Floodlight

I really wasn't going to touch this, but...

"You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well, and if you don’t you get stuck in Iraq.”

OK, he was supposed to say, "...you get us stuck in Iraq." And then he went on to fail to clarify the botched joke (but that's Kerry all over.)

But did anyone not understand that it was Bush was who was referred to as, "not making the most of his education, not studying hard, not making an effort...?" Or (even reading it as spoken) that it was Bush who was "stuck in Iraq?" Well not as "stuck" as as the 2,829 dead, 44,799 wounded, or the 150,000  poor schmucks who, out of patriotism and love of community, volunteered for the National Guard, expecting to respond to civil disorder and national disaster and wound up with extended tours in some hell-hole where we can't even say what "victory," let alone "Mission Accomplished" would mean?!?!

But, along with the party that supported him (until recently,) mired, slimed, thrashing helplessly, stuck in Iraq.

Where even our hand-picked government won't let us search for a US serviceman known to have been kidnapped by militants, for g*d's sake.

So what's the most import?
A) Kerry's botched joke
B) Tom Cuise's new deal
C) The total, abysmal, disastrous, insane entry into the war and and it's mindless, endless, goalless prosecution?

'Nuff said

This conjunction of an immense Military Establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence— economic, political, even spiritual—is felt in every city, every state-house, every office of the Federal Government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications....

In the councils of government we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Farewell Address, January 17,1961

Republican/Fundamentalist/Right-to-life vision of a future community

An addition to this.

I'll take this stolen image down if Gary wants. Just drop me a line.

 

Our local Republicans

A little background (like anyone reading this cares!) For nearly thirty years, the state has been trying to force this little unincorporated town (population about 15,000) to put in a system to replace the use of septic tanks. The argument is we are contaminating the upper aquifer with nitrates. It is important to note that we are "downstream" of a large farming area that uses nitrate fertilizers. The main point is that our septage drains into Morro Bay. Competent analyses show that over 90% of the nitrate contamination of the Bay comes from other sources.

We draw our drinking water from an aquifer several hundred feet deeper. It is pristine and palatable.

The county was adamant about putting in a conventional sewage treatment plant, at outrageous cost. We established a Community Services District, electing board members who ran as opposing the county plan, and for putting in a ponding system, like the one in Arcata, CA. Five years later, they are ragingly opposed to such a system, and are pushing through a 40' high treatment facility in the middle of town, where any failure would create a raw sewage run-off into the bay! They are supported by, among others, realtors, who have been quoted as saying that the high cost of the system (currently over $200 a month!) would "drive the riff-raff out of town." These oh-so-typical Republicans think that poor folk, folk on fixed incomes who bought their home here years ago, average people, don't deserve to live in this beautiful town. They envision a New Carmel.

In a recent election, two board members were replaced by Julie and Lisa, who oppose the current plan. A recall election is almost certain to be held, deposing the remaining three ass-wipes. Since Julie and Lisa came on board, the other three have publicly harassed and demeaned them. They  withheld information from them, and refused to put even one  on the committee overseeing the wastewater management issues.

After the election, the Evil Three hired a "secret watcher," whose job description is incredibly vague, to take names at the public board meetings of those who seem "suspect"  to the Republicans, even though we already pay a sheriff's deputy to be on hand.

You will also note the name Bruce Buel 'our' general manager. He was hired at a huge salary. The rational for his salary and perks was (no, really, this is true!) that he could get a comparable salary in a larger town elsewhere, but he likes living in this area! How many of you have ever gotten a larger salary because you are living where you want to?!

Los Osos interest group privy to secret CSD agenda

Lisa Schicker cries foul at irregular access to information

If the Los Osos Community Services District (CSD) could just get through five minutes of a meeting without a personal attack on a citizen or a board member’s face turning red with rage, it would be a day for the history books. But instead it’s just business as usual.

In the latest twist of small-town subterfuge, Board Director Lisa Schicker is accusing the CSD of shuffling its confidential agenda without notifying her or her like minded colleague, Julie Tacker. Not only were Schicker and Tacker uninformed of the postponement of some key agenda items from March 17 to April 7, Schicker said, but somehow their political adversaries, the Save the Dream (STD) group, had announced the items in their newsletter.

Schicker explained that she had been instructed by general manager Bruce Buel not to share the contents of the draft agenda for last week’s meeting with anyone. Having honored the board’s request, she was doubly surprised to learn that the agenda had not just been changed, she said, but that someone had shared those changes with the STD.

“They knew about it, and I didn’t,” Schicker said.

One of these items involved a motion requesting to wave interest on a loan from the state revolving fund for the wastewater project. The approval of this request would dramatically reduce the cost of the sewer, and thereby increase community support for the contentious downtown project.

In its third newsletter, dated March 9, STD announced that this zero-interest loan would save the community $25 million. That newsletter calls on all Los Ososians to attend the April 7 meeting and ask the board to vote yes on this cost-cutting resolution.

Pandora Nash-Karner had a simple explanation of where she got her information.

“I just called the CSD to verify the facts before publication. I also thought [the item] was on the 17th [of March],” she said. “Anyone can call and verify that information.”

Yet Schicker maintains that the board has instructed her that the draft agendas are “not for publication or discussion.”

Bruce Buel could not be reached for comment and was in court all morning on Wednesday, where the CSD was filing a demurrer to dismiss a lawsuit of the Concerned Citizens of Los Osos vs. the LOCSD and the State Coastal Commission.

In an ongoing quest to uncover public records, Director Schicker has spent several weeks trying to obtain a copy of Hensley’s spending records from fiscal year 2004-05. In the past nine months, Hensley has made numerous trips to meetings in Monterey, Washington, D.C., and Southern California on behalf of the CSD.

“Every other board member has a credit card file — with a zero balance or a spending record,” Schicker explained. “It’s quite possible that Gordon [Hensley] didn’t spend anything, but he’s got files for every other year he’s been there.”

The general manager’s office has repeatedly asked Schicker to stop wasting its time, and told her that there are no such records. Buel insists that his office is too busy to waste its valuable time on these frivolous requests. But Schicker explained that it would only take a few minutes to call and request copies of the zero-balance credit card bills, and it should be worth those few minutes to prove to the community that Director Schicker is being frivolous and unreasonable.

Directors Hensley and LeGros and President Gustafson are all three the target of a board recall campaign. STD leads the opposition to this recall. General Manager Buel is expected to remain neutral on the issue, although he has a history of collaborating with Pandora Nash-Karner, who directs the pro-sewer, “move forward” interest group. Tacker and Schicker have also distanced themselves from the recall movement, but the two minority members enjoy wide support from the recall proponents.

Gail McPherson, one of the chief
organizers of the recall, has reported that the campaign has already collected more than the 2,000 signatures needed to put the initiative on the ballot. As the April 15 deadline approaches, McPherson says that the group is continuing to collect signatures as a safety cushion before turning in the petitions.

McPherson has always maintained that “The recall is not about the sewer,” but that this is just one example of poor planning and fiduciary irresponsibility on the part of the current CSD.

Now I would hate to slander or libel any members of the board, but I would like to know why they are so married to this plan, in the face of vociferous community objections to it's design and location, why the feel it necessary to obstruct and undermine our new members, and if, say, any of them own property here that would benefit from a build-out of vacant property and replacement of current housing with multi-million dollar homes. But I'm probably just being cynical.

Save the Horses!

Briefly: "An omnibus appropriations bill passed by Congress in December 2005 contained a rider, #142, sponsored by Montana Senator Conrad Burns that radically reduced the protections for wild horses in place for more than 30 years since passage of the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act. The lives of tens of thousands of wild horses are at stake."

Please write your Senators and Representative about this hidden, end-run rider to the budget bill that will allow tens of thousands of wild horses to be slaughtered.

The meat will likely be served in restaurants in France, Belgium and Japan, where horse is a delicacy.

Let 'em eat snails. I have a lot of snails here I would be happy to ship to France. Here is where you can write.

Thank you.

Bush decides "Balance of Power" is too Constricting, Even with a Republican Congress

Bush Says Faith Should Figure in Charity Jobs

       

The House will vote on a measure that would allow religious groups that receive federal grants to consider an applicant's beliefs.

 

By Peter Wallsten and Tom Hamburger, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — President Bush on Tuesday threatened to impose controversial new policies to let federally funded religious charities make hiring decisions based on the religious beliefs of potential employees.

Well, isn't that swell?! We would be paying for employes based on their religious beliefs. Maybe race will be next? After all, what would a black man bring to the job of providing health care in the Appalachians?

Calling for an expansion of his faith-based initiative, Bush said that if Congress did not vote for the changes in hiring law this year, he would consider doing it himself through "executive action."

Oh, good. When the reichstag won't play, we just assume all power, like...well never mind.

Administration officials later said it remained unclear what powers the president had to affect hiring laws through executive order.

Like, maybe, none?! It ought to be at least a little hard work to overturn 45 years of civil rights legislation.

The president's remarks came on the eve of a House vote on the hiring issue. Administration officials say that some religious charities have been dissuaded from applying for federal grants out of fear that they would lose their religious identities in having to comply with civil rights laws that prevent discrimination in hiring.

Oh, dear! Having to hire a qualified applicant with federal funds regardless of their religion! While serving the entire community? Only one way out of this. Serve only co-religionists with those tax dollars. I'm sure the Yellow Rose has this next on his agenda. Oh, and BTW, fuck any group that would lose it's "religious identity"  if it had to integrate it's secular workforce.

Opponents say the change would be tantamount to government-sponsored discrimination, a fear that led Senate Democrats and skeptical Republicans to block the initiative during Bush's first term.

"One of the key reasons why many faith-based groups are so effective is a commitment to serve that is grounded in the shared values and religious identity of their volunteers and employees," Bush said. "In other words, effectiveness happens because people who share a faith show up to help a particular organization based on that faith to succeed. And that's important, now, for people in Washington to understand."

Well, hell, if they aren't showing up for the salary, just don't pay 'em, eh? Especially with my money!

Bush's faith-based initiative has been credited with boosting the GOP vote in battleground states last year among African Americans and Latinos. Under the initiative, the administration has encouraged federal agencies to funnel more money to religious organizations that Bush says often perform social services more effectively than the government.

The House is expected to approve legislation today that, among other things, would allow religious organizations that receive federal job-training grants to consider religious beliefs when hiring staff. The measure's fate is less certain in the Senate.

Oh...it's not just Bush who supports religious discrimination? Even his "opponents" in Congress do? Wow, am I surprised!!

Bush, speaking Tuesday at a conference of groups involved in the faith-based initiative, said Congress should pass the measure to clear up a confusing web of laws regarding whether  federally funded religious groups can restrict hiring to people with matching beliefs.

President Clinton signed laws that the White House was now contending permitted such hiring practices, including a landmark 1996 welfare measure that permitted preferential hiring by faith-based organizations engaged in welfare-to-work programs.

But other laws prohibit discrimination under federally funded job-training and education programs.

Opponents charged that Bush misinterpreted the laws signed by Clinton, and that the measures being sought by Bush represented a sharp shift in U.S. policy, creating an historic rollback of civil rights laws.

Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Church and State, which opposes the House bill, said the legislation being considered by the House would roll back existing discrimination statutes.

"It is astonishing that the president would put his so-called moral power behind a rollback of the nation's civil rights principles," Lynn said. He said that he would defend any religious organization's right to hire whomever it pleased for jobs and programs not funded by the federal government. But, he said, "this is about tax dollars being used affirmatively to fund discrimination."

Rep. Robert C. Scott (D-Va.), who has led opposition to the job-training legislation to be voted on today, said Tuesday that institutionalizing religious discrimination would lead directly to legalized racial discrimination. He said blacks would be shut out of jobs created by a Mormon organization, given that Mormonism was almost entirely white, while whites would be shut out of jobs created by programs run by the Nation of Islam or the African Methodist Episcopal Church.

"That is a profound change in position for the federal government," he said.

Why would Bush do such a thing, even if he is a profoundly religious hypoc..., er, person?

Bush's faith-based initiative has proved politically beneficial to the GOP, which has used taxpayer-financed grants as an entree into black, Latino and evangelical churches, many of which are run by charismatic pastors who backed Bush's reelection.

Oh. I see...

But the program came under criticism last month from a former official from the White House faith-based office, David Kuo, who penned a column for a religion website accusing the administration of failing to live up to Bush's campaign promises to be a "compassionate conservative."

Don't listen...this is just another mealy-mouthed traitor, like Clarke, that screws everything up by telling the truth. OK? But still, even the public has reservations. And how many know how deep the Moonies are in this trough? Or how many Washington piggies are sucking it down? Next someone will be saying we don't even know if these faith-based programs are working!

Still, Bush said that the administration had increased spending on faith-based groups. Bush said the government spent $2 billion in fiscal year 2004 on such organizations, an increase over the $1.1 billion the administration said was spent the year before. He took credit for increasing the percentage of federal grants that go to faith-based groups.

But Jim Towey, director of the White House Office on Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, later told reporters that the numbers were inconclusive. The 2003 figure represented spending by five agencies, while the 2004 number totaled that of seven agencies. What is more, he said, both figures might be too high or too low, because there was no systematic way to tally spending on faith-based groups.

So, of course, we don't know that not a single Islamic group has received a dime, and even Jewish groups have been left out; that only Xian groups have received any significant funding. Now, I'm pretty good at searching the 'net, but I haven't found a source that reports which religions got how much money. I'll update this if anyone can find a source for me. In the meantime, I'm just going to remain cynical.

Uncounted American victims of the War Monkey's Adventure in Iraq

Suicides Among Soldiers Who Served in Iraq 

Vietnam vet has advice for reporters covering this elusive story.
Published in Editor and Publisher February 24, 2004 By Wayne Smith

Any reporters researching the increasingly critical story of suicides among American troops who have served in Iraq are likely to suffer from a near-crippling bout of cognitive dissonance, a kind of temporal disconnect between the tragedy unfolding for some of our soldiers and the business-as-usual tempo of a nation largely unaware.

You may also find yourself inhabiting a very sad place where a young soldier strolls away from a telephone booth in Baghdad, pulls out a gun and fires a bullet into his own head; a world where, for one Iraq vet, a motel room in Tennessee becomes a place not for celebrating his safe homecoming but the perfect secret venue for swallowing drain-clearing chemicals.

For me, a Vietnam veteran and former post traumatic stress disorder counselor, research at the Vietnam Veterans of American Foundation on soldier suicides is triggering something akin to déjà vu. We see tip-of-the-iceberg indicators that portend a post-Iraq psychiatric disaster for some returning soldiers, one that the country is ill-prepared to deal with and one that the Pentagon appears to be spinning like a top.

The army reports that 21 soldiers in Iraq and Kuwait have killed themselves since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom but this number will increase as suspicious non-combat deaths that have already occurred and might be suicides await classification by the army's Criminal Investigation Division (CID). We have learned from a Pentagon source that the CID may not rule on these deaths until after the operation is over. Even the number of 21 is well above the average Army rate.

The army's peculiar calculus also excludes suicides that occur outside the "theater," that is, soldiers who served in Iraq or Kuwait but kill themselves once they get home. The media is toting these up ad hoc. United Press International discovered two at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and The Sun of Baltimore recently reported on one that occurred in a Shoney's Inn. But most of these tragedies will unfold anonymously since family members are often reluctant to speak publicly about a subject they consider taboo.

Now, over the next few weeks, as more troops rotate home, and the anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq approaches, the Pentagon faces the prospect of a potentially unwieldy public becoming more "casualty sensitive," something war planners have been conscious of since Vietnam brought the human or "blood" cost of conflict into America's living rooms.

This looming milestone may explain a bizarre episode a few weeks ago when various Pentagon spokespeople began driving the suicide number down, to 18 or even 17, only to officially re-affirm a higher number later.

Awww...the poor Coven of the Yellow Rose. They must have been proud of the Pentagon, only to be SO disappointed later when they committed the mortal error of admitting they were "mistaken."

Also hard to know are the reasons that soldiers are killing themselves. There is some evidence that the anti-malarial drug Lariam may be playing a role, but history tells us that the relentless stress and sheer bloodiness of this deployment will also be a factor. Last July, following a "spike" in suicides, Iraq forces commander General Ricardo Sanchez requested help from the Army surgeon general, and a 12-member "mental health advisory team" was quickly dispatched. That team's much-anticipated report was reportedly finished months ago but its release keeps being postponed. The press should investigate why.

Duh!!  That takes a wild imagination to guess! It couldn't have anything to do with the FUCKING CONTENTS of the report, could it? Like maybe morale in Iraq is down in the Marianas Trench, maybe?

Experts both on suicide and epidemiology, including the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, tell us that a cluster of suicides in a specific population, in this case the army, represents the thin edge of a numeric wedge. A report by UPI on Feb. 19 from the army's hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, offers a chilling glimpse at the size of the trouble heading for the military's already over-taxed and unprepared medical system. It said that about 1,000 soldiers have already been evacuated to Landstuhl for psychiatric reasons.

The UPI story by award-winner Mark Benjamin also exposed what may be the Pentagon's internal mantra on an issue so explosive it could seriously downgrade the American public's support for this war. When asked how many soldiers the hospital has treated following actual suicide attempts, Col. Rhonda Cornum, commander of the hospital, wouldn't give a number, saying only, "This is a sensitive thing that some people might not want you to know, I guess."

Yeppers. One moe thing they don't want us to know, or we might not support a war that has already sucked 1,500 American lives, 14,000 American severely wounded, and $300,000,000,000 in American  treasure to create a hotbed of radical Islamic fundamentalism. With a net loss to the Iraqis of about 100,000 lives, their power, water, and healthcare services.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wayne Smith is special assistant to the president of the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation in Washington, an organization that, in 1997, shared the Nobel Peace Prize. Smith was a combat medic in Vietnam and longtime therapist in the Veterans Administration's Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Counseling Program.

Le plus ca change

Children, brothers, sisters, I beg you not to forget!

It was back in nineteen forty-two,
I was a member of a good platoon.
We were on maneuvers in-a Loozianna,
One night by the light of the moon.
The captain told us to ford a river,
That's how it all begun.
We were -- knee deep in the Big Muddy,
But the big fool said to push on.

The Sergeant said, "Sir, are you sure,
This is the best way back to the base?"
"Sergeant, go on! I forded this river
'Bout a mile above this place.
It'll be a little soggy but just keep slogging.
We'll soon be on dry ground."
We were -- waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool said to push on.

The Sergeant said, "Sir, with all this equipment
No man will be able to swim."
"Sergeant, don't be a Nervous Nellie,"
The Captain said to him.
"All we need is a little determination;
Men, follow me, I'll lead on."
We were -- neck deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool said to push on.

All at once, the moon clouded over,
We heard a gurgling cry.
A few seconds later, the captain's helmet
Was all that floated by.
The Sergeant said, "Turn around men!
I'm in charge from now on."
And we just made it out of the Big Muddy
With the captain dead and gone.

We stripped and dived and found his body
Stuck in the old quicksand.
I guess he didn't know that the water was deeper
Than the place he'd once before been.
Another stream had joined the Big Muddy
'Bout a half mile from where we'd gone.
We were lucky to escape from the Big Muddy
When the big fool said to push on.

Well, I'm not going to point any moral;
I'll leave that for yourself
Maybe you're still walking, you're still talking
You'd like to keep your health.
But every time I read the papers
That old feeling comes on;
We're -- waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.

Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep! Neck deep! Soon even a
Tall man'll be over his head, we're
Waist deep in the Big Muddy!
And the big fool says to push on!

Words and music by Pete Seeger (1967)

That's all. That's enough. But be careful...Pete was blacklisted for exercising his rights under the First Amendment!!

Now how is it going to get worse?

How could it get worse? The Yellow Rose and Condi his National Security Advisor, had access to solid intel that Al Queda planned to hijack US domestic flights and use them as suicide bombs.

--Aviation officials were ``lulled into a false sense of security'' and ``intelligence that indicated a real and growing threat leading up to 9/ll did not stimulate significant increases in security procedures.''

--Of the FAA's 105 daily intelligence summaries between April 1, 2001 and Sept. 10, 2001, 52 mentioned bin Laden, al-Qaida, or both, ``mostly in regard to overseas threats.''

"Mostly" requires some clarification: "The report discloses that the Federal Aviation Administration, despite being focused on risks of hijackings overseas, warned airports in the spring of 2001 that if "the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable."

--It notes that the FAA did not expand the use of in-flight air marshals or tighten airport screening for weapons. It said FAA officials were more concerned with reducing airline congestion, lessening delays and easing air carriers' financial problems than thwarting a terrorist attack.

-- A proposed rule to improve passenger screening and other security measures ordered by Congress in 1996 had been held up by the Office of Management and Budget and was still not in effect when the attacks occurred, according to the FAA.

It gets worse this way:

California Rep. Henry Waxman, ranking Democrat on the Government Reform Committee, asked for a hearing on whether the Bush administration played politics with the report's release. The letter, also signed by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., said the committee should probe whether the report was delayed until after the November elections and the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state.

The Yellow Rose's brownshirts held up the release of even the redacted version of this report, much to the consternation of the commission members, until after the election and Condi's confirmation.

Offered for your consideration:
treason, n:
1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
   2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

At the risk of boring you, I repeat:

1) FAA officials were more concerned with reducing airline congestion, lessening delays and easing air carriers' financial problems than thwarting a terrorist attack.

2) the Federal Aviation Administration, despite being focused on risks of hijackings overseas, warned airports in the spring of 2001 that if "the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable."

3) The Insane War Monkey Administration knew all this.

4) Charged and sworn to protect and defend the nation, they can now report that "Airports were notified." Hell!!!!! Not that they went ape-shit and airports were inundated with Federal, state and local heat, but that (again, in the passive voice that marks this administration,) "Airports were notified."

Bad News No One Had Guessed At!

"A Knight Ridder analysis of U.S. government statistics shows that...the insurgency, led mainly by Sunni Muslims, has become deadlier and more effective.

 

"The analysis suggests that unless something dramatic changes -- such as a newfound will by Iraqis to reject the insurgency or a large escalation of U.S. troop strength -- the United States will not win the war.

We're NOT winning?! That's not what I heard! I heard, that after a success so successful it could only be called "catastrophic," that we had accomplished our mission! Already. Years ago in fact!

 

"It is universally accepted among military thinkers that insurgencies are especially hard to defeat because the insurgents' goal is not to win in a conventional sense but merely to survive until the will of the occupying power is sapped. Recent polls already suggest an erosion of support among Americans for the war.

An erosion of support. And that from  the 40% of voters who felt comfy with the war before the election. Just before the Yellow Rose was elected!

 

"Troublesome outlook

"The unfavorable trends of the war are clear:

"• U.S. military fatalities from hostile acts have risen from an average of about 17 per month just after President Bush declared an end to major combat operations on May 1, 2003, to an average of 82 per month.

"• The average number of U.S. soldiers wounded by hostile acts per month has spiraled from 142 to 808 during the same period. Iraqi civilians have suffered even more deaths and injuries, although reliable statistics aren't available.

"• Attacks on the U.S.-led coalition since November 2003, when statistics were first available, have risen from 735 a month to 2,400 in October. Air Force Brig. Gen. Erv Lessel, the multinational forces' deputy operations director, told Knight Ridder on Friday that attacks were currently running at 75 a day, about 2,300 a month, well below a spike in November during the assault on Al-Fallujah, but nearly as high as October's total.

"• The average number of mass-casualty bombings has grown from zero in the first four months of the American occupation to an average of 13 per month.

"• Electricity production has been below prewar levels since October, largely because of sabotage by insurgents, with just 6.7 hours of power daily in Baghdad in early January, according to the State Department.

"• Iraq is pumping about 500,000 barrels a day less than its prewar peak of 2.5 million barrels per day as a result of attacks, according to the State Department.

" ``All the trend lines we can identify are all in the wrong direction,'' said Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, a liberal Washington policy-research organization. ``We are not winning, and the security trend lines could almost lead you to believe that we are losing.'' "

I admit it! I could be so lead!