Heh, I thought Rumsfeld had a long way of saying it, but your reference to Stafford shows it can be longer. I first heard this "meme" from my mom, in a much shorter form, when I was a child: "He who knows not that he knows not, knows not" which if you think about it, has a strange implication of "knowing not" where "not" could be read as a noun. Anyway... I also cannot take credit for observation of Rumsfeld's Poetry, as there are a few websites and a CD dedicated to it. I am just finishing reading Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack : The Definitive Account of the Decision to Invade Iraq" - and as on TV, so in the book, Rumsfeld comes off as a very interesting character. I'll post more about that soon. Sorkoi is also an interesting character. I can detect that in his quest for pure objectivity, he has arrived at a position where Terrorists and their Victims are just actors in the dance, two sides of the same coin. Which brings up another aphorism: "Don't be so open minded that your brain falls out" .

rp, shouldn't you also make a distinction between Islamicist and Moslem? That's a critical distinction. If you don't you wind up giving the impression of Huntington's 'Clash of Civilizations' theory as being in play. Also, be careful of the Socrates Trap(asked to provide a definition only to be torn to shreds) and the use of Derrida's Deconstructionism. It seems to be the intellectual tool of choice in this discussion. Sorkoi seems to be using this to ferret out the internal conflict or hypocrasy he finds in the idealism involved in 'The Bush Doctrine'. Namely, isn't it silly to call someone a fanatic for doing something you seem to be doing too(pushing a philosophy/world view/religion on someone else). He's being slick. Watch yourself, and proceed with caution. He could draw you into a trap which intellectual integrity would demand that you change to a view more akin to his, although he won through a simple trick(no offense Sorkoi, I can't out argue you, but I can recognize the style and tools.)..

Gone on a gamer bender again have you? Good lord, you going to start talking about Heroquest again? LOL. Seriously, you can find parallels in lots of places. The Glorantha one seems pretty good. Though I know people(Nader-ites) who would claim that WJ Williams' books were prophetic about the power of corporations.(No beatings 'bull.)..

Rainmaker, I do not regard beating someone to death as boorish. I regard it as a capital crime. And I regard denial of medical care until old men die as manslaughter. Neither of these events are rumors or allegations and several US military people involved believe these are systemic problems of the way the place was run. It is a disgrace, and a diplomatic/political disaster, and understating it is not the way to get it behind us. We need domestic and international good will - and this is not the way to get it. We need good order and discipline in own forces even more - and clearly using greenhorns led by officers lacking in moral courage (to even visit the command) is not the way to get that either.

Thanks to everyone esp the poetry I am going to print it off and pin it up next to Albright's poem to America ('America walks tall, sees far...) Anyother suggestions of 'poems' from cabinet rank staff excluding cheesy stump speeches by presidents and contenders. I guess the reason I ask for definations is that to parphrase Wittengenstien if we are going to talk nonsense lets take care with the nonsense we talk. I am just interested how we bandy around terms like fascist terrorist islamist, theorcrat etc and after a while I don't know what people are trying to say when they use these terms. (As for any kind of trap- well if there are problems of intellectual coherence whether we point out them out or not they are there... and they have consequences). In case anyone interested I do not believe the terrorist and victim are involved any dance - only macrabe sadist sociopath would not wish to see the difference between a someone who takes a life and whose life is being taken. My problem is with the concept of terrorism - I think it is at best a methodlogy and to elevate to an ideology is a serious error- which has real consequnces. For what it worth much of what I understand (or not)about Islam is based on Marshall G. Hodgson's Venture of Islam. For an analysis of Islamism I found book called "A Fundamental Fear". I think its important to maintain a distinction between Islamists and Muslims and I also agree prefixng radical to something helps unless you mean its totally tubular. PS Chemist El Cid you had website address for I could find a paper he wrote about nuclear proliferation.

I was in a Muslim political chatroom where people commented that they were offended that Dick Cheney's daughter was homosexual. Well, I'll ya, if Muslims want others to respect Islam, then Muslims have got to learn to respect others, including homosexuals. Another comment I want to make, regarding the wearing of the veil -- if you want to wear a veil yourself that's one thing, but to impose it on others, and even to teach or encourage it in others is wrong. I was at a library recently, and I saw a veiled mother wrapping her kid up in a veil, and I felt bad for the kid. I feel that wrapping a child in a veil is a form of child abuse, no different than hitting them or locking them up, and religious freedom can't be unlimited and extend to allowing these things. If you want to hit yourself or lock yourself in a cage or a veil, that's your own business, but if you want to do it to someone else then that's an entirely different matter. I don't believe that children are old enough to offer true consent for this, and they are certainly vulnerable to coercion and imposition by parents. Therefore, any attempt by a Muslim parent to encourage and impose the wearing of a veil by a minor should be considered a human rights violation. I'm curious, if Muslims feel that a veil protects a women from the lust of others, then should Muslim men wear the veil if they're living in San Francisco? Afghanistan has a much higher than average incidence of pedophilia, by the way. How come they don't put little boys under the veil?

Personally, I feel that the Baathists were an improvement over the religious savages. At least the Baathists were a modern movement, compared to the 7th-Century cavemen. I don't feel that religion is the answer for these people. Islam has too many coercive, oppressive and totalitarian qualities, particularly towards women. It doesn't even allow true market competition, since it attempts to outlaw the cost of capital -- aka interest. Religious socialist dogma is worse than plain old vanilla socialist dogma, and is inherently more fanatical. At least the atheist socialists try to come up with plausible rationalizations for their socialism, whereas the religious socialists just scream that "Allah says so!"

I do not consider someone being beaten death "boorish" either, El Cid. As the media seems to focus on the "nude" photos, I assumed that most people cannot get past that issue alone. But make no mistake about my opinion on the subject. If someone was beaten to death at Abu Garib, then yes the responsible soldier or soldiers should be charged, and if proven guilty, punished under UCMJ. If they were denying prisoners medical care at Abu Garib, that is a violation of the Geneva Convention, the Laws of Land Warfare, UCMJ, and basic human decency. They should be charged and if proven guilty, punished under UCMJ. The disgusting operations at the prison are contemptible as this unit is supposed to specialize in POW operations. That they screwed up this badly, is an embarrasment to the United States, it's military forces, the Army, and the Military Police Corps. The soldiers who committed the acts have been charged (look at recent news) and the chain of command should be, will be, or has been, held just as responsibile as well. However, the prison scandal, in my opinion, still does not fit into the "atrocity" catagory. Also, I do not care to get into a great debate about the legal definition of "atrocity" and how many corpses, or how many beatings, etc., it takes to become an "atrocity". Clearly, War Crimes were committed, and Courts Martial are taking place to determine guilt or innocence. If in the course of the Courts Martial, if they decide that what occurred deserves the title of "Atrocity" or "Atrocities", then so be it.

People should read this article: http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/15/news/edhaqqani.html It was written by a Muslim guy, and it makes a lot of sense.

I read the article. It does make sense. Here's something I find ironic: While Europe was living in filth in the Dark Ages, the Islamic Empire was flourishing. It was the Muslims that saved knowledge, because in the crusade to retake Spain, we found a library filled with books in Arabic. Turns out that they contained all of the knowledge that was lost when Rome fell--Aristotle, etc. Isn't that funny?