The Iranian ambassador to the UN appeared on the Charlie Rose show the other evening. He addressed the issue of serial numbers and dates on the weaponry supposedly supplied by some source in Iran to "kill Americans."

I wonder how many people caught his comment about the manner in which the dates are shown. He said that only the U.S. uses the month, date and year (i.e., February 15, 2007). Other countries - including Iran - show the date first, then the month and then the year: (15 February 2007). The dates shown on the material our government says is supplied by Iran uses the former. So where is it coming from? One writer suggests a convoluted movement of U.S.-supplied weaponry through the hands of various sources into the possession of the "insurgents." That's a more likely, in my mind, scenerio. Another is that our CIA-types are supplying it directly to the insurgents to create the illusion of Iran's involvement and in an effort to add to the arguments for us to invade yet another country.

What shmuck will they recruit now - given that Colin Powell is disgraced and out of the national political scene - to present this kind of evidence to the U.N. General Assembly?

Oops! I scrolled down the letters too late to catch that RichEmery had already compared the comments in this article to Rummy's "known knowns" statement. He would have saved me the time of looking up the exact wording. But it was heartening to know that someone else saw the connection. And it is sad to know that this administration's stupid comments and screwy explanations and are so well known that I only had to type into a google search "Rumsfeld's known knowns comment" to get a hit on the exact wording.

Frankly, I like Grieve's logic much better:

What we do know is that members of the U.S. military were responsible for acts of torture at Abu Ghraib. We know that. And we also know that the U.S. military is part of the U.S. government. That's a known. What we don't know is whether or not the head leaders of the U.S. government ordered the U.S. personnel at Abu Ghraib to do what they did. But here's our point: Either they knew or didn't know, and what matters is, is that they did it. What's worse, that the government knew or that the government didn't know?

Sadly, it used to be that we in the U.S. held ourselves to a higher standard than anyone else. Now our standards are lower than...well, Rumsfeld's rhetoric.

...BARACK! AND HERE'S ONE MORE VOICE FOR EVERYONE FREEZING OUT FOX NEWS.

...but why doesn't Congress not only cut off all future funding of troops in Iraq (and in Kuwait...waiting) and freeze all already-appropriated funding. Yep. Cut it all off---now! Except for money to transport the troops back to safety in Europe or the U.S.

No more screwing around. No more concern about how "they'll accuse us of not supporting the troops."

Support them by forcing them back home because there will be no money to feed or house them, or pay for their armaments. Only provide the carefully-controlled funds to allow for transportation to get them out of there.

Frankly, I think this would be would be no less harsh than Bush/Cheney sending them with little or no equipment and protection. To the eventual death of many of them.

I want them to quit playing games and DO IT!