mattp

Boot: I was in there several years ago, and we approached from the road to the trailhead north of the peak - #2852 I think. There was some jungle crawling involved, but not that much. There is a good but not real long ski chute down the north side, starting not far below and east of the summit. It would probably make a good ride. It is a better line than the trail up from Townsend Creek, which is bushy.

I agree, KK, he certainly made some points clear. But I had to work at it a little and was left with questnons. For example, I'm still am not sure he thinks the greater access to information we now have is a good or bad thing in that paragraph about board rooms and such. The truth is a cryptic as ever, he says, and he seems to be saying that we can't believe what we think we know about what has taken place over the last five years. I'm sure that is true, but how does this argue for or against taking any particular view of what we think we know? To make it even more concrete, let's take something we think we know. Might he or someone else argue, as Fairweather tried to other day, that we cannot believe all the reports about how the Bush team tanked the outgoiong Clinton team's anti-terrorism efforts or that Bush got a memo warning that a terrorist strike in the US was coming and took no action in response? DeChristo didn't say anything about this issue, I know, but it is the kind of information I thnnk he is referring to where he says that all of this information can be used falsely. Would this be a known unknown or an unknown known? His post seems to generally say it is naive to hope for any real change in policy, but he doesn't really say what he thinks about those policies. Take another example: he says soldiers on the front line will always employ the ruthless tactics of war. However, does he believe that it was only the front line who got out of line at Guantanimo or Abu Ghraib or at the secret prisons where we send terrorists for rendition? I think it is a "known" that Mr. Rumsfeld tacitly if not expressly approved these programs and it has hurt the reputation of the US as the "good guys" and such broad use of these tactics probably does more harm than good.

I must admit that I struggled with your post, DeChristo, but that was my best guess as to what you meant. I posted what I interpreted in order to allow you to clarify or correct where I may have misunderstood. Otherwise, I would simply have replied: you seem to be saying "why bother," and it sounds as if you are not only cynical but defeatist. Care to explain what you may actually have meant if it was in fact something different? Rather than "why bother," do you mean you think not only might I be wrong about some details but the main gist of what I observe has not happened? Or maybe you support the policies behind these events? What does your reply here have to do with my central points" and ... I've set forth my postition here. I honestly don't quite understand what you may be getting at if it is not what I thought it was.

You are not just cynical Dechristo but maybe defeatist, too. I can't quite understand everything you wrote, but it sounds as if the general thread is that you see no point in even asking our government to respect international law, human rights, or any standard of human decency: - the soldiers are going to commit mayhem anyway, so you can't blame that on those who may have ordered them to do it, - there is no way to ever know whether our leaders lied or broke laws anyway, so why ask, - wars have always been this way and always will - the administration is under no particular pressure to change anything, and - even IF somebody wanted to change our overall posture or tactics, it would take so long to make any changes that it wouldn't be worth it. Sad.

Actually, I think “this situation” is far worse than My Lai. It looks as if it has all been much more deliberate and moreover it has been widely known, though downplayed, for a couple of years. Lastly, a large segment of the American public has been willing to either ignore or endorse it. However, that is not my main question here. My question is whether there may be hope that out of all of this we will actually commit to a new course of action in the pursuit of domestic and international security. The news is staggering. The general public believes the war in Iraq was badly conceived and that it has been a disaster. The number of stories about heavy handed interrogation, kidnap, torture, and murder are growing. So too are those about how administration officials have not only twisted the intelligence, but lied to the American public and the world over and over again on a wide variety of issues related to national security and terrorism. A year ago, Bush started out his SOU speech with five minutes on 911 and Afghanistan feeding into Iraq in such a way that it sounded as if he was saying that Saddam attacked us. He wouldn’t dare try that now. Certainly the administration is finding their backs against the wall. I believe that our “ends justify the means” and “with us or against us” approach to the war on terror has seriously eroded our sense of self worth as a nation and our ability to conduct foreign policy around the world. This has been and will for years to come be a big disaster for us. Holding those responsible for it publicly accountable may not be an essential part of changing course, but it would certainly be an important part of changing course in a manner that says to the world and to ourselves that we won’t let it happen again.

Scooter Libby’s trial begun this week, and his lawyer said in an opening statement that he has been set up as the fall guy, to protect others in the Bush administration from being exposed in their efforts to retaliate against Joseph Wilson for his criticism of the administration’s lying about one of their main justifications for invading Iraq. A “senior Pentagon official” (a deputy assistant secretary of defense) who said lawyers offering free legal services to U.S. held captives in Guantanimo Bay were unethical and called for corporate executives to “make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms” is in trouble and may possibly face disbarment in connection with his remarks made on January 11. Today’s newspaper headlines include the apology from the Prime Minister of Canada, offered to the man seized at a N.Y. airport and sent to Syria to be tortured based on his being falsely named as a terrorism suspect (Maher Arar). The U.S. has never acknowledged it made a mistake in the case, but this certainly comes as an embarrassment. Today’s paper also reports that Italy has seized a CIA agent’s villa and may indict 26 Americans and five Italian intelligence officials on criminal charges in connection with illegal renditions of terrorist suspects. The paper says former CIA station chiefs in Rome and Milan are included in the list. The Army said on Friday that the only U.S. military officer charged with a crime in the Abu Ghraib scandal will be court martialed on eight charges, including cruelty and maltreatment of prisoners. It looks like Congress is going to pass a “non-binding” resolution critical of President Bush’s plan to escalate the war in Iraq, and the only question appears to be just how strongly to word it. Congress has the support of the American public here and, faced with the last five years’ news about how how our government has been lying to us and how the U.S. military and intelligence communities have been violating our own laws, the Geneva Conventions, and plain old human decency, the American public may finally be getting the idea that all of this reflects poorly on America and that the long-term consequences of disillusionment with America and with democracy here and abroad could be disastrous. Meanwhile Bush remains defiant, saying he is the decider and Secretary of Defense Gates says that those who support the Congressional pending legislation are giving comfort to our enemies. Are they digging themselves a deeper hole? Is there hope that we have leaders in this nation who are capable of turning some of this around? It is possible that we might see more than just a few hands being slapped, isn't it?

I was trying to look at the bright side.

C'mon, Tvash. That's a little harsh. I agree with everything you said, or largely so, but the fact is that the man's back is a little bit up against the wall and I think his speach showd a level of humility completely lacking from any prior such address. OK, you're right, I'm saying ot was OK FOR HIM. You can't really judge George Bush on a scale with any good public speakers because he just doesn't really have the gift of gab. I heard somebody comment that he used to do well when he was governator of Texas, but he sure hasn't done well in any public address as president. Sure, that "nucular" stuff and "folks" and stuff like that plays well with people who think uneducated people are more trustworthy than educated ones, but other than that he really hasn't shown that he has much of a trick up his sleeve other than to wave the boogie man before all our eyes - and that particular card is starting to get worn out - at least for now until we get a new deck. Still, I think he did pretty well under the circumstances. Did he change anybody's mind? Not many, I bet. Is he steering our nation into the toilet while filling his bank account and those of all his friends? Absolutely. But hey: he is our president.

As Off White suggested, I think the fact that Cheney's party and his office has used their stance against gay marriage as a political tool makes it not only a perfectly fair question, but an important one in the moral sense of how can these people exploit the fears and prejudices of the American people the way they do. I admire him to the extent that he stands by his daughter if that is what he's doing rather than simply looking for political expediency in shutting down all attack - and we don't really know whether and to what extent he has supported his daughter in her lifestyle choices or sexual deviancy or whatever you want to call it over the years but it looks as if there is some significant standing by. If he was a private citizen who had not been politically connected to if not directly involved in the issue I'd say it WOULD be an unfair question.

If you watched the first five minutes, you saw him tell what was probably the biggest lie of the night about how he had done so much to reduce the Federal deficit, but all in all I thought it was a pretty good speech. He didn't rail on gays or talk about stem cell research, he didn't try to suggest Iraq atttacked us on 911 like he did in the first five minutes of last year's SOU, and he even had me going for a minute there when he was saying how important it was not to fail in Iraq. It was a little weak on grand vision and I didn't think his American heroes bit at the end was woven very well into the speech, though.

I'll miss you, you right wing wacko. Meanwhile we'll leave the light on for you.

I'm speculating they'll go with the airstrikes. However, just as with any military or covert intervention or attack, they really don't know what that will lead to. I'm sure our boys in the war room are planning for at least a couple different scenarios and I bet the chances are pretty slim that, if bombed, Iran will undertake no response and there will be no need for any kind of military follow up on our part. And that goes whether it is the U.S. or Israel that does the actual bombing.

KK, I'm not sure you were on this board then but when "some guys" speculated here that Bush had already made up his mind to go to war in Iraq, and was lying in the SOU speech and had Powell lie to the UN, "some other guys" on this site said such "some guys" were a bunch of conspiracy theory wacko's. At this point, would one really be at all surprised if, when Bush starts cranking up the rhetoric and amassing aircraft carriers and leaking rumors of pending attack he actually means it?

I give up, Fairweather. At least for now. You are determined not to discuss these matters and I cannot force you to do so.

Are you kidding? You yourself said nobody should be expected to inspect national ID cards in the middle of an armed confrontation, but certainly our troops have killed "many thousands" of presumed combatants. Even by our government's own account, we have been fighting a bunch of hostile terrorists who have entered the country of Iraq solely for the purpose of de-railing our efforts to bring freedom to the poor people who live there. Certainly, our killing of "suspected terrorists" in the field have added up to thousands, and I'm not really sure what the totals have been in Guantanimo or in military prisons in Iraq and elsewhere. Thousands is for sure. Maybe more.

Damn straight. You said you liked Chavez, and now you're gonna FRY!!!!

Fairweather? Comments?

I'd say Kevbone's estimate is probably about right. 1/2 x 5" is a big hole. 3/8 x 2 1/2, in granite, takes about 15 or maybe 20 minutes with a hand drill. Drilling cobbles, in a vice or something so they don't wiggle on you, I'd expect double that or more. One thing about hand drilling: you don't burn up the bits like you do using a power drill.

Another couple of points Fairweather may wish to avoid: He says he is so happy that Bush was President on 911 and not Gore because Bush has done such a wonderful job with Iran, Afghanistan, and N. Korea, but how has he done in response to 911? It is well documented that the Clinton team tried very hard to get the incoming Bush administration to recognize and respond to a growing threat of terrorist attack, and the Bush people rebuffed them as paranoid. As I recall, there was even a plan or the beginnings of a plan to go after Bin Laden that the Bush people tanked. It is well documented that Bush received a memo titled something like “terrorists determined to strike inside the US” about a month before 911, and there were at the time some warnings coming from the intelligence community as to at least some of the specific 911 hijackers. Bush complained that someone would interrupt his vacation with such a concern and did absolutely nothing about it. How could Gore possibly have done worse than Bush before 911? And then the post 911 response: Bush looked pretty cool when he put on a hard hat at ground zero and said we won’t stand for this, but what has he really done? He’s toppled a government in Afghanistan but it is not clear if the situation there is going to turn out well. He’s destroyed some terrorist training camps, but it didn’t take his brilliant leadership for anyone to decide to do this. There have been some effective laws restricting the transfer of funds to potential terrorists, but is Bush hugely responsible for this? He set up the “Department of Homeland Security.” I don’t know about you but on this I think he gets a mixed report card. He has waved the specter of the boogey man, used it to justify a war that has been a disaster, and used it to justify our policies in Iran and N. Korea. Whether he has done well or not in these arenas, is this boogeyman business a good response to a terrorist attack?

Ooh Fairweather. You say I have ADD, you call me condescending, and now you complain that I am mentally lacking. You really know how to hurt a guy. You’ve done some nice mental gymnastics, but still have not really answered the question how Gush did so much better than Gore would have with a response to 911 other than to express your deepfounded admiration for the guy. Apparently, you have no idea why it is you think Gore would have done so much worse or are unwilling to say so. Similarly, you haven’t really said whether you still favor dropping a nuclear bomb somewhere. You hinted, I suppose, saying that “somebody:” is going to have to do the dirty deed to Iran. OK: I’ll accept that as your answer. But you certainly did not come out and say: yes, I still believe we should consider using nuclear weapons, and I would start with Iran. Is that what you think or not? Then you say I’ve failed to explain my personal belief system? In this as in any other discussion, I have certainly done so at least as well as you have. And part of that belief system includes the idea that we should try to solve international problems with diplomacy and favor negotiation over the use of force or threat of same. In this, Bush has failed miserably in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Nobody could or would have, as you say, bent over and grabbed their ankles after 911. The American public and indeed most of our allies expected or demanded a military response. It could have been targeted at the actual terrorists and their training camps, though, rather than at removing one government and installing a new one that may or may not turn out better for us in the long run. No President of the US could have merely stood by while Iran and N. Korea fired up a nuclear program. They might have pursued some combination of discussion and threat of force or sanctions that actually slowed those programs down, or led to their abandonment, but Bush’s actions, while maybe satisfying in their rhetorical value, have led only to an acceleration of those programs and are leading us toward certain conflict. Would Gore have fared any better? I don’t know. I don’t see how he could have done worse unless you think war would with these nations would already be under way somehow. And Iraq? We all agree that is a mess, and it was ill advised from the start. Other than to simply tell us how great W is, can you guess how Gore really would have done so much worse than Bush in any of these areas? Oh, and by the way: you often try to slam me over having gone to Evergreen. I'm proud of having gone there and twenty five years later I am still pretty excited about what I studied there. How many people would say that about ANY four year degree they earned twenty five years ago? How about you?

Right wing tough guy: if the Syrian bad guy is standing there with a gun aimed at our good guys, or appearing as if he might be holding a bomb, I would not blame them for shooting him. If he is simply walking along the roadside in Ambar province, unarmed, the same shooting would be a crime. Can you possibly imagine a scenario where the US would not be right to kill anybody they wish, or are you with Fairweather that might makes right as long as we're talking about US might and the US is always right?

I'm trying to have an honest conversation with you, and here you appear to have at least tried to address the issues at hand rather than insult me and hide behind some excuse not to answer a question. But in all due respect I gotta say: it really doesn't look as if this is a two way street or even a real conversation here (kinda like Bush's attempt at "dialog" with N. Korea). Yes, you finally set forth several viewpoints on related issues, but you still haven't really answered the questions as I posed yet you ask your own and then insist: "answer before you ask." In the interest of continuing a conversation, though, I'll answer your question: yes, I believe that we would have a right not neceessarily to kill them outright, but we certainly would have a right to capture, detain, and try under whatever rules may apply a Syrian who enters Iraq as a combatant or -- what did Bush call them? -- "enemy non-combatant."

Allright, Fairweather, so you continue to support Bush and company over their domestic agenda. We could have a whole 'nother discussion about that, because in my view they've been just as negligent and criminal on the domestic front as well. That aside, does this mean that you feel it is appropriate to let them have their way with the world (so they can do what you believe is good for the domestic agenda), or do you actually support their International agenda as well? As I see it, you often seem to argue that the UN is corrupt, that International law does not apply to the US and we should never allow it to, that nations or other third parties who even vaguely resist the will of the US military should be crushed and we should not bother with diplomacy unless it is simply a one-way discussion based on the permise that they do what we want "or else," and all of this may indicate you think we are the "chosen" ones who are destined to and properly should rule the world. Five years ago, you suggested we drop a nuclear bomb "or similar device" on some unidentified city in Afghanistan or other nation which may harbor terrorists, and in this thread you seem to have indicated you may still promote such action. I know you said you wish Bush would dump Cheney but he has not done so. And after all the lies and the obvious disaster of their foreign policy not only with respect Iraq but also Iran, Afghanistan, and Korea, you STILL give them your support. It doesn't sound as if you merely support Bush and Cheney on their domestic agenda but also on the foreign one. You may have problems with some of it, but certainly not the package as a whole and it looks as if you continue to have "faith" that they will do the "right" thing and you might well support broadening the current war to include military action in Syria and Iran. Am I wrong here? At your request, I set forth my position. Now it is your turn. I don't expect KK to do so, because he rarely does, apparently preferring to spew his rhetoric and insults without daring to reveal himself. You, however, have occasionally told us where you stand. Lets see it!

I'll answer the last question first. I AM consumed. I believe that the Bush Administration has taken actions that seriously threaten our National Interest for years to come and that they may even start World War III. Bush was not fairly elected the first time around, and maybe not the second. Despite his ratings in the polls though, and despite your own statement that you believe they screwed up in Iraq, they continue to have your support and that of way too many other Americans for an ongoing policy of warmongering and lying, and I believe this is a real serious problem for us and for the world. I don't think there has been anybody so militaristic, criminal, and so capable literally of destroying the world, since Hitler. Seriously. You seem to feel that since you acknowledged that they lied - whenever that was but I think it was less than a year ago that you finally figured it out - we should simply "move on" and ignore that little problem and conduct our discussions here as if we continue to assume that these guys are looking out for our interest and we can trust our government. That I do not understand. And that willful ignorance, blind trust, or whatever you want to call it is what empowers them. As to Afghanistan, I agree that whoever was president would have had to take some serious action. However, let me ask what you would now be saying about it if it HAD been Gore or some other Democrat who conducted an operation that was pretty much guaranteed NOT to catch Bin Laden, and then said "I don't really care about him (B.L)? What if this same president had read a memo, a month before 911, saying "terrorists are determined to strike on US soil" and failed to do anything about it? I seriously doubt you'd be acting now like it was no big deal and saying merely that "it could have turned out better." Like I said: I realize now and recognized then that serious action was needed. But the actions we undertook in Afghanistan, as in so many other places, were not for the purposes we were told. Maybe it was the oil pipeline deal or maybe it was something else, but it wasn't to get Bin Laden or to reduce terrorism around the world. As to Iran, you have never read where I stated that I admire Ahmadinajad. I don't know where you get this stuff. Like Bush and Chavez, I think he's a belicose opportunist. I wonder, however, if Sexy Cocoa has a point: might Bush's hard-line rhetoric have actually helped get him elected? And I certainly believe it has been disastrous to label Iran as part of the Axis of Evil, refuse to talk with them, flatly rebuff their offer to help in Iraq, and demonstrate to them and to the world that if they don't hurry up and develop nuclear weapons we will crush them militarily but if they can arm themselves before we have an excuse to attack them, we will not. I'm still wondering, however: do you think it would be a good idea to kick off a war with Iran right now? Syria? Korea? What about the nuclear option? And "Matthew?" is that your version of the "arrogance and condecension" that you accuse me of or is that something else?

That's a B.S. evasion, Fairweather, and I'm pretty sure you know it. You've made some serious statements here, and I'm curious whether you really mean it or not. I was quite stricken to read your words five years ago but now, after how all of this has turned out, I'd think you'd if anything be less inclined to urge attack than before. Perhaps that is not the case. I used the big font so you wouldn't claim you hadn't noticed my questions. If you still feel that way, that is cool and all -- everybody is entitled to their opinions, right? Show some self confidence and tell us what you believe.