This is the highly anticipated (though not by me) Iraqi Study Group. Some are calling it the Iraqi Surrender Group. I thought it was a joke website when I looked for the full report this morning but no, it's the real thing. It comes from the bipartisan group of individuals with no particular experience in warfare nor with Iraq. They call this the United States Institute of Peace! Who knew we had such an institute? I thought that was Dennis Kucinich's brilliant idea. Oh well, here's what their mission statement says. I love mission statements!

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

No matter what flippant spin you may put on it Susan, today heralded a seismic shift in Washington's attitude towards the Iraq project. It has been a undeniable failure and it is slowly becoming ok for Americans blue (and red) to critcise the purveyors of the Iraq project without being labelled unhelpful or unpatriotic, when in fact the reverse is probably true. Furthermore, this report represents constructive criticism and the Bush admin would do well to take on board a good deal of the 79 recommendations laid out. Taking a major one, meaningful engagement with all Iraq's neighbours would be a progressive step IMO.

You may say the chances of Iran or Syria helping the 'Great Satan' are remote, but ultimately it is not in their interest to have a basket case next door. You may also scoff at the thought of the UN getting involved, but the whole unilateral allied mission is the height of ridicule right now. That would be like somebody with aids laughing at the line outside the VD clinic!

The reality is, al-Qaeda and affililiates are winning this current battle and the hawks at the White House have only themselves to blame. To win the war, a serious change of strategy is needed. IMO

Surprise surprise, this is gonna be long. Hey, so were the 79 recommendations! There's a lot to cover but what follows is the basic outline of how I see the war of our age, of which Iraq is but one front.

I gotsta laugh to keep from cryin', James. Your analogy of the VD line and the AIDS patients was funny, though!

Whatever it is you cite as the "attitude in Washington," I would suggest is more like a great big un-unified blob of countless opinions. Many of those opinions could be characterized as "Lots of peoople are dying and getting blown up every day in Iraq. Make it stop, Daddy!" It calls to mind the old adage about too many chefs spoiling the broth. This 'study hall group' is certainly not about leadership. Bush has relinquished all control. Ducks have never been lamer. I do not see a happy outcome for a long, long time and not before much more upheaval, violence and chaos.

Yeah, sure chatting with Iran and Syria is a swell idea. {{{pause}}} Not. If the leaders of Iran and Syria had not, by their words and actions alike, actually made declarations of war against the US repeatedly. And if my grandmother had balls... It's late for chit-chat. We would be naive to believe such chit-chat would serve us well. There is, after all, a long history of the back channel conversations that we are not privy to. Sit-downs with Bush and Ahmadinejad or the ophthalmalogist are folly, I have no doubt.

Look, James, I don't know the answer to the inscrutable Middle East. I don't think there is a single answer. But I don't believe there are 79 either. I believe there are temporary lulls that are the best to be hoped for. We are not in one of those lulls. The US setting up ways of splitting oil profits and training the Iraqi police (discussions and actions that have already been in the works for years now) -- these things are all futile if there isn't a strong US military presence to reinforce their actuality. And that, it seems to me, requires a staying power and a perseverance that the American people do not possess, even while our troops largely do.

I'm actually uncharacteristically pessimistic about the whole shebang. You mistake my words as an expression of flippancy. I feel no such lightness.

Have you read the full report yet? I'm working my way through a copy I printed out. See, whatever that group suggests, they are safe from personal repercussions. None are elected officials and none are running for any office. There's no true accountability for them over the long term. They just come up with proposals and everyone has to know that not all will be implemented. If it still goes to hell in a handbasket, the study groupers can say, "Well, they f***ed up on Recommendation 48. No wonder it didn't work."

Some of them -- Israel/Palestine for example -- has had every president since Nixon attempting to be the ultimate peace broker. Lots of talking there too. Lots of international involvement. Lots of UN thoughtful input, too. And? So to blithely include that as one of the 79 suggestions on IRAQ is less than well considered. If the group had been peopled by more military strategists with expertise in Iraq, and by those who have spent extensive time in Iraq of late, rather than lawyers and judges, I might not feel it as big a waste as this seems to have been.

What you call the "Iraq Project" -- well, okay, give it a nickname if you like -- to me is not only a war with various enemy factions within Iraq, but also part of the greater new-fangled war with shadowy non-uniformed, non-state enemies. It makes me crave the good old days of swastikas and kamikaze pilots. Storm-troopers, Luftwaffen and Land of the Rising Sun.

Often I'll play out an imaginary scenario in my head and think about how things might have gone if we hadn't invaded Iraq. What if instead our troops were only huffing and puffing around the Hindu Kush mountains trying to nab Bin Laden and Zawahiri. I have little doubt that the same foreign fighters who have infiltrated iraq would have gone on to Afghanistan as they did in the 80s to wage jihad against the Soviets.

Maybe we would have captured Bin laden. Let's say we did, kinda like happened with Saddam. Meanwhile would we have kept at it with the UN inspectors in Iraq? Probably for a while at least, I imagine. And let's say we'd made no noise about invading Iraq during this time. WHAT EXACTLY WOULD SADDAM HAVE DONE DURING THESE MONTHS AND YEARS? WHAT ABOUT HIS TWO SONS? WHAT ABOUT IRAN? Every time I play through that scenario, I still see it as a simmering cauldron bound for boiling over at some point. At some point, we (the US) were going to be back in the Middle East, I have no doubt. I believed it was better that it be our choice WHEN that happened. I hoped for better. But now I understand the situation a little better and maybe I was naive. I knew many of the possible pitfalls but hoped that more knowledgeable administration officials had worked those factors into the equation.

You see, and I know you do, Iraq does not exist in a vacuum. The entire region is tangled and messy. It did not become anti-American or anti-West as a result of the invasion of Iraq, even though I concede, the Americans in Iraq have made matters worse. But I always come back to what seems a basic truism to me: Saddam was a problem that was not going to go away nicely. If Iraq was a problem, then too, so were its neighbors. I don't think it's possible to have followed the history of the region in the late 20th century and not agree with that. And I believe that in all the turmoil that has come since 9/11 has caused those who are fundamentally 1.) anti-war (ick!) and 2.) anti-Bush to lose sight of what seems to me as that simple reality. It would be plenty useful if, when discussing the Middle East vis a vis terrorism, threats to the region, threats to the international oil market and hence, the world economy, that we could forget about how much we hate Bush and how distasteful war is. Bush will soon be out of the White House but the struggle to try to finagle, enveigle or finesse a stable Middle East without despots, dictatorships, Mullacracies and terrorist camps is the struggle of our age. Phew.

I wish/hope I could communicate this without the silliness of discussing who's "unpatriotic." Myself, I never use that expression. I may believe it of some, but I think it is fundamentally a waste of energy to make that type of snipe. THIS IS A BIGGER DEAL! And those who are hypersensitive about some big meanie hinting they are less than a patriot, while marching with signs equating Bush to Hitler, ought to grow some thicker skin along the way. Plenty more will be required even when/if a Democrat is elected to the White House. We have bigger fish to fry than to dawdle over such pettiness.

So, as I play out the what-ifs, I wonder about timing too. Being too far ahead of the game or too far behind are both very bad things. If Bush had stuck with Afghanistan -- doing what we're doing now only with 10 times as many foot soldiers -- what do you think would be happening differently in Iraq, Iran, Syria, or the Gaza Strip for that matter? Yes, it's all speculative. But I wonder if invading a stone age country with 100,000 troops to seek out one man and his cronies would have made the US appear even more vulnerable and weak. I wonder how Saddam, the nose thumber, and his charming sons would have reacted then. There was not a shortage of bellicosity from Saddam. Meanwhile the Oil for Food rip-offs would have continued. The half-million dead babies and children that we were constantly reminded of during the UN Sanctions (not the US sanctions, btw) would have increased exponentially. I don't think Saddam would have become Mr. Compliant with a status quo. I don't think the Iranian mullahs would have stopped their incessant Great Satan chanting that has been a mainstay of their goverment since the 1970s revolution.

And mostly I believe that the American people and, by extension, much of the West (including the Irish), were not geared up to tolerate war and military casualties. I think probably a good half of the US would have rather waited until something bigger happened than 9/11 before taking any larger action against more than Afghanistan and Al Qaeda. Maybe it will just go away if we don't make them angry.  Angrier.

It's impossible to know the answer now. But if it makes you feel any better, I will grant you that I do not have the confidence that anyone in the Bush administration knows how to handle not only the war in Iraq but the transmittal of information about what it is we are fighting for and against. For that reason, surrender is not unreasonable. As I've said before, if I have to go down with this ship, I guess I have no choice. I live here in the great and once glorious Western World. If only half of the country feels that is worth clinging to, it's a lost cause for the rest of us. Thank Allah for small favors that the Europeans of the Middle Ages fought back or this discussion today would be moot as we'd all be part of the worldwide Umma.

If no leader can adequately communicate the stakes, then we're down for the count. It'll take a while. These things don't happen over night but always leave the vanquished asking wha' happened? I'm much older than most of you so I doubt I'll be around for the mid-point of the dirty ending, but I really feel for the rest of you including my son and (hopefully) my someday grandchildren. For if not enough of us are convinced that there is a serious threat to the Western world, why bother fighting when we could be sipping tea with Ahmadinejad and discussing that nuclear power plant with all the clean energy it's gonna produce for the Iranians. Whadda green guy!

Blair said it best when he gave this fabulous speech to the House of Commons about the 2 types of people -- those who believe that 9/11 was an anomoly (this was before the London attacks) and a one time deal and those who believe that there is a continuity in those attacks and those of an international network of Islamic extremists/jihadis/militants/terrorists ___________ fill in your word of choice. Well, I'm in the second camp and I believe the evidence supports that belief. This study hall group and their 79 theses have about as much meaning to me as Britney Spears being the most popular person in the world.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Too many points to pick through and its getting time for my beddie byes. We have our work Christmas party tomorrow so I needs a good sleep before I put my drinking pants on!

A few points about the Bush/Blair conference today:

- I've ever seen those guys look so weak and solemn. Two practically lame ducks that have run out of ideas. Strangely this makes me feel slightly uneasy. No matter what course of action the US has taken before, I'd never use the word weak. Its kinda like seeing your dad being beaten up (liking my analogies this weather!) you spend your formative years challenging his authority and power, then when you see it taken away it unsettles you!

 - In regards to the future direction of the middle east, Bush must give more than just lip service to Blairs ideas and opinions. International diplomacy has never really paid big dividends of late for the US but that is mostly Bush's own fault. His heart has simply not been in it. In my opinion it is not too late to gain respect and co-operation among the global community.

Haha, you never use the word "weak" and I never use the word "empower," James.  But I've got a list of verboten words that are fraught with new meaning and I just avoid them.  "Weak" I like, however. 

I'll give you time to go enjoy your Christmas party even if it is waaaaaay early for Christmas.  And I'll try not to add bunches more even though all my boys have been bitching and moaning about the ISG Report today.  Christopher Hitchens, Ralph Peters and Robert D. Kaplan to name a few though the latter claims "it's not as bad as it could be."

Understanding it was drawn from the consensus of several people on the panel, it is as such a watered down document, as the Dude might describe it.  

I'll hold my peace for the time being.  Don't claim a hangover tomorrow!

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

So, if the US disengages from Iraq, will jihad aim more at Europe and the US ? I wonder.

( I'm out of retirement-started a work situation --winter time deal. Also, managing prep for sale of last 2 properties as I conclude cash out. Posts shorter even than usual. Carry on y'all.) 

No cutting and running, Ray!  You can check back at your own pace.  But just always remember: 

STAY THE COURSE! 

No need to resign from the Gazette even if you have a lot on your plate right now.  Besides, I need all the comrades I can get!

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Oh of course not Susan. You're covered pal. I just want to be cashed out before Pelosi, and  my old friend Boxer have enough time to f-- things up . I do like their idea of no pay raise for the Congress, however. I may have been let go as a Federal agent years ago, but not for neglecting to watch my partner's back.

Oh man, I just looked at the clock-I will have to wake up in 7 hours. Must get my sleep now. Have not done this kind of thing since last winter.

Good Economist article : Managing Defeat

 I haven't read the report yet, but I will say that with so many pro-war conservatives attacking it, it must say something truly substantive. From what I've heard, it makes the same case our generals, you know, the "dudes" who have to actually fight the war, make. That is, that the solution to Iraq is a political solution, not a military solution. And John Neff said the same thing on another thread. But the conservatives hate that idea. They expect the US to fight a war and win. Except that our armed forces win every engagement, that's right, in a straight on fight, our boys and girls can take it to the enemy. But this is a case where military might is not enough.

As for talking to Syria and Iran, didn't we maintain dialogue with the USSR during the Cold War, a geninue nuclear stand off, even though they would have been just as glad to wipe us out? Yep, we did. I think the same principal is at work to talk to Syria and Iran.

If this report is weak or watered down, it's probably when it comes to the negative influence of Saudia Arabia in the region. Those fools support everything from the hard Islamists clerics to the Sunni insurgents to who knows how many terrorist groups, including Al Queda. Why don't we go after these idiots? Because Dubya and Cheney are in business with them and they would cut off their revenue flow if the US did anything to stop the Saudis. I think it funny that Bush's family is in business with the bin Ladin family. The whole notion that we can't find Osama bin Ladin is funny too. We could just ask his family. But our FBI was stopped from doing that by, we would have to guess, the Bush adminstration.

Kruschev said " We will bury you ." He later explained however that  he meant in an economic sense  not by nuclear annihilation. Mutually Assured Destruction worked between the East and West because at the end of the day both were sane entities. Ahminajadam's Iran is another case. He is prepared to endure a nuclear confrontation because Mohammed and Allah will it. The return of some super mullah or something. He is not playing from a sane perspective. That is the difference. 

Should talks, besides the current back channel talks, be begun? That is fairly open to debate. This situation is a different dynamic than the old East West senario.  We are dealing with a leader who has repeatedly called for the destruction of the Big and Little Satans. Something of a stumbling block right out of the gate. 

Interesting to learn that all we have had to do to get Osama is ask his family where he is. Dang, the world intelligence network, all the military and various defense agencies were too stoopid to follow this enlightened tactic. If only the CIA/MI5/ NSA/ Military Intelligence/ Delta Force/ Congressional Committees/Centcom et al would have listened to Razor Osama would have been captured years ago. Easy as pie.

Hey there Raymond, I saw your last post and just wanted to pipe in for a second. I respectfully disagree with your (and most people) analysis that these Middle Eastern leaders like Ahmadinejad are ready to blow themselves, their countries, and other countries up for Mohammed or whatever. You are giving them too much credit for so called courage when in fact I believe they are all quite spineless. I think from the beginning of time the hard line religious aspect is simply used as propaganda and a way to first gain and then keep enormous power, and second propaganda to keep enlisting nobody foot soldiers to blow themselves up or fight in the name of the religion. There is no way Ahmadinejad would risk jeopardizing his power, wealth, and fancy palaces for his so called religious beliefs. He knows it’s all a load of crap, the leaders are the ones with the wealth and power in the Middle East, and they are the only ones who have anything to lose. I believe most of his comments are propaganda (which is working well) to try and instill fear in us and keep the poor oppressed Iranians in line and happy to a morbid extent. What better way to make poverty stricken and oppressed people forget about their miserable lives than to create the great Satan everyone must be unified to hate. Gives them some sense of purpose, not to mention all the rewards that await them when they finally die.

I think Ahmadinejad's words are one thing, but really I don't think he would want us to pull out of Iraq. A civil war could mean a lot of problems for Iran; especially all the refugees poring into the country, not to mention depending on which religious faction that could take over and wage war against Iran or weaken them by enticing the Iranian people to join them in the new Iraq. Again, this could threaten the power of the Iranian goverment. If I can think of anyone who really can say they won by us invading Iraq, its Iran.

I think opening up dialog with Iran and Syria could be a good thing if we twist it in our favor and strengthen support for our cause in the eyes of other powerful ME countries like Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc. Sometimes it's good to get in the enemies head through political dialog rather than just trying to roll tanks through the problem, only to weaken political support from our allies. Sometimes better to keep your friends close and your enemies even closer.

I still think Bush Sr. really knew what he was doing when he built a strong coalition, even with countries that might not be considered very friendly, but had no choice but to back us. Also, the decision, although criticized al the time, not to take Baghdad was a great decision as we have now learned.

R_Flagg

OK R Flagg. Duly noted. I did not dismiss any talks out of hand and mentioned that they were " fairly open to debate." I actually hope your take is correct. Do you agree with my point about the Soviet Union , while not the most peaceful benign regime, were at least "real world" sane. Some of the transcripts between Kruschev and JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis underscore that conclusion. 

It is refreshing to read a poster addressing specifc content in a post rather than a blanket degrading shot at the person offering a viewpoint Sir.

I think in theory, opening up talks seems like it helps, but it often just prolongs the problem and allows time for the problem to fester. Granted, not talking, etc can do the same, but I think we can't fool ourselves into thinking that if we just talk that things will (or even might) get beter.

We can throughout all of history find plenty of examples in which one country would talk to another, and then years later (or weeks) the first country finds out htat while they were "talking" the other was preparing for something bigger.

Happened in Vietnam repeatedly during Nixon years.

Happened in the 90s with Saddam continuously.

We've seen it happen with Israel time and time again.

I think it happened in Korean War.

We know it happened with N Korea in the late 90s.

We know it happened in WWII - or right before WWII started to be more specific.

It often happened during the ancient days that are long gone.

Is Amaladajanahadjihadada sane or not? I have no idea. Is he a religious zealot? Who knows - none of us really know. There's no doubt in anyone's mind, I hope, that he is our enemy and would break any and all agreemetns with the US or with the UN (and probably use religion as the reason). I don't think we can just shrug off religion (esp religion used for violent means) as simply propoganda and a way to kick up the dust.

We know from the beginning of Israel, that the ME countries around this small place wanted to get rid of Israel. We know that Egypt, Jordan and others have used the Palestinians as pawns in a game of political chess. We know that many of the ME countries would rather kick Israel out with any means necessary.

Is Amaladajanahjihadmuhammedhahada using propoganda for his own purposes? Of course he is. He talks about destroying Israel in hopes to garner favor amongst Muslims.

I think the reality is that talks aren't gonna help anything. This isn't about opening dialogue with Syria and Iran. They don't care. This is about increasing hatred of the West and specifically the US and Israel. You increase the hatred, you increase the foot soldiers and the terrorism and you build your own unofficial army. This is the thing we all have to remember. None of these ME nations have any true military. They don't need it. And as long as these ME countries can seperate themselves from the Muslims longing for 72 virgins in Heaven (that somehow revert back to a virgin after sex) who aer willing to blow themselves up, fly planes into building, and anything else, they can operate behind the scenes and play dumb the whole time.

And while we are distracted going after a bunch of little foot soldiers, we aren't paying attention to the puppet masters.

To add on to what Ray said, I do hope if we do talks they are positive. Always want things to turn out good. I just don't have a good feeling about Iran or Syria. The one thing we might be able to hope for, even though Saudia Arabia sin't really our friend, IMO, they do have a lot of power, and a lot of money, adn they won't risk their own power. The Saudi kingdom could very well help stabalize some things if they feel threatened.  

Jordan .

I have one word for you, R_Flagg -- MEMRI.org

Okay, maybe a few more.

Hear what Ahmadinejad and, more importantly, his masters the mullahs, have to say about the question of destroying 6 million Jews (nice round number; nice familiar number if you believe Holocaust nonsense -- hahaha) in one fell swoop. Hear them acknowledge that yes, many Muslims would also die from a rapid-fire return nuclear strike on Iran but... they can live with that. Those who would be instantly martyred collateral damage go directly to paradise just as in the case of the suicide bombers who are targeting women and children alike in Baghdad these days. That is tolerable. Acceptable. But the greater point made by Ahmadinejad and the mullacracy leaders is that after such a catastrophe, there would still be over a billion Muslims within the worldwide Ummah. But oh, maybe half the world's pesky Jews to fight.

If anyone has trouble attempting to excise the precise meaning within the thoughts of your Islamic extremists, moderates or even mainstreams, please, I beg of you -- bookmark MEMRI.org and check it every week or so. It will help you stay on your toes with what is being said in Farsi and Arabic and NOT what you, as a Westerner, THINK they think when filtered through your sensibilities. If you think that it is rightwing propagandists who inflate the threat, hear it from the horses' mouths and then get back to me.

It's really worth the effort to hear those who wish your demise express themselves succinctly and without emotion. Of course, maybe they're just kidding or overstating their feelings.

MEMRI.org

Susan

Teaser from MEMRI.org. Ahmadinejad in October of this year.

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Jordan, I agree and I was trying to say this in part of my post but probably didn't get it across. I think even by talking to the enemy, we can use this to our advantage to get the Saudi's and others involved to possibly stabilize the region. It may not work but is worth a try as we try and re-strategize.

Raymond, I agree that the Soviet Union's motives were more sane and they certainly didn't really want a nuclear war any more than we did, but were prepared none the less. I've said before though that I think we could still use some of the same tactics we used on the Soviets, especially by beating down the enemy's economic stability. Sometime I feel like part of the money I spend every year on gas, oil, energy, etc is being funneled to terrorist groups and enemy governments. It's like we are helping to fund our own enemy and this needs to stop.

Susan, I promise I will check out MEMRI.org. Is that really one word? JK. I really don't brush these crazy leaders under the carpet or anything but I do doubt their rhetoric sometimes. An interesting side note, I had a drink the other night with a few friends from work, and the one guy was telling about the time he visited Florida and stopped by the bar that a group of the 9/11 terrorists celebrated before the attacks. Apparently they all got completely drunk and hammered which is completely against their Muslim beliefs and considered immoral by the faith. So maybe they didn't get the Virgins after all and are burning in hell. I don't claim to understand them at all, but sometimes I think they don't even fully believe their own bull.

Sorry for the quick responses, but my Friday is starting and I'm going out to do a little partying this evening before I fly home for the holidays.

R_Flagg

Rules to Live By #19 -- Human beings (even terrorists) are nothing if not inconsistent.

When it came to the greatest hurdle of faith, however, the 9/11 boys made the leap. Each of them was an individual with their own shortcomings. (understatement!) They were segregated into small groups with a leader for each. The idea of a last earthly hurrah may have been their superiority complex at work -- we are the elite of the ELITE -- the martyrs who will shape the New World Order. Allah would grant us this teeny bending of the rules when booze and lap dances are weighed against our sacrifice.

That's how I've come to think about the rationale of the "The Magnificent 19," as they are known in the jihadi community, who had dabbled in the earthly pleasures of bars and strip clubs. Similarly, I've always found the homosexual proclivities at the madrasa another example of Rule #19 and I'm sure there's a complex rationale that excuses this sin too.

Since the day that OJ Simpson got away with double murder, he has shaped many of my theories. One example was how do you rationalize your crimes in your own mind? He achieved this peace of mind by counterweighing his own great suffering -- loss of money, prestige, home, career not to mention a nasty jailhouse case of athlete's foot --against those few moments when he kinda lost it and slashed two people to death. He "atoned" by following the rules of the legal system, spending months behind bars while comparing his hardships to the biblical Job, and ultimately, hearing the jury's "Not Guilty" verdict. IF HE DID IT, in his own mind he has more than paid the price for having killed that bitch wife while harboring no real malice toward Ron Goldman, who was only collateral damage.

Like the Muslim terrorist who blows up a Baghdad schoolbus filled with Muslim children, his rationalization is the belief that the children will go straight to paradise. How could that be a bad thing?

In any case, rationalizations are what keeps most humans from ever believing they are "bad people." In the most extreme cases, the rationalizations are just more absurd than... oh say, the high school student who cheats on a test because other students in the classroom could afford private tutors and he couldn't. Hey, I was just leveling the playing field.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

It started off cuz Donnie Darko was on the tv and after we watched it he told me that it was the biggest pile of rubbish he had ever seen. I asked why and he told me that it was 'pretentious arty nonsense' I tried explaining to him the plotline (that he completely missed - its not exactly rocket science) and he, as a typical lawyer would, tried to pick holes in everything. As a slave to reason, he couldn't understand this film whatsoever despite my best efforts to explain it to him in the most comprehensive way.

I basically told him that he was symptomatic of the shortcomings of the enlightenment. That if we were all slaves to reason, some of the most beautiful poetry would never have been written and some of the greatest stories never told. He told me he would actually not mind living in such a cold world, because he would be able to understand it ! Just shows you how some very smart and well educated people can be completely dumb.

Sorry about the off-topic rant I just feel very passionate about our modern obsession for constant rationalisation! Its a false god!

I heard people talk favorably about Donnie Darko. I respect the people's opinion and on the strength of that I bought the DVD. The movie seemed to go over my head. I didn't "get it." I would appreciate a quick thumbnail review of the movie spotlighting what to look for in it-- beyond an IMDB opinion. I am not in that lawyer's camp by the way , I simply want to understand the movie is all. You know, what have I overlooked in viewing it. I wondered if there was a generational theme that I was missing. As a Lynch fan, I am capable of suspending straight narrative/logic and can appreciate symbolism, etc. OT I know , thanks.

Oh and yeah, how about that Ahminajinadad and his statements. 

Wow, James, my head is spinning!  I wasn't wowed by Donnie Darko either but thought the kid might have a future once he got a screenwriter. 

Anyway, once again, it's all about balance.  No one would do very well in a world populated with only poets in turtlenecks.  (That's always for you, Jazz!)  A little bit of this, a little bit of that and a sprinkle of the other -- a nice mix.

I'm outta here -- Costco PetsMart Restoration Hardware Sur le Table Barnes & Noble.  And that's not a list of stocks I own though I wish I did!

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/74194/iranian_police_women_training/

I couldn't help but look at the Women in Black as some sort of performance art especially that grand entrance!

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

David Zuker's opinion of ISG

Enjoy (or not).  

Jordan .