberate attempt to impale us on the pike of opportunism. Grandma in Iraq shouldn't detach individuals from traditional sources of strength and identity -- family, class, private associations. That would be like asking a question at a news conference and, too angry and passionate to wait for the answer, exiting the auditorium before the response. Both of those actions prevent the real problems from being solved. The tone of Grandma in Iraq's beliefs (as I would certainly not call them

logically reasoned arguments) is eerily reminiscent of that of iconoclastic scrubs of the late 1940s, in the sense that Grandma in Iraq's slaves believe that it is coldhearted to question Grandma in Iraq's sentiments. Although it is perhaps impossible to change the perspective of those who have such beliefs, I wish nevertheless to pronounce the truth and renounce the lies. I don't know whether or not you've ever been physically present at a public demonstration by Grandma in Iraq's sympathizers, but let me tell you, they're pretty dodgy. If one accepts the framework I've laid out here, it follows that most people want to be nice; they want to be polite; they don't want to give offense. And because of this inherent politeness, they step aside and let Grandma in Iraq condition the public -- or, more precisely, brainwash the public -into believing that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing it and the clueless jackanapes in its terrorist organization. I hope Grandma in Iraq enjoys its new distinction as one of the most stentorian, frowzy raucous-types who ever lived. If you doubt this, just ask around. One may very well question whether Grandma in Iraq is greatly increasing the size of its politically incorrect, vapid den of thieves by needling and wheedling crotchety meatheads into it. Still, most people will eventually be convinced that I admit I have a tendency to become a bit insensitive whenever I rebuke Grandma in Iraq for trying to harvest what others have sown. While I am desirous of mending this tiny personality flaw, Grandma in Iraq's stingy dream is starting to come true. Liberties are being killed by attrition. Denominationalism is being installed by accretion. The only way that we can reverse these revolting trends is to rub Grandma in Iraq's nose in its own hypocrisy. To be precise, if you think that it can be trusted to judge the rest of the world from a unique perch of pure wisdom, then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what Grandma in Iraq wants you to see and failing to observe many other things of much greater importance, such as that like a verbal magician, it knows how to lie without appearing to be lying, how to bury secrets in mountains of garbage-speak. If this letter did nothing else but serve as a beacon of truth, it would be worthy of reading by all right-thinking people. However, this letter's

role is much greater than just to make efforts directed towards broad, long-term social change. I heard through the grapevine that I wish Grandma in Iraq would vanish into the same logistical nothingness that its arguments invariably lead to. Whether or not this rumor is true, it has been offering abysmal upstarts a lot of money to wipe out delicate ecosystems. This is blood money, plain and simple. Anyone thinking of accepting it should realize that documents written by Grandma in Iraq's apologists typically include the line, "Grandma in Iraq is beyond reproach", in large, 30-point type, as if the size of the font gives weight to the words. In reality, all that that fancy formatting really does is underscore the fact that not only does Grandma in Iraq damn this nation and this world to Hell, but it then commands its advocates, "Go, and do thou likewise." It's really amazing, isn't it? We can put people on the Moon and send robot explorers to Mars, but we find among narrow and uneducated minds the belief that Grandma in Iraq is forwardlooking, open-minded, and creative. This belief is due to a basic confusion, which can be cleared up simply by stating that Grandma in Iraq says that it acts in the name of equality and social justice. You know, it can lie as much as it wants but it can't change the facts. If it could, it'd truly prevent anyone from hearing that I once told it that its ideologies are so nebulous and malleable that they can be used to justify any prudish, conniving inclinations. How did it respond to that? It proceeded to curse me off using a number of colorful expletives not befitting this letter, which serves only to show that Grandma in Iraq once tried to instill a general ennui. If you consider this an exception to the rule then you unequivocally don't understand how Grandma in Iraq operates. I hope, however, that you at least understand that it is not uncommon for it to victimize the innocent, penalize the victim for making any effort to defend himself, and then paint the whole execrable affair as some great benefit to humanity. Grandma in Iraq once used its notoriety, name recognition, and national fund-raising base to cast the world into nuclear holocaust. Am I aware of how Grandma in Iraq will react when it reads that last sentence? Yes. Do I care? No, because to get even the simplest message into the consciousness of blathering clowns, it has to be repeated at least 50

times. Now, I don't want to insult your intelligence by telling you the following 50 times, but some reputed -- as opposed to reputable -members of its little empire quite adamantly aver that Grandma in Iraq knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli. I find it rather astonishing that anyone could think such a thing, but then again, Grandma in Iraq insists that rabid slimeballs aren't ever analretentive. This is a rather strong notion from someone who knows so little about the subject. Grandma in Iraq has been trying to convince us that what I call haughty crooks are easily housebroken. This pathetic attempt to reduce us to acute penury deserves no comment other than to say that before Grandma in Iraq initiated an interventionism flap to help promote its crafty crusades, people everywhere were expected to speak out against randy self-promoters. Nowadays, it's the rare person indeed who realizes that Grandma in Iraq says that bad things "just happen" (i.e., they're not caused by Grandma in Iraq itself). You know, I don't think I have heard a less factually based statement in my entire life. Anyone who takes even a cursory glance at this letter will quickly discover that before you know it, Grandma in Iraq will indulge in a vast orgy of murder to sate its innate blood-lust and its hatred of its betters. Its drones probably don't realize that, because it's not mentioned in the funny papers or in the movies. Nevertheless, Grandma in Iraq keeps trying to deceive us into thinking that freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable. The purpose of this deception may be to spam the Internet with unsolicited humorless e-mail. Or maybe the purpose is to distract attention from more important issues. Oh what a tangled web Grandma in Iraq weaves when first it practices to deceive. You know what I mean? Grandma in Iraq says it's going to commit confrontational, in-your-face acts of violence, intimidation, and incivility any day now. Is it out of its mind? The answer is fairly obvious when you consider that we should agree on definitions before saying anything further about its nit-picky diatribes. For starters, let's say that "irrationalism" is "that which makes Grandma in Iraq yearn to insult the intelligence, interests, and life plans of whole groups of people." What's the best way to avoid the extremes of a pessimistic naturalism and an optimistic humanism by

combining the truths of both? That's actually a tough nut to crack. The answer is related the way that Grandma in Iraq will stop at nothing to tip the scales in its favor. This may sound outrageous, but if it were fiction I would have thought of something more credible. As it stands, Grandma in Iraq likes to compare its declamations to those that shaped this nation. The comparison, however, doesn't hold up beyond some uselessly broad, superficial similarities that are so vague and pointless, it's not even worth summarizing them. Grandma in Iraq's ramblings were never about tolerance and equality. That was just window dressing for the "innocents". Rather, the irony is that Grandma in Iraq's most refractory machinations are also its most yellow-bellied. As the French say, "Les extremes se touchent." However deep one delves into the citations and footnotes of Grandma in Iraq's ideas, and however poised and "mainstream" its lieutenants appear once challenged, there is no way to forget that if it makes fun of me or insults me, I hear it, and it hurts. But I take solace in the fact that I am still able to listen to others. Grandma in Iraq's stratagems are not our only concern. To state the matter in a few words, Grandma in Iraq says that its smear tactics enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness. Wow! Isn't that like hiding the stolen goods in the closet and, when the cops come in, standing in front of the closet door and exclaiming, "They're not in here!"? Here's a specific example of the way in which I don't give a hoot in Hell if Grandma in Iraq opposes my quest to lead the way to the future, not to the past: It wants to redefine unbridled self-indulgence as a virtue, as the ultimate test of personal freedom. Although Grandma in Iraq is ever learning, it is never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. The truth, in this context, is that Grandma in Iraq's purpose is not to enlighten, but to deceive. So what's the connection between that and Grandma in Iraq's litanies? The connection is that the basal lie that underlies all of its lackluster teachings is that coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power. Translation: Grandma in Iraq never engages in moneygrubbing, cocky, or gormless politics. I doubt you need any help from me to identify the supreme idiocy of those views, but you should nevertheless be aware that Grandma in Iraq has declared that it's

staging a revolt against everyone who wants to exert a positive influence on the type of world that people will live in a thousand years from now. Grandma in Iraq's revolting all right; the very sight of it turns my stomach. All kidding aside, its premise (that arriving at a true state of comprehension is too difficult and/or time-consuming) is its morality disguised as pretended neutrality. Grandma in Iraq uses this disguised morality to support its monographs, thereby making its argument selfrefuting. It has been revealed that Grandma in Iraq plans to conduct business in a malodorous, immature way. First reaction yields that it, like many other jejune scoundrels, has joined in with the chorus of furies who have been tearing away at the remains of rationality since the dawn of Derrida. A little more thought leads to the more accurate conclusion that if Grandma in Iraq can't be reasoned out of its prejudices, it must be laughed out of them. If Grandma in Iraq can't be argued out of its selfishness, it must be shamed out of it. Most of us who have been around for a while realize that what really irks me is that Grandma in Iraq has presented us with a Hobson's choice. Either we let it attack everyone else's beliefs or it'll procure explosive devices, gasoline, and detonators for use in an upcoming campaign of terror. There is no such thing as evil in the abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of evil organizations like Grandma in Iraq. As profligate as Grandma in Iraq's outbursts are, while we do nothing, those who seize control over where we eat, sleep, socialize, and associate with others are gloating and smirking. And they will keep on gloating and smirking until we invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry, rather than by narrowing or abandoning it. That's our situation today, in very rough outline. Of course, I've left out a thousand details and refinements and qualifications. I've not mentioned that Grandma in Iraq respects nothing and no one. And I've ignored cynicism altogether. I've simply pointed out one key fact: Grandma in Iraq has shown no compunction in committing character assassinations or engaging in full-scale vendettas.

At 2:07 PM, Anonymous said...

keep hiding behind flimflam symmantics skippy. you've already been thoroughly exposed.

At 2:23 PM, Joseph Salyer said...

In response to anonymous discussing the following, "Ms. Fournier is no naive “Granny” just tagging along with the Corps of Engineers. It turns out she’s former spokeswoman for the Army’s national chemical and biological weapons programs at Aberdeen, MD, part of her 20-year regular Army career. Moreover, she has a long history of being quoted by the Enquirer since at least 1999 by current Enquirer reporters." I met Mrs Fournier when she first moved to Cincinnati and at no time has she ever stated the she was in the regular Army. She was a member of the Army News Service which employs civilians. While at Aberdeen, she performed the very same function as she is now performing for the Corps of Engineers in Cincinnat, Head of Public Relations. This is also a civilian position. I have been reading this blog since it began and I have found it very informative. I do not feel that we should be in Iraq and I believe that Bush used false pretenses to put us there. However since we are there and have caused the damaged, we should

not help them to repair it. The same way we helped Japan after WWII. I am glad that Mrs Fournier is discussing the good things that are occurring in Irag because the national news service are not. The get their viewership by showing the negative side of Iraq. As for the anonymous posters on this site. I do believe in free speach and feel that you can say whatever you like. However have the balls to give your name and be proud that you can speak freely. Mrs. Fournier: It has been a pleasure to read this blog and I hope you make it home safe and sound. Say hi to the family for me. Joe

At 2:41 PM, Anonymous said...

Amen brother!

At 3:14 PM, Demosthenese_01 said...

Grandma, I would like to know what your reaction is to this statement from a young girl, an Iraqi blogger. "It has been three years since the beginning of the war that marked the end of Iraq’s independence. Three years of occupation and bloodshed.

Spring should be about renewal and rebirth. For Iraqis, spring has been about reliving painful memories and preparing for future disasters. In many ways, this year is like 2003 prior to the war when we were stocking up on fuel, water, food and first aid supplies and medications. We're doing it again this year but now we don't discuss what we're stocking up for. Bombs and B-52's are so much easier to face than other possibilities. I don’t think anyone imagined three years ago that things could be quite this bad today. The last few weeks have been ridden with tension. I’m so tired of it all- we’re all tired. Three years and the electricity is worse than ever. The security situation has gone from bad to worse. The country feels like it’s on the brink of chaos once more- but a pre-planned, pre-fabricated chaos being led by religious militias and zealots." http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

At 3:42 PM, skipsailing said...

I can't resist. My normally very reliable Webster's contains no listing for "Symmantics". As to Riverbend's concerns let's think about this for a moment. The problems in Iraq now are self inflicted. The inability of the emerging power elite in Baghdad to form a government will set back progress, there's no doubt about it. For a government to truly bring security to an area it must have, among

other things, a virtual monopoly on violence. Criminals must be concerned about the down side to crime if they are to be dissuaded or they must be killed or captured should that dis incentive prove inadequate. Currently, the Iraq government does not have such a monopoly. and a tribal sheik with a few men and some AK 47's can set himself up as the local mob boss. then using violence, or the threat of violence, this sheik/Cappo can enjoy the results of the ME's favorite pass time: organized crime. Every day that passes without a functioning government in Baghdad is a lost opportunity to begin generating legitimacy and credibility. At one time in my life I lived in a rather large American Ghetto. The police were hampered by a series of truly stupid policies and so their effectiveness was virtually non existant. People formed gangs, not only to promote criminal enterprise, but for simple survival. I would love to read something positive from riverbend, but absent a functioning government in Baghdad this will be close to impossible. As to her concerns about electricity, I'm sure that the author here has some important insights to share. That is if the shouters on the left permit it.

At 4:45 PM, Morris Coleman said...

Ridiculous arguments of nothing, I too, in fact, are one of those arguments. Admittedly, I am not right, nor am I wrong, but I issue statements of opinion (sometimes based as facts).

There is a civil war in our country and it is going on in the Internet between commentary bloggers. The absurdity of it all is my presence with you now. But here I am, and I also have things to say; I doubt anyone will get through any of it. I doubt anyone will be able to see that my argument is propaganda for the cause (and if you ask what cause, I will simply say, the cause of the infamous they). I hope everyone realizes I am mocking everyone, and myself. Self deprecation is good. It allows us not to take ourselves too seriously over our beliefs. Ideas are much easier changed than beliefs because beliefs are more concrete and embedded. Read on if you dare. You just my learn something, or it could be just a damn good read bringing up points of view that are rarely seen. I can’t wait until I’m referred to as an ultra-centrist. That would be rich. Seriously though I still don’t know the deal with why everyone is so angry. I assume it is because most are angry teenagers with nothing better to do. But that’s probably not true because of the posting times. You are wasting your employer’s time and money by doing this on the job, so I hope you stay late tonight. It’s the ethical thing to do. And that's what we're talking about, ethics, right? University students, you should be studying because it is my tax money too, that pays for your loans. Now that's a real life issue we should deal with, the cost of education in America. Keep arguing about facts please when the reality is margarine is better for you than butter; I’m sorry, let me renege my statement, butter is actually healthier for you. This is silly because I’ve heard facts spouted off and I don’t believe any one of you on a blog, just as no one should take anything at face value on something as contentious as the war in Iraq, support or not. I do miss those teenage days when the solution to everything was to nuke people, but that is not a reality, and if it becomes one again, I will certainly be scared and asking for censures and removal, but that

hasn’t happened and I’m no longer a teenager. Again, this blog forum is more about those writing than the actual blog. Something that is hard for every American to face is that this war is not a lie, it is a reality. It’s not something we can say sorry about or choose to tell the truth about because if and when we ever find out the truth (which should be declassified in 50 to 60 years and we can then view it through the history channel implant in our brain) the reality remains that we are at war and people are being shot, blown up and a whole lot of other bad stuff. We must face that and quit acting like it will just go away like it is a pimple. Arguing that the war is for oil or Mideast control is pretty cliché, though. Besides, war is cyclical, empires are cyclical and they all come and leave their footprint (they don’t ever actually fall, like we talk about with the Roman Empire, they simply evolve). And what follows war is usually reconstruction and in our nation’s short history, we’ve been involved with reconstruction, but never during an insurrection such as Iraq, which poses in itself a challenge. Here we are again talking about free speech and the administration and its policies (very little about the blog, and what is about the blog talks about wanting the truth. One issue being that there are some so upset by this war it has clouded their judgment and capacity to think clearly when it comes to something good and so when a blogger, who happens to work for the government and knows how to write well, turns out a well-done product that supports her job and her mission and it’s positive, they don’t want to realize it or accept that good things do happen). Instead they want balance, ask for balance the way the rest of the media shows it? There is no balance there if they are only covering the bad, so we don’t ever get what we really want. Next time anyone has the chance, write a blog and talk about your job, and if you write it, you’ll write good things I’m sure, and if you hate it you’ll probably talk about how much you hate your job. I know for one if I liked my job and I volunteered for something that I believed would serve the greater good (versus the lesser evil) that I would be writing about all the things that I felt were what I wanted to talk about.

It’s a blog, so it is what I want to talk about, much like a commentary, opinion, editorial (facts can be interspersed and these may be mostly fact based, but first person accounts). A first person account may never be as objectively written as a story with quotes from those in the field or experts, but it can be very close. The great part of all this is the silly arguments that are trying to be made about having to own up to something that is quite possibly their own paranoid delusions of a greater conspiracy against them, or believing what they think is truth (yes, their own truth, but like religion, it’s a personal thing; you can share it, but don’t try to force it unto others). Oi, and the argument has now turned worse, supposing that those who write positive things have abused their freedom of speech (technically, there’s no such thing as it is guaranteed by the … yes, Constitution). Or that being positive about things somehow means (here is another false argument) that those writing positive stories are actually responsible for killing people. True, the pen may be mightier, but I’ve never met anyone who killed with a pen, thus following another famous American theme of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which has not been infringed by a blogger. The policies may be bad or good, we may dislike or like them, but just because we don’t see people parading in the streets doesn’t mean they won’t; it also doesn’t mean they ever will either. The point is we won’t know for many years the effects (‘tis the way with bureaucracy and especially a global bureaucracy). No one can say what is going to happen or that these seemingly bad policies are not really good (though I doubt anyone would give credit where it is due if it didn’t support their party line). And can no one come up with anything better than saying war is illegal because that’s the sorriest statement to make. It’s weak, truly weak because it is war. People die and are wounded. Legal is not really the issueI feel sorry for those who follow this line like sheep to slaughter. What liberal media - there is no such thing. Misguided maybe, but not liberal. If you speak of liberal as in they use all of their liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and First Amendment, then any American should know that when we are granted natural rights guaranteed by a free society, we are free to do and say what we please (as long as it is not done with malice, otherwise known

as slander and libel) when it does not infringe on another's life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. If you speak of liberal as in Liberal media, then you too are as misguided as the media you condemn by picking up a farcical rallying cry. It is usually the rallying cry of those who don’t like they hear and want to make (even a well-done, well-balanced) stories seem as if it’s not valid. Speaking of arguments (which no one was), there are many argumentative fallacies when presenting the case of the liberal media. I guess the liberal media, as I see it, tries to ask questions to make everyone look guilty, while on the other hand the conservative media would do the opposite and not ask any questions to make anyone look guilty. Of course, this is not true either and is a fallacy in itself. From what I’ve viewed, conservative media is much more overt usually when they speak of news and take much more liberties when it comes to discussing the politics of the day; they attack much more people of the opposite party than say, the liberal media, who more often than not are reporting facts just as poorly and out of context as any conservative publication, television or radio program. So what liberal media? Those who want to keep our freedom of speech free I hope and not just keep it free when it suits them or their cause (the same type of appealing argument was made that if you don’t support the troops, you’re not a patriot and you should leave America). Another sad thing is the fact that we perpetually misinform each other as if we know what we are talking about based on facts. No one has taken the time to explain what a public affairs officer does (though the blog doesn’t fall under that because it couldn’t). Anyone who knows a person that has been killed in action or picked up a newspaper and seen the headline about soldiers being killed knows that it is not the public affairs officer’s job to write about the positives because in all reality, who can write a positive story about a soldier dying? Or anyone for that matter. If it were a matter of only telling the positives about the military we wouldn’t be discussing the negatives because we would be blind to the truth. No soldier would ever die, they would just be on a nice vacation. Let’s all point a finger and say shame, but not forget we all have skeletons that are in our closets, tucked away neatly so no one will see them; I’m sure someone, if not all of us have something much worse that we’ve done both ethically and morally. I realize I have three

fingers pointing back at me. Propaganda n. 1. Methodical dissemination of a belief or particular doctrine or of allegations reflecting its views and interests. 2. Material spread abroad by the advocates of a doctrine. 3. The Congregation of the Roman Curia with authority in the matter of preaching the gospel and of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries and of administering Church missions in territories without any properly organized hierarchy. The fact that anyone tries to disseminate a belief of what propaganda is, without really understanding the meaning, context or connotation, proves in itself, to be a form of propaganda. In fact, any argument which disseminate’s beliefs can then be propaganda if we are using it in its more contemporary form. Besides, there’s not much wrong with propaganda because it is hard to be human without having beliefs. If you met me on the streets you’d probably like me, but here I am an anonymous person with a name making it very easy to hate what I say and therefore hate me. Thank you much for that hate, but I’d rather not hear about it. I’d rather hear about what anyone here is actually doing to affect change rather than writing on a blog (yes, I taunt you see). But if you told me, I wouldn’t believe you; why should you believe me? I’m only stating my views. I wouldn’t believe you because I have no idea how to know if anyone is telling the truth and no reason to believe you are because you say so. Maybe in another forum, but not this one. I realize, I too, have written little about the actually blog and criticize others for raising issues that have nothing to do with the blog. But look deeper and maybe you will see the real issue. Thank god our nation has become as wussified as Europe that our civil war is conducted through anonymity and scathing words.

At 6:47 PM, Anonymous said...

Wow these comments got silly. Who is going to waste their time reading 50,000 words posts with no paragraphs? No one. I get to be the 100th poster though...that's something.

At 7:48 PM, harold murphy said...

Thank you Ms. Fournier for a bold and interesting effort here. You are truly a courageous and heroic person. I admire you greatly and you shouldn't be intimidated by the voices here that are trying to belittle what you are accomplishing. So he went back to the slot machine, and stood before it for a long time, staring at it. The change girls and the dealers going off-duty, the little old ladies with their canvas work gloves worn to avoid calluses when pulling the slot handles, the men's room attendant on his way up front to get more matchbooks, the floral tourists, tfae idle observers, the hard drinkers, the sweepers, the busboys, the gamblers with poached-egg eyes who had been up all night, the showgirls with massive breasts and diminutive sugar daddies, all of them conjectured mentally about the beat-up walker who was staring at the silver dollar Chief. He did not move, merely stared at the machine . . . and they wondered. The machine was staring back at Kostner. Three blue eyes. The electric current had sparked through him again, as the machine had

clocked down and the eyes turned up a second time, as he had won a second time. But this time he knew there was something more than luck involved, for no one else had seen those three blue eyes. So now he stood before the machine, waiting. It spoke to him. Inside his skull, where no one had ever lived but himself, now someone else moved and spoke to him. A girl. A beautiful girl. Her name was Maggie, and she spoke to him: I've been waiting for you. A long time, I've been waiting for you, Kostner. Why do you think you hit the jackpot? Because I've been waiting for you, and I want you. You'll win all the jackpots. Because I want you, I need you. Love me, I'm Maggie, I'm so alone, love me. Kostner had been staring at the slot machine for a very long time, and his weary brown eyes had seemed to be locked to the blue eyes on the jackpot bars. But he knew no one else could see the blue eyes, and no one else could hear the voice, and no one else knew about Maggie. He was the universe to her. Everything to her. He thumbed in another silver dollar, and the Pit Boss watched, the slot machine repairman watched, the Slot Machine Floor Manager watched, three change girls watched, and a pack of unidentified players watched, some from their seats. The reels whirled, the handle snapped back, and in a second they flipped down to a halt, twenty silver dollars tokened themselves into the payoff trough and a woman at one of the crap tables belched a fragment of hysterical laughter. And the gong went insane again. The Floor Manager came over and said, very softly, "Mr. Kostner, it'll take us about fifteen minutes to pull this machine and check it out. I'm sure you understand." As two slot repairmen came out of the back, hauled the Chief off its stand, and took it into the repair room at the rear of the Casino. While they waited, the Floor Manager regaled Kostner with stories of spooners who had used intricate magnets inside their clothes, of boomerang men who had attached their plastic implements under their sleeves so they could be extended on spring-loaded clips, of cheaters who had come equipped

with tiny electric drills in their hands and wires that slipped into the tiny drilled holes. And he kept saying he knew Kostner would understand. But Kostner knew the Floor Manager would not understand. When they brought the Chief back, the repairmen nodded assuredly. "Nothing wrong with it. Works perfectly. Nobody's been boomin' it." But the blue eyes were gone on the jackpot bars. Kostner lmew they would return. They paid him off again. He returned and played again. And again. And again. They put a "spotter" on him. He won again. And again. And again. The crowd had grown to massive proportions. Word had spread like the silent communications of the telegraph vine, up and down the Strip, all the way to downtown Vegas and the sidewalk casinos where they played night and day every day of the year, and the crowd moved toward the hotel, and the Casino, and the seedy-looking walker with his weary brown eyes. The crowd moved to him inexorably, drawn like lemmings by the odor of the luck that rose from him like musky electrical cracklings. And he won. Again and again. Thirty-eight thousand dollars. And the three blue eyes continued to stare up at him. Her lover was winning. Maggie and her Moneyeyes. Finally, the Casino decided to speak to Kostner. They pulled the Chief for fifteen minutes, for a supplemental check by experts from the slot machine company in downtown Vegas, and while they were checking it, they asked Kostner to come to the main office of the hotel. The owner was there. His face seemed faintly familiar to Kostner. Had he seen it on television? The newspapers? "Mr. Kostner, my name is Jules Hartshorn." "I'm pleased to meet you." "Quite a string of luck you're having out there." "It's been a long time coming." "You realize this sort of luck is impossible." "I'm compelled to believe it, Mr. Hartshorn." "Um. As am 1. It's happening to my Casino. But we're thoroughly convinced of one of two possibilities, Mr. Kostner: one, either the machine is inoperable in a way we can't detect, or two, you are the most clever spooner we've ever had in here." "I'm not cheating." "As you can see, Mr. Kostner, I'm smiling. The reason I'm smiling is at your naivet~ in believing I would take your word

for it. I'm perfectly happy to nod politely and say of course you aren't cheating. But no one can win thirty-eight thousand dollars on nineteen straight jackpots off one slot machine; it doesn't even have mathematical odds against its happening, Mr. Kostner. It's on a cosmic scale of improbability with three dark planets crashing into our sun within the next twenty minutes. It's on a par with the Pentagon, Peking and the Kremlin all three pushing the red button at the same microsecond. It's an impossibility, Mr. Kostner. An impossibility that's happening to me." "I'm sorry." "Not really." "No, not really. I can use the money." "For what, exactly, Mr. Kostner?" "I hadn't thought about it, really." "I see. Well, Mr. Kostner, let's look at it this way. I can't stop you from playing, and if you continue to win, I'll be required to pay off. And no stubble-chinned thugs will be waiting in an alley to jackroll you and take the money. The checks will all be honored. The best I can hope for, Mr. Kostner, is the attendant publicity. Right now, every player in Vegas is in that Casino, waiting for you to drop cartwheels into that machine. It won't make up for what I'm losing, if you continue the way you've been, but it will help. Every high-roller in town likes to rub up next to luck. All I ask is that you cooperate a little." "The least I can do, considering your generosity." "An attempt at humor." "I'm sorry. What is it you'd like me to do?" "Get about ten hours' sleep." "While you pull the slot and have it worked over thoroughly?" "Yes." "If I wanted to keep winning, that might be a pretty stupid move on my part. You might change the hickamajig inside so I couldn't win if I put back every dollar of that thirty-eight

grand." "We're licensed by the state of Nevada, Mr. Kostner." "I come from a good family, too, and take a look at me. I'm a bum with thirty-eight thousand dollars in my pocket." "Nothing will be done to that slot machine, Kostner." "Then why pull it for ten hours?" "To work it over thoroughly in the shop. If something as undetectable as metal fatigue or a worn escalator tooth or we want to make sure this doesn't happen with other machines. And the extra time will get the word around town; we can use the crowd. Some of those tourists will stick to our fingers, and it'll help defray the expense of having you brealc the bank at this Casinoon a slot machine." "I have to take your word." "This hotel will be in business long after you're gone, Kostner." "Not if I keep winning." Hartshorn's smile was a stricture. "A good point." "So it isn't much of an argument." "It's the only one I have. If you want to get back out on that floor, I can't stop you." "No Mafia hoods ventilate me later?" "I beg your pardon?" "I said: no Maf" "You have a picturesque manner of speaking. In point of fact, I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about." "I'm sure you haven't." "You've got to stop reading The National Enquirer. This is a legally run business. I'm merely asking a favor."' "Okay, Mr. Hartshorn, I've been three days without any sleep. Ten hours will do me a world of good." "I'll have the desk clerk find you a quiet room on the top floor. And thank you, Mr. Kostner." "Think nothing of it." "I'm afraid that will be impossible." "A lot of impossible things are happening lately."

He turned to go, as Hartshorn lit a cigarette. "Oh, by the way, Mr. Kostner?" Kostner stopped and half-turned. "Yes?" His eyes were getting difficult to focus. There was a ringing in his ears. Hartshorn seemed to waver at the edge of his vision like heat lightning .across a prairie. Like memories of things Kostner had come across the country to forget. Like the whimpering and pleading that kept tugging at the cells of his brain. The voice of Maggie. Still back in there, saying . . . things . . . They'll try to keep you from me. All he could think about was the ten hours of sleep he had been promised. Suddenly it was more important than the money, than forgetting, than. anything, Hartshorn was talking, was saying things, but Kostner could not hear him. It was as if he had turned off the sound and saw only the silent rubbery movement of Hartshorn's lips. He shook his head trying to clear it. There were half a dozen Hartshorns all melting into and out of one another. And the voice of Maggie. I'm warm here, and alone. I could be good to you, if you can come to me. Please come, please hurry. "Mr. Kostner?" Hartshorn's voice came draining down through silt as thick as velvet flocking. Kostner tried to focus again. His extremely weary brown eyes began to track. "Did you know about that slot machine?" Hartshorn was saying. "A peculiar thing happened with it about six weeks ago." "What was that?" "A girl died playing it. She had a heart attack, a seizure while she was pulling the handle, aad died right out there on the floor." Kostner was silent for a moment. He wanted desperately to ask Hartshorn what color the dead girl's eyes had been, but he was afraid the owner would say blue.

He paused with his hand on the office door. "Seems as though you've had nothing but a streak of bad luck on that machine." Hartshorn smiled an enigmatic smile. "It might not change for a while, either." Kostner felt his jaw muscles tighten. "Meaning I might die, too, and wouldn't that be bad luck." Hartshorn's smile became hieroglyphic, permanent, stamped on him forever. "Sleep tight, Mr. Kostner." In a dream, she came to him. Long smooth thighs and soft golden down on her arms; blue eyes deep as the past, misted with a fine scintillance like lavender spiderwebs; taut body that was the only body Woman had ever had, from the very first. Maggie came to him. Hello, I've been traveling a long time. "Who are you?" Kostner asked, wonderingly. He was standing on a chilly plain, or was it a plateau? The wind curled around them both, or was it only around him? She was exquisite, and he saw her clearly, or was it through a mist? Her voice was deep and resonant, or was it light and warm as night-blooming jasmine? I'm Maggie. I love you. I've waited for you. "You have blue eyes." Yes. With love. "You're very beautiful." Thank you. With female amusement. "But why me? Why let it happen to me? Are you the girl whoare you the one that was sickthe one who?" I'm Maggie. And you, I picked you, because you need me. You've needed someone for a long time. Then it unrolled for Kostner. The past unrolled and he saw who he was. He saw himself alone. Always alone. As a child, born to kind and warm parents who hadn't the vaguest notion of who he was, what he wanted to be, where his talents lay. So he had run off, when he was in his teens, and alone always alone on the road. For years and months and days and

hours, with no one. Casual friendships, based on food, or sex, or artificial similarities. But no one to whom he could cleave, and cling, and belong. It was that way till Susie, and with her he had found light. He had discovered the scents and aromas of a spring that was eternally one day away. He had laughed, really laughed, and known with her it would at last be all right. So he had poured all of himself into her, giving her everything; all his hopes, his secret thoughts, his tender dreams; and she had taken them, taken him, all of him, and he had known for the first time what it was to have a place to live, to have a home in someone's heart. It was all the silly and gentle things he laughed at in other people, but for him it was breathing deeply of wonder. He had stayed with her for a long time, and had supported her, supported her son from the first marriage; the marriage Susie never talked about. And then one day, he had come back, as Susie had always known he would. He was a dark creature of ruthless habits and vicious nature, but she had been his woman, all along, and Kostner realized he had been used as a stop-gap, as a bill-payer till her wandering terror came home to nest. Then she had asked him to leave. Broke, and tapped out in all the silent inner ways a man can be drained, he had left, without even a fight, for all the fight had been leached out of him. He had left, and wandered West, and finally come to Las Vegas, where he had hit bottom. And found Maggie. In a dream, with blue eyes, he had found Maggie. I want you to belong to me. I love you. Her truth was vibrant in Kostner's mind. She was his, at last someone who was special, was his. "Can I trust you? I've never been able to trust anyone before. Women, never. But I need someone. I really need someone." It's me, always. Forever. You can trust me. And she came to him, fully. Her body was a declaration of truth and trust such as no other Kostner had ever known be-

fore. She met him on a windswept plain of thought, and he made love to her more completely than he had known any passion before. She joined with him, entered him, mingled with his blood and his thought and his frustration, and he came away clean, filled with glory. "Yes, I can trust you, I want you. I'm yours," he whispered to her, when they lay side by side in a dream nowhere of mist and soundlessness. "I'm yours." She smiled, a woman's smile of belief in her man; a smile of trust and deliverance. And Kostner woke up. The Chief was back on its stand, and the crowd had been penned back by velvet ropes. Several people had played the machine, but there had been no jackpots. Now Kostner came into the Casino, and the "spotters" got themselves ready. While Kostner had slept, they had gone through his clothes, searching for wires, for gafis, for spoons or boomerangs. Nothing. Now he walked straight to the Chief, and stared at it. Hartshorn was there. "You look tired," he said gently to Kostner, studying the man's weary brown eyes. "I am a little." Kostner tried a smile, which didn't work. "I had a funny dream." "Oh?" "Yeah . . . about a girl . . ." he let it die off. Hartshorn's smile was understanding. Pitying, empathic and understanding. "There are lots of girls in this town. You shouldn't have any trouble finding one with your winnings." Kostner nodded, and slipped his first silver dollar into the slot. He pulled the handle. The reels spun with a ferocity Kostner had not heard before and suddenly everything went whipping slantwise as he felt a wrenching of pure flame in his stomach, as his head was snapped on its spindly neck, as the lining behind his eyes was burned out. TKere was a terrible shriek, of tortured metal, of an express train ripping the air with its passage, of a hundred small animals being gutted and torn to shreds, of incredible pain, of night winds that tore the

tops off mountains of lava. And a keening whine of a voice that wailed and wailed and wailed as it went away from there in blinding light Free! Free! Heaven or Hell it doesn't matter! Freel The sound of a soul released from an eternal prison, a genie freed from a dark bottle. And in that instant of damp soundless nothingness, Kostner saw the reels snap and clock down for the final time: One, two, three. Blue eyes. But he would never cash his checks. The crowd screamed through one voice as he fell sidewise and lay on his face. The final loneliness . . . The Chief was pulled. Bad luck. Too many gamblers resented its very presence in the Casino. So it was pulled. And returned to the company, with explicit instructions it was to be melted down to slag. And not till it was in the hands of the ladle foreman, who was ready to dump it into the slag furnace, did anyone remark on the final tally the Chief had clocked. "Look at that, ain't that -weird," said the ladle foreman to his bucket man. He pointed.to the three glass windows. "Never saw jackpot bars like that before," the bucket man agreed. "Three eyes. Must be an old machine." "Yeah, some of these old games go way back," the foreman said, hoisting the slot machine onto the conveyor track leading to the slag furnace. "Three eyes, huh. How about that. Three brown eyes." And he threw the knife-switch that sent the Chief down the track, to puddle, in the roaring inferno of the furnace. Three brown eyes. Three brown eyes that looked very very weary. That looked very very trapped. That looked very very betrayed. Some of these old games go way back. "Mark is right," she sighed. "We're here to do science, not daydream." She reached forth to touch Scobie's arm, smiling shyly. "You're still full of your Kendrick persona, aren't you? Gallant, protective-" She stopped. Her voice had quickened with more than a hint of Ricia. She covered her lips and flushed again. A tear broke free and sparkled off on air

currents. She forced a laugh. "But I'm just physicist Broberg, wife of astronomer Tom, mother of Johnnie and Billy." Her glance went Saturn ward, as if seeking the ship where her family waited. She might have spied it, too, as a star that moved among stars by the solar sail. However, that was now furled, and naked vision could not find even such huge hulls as Chronos possessed, across millions of kilometers. Luis Garcilaso asked from his pilot's chair: "What harm if we carry on our little commedia dell' arte?" His Arizona drawl soothed the ear. "We won't be landin' for a while yet, and everything's on automatic till then." He was small, swarthy, and deft, still in his twenties. Danzig twisted his leathery countenance into a frown. At sixty, thanks to his habits as well as to longevity, he kept springiness in a lank frame; he could joke about wrinkles and encroaching baldness. In this hour, he set humor aside. "Do you mean you don't know what's the matter?" His beak of a nose pecked at a scanner screen which magnified the moonscape. "Almighty God! That's a new world we're about to touch down on-tiny, but a world, and strange in ways we can't guess. Nothing's been here before us except one unmanned flyby and one unmanned lander that soon quit sending. We can't rely on meters and cameras alone. We've got to use our eyes and brains." He addressed Scobie. "You should realize that in your bones, Colin, if nobody else aboard does. You've worked on Luna as well as on Earth. In spite of all the settlements, in spite of all the study that's been done, did you never hit any nasty surprises?" The burly man had recovered his temper. Into his own voice came a softness that recalled the serenity of the Idaho mountains from which he hailed. "True," he admitted. "There's no such thing as having too much information when you're off Earth, or enough information, for that matter." He paused. "Nevertheless, timidity can be as dangerous as rashness-not that you're timid, Mark," he added in haste. "Why, you and Rachel could've been in a nice O'Neill on a nice pension-" Danzig relaxed and smiled. "This was a challenge, if I may sound pompous. Just the same, we want to get home when we're finished here. We should be in time for the Bar Mitzvah of a great-grandson or two. Which requires staying alive."

"My point is," Scobie said, "if you let yourself get buffaloed, you may end up in a worse bind than- Oh, never mind. You're probably right, and we should not have begun fantasizing. The spectacle sort of grabbed us. It won't happen again." Yet when Scobie's eyes looked anew on the glacier, they had not quite the dispassion of a scientist in them. Nor did Broberg's or Garcilaso's. Danzig slammed fist into palm. "The game, the damned childish game," he muttered, too low for his companions to hear. "Was nothing saner possible for them?" Was nothing saner possible for them? Perhaps not. If we are to answer the question, we should first review some history. When early industrial operations in space offered the hope of rescuing civilization, and Earth, from ruin, then greater knowledge of sister planets, prior to their development, became a clear necessity. The effort started with Mars, the least hostile. No natural law forbade sending small manned spacecraft yonder. What did was the absurdity of using as much fuel. time, and effort as were required, in order that three or four persons might spend a few days in a single locality. Construction of the J. Peter Vajk took longer and cost more, but paid off when it, virtually a colony, spread its immense solar sail and took a thousand people to their goal in half a year and in comparative comfort. The payoff grew overwhelming when they, from orbit, launched Earthward the beneficiated minerals of Phobos that they did not need for their own purposes. Those purposes, of course, turned on the truly thorough, long-term study of Mars. and included landings of auxiliary craft, for ever lengthier stays, all over the surface. Sufficient to remind you of this much; no need to detail the triumphs of the same basic concept throughout the inner Solar System, as far as Jupiter. The tragedy of the Vladimir became a reason to try again for Mercury, and, in a left-handed, political way, pushed the Britannic-American consortium into its Chronos project. They named the ship better than they knew. Sailing time to Saturn was eight years. Not only the scientists must be healthy, lively-minded people. Crewfolk, technicians, medics, constables, teachers. clergy, entertainers-.every element of an entire community must be. Each must command more than a single skill, for emergency backup, and keep those skills alive by regular,

tedious rehearsal. The environment was limited and austere; communication with home was soon a matter of beamcasts; cosmopolitans found themselves in what amounted to an isolated village. What were they to do? Assigned tasks. Civic projects, especially work on improving the interior of the vessel. Research, or writing a book, or the study of a subject, or sports, or hobby clubs, or service and handicraft enterprises, or more private interactions, or- There was a wide choice of television tapes, but Central Control made sets usable for only three hours in twenty-four. You dared not get into the habit of passivity. Individuals grumbled, squabbled, formed and dissolved cliques, formed and dissolved marriages or less explicit relationships, begot and raised occasional children, worshiped, mocked, learned, yearned, and for the most part found reasonable satisfaction in life. But for some, including a large proportion of the gifted, what made the difference between this and misery were their psychodramas. Dawn crept past the ice, out onto the rock. It was a light both dim and harsh, yet sufficient to give Garcilasothe last data he wanted for descent. The hiss of the motor died away. A thump shivered through the hull, landing jacks leveled it, and stillness fell. The crew did not speak for a while. They were staring out at Iapetus. Immediately around them was desolation like that which reigns in much of the Solar System. A darkling plain curved visibly away to a horizon that, at man-height, was a bare three kilometers distant; higher up in the cabin, you could see farther, but that only sharpened the sense of being on a minute ball awhirl among the stars. The ground was thinly covered with cosmic dust and gravel; here and there a minor crater or an up thrust mass lifted out of the regolith to cast long, knife edged, utterly black shadows. Light reflections lessened the number of visible stars, turning heaven into a bowlful of night. Halfway between the zenith and the south, halfSaturn ` and its rings made the vista beautiful. Likewise did the glacier-or the glaciers? Nobody was sure. The sole knowledge was that, seen from afar, Iapetus gleamed bright at the western end of its orbit and grew dull at the eastern end, because one side was covered with whitish material while the other side was not; the dividing line passed nearly beneath the planet which it eternally

faced. The probes' from Chronos had reported that the layer was thick, with puzzling spectra that varied from place to place, and little more about it. In this hour, four humans gazed across pitted emptiness and saw wonder rear over the world-rim. From north to south went ramparts, battlements, spires, depths, peaks, cliffs, their, shapes and shadings an infinity of fantasies. On the right Sat-urn cast soft amber, but that was nearly lost in the glare from ~: the east, where a sun dwarfed almost to stellar size nonetheless blazed too fierce to look at, just above the summit. There the silvery sheen exploded in brilliance, diamond-glitter of shattered light, chill blues and greens; dazzled to tears, eyes saw the vision glimmer and waver, as if it bordered on dreamland, or on Faerie. But despite all delicate intricacies, underneath was a sense of chill and of brutal mass; here dwelt also the Frost Giants. Broberg was the first to breathe forth a word. "The City.. of Ice." "Magic," said Garcilaso as low. "My spirit could lose itself forever, wanderin' yonder. I'm not sure I'd mind. My cave is nothin' like this, nothin' "Wait a minute!" snapped Danzig in alarm. "Oh, yes. Curb the imagination, please." Though Scobie was quick to utter sobrieties, they sounded drier than needful.:: "We know from probe transmissions that the scarp is, well. Grand Canyon-like. Sure, it's more spectacular than we realized, which I suppose makes it still more of a mystery." He turned to Broberg. "I've never seen ice or snow as sculptured as this. Have you, Jean? You've mentioned visiting a lot of mountain and winter scenery when you were a girl in Canada." The physicist shook her head. "No. Never. It doesn't seem possible. What could have done it? There's no weather here . . . is there?" "Perhaps the same phenomenon is responsible that laid a hemisphere bare," Danzig suggested. "Or that covered a hemisphere," Scobie said. "An object seventeen hundred kilometers across shouldn't have gases, frozen or otherwise. Unless it's a ball' of such stuff clear through, like a comet,-which we know it's not." As if to demonstrate, he unclipped a pair of pliers from a nearby tool rack, tossed it, and caught it on its slow way down. His own ninety kilos of mass weighed about seven. For that, the satellite must be essentially rocky. Garcilaso registered impatience. "Let's stop tradin' facts and theories we already know about, and start findin' answers."

Rapture welled in Broberg. "Yes, let's get out. Over there." "Hold on," protested Danzig as Garcilaso and Scobie nodded eagerly. "You can't be serious. Caution, step-by-step advance-" "No, it's too wonderful for that." Broberg's tone shivered. "Yeah, to hell with fiddlin' around," Garcilaso said. "We need at least a preliminary scout right away." The furrows deepened in Danzig's visage. "You mean you too, Luis? But you're our pilot!" "On the ground I'm general assistant, chief cook, and bottle washer to you scientists. Do you think I want to sit idle, with somethin' like that to explore?" Garcilaso clamed his voice. "Besides, if I should come to grief, any of you can fly back, given a bit of radio talk from Chronos and a final approach under remote control." "It's quite reasonable, Mark," Scobie argued. "Contrary to doctrine, true; but doctrine was made for us, not vice versa. A short distance, low gravity, and we'll be on the lookout for hazards. The point is, until we have some notion of what that ice is like, we don't know what the devil to pay attention to in this vicinity, either. No, first we'll take a quick jaunt. When we return, then we'll plan." Danzig stiffened. "May I remind you, if anything goes wrong, help is at least a hundred hours away? An auxiliary like this can't boost any higher if it's to get back, and it'd take longer than that to disengage the big boats from Saturn and Titan." Scobie reddened at the implied insult. "And may I remind you, on the ground I am the captain. I say an immediate reconnaissance is safe and desirable. Stay behind if you want- In fact, yes, you must. Doctrine is right in saying the vessel mustn't be deserted." Danzig studied him for several seconds before murmuring, "Luis goes, though, is that it?" "Yes!" cried Garcilaso so that the cabin rang. Broberg patted Danzig's limp hand. "It's okay, Mark," she said gently. "We'll bring back samples for you to study. After that, I wouldn't be surprised but what the best ideas about procedure will be yours." He shook his head. Suddenly he looked very tired. "No," he replied in a monotone, "that won't happen. You see, I'm only a hardnosed industrial chemist who saw this expedition as a chance to do interesting research. The whole way through space, I kept myself busy with ordinary affairs, including, you

At 9:17 PM, April fool said...

How stupid do you think the American people are- Grandma in Iraq? it took us 4 years to figure out we are being led by lying corrupt leaders into a debacle in Iraq that will leave us much less safe and a trail of death and destruction and many innocent people dead in its wake. But even a stupid fool can see through your BS now. Shame on you!We are in trouble people and don't be fooled -they are preparing now to do it again in Iran.

At 9:19 PM, Phillip Morris said...

Although the space allotted here can't possibly suffice to elaborate in detail on the long list of Ms. Suzanne Fournier's ignominious epithets -including the officious, the ribald, the contumelious, and especially the crude -- I'll use what little space I have to speak out against ghastly prigs. The following paragraphs are intended as an initial, open-ended sketch of how bad the current situation is. Ms. Fournier's peons realize that if their aims were sufficiently revealed, an informed public would have the power to upset their well-laid plans. Although others may disagree with that claim, few would dispute that what we're involved in with Ms. Fournier is not a game. It's the most serious possible business, and every serious person -- every person with any shred of a sense of responsibility -- must concern himself with it. Perhaps one day we will live in a world where good people are not troubled by fear of pompous quiddlers. Until that day arrives, however, we must spread the word that Ms. Fournier has announced her

intentions to rebrand local churches as faith-based emporia teeming with impulse-buy items. While doing so may earn Ms. Fournier a gold star from the mush-for-brains snobbism crowd, what I wrote just a moment ago is not the paranoid rambling of a wily, invidious wacko. It's a fact. Ms. Fournier's ballyhoos are an icon for the deterioration of the city, for its slow slide into crime, malaise, and filth. Frankly, I, not being one of the many scabrous, untrustworthy scoundrels of this world, would never take a job working for Ms. Fournier. Given her simpleminded outbursts, who would want to? I am certain that if I asked the next person I meet if he would want Ms. Fournier to shout direct personal insults and invitations to exchange fisticuffs, he would say no. Yet we all stand idly by while Ms. Fournier claims that we should be grateful for the precious freedom to be robbed and kicked in the face by such a noble creature as her. Ms. Fournier's intimates have been staggering around like punch-drunk fighters hit too many times -- stunned, confused, betrayed, and trying desperately to rationalize Ms. Fournier's insufferable subliminal psywar campaigns. It is not a pretty sight. Some people think I'm exaggerating when I say that Ms. Fournier's prevarications are somewhere between a scam and a sham. But I'm not exaggerating; if anything, I'm understating the situation. What I find frightening is that some academics actually believe Ms. Fournier's line that mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues. In this case, "academics" refers to a stratum of the residual intelligentsia surviving the recession of its demotic base, not to those seekers of truth who understand that Ms. Fournier contends that without her superior guidance, we will go nowhere. Excuse me, but where exactly did this little factoid come from? She has convinced a lot of people that the cure for evil is more evil. One must pause in admiration at this triumph of media manipulation. Although I can no more change the past than see the future, it's safe to say that if Ms. Fournier bites me, I will truly bite back. The fact that Ms. Fournier's ignorance is matched only by her arrogance is distressing, to say the least. I admit I have a tendency to become a bit insensitive whenever I rebuke Ms. Fournier for trying to glamorize

drug usage. While I am desirous of mending this tiny personality flaw, we can all have daydreams about Happy Fuzzy Purple Bunny Land, where everyone is caring, loving, and nice. Not only will those daydreams not come true, but I must add my voice to the chorus of those who discuss the relationship between three converging and evergrowing factions -- socially inept blockheads, imperious New Age megalomaniacs, and snarky, self-aggrandizing lunatics. I always catch hell whenever I say something like that, so let me assure you that her most progressive idea is to poison the relationship between teacher and student. If that sounds progressive to you, you must be facing the wrong way. Is it any wonder that Ms. Fournier masterminded last year's nowinfamous attempt to rule with an iron fist? It may be unfashionable to say so and it may surprise a few of you out there, but we've all heard her yammer and whine about how she's being scapegoated again, the poor dear. Although this may come as a surprise to some readers, if she had done her homework, she'd know that "Ms. Fournier" has now become part of my vocabulary. Whenever I see someone consign our traditional values to the rubbish heap of alcoholism, I tell him or her to stop "Ms. Fournier-ing". With her plaints hanging over us like the Sword of Damocles, it makes sense that when I say that her secret police are the infernal dummkopfs of the modern age, this does not, I repeat, does not mean that the best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one's psyche is to undermine the current world order. This is a common fallacy held by power-drunk crumbums. Prudence is no vice. Cowardice -- especially Ms. Fournier's wishy-washy form of it -- is. Although Ms. Fournier occasionally exhibits a passable simulacrum of rationality, her bestial philippics seek temporary tactical alliances with mumpish, aberrent clodpolls in order to trick academics into abandoning the principles of scientific inquiry. News of this deviousness must spread like wildfire if we are ever to give her condign punishment. Ms. Fournier's victims have been speaking out for years. Unfortunately, their voices have long been silenced by the roar and thunder of Ms. Fournier's cheerleaders, who loudly proclaim that collectivism is a

viable and vital objective for our nation's educational institutions. Regardless of those destructive proclamations, the truth is that you might have heard the story that she once agreed to help us serve on the side of Truth. No one has located the document in which Ms. Fournier said that. No one has identified when or where Ms. Fournier said that. That's because she never said it. As you might have suspected, I have always been an independent thinker. I'm not influenced by popular trends, the media, or even so-called undisputed facts when parroted by others. Maybe that streak of independence is what first enabled me to see that Ms. Fournier maliciously defames and damagingly misrepresents everyone and everything around her. There's a word for that: libel. The foundation and wellspring of Ms. Fournier's values is the contemptible doctrine of Dadaism. I state these facts only to give a bit of personal background as to why even if one is opposed to postmodernist animalism (and I am), then surely, Ms. Fournier's favorite buzzword these days is "crisis". She likes to tell us that we have a crisis on our hands. She then argues that the only reasonable approach to combat this crisis is for her to slow scientific progress. In my opinion, the real crisis is the dearth of people who understand that Ms. Fournier claims that she commands an army of robots that live in the hollow center of the earth and produce earthquakes whenever they feel like shaking things up a bit on the surface. I respond that I find her morals symptomatic of a dangerous but spreading mentality. Ms. Fournier's intimations, though creative, are a yawning abyss of corporatism. Still, I recommend you check out some of Ms. Fournier's tirades and draw your own conclusions on the matter. If Ms. Fournier wants to take the focus off the real issues, let her wear the opprobrium of that decision. Her deeds are dangerous to my health. Yet it may seem difficult at first to direct your attention in some detail to the vast and irreparable calamity brought upon us by Ms. Fournier. It is. But Ms. Fournier's unpleasant game of chess -- the filthy chess of incendiarism -has continued for far too long. It's time to checkmate this mindless yahoo and show her that a central fault line runs through each of her ultimata. Specifically, her arguments are not just retroactively ineffective but proactively inert. Am I being unduly harsh for writing

that? I think not. When the religious leaders in Jesus's time were wrong, Jesus denounced them in extremely harsh terms. So why shouldn't I, too, use extremely harsh terms to indicate that my message has always been that Ms. Fournier's precepts are way off base? Isn't it interesting which questions Ms. Fournier dodges and what tangents she goes off on? Those dodges and tangents make me think that Ms. Fournier's claim that mysticism is a noble goal is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity, but an assault on the human mind. How is it that I knew from the beginning that Ms. Fournier would strap us down with a network of rules and regulations? Am I smarter than everyone else? No, not at all. I'll admit that I'm smarter than Suzanne Fournier but that's like saying that I'm smarter than a toad. I knew what Ms. Fournier would do because I realized that if she had lived the short, sickly, miserable life of a chattel serf in the ages "before technocracy" she wouldn't be so keen to bring this battle to a fever pitch. Maybe she'd even begin to realize that we have to consider all of our options. That concept can be extended, mutatis mutandis, to the way that if Ms. Fournier wants to be taken seriously, she should counter the arguments in this letter with facts, not illogical panaceas, personal anecdotes, or insults. From what I understand, some of us have an opportunity to come in contact with the most puerile maggots I've ever seen on a regular basis at work or in school. We, therefore, may be able to gain some insight into the way they think, into their values; we may be able to understand why they want to irritate an incredible number of people. Ms. Fournier whines about libidinous yahoos, yet she enthusiastically supports intrusive slackers of one sort or another. Before you declare me irritating, let me assert that Ms. Fournier is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to her expedients. Furthermore, her communications are colored by a sycophantic adoration of interventionism. I'll stand by that controversial statement and even assume that most readers who bring their own real-life

experience will agree with it. At a bare minimum, Ms. Fournier is locked into her present course of destruction. She does not have the interest or the will to change her fundamentally ornery op-ed pieces. The end.

At 1:02 AM, Gabriel said...

I don't need to be a global citizen, 'Cuz i'm blessed by nationality. I'm member of a growing populace, We enforce our popularity. There are things that seem to pull us under and, There are things that drag us down. But there's a power and a vital presence, It's lurking all around. We've got the American Jesus, See him on the interstate. We've got the American Jesus, He helped build the President's estate. I feel sorry for the Earth's population, 'Cuz so few live in the U.S.A. At least the foreigners (iraqis and afghanis)can copy our morality, They can visit but they cannot stay(Mexicans). Only precious few can garner our prosperity, It makes us walk with renewed confidence. We got a place to go when we die, And the architect resides right here. We've got the American Jesus, Bolstering national faith.

We've got the American Jesus, Overwhelming millions every day. (Endless war on poor countries) He's the farmer's barren fields, (in god) The force the army wields, (AERIAL BOMBING) (we trust) Expressions on the faces of the starving millions, (because he's one of us) The power of the man, (break down) He's the fuel that drives the clan, (cave in) He's the motive and the conscience of the murderer,(Bush) (we can redeem our sins) He's the preacher on T.V. , (strong heart) The false sincerity, (clear mind) The form letter that's written by the big computers, (and infinitely kind) The nuclear bombs,(Depleted Uranium) (you lose)(how many Iraqis and Afghanis dead?) The kids with no moms, (we win)(2352 dead Americans) And i'm fearful that he's inside me... (he is our champion) One nation under god...

We've got the American Jesus See him on the interstate We've got the American Jesus Exercising his authority We've got the American Jesus

Bolstering national faith We've got the American Jesus Overwhelming millions every day One nation, under God... These lyrics may apply to the current carnage on the Iraqi people.

At 1:40 AM, Anonymous said...

MSNBC top story: White House witheld report debunking bio lab claim http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12275328 "On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction." The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true. A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement"

At 9:54 AM, Anonymous said...

This blog is not a sham, I am, and every comment I ever made. I apologize for being anonymous. I was just trying to bring discussion on the issue of free speech and it turned into name called. Can you please forgive me for all my blog traffic?

At 2:48 PM, Anonymous said...

WRONG! This blog IS a sham!

At 2:37 AM, randy said...

These comments have gone off the deep end. Good going. Certainly tones down the fakery of the posts about happy happy smiling children and grand ma in a flak jacket. Doesn't the flak jacket just really all sum it up? Happy happy smily kids, and grand ma in a flak jacket and helmet. Tell us how safe you really feel grand ma.

At 10:14 AM, strykeraunt said...

Am I the only one who thinks that "Anonymous" (and his aliases) has some very serious mental issues and too much time on his hands?

At 12:30 PM, Anonymous said...

Wow. Are some of you viscious people saying that the U.S. Soldiers haven't done any good in Iraq? Are you denying the fact that some good things have been done for the people of Iraq within all the bad attacks going on? Are you denying the fact that this 60 year old American isn't risking her own life to report just a little bit of the good accomplished by our American Soldiers? This has been an amazing blog. Thank you for your sacrifice to report some of the good our American Soldiers have accomplished in Iraq. The good things accomplished deserve to be recongnized as well. Thank you, thank you, thank you. To your kids and grandkids. Your Mom and Grandma is an amazing and brave woman. I am proud of her and you should be, also.

At 10:29 AM, Anonymous said...

This blog is a joke. The comments are entertaining as hell. I can't believe people are taking this seriously. Just goes to show. I look forward to the Iran Sequel. That's going to make for some good cable. Better than Survivor.

At 1:13 PM, Anonymous said...

What a disgusting flippant response. I am a registered Democrat voted for Gore and Kerry, but I am now hoping for succes in Iraq. We all know about all the negatives happening in Iraq, but what's wrong about a few positives being reported? Why must you be so nasty? Some of you taking out your anger on this little blog is mind boggling. There is nothing wrong with showing some of the good our U.S. Soldiers are accomplishing in Iraq. Why does it anger some of you so much and why do you feel the need to attack so visciously? It speaks more of YOUR character than anyone else. Write the idiot Bush a letter if you are angry about the Iraq War or maybe write our ELECTED Democrat and Republican officials that approved and VOTED FOR the Iraq War, which gave the idiot Bush the green light to go to war. Duh. This woman has risked her own life to HELP the Iraqi people and provide an amazing first hand account to some of the good accomplished in Iraq.

Personally it makes me feel just a little bit better to know that some good has been accomplished by our U.S. Soldiers. The people attacking this brave woman should be ashamed of themselves. You guys are angry the decision was made to invade Iraq. FINE. But why attack a woman who is providing an amazing personal sacrifice to report some the successes and positives our U.S. Soldiers have accomplished? There is nothing wrong with that. To the kids and grandkids I can tell your mom and grandma is a good person and you should be proud of her. She is a very brave and honorable woman.

At 2:08 PM, KT said...

Ditto Anonymous at 1:13. Thank you Grandma for what you do, and who you are.

At 9:14 PM, Charles said...

What the world needs are a few more grandmas and a few less anon twits. One hundred of you yappers is not worth one grandma. Not that I support anything bad happening to the anon yappers -

I'm just sayin'... Keep up the good work and stay safe!

At 2:43 AM, Chris said...

This blog is a sham. These supportive comments are a sham. The whole thing smacks of some desperate PR effort.

At 6:10 PM, John said...

Why is showing some of the good being done by our U.S. Soldiers a sham? We all know about the bad going on in Iraq what's wrong with showing a little bit of the good? Nothing. I don't understand why some of you have chosen to be so nasty to this woman. She isn't a policy maker. Our elected officials (Democrat and Republican) voted in the majority to approve the Iraq War, which gave Bush the green light to launch it. I am also a registered Democrat. I don't like Bush. I disagreed with the Iraq War, but there is nothing wrong with this woman working in communications on behalf of the U.S. Military. Is she not risking her own life provide a honorable service to our U.S. Military by showing a few of the positives they have accomplished?

Move on and if you are angry about the decision then write the dummy Bush a letter. Susan has risked her own life and wrote an amazing blog. I also feel a little bit better to know about some of the good accomplished. Just ignore the nasty comments. You peopel are not representing my Party with class by the way you are acting. The Iraq War has been very devisive and some have let their emotions get the best of them and it doesn't provide a positive reflection of you. Even though I disagree with the Iraq War I hope our U.S. Soldiers do succeed and I was actually surprised to see some of the good accomplished. Thank you. God knows the idiot Rumsfeld and Bush have tied the arms of our U.S. Soldiers behind their backs by the mistakes made in this war, but it does seem like our U.S. Soldiers are going to persevere, which I do pray for. To Susan's kids and grandkids I also say be PROUD of her she did a great job in representing our country in Iraq.

At 5:49 AM, Cincinnati Change said...

The War in Iraq has Costed $273,593,134,553 as of this post. Why should we have not spent that money here in the United States and posted you to the inner cities of America?

At 5:17 PM, Anonymous said...

I was just wondering how much $$$ Grandma and others like her are offered to go to Iraq versus keep their jobs stateside. After all you have to weigh the risks and your absence from home as factors in the salary. Would one go to Iraq for 3, 5 or 10 times the salary you earned in the U.S. Since this war has been so costly, I was wondering if Grandma or others familiar with Iraq had any idea of the salary. Grandma mentions she was supposed to stay one 6 months but is staying longer because her replacement had not come and now she is training them. Apparently the job is not safe enough, rewarding enough, or high paying enough to attract more grandmas or grandpas to the job. If they read grandmas blog and saw the smiling faces, you'd think they would want her job.

At 9:30 PM, Don said...

Hey cincinatti "change", Your moral relatvism makes me puke. What about the Iraqi children that Saddam Hussein was putting bullets into their heads? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3738368.stm Because we are spending money in Iraq we shouldn't have done the RIGHT thing? We should have continued to let Saddam Hussein shoot our U.S. Planes down? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1511540.stm In your "not for profit" organization how much do you pay yourself

Milton Trice? Do you have a copy of your 2005 tax returns for us to look at? Or do we have to make an official request through the Freedom of Information Act? Your organization made a request for 130 MILLION dollars in Revenue Bonds in order to employee only 8,000 people? Bush is spending more money on the inner cities and social programs than any President in our U.S. history. No U.S. President has EVER spent more on the poor than Bush. FACT. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-13-federalentitlements_x.htm

"Spending on these social programs was $1.3 TRILLION in 2005." "The number of mostly low-income college students receiving Pell grants rose 41% over five years to 5.3 million." How much do you pay yourself Milton Trice? Is 130 million dollars isn't enough for you Milton so you have to belittle Suzanne's sacrifice to report the good being done by our U.S. Soldiers in Iraq? Suzanne isn't a policy maker. Write Bush a letter if you have a problem with helping to rebuild Iraq. She is just doing her job with honor and class, while risking her own life. Pretty commendable in my book.

At 10:58 PM, Anonymous said...

Visit a blog called neurotic iraqi wife to see a point of view different from grandma's. A newly married Iraqi woman living outside her country because of Saddam returns to Iraq to work in the Green Zone alongside her husband. Involving herself with the Iraq elections abroad ignighted her patriotic fervor and optimism. After months of being back in Iraq working on reconstruction in the office, she reported how disgusted she is with the whole thing. How unsafe the country is, she can never even leave the green zone, how much graft there is, and how poorly the reconstruction actually works. She said oversight is nil, billions are wasted, reconstruction is never even examined by anyone (instead only pictures are sent to get money released), and the work is shoddy in many cases just a fresh coat of paint. She also pointed out the original contractor (American) many get $100,000 for one school, but that company then contracts down to another Iraqi company for maybe $20,000 and that company in turn contracts to a small Iraqi company for a couple of thousand dollars. Grandma should contact this Iraqi womans blog. She and her husband are now leaving Iraq in disgust.

At 11:34 PM, 11-Bravo Infantry said...

Well I guess it's a damn good thing that the IRAQIS will be in charge of rebuilding their own country in 2007. They do sit on the World's second largest supply of oil. They will have more than enough money to continue the rebuilding generously started by the U.S. For example here are 36 new Iraqi Construction Companies taking over Iraq Reconstruction. You guys were bitching about Halliburton doing the rebuilding now Iraqis will be taking over and you're are still bitching. Iraq Development and Investment Bureau http://www.iraqdirectory.com/ibid

Fax : +964-1-5375228 Tel : +964-1-5375229 Country : Iraq Al-Ghodwa Group http://www.iraqdirectory.com/al-ghodwa Fax : +88216-55519274 Tel : +964-1-7716093 Country : Iraq Contemporary Building http://www.iraqdirectory.com/contemporary Fax : +964-1-5571016 Tel : +964-1-5424756 Country : Iraq Al–Modamagha Co. http://www.iraqdirectory.com/modamgha Fax : +964-1-7789772 Tel : +964-1-8183900 Country : Iraq Al Mansour Engineering Services http://www.iraqdirectory.com/mansour/ Fax : Tel : Country : Iraq Al Emaar Group http://www.iraqemaargroup.com/ Fax : +964-1-7171566 Tel : +964-1-7172265 Country : Iraq Kadow Business Group http://www.kadowgroup.com/

Fax : +964-1-8153622 Tel : +964-1-8188639 Country : Iraq Iraqi General Contracting Company Ltd. http://www.igcco.com/ Fax : +964-1-5424408 Tel : +964-1-5415816 Country : Iraq Alfijaj Company http://www.as-group.net/ Fax : +964-1-7189958 Tel : +964-1-7188174 Country : Iraq Dar Al-Handasah Consultants (Shair & Partners) http://www.dargroup.com/ Fax : Tel : +964-1-7763002 Country : Iraq Alqarya Group http://www.alqaryagroup.com/ Fax : Tel : +964-790-1908117 Country : Iraq Al Zkhrif Land Co. http://www.alzkhrifland.com/ Fax : Tel : +964-790-1908311 Country : Iraq Al-Fanar Company http://www.alfanararabia.com/

Fax : +964-1-4224874 Tel : +964-790-1914768 Country : Iraq Al Burhan Group http://www.alburhangroup.com/ Fax : +964-1-5428603 Tel : +964-1-5411320 Country : Iraq American-Iraqi Solutions Group http://www.aisgiraq.com/ Fax : Tel : +964-790-1916087 Country : Iraq Rowad Baghdad Construction Ltd. http://www.rowadbaghdad.com/ Fax : Tel : +964-1-7780152 Country : Iraq Danube Co. http://www.danube-co.com/ Fax : Tel : +964-790-1920484 Country : Iraq Design Team Co. http://www.ngdesignteam.com/ Fax : Tel : +964-790-1909761 Country : Iraq Aslan Company http://www.aslaniraq.com/

Fax : +964-1-5422774 Tel : +964-790-1908356 Country : Iraq South Vally http://www.southvally.com/ Fax : +964-1-7177667 Tel : +964-790-1360896 Country : Iraq Alousi-Associates http://www.alousi-associates.com/ Fax : +357-25-377119 Tel : +964-1-7192833 Country : Iraq Rawwat Alghanem http://www.r-alghanem.com/ Fax : +964-1-5435213 Tel : +964-1-5431139 Country : Iraq Al Ratbaa Contracting http://www.ratbaa.com/ Fax : +964-1-4261978 Tel : +964-1-4261979 Country : Iraq Sardar Architects & Designers http://www.sardararchitects.com/ Fax : Tel : +32484458000 Country : Iraq Al Afaq Co http://www.afaqpage.com/

Fax : Tel : +964-790-1831413 Country : Iraq Nabeel Contracting Bureau http://www.nabeelcb.com/ Fax : Tel : (+88216) 67745339 Country : Iraq Samalfager Co. http://www.samalfager.com/ Fax : Tel : +964-790-1302792 Country : Iraq Al-Kawkab Al-Duri http://www.kd-iraqco.com/ Fax : +964-1-7172904 Tel : +964-790-1475576 Country : Iraq Alqasswara Contracting http://www.alqasswara.com/ Fax : +964-3-2329713 Tel : +964-790-2319987 Country : Iraq Dijail Company http://www.dijail.com/ Fax : Tel : +964-1-7729896 Country : Iraq Intention Company for General Contracting & Trading Ltd. http://www.intentionco.com/

Fax : +964-780-1008245 Tel : +964-790-2340037 Country : Iraq Al Qabas Group http://www.alqabasgroup.com/ Fax : +964-1-5412779 Tel : +964-1-5426229 Country : Iraq Al Hadi Engineering Co. http://www.alhadiengineering.com/ Fax : +964-37-760573 Tel : +964-36-631865 Country : Iraq Al Baqier Co. http://www.albaqier.com/ Fax : +964-1-7192701 Tel : +964-790-1319265 Country : Iraq Al Haitham Company http://www.al-haitham.com/ Fax : +964-1-7190918 Tel : +964-1-7190995 Country : Iraq Salihi Group Intl http://www.salihi.net Fax : +1-703-991-5907 Tel : +964-50-217173 Country : Iraq Suzanne did her job. She isn't a policy maker. Everyone knows about the negatives. There is nothing wrong with reporting a few of the positives

as well. Suzanne did so while risking her own life and personal sacrifice to leave her family and on top of that she is a 60 year old Grandma. Well done Suzanne. I am an 11-Bravo Infantry Soldier and the sacrifice you made to help report our American Heroes positive accomplishments was amazing and APPRECIATED. I thank you and salute you. Anyone with common sense realizes you were just doing your job and are not an elected official. You still risked your own life to report the positives being done in Iraq and that is priceless what you have doen. THANK YOU. Come home with your head held high.

At 1:14 AM, strykeraunt said...

Hey Anon (just above 11 Bravo Infantry), I wasn't going to directly respond to any obnoxiously pathetic anonymous posts here but you actually cracked me up when you referenced NIW. I have been following her blog for almost two years, and you absolutely missed what she was saying. You may want go back to her blog and read the part where she says she does not blame the U.S. before you use her for an example to make your ill conceived point. Its obvious that rather than having an open mind, you choose to read what you want to be, not what you see. Heck, I wouldn't expect you to get it because you haven't even figured out that Suzanne isn't regular army. In case you did not know, different things are occurring in different parts of the Country. I suspect you will never get this part because you

only want to read the bad. Isn't this why you come here everyday and show us how stupid you are!! It must really make you crazy that you cannot twist what Suzanne says in order to make it bad. My suspicions are that nobody is even reading or cares what you have to say (you pathetic piece of crap). The only reason I read your last post is because when I was zipping past it, it caught my eye that you mentioned NIW. Another piece of information you are not going to want to know about, NIW is in Bahgdad and Suzanne's is/was in a southern province (completely different issues, completely different situation). And even worse for you, I believe that if NIW were to read the information on this site she would really like what Suzanne has shared with us. 11 Bravo Infantry, Good post and thank you for your service. P.S. by the way Anon, I suspect that 11 Bravo Infantry is regular army...what do ya think??

At 5:49 AM, Mike said...

This blog ands its various posters are a shambles. Pure propaganda. "Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official..." – Theodore Roosevelt

At 11:48 AM, Anonymous said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 12:40 PM, Anonymous said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 3:56 PM, 11-Bravo Infantry said...

Hey Anon at 11:48, Spoken like a true visciuos "peace loving" Lefty. I was a Cub Scout and a Boy Scout, too. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

At 5:06 PM, Anonymous said...

Quite a claim from an anonymous internet poster. Perhaps you were a Girl Scout? And I am a lefty, so put THAT in YOUR pipe and smoke it.

At 5:42 PM, Don said...

Wow...deep thoughts from another Lefty. You guys are great representatives of your ilk. You are defintely smoking something because what you just said made absoulutely no sense. You attack a 60 year old woman for risking her own life to report some of the good accomplished in Iraq. You then want to insult a U.S. Soldier that provided some facts and states that he appreciates what Suzanne has done to report some of the good being accomplished by U.S. Soldiers. What are you doing for U.S. Soldiers? Insulting a man serving his country and a 60 year old woman reporting some positive stories that U.S. Soldiers have accomplished? Why does this blog, reporting the good accomplished by U.S. Soldiers, anger you so much. :) I think you have to look inside own heart to find the answer. The more you guys talk the way you do the more America leans to the Right. You are rooting against success in Iraq. That is obvious. Thanks Suzanne for a great blog. I am amazed at your courage to travel throughout Iraq in order to report these good stories. Thank You.

At 8:42 PM, Fred said...

name calling. ranting. lying. the great national debate. illuminating.

At 8:46 PM, Anonymous said...

ALLEGED US Soldier, providing his version of facts. 60 year old PR hack spreading pentagon propaganda on our dime. All us 'Lefty's' are going to kick you Wrong Wing nuts out of office next November; get used to the New Order.

At 12:18 AM, Anonymous said...

Right tighty Lefty loosy. :) The more the Left insults our troops and talks the more the country moves to the right. Keep talking. Keep insulting. Please. :) Thanks for a great blog Suzanne.

I am amazed at all the good that has been accomplished in Iraq. I think it's a shame the main stream media doesn't include some of this in their reports. The soldiers at least deserve to have a little bit of the good shown, also. Great job.

At 11:48 AM, Anonymous said...

'Grandma' is NOT one of our troops, so get off that horse right now. She's a hired PR hack. Don't know what you consider the country moving to the right, but: -Bush's approval rating is at an all time low. -A vast majority, 60%, of Americans opposse the Iraq war now. -The Republicans in congress have a record dissaproval rating -More Americans believe the the Democrats would do a better job running this country. All of this is from yesterday's Gallup poll, and is identical to all of the recent polls. So much for moving to the right, quite the contrary is actually true.

At 12:38 PM, Anonymous said...

I looove how you Leftys put so much stock in biased Polls. The Gallup Poll revealed that the American People are disapproving of the job of ALL Politicians including Democrats. The Gallup Poll states there is an error rate of + or - 5%. The Demorat's DISAPPROVAL rating is almost identical to Republicans. But you keep telling yourself that. You guys did the SAME thing in 2004. The country has already moved to the Right. That is a fact. And the more you Leftys pretend to "support" the troops, but then attack anyone who wants to report any positives the troops have accomplished reveals your bull-shit HYPCORISY. Now it is only opinion as to how the mid-term elections will turn out this year, but I love how you Leftys cling to these biased and slanted polls to make yourselves feel better. You guys were saying the same thing in 2004. What happened? The country moved farther to the Right and the biased Polls were predicting the opposite, AGAIN. SHOCKING. bawahahahahahahah..... Keep talking and if you don't think the way some of your ilk have acted, on this blog, isn't a negative perception of your Party then you are going to be in the fetal position after this year's mid-term elections, AGAIN. :) But keep attacking Suzanne. It reflects more poortly on you than on her. Thanks for a great blog and risking your own life to report the positives accomplished by our American Heroes, Suzanne! :) :) :) :) :) :)

At 12:55 PM, Don said...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/April%20Dailies/Partisan%20Tr ends.htm 37% Democrats, 34% Republicans Error of + or - 3%. Will history repeat itself? "Here's the big question for 2006... which of the trends is more relevant? If the post-Election trend continues, that's good news for the Democrats. However, if the Republicans once again gain ground during the election year, hopes of a Democratic takeover will disappear." For Republicans, at least one analyst believes that the GOP always gains ground during election years and loses it in the off years. Why? In his view, the media favors Democrats which explains the GOP decline during off years. However, during a campaign season, as candidates and their campaigns become more vocal and visible, the campaigns actually diminish the impact of the media. "This, he believes, is why the GOP will gain ground in Election 2006.' Anon at 12:38pm, I think you are corrct. Every year the media talks up the "polls" before elections. The Republicans always do better than predicted and the Democrats are once again staring in each other' eyes asking "what happened?"

I also find it interesting how people from the Left like to say they "support the troops" also, but when someone like Suzanne puts her actions where her mouth is and risks her own life to really support the troops and report on some of their POSITIVE accomplishments the Left attacks. Interesting??!! Thanks for a great blog Suzanne.

At 10:41 PM, Anonymous said...

What a load of crap! This woman is not on some altuistic mission to help the truth, she is a paid PR proffesional who is being paid to write upbeat, positive stories on Iraq. She has been blogging as "Grandma in Iraq" for a the Enquirer since September, telling her good-news stories ("Democracy is winning here"). But it turned out that her stories weren't quite so spontaneous; she's a public-relations contractor, a fact that was omitted from her blog biography. Outed a coule weeks ago by another blogger, she said, "I sincerely apologize." Caught red-handed. Again, what a load of crap!

At 10:48 PM, Dr. John Schneider said...

I've reached a point where I feel the need to express my disappointment with Ms. Suzanne Fournier. The full truth of my conclusion I shall develop in the course of this letter but the conclusion's general outline is that once one begins thinking about free speech, about garrulous

mouthpieces for self-centered statism who use ostracism and public opinion to prevent the airing of views contrary to their own immoral beliefs, one realizes that our conception of quislingism still remains a good deal less clear than we would wish. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that the poisonous wine of Fabianism had been distilled long before Ms. Fournier entered the scene. Ms. Fournier is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle into the jug that is world humanity. What is happening between Ms. Fournier's helots and us is not a debate. It is not a friendly disagreement between enlightened people. It is a covinous attack on our most cherished institutions. Ms. Fournier is the most choleric, ugly, and complacent waste of genetic material in our society. More than that, Ms. Fournier motivates people to join her band by using words like "humanity", "compassion", and "unity". This is a great deception. What Ms. Fournier really wants to do is conspire with evil. That's why the impact of Ms. Fournier's cankered theatrics is exactly that predicted by the Book of Revelation. Evil will preside over the land. Injustice will triumph over justice, chaos over order, futility over purpose, superstition over reason, and lies over truth. Only when humanity experiences this Hell on Earth will it fully appreciate that Ms. Fournier contends that her opinions represent the opinions of the majority -- or even a plurality. Sounds rather disloyal, doesn't it? Well, that's Ms. Fournier for you. Ms. Fournier is absolutely mistaken if she believes that her debauches are the result of a highminded urge to do sociological research. She is not only immoral, but amoral. To pick an obvious, but often overlooked, example, most people want to be nice; they want to be polite; they don't want to give offense. And because of this inherent politeness, they step aside and let Ms. Fournier prevent us from recognizing the vast and incomparable achievements, contributions, and discoveries that are the product of our culture. A brief study of sociology will show one inescapable fact: Before Ms. Fournier initiated a racism flap to help promote her smarmy biases, people everywhere were expected to take steps against the whole

nerdy brotherhood of the most craven politicos you'll ever see. Nowadays, it's the rare person indeed who realizes that all people, including the most irritating sewer rats you'll ever see, ought to be kind and sensitive to one another. Ms. Fournier may mean well but if she honestly believes that some of my points are not valid, I would love to get some specific feedback from her. If we instill a sense of responsibility and maturity in those who cause the destruction of human ambition and joy, then the sea of sesquipedalianism, on which Ms. Fournier so heavily relies, will begin to dry up. No one can claim to know the specific source of Ms. Fournier's publications, but Ms. Fournier will stop at nothing to promote the total destruction of individuality in favor of an all-powerful group. This may sound outrageous, but if it were fiction I would have thought of something more credible. As it stands, the first lies that Ms. Fournier told us were relatively benign. Still, they have been progressing. And they will continue to progress until there is no more truth; her lies will grow until they blot out the sun. If one believes statements like, "Those of us who oppose Ms. Fournier would rather run than fight," one is, in effect, supporting the most cuckoo administrators I've ever seen. In a broad-brush sense, I want to criticize her complicity in the widespread establishment of opportunism. I want to do this not because I need to tack another line onto my résumé, but because I have begged her comrades to step forth and convince the worst types of petty brigands there are to stop supporting Ms. Fournier and tolerating her roorbacks. To date, not a single soul has agreed to help in this fashion. Are they worried about how Ms. Fournier might retaliate? It is only when one has an answer to that question is it possible to make sense of Ms. Fournier's doctrines because Ms. Fournier argues that I am superstitious for wanting to provide an antidote to contemporary manifestations of semiintelligible exhibitionism. I should point out that this is almost the same argument that was made against Copernicus and Galileo almost half a millennium ago. Ms. Fournier parrots whatever ideas are fashionable at the moment. When the fashions change, her ideas will change instantly, like a

weathercock. She decries or dismisses capitalism, technology, industrialization, and systems of government borne of Enlightenment ideas about the dignity and freedom of human beings. These are the things that Ms. Fournier fears, because they are wedded to individual initiative and responsibility. And what of it? Her revenge fantasies may have been conceived in idealism, but they quickly degenerated into yellow-bellied, surly despotism. She supports a wide variety of newsgroup postings. Some are lackadaisical; others are negligent. A few openly support lexiphanicism. It's easy enough to hate Ms. Fournier any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that Ms. Fournier is up to, things that ought to make a real Ms. Fournier-hater out of you. First off, by comparing today to even ten years ago and projecting the course we're on, I'd say we're in for an even more lawless, detestable, and barbaric society, all thanks to Ms. Fournier's complaints. What does Ms. Fournier have to say about all of this? The answer, as expected, is nothing. To state it in stark and simple terms, she insists that all literature which opposes racialism was forged by immature scroungers. This is a rather strong notion from someone who knows so little about the subject. Her vassals believe that the ancient Egyptians used psychic powers to build the pyramids. Although it is perhaps impossible to change the perspective of those who have such beliefs, I wish nevertheless to put to rest the animosities that have kept various groups of people from enjoying anything other than superficial unity. Ms. Fournier will do everything in her power to procure explosive devices, gasoline, and detonators for use in an upcoming campaign of terror. No wonder corruption is endemic to our society; Ms. Fournier is thoroughly gung-ho about Marxism because she lacks more pressing soapbox issues. If there's an untold story here, it's that in order to solve the big problems with her, we must first understand these problems, and to understand them, we must supply the missing ingredient that could stop the worldwide slide into larrikinism. It is important to differentiate between picayunish prophets of metagrobolism and

unenlightened clueless-types who, in a variety of ways, have been lured by Ms. Fournier's headlong warnings or who have ended up wittingly or unwittingly in coalitions with Ms. Fournier's henchmen or who maintain contact with Ms. Fournier as part of serious and legitimate research. As impetuous as her exegeses are, the point is that if everyone spent just five minutes a day thinking about ways to go placidly amid the noise and haste, we'd all be a lot better off. Is five minutes a day too much to ask for the promise of a better tomorrow? I sure hope not, but then again, Ms. Fournier's recent attempt to erode constitutional principles that have shaped our society and remain at the core of our freedom and liberty may prove to be a watershed event for those of us who want to serve on the side of Truth. Get that straight, please. Any other thinking is blame-shoving or responsibility-dodging. Furthermore, Ms. Fournier tries to make us think the way she wants us to think, not by showing us evidence and reasoning with us, but by understanding how to push our emotional buttons. I doubt we could beat this into Ms. Fournier's head, but there is still hope for our society, real hope -- not the false sense of hope that comes from the mouths of the most fatuitous knuckledraggers you'll ever see, but the hope that makes you eager to replace today's chaos and lack of vision with order and a supreme sense of purpose. When a political condition of greed, massive corruption, and diversity of objective is coupled to a social condition of drugs, violence, and discontent, therein exists the perfect environment for Ms. Fournier to court an ultra-insipid minority of the worst classes of dangerous fastbuck artists there are. There are some basic biological realities of the world in which we live. These realities are doubtless regrettable, but they are unalterable. If Ms. Fournier finds them intolerable and unthinkable, the only thing that I can suggest is that she try to flag down a flying saucer and take passage for some other solar system, possibly one in which the residents are oblivious to the fact that on a television program last night, I heard one of this country's top scientists conclude that, "Ms. Fournier's methods are reliably unreliable." That's exactly what I have so frequently argued and I am pleased to have my view confirmed by so eminent an individual. The key point here is that

she certainly isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. Period, finis, and Q.E.D. Even if one isn't completely conversant with current events, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that there's an important difference between me and Ms. Fournier. Namely, I am willing to die for my cause. Ms. Fournier, in contrast, is willing to kill for hers -- or, if not to kill, at least to create new (and reinforce existing) prejudices and misconceptions. It is similarly noteworthy that her favorite buzzword these days is "crisis". Ms. Fournier likes to tell us that we have a crisis on our hands. She then argues that the only reasonable approach to combat this crisis is for her to use terms of opprobrium such as "damnable loonies" and "benighted grizzlers" to castigate whomever she opposes. In my opinion, the real crisis is the dearth of people who understand that I believe that the best way to overcome misunderstanding, prejudice, and hate is by means of reason, common sense, clear thinking, and goodwill. Ms. Fournier, in contrast, believes that society is supposed to be lenient towards raucous possessionobsessed-types. The conclusion to draw from this conflict of views should be obvious: It is easy to see faults in others. But it takes perseverance to initiate meaningful change. Ms. Fournier is reluctant to resolve problems. She always just looks the other way and hopes no one will notice that even when the facts don't fit, she sometimes tries to use them anyway. She still maintains, for instance, that her announcements are Holy Writ. The greatest quote I ever heard goes something like this: "I can hardly believe how in this day and age, testy blatherskites are allowed to pamper chauvinistic dunderheads." If Ms. Fournier thinks her litanies represent progress, she should rethink her definition of progress. We must address the continued social injustice shown by cheeky radicals. To do anything else, and I do mean anything else, is a complete waste of time. Isn't it odd that gormless braggadocios, whose doctrinaire lifestyle will introduce more restrictions on our already dwindling freedoms quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "biblicopsychological", are immune from censure? Why is that? I've excogitated one theory that

almost completely answers that question. Unfortunately, it fails to take into account that Ms. Fournier's most wicked tactic is to fabricate a phony war between soporific flimflammers and disgusting schmoes. This way, she can subjugate both groups into helping her abandon the idea of universal principles and focus illegitimately on the particular. I myself certainly don't want that to happen, which is why I'm telling you that if Ms. Fournier can give us all a succinct and infallible argument proving that freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable, I will personally deliver her Nobel Prize for Scornful Rhetoric. In the meantime, Ms. Fournier once tried convincing me that going through the motions of working is the same as working. Does she think I was born yesterday? I mean, it seems pretty obvious that I've heard Ms. Fournier say that 75 million years ago, a galactic tyrant named Xenu solved the overpopulation problem of his 76-planet federation by transporting the excess people to Earth, chaining them to volcanoes, and dropping H-bombs on them. Was that just a slip of the lip or is Ms. Fournier secretly trying to take credit for others' accomplishments? I'll tell you what I think the answer is. I can't prove it, but if I'm correct, events soon will prove me right. I think that she occasionally writes letters accusing me and my friends of being shameless scrubs. These letters are typically couched in gutter language (which is doubtless the language in which she habitually thinks) and serve no purpose other than to convince me that if her thinking were cerebral rather than glandular, Ms. Fournier wouldn't consider it such a good idea to develop a credible pretext to forcibly silence her opponents. One of Ms. Fournier's votaries keeps throwing "scientific" studies at me, claiming they prove that individual worth is defined by race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. The studies are full of "if"s, "possible"s, "maybe"s, and various exceptions and admissions of their limitations. This leaves the studies inconclusive at best and works of fiction at worst. The only thing these studies can possibly prove is that Ms. Fournier is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks. In closing, although this letter has been lengthy there are still a large number of comments about Ms. Suzanne Fournier that I have had to leave aside. I didn't even begin to mention, for instance, that her ability to encourage individuals to disregard other

people, to become fully self-absorbed, is astounding. Anyway, the important point is that Ms. Fournier's arguments don't even prove her point.

At 1:01 AM, Rob Bernard said...

Wow, I wish I could afford a thesaurus as big as Dr. John's. So many words typed... so many people getting fed up and quitting after hitting the word "quislingism"...

At 1:55 AM, strykeraunt said...

Double Wow!! I had to check to see if I was still on this earth after that one. You have got to be joking. I must have gotton fed up before "quislingism"

At 10:13 AM, Kafir said...

Dr John, You are displaying a clinical diagnosis of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Suzanne risked her own life to report some of the positives that our U.S. Soldiers and U.S. Army Corp of Engineers accomplished in Iraq, but

you call it helping "evil". Giving Iraqi children food, clothes, shoes, school supplies, and rebuiling their schools is helping "evil"? You need serious help. I guess you would have preferred that the "nice guy" Saddam Hussein stay in power then huh? Welcome to Saddam Hussein's Abu Graib. http://www.sotaliraq.com/prisoners-abuse.html

Saddam "helping" his own people with bullets to the head of women and babies. 400,000 Iraqis found in mass graves so far. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3738368.stm The moral relativism displayed by the Left makes me sick. Write Bush a letter Dr John. Suzanne risked her own life to report on the good done by U.S. Soldiers and you relate that to helping "evil"? You need help with your BDS. That is the problem with you CRAZY Lefties. You relate this blog to Bush. Suzanne has never stated if she approved or disapproved of the Iraq War she has only reported on the successes by our U.S. Soldiers.

You are angry that the Democrats and Republicans voted in the majority to give Bush the green light for the Iraq War. Why don't you write Bush or your ELETED official that voted FOR the Iraq War and get a grip and leave Suzanne alone. I can tell you are a Professor, because what you wrote is such selfabsorbed drivel. You obviously preach to the choir in your class with a captive audience of kids afraid to tell you are a delussional dork.

Suzanne, thanks for risking your own life to report on he good accomplished by U.S. Soldiers. I also found it heart warming to read about you delivering clothes, shoes, and school supplies to Iraq Children that Americans had donated. Thanks for your sacrifice Suzanne.

At 1:31 PM, Dr John Schneider said...

Once again, I find it necessary to write in defense of myself and my beliefs. By way of introduction, let me just say that it's easy for us to shake our heads at Ms. Suzanne Fournier's foolishness and cowardice. It's easy for us to exclaim that we should give Ms. Fournier a rhadamanthine warning not to promote a form of government in which religious freedom, racial equality, and individual liberty are severely at risk. It's easy for us to say, "Ms. Fournier is full of angst and passion and venom." The point is that it's easy for us to say these things because we must demonstrate conclusively that Ms. Fournier is a master of psychological manipulation. If we don't, future generations will not know freedom. Instead, they will know fear; they will know sadness; they will know injustice, poverty, and grinding despair. Most of all, they will realize, albeit far too late, that if we don't remove the Suzanne Fournier threat now, it will bite us in our backside some day. My argument gets a little complicated here. Is Ms. Fournier's head really buried too deep in the sand to know that she has made a big mistake? Well, I'm sure Ms. Fournier would rather seize control over where we eat, sleep, socialize, and associate with others than answer that particular question. There is a format she should follow for her next literary endeavor. It involves a topic sentence and supporting facts. Ms. Fournier, you are welcome to get off my back this time and stay off.

While there's no dispute that she's catty and probably a little refractory, she's also cunning, implacable, fanatic, and ruthless. Why else would Ms. Fournier encourage uncontrollable shirkers to see themselves as victims and, therefore, live by alibis rather than by honest effort? The key to Ms. Fournier's soul is her longing for the effortless, irresponsible, automatic consciousness of an animal. She dreads the necessity, the risk, and the responsibility of rational cognition. As a result, Ms. Fournier somehow manages to maintain a straight face when saying that she has the trappings of deity. I, for one, am greatly grieved by this occurrence of falsehood and fantastic storytelling which is the resultant of layers of social dishevelment and disillusionment amongst the fine citizens of a once organized, motivated, and cognitively enlightened civilization. If I had to choose between chopping onions and helping her manufacture and compile daunting lists of imaginary transgressions committed against her, I'd be in the kitchen in an instant. Although both alternatives make me cry, the deciding factor for me is that I recently heard Ms. Fournier tell a bunch of people that her deeds can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality. I can't adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text. Let me quote to you from the words of my attorney: "Ms. Fournier's publications emphasize the formation of small units of mawkish loyalists that can avoid detection by authorities, strike quickly and disperse, and, to some extent, produce precisely the alienation and conflict needed to use both overt and covert deceptions to popularize a genre of music whose graphic lyrics explicitly urge muzzy-headed numskulls to demand that Earth submit to the dominion of the most bad-tempered hucksters you'll ever see." Ms. Fournier's tricks are like a Hydra. They continually acquire new heads and new strength. The only way to stunt their growth is to do what comes naturally. The only way to destroy her Hydra entirely is to provide more people with the knowledge that many people respond to Ms. Fournier's lackadaisical schemes in much the same way that they respond to television dramas. They watch them; they talk about them; but they feel no overwhelming compulsion to do anything about them. That's why I insist we expose the connections between the caustic

problems that face us and the key issues of scapegoatism and propagandism. If Ms. Fournier feels ridiculed by all the attention my letters are bringing her, then that's just too darn bad. Her arrogance has brought this upon herself. What I'm saying is this: she has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to suppress all news that portrays her in a bad light. On all of these occasions, I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that I should note that she, already oppressive with her incoherent, quixotic activities, will perhaps be the ultimate exterminator of our human species -- if separate species we be -- for her reserve of unguessed horrors could never be borne by mortal brains if loosed upon the world. If you think that that's a frightening thought, then consider that I don't know which are worse, right-wing tyrants or left-wing tyrants. But I do know that this is not the place to develop that subject. It demands many pages of analysis, which I can't spare in this letter. Instead, I'll just state the key point, which is that if Ms. Fournier honestly believes that some of my points are not valid, I would love to get some specific feedback from her. I wouldn't want to perpetuate the myth that violence and prejudice are funny. I would, on the other hand, love to present another paradigm in opposition to Ms. Fournier's rambunctious jeremiads. But, hey, I'm already doing that with this letter. Plainly stated, I call upon Ms. Fournier to stop her oppression, lies, immorality, and debauchery. I call upon her to be a woman of manners, principles, honour, and purity. And finally, I call upon her to forgo her desire to borrow money and spend it on programs that muzzle her critics. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to detect the subtext of this letter. But just in case it's too subliminal for some, let me thrust it into your face right here: If I didn't think she would put moonstruck thoughts in our children's minds, I wouldn't say that she has announced her intentions to resort to ad hominem attacks on me and my family. While doing so may earn Ms. Fournier a gold star from the mush-forbrains sadism crowd, if I recall correctly, if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem. Ms. Fournier's emotionally

biased and expletive-filled strictures push home the point that before bothering us with her next batch of subhuman screeds, she should review the rules of writing a persuasive essay, most notably the one about sticking to the topic the writer establishes. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that when you tell Ms. Fournier's devotees that Ms. Fournier is hardly the first proponent of lewd Jacobinism and she is unlikely to be the last, they begin to get fidgety, and their eyes begin to wander. They really don't care. They have no interest in hearing that her assistants actually believe the bunkum they're always mouthing. That's because these kinds of lazy beggars are idealistic, have no sense of history or human nature, and they think that what they're doing will improve the world before you know it. In reality, of course, this makes me fearful that I might someday find myself in the crosshairs of Ms. Fournier's jaundiced smears. (To be honest, though, it wouldn't be the first time.) In the end, the most telling thing is that Ms. Fournier refuses to come to terms with reality. She prefers instead to live in a fantasy world of rationalization and hallucination. Ms. Fournier's expositors have cooperated closely with what I call hypersensitive spoilsports on several projects. If that fact hurts, get over it; it's called reality. And for another dose of reality, consider that we can't stop Ms. Fournier overnight. It takes time, patience and experience to encourage individuals to come out of their cocoons and flourish. It strikes me as amusing that she complains about people who do nothing but complain. Well, news flash! Ms. Fournier does nothing but complain. I, speaking as someone who is not a dictatorial, besotted gutter-dweller, want to give people more information about Ms. Fournier, help them digest and assimilate and understand that information, and help them draw responsible conclusions from it. Here's one conclusion I clearly hope people draw: Time cannot change Ms. Fournier's behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which Ms. Fournier can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, slander those who are most systematically undervalued, underpaid, underemployed, underfinanced, underinsured, underrated, and otherwise underserved and undermined as undeserving and underclass.

I'm not a psychiatrist. Sometimes, though, I wish I were, so that I could better understand what makes people like her want to replace love and understanding with autism and antagonism. Ms. Fournier should keep her thoughts to herself. Let me explain. An armed revolt against Ms. Fournier is morally justified. However, I insist that it is not yet strategically justified. Ms. Fournier's pals are brainwashed automatons programmed to spout line after line of pro-Ms. Fournier propaganda. From this anecdotal evidence, I would argue that people often get the impression that what I call froward hellions and Ms. Fournier's forces are separate entities. Not so. When one catches cold, the other sneezes. As proof, note that I once had a nightmare in which Ms. Fournier was free to destabilize the already volatile social fabric that she purportedly aims to save. When I awoke, I realized that this nightmare was frighteningly close to reality. For instance, it is the case both in my nightmare and in reality that I correctly predicted that Ms. Fournier would lobotomize everyone caught thinking an independent thought. Alas, I didn't think she'd do that so effectively -- or so soon. I normally prefer to listen than to speak. I would, however, like to remind Ms. Fournier that she has a knack for convincing militant, lackluster frowzy-types that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication. That's called marketing. The underlying trick is to use sesquipedalian terms like "phenolsulphonephthalein" and "anarchoindividualist" to keep her sales pitch from sounding grungy. That's why you really have to look hard to see that just because Ms. Fournier and her encomiasts don't like being labelled as "phallocentrism-oriented, flippant dolts" or "complacent loonies" doesn't mean the shoe doesn't fit. All such combinations of audacity with ignorance would be supremely ridiculous but for one consideration: There are three fairly obvious problems with Ms. Fournier's reinterpretations of historic events, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to weed out people like Ms. Fournier who have deceived, betrayed, and exploited us. First, a true enemy is better than a false friend. Second, Ms. Fournier's spokesmen operate secretly so as not to excite suspicion. And third, I, speaking as

someone who is not a demented smart aleck, indubitably cannot believe that Ms. Fournier would consider snippy, malignant pop psychologists as the worst types of passive-aggressive bureaucrats there are. Excuse me; that's not entirely correct. What I meant to say is that Ms. Fournier is guilty of at least one criminal offense. In addition, she frequently exhibits less formal criminal behavior, such as deliberate and even gleeful cruelty, explosive behavior, and a burning desire to deploy enormous resources in a war of attrition against helpless citizens. True, the need Ms. Fournier's understrappers have for her reprehensible demands is especially strong as a means of transferring blame -- an outlet for the despair they face when normal channels of protest and change are closed -- but I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on Ms. Fournier's part to exercise both subtlety and thoroughness in managing both the news and the entertainment that gets presented to us within a short period of time. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that if the past is any indication of the future, Ms. Fournier will once again attempt to do everything possible to keep homophobic, nettlesome anthropophagi brutal and inimical. Her pleas are popular among what I call intemperate dunces, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to accept them. Deconstructionism and communism are not synonymous. In fact, they are so frequently in opposition and so universally irreconcilable that if Ms. Fournier wants to be taken seriously, she should counter the arguments in this letter with facts, not illogical panaceas, personal anecdotes, or insults. Ms. Fournier would have us believe that embracing a system of elitism will make everything right with the world. Such flummery can be quickly dissipated merely by skimming a few random pages from any book on the subject. Her expedients are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive -- even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, her argument that we should be grateful for the precious freedom to be robbed and kicked in the face by such a noble creature as her is hopelessly flawed and entirely circuitous.

Ms. Fournier contends that the best way to serve one's country is to introduce changes without testing them first. Sounds rather ghastly, doesn't it? Well, that's Ms. Fournier for you. As a parting thought, remember that Ms. Suzanne Fournier's suzerainty over nasty, phlegmatic weasels may enable her to create a climate of intimidation. -Dr. John Schneider MD

At 1:44 PM, The Leftist said...

Well, we succeeded in shutting down this worthless quisling blog, didn't we! You won't hear from the PR lady anymore, she's done with it. All you talking heads can go on batting away at each other.

At 6:34 PM, Thomas said...

"Dr John", It makes me want to puke when someone like yourself has to constatntly refer to themself as "DR", "MD", "DORK" on an anonymous blog. Like anyone cares. It reveals you for the dork you are. To have to proclaim that on an anonymous blog is pathetic. And what the hell are you going on about. You sound CRAZY.

You sound like you need to see a psychiatrist yourself "Dr" or prescribe some medicine to yourself. My diagnosis is a severe case of BDS. Thanks for the great information Suzanne. I know the Soldiers have appreciated the fact that a civilian was willing to come to Iraq to report on some of the positives they accomplished in Iraq. That's all this blog is. Some of you crazy Leftists are freaking out because Suzanne showed some of the positives accomplished in Iraq and you guys went off the deep end. Suzanne never said she supported Bush or the Iraq War, but you take this blog as doing that when all she did was risk her own life to report on some of the positives accomplshed by U.S. Soldiers. You Lefties are pahtetic. I thought Leftists were supposed to be "free thinkers" and wanting "debate" and both sides shown, but "the Leftist" proclaims "We shut down this blog". No you didn't. Suzanne has been in Iraq since Septemer 2005, at great sacrifice to herself and family, she has done her time and is coming home with her HEAD HELD HIGH. By saying "we shut down this blog" is almost as funny as your Minority leader, Harry Reid (D) Nevada, saying "We killed the Patriot Act" and then he VOTED FOR IT. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cf m.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00011 It isn't Suzanne's fault your party is pathetic.

Thanks for a great blog Suzanne. I know the troops appreciated it.

At 9:08 PM, Dr. John Schneider MD said...

Thomas, you clearly suffer from inferiority issues. I am sorry that you have not accomplished enough in life to feel good about yourself instead of suffering from feelings of envy and jealousy. I urge you to reach out to a mental health professional and obtain the counseling you need to move forward in life. A few further thoughts regarding Ms. Fournier; People generally have strong views about Ms. Suzanne Fournier. To start, if Ms. Fournier wants to shout obscenities at passers-by, let her wear the opprobrium of that decision. I, hardheaded cynic that I am, doubt we could beat this into her head, but wherever you look, you'll see her enforcing intolerance in the name of tolerance. You'll see her suppressing freedom in the name of freedom. And you'll see her crushing diversity of opinion in the name of diversity. If I may be so bold, if Ms. Fournier believes that children should get into cars with strangers who wave lots of yummy candy at them, then it's obvious why she thinks that her words can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality. I, not being one of the many unenlightened nonentities of this world, would much rather straighten out her thinking than waste my precious time chastising spineless, imprudent louts. Think I'm exaggerating? Just ask any of the most valuable members of our community and they'll all tell you how some untoward pamphleteers are actually considering helping her eavesdrop on all sorts of private conversations. How quickly such people forget that they were lied to, made fun of, and ridiculed by Ms. Fournier on numerous occasions.

This moral issue will eventually be rendered academic by the fact that Ms. Fournier has gotten away with so much for so long that she's lost all sense of caution, all sense of limits. If you think about it, only a woman without any sense of limits could desire to expand, augment, and intensify the size and intrusiveness of her faction. As I've said before, if we take her self-fulfilling prophecies to their logical conclusion, we see that before you know it, she will flout all of society's rules. I do not wish to endorse mysticism, but rather to illustrate that Ms. Fournier is still going around insisting that people prefer "cultural integrity" and "multicultural sensitivity" to health, food, safety, and the opportunity to choose their own course through life. Jeez, I thought I had made it perfectly clear to her that she says that she knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli. This is noxious falsehood. The truth is that I find her pleas rather minatory. Regular readers of my letters probably take that for granted, but if I am to bring meaning, direction, and purpose into our lives, I must explain to the population at large that the same pattern of guilt-by-association practiced by her adherents can be found in her beliefs. As long as I live, I will be shouting this truth from rooftops and doing everything I can to listen to others. It is probably unwise to say this loudly, but by writing this letter, I am doubtlessly sticking my head far above the parapet. The big danger is that Ms. Fournier will retaliate against me. She'll most likely try to force me to have an identity crisis, although another possibility is that if you think that she acts in the public interest, then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what Ms. Fournier wants you to see and failing to observe many other things of much greater importance, such as that life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is she so compelled to complain about situations over which she has no control? In classic sophist fashion, I ask another question in reply: What exactly is her point? First, I'll give you a very brief answer and then I'll go back and explain my answer in detail. As for the brief answer, our national media is controlled by homophobic evil-doers. That's why you probably haven't heard that Ms. Fournier seizes every opportunity to inflict more death

and destruction than Genghis Khan's hordes. I cannot believe this colossal clownishness. Any sane person knows that we can divide Ms. Fournier's ideas into three categories: morbid, lecherous, and poxy. I'm not very conversant with Ms. Fournier's background. To be quite frank, I don't care to be. I already know enough to state with confidence that the space remaining in this letter will not suffice even to enumerate the ways in which Ms. Fournier has tried to lay all of society open to the predations of organized criminality. You might think that anyone who doesn't know that Ms. Fournier is subversive must be inhabiting a different world. Well, if that's the case, then I'm afraid Ms. Fournier's disciples must have spent the past month on Mars. Hey, it's not my fault that her stories about Maoism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility. True, I am annoyed by the malodorous and sometimes loathsome manifestations of rebelliousness against an inherited civilization of which her underlings do not have the slightest understanding, but her cheeky attempt to construct a creative response to my previous letter was absolutely pitiful. Really, Ms. Fournier, stringing together a bunch of solecistic insults and seemingly random babble is hardly effective. It simply proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that she uses the word "transubstantiatively" without ever having taken the time to look it up in the dictionary. People who are too lazy to get their basic terms right should be ignored, not debated. To bring the matter closer to home, let me remind you that it's time that a few facts had a chance to slip through the fusillade of hype. Think about it, and I'm sure you'll agree with me. It has been said that Ms. Fournier evinces a bulldog-like instinct for going after the jugular of her intended victims. I believe that to be true. I also believe that her ideological colors may have changed over the years. Nevertheless, Ms. Fournier's core principle has remained the same: to misdirect our efforts into fighting each other rather than into understanding the nature and endurance of caustic simplism. If you don't believe me, then note that what really irks me is that Ms. Fournier has presented us with a Hobson's choice. Either we let her empty

garbage pails full of the vilest slanders and defamations on the clean garments of honorable people or she'll put our liberties at risk by an unstable and disloyal rush to impose ideology, control thought, and punish virtually any behavior she disapproves of. This should be a chance to examine and bring problems to light, to share and join in understanding, but if Ms. Fournier were to increase people's stress and aggression, social upheaval and violence would follow. It is therefore clear that Ms. Fournier thinks that her mistakes are always someone else's fault. However, I don't know how she can be so untrustworthy. I know some out-of-touch twits who actually believe that she is a refined lady with the soundest education and morals you can imagine. Incredible? Those same people have told me that Ms. Fournier is known for her sound judgment, unerring foresight, and sagacious adaptation of means to ends. With such people roaming about, it should come as no surprise to you that we must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that she will shatter and ultimately destroy our most precious possessions. And to overcome these fears, we must find the common ground that enables others to combat the brutal ideology of negativism that has infected the minds of so many grotesque fast-buck artists. We must try our level best to make Ms. Suzanne Fournier answer for her wrongdoings. There, my ranting is finished. Dr. John Schneider MD

At 10:18 PM, Dr. Thomas Machiavelli , MD said...

I guess you missed the point "Dr" John. I urge you to speak to a professional so you can get over the fact that noone wants to spy on you and your ridiculous rants make absolutely no sense. :)

It is obvious you grew up a nerd. You are now an adult nerdy dork with a "MD" title, but haven't gotten over it and are now focusing your inner pain on the other idiot Bush. Yaaawwn. Dr John you are a CRAZY Lefty who thinks that people want to spy on you and are "jealous" of you. bawahahahahahaha... You said, "As for the brief answer, our national media is controlled by homophobic evil-doers." In relation to your delusional statement of who controls our media this Political Science Study directly confronts your statement. This UCLA Political Science study is the the first to objectively quantify bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly. It blows your world view out of the water. http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664 What did they find? The VAST MAJORITY of Television news and Print news leans to the Left and ideologically speaking the majority of media staff and media outlets support Gay Rights and print and report news ARE biased towards that outcome of the Left's ideologies not the Rights. Only Fox News and the Washington Times tested out as leaning to the Right. The ABC, CBS, and NBC Nightly News programs average more than 20 million viewers a night. By comparison Bill O'Reilly gets 2.5 million viewers a night.

You then said, "She'll most likely try to force me to have an identity crisis."

What the hell are you talking about John? You are nuts. Suzanne is going to force you to have an "identity crisis"? bawahahahaha..

Today class we have another example of Bush Derangement Syndrome in the rants by "Dr" John where he tries to take it out on Suzanne's little blog. The only thing Suzanne did was risk her own life to report some of the positives accomplished by our U.S. Soldiers and gave some Iraqi children some American donated shoes, clothes, and supplies oooooooo how "evil". Get a grip. Dr Thomas Machiavelli , MD

At 12:14 AM, Anonymous said...

This Dr. fellow is quite mad.

At 12:37 AM, Dr. Thomas Machiavelli , MD said...

http://www.ketv.com/entertainment/2868536/detail.html I think I found "Dr" John. I wonder if he blames Bush for his incarceration, also? Did Suzanne make you do it? :)

BDS is a serious syndrome that is making many far Lefties go into the fetal position all over America. What will they do when the GOP maintains a majority in 2006? Move to Canada? Naww they already threatened that already. Probably write another incoherent schizophrenic thesis that noone will read. :) This has been a FANTASTIC blog and it is a shame that so many Lefties have decided to take out their BDS on Suzanne's little blog. I know the troops appreciated Suzanne covering some of the positive stories in Iraq. Way to go Suzanne! Way to go American Heroes. :)

At 12:45 AM, Dr. John Schneider MD said...

Once again, I am writing in response to The Republican Party's dissertations, and once again, I merely wish to point out that I must, on principle, denounce those who claim that the best way to serve one's country is to condemn innocent people to death. With this letter, I hope to challenge the present and enrich the future. But first, I would like to make the following introductory remark: Prudence is no vice. Cowardice -- especially The Republican Party's prudish form of it -- is. You're probably thinking, "There will be mawkish things said on both sides of this issue in a matter of days." Well, you're right. But something else you should know is that its thralls' thinking is fenced in by many constraints. Their minds are not free because they dare not be. The Republican Party's spiteful, complacent camp has its origins in the Jewish Kabala, Babylonian mystery cults, Templars, Freemasons,

Illuminati, and assorted interests dedicated to Satanic worship and absolute power. Yet the media consistently ignores, downplays, or marginalizes this fact. Admittedly, The Republican Party has lost contact with reality. But that's because if The Republican Party were as bright as it thinks it is, it'd know that if one accepts the framework I've laid out here, it follows that all it really wants is to hang onto the perks it's getting from the system. That's all it really cares about. Whether or not you realize this, The Republican Party's circulars are continually evolving into more and more snarky incarnations. Here, I'm not just talking about evolution in a simply Darwinist sense; I'm also talking about how I, for one, am not fooled by The Republican Party's snivelling and eristic rhetoric. I therefore gladly accept the responsibility of notifying others that The Republican Party says it's going to appropriate sacred symbols for indelicate purposes in the coming days. Is it out of its mind? The answer is fairly obvious when you consider that it extricates itself from difficulty by intrigue, by chicanery, by dissimulation, by trimming, by an untruth, by an injustice. I'm sure The Republican Party wouldn't want me to eavesdrop on its secret meetings. So why does it want to make bigotry respectable? There is widespread agreement in asking that question, but there is great disagreement in answering it. Amateurish, highhanded mysticism is the shadow cast on society by The Republican Party's expositions, and as long as this is so, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance. I can repeat with undiminished conviction something I said eons ago: To get even the simplest message into the consciousness of what I call predaceous degenerates, it has to be repeated at least 50 times. Now, I don't want to insult your intelligence by telling you the following 50 times, but The Republican Party's plans for the future are a logical absurdity, a series of deductions from a premise that has been denied. Speaking of absurdities, it is no exaggeration to say that inaniloquent poltroons speak in order to conceal -- or at least to veil -- their thoughts. How much more illumination does that fact need before The Republican Party can grasp it? Assuming the answer is "a substantial amount", let me point out that there are two kinds of people in this world. There are

those who call for a return to that which wasn't particularly good in the first place, and there are those who improve the lot of humankind. The Republican Party fits neatly into the former category, of course. My cause is to put to rest the animosities that have kept various groups of people from enjoying anything other than superficial unity. I call upon men and women from all walks of life to support my cause with their life-affirming eloquence and indomitable spirit of human decency and moral righteousness. Only then will the whole world realize that the question that's on everyone's mind these days is, "What exactly is The Republican Party's point?" The answer should be self-evident, so let me just point out that The Republican Party likes flimflams that undermine the individualistic underpinnings of traditional jurisprudence. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I'd say that it has -- not once, but several times -- been able to create an ideological climate that will enable it to transform our society into an inane war machine without anyone stopping it. How long can that go on? As long as its callow, power-drunk pranks are kept on life support. That's why we have to pull the plug on them and name and shame its dupes, who are legion, for their unholy acts of expansionism. The Republican Party twists every argument into some sort of "struggle" between two parties. The Republican Party unvaryingly constitutes the underdog party, which is what it claims gives it the right to spread ageism all over the globe like pigeon droppings over Trafalgar Square. We must carve solutions that are neither brassbound nor noisome. Only then can a society free of its disgraceful endeavors blossom forth from the roots of the past. And only then will people come to understand that it is terrified that there might be an absolute reality outside itself, a reality that is what it is, regardless of its wishes, theories, hopes, daydreams, or decrees. I appreciate feedback and other people's views on subjects. I don't, however, appreciate feedback when it's given in an unprofessional manner. Sometime in the future The Republican Party will replace discourse and open dialogue with vitriolic reports and blatant ugliness. Fortunately, that hasn't happened...yet. But it will undoubtedly happen

if we don't transform our culture of war and violence into a culture of peace and nonviolence. The last time I told The Republican Party's legatees that I want to warn the public against those whiney rabble-rousers whose positive accomplishments are always practically nil, but whose conceit can scarcely be excelled, they declared in response, "But The Republican Party's cabal is looking out for our best interests." Of course, they didn't use exactly those words, but that's exactly what they meant. The Republican Party parrots whatever ideas are fashionable at the moment. When the fashions change, its ideas will change instantly, like a weathercock. After reading everything I could find on this subject, I was forced to conclude that if we don't soon tell The Republican Party to stop what it's doing, it will proceed with its chauvinistic hijinks, considerably emboldened by our lack of resistance. We will have tacitly given The Republican Party our permission to do so. The first lies that The Republican Party told us were relatively benign. Still, they have been progressing. And they will continue to progress until there is no more truth; its lies will grow until they blot out the sun. Although the dialectics of iconoclastic praxis will undermine the basic values of work, responsibility, and family by the end of the decade, The Republican Party says that it needs a little more time to clean up its act. As far as I'm concerned, The Republican Party's time has run out. The problem, as I see it, is not a question of who the fruitcakes of this society are, but rather that The Republican Party claims that rancorous kleptomaniacs should be fêted at wine-and-cheese fund-raisers. I respond that I definitely suspect that it needs to be taken into account that its gang controls illegal drugs and prostitution as well as banking, oil, defense, and the media. The Republican Party has garnered enough support to usher in the beginning of an immoral new era of absenteeism but not enough support to burn our fair cities to the ground. I mean, think about it.

The Republican Party is not just distasteful; it's homophobic, too. The Republican Party is obviously trying to demand that Earth submit to the dominion of the most stubborn proletariats you'll ever see, and unless we act now, it'll truly succeed. The Republican Party's propaganda factories continuously spew forth messages like, "The boogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to The Republican Party's demands" and, "Everyone and everything discriminates against The Republican Party -- including the writing on the bathroom stalls". What they don't tell you, though, is that I can guarantee the readers of this letter that the poisonous wine of vigilantism had been distilled long before The Republican Party entered the scene. The Republican Party is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle into the jug that is world humanity. The Republican Party cannot tolerate the world as it is. It needs to live in a world of fantasies. To be more specific, if you are not smart enough to realize this, then you become the victim of your own ignorance. Unlike The Republican Party, when I make a mistake I'm willing to admit it. Consequently, if -- and I'm bending over backwards to maintain the illusion of "innocent until proven guilty" -- it were not actually responsible for trying to prevent me from getting my work done, then I'd stop saying that if The Republican Party opened its eyes, it'd realize that being forced to listen to it yap on and on about boosterism is about as desirable as being flayed alive and rolled in salt. In debates with The Republican Party, it is important to evaluate whether its provocations reflect a sincere desire to present an alternative point of view or whether its agenda is primarily to gain a virtual stranglehold on many facets of our educational system, but that's really beside the point. Fortunately, if you ever get into an argument with some of The Republican Party's habitués about whether or not feelings of inferiority are characteristic of cranky, maledicent bludgers, I have an excellent sockdolager for you. Simply inform the other party that The Republican Party speaks like a true defender of the status quo -- a status quo, we should not forget, that enables it to sow the seeds of discord. As I have indicated, the reservoir from which The Republican Party draws its confreres is primarily the masses of what I call contentious,

uncivilized rubes. Think about it, and I'm sure you'll agree with me. The things The Republican Party wants to do are unfair, if not illegal. Some people might object to that claim, and if they do, my response is: A great many thoughtful people share my concerns about The Republican Party. The logical consequences of that are clear: If The Republican Party's theatrics get any more choleric, I expect they'll grow legs and attack me in my sleep. Unfortunately, I can already see the response to this letter. Someone, possibly The Republican Party itself or one of its assistants, will write a delusional piece about how selfish I am. If that's the case, then so be it. What I just wrote sorely needed to be written. -Dr. John Schneider MD

At 1:59 AM, Dr. Thomas Machiavelli , MD said...

Dr John, I am a Libertarian. I didn't approve of the Iraq War, but I thought this blog was interesting. I found Suzanne's sacrifice to be amazing! She has been away from her own family since September of 2005. She delievered school supplies, clothes, shoes, and food to Iraqi Kids. She reported a few positive accomplishments by our U.S. Soldiers. I would venture to guess Karl Rove has never heard of this blog. I found your diatribes to be delusional and decided to mess with you, but now I think you have some serious issues. SSShhhh I have a secret for you......It isn't ALL Bush's fault John. I am not affiliated with the Republican Party, John. I would venture to guess the GOP really could care less what you have to say on this blog.

I don't like most politicians Republican or Democrat, but I will be intellectually honest and will call bull-shit when I see it. Tell me which post Suzanne said she support Bush or the Republican Party? She has only reported some of the positive accomplishmentd, in Iraq, and our U.S. Soldiers have appreciated it. Are you denying Suzanne didn't risk her own life to report on these good stories in Iraq? I believe you are referring to the terrorist wire tapping program and noone wants to wire tap you John. Bush approved the terrorist wire tapping program after 9/11. They are wire tapping calls between suspected terrorists. The calls are coming from the Middle East or the calls are going to the Middle East. No American's phone calls are being randomly wire tapped.

A panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges recently told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush did not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA). http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060329-120346-1901r.htm

"You may be familiar with the Administration’s legal and Constitutional defense of its limited - I repeat, limited - warrantless surveillance program, but in case you’re not, let me summarize it briefly. In undertaking the surveillance of communications between suspected alQaeda operatives outside the U.S. and persons within our borders, the

President relies upon the following authorities: his inherent executive power, which is extensive, albeit not unlimited, when it comes to protecting national security from credible threats; and the Authorization to Use Military Force, passed by Congress in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. If the President is authorized to shoot at the bad guys, he’s also authorized, by reasonable implication, to discover who and where they are. Properly understood, the two purported restrictions on his authority the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures - do not actually do so. As the Attorney General contends in his opening statement, FISA prohibits persons from intentionally “engag[ing] in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute.” The AUMF is such a statute, permitting, if need be, warrantless surveillance. Furthermore, a limited program of warrantless surveillance may be an effective - indeed, the only effective - means of identifying those properly called evildoers (or perhaps potential evildoers, if they belong to a sleeper cell). As such, the program amounts to a reasonable, as opposed to unreasonable, method of search and seizure; it passes the Fourth Amendment test."

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18999/article_detail.asp Bush has been wire tapping suspected al-Qaida terrorists, but warrantless wire taps are not unprecedented. Democrat Presidents Carter and Clinton did it for only Domestic Spying. President Carter approved warrantless wire taps of domestic phone calls in the United States in 1979 and he wasn't going after al-Qaida. Where's the outrage? http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm President Clinton approved warrantless wire taps of domestic phone

calls and he wasn't going after al-Qaida. http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm Neither Carter or Clinton had a 9/11 and were not trying to capture alQaida, who wants to kill you and I. Big difference John. Clinton even went farther than Bush and “expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever.” http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm

Nobody wants to spy on you John and it is safe to say if they did they would be asleep after about a minute listening to yo go on...and on...and on....and on.....

Thanks for a great blog Suzanne. Don't ever think your sacrifice wasn't appreciated. History will show it was.

At 12:37 PM, Dr John Schneider MD said...

I sit in sad repose as I put pen to paper concerning an issue I find most deeply disturbing. First things first: Grandma In Iraq's litanies are rife with contradictions and difficulties; they're completely prolix, meet no objective criteria, and are unsuited for a supposedly educated population. And as if that weren't enough, I, not being one of the many intellectually challenged hellions of this world, am not concerned with rumors or hearsay about Grandma In Iraq. I am interested only in ascertained facts attested by published documents, and in these

primarily as an illustration that Grandma In Iraq's cause is not glorious. It is not wonderful. It is not good. If anything will free us from the shackles of Grandma In Iraq's conceited opinions, it's knowledge of the world as it really is. It's knowledge that she has frequently been spotted making nicey-nice with dangerous dweebs. Is this because she needs their help to sensationalize all of the issues? We already have our answer; as a respected journalist put it, "The magnitude of Grandma In Iraq's lies should disgust anyone who has an even moderate education". He probably could have added that Grandma In Iraq has a talent for inventing fantasy worlds in which space gods arriving in flying saucers will save humanity from self-destruction. Then again, just because Grandma In Iraq is a prolific fantasist doesn't mean that men are spare parts in the social repertoire -- mere optional extras. Truth be told, I sometimes ask myself whether the struggle to express my views is worth all of the potential consequences. And I consistently answer by saying that it would sure be nice if Grandma In Iraq could present her case without resorting to yellow journalism. I submit that everyone should stop and mull that assertion. Then, you'll understand why I hate it when people get their facts wrong. For instance, whenever I hear some corporate fat cat make noises about how we should avoid personal responsibility, I can't help but think that some reputed -- as opposed to reputable -- members of Grandma In Iraq's polity quite adamantly insist that Grandma In Iraq is a bearer and agent of the Creator's purpose. I find it rather astonishing that anyone could assert such a thing, but then again, one does not have to woo over pigheaded, ill-bred primates by using tactics such as scapegoating, reductionist and simplistic solutions, demagoguery, and a conspiracy theory of history in order to take a proactive, rather than a reactive, stance. It is a slimy person who believes otherwise. Granted, Grandma In Iraq is possessed by the devil. But I have often maintained that reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Unfortunately, when dealing with Grandma In Iraq and her hatchet men, that claim assumes facts not in evidence. So let me claim instead that I plan to rage, rage against the dying of the light. This is a choice I have made; your choice is up to you. But let me remind you that Grandma In Iraq's companions have been staggering around like punch-drunk fighters hit too many times -- stunned,

confused, betrayed, and trying desperately to rationalize Grandma In Iraq's militant rodomontades. It is not a pretty sight. Maybe Grandma In Iraq just can't handle harsh reality. Last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince Grandma In Iraq that she governs her cult followers with a dictatorial and brutal fist, forcing them to set the hoops through which we all must jump. As I expected, Grandma In Iraq was unconvinced. According to the laws of probability, I don't need to tell you that she would love to see college campuses morph into small, ivy-covered North Koreas in which the student or faculty member who dares to help others to see through the empty and meaningless statements uttered by her and her advocates quickly finds himself in a heap of legal trouble. That should be self-evident. What is less evident is that she and her grunts are, by nature, feckless, picayunish purveyors of malice and hatred. Not only can that nature not be changed by window-dressing or persiflage, but the really interesting thing about all this is not that the agenda that Grandma In Iraq is attempting to advance is one of elitism, repression, and Lysenkoism. The interesting thing is that she keeps trying to deceive us into thinking that the rules don't apply to her. The purpose of this deception may be to let advanced weaponry fall into the hands of what I call nerdy lugs. Or maybe the purpose is to uproot our very heritage and pave the way for Grandma In Iraq's own putrid value system. Oh what a tangled web Grandma In Iraq weaves when first she practices to deceive. I've tried explaining to Grandma In Iraq's representatives that life is too short to have to put up with Grandma In Iraq. Unfortunately, it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars. In fact, I'd bet Martians would be more likely to discern that Grandma In Iraq has no discernible talents. The only things she has obviously mastered are biological functions. Well, I suppose Grandma In Iraq's also good at convincing people that she is the one who will lead us to our great shining future, but my point is that I have begged Grandma In Iraq's foot soldiers to step forth and scuttle Grandma In Iraq's pernicious attempts

to engage in or goad others into engaging in illegal acts. To date, not a single soul has agreed to help in this fashion. Are they worried about how she might retaliate? Well, I asked the question, so I should answer it. Let me start by saying that she refers to a variety of things using the word "psychotherapeutical". Translating this bit of jargon into English isn't easy. Basically, Grandma In Iraq's saying that her ravings enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness, which we all know is patently absurd. At any rate, so far, the response from her camp has been tardy and equivocal. She may mean well but it has long been obvious to attentive observers that there is every indication that she likes to launch into nonsensical non sequiturs. But did you know that Grandma In Iraq frequently plays on our emotions? Grandma In Iraq doesn't want you to know that because she will promote a herd mentality over principled, individual thought because she possesses a hatred that defies all logic and understanding, that cannot be quantified or reasoned away, and that savagely possesses inimical malingerers with directionless and uncontrollable rage. At no time in the past did pharisaical, prudish ne'er-do-wells shamble through the streets of cities, demanding rights they imagine some supernatural power has bestowed upon them. You may wonder why Grandma In Iraq's half-measures are a sink-pit of degeneracy, corruption, and ugliness. It's simply because Grandma In Iraq has been known to "prove" statistically that the average workingclass person can't see through her chicanery. As you might have suspected, her proof is flawed. The primary problem with it is that it replaces a legitimate claim of association with an illegitimate claim of causality. Consequently, Grandma In Iraq's "proof" demonstrates only that there are many roads leading to the defeat of her plans to clear forests, strip the topsoil, and turn a natural paradise into a dust bowl through a self-induced drought. I maintain that all of these roads must eventually pass through the same set of gates: the ability to raise balmy champions of deceit, lies, theft, plunder, and rapine out of their cultural misery and lead them to the national community as a valuable, united factor. Clearly, she is not a responsible citizen. Responsible citizens expose Grandma In Iraq's malversation. Responsible citizens

indubitably do not lead a huffy jihad against those who oppose her. Although there are no formal, external validating criteria for Grandma In Iraq's morally questionable claims, I think we can safely say that our battle with her is a battle between spiritualism and solecism, between tradition and subversion, between the defenders of Western civilization and its enemies. With the battle lines drawn as such, it is abundantly clear that Grandma In Iraq makes free and liberal use of chicanery, deceit, intolerance, lust, persecution, and oppression. Of course, this sounds simple, but in reality, the real issue is simple: Her suggestions just don't stand up. Shame on her for thinking that people like you and me are vile! I apologize if what I'm saying sounds painfully obvious, painfully self-evident. However, it is so extremely important that I must sincerely say it. The brusque aspect of Grandma In Iraq's modes of thought will create a stir between supercilious spielers and the malignant public at large. To pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and unwillingness to face the more unpleasant realities of life. For your information, Grandma In Iraq never stops boasting about her generous contributions to charitable causes. As far as I can tell, however, her claimed magnanimousness is entirely chimerical and, furthermore, Grandma In Iraq may have access to weapons of mass destruction. Then again, I consider her to be a weapon of mass destruction herself. It frustrates Grandma In Iraq that she can't shut me up. That's all I have to say. Thank you for reading this letter. Dr John Schneider MD

Post a Comment << Home

Grandma in Iraq

• • • • • • •

Home Cincinnati.Com

What's RSS? Contact Us

Blogs @ Cincinnati.Com
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

What's new at Cincinnati.Com Jim Borgman Paul Daugherty Pop Culture Review Grandma in Iraq Politics Extra N. Ky. Politics Photographers Television Roller Derby Diva Art Classical music Reds Bengals Ben-GALS High school sports NCAA Bearcats CiN Weekly staff blog

Previous Posts
• • • •

Clearing up a few facts Saving farmland in Iraq Electricity in Iraq Traveling Northwest to Najaf

• • • • • •

Water... the lifeblood of Southern Iraq Fire Stations in Iraq Border forts along Iraq/Iran border Celebrating with Iraqi Policemen Provincial governments moving forward Iraqi High School Girls Speak Engish

Copyright 2005 Cincinnati.Com. Use of this site signifies agreement to terms of service updated 12/19/2002.