Say Anything Blog

Donald Rumsfeld isn't offering any apologies for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. And he shouldn't.

From Reuters:

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Wednesday "any American" felt apologetic for abuses of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers but stopped short of offering a direct apology himself.

Asked on ABC's morning television show whether he would like to apologize to the Iraqi people, he replied: "Oh my goodness, any American who sees the photographs that we have seen has to feel apologetic to the Iraqi people who were abused and recognize that that is something that is unacceptable and un-American."

Rumsfeld was asked at a news conference on Tuesday whether he would offer an apology to the Iraqi people over abuses by U.S. soldiers at an Iraqi prison. He declined to give one then.

Rumsfeld wasn't the one abusing the prisoners. He isn't even their commanding officer, or their commanding officer's commanding officer. Donald Rumsfeld had nothing to do with what happened. If anyone should be apologizing it should be the soldiers who abused the prisoners and the people in charge of those soldiers.

This practice of asking leaders if they're going to apologize every time something bad happens seems like a new tactic of the media. By asking the question they leave the person in a tough place. If he or she refuses to apologize (because they didn't do anything wrong) then the press can trumpet that fact in their headlines. If the leader does apologize, the press can later point to that apology as an admission of guilt.

Its all just a ploy...

Update:

See? This is who should be apologizing, among other people:

The commander of U.S.-run prisons in Iraq (news - web sites) apologized Wednesday for the "illegal or unauthorized acts" committed by soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison, where photographs showed Iraqi prisoners being abused by smiling American guards, and invited the Red Cross to open an office at the facility.

Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller also said some interrogation techniques would be halted because of the scandals while the use of others would be limited.

"I would like to apologize for our nation and for our military for the small number of soldiers who committed illegal or unauthorized acts here at Abu Ghraib," Miller told Arab and Western reporters taken on a military tour of the prison.

"These are violations not only of our national policy but of how we conduct ourselves as members of the international community.

"It has brought a cloud over all the efforts of all of our soldiers and we will work our hardest to re-establish the trust that Iraqis feel for the coalition and the confidence people in American have in their military."

A businessman in Maine is charging customers $1.99/minute to "vent" their angers and frustrations to him over the phone. This has some in the mental health industry upset.

From Reuters:

Licensed mental health professionals are steamed over a Maine entrepreneur who charges angry people $1.99 a minute to listen to them rant and rave over the telephone.

Philip Doyen receives between 10 and 20 phone calls a week to "Vent-Line," a service he launched in February that allows callers to blow off steam -- at a price.

But some professional counseling services aren't happy about Doyen's business and are urging prosecutors to investigate whether he is breaking any state laws, the Portland Press Herald newspaper reported on Tuesday.

"For some people, venting is going to upset them more," Leslie Brancato of the Community Counseling Center in Portland, Maine, told the paper. "That he's charging $1.99 a minute is, in my opinion, totally exploitative."

Totally exploitative? As opposed to the $300.00/hour rate charged by some shrinks? Compared to that $1.99/minute is exploitative its a bargain.

I really don't see a problem with this. As long as the guy isn't offering any counselling and is only listening to his callers I really can't imagine that he's going to cause any harm.

Take a look at this Associated Press story:

Bush Tour Bus Made in Canada

MAUMEE, Ohio - President Bush (news - web sites) rode across Ohio on Monday in a bus emblazoned, "Yes, America can." It turns out the bus was made in Canada.

The front of the bus bore another label: Prevost Car, jointly owned by the Swedish Volvo Bus Corp. and Britain's Henly's Group PLC. Prevost's manufacturing facility is in St. Claire, Quebec.

Foreign-made vehicles are a touchy topic in the job-strapped industrial Midwest -- states like Michigan and Ohio, which Bush has been touring for two days.

"Seeing the president drive around in this Canadian-made luxury bus is just another reminder of George Bush's failed economic policies and underscores that it's time for a change," said Phil Singer, a spokesman for Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites)'s campaign.

___

On the Net:

Kerry campaign: http://www.johnkerry.com

Notice anything funny about it? Notice how they only show one side of the story? They note that Bush is riding on a foreign-made bus through the center of America's home of the auto industry. Then they note that the job market in this area isn't doing so well. Then the author rounds off the article with a snarky comment from the Kerry campaign and a link to the Kerry campaign website. All that's missing is a "Donate Now" button.

What's missing is the other side of the story. They don't even have the "The Bush campaign declined to comment" line in the article, which leads me to believe that they didn't even try to get a comment from the campaign on this story. And where's the link to Bush's campaign website? Wasn't bush the subject of the article? Kerry wasn't even mentioned outside of a quote from a member of his campaign site, yet he gets the link? What's that all about?

As far as the bus being from Canada, its not that big of a deal. You see, George Bush is a free-trade candidate. He's all about bringing foreign products into our country and exporting products to other countries. He's about making American companies compete with foreign companies for business. The fact that he chose to ride around in a foreign-made bus shouldn't really come as a surprise.

If this were John Kerry it'd be different. Kerry has complained again and again about the number of jobs being sent overseas, so if he were caught in a foreign-made bus there'd be something to the story.

Here are some photos of the bus(es) in question:







Here's a screen-shot of the AP article as well.

Ted Rall recently penned this little crap-stain of a cartoon:



That's right, Mr. Rall has decided to piss all over the legacy of an American hero by portraying him as an ignorant, racist war-monger. I guess Rall is forgetting that he would have been lined up against a wall and shot for being so dissident in a country like Iraq, which Mr. Tillman was fighting to liberate. Some people are just incapable of showing any sort of appreciation or respect.

Pat Tillman died for what he believed in. I wonder if Ted Rall has that kind of devotion to his beliefs. I'm guessing no.

Thankfully, MSNBC had the good sense to pull Rall's cartoon immediately:

MSNBC.com pulled a cartoon by syndicated political cartoonist Ted Rall on Monday.

Rall's cartoon, distributed widely by Universal Press Syndicate to scores of newspapers and Web sites, concerned the late Pat Tillman, the NFL player who quit football to join the Army. Tillman was killed last month in Afghanistan.

The cartoon, like others on MSNBC.com, is published daily on the site via an automated syndication feed. Such feeds are rarely reviewed. However, MSNBC.com Editor in chief Dean Wright concluded Monday's Rall item did not meet MSNBC.com standards of fairness and taste.

I'm not one for boycotts or anything like that, but I'm glad MSNBC is tasteful enough to remove such ugliness from the content on its website. Rall is, of course, entitled to his opinion, but that doesn't mean that respectable media outlets have to publish it.

INDC Journal has some great photos of the recent March For Women's Lives protest in Washington D.C. Go and have a look, and prepared to be shocked. Many of these protestors are absolute lunatics, as you'll see. Here's an example:

The speeches contained the typical hyperbolic rhetoric, marshalling this crowd of hundreds of thousands to fight the depredations of the "anti-woman" Bush agenda. They singled out administration members by name: Ashcroft, Cheney, and Rumsfeld (Rumsfeld?!), a list capped in one speech by a patronizing, heartfelt appeal to the honorable Colin Powell to forsake his distasteful service amongst the enemy and return to the fold.

One harangue in particular caught my attention, delivered by a fiery, square-built woman with close-cropped blonde hair. It was a screaming, apoplectic treatise on the virtues of "cunt power," that demanded that the nation bow to the authority of the "cunt" and pledge allegiance to the the United "Cunts" of America. "My Cunt 'Tis of Thee," etc., etc. (find that coverage in the WaPo)

At this point, I became a bit disturbed, for the crowd wasn't awkwardly tolerating this obscene and immature rant, rather raising their arms and screaming throaty acceptance of a woman performing second rate porno-schlock, ostensibly as a legitimate representative of one side of a highly divisive and important public issue.

As Bill points out, you're not going to hear that soundbite on the evening news.

Here's my favorite, or least favorite I should say, photo from the protest:



What kind of a mother makes their kid carry a sign like that?

The Olsen twins aren't looking so good:



I can't tell if Mary Kate and Ashley look like that on purpose or if they're sick from some sort of disease. I don't know why it would be on purpose, though. Call me old fashioned, but I've always enjoyed a more natural look in my women. When did it become cool to look so...unhealthy?

Some are making fun of Britney Spears for putting on some weight. I don't understand why. Perhaps its just my personal taste, but she this looks way better than the Olsen twins in the picture above:



At least she looks like a healthy woman instead of a zombie. I certainly wouldn't call her fat.

A group of diplomats are criticizing Bush for his support of Israel.

From The Associated Press:

Sixty former U.S. diplomats have signed a letter to President Bush (news - web sites) contending that his "unabashed support" for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is costing the United States "credibility, prestige and friends."

The letter expresses deep concern over Bush's April 14 endorsement of Sharon's proposal to pull out of Gaza but keep some Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

"By closing the door to negotiations with Palestinians and the possibility of a Palestinian state, you have proved that the U.S. is not an evenhanded peace partner," the letter said.

If backing Israel in their fight against terrorism from the Islamic world is losing us friends then I say that the friends we're losing aren't really friends at all. I don't know why we're even still expecting a peaceful resolution to this mess. Its not going to happen as long as we're expecting Israel to negotiate peace with people like Arafat.

Innocent people are being blown up by Palestinians. I know these aren't the actions of all the Palestinian people but I'm not exactly seeing a strong opposition to this type of behavior from them either. What would Americans do if Mexico started sending suicide bombers into Texas in an attempt to reclaim that lost territory? We'd immediately invade Mexico and attack the people responsible for the attacks, right? That's what I hope we'd do anyway.

If we want peace between Palestinians and Israelis, Israel needs to be allowed to fight back against the terrorist attacks from Hamas. They need to declare a full-out war and kill every last one of the terrorists. If the Palestinians that are left want peace, then so be it.

Update:

From Roger Simon:

Never mind that this is a day late and more than a pound short -- Sharon has already lost the fight in his own Likud Party for the "unilateralist" policy about which these people are complaining... And never mind too that the plan itself did not differ wildly from the parameters already discussed and nearly accepted (supposedly) at Camp David and Taba... And that, in the long run, a moral person might argue the best thing for the lives of Palestinians would be to settle down, acknowledge the existence of Israel and start building a civil society of their own and that actually Sharon was doing them a favor (even if inadvertently)... But since, as we all know, "diplomat speak with forked tongue," what really is going on here?

Well, I'm not sure. But since the list of signatories to this document contains a large number, probably a majority, of ex-ambassadors, etc. to Arab states, I have only two questions: Where are these people working now and who is paying them?

As though the Oil-For-Food Scandal weren't enough to convince you that the UN is a thoroughly corrupt and useless body, along comes this little tid-bit.

From Oxblog:

Sudan, which is currently in the midst of perpetrating genocide upon the tribal residents of its western Darfur region, has surpassing all imagination been permitted to retain by re-election its seat on the UN human rights commission.

You're reading that right. Sudan will be allowed to keep its seat on the human rights commission in the United Nations despite its support of genocide. Just to make sure I'm clear on this issue, here's the definition of "genocide" from Dictionary.com:

gen·o·cide n.

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

And here's the definition of "human rights:"

human rights pl.n.

The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law.

Don't forget that the UN is who John Kerry would like to see take over operations in Iraq and the middle east.

All the electrical wiring in the new hybrid cars is making it difficult for rescue workers to open up the vehicle when its been involved in an accident.

From The Associated Press:

The growing popularity of hybrid vehicles is a step toward cleaner air and less dependence on gasoline. But for rescuers at accident scenes, they represent a potential new danger: a network of high-voltage circuitry that may require some precise cutting to save a trapped victim.

"You don't want to go crushing anything with hydraulic tools," said Samuel Caroluzzi, an assistant chief with the Norristown Fire Department outside Philadelphia. "It's enough to kill you from what they're telling us in training."

Hybrids draw power from two sources, typically a gas or diesel engine combined with an electric motor. The battery powering the electric motor carries as much as 500 volts, more than 40 times the strength of a standard battery.

That worries those who must cut into cars to rescue people inside.

"If you can't shut it down, you don't know where the high voltage is," said David Dalrymple, an emergency medical technician in New Brunswick, N.J.

The auto industry is working on a solution to this problem, but they aren't quite there yet.

Manufacturers have put in place a laundry list of safety checks that the car's computer must go through for the electrical system to run. They've published guides showing where the electric components are on their models; on the Toyota Prius and other hybrids, the high-power cables are colored bright orange to catch the eye of a rescue worker or a mechanic.

But there are concerns over what happens if something goes wrong and the battery, ignition and other points are inaccessible.

"It's the 'what-if' that worries me," said David Castiaux, an instructor for Mid-Del Technology Center in Del City, Okla., who teaches rescue workers about hybrids.

Hybrid cars are great, but this is a problem they're going to have to solve before their use gets too wide-spread.

Stories like this one never fail to creep me out.

From Space.com:

A minor rumor has hatched on the Internet that a large and deadly asteroid will strike Earth this fall. Bulletin board discussions cite a 63 percent chance of impact, while concerned readers have e-mailed SPACE.com wondering if it is true.

Astronomers know of no such impending doom.

The rumors are likely rooted in a real event, however. On Sept. 29, 2004 an asteroid the size of a small city will make the closest known pass of such a very large space rock anytime this century.

While not dangerous for now, asteroid Toutatis is incredibly strange. And scientists are quite familiar with it, having bounced radar off the tumbling stone on previous flybys to generate computer renderings of its weird shape and movement.

Toutatis looks something like a dumbbell hurtling awkwardly through space. It has a crazy rotation that makes normal days impossible. Scientists can't explain the shape or the spin, but they're eager to learn more in September when, during the close pass, even backyard skywatchers will be able to spot the asteroid.

Our government needs to come up with a viable plan for when one of these asteroids doesn't miss us. I know, its almost laughable, but I think this is a very real threat to our existence that should be addressed.

I hope he's joking.

From The Associated Press:

As Al Franken considers challenging Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., for re-election in 2008, the comedian and liberal radio host is looking to his hometown senator for advice: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"I asked Hillary, 'Can you give me some suggestions about running for Senate in a state you haven't lived for in a while, or in your case, ever?' " Franken recalled, laughing heartily. "And she said, 'This will be a long conversation,' so we agreed to have a long conversation about it."

Clinton, D-N.Y., moved from Washington to New York to run for the Senate. Franken was born in New York City and lives there now but grew up in the Minneapolis suburbs. He put the odds of running against Coleman at better than 50-50.

"I've thought about it and discussed it with my family more," Franken said. The only holdout, he said, is his 19-year-old son, Joe, who is worried he'll see less of his father.

I have a big problem with politicians moving into a state for the express purpose of getting elected to congress. A state's congressional delegation should be made up of people who are actually from the state itself and have that state's issues at heart.

If a politician were to move into my state then immediately run for congress I'd have to wonder if he or she really had my state's issues in mind or if they're just looking for a way to gain power.

In Clinton and Franken's cases I can almost assure you that they're just looking for power. The fact that they can joke about it is even more disturbing.

Also, what does this say about Air America's future? Franken certainly wouldn't be able to campaign and do his radio show at the same time. Since Franken's show is Air America's flagship how would they survive without it? Its not like they're doing all that well now...

For a while now the Bush campaign has been running what the left is calling "attack" ads. What the ads have been "attacking" is Kerry's voting record on certain key issues in addition to his tendency to get on both sides of an issue so I like to call them "critical ads," but that's just semantics I guess.

Anyway, Kerry is getting ready to launch a $25 million ad campaign (the largest purchase of advertising this election) that will serve as a rebuttal to Bush's ads. And what is Kerry choosing to say during this rebuttal? Basically, "I served in Vietnam and my friends and family think I'm a great guy."

From The Associated Press:

Kerry's commercials, focusing on the Democrat's "lifetime of service and strength," are designed to flesh out his biography and priorities for voters while trying to counter the Bush campaign's portrayal of the Democrat as a flip-flopper who is weak on national security.

"If you look at my father's time in service to this country, whether it's as a veteran, prosecutor or senator, he has shown an ability to fight for things that matter," Kerry's daughter, Vanessa, says in one ad.

His wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, adds: "John is the face of someone who's hopeful, who's generous of spirit and of heart."

Both ads spotlight Kerry's fellow servicemen from Vietnam, with crewmate Del Sandusky saying, "The decisions that he made saved our lives." Jim Rassman, who was a U.S. Army Special Forces Lieutenant rescued by Kerry 35 years ago in Vietnam, says, "When he pulled me out of the river, he risked his life to save mine." Kerry's effort earned him the Bronze Star.

The point of all this, according to Democrats, is to introduce Kerry to America. As though the media hasn't been covering Kerry for months and months now. Bush's ads are talking about the issues, Kerry's ads are talking about Vietnam. Sounds about right to me.

I'd really like to hear Kerry address some of the issues. All I ever hear him talk about is how wrong Bush is and how the right is spending all this money to attack him. That's all well and good, but what exactly is Kerry going to do when he becomes the President? He's made vague references to involving the U.N. more in foreign policy and creating a lot of jobs but he's skimpy on the details.

I guess I'm just really, really tired of hearing about Vietnam. It happened over three decades ago. Its nice that Kerry served his country so well, but can we focus on the present?

If there's ever been a clear sign that Palestinians aren't really interested in peace with Israel its this:

From The L.A. Times:

The Likud Party on Sunday soundly rejected Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's proposal to unilaterally withdraw from the Gaza Strip in a lopsided vote that took place after a pregnant settler and her four children died in a shooting attack by Palestinian gunmen.

So Ariel Sharon is trying to concede some contested area to the Palestinians, which is something they claim to want, and the Palestinians go and murder a pregnant woman and her children right before the vote. Why? Why would they do this?

Unfortunately, I think I know the answer. The Palestinians aren't so much concerned about getting their own nation (though that is a goal of theirs) as they are with hating Jews.

Passengers on a party barge managed to flip the boat over when they all rushed to one side to check out a nude beach.

From The Associated Press:

Some 60 "Splash Day" revelers hoping to see nude sunbathers tipped over their double-decker barge when they crowded one side of the vessel.

They were rescued Sunday from Lake Travis, including two with minor injuries, authorities said.

The accident happened during Splash Day, a semiannual event hosted at the clothing-optional area by the Austin Tavern Guild, a gay and lesbian bar association.

Witnesses said that all of the people aboard the barge moved to one side after it was tied up at Hippie Hollow, the only public nude beach in Texas, creating uneven distribution and making it tilt.

I hope it was worth it.

A new study suggests that supermarkets are losing customers due to rising fuel prices.

From The Associated Press:

For financially pressed consumers, it's coming down to a choice between spending on gasoline or groceries, and gasoline is winning, a food industry analysis finds.

"Given the economic environment, it is not surprising that more shoppers are buying food today in discount stores and other low-price venues than ever before," said the report by the Food Marketing Institute, released at the organization's annual trade show in Chicago.

"High oil prices, both at the pump and for home heating, depress consumers' ability to spend more," the study said.

Gasoline prices have been soaring: about 35 cents a gallon since December, driven by surging crude oil prices, according to gasoline industry analyst Trilby Lundberg.

The food industry report said the fuel price increases are tightening the pressure on personal budgets that already were squeezed hard by credit card bills.

I'm not buying the premise of this article. You can't tell me that people are skimping on food purchases in order to afford more gasoline. Common sense tells me that when you need to save money you cut out some of your unnecessary road trips not some of your meals.

There's a better reason for falling sales at supermarkets and its actually cited in this article:

"Given the economic environment, it is not surprising that more shoppers are buying food today in discount stores and other low-price venues than ever before," said the report by the Food Marketing Institute, released at the organization's annual trade show in Chicago...

Consumers feel the financial pain and are acting to ease it by finding cheaper places to spend on food, said the FMI report, citing a survey commissioned by the trade group. The survey of more than 500 people telephoned randomly in January had a margin of error of 4.5 percentage points.

So basically, consumers are just doing some bargain shopping. What's wrong with that?

Gas prices are high and are impact our economy in a negative fashion, but if you're searching for a reason as to why less people are buying their food at supermarkets wouldn't the fact that people have found a cheaper place to purchase their food be a better assumption?

Of course it would, but if the media makes that assumption it sounds too much like good-old American entrepreneurship, and we don't want that getting too much attention during a Republican administration.

I'm outta here. I'm taking the weekend off. I'm heading down to the lake cabin for some rest and relaxation with some of the guys from my softball team. Looks to be a good time.

We've also got a softball tournament on Sunday, so wish us luck. I'll more than likely be back to posting Sunday or Monday.

Joe Wilson has named three people he thinks could have leaked his wife's identity.

From The Associated Press:

In "The Politics of Truth," to be published Friday, Wilson says Libby is "quite possibly the person who exposed my wife's identity," according to The Washington Post, which obtained an early copy.

Wilson writes that a "workup" of his background was done by the White House in March 2003, after his public criticism of the administration's Iraq (news - web sites) policy.

"The other name that has most often been repeated to me in connection with the inquiry and disclosure into my background and Valerie's is that of Elliott Abrams, who gained infamy in the Iran-Contra scandal," he writes. Abrams is currently a Mideast specialist on the National Security Council.

Another suspect named in Wilson's book: White House chief political adviser Karl Rove. "The workup on me that turned up the information on Valerie was shared with Karl Rove, who then circulated it in administration and neoconservative circles," Wilson writes.

What is with this new trend of releasing information in book form? Every time some politico is going to make some major allegations or broach some controversial subject they release a book. Richard Clarke did it. Bob Woodward did it. Now Joe Wilson is doing it.

Am I just noticing this now or was it always done this way? I guess it does make sense, in a way. Not only do these people get to further their political agendas but they often clear a pretty hefty profit as well.

Nothing like a little satire to bring the absurdity of an issue into the spotlight.

From Scrappleface:

Koppel to Read Names of Saddam's Victims

ABC-TV journalist Ted Koppel, who caused a firestorm of controversy with his plan to read the names of U.S. troops killed in Iraq, today announced that in the interest of balance and fairness next week he will read another list on his show, Nightline.

"I would never want anyone to accuse me of bias. After all, I'm a journalist, devoted to accurately portraying world events," said Mr. Koppel. "So, next week I will read the list of Iraqis who were raped, tortured and killed by Saddam Hussein's regime after President George H.W. Bush declared victory in the Gulf War on February 28, 1991."

Mr. Koppel said next week's Nightline will be a "special extended episode starting Friday and running non-stop until the day I retire from ABC."

Many on the left have claimed that America's war on terror has done little to make the world a safer place. They're wrong. Bush's foreign policies are working and here's the proof from two sources that could never be considered pro-Bush (via Instapundit):

From CNN:

International acts of terror in 2003 were the fewest in more than 30 years, according to the U.S. State Department's annual terrorism report released Thursday.

The Patterns of Global Terrorism report said 190 acts of international terrorism occurred in 2003 -- a slight drop from 198 attacks the previous year and the lowest total since 1969.

From the BBC:

US government figures suggest that terrorist attacks have fallen to the lowest level for more than 30 years.
The annual report records a slight fall in the number of international attacks last year and a dramatic decrease in the number of victims.

The report says that less than half the number of people lost their lives in such attacks last year compared with the year before.

Say what you want about Bush, but his policies have made the world a safer place.

U.S. Forces in Fallujah are handing over operations to one of Saddam's former generals in an attempt to bring peace to the city.

From Reuters:

Some of the U.S. troops battling guerrillas in the Sunni bastion pulled back and, in a reversal of Washington's refusal to deal with members of Saddam's regime, former general Jasim Mohamed Saleh said he would lead a force to restore order.

"We have now begun forming a new emergency military force," Saleh told Reuters, saying Falluja "rejected" the U.S. presence in the month-long standoff.

But U.S. commanders said they were still in charge in the city, some 50 km west of Baghdad and in the heart of the so-called "Sunni Triangle" that has been a hotbed of guerrilla attacks against the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq.

"We are certainly not withdrawing from Falluja. Nothing could be further from the truth," U.S. spokesman Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt told a Baghdad news conference as Marines and their armored vehicles pulled back from siege positions.

This feels like giving in. I know we're not technically pulling out of the city, but why are we turning things over to anybody else? No Iraqi force could possibly be better suited to handle any military action than our own soldiers, so the hand-over to Iraqi troops must be an attempt to appease the rowdies in Fallujah.

Appeasement is not what we should be doing right now. Pulling back and softening our approach is exactly what these people want us to do. If anything, we should be fighting harder and sending in more troops to show them that we will never give up as long as there is unrest in that region.