text:
- Font:
- +
- -
Sunday, August 28, 2005
Guests: Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad U.S. Ambassador to Iraq;
General Wesley Clark (Ret.) Fmr. NATO Supreme Allied Commander - Europe;
General Wayne Downing (Ret.) Fmr. Commander-in-Chief U.S. Special Operations Command;
General Barry McCaffrey (Ret.) Fmr. Commander-in-Chief U.S. Armed Forces Southern Command;
General Montgomery Meigs (Ret.) Fmr. Commander, NATO Stabilization Force Moderator/Panelist: Tim Russert - NBC NewsThis is a rush transcript provided for the information and convenience of the press. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Mr. Tim Russert: Our issues this Sunday: Iraq, political violence and deaths surge. This morning, an announcement of a draft constitution, but will all sides accept the document? And a majority of Americans now say the war was a mistake as demonstrations build at home. With us, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad.
Then insights and analysis from four retired military generals: General Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied commander, Europe; General Wayne Downing, former commander in chief of the U.S. Special Operations Command; General Barry McCaffrey, former commander in chief of the U.S. Southern Command; and General Montgomery Meigs, former commander of the NATO Stabilization Force. The war in Iraq, where do we go from here?
But first, this was the scene just hours ago in Baghdad, an announcement of a new Iraqi constitution. The Shiites in the south, the Kurds in the north have both expressed their support. But what about the Sunnis? Earlier this morning, I asked the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, whether any of the 15 Sunni negotiators had signed the draft constitution.
Amb. Zalmay Khalizad: Later today, there will be a ceremony hosted by the president and I understand from the president that there will be a significant number of Sunni members of the constitution commission who will be there.
Mr. Russert: You said on this program just two weeks ago, "...it's very important that the Sunnis participate in the political process. Without them participating, the insurgency will have a substantial base of support." Are you confident that the Sunnis will vote for this constitution before October 15 and it will pass?
Amb. Khalizad: Well, that is the real test, whether they will vote for it in large numbers or not. If the Sunnis do vote for it and approve the constitution, the constitution is not stopped, then it will be a national compact and it will help with the counterinsurgency strategy and with the development of a joint road map for the future of Iraq. And if they don't, then it will be a problem, but we will have to wait and see.
Mr. Russert: Mr. Ambassador, let me read for you and our viewers this morning something that exists in this draft constitution. Islam is the official religion of the state, and it is a main source for legislation. No law can be passed that contradicts the fixed principles of Islam's rulings.
Do you believe that the 1800 American men and women who have died in Iraq died for the creation of another Islamic republic in the Middle East?
Amb. Khalizad: No. The words that you read are exactly the same words that were in the constitution of Afghanistan which we celebrated. And also do not forget that immediately after what you just read, there are two other requirements that the draft mentions, one, that no law can be against the practices of democracy and also that no law can be in violation of the human rights enshrined in that constitution. What you have, Tim, is a new synthesis between the universal principles of democracy and human rights and Iraqi traditions in Islam. And in that, it is an agreement, a compact between the various communities and it sets a new paradigm for this part of the world, a reconciliation, a synthesis between the various forces and tendencies that are at work here in Iraq.
Mr. Russert: As you well know, some secular Iraqi leaders disagree with you in terms of the effect of the so-called Islamic influences. This is how The New York Times reported it on Wednesday. "Secular Iraqi leaders complained that the country's nearly finished constitution lays the groundwork for the possible domination of the country by Shiite Islamic clerics, and that it contains specific provisions that could sharply curtail the rights of women. The secular leaders said the draft contains language that not only establishes the primacy of Islam as the country's official religion, but appears to grant judges wide latitude to strike down legislation that may contravene the faith. To interpret such legislation, the constitution calls for the appointment of experts in Shariah, or Islamic law, to preside on the Supreme Federal Court. The draft constitution, these secular Iraqis say, clears the way for religious authorities to adjudicate personal disputes like divorce and inheritance matters by allowing the establishment of religious courts, raising fears that a popularly elected Islamist-minded government could enact legislation and appoint judges who could turn the country into a theocracy. The courts would rely on Shariah, which under most interpretations grants women substantially fewer rights than men."
Amb. Khalizad: Well, let me say several things on each of the points that you've raised. One with regard to women first. This constitution, this draft, recognizes equality between men and women before the law and disallows any discrimination. It also disallows violence in the family. It encourages women's political participation. And it grants a 25 percent minimum women's representation in the National Assembly.
With regard to family law, which is a controversial article, it recognizes the freedom of choice, that people can choose which law, whether secular or religious, can--will govern their personal matters having to do with marriage, divorce, inheritance. This is no different than what is the case in Israel.
With regard to the role of the Supreme Court, I think your comments reflected an earlier draft. The current draft does not establish a separate constitution review court but gives the responsibility to the Supreme Court here and it doesn't call for Shariah judges. It calls for experts in law, which includes expertise in Islamic law, but also expertise with regard to democracy and human rights, to be represented in the Supreme Court and it allows the next parliament to legislate on that.
Mr. Russert: So if a Shiite man decides to bring his wife to a Shiite religious court, you believe that woman will have equal protection?
Amb. Khalizad: Well, first, exactly how this will be done will be regulated by law. What the constitution says is that it's freedom of choice. And it directs the next legislator to regulate. What I've heard from the conversations that we've had with various members of the commission is the concern that if someone was of strong faith and wanted to go to a religious court to get an affair settled, he should not or she should not be disallowed from doing that by the state. But how they will do it exactly, that will depend on the legislature.
I have encouraged many groups who have concern about this that they ought to make this a campaign issue and run against ideas that they find unacceptable with regard to what their legislation might be. This is a living document, as all constitutions are, Tim, and as Iraq evolves and changes, this constitution will also change and adapt to the circumstances. Our own Constitution, as you know, had to change in order to remain relevant. And this will be the case with Iraq as well, as it will be the case with other countries. Constitutions are not just one-time documents. To be relevant, they will have to adapt.
Mr. Russert: Are the Shiite clerical leaders closer to Iran or the United States?
Amb. Khalizad: Well, they know that there are differences among them on this. There are Shiite clerics that are hostile to the United States and there are Shiite clerics who want to have a good relationship with the United States. I think talking about millions of people and talking about thousands of clerics it's difficult to group them and characterize them with sort of one kind of characterization. Some are close to Iran; there is no doubt about that as well. Iran is seeking to influence developments here. Some of the clerics who were opposed to Saddam Hussein were based in Iran. Iranians assisted them. So there is an Iranian influence. There's no question about that.
Mr. Russert: The president has said that American troops will stand down when Iraqi troops stand up. How many Iraqi troops do you believe are now fully combat-ready and capable of replacing Americans on the front lines?
Amb. Khalizad: I think that the number of Iraqi forces that can operate entirely independent of the United States are not very large. But the number of Iraqis that are participating in combat with differing degrees of American support is very large. And, of course, over time, more and more Iraqi forces will be able to do things without the United States. But the fact that they are participating in the combat, even with the help of the United States, is a step in the right direction. And, of course, the ultimate goal is to have Iraqis taking care of Iraqi security. And it's not only the question of numbers, it's not only the question of the quality of the force, but also these sources have to be trusted by all Iraqi communities. Building institutions such as army and police and a judicial system, these are not easy things to do.
Mr. Russert: Finally, do you expect an uptick in the violence in the insurgency between now and October 15?
Amb. Khalizad: Well, of course, as you know, the insurgents have declared war on the constitution, and they have declared war on the election. So I will not be surprised if they increase violence. They go after people who support the constitution. I understand the problems particularly with regard to the Sunnis who are facing intimidation and worse. They face difficult choices, a lot of pressure. But it is time for them, for the interests of their people, to join the political process. Not everyone loved every article of this document. Not everyone is totally satisfied. But there is enough in this constitution that meets the basic needs of all communities and for Iraq to move forward. But I do expect, Tim, that the terrorists and extremists will try their best to intimidate people, to prevent them-- those who support the constitution from voting and to encourage opposition to this draft.
Mr. Russert: Mr. Ambassador, we thank you very much for your views. Be safe.
Amb. Khalizad: Well, thank you, Tim. All the best.
Mr. Russert: Coming next, more on the war in Iraq. An in-depth military analysis from four retired generals, Downing, Meigs, Clark, and McCaffrey. They're next right here coming up on MEET THE PRESS.
Mr. Russert: A military assessment of the war in Iraq with four retired generals, after this brief station break.
Mr. Russert: And we are back.
Generals, welcome all. General Clark, let me start with you. You just heard our ambassador and there are wire reports now the Kurds, the Shiites say this is a good constitution. The Sunnis, apparently at this point, don't want any part of it. What now?
Gen. Wesley Clark: Well, I think it has to be worked in country. I think there's a chance that this can be worked out. It's a political process. And that's the process we want. We've got a choice. Are we going to go forward and try to make a political process work or are we going to let it disintegrate into a civil war? And a lot of it does depend on American leadership, whether we like it or not. And the ambassador is over there. He's the man on the point and he's got to do it.
Mr. Russert: What happens if the Sunnis do not support this constitution?
Gen. Clark: Well, it depends on the significance of that lack of support. It may be dissolved over time. It may be that it crystallizes a Sunni political operation that empowers them and lets them get greater bargaining leverage. Maybe the constitution gets modified over time or maybe it breaks up into civil war. All of that's in play.
Mr. Russert: General McCaffrey, there's been a lot of discussion about the president's comments about when the Iraqi troops stand up, the American troops stand down. You just heard the ambassador saying there are very few combat-ready Iraqis who could replace American troops on the front line. Senator Joe Biden, a Democrat from Delaware, said there are about 3,000 in his estimation, after 28 months of the war. What is your sense? How many Iraqi troops are there? And when will there be enough Iraqi troops so Americans can come home?
Gen. Barry McCaffrey: Well, Tim, to be honest, I'm reasonably optimistic about this. I talked to General George Casey in country and Dave Petraeus, the guy who's actually in charge of trying to build the Iraqi security forces. My judgment is today there's probably 110 battalions fielded, probably 36 of them are capable of taking a lead in active operations. But most of them are out there somewhere in the streets or in the rural countryside. They're a huge factor, and by next summer they're going to be very important. Now having said that, the key is not training, equipping, and deploying Iraqi security forces. It's getting a government for which they're willing to fight and die. That's more troublesome. That's more non-linear. But I actually believe that will probably happen by next summer also.
Mr. Russert: So what's the hard number?
Gen. McCaffrey: Well, you know, you can say the hard number is 182,000. But more likely you've got 36 Iraqi battalions right now that are capable of fighting engagements on their own.
Mr. Russert: How many per battalion?
Gen. McCaffrey: Well, maybe 600, 700. It's a sizable force. It's certainly out in Anbar province. Right now the Marines have got 15 Iraqi army and police battalions. That's a huge force and it's going to start to make a difference.
Mr. Russert: Well, maybe that will help shed some light on the following comments, because I think I'm not alone in being confused by what we're hearing from the U.S. military leadership. This is the front page of The Financial Times on Wednesday. "U.S. General Sees Significant Withdrawal In Iraq. The U.S. is expected to pull significant numbers of troops out of Iraq in the next 12 months in spite of the continuing violence, according to the general responsible for near-term planning. Maj. Gen. Douglas Lute, director of operations at U.S. Central Command, said the reductions were part of a push by Gen. John Abizaid, commander of all U.S. troops in the region, to put the burden of defending Iraq on Iraqi forces. ... `We believe at some point, in order to break this dependence on the...coalition, you simply have to back off and let the Iraqis step forward. You have to undercut the perception of occupation in Iraq. It's difficult to do that when you have 150,000-plus, largely western, foreign troops occupying the country.'"
And then the Associated Press just a week ago: "The U.S. Army is planning for the possibility of keeping the current number of soldiers in Iraq--well over 100,000--for four more years, the top Army general said," Peter Schoomaker." And then this, "The top U.S. military leader in Iraq [Gen. George Casey] said there could be substantial withdrawals of some of the 135,000 U.S. troops in the country as early as next spring. ..."
General Downing, what's going on?
Gen. Wayne Downing: Well, I think what you're seeing here, Tim, is the people in country--this is General Casey, General John Binds--they're weighing out the requirements on how many forces are actually needed. Then it's up to the Marine Corps and the Army to satisfy those force requirements. I think what you're seeing here with General Schoomaker is he knows the future is very uncertain, that we're not going to withdraw troops on any kind of a time line. We're going to withdraw these troops, Tim, based on the conditions.
One of the key conditions is going to be the stand-up of the Iraqi army. As Barry pointed out, 36 good battalions now. A year ago, we only had one. Maybe three times that, maybe 108, 110 battalions ready by next summer. That would indicate that there's a possibility that you could start pulling U.S. forces out at that time. So I think what you're seeing here are these generals playing--each one of them playing their roles. I personally don't think anybody is going to move out of there in any kind of sizable numbers for another year or two years.
Mr. Russert: Keep the current force of 135,000?
Gen. Downing: I think that's what it's going to take.
Mr. Russert: General Meigs, Peter Baker in The Washington Post wrote that the U.S. has given up hope of defeating the insurgency with U.S. forces, that it's going to take the Iraqis to step forward. Robin Wright, in The Washington Post, said that American officials have determined that they cannot defeat but could only diminish the insurgency and we will not leave a day before it's necessary, but it may be a day before it's necessary for us. Is there a sense amongst the military leadership of this country that we cannot, in fact, defeat the insurgency as it exists and that it's perhaps time to start winding down the war?
Gen. Montgomery Meigs: No. Look, the key point here is the Iraqis have to defeat the insurgency. It's the Iraqi tribal leaders and the security forces that are now being produced that have to control this problem. We have to help them. We have to create a safe and secure environment that would allow those units to become capable, but the commanders I talk to that are coming back from Iraq talk about the progress they have made in their sectors. And when I ask senior Army officials who are longtime friends who aren't going to give me a BS answer how we're doing, "Are we winning or losing?" they're saying, "We're winning." But it's slow, hard going in an insurgency. It always has been. It always will be.
Mr. Russert: Are we winning?
Gen. McCaffrey: Well, probably the wrong question to be honest, Tim. I think the real question at hand is: What will happen in the constitutional process? Will there be a successful referendum? Will we get a vote in December? Will there be a legitimate government? If there won't be, we're in trouble by next summer. I personally think we can't sustain this current rate of deployment much longer than by next fall. We've got to draw down the 17 brigades in my judgment probably down to around 10.
Mr. Russert: The fall of '06.
Gen. McCaffrey: The fall of '06. So we'd better be doing pretty well next summer; we, meaning the Iraqis got a government, they got a security force and are starting to pull it together. I think that's likely to happen. This ambassador, Khalilzad, the team we've got on the ground is pretty astute. John Abizaid, you know, our Arabic-speaking CENTCOM commander, I think has a pretty good feel for it. So I don't sense despair inside the U.S. armed forces at all.
Mr. Russert: General Clark, you wrote an op-ed piece for The Washington Post on Friday and I want to cite it and come back and talk about it. "Before It's Too Late in Iraq. The growing chorus of voices demanding a pullout should seriously alarm the Bush administration, because President Bush and his team are repeating the failure of Vietnam: failing to craft a realistic and effective policy and instead simply demanding that the American people show resolve. Resolve isn't enough to mend a flawed approach--or to save the lives of our troops. If the administration won't adopt a winning strategy, then the American people will be justified in demanding that it bring our troops home."
Gen. Clark: Exactly. And it starts with the intent and purposes, the mind-set of the administration when it went into Iraq. This administration went into Iraq as this was the first of a number of states that it was going to knock off, get leadership change in, maybe even move military forces against. They expected to be welcomed as liberators. Then they refused to really construct a diplomatic dialogue in the region. For us to succeed in Iraq, we've got to deal with Iraq's neighbors. You cannot isolate Iraq from its neighborhood. Iraq's neighbors are part of the problem, and they've got to be part of the solution. That means we're going to have to talk to Syria and Iran and Turkey and Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and the best thing to do is to try to get them all together in a step-by-step process so that there can be a regional dialogue. If we can put a regional dialogue together on top of the political process that's going on in Iraq, then maybe we've got a chance. Without that, then it's in the interest of every one of those states to fight inside Iraq for their own interests. So the Iranians pull their faction in Iraq one way. The Syrians and the Saudis work on the Sunnis to do what they want. And this state is getting ripped apart from the outside. If we want to help put that state together, we've got to work with Iraq's neighbors.
Mr. Russert: Why is it in Iran or Syria's interests to help us? Why not let the current status quo continue and they can take full advantage of having a radical Islamic state in Iraq, which is fueled by terrorism who could help destroy the United States?
Gen. Clark: Well, it's up to U.S. diplomacy to find those elements of common interest. And here's the way I'd do it. If you look at Iran, what they want is a Shia-dominated buffer state in Iraq. After all, they were invaded by Iraq once. They see this as an historic opportunity to advance the cause of Shia Islam. That's exactly what the Saudis and the Kuwaitis and other Gulf states don't want. And so between those two diverging points of views, we could pull together the common interests, broker the compromises, work the arrangements, and craft a state in Iraq that meets everybody's concerns in the regions and gives the Iraqi people the kind of self-determination and regional support that they're going to need.
Mr. Russert: Was it a mistake to go into Iraq?
Gen. Clark: Well, I think it was a strategic blunder. First it wasn't connected to the war on terror, at least not to the people that struck us. Secondly, it has proved a huge recruitment tool for al-Qaeda. It's a feed lot for terrorists who want to learn how to fight Americans. We put our American soldiers at risk there. And we're producing terrorists out there. It's a training ground. And seeing American soldiers engaged there just raises the temperature and the blood pressure throughout the Islamic world. So I wish we hadn't done it. But having said that, I still believe there's an opportunity to make the best of a bad situation in Iraq. I don't want to see us come out of there if we can put a strategy together that will leave that region more peaceful and protect our interests and the interests of the other nations.
Mr. Russert: Would Iraq have been more stable with Saddam Hussein?
Gen. Clark: I think we could have worked against Saddam Hussein in a different way. We hadn't exhausted the diplomatic process. We hadn't finished squeezing him. There were lots of different moves we could have put on Saddam Hussein and maintained the focus on Afghanistan, where we've still got significant problems. We really haven't addressed the issues of Pakistan yet. We really haven't worked the whole arrangement of militant Wahabism coming out of Saudi Arabia, the funding, the ideology. If we're going to succeed in the war on terror, we have to succeed first on an ideological basis. It's about persuading people that they don't want to feel this way and that they shouldn't feel this way. It's about changing minds before it's about killing people.
Mr. Russert: All of you have had distinguished military careers, leading men into war. We now have a majority of the American people saying this war is a mistake. General Downing, how long can you conduct a war that is not supported by a majority of the American people?
Gen. Downing: Well, Tim, you absolutely have to have the support of the American people. And the troops that we have in Afghanistan and Iraq right now feel this very, very strongly. They want the support. Quite frankly, I think one of the problems that we're having is that the news media, the opposition to the war are framing this entire discussion in the terms of casualties and casualties only. I think what we don't have is a serious discussion about why you take those casualties.
We're on out there roaming the roads in Iraq and Afghanistan, looking for IEDs to blow up. Everything we're doing in a military campaign, both the U.S., the coalition and the Iraqi forces, are aimed at objectives. And those objectives are to promote the political process, number one, because what we're doing, Tim--for the last six weeks we've been doing this--we're preparing for the elections in the middle of October--I mean, the referendum on the constitution and then the follow one, the election in December to ratify it.
The other things we're doing is we're supporting the economic development of that country and the social development. That's why these military operations are going on. And I really think that it's incumbent upon you and the others in the responsible American press to put the casualties into these kind of context. In other words, what is it that they're accomplishing? I mean, can you imagine us and, you know, it's been quoted out there in the Web, judging the D-Day invasion of Normandy back in 1944 by the casualties that were suffered?
Mr. Russert: But those opposed to the war will say there's no comparison between World War II and Iraq; that one was a war of choice and one was a war of necessity. Those opposed to the war will say that we entered this war on the rationale of weapons of mass destruction that do not exist. Those who oppose the war will say that the number of troops that were necessary to conduct the war and the level of armament was woefully inadequate. And that it is--and that we would be greeted as liberators. None of those things have happened. And it's time to take the troops home because this was a tragic blunder.
Gen. Meigs: Tim, it doesn't matter. We're there. We lanced the boil. We're there. We have Salafist penetration into this situation in a very-hard core Sunni insurgency in a critical point in the Middle East, where if it goes south, if we get a civil war between Sunnis and Shias, international markets will be affected. Our role as an international leader will be affected. We'll have a huge strategic problem. So having pushed Humpty Dumpty off the wall, which I would agree was untimely, the Pottery Barn rule applies. We have got to leave this as a stable situation. We cannot afford to pull out here prematurely.
Mr. Russert: Does that mean putting in more troops, if necessary?
Gen. Meigs: It means doing whatever's required strategically to ensure that we get an Iraqi government and an Iraqi security services that can run a reasonable country that's constituent-based.
Mr. Russert: Do we have more troops to put in there if need be?
Gen. Meigs: If we had to surge troops, we could. It wouldn't be easy but we could, yes.
Mr. Russert: General McCaffrey, you said this two weeks ago: "It's a race against time because by the end of this coming summer we can no longer sustain the presence we have now. This thing, the wheels are coming off it. The American people are walking away from this war." You were involved in Vietnam. How long can you conduct a war without the support of the majority of the American people?
Gen. McCaffrey: Well, remember, I was one that supported the intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan from the start. I thought the president was right when he went in. I still feel that way. Now, having said that, armies don't fight wars, countries fight wars. So without the support of the American people, this thing will come to a grinding halt rather quickly. I think part--I actually agree with Wayne Downing's views. We haven't put the strategic argument in the right context in the public. However, you know, I pulled out a quote, 24 August news conference, Secretary Rumsfeld: "Throughout history there's always been those that predicted America's failure just around every corner." And he goes on to talk about "many Western intellectuals praised Stalin during the period of World War II."
For God's sakes, Tim, you know, we have to have this argument set up in a respectful manner to the American people. We have had 16,000 killed and wounded, $200 billion. It's a very difficult situation. And I think some of the happy talk and spin coming out of the Pentagon leadership is part of the president's problem.
Mr. Russert: Do you believe that Secretary Rumsfeld should stay in his current position?
Gen. McCaffrey: Well, I don't think I have a legitimate viewpoint to express on that thing. I think many people argue that his misjudgments have put us in a serious difficult position. I think the intervention, as Wes Clark says, was badly done. You know, I go over there and look at these soldiers and Marines in combat right now and Navy SEALs. They're the best kids we ever had in uniform--I don't think that's an overstatement in terms of courage and commitment--but they've got to be backed up by the American people, by the Congress and by the Pentagon with more sensible policies and adequate resources and we don't have that right now.
Gen. Clark: Tim, and if I could just--I just want to come in on one thing here. You got us here as military experts. But if you ask any of the top leaders, they will tell you that the country has a responsibility. The president has a responsibility. This administration has a responsibility diplomatically in the region. One of my greatest heartburns with this operation is we dumped the responsibility on our uniformed services over there for doing this. We haven't carried the load diplomatically in the region.
Now, every one of us who serve in top positions knows that there has to be hand-in-glove teamwork between military force, diplomacy, economic power and informational power. This administration has relied excessively on the courage and skill of the men and women in uniform. It doesn't want to talk to the people in Iran. It doesn't want to talk to Syria. It doesn't want to do the hard work and heavy lifting of diplomacy because of domestic politics at home. And I think it's time we said it. You know, I just can't stand to see the sacrifices men and women in uniform and their families make when this administration won't lift its finger the right way diplomatically to give them the help they need to succeed in Iraq.
Mr. Russert: You have this concern about diplomacy. General McCaffrey, you raised a concern about misjudgments made. Anthony Zinni, a man you know well, had this to say--he's the former head of the U.S. Central Command. He says that "Rumsfeld has turned the nation's top military officials into `Stepford generals,' who have acquiesced in a transfer of power from uniformed officers to the Pentagon's civilian managers. ... `We have a very strong-willed secretary. We went into a war where he took away a lot of the prerogatives of the military, made some military decisions on troop strength and postwar planning, and they did not do well to say the least.'"
Do you agree with General Zinni?
Gen. Downing: Well, that's a--that's a--that's a very controversial statement. The people that I know in the building, Tim, in the Pentagon say that Secretary Rumsfeld is a very aggressive, very, very tough leader, but you can talk to him. Certainly there were decisions made during the Iraq War, Tim, that were probably ones that we wish we could--we could relive. You know, when you--when you do a war plan, you probably make 50 assumptions, and if five of them go bad, that's OK, because--providing you recognize you made a bad assumption and you react to it. And I think there's a lot of truth in the fact that we probably wasted the first 12 months in Iraq because we didn't plan for post hostilities. But...
Mr. Russert: But think what you're saying, General...
Gen. Downing: But what is--yeah.
Mr. Russert: Let's just stop right here, because this is very important. We have four military generals around this table. You're saying we wasted the first month. General Clark is saying...
Gen. Downing: First year.
Mr. Russert: First year.
Gen. Downing: Yeah.
Mr. Russert: General Clark is saying that there has been not the necessary diplomatic research. General McCaffrey said there have been misjudgments made. Some people will declare that you're armchair quarterbacks, armchair generals. But you're four men with vast experience and you're coming to some very harsh judgments about the execution of this war and its process.
Gen. Downing: But the fact is, is they've made the adjustments. And by the way, I'm not an apologist for the administration. I'm not a member of the administration, although I was. But they've made the adjustments. I don't agree with Wes on the diplomatic tracks, because I think the diplomatic tracks are being pursued except not in a visible way. The other thing you've got to realize, Tim, is what we're doing in Iraq is a revolution, and one of the reasons this--that we're having trouble with this in this region is if a democratic Iraq arises, it is going to change the landscape of that entire region. It is the most strategic country from the Mediterranean out to Afghanistan. And if we're able to produce this democracy, which by the way I think we are, it may not be an American democracy, but it's going to be an Arab democracy. This is going to be a watershed effect which is going to affect an entire region.
Mr. Russert: It's going to be an Islamic state, by the--by the wording of its own constitution.
Gen. Clark: That's exactly right.
Gen. Downing: There are other Islamic states. Turkey is an Islamic state. Malaysia is an--is an Islamic state. Indonesia are Islamic states. These are all states which are acceptable to us and acceptable to the world.
Gen. Clark: Tim, I'd like to go back there...
Mr. Russert: Who will have--I'll get there. Who'll have more influence with Iraq: Iran or the United States?
Gen. Downing: I do not think it's going to be Iran. And I think one of the things you're seeing with this federation is the ability to protect the minorities of those countries, both Sunni and Kurdish. And one of the things that's lacking from this entire equation, Tim, is trust. This is a country that has no history of trust in any kind of a political process, you know, and we're judging this with 230, 250 years of experience with democracy. This is the first time these people have actually done this and, you know-- and I really think that they will grow into this thing and this constitution, whatever it's going to be. And by the way, it's going to be ratified, and it's probably going to be accepted because the numbers tell you that. I think this overall will be good for the country once they establish trust.
Mr. Russert: Go ahead, General.
Gen. Clark: Two points. First, when generals are given senior command positions and they've had their entire lives and professional education in the military, they're expected to have a body of professional knowledge and character that lets them stand up for what they believe. So we have a principle of civilian supremacy. No one doubts that the secretary of defense is ultimately in charge. He's going to make the right decision or he's going to make the right decision as he sees it. It's up to the generals. If they feel he's making the wrong decision, they fight it. If they feel it's that significant, then they retire or resign from their position. Nobody's done that. So whatever the thrashing around was, they are complicit in that decision, in those decisions. Whether they turn out to have been bad or not, that was military advice.
Now, we've all been in positions where we've disagreed with our bosses, and it turns out, you know, bosses normally don't like that, so it's a pretty unpleasant thing, and you've got to have people of character in uniform at high positions, and then you've got to trust the process. In this case, I don't think the answers that came out of that process were good.
Secondly, with regard to diplomacy, I've talked to members on the NSC staff. I know they're not doing the diplomacy. Going to the Iranians and asking them not to help their side is not the kind of contact I'm talking about. I'm talking about having something like a contact group which we set up in the Balkans at the diplomatic level, at the representational level, in public where you can get nations' interests out on the table, where you can talk about regional issues, including trade and travel, you know, tourism, visiting Najaf, where the airports are going to be. All of these are regional concerns, and they need to be dealt with in an open fashion.
It's not just about cutting off the supply of weapons or the flow of jihaddists, although that's part of it. This administration needs to bite the bullet and say, "Look, we're in a part of the world where there are going to be people that we wouldn't necessarily run their countries the way they're doing it. But they are the governments, and we're going to talk to them even if we don't agree with everything they say." It's up to us find areas of common interest and try to work this.
Mr. Russert: We're at a critical stage in this war by everyone's estimation. And, General Downing, you raised the role of the media. There was widespread discussion about the role of the media in Vietnam, the media lost the war and so forth, but we're in a situation now where Cindy Sheehan, who lost a son, has encamped herself down in Crawford, Texas, is coming to Washington. There are anti-war demonstrations throughout the country. The reconstruction of the country has not occurred on pace. Money that was supposed to be used for reconstruction is being used to help secure the country. General Meigs, General McCaffrey, everybody, we in the media are covering the reality. Are we not obligated to do that even though it may not, in fact, "encourage," quote, unquote, the American people to support the war effort?
Gen. Meigs: Wrong question, Tim. Look, there is a very complicated phenomenon here, and we in the media tend to go to the extremes. We tend to go to the most controversial, the most exciting event. So the problem is, in an insurgency, progress comes from dogged, hard, sweaty, dangerous work. It's very slow business. And it's hard to get the complexities of this kind of an operation into soundbites and above the full paragraphs. It's very difficult work. That is compounded by the fact that reporters down range have a very difficult time getting out of that Green Zone and getting down into the grass roots of what's going on politically. So the frustration I have as a former soldier is I will talk to people who've just returned from Vietnam. And you saw Chris Matthew's "Hardball" program. There are commanders...
Gen. McCaffrey: Iraq.
Gen. Meigs: ...Iraq--there are commanders who believe very strongly that their soldiers have made tremendous progress on the ground in their sectors. Better human intelligence. Better cooperation from Sunnis. Better hit rates in going around and policing up insurgents. Better use of technology to trump what this very innovative enemy is doing. You don't read about these things in the major newspapers that should have a sophistication to cover them. You generally don't get that in the TV media.
Now, yes, absolutely the fourth estate has to cover the problem. It's got to cover the bad news as well as the good, but a lot of the really constructive stories that are coming out of this war never make it above the fold.
Mr. Russert: Is it because, in your mind, that the notion of weapons of mass destruction or major combat operations are over, or many of those things that the media had been told proved to be incorrect?
Gen. Meigs: I think we are all citizens frustrated by the fact that the precepts upon which this war were ostensibly based proved to be wrong. And I think the historians will tear that apart when the proper documents are finally declassified in a decade or two.
Mr. Russert: I want to give you each a minute and explain the best you can, based on all your experiences and judgment, what Iraq will look like one year from now.
Gen. McCaffrey: A pretty good news story. I think you'll have an active vicious insurgency going on in Anbar province. You'll have assassinations and trouble throughout the mixed Sunni-Shia areas. You'll have the economy coming along strong. You'll have some form of government operationally. You'll have a huge Iraqi security force out in the field. And you'll see a drawdown of a third or so of U.S. military forces starting in about another year.
Mr. Russert: But we'll still be at about 100,000?
Gen. McCaffrey: Yeah, probably.
Mr. Russert: What do you see a year from now?
Gen. Clark: Continuing political disagreements, strong insurgency, strong terrorist movement, a drawdown in U.S. forces, an administration that claims success, continuing concerns about the Islamization of the political process in Iraq, growing encroachments on Iraqi sovereignty from neighboring states and continuing efforts as the United States starts to pull out, other nations start to go in. Iraq's on the fault line between Shia and Sunni Islam. And we can't fix that. We've got to help fix it and we won't. I don't see this administration making the diplomatic effort required. So what I see is they're doing a minimalist job trying to put a papier-mache government together and use that with the training of forces and then try to pull out forces here in time for the 2006 elections. I think, you know, the question is five years and 10 years down the line. This would be a government that we won't be--it'll be a state that we won't necessarily be proud of having created.
Mr. Russert: General Downing?
Gen. Downing: Well, Tim, 12 of 16 provinces, which is two-thirds of the country, are going to be peaceful and are going to have great development. I think two of the three Sunni provinces are going to come around. I think Al Anbar province, which is from Baghdad on out to the Iraqi border around Al Qaim, is still going to be a pesthole, though. I think we're still going to have this link of the jihadists coming in from Syria and some of the former Ba'athists using this as a base area. I do think that in another year or 15 months, we're going to be able to start taking the U.S. forces down somewhat, because I think the Iraqi forces are going to be in strength of about 150,000 of both police and army. So I'm very, very positive. And I'm giving you this without any political motive. You know, I'm giving you this as a military analyst. But speaking from the fact that military operations are conducted for larger ends, not for ends of themselves--political, social, economic--I think this thing is going to go the right way.
Mr. Russert: A year from now?
Gen. Meigs: I am pretty much on the same ground with Barry and Wayne. I think that we'll see pol-- halting, difficult, problematic political progress. I disagree that we'll not be proud of the results. I worry that the administration will start perhaps pressuring drawdown numbers, which is why I hate to see round numbers come on the table, and try to get to a premature withdrawal of brigades.
Mr. Russert: Why? Because of the 2006 election?
Gen. Meigs: Well, because wear and tear on the Army costs and the election, obviously. I hope that doesn't happen. I think they're listening to commanders on the ground. And that's the key to this thing.
Mr. Russert: There's been a lot of discussion about the impact, the effect of this war on the U.S. military. They now acknowledge, those who are involved in recruitment, that this is a very difficult recruiting year and perhaps the next several years, not only for the Guard, Reserve but rank and file military. What has the war in Iraq done to the U.S. military?
Gen. Clark: I think it's given the people in the military a chance to really show how good they are. It's built a lot of teamwork. It's hurt. A lot of people have suffered both physically and family-wise. And we're losing junior officers. We're losing NCOs. But I never bet against the United States Army. We've got an incredible group of men and women in that force. They are going to hold with us. And they will be there as long as the country needs them.
Mr. Russert: Is the volunteer Army at risk?
Gen. McCaffrey: No, not at all. I don't think so. I think--I agree with Wes completely. This is the toughest, strongest, bravest Army we've ever fielded. When I say Army--Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard team along with it. Special Operations capability is absolutely phenomenal. The military won't be the cause of failure. Having said that, we're going to damage fatally the National Guard if we try and continue using Reserve components at this rate. Forty percent of that force in Iraq right now is Reserve component. We have shot the bolt. We've got to back off and build an Army and Marine Corps capable of sustaining these operations.
Mr. Russert: That means increase the size?
Gen. McCaffrey: Yeah. Absolutely. And get the incentives out of Congress. You know, thank God, we now hear Senator John McCain, Chuck Hagel, Jack Reed, Duncan Hunter, talking about bringing to bear the resources we need to build an adequate force.
Gen. Meigs: Well, we need to be realistic about this. The Army has to recruit 80,000 people a year. We're going to be short somewhere between 2,000 and 8,000. The Army has moved 30,000 spaces from non-combat to combat. That's a division equivalent--four or five brigade equivalent. That's new units coming out, combat units coming out. The Army's authorized to have 512,000 out until '09. We can't try to build an Army we can't afford and we can't man.
Mr. Russert: That has to be the last word. To be continued. Generals, thank you all for a most interesting, insightful discussion.
And we'll be right back.
Mr. Russert: For more information on today's guests and topics, check out our MEET THE PRESS Web site where you also can download the audio of today's entire program to your computer or MP3 player. The MEET THE PRESS podcast all at mtp.msnbc.com.
That's all for today. We'll be back next week. If it's Sunday, it's MEET THE PRESS.
© 2013 NBCNews.com Reprints


text:
Ok I know I had promised a Risk AI, and it is finished and ready to go, but I think because of the complexity there wasn't enough interest (between 2 websites even), so I am gonna hold onto it for a bit. Anyway, what I do have is a much simpler AI that even beginners may fair well at while still giving a challenge to the regulars ....drum roll please............
Announcing: A Minesweeper AI contest:
1. You are to derive a class from the provided Player class.
2. Please remit by email (littled at gmail) one file .h or .hpp to me with your implementation.
3. You must overide all virtual functions
4. If your implementation crashes my computer or locks it up in an infinite loop you will be disqualified.
5. Entries should be submitted by April 8th 12:00pm EST
6. Winning: The player receiving the highest score wins.
7. Scoring is as follows: 1000 random boards will be created. Each player will play each of the boards. Every square you uncover that is not a bomb, you get 1 point. every time you blow up, you lose 5 points. If you complete a board(uncover all non-bombs) you get 500 points.
8. You may not call srand() in your code.
9. You may not use any tricks to call/read private members of the minefield class
10. A reference to the minefield class is passed to your class in the getMove() call. You can call any public method it has. See code below for available methods.
11. I will post a test framework in a few days, but initially I don't want to distract from the task at hand.
12. FYI: the gridsize/bomb count used is equivilent to the expert level in the windows version
13. More FYI: When instanciating a base class player, it typically scores -200 just randomly picking squares. I have created a slightly better than random player that typically scores around 20000. Both of these will be playing, but should be easy to beat. I might also enter an unofficial advance player if I have time.
14. Even More FYI: Maximum achievable points = 881000, min = -5000, Max with no wins = 375000
15. NEW The first move is guaranteed non-bomb, and because of this, I have revised scoring system.
16. NEW Not really new, but I didn't mention it before. Returning an invalid position or a square that is already uncovered will be treated as a BOMB!
17. The most important rule: Have Fun!!!
Get Code HereCode:Code removed in favor of download of code

subset: commoncrawl


text:
José Graziano da Silva
El Director General se reúne con Organizaciones de la Sociedad Civil
FAO Director-General José Graziano da Silva met today with members of the Coordination Committee of the Civil Society Mechanism for relations with the Committee on World Food Security.
The Coordination Committee of the CSM comprises 41 organizations representing smallholder family farmers, fisher folks, herders, landless, urban poor, agricultural and food workers, women, youth, consumers and indigenous people and 17 sub-regions.
Welcoming Civil Society representatives, the Director-General stressed that, "Civil Society is playing an increasing important role in the work of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS), which will definitely contribute to the overall common goal of ending hunger."
The high- level political discussion between the Director-General and the representatives of civil society took place just a day before the Annual Civil Society Forum at FAO headquarters. Over 200 Civil Society representatives from across the globe will come together to prepare to take part in the CFS.
The Director-General, pointing to the achievements of Civil Society in the work of the CFS, with particular reference to the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security said, "Civil Society played a crucial role in the endorsement of the Voluntary Guidelines and that is a commendable achievement." On the implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines at the local and national levels, he requested civil society's involvement and support.
Turning to ongoing discussions on some key issues on the agenda of the CFS such as Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment (RAI Principles), the Director-General said, "We want a multi-stakeholder dialogue on responsible investments in agriculture and Civil Society's engagement in this process is of paramount importance."
FAO's just-published State of Food Insecurity in the World (SOFI) report shows that nearly 870 million people suffered from chronic undernourishment in 2010-2012 while childhood malnutrition was a cause of death for more than 2.5 million children every year.
The Director-General stressed that "870 million people, or one out of eight, is too much; it is unacceptable to have so many hungry and malnourished people in the 21st century, "all the more so as there are enough resources to feed the world population.
"We need to expand dialogue and cooperation with civil society and social movements towards the development of new models of production, distribution and consumption of food to relieve the pressure on natural resources and eradicate hunger and malnutrition," the Director-General added.
In a subsequent debate representative of civil society raised a number of important issues such as Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment, support to the urban poor and indigenous peoples, implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Land Tenure and suggested ways to enhance FAO's cooperation with civil society at the local and national levels.
Mr George Dixon Fernandez from India, representing the youth constituency, noted the importance of smallholder farmers in food security, declaring: "Mahatma Gandhi said we don't want massive production but what we want is production done by the masses."
"Today I am very happy that you talked about the smallholders and food producers that feed the world," said Mr Lalji Desai, for the pastoralist constituency.
Mr Davinder Lamba of Kenya ,speaking for the urban poor constituency, said, "Despite rising food prices in 2008 affecting the urban poor their problems are not on the global agenda and I appeal to you to work with us on this."
The magnitude of the challenges the world faces to guarantee food security to a growing population requires the collaboration of all the stakeholders including the Governments, international organizations, academia, private sector, unions and civil society organizations.
"FAO is committed to enhancing its collaboration with all stakeholders to defeat hunger and poverty," concluded the Director-General.


text:
As longer life spans and a difficult economy make financial planning that much harder, education is that much more important, according to a white paper by Corporate Insight.
The burden for educating investors falls mainly on financial services firms, according to Corporate Insight, and firms are responding in innovative ways that incorporate multimedia and social media.
Corporate Insight surveyed both insurers and retirement plan providers for the white paper and found they were similarly invested in educating consumers.
Video was one of the most popular methods of educating consumers, especially among annuity firms, according to the report. A video can provide consumers with an overview of a particular product before they dive into prospectuses and fact sheets.
The paper noted that these resources should be prominent and easy to find. Seventy percent of firms surveyed said their videos could be accessed from a "Video" or "Multimedia Resources" link in the main navigation bar on their website.
Half of the survey respondents offer annuity-related videos to consumers, and half offer them on their advisor sites. The most effective videos are brief and organized into "chapters," and incorporate audio and visual aids, narration, and charts and graphs that compare products and features.
The report noted that while there is little distinction between how insurers and retirement plan providers display educational videos, plan providers typically offer a wider range of content like market updates.
Insurers are using social media in multiple ways after lagging behind firms in the banking, brokerage and credit card industries. Social media campaigns serve to educate consumers as well as promote the brand. Polls and quizzes are popular, as are cross-posts of videos on a firm's YouTube channel.
Retirement plan providers, on the other hand, are less likely to use social media sites for education. "While social media icons have been implemented within the static footer of participant sites, leading to the general social media pages of firms, little else has been developed," according to the paper.
The paper noted, though, that retirement plans are chosen exclusively by the sponsor, making large social media campaigns unnecessary.
Similarly, insurers have adopted online games as a way to impart financial education in an engaging way, but plan providers have so far avoided it. Just 17% of those surveyed offered games. Furthermore, "None of the games we've seen are specifically geared toward retirement-related education, and, instead, focus on engaging clients on more general themes," according to the paper.
Product pages that display product information, including historical returns, prices and performance reports in an easily readable format, are another essential way to provide education on an insurer's offerings, the paper found.
Retirement plan providers frequently employ presentations as an educational tool. These are useful when a short video would be inadequate.


text:
There are five international observances this month. This year's theme for the International Day of Cooperatives, "Cooperative enterprises build a better world", ties in to the overal thematic of the International Year of Cooperatives, recognizing the actions of cooperatives in helping to achieve internationally agreed upon development goals, such as the Millennium Development Goals.
United Nations observances contribute to the achievement of the purposes of the UN Charter and promote awareness of and action on important political, social, cultural, humanitarian or human rights issues.
International observances provide a useful means for the promotion of international and national action and stimulate interest in United Nations activities and programmes. For international years and decades the UN Secretary General takes action to establish the preparatory process, evaluation and follow-up procedures.
7 July
International Day of Cooperatives
11 July
World Population Day
18 July
Nelson Mandela International Day
28 July
World Hepatitis Day [WHO]
30 July
International Day of Friendship
The majority of observances have been established by the UN General Assembly and some have been designated by UN specialized agencies.
The Brussels based United Nations Regional Information Centre for Western Europe - UNRIC provides information on UN activities to the countries of the region. It also provides liaison with institutions of the European Union in the field of information. Its outreach activities extend to all segments of society and joint campaigns, projects and events are organized with partners including the EU, governments, the media, NGOs, schools and local authorities.
United Nations Regional Information Centre for Western Europe (UNRIC Brussels)
Residence Palace, Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 155, Block C2,7th and 8th floor, Brussels 1040, Belgium
Tel.: +32 2 788 8484 / Fax: 32 2 788 8485


text:
Cats? CHECK! Singing? CHECK! Singing cats? NOT REALLY BECAUSE CATS CAN'T ACTUALLY SING!
Visit the Cheezburger Blog to read an exclusive interview with Ellen and Andrew, co-creators of a new musical called LOLPERA. "Tell me more," I hear you saying! Well, I surely will:
"Call it 1984 set in a virtual litter box. Call it Brave New World with bad grammar. Just please, please, don't call it Cats."
Also check out LOLPERA, a site devoted to the most vocally talented felines we could find!


text:
New Games
Top Games
All Games
🥇Top UK Mobile Casino Fruity Slots Online | Pay By Phone!
Join the Fruity Slots Mobile Casino NOW! UK Slots Deposit Bonus Online. New Customers Welcome Bonus Package 🏦. Pay by phone/PayPal📱 Casino!
Slot Fruity 🍒 – Top UK Slots Site Online – Best Casino Games!
Enjoy the Fruity Slots Revolution with our Stunning Range of Games!
Register, click and play to join in on our Slot Fruity mobile casino online action. As one of the newest pocket casinos on your phone. Our casino is jam-packed with juiciest games to enter the UK market. Mobile and online players have a unique opportunity to be one of the first to experience mobile casino gambling innovation at its finest. Our keep what you win slots extra spins casino is among the most popular promos around! Play today because our players love our huge mobile, tablet and PC jackpots, and really like our with great welcome bonus packages!
This exciting Mobile Casino is Powered by Nektan and regulated by Gambling Commissions in both Gibraltar and the UK, our players are guaranteed that world-class gaming standards rule the day. The fact that you can play live Roulette online, Blackjack, Slots and enjoy Live Casino on mobile for big money says a lot: Slot Fruity's primary objective is for our players to have FUN!
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Telephone: +44(0)203 457 3251
Live Help
Get your Extra Free Spins Welcome Bonus to Play Mobile Casino & Slots Games Online
The range of Casino, Live Dealer Casino, Scratch Cards, and Slots Games that are available means that you'll definitely be spoiled for choice.
If you're a fan of fantasy or mythology themed casino games, make sure to check out our top slots sensations such as Merlins Millions, Heroic Fantasy, and Medusa. Feel like visiting a bygone era of where time stands still? Then Gunslingers Gold Slot, Jack and the Beanstalk Slot, Mayan Marvels, and Mummy Gold are calling you. Enjoy Luck O' the Irish Slots today and get the best experience. If you're in the mood for something more nostalgic, there are loads of classic fruit machines mobile slots to go wild on. Play these top games now!
Fancy a game of Blackjack, or spinning for up to 35 to 1 odds on our super slick Roulette Phone Deposit casino wheel? There are lots of options for you to choose from… Mobile Casino bonus Blackjack games & slots only begin to round up the list of all options that are available. We are equal, and then some, to Pocket Fruity!
A Live Casino Where Customers Come Back!
When you play at Great Britain's fairest mobile slots casino, you'll notice a huge difference. Fair gameplay, top end customer service with helpful staff, slick interface, awesome promotions, best games around including a cutting-edge Live Casino for mobile, tablet and desktop. Start your Roulette game now!
Slot Fruity Mobile Casino Payments- Deposit using Your Phone Bill
Our ever-growing range of payment methods includes pay by phone and SMS casino options. For UK players we have laid on Boku, and for Swedish players, we recently added Zimpler a Swedish mobile payment service which gives you control over your gaming budget. Add to these easy phone casino billing wallets with the usual; debit card and credit cards, and then Skrill, Trustly, PaySafe, Neteller plus a few others being added right now. It couldn't be easier to get started with your real money account at SlotFruity Mobile & Online Games Casino.
(The minimum amount you can deposit in to your account using Boku is £15, Due to fees incurred here, a fee of 15.00 % will be deducted from Boku mobile deposits. In example a Boku deposit of £30.00 will have a fee of £4.50 applied and your Casino account will be credited with £25.50. We don't charge you to make a deposit using any other payment method).
Mobile Casino with Best in Class Customer Service 24/7 365
Formed by a team based in Great Britain, SlotFruity Mobile Casino is proud to serve our customers with the best possible customer service. We have customer service on hand 24/7 365 days a year. You can contact our call center using the details below.
- Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
- Telephone: +44(0)203 457 3251
- Find our Live Help Link HERE
The UK's Fastest Paying Mobile Casino
Rest assured that all of your funds are totally protected and that we are one of the Fastest Paying Casino in the UK, Regulated by the Gambling Commission under the Gambling Act 2005.
Every time you win, your prize will automatically be credited to your account balance. You can withdraw your mobile or online casino account balance at any time, so long as it is £20 or greater, and you have not made another withdrawal in the past 24 hours. See full T&C Here
Win at our casino today and witness how fast we pay out! Play now at Slot Fruity!
The Best Mobile Slots & Casino Online
Play Mobile Slots at SlotFruity and Win Online!
That's right…Mobile Slot players and desktop players alike Fruity players will be able to make real money deposits to win online using mobile phone credit! Both contract, as well as pay-as-you-go mobile users, can now experience the full benefits of Slot Fruity's casino deposit by phone features. Say " goodbye!" to having to use your credit/debit card details online, and never have to go through the tedious process of using e-wallets and prepaid credit cards if you'd prefer not to.
Fully optimised for Android Slots enthusiasts, iPhone/iPad casino fans and everyone in between, not a single smartphone or tablet user will feel left out. Play our HD phone slots online for free and see for yourself how seamless the gameplay and site navigation is on your device.
Real Money Casino Bonuses – Keep What You Win
Better still, is that Slot Fruity's competitive casino bonuses mean that every real money deposit is well rewarded. Deposit bonuses are an essential part of the welcome package, but the deposit bonuses won't stop there: Regular cashback offers, Happy Hour cash games incentives, as well as regular competitions for exclusive giveaways keep things interesting.
So what are you waiting for? Get started with whatever tickles your fancy, and feel free to contact our super-friendly Customer Support Team if you've got any questions. There's only 1 real obligation that playing at here entails: Have fun and join Slot Fruity's online gambling adventure designed to take you on a wild ride!


text:
Sous Vide Turkey Breast (or Thanksgiving…Round Two!)
We had a wonderful thanksgiving…including our four cranberry sauces…with 15 friends at 3 different houses. The evening was wonderful and the food delectable including two different turkeys (one smoked) and incredible sides and of course dessert! Apparently, that just wasn't enough for us. Since we had quite a bit of cranberry sauce left…we decided to do Round Two (downsized a bit!) on Sunday.
First…let's give credit where credit is due…
This is our official Thanksgiving feast. Complete with turkey, brussels sprouts, beets, green beans, salad, two gravies, mashed potatoes, sweet potatoes and yams, four cranberry sauces and of course, stuffing. My plate looked like this…
I may have overdone it…but that is what thanksgiving is for!
Now for round two!
We purchased a (fairly) reasonably sized bone-in, skin-on turkey breast to sous vide.
We dried it off, seasoned it well with salt and pepper, placed it in a vacuum bag, added a few pats of butter and a bunch of fresh thyme, and sealed it up.
Before getting started, we turned on our thermal-immersion circulator to get it up to the temperature that we wanted – 149º F. Once it was ready, we dropped the turkey in and set a timer for 2 hours and 30 minutes.
We were so taken by the stuffing that our friend Paul made…we just had to remake it. I may have mentioned in the past my issue with soggy foods – and stuffing generally falls into this category…however, I had trouble resisting this one…it has green olives! Let me repeat…it has GREEN OLIVES! What's not to love! We had no trouble finding the recipe since it was in one of the recent Bon Appétit and is all over the internet! Since we followed the recipe exactly (making only a half batch), I won't write out the entire recipe here…all you need to know is that it's called Italian Mother-in-Law Dressing and is very good!
I cooked up some chard, then onions, dried out some bread, chopped some olives, toasted some pine nuts and tossed it altogether with some rosemary and thyme!
We had one lonely sweet potato on hand, so I diced it up, steamed it a bit and then added some butter and fresh thyme.
The stuffing went into a buttered casserole dish and had the final broth and egg mixture drizzled over the top before getting covered and placed into the oven.
Cleo tends to be very interested in what we're doing in the kitchen and has become quite bold as of late and thinks this perch on the couch is just perfect for her. I'm not sure I agree!
Apparently I did not take any photos…but we also had some mashed potatoes cooking. Rather than mashing, we used a food mill that was handed down from my parents. I'll be honest, it has been a while since I have made mashed potatoes that good! They were so smooth and of course, it doesn't hurt that they are really just a vessel for butter, cream and salt!
Two and a half hours later, we pulled the turkey out of the water bath.
Once you open the bag, discard the thyme and remove the skin (we saved this and cooked it up a day or two later…it crisped up nicely!). Once the breast was removed from the bone, I cut slices and drooled a bit.
We set the table and opened a lovely rosé from Frog's Leap that we purchased on a visit in April to Napa.
And then it was time to plate it up…oh, we also had gravy…and don't worry…all four cranberry sauces were on the table ready to be enjoyed!
The turkey was very moist, tender and flavorful. Until we are serving more than just two of us at our house…the sous vide option is just too easy and dependable to not do. This is definitely just the first of many sous vided turkey options!
Oh…I almost forgot. Let's discuss cranberry sauces! I personally loved the chutney. I think it has found a way into my recipe box for future thanksgivings…it is savory and a little different while still maintaining that tart flavor that you want from your cranberry sauce.
At our feast, the chutney and the raw orange relish (a Connelly family recipe) were the favorites. The standard cranberry sauce (another Connelly family recipe – Thanks Dad!) also had its followers. But I have to say, I know the Mama Stamberg's recipe is beloved by many an NPR listener, but it was just not a hit. Perhaps there were too many options!
I hope you all enjoyed an abundant Thanksgiving and were surrounded by friends and family. Anyone else have more than one thanksgiving?


text:
Pac-12 Who's Going WherePosted by Connor Pelton on March 13th, 2012
Here's a look at each Pac-12 team's postseason capsule, by order of each team's tip-off. Enjoy!
Who, When, Where: vs. LSU (18-14) in Eugene, Oregon, NIT First Round, 3/13, 6:30 PM PDT, ESPN
First Up: What the Tigers lack in scoring they make up in rebounds and points in the paint. LSU averages 37 RPG and they are led by big men Justin Hamilton and Storm Warren. What makes the Tigers dangerous is their ability to adapt to a certain style. They will play at the pace you want the game at, and then beat you with your own style.
Best Case Scenario: With the way Oregon has been playing of late (Pac-12 Tournament notwithstanding), the Ducks can easily make a run in this tournament. With players like Devoe Joseph and Garrett Sim that are able to create and knock down their own shots, Oregon should be able to beat LSU in the first round. After that things get much more tough, but I can't see the Ducks losing a "best case scenario" game until they would likely meet either Seton Hall or Arizona in the championship.
Worst Case Scenario: Even if the Ducks do not play well against the Tigers, home-court advantage should pull them through to the next round. However, they would likely have to travel to Dayton in the second round, and the Flyers pose matchup problems all over the court for Oregon. Expect an Oregon-Dayton matchup to be much like last Thursday's Colorado-Oregon game. The Flyers stingy defense and potent offense should build a large lead early on against the Ducks, and while Oregon battles to cut the deficit to three with four minutes left, it is never able to come all the way back after a long road trip and an emotinal comeback drians all of its energy.


text:
Texas A&M University researchers say controversial "stand your ground" laws have increased the number of murder and manslaughter cases – rather than serve as a deterrent to crime.
The study, which looked at 23 states that have passed the castle doctrine laws, comes at a time when many critics say such self-defense statutes encourage vigilantism and escalate violence. At the center of that debate is the case of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager who was fatally shot in February in Sanford, Fla., by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman.
Zimmerman, who initially was not arrested for the shooting, claimed he shot Martin in self-defense, permissible under Florida's Stand Your Grand law that allows people to use deadly force when they feel threatened.
In Houston, a trial is underway that has also raised questions about self-defense laws. Raul Rodriguez, 47, must convince a jury that he was acting in self-defense when he shot his neighbor to death after a noise dispute two years ago in Huffman. In a video recorded that night, he can be heard telling a police dispatcher, "I'm standing my ground here. Now these people are going to go try and kill me."
In their study, Texas A&M associate professor Mark Hoekstra and grad student Cheng Cheng analyzed crime data from 2000 to 2009, finding that murder and manslaughter cases increased between 7 to 9 percent in those states with castle doctrine laws. The castle doctrine term is derived from the idea that people have a right to defend their home or castle using lethal force, if necessary.
The homicide rates in states that had not adopted castle doctrine laws remained steady, the study found.
The study concludes that the laws "do not appear to offer any hidden spillover benefit to society at large."
Hoekstra said it's difficult to determine the reason for the increase, but there are a few possible explanations. He said homicides may have increased because more citizens used deadly force in a self-defense situations, instead of being required by law to retreat or use non-lethal force during an assault or other threatening circumstance. This was likely the intended purpose of the law, he said.
Another explanation could be that the number of homicides increased because force was used in situations that otherwise would not have been violent.
Hoekstra said he and Cheng began their research last fall, before the Trayvon Martin case, and "before everybody started caring deeply about the issue."
He said he was surprised not to see any deterrence in crimes: "I didn't know what to expect."
In the wake of the widely covered Martin slaying, state Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, has vowed to reverse Texas' self-defense law during the 2013 legislative session. In 2007 , Texas altered its own Castle Doctrine law to say that Texans no longer have a "duty to retreat," in the home or elsewhere, before using deadly force in a self-defense situation. Coleman was one of 13 in 2007 who voted against changing the law. It had wide support in both the House and Senate.
In Florida, Gov. Rick Scott has established the Citizen Safety and Protection task force to review that state's controversial law, which has been in place since 2005. On Tuesday, Martin's parents, who allege Zimmerman started the confrontation, testified before the panel. They are planning to present the task force with a 300,000-signature petition asking for the law to be repealed, or reformed to exclude those who initiate confrontations, the Associated Press reports.
The Texas A&M University researchers do not take a position on the statutes, but in the study say that "any evaluation of these laws ought to weigh the benefits of increased self-defense against the increased loss of life caused by the laws."


text:
News item (http://cbs2chicago.com/local/united.computer.glitch.2.1068439.html):
Jul 2, 2009 11:11 am US/Central
Computer Glitch Traps United Flights At O'Hare
All United Air Traffic Stops For Much Of Morning
A computer glitch kept United Airlines planes at the gate at O'Hare International Airport early Thursday. Just in time for the mad rush of travelers headed out for the 4th of July weekend, a computer problem has made it so United Airlines flights cannot leave O'Hare International Airport.
...For most of the morning, one glance at the departure board told you all was not well as United. Rather than "on time," or "delayed," many flight status messages read "computer failure."
Passengers arriving at O'Hare thought the long lines were because of holiday travel. It was actually because the computer glitch, which started at 1:30 a.m., meant they all had to be checked in by hand.
By 9 a.m., hundreds, if not thousands, of passengers, were lined up waiting for news on their flights.
If any of you noticed, this bears an eerie similarity to a modern version of a scene near the end of Atlas Shrugged, when Dagny Taggart, Operating Vice President for Taggart Transcontintental Railroad, has been called to a meeting of top people in government with a handful of "leading businessmen" and "humanitarians", to solve the crisis of the country's rapid economic collapse.
The six men in formal dinner jackets, facing her about the table, were Wesley Mouch, Eugene Lawson, Dr. Floyd Ferris, Clem Weatherby, James Taggart and Cuffy Meigs.
...She felt certain that she had no chance...
The men before her are remarkably like our own leaders.
"As, I think, you will concede, Miss Taggart, there now seems to be no economic justification for the continued existence of a railroad line in
"...even Miss Taggart will, I'm sure, agree that certain temporary retrenchments seem to be indicated, until..."
"Nobody, not even Miss Taggart, will deny that there are times when it is necessary to sacrifice the parts for the sake of the whole..."
Sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice. The drone of their mental functioning.
...It was not an attempt to delude her into believing that they were consulting her, but worse: an attempt to delude themselves into believing that she had agreed. ...They seemed to want her approval, without having to know whether she approved or not.
Not unlike the TARP, with the sub-text of a mafia enforcer, "Take our help, or we'll break your kneecaps."
...She regretted that she was dressed as she was. "It's formal," Jim had told her, "but don't overdo it... what I mean is, don't look too rich..."
Don't let the press know you're flying a corporate jet to
"...business people should avoid any appearance of arrogance these days... not that you should look shabby, but if you could just seem to suggest... well, humility... it would please them, you know, it would make them feel big."
Recall those auto executives on their knees before Congress? Broken kneecaps and all.
"It's a great responsibility," said Eugene Lawson, "to hold the decision of life or death over thousands of people and to sacrifice them when necessary, but we mast have the courage to do it." His soft lips seemed to twist into a smile.
A dirty job, best done by someone with compassion oozing from every pore.
"The only factors to consider are land acreage and population figures," said Dr. Ferris in a statistical voice, blowing smoke rings at the ceiling. "Since it is no longer possible to maintain both the Minnesota Line and the transcontinental traffic of this railroad, the choice is between Minnesota and those states west of the Rockies which were cut off by the failure of the Taggart Tunnel..."
Or the banking system.
"...as well as the neighboring states of
Pretend what's being "scuttled" is the thousands of automobile dealerships ordered closed by Obama's "Car Czar". Think of the sacrifice of businesses built up over decades, who suddenly had their net worth reduced to zero at the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen – for no reason other than to sacrifice them. Why? To preserve the remaining dealerships. Which ones? Who gets to live and who gets to die? Ask
Obama's communiques seem to run though ABC News these days, and that brings up another parallel. "It's obvious that we should scuttle Grandma rather than give up little Suzy over a third of the continent." Who will get a transplant and who won't? Who will get a cancer treatment and who won't? Who will get a broken kneecap set and who won't? Ask the car dealers.
"I won't give up the continent," said Wesley Mouch, staring down at his dish of ice cream, his voice hurt and stubborn.
It's not so much concern for Grandma as it is about relinquishing a feifdom.
[Dagny] noticed that Clem Weatherby, their technical expert on railroads, was the man of least influence among them, and Cuffy Meigs [the explicit thug of this group – think 'Rahm Emanuel'] --of most.
... Meigs sat sprawled in his chair, with a look of patronizing tolerance.... She noticed that neither Jim nor Mouch resented it. They seemed to welcome the authority of his assurance; they were accepting him as their master.
Jim Taggart and the CEOs of every major corporation in
"We have to be practical," Dr. Ferris kept saying. "We have to be scientific."
"I need the economy of the country as a whole," Wesley Mouch kept repeating. "I need the production of a nation."
In our own morality play, Ferris can best be represented by James Hansen, the NASA global warming alarmist, and Wesley Mouch is some kind of two-headed siamese twin combining Economic "Czars" Tim Geithner and Ben "Helicopter" Bernanke. (You can't make this stuff up... he once said that if he had to throw money out of a helicopter to save the economy, he would. Welcomd to the
It was no use. [Dagny] said it as many times, with as many details, statistics, figures, proofs, as she could force out of her weary mind into their evasive hearing. It was no use. They neither refuted nor agreed; they merely looked as if her arguments were beside the point.
Kind of how I feel all too often these days. Seen anybody from industry today being consulted in D.C. these days? They go to D.C., alright— but for only two things: orders and favors.
"There's trouble in
Actually, that's closer to the truth than most people realize. Today there's talk of asking for federal money to bail them out; if they don't get it they'll have to print their own money. Think about it. You need your own treasury for that.
Good for
(Turtles are a much more interesting secret society than those damned do-gooding whirly-gigs, the Rotarians — or the oh-so appropriately named "Skull and Bones", the elite group that brings together such like-minded people as John Kerry and George Bush, who camp together under the starlight, wearing togas in front of the campfire and talking about really important matters affecting the fate of nations and free peoples. Really. Look it up.)
"The importance of industry to a civilization has been grossly overemphasized," said Dr. Ferris dreamily...
Who needs money for investing in industry? Who needs industry? We've got to keep the creaking engine of government clunking along so that old jalopy can run us all over.
"...What is now known as the People's State of India has existed for centuries without any industrial development whatever."
"People could do with fewer material gadgets and a sterner discipline of privations," said Eugene Lawson eagerly. "It would be good for them."
A little more of that gruel that feeds the soul till you reach the Nirvana of starvation.
"Oh hell, are you going to let that dame talk you into letting the richest country on earth slip through your fingers?" said Cuffy Meigs, leaping to his feet. "It's a fine time to give up a whole continent—and in exchange for what? For a dinky little state that's milked dry, anyway! I say ditch
Me, too, ever since yesterday, when their Supreme Court allowed a communist weasel like Al Franken to steal an election with thousands of manufactured votes that appeared magically after he lost. Of such things do filibuster-proof majorities and the fate of the world hang.
"...but hold onto your transcontinental dragnet. With trouble and riots everywhere, you won't be able to keep people in line unless you have transportation—troop transportation—unless you hold your soldiers within a few days' journey of any point on the continent. This is no time to retrench. Don't get yellow, listening to all that talk. You've got the country in your pocket. Just keep it there."
I would say that this exactly describes the attitude of White House Chief of Staff Emanuel. And don't allow those Tea Parties to develop into anything threatening.
"In the long run—" Mouch started uncertainly.
"In the long run, we'll all be dead," snapped Cuffy Meigs. He was pacing restlessly. "Retrenching, hell! There's plenty of pickings left in
Maybe even
Then she saw ...the secret premise behind their words. With all of their noisy devotion to the age of science, their hysterically technological jargon, their cyclotrons, their sound rays, [their I-pods and blackberries and I-phones and notebook computers,] these men were moved forward, not by the image of an industrial skyline, but by the vision of that form of existence which the industrialists had swept away—the vision of a fat, unhygienic rajah of India, with vacant eyes staring in indolent stupor out of stagnant layers of flesh, with nothing to do but run precious gems through his fingers and, once in a while, stick a knife into the body of a starved, toil-dazed, germ-eaten creature [emphasis mine], as a claim to a few grains of the creature's rice, then claim it from hundreds of millions of such creatures and thus let the rice grains gather into gems.
There's the real nature of Obama's "evil eye" – not the scowl referred to by Matt Drudge the other day: the indolent stare of a man who feels entitled to rule you, who feels he's entitled to decide the fate of your life, who feels entitled to collect your life's effort to support him in riches.
....what these men knew in their secret, furtive souls... that so long as men struggle to stay alive, they'll never produce so little but that the man with the club won't be able to seize it and leave them still less, provided millions of them are willing to submit—that the harder their work and the less their gain, the more submissive the fiber of their spirit—that men who live by pulling levers at an electric switchboard, are not easily ruled, but men who live by digging the soil with their naked fingers, are... [emphasis mine]....
You have to think hard about this one: the people now in control of
She saw what they wanted and to what goal their "instincts," which they called unaccountable, were leading them. She saw that Eugene Lawson, the humanitarian, took pleasure at the prospect of human starvation—and Dr. Ferris, the scientist, was dreaming of the day when men would return to the hand-plow.
This is exactly the kind of men leading our country right now.
Incredulity and indifference were her only reaction: incredulity, because she could not conceive of what would bring human beings to such a state—indifference, because she could not regard those who reached it, as human any longer.
Ayn Rand is admirably correct in this analysis: the people in Washington, the humanitarians who claim to want to help the "little guy", are mercilessly punishing the producers in their quest to "help" the needy and save the planet and humble
Now I get to the connection to that news story:
"Miss Taggart," said a politely rational, faintly anxious voice—and jerking her head up, she saw the courteous figure of a waiter, "the assistant manager of the Taggart Terminal is on the telephone, requesting permission to speak to you at once. He says it's an emergency."
After the ABC Health Care debatacle, the Cap and Trade Bill, Al Franken's ascension, and Obama's abandonment of
... It was a relief to hear the assistant manager's voice... "The interlocker system is out, Miss Taggart. The signals are dead. There are eight incoming trains held up and six outgoing. We can't move them in or out of the tunnels...
Or through the airport.
"...we can't find the chief engineer, we can't locate the breach of the circuit, we have no copper wire for repairs, we don't know what to do!"
"We don't know whom to call for what sort of permission. There are no rules to cover an emergency of this kind. There aren't even any rules about who's to lay down the rules for it!"
In the age of the "Patriot Act" or Sarbanes-Oxley, or TARP or 27 different economic "czars", no one else does, either.
...she hurried down the passenger platforms, past the huddling, shifting groups of travelers by the motionless trains. She hurried down a narrow catwalk, through a maze of rail, past blinded signals and frozen switches, with nothing but the beat of her satin sandals to fill the great vaults of the underground tunnels of Taggart Transcontinental...
The tower director...understood what she wanted him to do from her first few words... She knew how fully he understood it, from a single glance he threw at her, a glance of indignation and endurance... "Yes, ma'am," he answered woodenly.
...she saw the tower men standing grimly idle [before the broken interlocker].... thousands of electric circuits... an enormous complexity of thought condensed into one movement of a human hand to set and insure the course of a train, that hundreds of trains might safely rush by, that thousands of tons of metal and lives might pass in speeding streaks a breath away from one another, protected by nothing but a thought, the thought of the man who devised the levers. ...
Or the computers of today. Think of those hundreds of inbound and outbound flights that were ground to a halt in
Another parallel can be found in a very old short story by E.M. Forster, "The Machine Stops" (http://brighton.ncsa.uiuc.edu/prajlich/forster.html). A story about a world where people live their entire lives in underground rooms, supported by the "machines" which provide them an automatic source of air and food and all other necessities. Only rarely do they leave to take windowless airships to other places, and most human interaction is via devices like computers. The story is an anti-technology screed about what happens when the machines stop (remarkably, it was written in 1909), but for me, it is a good metaphor about what happens when people become completely dependent on the "machine" of government.
"Call all of your unskilled laborers," she said to the assistant manager, "the section hands, trackwalkers, engine wipers, whoever's in the Terminal right now, and have them come here at once."
"Here," she said, pointing at the tracks outside the tower. "Call all your switchmen, too. Phone your storehouse and have them bring here every lantern they can lay their hands on, any sort of lantern, conductors' lanterns, storm lanterns, anything."
"Lanterns, Miss Taggart?"
"Get going."
"Yes, ma'am."
"What is it we're doing, Miss Taggart?" asked the dispatcher.
"We're going to move trains and we're going "to move them manually."
"Manually?" said the signal engineer.
Let's return again to that news item:
The computer system kept coming up and going down. Agents got in touch with other airports, and checked people in by hand...
Hundreds of flights and tens of thousands of passengers, every one of them checked in by hand. Remember, too, that in an age of almost zero profit margins—the cashing in of regulation, fuel shortages, taxes, unions, and everything else government inspired—United Airlines has been the most aggressive among all the airlines in overbooking flights by sometimes up to 20 or 30 people per flight in order to stay profitable. Can you imagine the complexity of keeping track of all that when your computers break down? No less than Dagny's interlocker:
"Yes, brother! Now why should you be shocked?" She could not resist it. "Man is only muscles, isn't he? We're going back-back to where there were no interlocking systems, no semaphores, no electricity—back to the time when train signals were not steel and wire, but men holding lanterns...
Or "energy efficient" flourescent light bulbs filled with toxic mercury.
"How will we work the switches, Miss Taggart?"
"By hand."
"And the signals?"
"By hand."
"By placing a man with a lantern at every signal post."
"How? There's not enough clearance."
"We'll use alternate tracks."
I'm just waiting till the approach radars and radio communications break down and we have guys standing at the end of the runway waving flags to guide planes to a landing. Won't that be fun? But better than Amtrak.
"How will the men know which way to throw the switches?"
"By written orders."
"By written orders—just as in the old days." She pointed to the tower director. "He's working out a schedule of how to move the trains and which tracks to use. He'll write out an. order for every signal and switch, he'll pick some men as runners and they'll keep delivering the orders to every post-and it will take hours to do what used to take minutes, but we'll get those waiting trains into the Terminal and out on the road—"
I have a vision of all those United ticket agents running back and forth passing handwritten notes to each other like hand grenades at the Super Bowl.
"We're to work it that way all night?"
"And all day tomorrow—until the engineer who's got the brains for it, shows you how to repair the interlocker."
Who is John Galt?
...She could barely distinguish the faces of the men when they gathered at the foot of the tower. ...They stood in silence, not with the apprehensive curiosity of workmen, but with the heavy indifference of convicts.
"...The interlocking control system has broken down. It will now be replaced by human labor. Train service will be resumed at once."
Which brings us to the present.
Then she stopped. It was his eyes and hair that she saw first—the ruthlessly perceptive eyes, the streaks of hair shaded from gold to copper that seemed to reflect the glow of sunlight in the murk of the underground—she saw John Galt among the chain gang of the mindless, John Galt in greasy overalls and rolled shirt sleeves, she saw his weightless way of standing, his face held lifted, his eyes looking at her as if he had seen this moment many moments ago.
The man who said he would stop the motor of a world – and did.
Jul 2, 2009 11:11 am US/Central
Computer Glitch Traps United Flights At O'Hare
All United Air Traffic Stops For Much Of Morning
A computer glitch kept United Airlines planes at the gate at O'Hare International Airport early Thursday.
Just in time for the mad rush of travelers headed out for the 4th of July weekend, a computer problem has made it so United Airlines flights cannot leave O'Hare International Airport.
As CBS 2's Ed Curran reports, the computers were back up and running by about 9:45 a.m., but the damage was done.
For most of the morning, one glance at the departure board told you all was not well as United. Rather than "on time," or "delayed," many flight status messages read "computer failure."
Passengers arriving at O'Hare thought the long lines were because of holiday travel. It was actually because the computer glitch, which started at 1:30 a.m., meant they all had to be checked in by hand.
By 9 a.m., hundreds, if not thousands, of passengers, were lined up waiting for news on their flights.
Many passengers didn't have a clue there was anything wrong until they arrived at the terminal.
"I'm wondering why we have all these long lines, and that every single computer check-in is closed," said Mary Hartnett.
Hartnett didn't like the answer. But Mark Majewski, a Las Vegas-bound frequent flyer, took it all in stride after hearing it on TV.
"I heard on your TV station this morning before I left the hotel to come here, that there was some confusion," Majewski said, adding that he would be "about 4 or 5 hours late, but still, nonetheless, we'll be home sometime today."
Nick Forbes got in line at 7 a.m.
"Waited for about an hour and a half, got up there, and they told me the flight's closed," he said.
The computer system kept coming up and going down. Agents got in touch with other airports, and checked people in by hand, or in some instances, with wireless laptops. They also advised passengers to check in at home.
But for a while, even those who succeeded in checking in weren't getting very far. A ground stop program was put into effect for United flights, and none of them left the airport. Flights still arrived.
By around 9:45 a.m., the computers were running again, slowly easing long lines of passengers. It was not clear whether all of the computers were functioning again, but some ticket agents were able to check in passengers, and the self check-in kiosks were working.
The airline said a "travel waiver" has been issued for all flights out of
United passengers were spotted stranded on the sidewalk in front of Terminal 1 at O'Hare early in the morning.
The statement recommended travelers check in on united.com, then use the Web site to check flight information.
Chicago Department of Aviation spokeswoman Karen Pride said she doesn't know how many flights were affected.
O'Hare is a United hub, and the problems have been causing delays at other
A greater amount of traffic than usual is expected at the airports this weekend due to the July 4 holiday.
This is not the first time that a computer failure has caused big problems for United Airlines. On June 20, 2007, a similar glitch grounded hundreds of United flights for at least two hours across the country.
That day, the computers that record a plane's weight, balance and fuel failed. United Airlines planes that had just arrived at O'Hare were unable to move off the tarmac because other United jets were stuck at gate after gate, unable to leave
It took about two hours to resolve the 2007 incident.


text:
Chuck Jordan is one of the most famous car designers of all time and, like all enthusiasts, he loved his Ferraris. The only problem was he was the lead designer for General Motors, not Ferrari, so one day his employees at the GM Design Center decided to have a little fun with his prized Daytona.
Here's the rarely heard story of an incredible car prank.
If you've ever daydreamed about being a car designer, and let's face it, we all have, you've probably mostly been imagining the exciting early and late stages -– the exciting early concept sketches, and the rapture of seeing your design in metal. All that crap in the middle — the measuring, the math, the tedium — that's probably not what you're imagining.
Still, being an auto designer is hard work, and to break that tension pranks get played. Not just pranks, but auto designer pranks, which are even better. Like the one in that photo, played on legendary GM design head Chuck Jordan, the man who brought GM's design into the modern age with cars like the Buick Reatta and before that with icons like the Opel GT and the tailfin-zenith '59 Eldorado.
As Glen Durmisevich posted in a comment about designer Paul Deesen, who worked with Jordan:
Besides all the great cars Paul worked on and his wonderful personality, the most memorable thing about Paul was his infamous mock-ups. Who else would mock up a broken brick wall around a rear end buck push against it as if it crashed through, or remember the door you mocked up in the hall under the EXIT sign that had no door and weren't you one of those who mocked up Chuck Jordan's Ferrari Daytona into a Super Fly car?
It's that Super Fly Ferrari that got my attention– especially since Durmisevich provided the awesome picture you see here. According to an anonymous source, here's what went down:
Long story short: Chuck Jordan loved Ferraris, and Chuck Jordan loved parking them in GM Design garages (and having GM Design staff occasionally tend to them). Doing so meant they were occasionally accessible to the designers...who then would pull stunts like this. Priceless.
Take that, Chuck! How's that sleek Ferrari look with a "heritage" grille, big fog lights, side pipes, and opera windows slapped on it? Ah, that's good. To clarify what exactly was done, it seems that Jordan's Ferrari was taken to the design studio, where it was severely debased by the designers festooning it with the absolute worst crap they had laying around from other projects— the grille, wheel skirts, side pipes, all that, some of it custom made to fit the Daytona, and even painted to match. I don't think anything was permanently affixed. Sadly?
Still, it's all fun until someone snaps and starts to think this looks good. When this happens, we get things like the Blackhawk.
So have fun, car designers, but, you know, be careful.