Ktismatics

19 January 2007

The Combination is Lethal

Filed under: Culture, Reflections — ktismatics @ 4:04 pm

Thinking about the proposed Iraqi surge and related political quaverings got me thinking back to the beginning. Here’s what Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s chief of staff from 2002 through 2005, said about his involvement in the former Secretary of State’s presentation to the United Nations on Iraq‘s weapons of mass destruction: “I wish I had not been involved in it. I look back on it, and I still say it was the lowest point in my life.”

There’s no need to revisit the details – no, I take that back: there is a. need to revisit them, and to realize just what a pile of crap it really was. And to think we went to war over this. Here, then, are a few excerpts from Powell’s 5 February 2003 address to the U.N. Security Council.

* * * *

I cannot tell you everything that we know. But what I can share with you, when combined with what all of us have learned over the years, is deeply troubling. What you will see is an accumulation of facts and disturbing patterns of behavior.

The inspectors can look all they want, and they will find nothing… The Iraqis are busy doing all they possibly can to ensure that inspectors succeed in finding absolutely nothing.

My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.

What’s being hidden? Why? There’s only one answer to the why: to deceive, to hide.

The photos that I am about to show you are sometimes hard for the average person to interpret, hard for me… But as I show you these images, I will try to capture and explain what they mean, what they indicate to our imagery specialists.

The bunkers are clean when the inspectors get there. They found nothing.

Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts, corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries.

It took the inspectors four years to find out that Iraq was making biological agents. How long do you think it will take the inspectors to find even one of these 18 trucks?

We know that Iraq has embedded key portions of its illicit chemical weapons infrastructure within its legitimate civilian industry. To all outward appearances, even to experts, the infrastructure looks like an ordinary civilian operation. Illicit and legitimate production can go on simultaneously; or, on a dime, this dual-use infrastructure can turn from clandestine to commercial and then back again… Any inspections of such facilities would be unlikely to turn up anything prohibited. Call it ingenuous or evil genius, but the Iraqis deliberately designed their chemical weapons programs to be inspected. It is infrastructure with a built-in ally.

So it’s not just the photo, and it’s not an individual seeing the photo. It’s the photo and then the knowledge of an individual being brought together to make the case.

The question before us, all my friends, is when will we see the rest of the submerged iceberg?

Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons… And we have sources who tell us that he recently has authorized his field commanders to use them. He wouldn’t be passing out the orders if he didn’t have the weapons or the intent to use them.

I am no expert on centrifuge tubes, but just as an old Army trooper, I can tell you a couple of things…

Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with Al Qaida. These denials are simply not credible… Early Al Qaida ties were forged by secret, high-level intelligence service contacts with Al Qaida, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with Al Qaida. Iraqis continued to visit bin Laden in his new home in Afghanistan.

Some believe, some claim these contacts do not amount to much. They say Saddam Hussein’s secular tyranny and Al Qaida’s religious tyranny do not mix. I am not comforted by this thought. Ambition and hatred are enough to bring Iraq and Al Qaida together.

The nexus of poisons and terror is new. The nexus of Iraq and terror is old. The combination is lethal. With this track record, Iraqi denials of supporting terrorism take the place alongside the other Iraqi denials of weapons of mass destruction. It is all a web of lies. When we confront a regime that harbors ambitions for regional domination, hides weapons of mass destruction and provides haven and active support for terrorists, we are not confronting the past, we are confronting the present. And unless we act, we are confronting an even more frightening future.

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he’s determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein’s history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond? The United States will not and cannot run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world.

Advertisements

30 Comments »

  1. We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he’s determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein’s history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond? The United States will not and cannot run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world.

    I still agree with the genearl theory presented here. It just isn’t wise policy to allow a bunch of thug dictators to allow large portions of the middle east to remain backward and repressed. Hatred and rage from suppression builds and then religious and political leaders like Saddam can channel this rage at the U.S. providing idealistic young men the grounds for joinging terrorist organisations dedicated to the destruction of western culture and civilazation.

    Like

    Comment by Jonathan Erdman — 19 January 2007 @ 5:58 pm

  2. Given GWB’s history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing…? The US will not and cannot run that risk to the American people.

    I think this whole war thing is a prime example of alternate realities. I can, for a few minutes at a time, grasp the pro-war, pro-Bush reality, but it rapidly disintegrates into meaninglessness. Almost everybody I know was against the war and dislikes Bush passionately, so it’s easy to talk in shorthand. I engaged in extended email conversations with a couple friends who saw what you apparently see in an effort to arrive at some sort of common ground, to no avail.

    For example, the excerpt from Powell you cite: Do you agree that the authorial intent of this statement was to emphasize Saddam’s imminent threat to America? Do you agree that Saddam’s threat to the US was the explicit rationale the US administration made to the American public for invading Iraq? Do you agree that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction? Do you agree that Saddam had no ties to Al-Qaida? If so, we could move on to your points about thug dictators, backward and repressed peoples, and so on. Stand up and be counted, Mr. Erdman.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 19 January 2007 @ 7:19 pm

  3. Yes. Yes. No. No.

    Two Questions of my own:
    In the long term is it better for humanity in general and the middle east in particular that Saddam was removed from power? That Iraq becomes a stable, self-governed nation that does not support or breed terrorism?

    Like

    Comment by Jonathan Erdman — 19 January 2007 @ 7:44 pm

  4. And your evidence about Saddam’s WMDs and Al-Qaida ties would be…? Do you at least agree that no one found WMDs in Iraq? The Al-Qaida thing I’m stumped on — what am I missing here?

    Yes (I would also answer “yes” if you asked whether humanity and the middle east would be better off if the US was removed from power in Iraq).
    Yes (though I don’t care whether it’s 1 nation or 3).

    So perhaps we’re making progress here.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 19 January 2007 @ 7:59 pm

  5. What would you accept as evidence??? You asked me an opinion question. I believe Saddam had or was going to have WMDs in some form. I also believe he had Al-Qaida ties. When I take 1 and add 1 and then add another 1 I get three. When I take a thug dicatator and add that he hates the U.S. and add that he has no problem funding terrorism against other nations that he hates (like Israel) then I come to the conclusion that he likely had Al-Qaida ties. It would be hard to believe that he didn’t have some type of connection. Either in harboring them or funding them. Keep in mind that we crashed Saddam’s little takeover parter in the early nineties. I don’t think he particularly cared for the US. And that leads me to think he would help and harbor those who would try to hurt the US. What the precise threat level was I don’t know. I couldn’t say.

    So I combine a guy who has it in for the US with the fact that he was abusing his people and oppresing them and creating an environment that contributed to a vicious cycle of middle east violence and primitive barbaric behavior and I come to the conclusion that Iraq, the middle east, and the world is better off without him.

    Like

    Comment by Jonathan Erdman — 19 January 2007 @ 8:40 pm

  6. I asked what you believed. After you gave your answers, I asked the evidentiary basis for your beliefs. Data: no evidence of Iraqi WMDs were found, by either the UN or the American inspectors. Data: no evidence for a link between Saddam and al-Qaida was ever found. Here’s a link to the 9/11 Commission’s findings. Now you could still believe despite the absence of evidence — a lot of Americans do. It does seem that empirical evidence ought to be the basis for deciding this sort of question, though, don’t you think?

    Thug dictator? Yes. Hated the US? Yes. Would help and harbor those who would try to hurt the US? Undetermined, though there’s no evidence. So let’s agree: Saddam was an asshole who oppressed his own people. Would I have considered taking him down based on that rationale? Yes. Do I believe that the neocons used the WMD argument as a way to get the herd behind what was really a much more humanitarian war? Maybe, though I think it’s more likely that the motivation was to establish a base of middle east operations to replace Saudi Arabia, which was becoming dicey. (Notice I haven’t said anything about oil yet.)

    Okay, so your turn. If Saddam posed no real threat to the US, would you have been in favor of a unilateral strike to take him out anyway? Do you think Bush could have sold the war to the American public based on Saddam’s thughood to his fellow Arabs?

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 19 January 2007 @ 9:19 pm

  7. Evidence:
    There’s no evidence that he did not have weapons of mass destruction, either. It seems naive to think that Saddam wasn’t working on the project. Especially since he kept the inspectors on the run. These were inspectors that were actually somewhat sympathetic. Hans Blizt (or whatever his name was) wasn’t exactly a war hawk.

    Also, this stuff is moveable. Saddam knew he would lose if the US ever attacked, so when we actually went in to take over they all rolled over and played dead. Any valuable WMD material was shipped out of there.

    If Saddam posed no real threat ot the US, would you have been in favor of a unilateral strike to take him out anyway?

    If Saddam was a harmless dictator then there is no point of a war. But, as I said, his presence and openness to terrorism made him a dangerous player – and a significant one at that. He made a volatile middle east even more violent and barbaric. Oppression and depression of a people group breeds deep resentment and critical desperation. This desperation leads one to act in crazy ways – i.e. suicide bombings, etc. The resentment has been directed at western nations of which the U.S. is the prime target. Dictators like Saddam only make this situation worse and more complicated. It will take a while to straighten this mess out. And I don’t think pulling out and letting Iraq break out into chaos will help the situation.

    Like

    Comment by Jonathan Erdman — 19 January 2007 @ 10:04 pm

  8. Two of my comments have vanished — will this one?

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 19 January 2007 @ 11:01 pm

  9. Nope, the third try didn’t work either. Maybe it was my link. So I’ll leave that off this time. The Iraq Survey Group concluded two years post-invasion that there were no WMDs, that the old WMDs had been destroyed, and that it was unlikely that any weapons were moved from Iraq to Syria. Okay now…

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 19 January 2007 @ 11:05 pm

  10. So far so good — you’ll have to find the link yourself.

    I didn’t say harmless; I said a threat to his own people but not to the US. Would you take out that sort of ruthless thug?

    No one is in favor of chaos in Iraq. I think the US presence exacerbates chaos. I also don’t think chaos is the inevitable or even the likely outcome of our leaving. In 2000 Bush said he opposed nation-building, so he too must once have believed in the self-organizing potential of human societies. Now will this shorter response post?

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 19 January 2007 @ 11:09 pm

  11. Yes. Maybe wordpress has installed a blather detection algorithm.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 19 January 2007 @ 11:09 pm

  12. You seem to be implying that the absence of WMDs means that Saddam was not a threat. But even if I grant you that he had no WMDs and no plans to develop them he was still perpetuating the primitive and barbaric militant terrorism….sigh….you still haven’t addressed that issue, which in my opinion is the greater issue than WMDs. The middle east is insane. People in that area need the opportunity to develop their economy and to think freely without the threat of violence at every street corner. Saddam ruled with fear, suspicion, and religious fanaticism. Getting rid of him is a big step towards bringing some sanity to that area.

    Would I take out a thug who is a threat to his own people but not to the US? Well, that would depend on the situation. In the case of Saddam he threatened the whole world by perpetuating senseless violence in the name of religion and suspicion. So, he had to go.

    But we can reverse this question: Why do you oppose a war in which so much good can come to the Iraqi people and to the whole middle east? If we can stabilize the area and work towards a stable economy and a stable government then this will result in greater freedom for the Iraqis: Girls going to school, young idealists able to read whatever books they want, an enterprising entrepreneur able to open a successful business, a spiritual seeker who can ask honest questions about his received religious tradition and freely explore his heart and mind….In short, a stable and Saddam-free zone results in the realization of dreams and the achievement of greater human potential. How can anyone be strongly opposed to this?

    P.S. I’m not willing to concede that there were no WMDs in the making. It just doesn’t make sense to me that Saddam would give the inspectors the run around if there was nothing to hide. It is possible that there was nothing there, and perhaps there was, indeed, nothing at all – but how do we really know? I mean honestly? The guy is screwing around with the inspectors and people keep telling him, “Dude, show us the money or you’re probably gonna’ get bombed by the U.S. The Americans are kind of ticked ever since the whole 911 thing and they can’t help but think you mighta’ had somethin’ to do with that. So, come on, let the inspectors do their job.” But he just wouldn’t let them. And Saddam is not an idiot – at least I don’t think so. I think he screwed with the inspectors b/c he had something to hide. But will we ever know????

    Like

    Comment by Jonathan Erdman — 20 January 2007 @ 1:25 am

  13. Primitive, barbaric, insane — adjectives like these dehumanize the enemy, making it easier to justify whatever means are necessary to bring them into advanced, sane civilization.

    Stable, free, honest, good; sanity, the realization of dreams, the achievement of human potential, the exploration of heart and mind — do you really believe that opponents to the war oppose these things? That the opposition is unstable, oppressive, dishonest, evil…? I have to admit it: I tend to think the pro-war crowd are ignorant, irrational, violent, retributive, dishonest, delusional… So I suppose there would need to be some sort of rehumanizing of the opposition on both sides if any kind of open exchange can occur. Or is that just modernism talking?

    Last night I was having trouble getting my comments to post, so I’ll stop here and save further response for a subsequent comment…

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 20 January 2007 @ 8:32 am

  14. sigh….you still haven’t addressed that issue… I did address it — here’s what I said in the post prior to yours: So let’s agree: Saddam was an asshole who oppressed his own people. Would I have considered taking him down based on that rationale? Yes. Would you? You seem not so sure – for you the decision is bundled together with his threat to the rest of the world. I suspect most Americans felt the same way: to go after Saddam just for the sake of the Iraqis and the Middle East wouldn’t have been enough to sell the war. That’s why the WMD argument had to be front and center, portraying Saddam as an imminent and massively destructive threat to America. But let’s move on.

    A secondary but important point: Saddam was not a religious leader. A fascist, yes; an Islamist, no. It’s the main reason he had no ties to Al Qaida. Bin Laden is Sunni fundamentalist, Saddam was a Sunni secularist ruling a majority Shiite population. (Assad in Syria is kind of a reverse image of Saddam: a Shiite secular fascist in charge of a majority Sunni population. Iran is also Shiite; Syria sided with Iran in the Iran-Iraq war.) For Bin Laden, Saddam was counted among the enemy, along with the Saudi royals who are also Sunni and pretty much secular. The present Iraqi government, on the other hand, is explicitly Islamic. With Saddam out of the picture, the Sunni fundamentalists have a new opportunity in Iraq, at least with their fellow Sunnis.

    I said I would have considered taking out Saddam. Would I have supported the US acting unilaterally? I’d like to have had the chance to see it debated directly, rather than confusing the issue by purposely exaggerating Saddam’s threat to the American people. But let’s say I agreed that no existing multinational body (UN, NATO, etc.) is effective for taking this sort of action. Some of the factors to consider before invading: Do Iraqis have a strong sense of themselves as a united people? Is there a strong base of support within Iraq for establishing a constitutional democracy as opposed to, say, an Islamic theocracy? Do the Iraqis have a history of self-governance to build on? These were the kinds of issues being discussed in Washington before the invasion took place, and the outlook was far from a rosy one. Based on these considerations I would not have supported ousting Saddam militarily, even though he was a ruthless despot. The neocons discounted this sort of sociopolitical thinktankery, contending they could create the desired reality once a US presence was established on the ground.

    But all that is water under the bridge. We’re on the ground and things haven’t gone the way the neocons and the administration expected. The potential remains for a free, peaceful, united Iraq – can we help Iraq fulfill that potential? There is evidence to consider. The initial military conquest was precise, swift, mostly bloodless – that was the high point. Since then little has gone as well as expected. Maybe five times as many people die every day in Iraq compared with conditions under Saddam’s regime, and it’s getting worse all the time. People are routinely imprisoned and tortured, sometimes for years, without any charges being filed or any legal rights. Iraqi public support for the American presence, fairly high at first, has deteriorated gradually and dramatically. Iraq has become more overtly Islamic fundamentalist since we’ve been there. Under Saddam there was no Al-Qaida in Iraq; now Iraq is a breeding ground for Al-Qaida and affiliated terrorists (though they’re responsible for only a small fraction of the violence in Iraq). The infrastructure continues to crumble. More than 3,000 US soldiers have been killed and who knows how many more have suffered terrible battlefield injuries. We’ve spent $400 billion on Iraq with no slowdown in sight. If you want to read something depressing, have a look at the evaluation in the December 2006 bipartisan Iraq Study Group Report.

    So far the Bush administration has exercised pretty much free rein in its dealings with Iraq, consistently ignoring dissenting opinion and outside recommendations. Various new initiatives have been launched; none has shown lasting success. The aforementioned Study Group, commissioned in March by the Republican-majority Congress, sees few viable options for success. What it does recommend most strongly – diplomacy with Iran and Syria, embedding of American troups within Iraqi brigades rather than operating autonomously, systematic drawdown of troop levels to begin soon – Bush has ignored in his new plan. By the way, new Defense Secretary Gates was a member of that Commission.

    What I believe is this: The continued American presence in Iraq is itself a destabilizing force in Iraq and in the Middle East. The American military presence is itself ruthlessly despotic in its dealings with the Iraqi people. Based on prior experience and outside expert recommendations there is no reason to believe that Bush’s new escalation will show any significant positive effect. Based also on prior experience I don’t think the Commission’s recommendations would work even if we implemented them.

    That’s more than enough for now. I’ll hold my policy recommendations for later.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 20 January 2007 @ 12:21 pm

  15. Primitive, barbaric, insane — adjectives like these dehumanize the enemy, making it easier to justify whatever means are necessary to bring them into advanced, sane civilization.

    Stable, free, honest, good; sanity, the realization of dreams, the achievement of human potential, the exploration of heart and mind — do you really believe that opponents to the war oppose these things? That the opposition is unstable, oppressive, dishonest, evil…?

    Stability and instability are non-moral terms, as far as I’m concerned. To say that Iraq is unstable is not a denigrating term. Cultures and societies necessarily experience cycles of stability and instability. Destabilizing periods are often cleansing periods. Periods of revolution meant to re-introduce forgotten moral values, and to bring about balance.

    Do I believe in evil people? Yes. Do I believe in good people? Sure. Do I believe that the opposition is evil? Yes and no. I believe there are people who are pure evil. Whose only goal is their own power and control. The Stalin, Hitler types. They are delusional. There are also those who are drawn to such people because of various reasons: ideology, repression, oppression, brainwashing, etc. The reasons vary considerably. The point is that in Iraq I think there are those who oppose the US because they are evil and delusional. There are also those who want the greater good and sincerely believe that the west is evil.

    The obvious answer is dialogue and discussion. However, how is that going to happen if the evil/delusional people still call the shots? Is it really all that wrong to talk about “evil”? To say that genocide is morally wrong and reprehensible? Or that raping a man’s wife is “evil”? Even though many things about the Iraq situation may be ethically difficult to wade through there do seem to be some clear cut, no brainers. You disagree?

    Iraq is destable right now. The hope from all of those of us in the west (on both sides of the issue) is that at some point some form of government will be in place that allows for dialogue and open thought on the part of the average citizen. Freedom. We just disagree, perhaps, on whether or not the present administration is going to bring this about. But this freedom was certainly lacking prior to our intervention, wasn’t it???

    Time will tell if the Bush plan of escalation will achieve the above goals. I think we will just have to wait and see.

    Like

    Comment by Jonathan Erdman — 20 January 2007 @ 4:20 pm

  16. My advice to Bush? Cut and run, baby. Things are bad, but there’s nothing you can do to make it any better. When the cure is part of the disease, it’s time for the doctor to go home. Is this just giving up? No: sometimes the best thing to do is to stop doing.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 21 January 2007 @ 2:38 pm

  17. I will immediately forward your advice on to the White House!

    Like

    Comment by Jonathan Erdman — 22 January 2007 @ 1:05 pm

  18. I was going to suggest you not do that, for fear I’d get profiled as a potential terrorist and not be allowed on an airplane going to the States. When we returned to America a year and a half ago our German friends warned us not to speak too critically of the Administration’s policies for fear we would get in trouble. We were amused at the paranoia, but then we realilzed their circumstances. Both had been children in Germany during Hitler’s reign. She lived in the American sector of Berlin after the war, and apparently the Americans were fairly brutal in their dealings with the populace. And he lived his whole life in East Germany, where you did not voice dissent, period. So sure, go ahead, inform the President of my recommendations.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 22 January 2007 @ 2:57 pm

  19. We have this weird public aversion to “cut and running” in Australia. Yet oddly, its what we have done in simply every conflict. I think as far as Iraq goes.. our work is done. time for all of us to leave.

    Ivan

    Like

    Comment by Ivan — 26 January 2007 @ 8:16 am

  20. I’d forgotten that Australia is caught in this morass too. I agree: it’s time to go home. And happy Australia Day! I just read about it on the internet — sausages and beer sound good and it’s only 10 am here.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 26 January 2007 @ 10:26 am

  21. Thanks Man!! Ktismatics, related to the war on a noun, had you heard of or followed the story of an Australian guy by the name of David Hicks? I have been on a mission to save him. I have never been politically motivated in my life before, I write and send out 3 or 4 letters per day to various politicians over here. If you get a moment, have a look at this guys story.

    Ivan.
    Saluting the flag.

    Like

    Comment by Ivan — 28 January 2007 @ 10:52 pm

  22. I just read a summary of David Hicks’ situation. Guantanamo is a disgrace. I read recently that more than half of the detainees from Afghanistan and Iraq have been returned to their home countries without ever being charged, and that nearly all of these returnees were released within 48 hours. At least in Hicks’ case the US has made specific allegations, but as we’ve seen, allegations aren’t the same as proof, and 20 unsubstantiated allegations are no stronger than 2.

    I’m glad you survived Australia Day without being swallowed by a shark.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 29 January 2007 @ 4:54 am

  23. swallowed by a shark? I came this close >

    Like

    Comment by Ivan — 29 January 2007 @ 7:39 am

  24. We have an investigative Journalism show called 4 corners. Its far from “light weight”. They followed Hicks path and interviewed people at the various camps he was in. Their verdict was he is innocent. They don’t often make statements like that. They surmise Hicks is in there for being “white” its the chance the US has of showing the world justice evenly applied for the benefit of the Saudis. The shame is Hicks has been in a cell smaller than a bathroom on his own for 5 years. No books, No TV, No letters, No radio, Not even regular diplomatic or legal visits. Can you imagine, solitary for 5 years in an above ground dungeon with the lights never going off? Apparently there are many people developing all kinds of Psychosis (Including David). To say I am incandescent with rage is quite an understatement.

    Ivan

    Like

    Comment by Ivan — 29 January 2007 @ 7:45 am

  25. We figured maybe shark-swallowing was part of the Australia Day festivities: go to the beach, drink beer, first one swallowed by a shark wins.

    The US treatment of Hicks sounds more like injustice randomly applied. For the Bush administration to circumvent Geneva and its own laws of due process seems like a criminal offense.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 29 January 2007 @ 8:05 am

  26. mt thoughts exactly.

    We had one guy who was spat out by a Shark on the day. He is a minor celebrty now.

    Like

    Comment by Ivan — 29 January 2007 @ 10:49 pm

  27. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/its-like-a-nazi-camp-hicks/2007/01/30/1169919319298.html

    John,

    Story out of our main Sydney broadsheet. If you have a moment give it a once over? Its quite unbeleivable.

    PS Man spat out by shark now has an agent. Right out of one set of jaws and into another.

    Like

    Comment by Ivan — 30 January 2007 @ 11:58 am

  28. What possible tactical benefits can there be in torturing this poor guy other than providing sadistic kicks to the jailers?

    Maybe I should include in my inquiries to literary agents that I was once swallowed by a shark?

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 30 January 2007 @ 2:52 pm

  29. I find the news quite detressing.

    If you can get “Shark” in there somewhere its got legs.

    Your a Psychologist.. Dr Phill good/bad ?

    Like

    Comment by Ivan — 30 January 2007 @ 11:11 pm

  30. Dr. Phil? Heard of him, never seen him. He’s on Oprah, right? Never seen her either. That’s why they kicked me out of America. Do they translate the program into Australian?

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 31 January 2007 @ 7:38 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: