At least I'm not the only one.

Time Magazine is also asking whether Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession is on the up and up.

On cleaning for company.

"Why do you have a book?"

"I'm going to poop."

"Not in there you're not."

"Huh?"

"I just cleaned that bathroom. There will be no pooping in there."

"Like, ever?"

"That would be nice. Can you do that?"

Khalid Sheik Mohammed confesses.

I guess this confession is seen as a major victory. Maybe I'm cynical, but why wouldn't he confess? The dude has been held at GITMO since 2003. It's either confess and hopefully get death -- or at least a lawyer's attention -- or stay incarcerated, probably in some type of solitary, indefinitely.

The CNN piece says that he confessed to a helluva lot of terrorist attacks. That sets off some red flags for me. I mean, where did he find the time? But more importantly, the article does not indicate that he gave any information to authorities that only someone who planned the attacks could know.

So is this really a victory? Or just a well-timed confession as the public's support of the war in Iraq wanes even more?

Pressing question of the day.

Do we know for certain that clams are actually happy? And if so, how did we come by that bit of information?

Pondering the unknown.

Next person who asks me where we're going next/if we have orders/when we're going to get orders is going to get a swift kick to the babymaker.

(Can you tell our respective families are really beginning to get on my nerves?)

Personal moral views.

A few people have asked me what I think of General Peter Pace's comments about homosexuality.

First off, hats off to those high caliber journalists who misidentified him for most of yesterday as the top *Army* general. You go!

But seriously, I think his comments were careless and stupid. Although as more time passes I abhor and distrust the shiny, pretty exterior of politicians, Pace is in a high enough position now to know that his role does not allow him the luxury of publicly stating his personal moral views. When he speaks to the press, he speaks for the U.S. Armed Forces way before he does any talking for Pete Pace. And as such, he should have known better.

Now do I think he should apologize? We seem to be a country that digs apologies lately. Hell, maybe we can send him to rehab. And the answer is no, I don't think he should apologize.

Pace is not Ann Coulter. Coulter referred to John Edwards as a "faggot" in a way I consider to be a term of hate speech. She needs to apologize (and get over herself, but that's a whole 'nother post). Pace offered up some of his personal moral views. Do I agree with them? No. Do I think he's stuck back in 1917? Yes. But he did not denigrate homosexuals. He did not spew hate speech. He offered an opinion on why he believes "immoral" activity should be limited in the Armed Forces.

(Of course, again, journalists, when he started going off on avoiding immoral activity, why didn't someone take the opportunity to ask him about the thousands of moral waivers that recruiters are being handed in order to allow criminals and other freaks into the military to serve alongside our husbands? Thanks for nothing!)

I do not believe that homosexuality is immoral. And I know a few gays who are serving in the military. Though they are not out, per se, most people know they bat for the other team. But to be honest. Don't Ask, Don't Tell isn't the monster people make it out to be. No one's sexuality should be open and on display in the military, heterosexual or homosexual. It just shouldn't be on the table. When you join the military, you are implicitly asked to leave a lot of your personal life behind, to pack it up neat and tidily in a box to be used later. No one should be exempt from that.

But whatever the case, don't be expecting Pace to resign any time soon. Because as we all know, this is an administration that loves people who stick to their evangelical (and completely irrational) beliefs.

Snugglebunny.

"Where'd you go last night?"

"I slept in Munchkin's room with him."

"Why?"

"He woke up and just needed some cuddling to get back to sleep."

"You never cuddle me when I wake up and just need some cuddling to get back to sleep."

"Well, if you don't mind me falling asleep next time you want some, and you know, absent-mindedly patting your back and nothing else, maybe we can talk."

Nothing says "Mom" like french fries all over the floor.

These guys must have "mommed" my ride. I'm sure of it.

Only in support roles.

On his Latin American tour, Bush said that the additional Iraq troops are only for support.

"Those combat troops are going to need, you know, some support, and that's what the American people are seeing in terms of Iraq -- the support troops necessary to help the reinforcements do their job," Bush said at a news conference Sunday with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.

Ummm, why is this supposed to make people feel better? Is he saying support personnel don't count or have less value than combat troops? Is he saying that since they are support they won't be in danger? This is a little ambiguous and more than a little insulting. Troops fill all kinds of roles as they are needed. And if they are in a combat situation, they are all subject to hostile fire.

But my most curious question today -- why hasn't anyone called Bush on this remark? I mean, if John Kerry had said it, they'd be burning effigies at the Fox News anchor desk as we speak.

Descent into madness.

My mother-in-law didn't take the news that CPT Dick might deploy too well.

"I'm going to write my congressman right away if it happens. He has a family. There's no reason why he should deploy again."

"But Mom, you could say that about 50% of Soldiers. Lots of people have families. That's just the way it is."

"But he's already been to Iraq!"

"Again, Mom, there are several thousand folks who have gone more than once. Heck, some are already on third and fourth tours."

"And they extended his tour while he was there!"

"Mom, I wish I could say that made him unique. But again, lots of others are in the same boat. They are still deploying."

"Fine. But none of those other soldiers can say that they are my son."

So true. So, so true. And she really believes that should make him exempt. Wonder if she'll include that in her letter?

Thunder only happens when it's raining.

Last night I had the strangest dream. I was driving along the George Washington Bridge. I say I was on the George Washington Bridge, because in my dream I know I was on that bridge heading to Manhattan. But the visual in my dream was longer, almost like the bridge through the Florida Keys, and it curved around so you could see in front of you, as well as the clear water all around. And that, if you've ever driven the GW, you know that a curving bridge and clear water is not at all like the experience of driving on the GW -- all a driver sees on the GW are the millions of other cars trying to get into the city as quickly as possible and high steel walls that allow only the tiniest shafts of grey light in.

Anyway, as I'm driving, I see that the bridge has collapsed ahead. I'm driving straight off the edge into the water. And I panic a bit because I have no idea how I'm going to get Munchkin out of his carseat and both of us out of the car once it hits the ocean.

Before I was a mother, I would have woken up and thought, "Wow, what a crazy dream! Wonder what I ate yesterday."

But now that I am a mother, upon getting out of bed this morning, I immediately put a jackknife in my glovebox and started looking up how to get out of a submerged car on the Internet. You know, like, just in case. No matter that I'm hundreds of miles from New York and never, if I can help it, get into the city by bridge.

More, more, moooooooooooooooore.

Bush OK's more troops. Depending on the source, I've seen 4400 more and 8200 more. This, of course, in addition to the already 20K+ he asked for a few months back.

My question is, where are they going to get these guys?

I understand the Army is on a huge recruiting blast. But news that they are relaxing standards in order to help meet headcount does not make me sleep any easier at night. Doesn't my husband, with his life at stake and our country's freedom and integrity on the line, deserve to have the best possible Soldier fighting next to him? Shouldn't the people of the countries we are trying to help not have to worry that the Soldier that comes into their home is a criminal? Seriously, this kind of shit really irks me because the potential for disaster just increases one hundred fold.

And, with the addition of a few bad soldiers, it makes it more and more likely that the good ones, the ones who have made the military their life, are going to decide that there's no longer a place for them. And the ones who stay? They'll spend the rest of their time herding cats instead of doing their job.

That's a very sad thing indeed. The men and women of our Armed Forces -- and we as Americans -- deserve better.