Wondering what this means.
Okay.
This is precisely why so many countries were against war in Iraq. It's fighting the terrorists that matters.
And the chaos in Iraq is ideal for would be terrorists.
Then -- you're really not wondering? You're just wrong?
;^)
These are snips from an in-house memo, Raoul. It was never intended for release, otherwise it would be an official press release. The memo is EXTREMELY out of context, because it openly omits every meeting, every email and every previous memo that led up to the unofficial document that was illegally sent to USA TODAY.
Now, if you think the U.S. Secretary of Defense should go around patting himself on the back for his absolute success in the War on Terror, I could see where you might be a little concerned. Why are you upset that he is emailing his top aids for more terror data? Sounds like he's actually working to me. I kinda like that.
Now, then:
I saw a report last night about what's going on in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Islamic integrism is on the rise (with Pakistan having the bomb and Saudi Arabia the oil, it's a frightening prospect).
I’ve been watching it as well, but there’s not a lot we can do about it. Our reps will be speaking with the leaders of India and Pakistan (as Kashmir comes up as the hottest spot from where I sit, and both India and Pakistan have been shaking warheads at each other for a while now), and we’re already working with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Egypt hasn’t quite made it as a radar blip in the U.S., but I expect that to change in the weeks to come.
Some US soldiers don't want to return back to Iraq.
It's not that big a number, but it's reported.
No front-line troop in his right mind would ever want to return, and no backwater soldier holding down a dusty desk in the middle of nowhere would really want to return either.
And how do the soldiers cope with the Iraqis? (Isolation and culture shock). Patience is required but is it there?
More than you'll ever find in the press.
Dan
Current Events » in reply to What's he up to?
re: Then you already know . . . ?
