mattp

Then there are "valid secondary reasons for invasion" in a half dozen nations, no? Sure, it'd be a major screw up to let him escape, but do you think GW is actually in control of the conditions under which he is held to anything like the degree that GW has been in control of our overall planning and execution of this war effort? But what about the detainees in Iraq? Cheney and Rumsfeld's statements, endorsed by Bush, were obviously intended to apply to them as well. Further, we have lots of guys over there who are not wearing uniforms. Is Mike Adamson wearing a uniform? Would you find it "outrageous" if somebody put him in a prison camp and burned the Beckey bible in front of him and made him pose for pictures with a leash on his neck and some foreign object inserted into his you-know-where? No, I don't think so. If our goal was to capture the perpetrator, we would have sent a bunch of guys to go get him, and we wouldn't have given three months' notice. Bush said we were going to get him "dead or alive," but his program was in fact something else. You're right that the American public demanded ACTION. I don't know about Jim McDermott, but I would have liked to see some effective action. I am not a miltary planner but I bet we could have more likely captured our guy AND we could have completely destroyed the training camps without occupying the nation and installing a new government - and I'm not sure what we are going to gain by the occupation/regime change part of the operation given the fact that virtually every time we've tried that in the past we have failed to accomplish what we set out for. Terrorism experts mostly seem to think that occupying countries - even with good intentions or a "valid reason" - is the single surest way to draw MORE terrorism, not less. I'm not sure we undertook "effective action" on behalf of the American public, though I hear there may be a sweet pipleline deal out of this for those who are invested in such things. By the way, I notice you go out of your way to use my full name, Brian. Is this some kind of intimidation technique? (It won't work because my name is available to anybody who wants to click on my user profile -- how about yours?) I can use your last name anytime I want to but I suspect you would not appreciate it because you've declined to put contact information that could lead someone to your identity on your profile. Now, tell me more about why you think the loss of Saddam as a captive would be so much more a sign of a lack of leadership than was taking us into Iraq in the first place? I mean, really, would it be Bush's fault if some screw up made a mistake that let Saddam escape? Would it be more significant than his POLICY decisions? As much as my strident reply here may seem to you that I'm just a zealot, I am in fact interested in your reply on this point. I sincerely don't get it.

I think it is fair to say that a slip on that slope above the Hogsback could be fatal. Most of us would not rope up because we don't believe we are risking a slip on terrain like that, and the advice not to rope up if you are not going to belay is basically sound, but just because it is deemed a "beginner's climb," don't take it too lightly. If either you or your partner are not somewhat experienced climbing up and down a firm or maybe icy snow surface, be careful!

I sense a difficult time for your relationship in the near future... I was tempted to comment on this, thought better of it, then I scroll down and see that Alex already has. We obviously know nothing about your relationship or your girlfriend, but my guess is you might want to choose a slightly smaller objective if you are trying to convince her that alpine climbing is "fun." I have not done it, and lots of people say the W. Ridge is a great climb, but it is long and many people have epics on it. Especially in unstable weather. Danger!

Fairweather wrote: I find this very interesting. Isn't Saddam being held by Iraqi's who are (supposedly) not under our complete control? Even so, wouldn't control over the conditions under which he is being held and might escape be WAY out of Bush's control -- like two dozen steps below his level of command? Why would you hold Bush responsible if Saddam escaped, but not hold him responsible for so many things that have been much more directly under his control like announcing to the world that we were not going to be bound by the Geneva Convention in our treatment of detainees in Iraq and Guantanamo, failing to plan for a possible insurgency or provide for veteran's benefit funding or ignoring his own experts who told him that some of the "evidence" he was using to justify the war was bunk? What about announcing six weeks in advance that we were invading Afghanistan and then starting a second war before we captured Bin Laden -- didn't Bush's decisions on these matters effectively let Bin Laden go free? You may not agree that he's been responsible for all of these things, or you may not think all of them are "bad," but surely he carries significant responsibility for at least some of them and the whole thing has not been handled well -- yet I don't see folks who support Bush finding these matters significant some how. If Saddam were to escape, would this somehow be worse than taking us into this mess in the first place? Is he a valuable source of intelligence, or an important war prize at this point? This is a serious question. Why is Saddam so important and so many other things not?

Here's the view from Liberty Bell last weekend:

My impression is that, more than an increase in alpine climbing, we are seeing an inccreased concentration in alpine climbing as everyone competes for a place in line on one of the routes highlighted in Fifty Classic Climbs or Select Climbs of ...

Sorry about the outdated information in Nelson's book. I should have helped him update it for the new edition. Meanwhile, here's a topo for Dreamer: Darrington web page at www.seanet.com/~mattp/Darr

If you type "pentax 5mp waterproof camera" on google, the first hit you get is this one: web page

Fairweather: Looking back tells us a lot about where we're headed. Bush and his guys don't even deny that they used 911 as an excuse to invade Iraq. They only weakly deny that we are there for reasons quite apart from what they've been saying all along. The obvious conclusion is that you can't believe ANYTHING they say about the matter because it is just as likely true as false. The job of the President and his administration is to forumlate a strategy and it is not at all clear that they really have one. Everything we know about this whole business suggests they have not only failed, but actively refused to consider the possible outcome scenarios right from the start. To the greatest extent possible and consistent with any real national security concerns they also have a clear responsibility to level with the American people. Everything we know about the matter shows a constant pattern of flatly refusing to do so. Looking ahead, I can see no reason not to expect more of the same: outright lies and manipulation in support of the blind pursuit of an unstated mission. Our responsibility, as citizens in a Democracy, is to ask questions, think about what they are doing, and to express our opinion about it -- not simply to eat the sugar pills they feed us and go back to sleep. You seem to say "it's OK, I don't care what they've done but I want more of the same." I'd have a lot more respect for you if you'd at least be willing to show some disapproval of how we got into this mess, and to say you'd like to see a national defense policy based on a consideration of real intelligence data and honest discussion. Thus far, your main argument seems to be that those who criticize the President are misguided and deeserve your venomous disdain. Do you think we "hate freedom?" (As to my own idea about what to do now? It seems fairly obvious that we need to get out this mess and that almost certainly means bringing our troups home in -what did Rumsfeld say? 2,4 6, 8, 10 years? I agree with an uncertain timetable. I can't see any scenario where long-term occupation is going to do anything but cause MORE terrorism to be directed at the U.S. and I do not believe that we will be successful in getting the Iraqi army to do our bidding while we remain essentially in control -- without some heavy handed and very costly effort on our part. If we stay there, it will almost certainly continue to be a mess, and in fact immediate and unconditional withdrawal might be a good option if we actually look at the situation honestly. I would like to think that our policy makers are engaged in honest discussion and serious consideration of real intelligence rather than just waiving the American flag and worrying about the next election, but all indications are that Bush and his crew, along with the Democratic leadership, are putting politics way ahead of any strategic planning.)

Nothing wrong with learning to climb from a book - combined with trial and error, of course.

Fairweather: I was right about 3 out of 5 elements but I missed the central theme of his speech: I didn't expect him to dwell so much on how Iraq was linked to 911. Is that "closed minded," or "only partly correct?" By the way: I agree with you that I don't think we will be able to negotiate with those behind the suicide bombings. Just what DO you think about this Iraq war - I mean, "war on terror," anyway? (I mean, aside from the fact that all of us liberals suck.) Did you find his speech inspiring or reassuring?

cj - if there were anything with any substance or validity to it, don't you think we'd have seen some of it leaked by now?

Not that I'd like to be seen as defending Glasgow, Fairweather, but I think you are nobody to talk when it comes to "venomous foam." Rather than fling the poo, how 'bout you show us what a smart guy you are and tell us how he's wrong?

cj - Much of that "damning" intelligence was widely reported to be false at the time, though it got more "play" in foreign press than our own. The Uranium processing tubes, for example, were said by experts to be unusable for that purpose; this was public information. The day after Powell's speech, the press went to the site of the "training camp" on the Iran border and there was nothing there. This, too, was in the news. The yellow cake uranium, etc. etc. etc. Yes, much of this came out after the resolution PP refers to was adopted but I don't think there is much reason to believe the senators were shown any convincing intelligence -- they simply did the political calculation and concluded that it would cost them votes if they resisted and they could blame it on Bush if things later went as everybody knew they would. This doesn't make them responsible for Bush's war, though. Merely complicit.

You are right, they were pathetic not to stand up to that B.S. 'cause I'm pretty sure they, too, knew it was bunk.

I've been using the Stratos for ten years and I have been very happy with them. I now have a pair of 8.5 mm Sharp's. Yes, I believe they replaced the Stratos. They are good tough ropes and I like the stiffer than average handling -- they seem less prone to tangling around things than other ropes of similar thickness.

Yo Puget: What did YOU think of the speech?

I think I gotta check with Mr. Klenke about one of the top 100.

Fairweather: Originally, he told us we had to attack them before they attacked us, even though he was pretty sure they had few or no weapons because virtually all of his experts told him so and we had something like 400,000 soldiers camped out all around Iraq's borders. He said it would be "easy" to "liberate" Iraq because they'd welcome us as liberators, even though (once again) his generals told him it was not going to be all that easy and we wouldn't be wecomed as liberators. He also said that the oil revenues would pay for the whole thing, but of course this has not happened and the whole mess is the single biggest burden on the American economy that we've known in modern times. Lastly, he assured us that we'd be out of there in short order because, he said, we were not planning to occupy Iraq. Now he tell us that "I told you it wouldn't be easy" and he is trying to talk us into being ready to camp out for - what did Rumsfeld say - "5, 8, 10, 12" years??? Are you suggesting that a pep talk completely without substance is to be applauded? I suppose the answer would be "yes" if there were lots of people who were inspired by his speech, but I bet not all that many actually were. I guess we'll see.

He was supposed to tell us what the plan was. I didn't hear much in the way of a plan. Did you? (Is: "when they are ready to take over, we'll withdraw" a plan?)

More likely he's been arrested as a "noncombatant" and took an all expenses paid trip to Guantanamo Bay. They'll torture him by placing a computer montor in front of him, while he's hanging from a hand-tied harness ca. 1970, with with cc.com on display 24 hours a day, but no mouse or keyboard in reach. Then they'll flush a copy of the Beckey guidebook down the toilet as he is forced to eat nothing but extruded power bars from a Sierra Club cup.

The last three weeks or so there have been last minute attempts to organize something, and there was actually a fairly good turnout at the Snugtop-sponsored event but I'd propose we try to start talking about it before 3:00 pm on the day of.

Is anybody else looking forward to watching the President tonight? What's it going to be? Stay the course ... freedom is on the march ... the chickens who wage the insurgency are beginning to falter ... I never said it was going to be easy... we are more secure now ... and those who question our greatness hold us back?

Gary is right - it is really not bad. However, the truly clean part of the route is on the first 4 pitches or so and thereafter it deteriorates noticeably. There is a significant amount of the Washington Pass oatmeal rock, flared cracks, and some bushes on the upper part of the climb. Liberty Crack is cool because of where it is. The first four pitches are spectacular and the overall line is striking. If you want a wall climb that is steep and clean all the way - go to Squamish.

The day before yesterday, I encountered this fellow. There were some yearlings digging in and licking the dirt next to a boulder, but this guy made a beeline for us -- I feared he might get a little aggro or something (beg, maybe?).