The Coalition of the Unnoticed While working in Korea, the streets of Itaewon are often teeming with U.S. soldiers. I wasn't suprised that a many of them were black, but I was surprised that I heard so much Hausa, Igbo, and Yoruba being spoken. In a conversation with one of them, I found that he was serving in the army as a means of obtaining his green card so that he could live and work in the United States. It seems that many would-be immigrants from African countries are willing to risk being shot or blown up in order to get a shot at living in America. After seeing the wretched lives many Nigerians are faced with, I might make the same choice if I were in their shoes. The question I've been pondering for the past few months is "what role do these men and women play in the war in Iraq". According to a Russian military analyst as quoted in an Indian newspaper, a largely unnoticed one... "'Official statistics do not include casualties among non-U.S. nationals who sign up to serve in the American armed forces in order to get a U.S. `green card.' According to reliable information the share of non-Americans in the U.S. force in Iraq may be as high as 60 per cent,' the source said. 'The real number of U.S. losses may be as high as 2,000 casualties and up to 12,000 wounded,' the military diplomat said". Judging from my firsthand observations, this seems like a credible report. I've yet to hear of any news reports of Africans fighting and dying in Iraq for the United States, but I know for a fact that many have been deployed. Do you think their names have shown up in any press releases? If they have, I haven't seen them, have you? Don't you think that, if the pentagon has deployed foreign nationals, they would most likely deploy them to the most troublesome areas, knowing that the fallout from their deaths would be less politically damaging to their public relations? Is this occurring? I think it's more than likely, and it's time for the media to start asking the question. Uncounted troop deaths contribute to the fog of war. They create the impression that the conflict is less intense than it actually is. If the report is correct and we actually have over 2,000 killed and 12,000 injured, that's almost a ten percent attrition rate...How would that compare to past wars? My suspicion is that a ten percent attrition rate would indicate that we're still in the midst of "major combat operations".

Resuming Transmissions I'm a ten-page paper away from returning with a vengance to this Shameless scene. In the meantime, Michael Moore doesn't need me to defend F9/11. He has the WAR ROOM. Visit the War Room You could also read a banned book. Check out the FORBIDDEN LIBRARY, where scandalous tomes like "My Friend Flicka" can be previewed. Visit the Forbidden Library Sigh. Chri$$topher Hitchens has unleased his forked tongue in defense of exposing undercover agent Valerie Palme. The man has no shame. Read it and weep for the once-respected author of "The Trial of Henry Kissinger". Read Chris' Slate article

A Damning Indictment After viewing 9-11 twice and reading many reviews pro/con, I believe that Michael Moore has led his ideological opponents into a trap. His detractors are currently complaining about the quality of the cheese in the trap and not watching their heads for that sharp metal bar. Moore makes several assertions that his detractors have pounced upon, to their own undoing. First of all, he asserts that the Bush family has benefitted from Saudi patronage to the tune of 1.4 billion. Ludicrous, his detractors say. There is no way that the Saudis could have given that much to the Bush family--and besides, that's over a period of many years...The lounder the objection to the statistic, the more relevant the claim. See how it works? The charge can't be dismissed categorically. The Saudis have given gobs and gobs of money to the Bush family and its associates over the years, and in the process of addressing the 1.4 billion figure, detractors have to resort to citing a lesser figure, which wouldn't discount the theory that the Saudis have given gobs and gobs of money to the Bush family and its associates. In fact, considering the anticipated backlash, it's possible Moore underestimated the patronage of the Saudis. I guarantee you that you will never see a republican quote an actual figure of how much the Saudis have contributed to the Bush family and its associates. So what is the default approach...Moore is a LIAR! Boycott his film! The film was a damning indictment of the president and the media that turned a blind eye to his incompetence. I remember being dismissed as a conspiracy theorist when I first argued that Bush did nothing for seven minutes after being informed that the second tower was struck. My advice to Moore detractors is to watch your backs. Like a successful chess player, Moore plans a move ahead. In the future, I will come to the aid of Mr. Moore and eviscerate other so-called journalists in the same manner I bitch-slapped the preposterous Christopher Hitchens in a recent rant.