Wednesday, July 11, 2007

You Bet Your Life

Unless you're Thomas Friedman, you probably figured out a loooooong time ago that Iran is the real reason that we are in Iraq. Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 (thanks Jimmy!) Iran has shown itself to be a far more potent force for destabilization than any other nation is the region.

Iraq? You might recall the two neighbors had a little dust-up going for most of the 1980's. Saddam was trying to keep the Islamic Revolution from taking hold in Iraq. As for the myth of its weapons of mass destruction, the ones that the WORLD believed Iraq possessed, Saddam created that, not only to rattle the West, but to keep Iraq from invading following the ass-kicking we gave Saddam in the First Persian Gulf War.

We can debate whether Saddam was actively sponsoring terroism against the United States, but we know for certain that he was slaughtering his own citizens. Iran, on the other hand, has been the worldwide leader in terrorism for decades. Here's what your government had to say about Iran and Iraq in April of 2001:

Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan continue to be the seven governments that the US Secretary of State has designated as state sponsors of international terrorism. Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2000. It provided increasing support to numerous terrorist groups, including the Lebanese Hizballah, HAMAS, and the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ), which seek to undermine the Middle East peace negotiations through the use of terrorism. Iraq continued to provide safehaven and support to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, as well as bases, weapons, and protection to the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), an Iranian terrorist group that opposes the current Iranian regime.
I guess we should have added al-Qaeda to the list of Iranian clients, yes?

Now, it should be fairly obvious that, because Iran is an Islamic State, the United States would run the risk of inflaming the entire Islamic world if we attacked it just for sponsoring international terrorism. That's not even a misdemeanor in that part of the world. Not only would such an outright attackwe face an oil embargo, Israel would have been put to the torch from six directions. Iraq, on the other hand, was weaker, a proven bad-actor, and secular! Bingo. We're in Iraq. Why the President just didn't explain it this way is anybody's guess.

But Iran is still the real enemy of the world, so how much longer are we going to wait until we take her out? Let's see how today's market is shaping up:

Price for US/Israeli Overt Air Strike against Iran at
Price for US/Israeli Overt Air Strike against Iran at

Price for US/Israeli Overt Air Strike against Iran at

Hmmmmm. This might be the time to do a little speculating. At least some people are.

Sooner? Or later?


spd rdr said...


Let's talk about American Idol.

Pile On® said...

I went to the city fireworks display on the fourth and there were three protestors at the park entrance. One was a thin raisiny woman in her fifties holding up a newspaper with the headline Hugo has the Answers and the oil. As it was a holiday, I was not seeking answers, so I politely asked the woman to go away.

Hugo is friends with Iran. And Hugo has the answers. Kind of blows your little theory to pieces doesn't it?

spd rdr said...

Damn. I'd wished that I had thought of that before I posted this nonsense. When Hugo AND MOTHER SHEEHAN have decided against my position, I should quietly retaire to a hookah and hooker and let the remainder of my life drift by, thoughtlessly.

Suxh is the power of marketing. (typo intentional)

Pees, dude.

Pile On® said...

You think you have regrets. I had the answers right in front of me. Soy ink on newsprint, and I told the bearer she needed to go away.

Pooke said...

I thought oil was the root of all evil with these raisin people?

She should have been at Live Earth. Then at least SOMEONE would have been there.

portia said...

But Iran is still the real enemy of the world, so how much longer are we going to wait until we take her out?

And if we do take her out, spd, will that assuage Secretary Chertoff's gut feeling?

And mine?

camojack said...

Obviously, something is going to happen...for good or ill.

Airstrike? Surgical?! Perhaps...

Anonymous said...

So which is it? I'm soooooooooooooo confused.

Is al Qaeda a threat? Or not a threat?

Are their numbers massively overstated and the Bush administration is cynically fear mongering to keep bringing up the "threat"?

Are they a loosely disorganized bunch of yayhoos too dumb to pour pee out of a boot?

Or are they a sinister force who keep defeating an inept administration, yet somehow, still not a "threat" we should be afraid of in the sense that we should take any concrete "action" like actually surveilling them, killing them, going to war against the countries who give them safe harbor, throwing their asses in prison (or the people who help them), or anything that might actually serve to stop them from killing us?

What are we allowed to do to stop them?

- Cass

Anonymous said...

I realize that was something of a nonsequitur. I was reacting to Portia's yahoo article :p

I obviously need more sleep.

portia said...

I'm soooooooooooooo confused.
Ditto. You lost me, Cass.

Pile On® said...

Perhaps I can unconfusicate.

Do you Portia think that confronting homicidal maniacs is what creates homicidal maniacs?

Chickens or eggs?

portia said...

Do you Portia think that confronting homicidal maniacs is what creates homicidal maniacs?
No, I blame it on poor parenting.

I'm all for confronting homicidal maniacs who attack us. My question to spd and his readers is: How will taking out Iran eliminate the threat of Al Qaeda and the training camps it has been "allowed" to establish on the Afghani/Pakistani border? Thanks to the "peace treaty" signed by the Pakistani government back in '05, OBL and company have found a comfortable corner in the northwest frontier where they can plan and train with impunity.

Based on the videotape of the graduating class (June '07) of suicide bombers, it doesn't look like they are without recruits...or work.

And unless I missed the news that Bin Laden's 1998 Fatwa to kill Americans has been retracted, that ain't good news for the US.

Pile On® said...

How will taking out Iran eliminate the threat of Al Qaeda and the training camps it has been "allowed" to establish on the Afghani/Pakistani border? --Portia

It won't. But last time I checked Qaeda doesn't have a monopoly on terror tactics.

How does washing my hair get the stink off my feet?

How does learning english help with my math?

How did declaring war on Germany defeat Japan?

spd rdr said...

Where is OBL getting his money and arms, Portia? Canada?

Personally, I would really really REALLY not want to go to war with Iran. I much prefer that we just assasinate the top 20 or 30 honchos and let the Iranian people figure the rest out. But we CANNOT permit them to acquire nuclear weapons. Once that happens we might as well turn out the lights on the Middle East.

portia said...

One question at a time, guys:)

last time I checked Qaeda doesn't have a monopoly on terror tactics

It surely doesn't Pile but I'd much prefer to take out Al Qaeda's robust operating capability before it strikes us again. Besides we still have a score to settle for the 16-acre hole that they left as a "calling card" back on 9/11.

Where is OBL getting his money and arms, Portia? Canada?

Flower power, spd. Eighty percent of the world's heroin comes from Afghanistan. You think that $$ is going into the farmer's pocket?

I'm still waiting to learn what you guys want to do about Pakistan, which let's not forget already has nuclear weapons.

spd rdr said...

Dammit, Sista. You are still as wily as hell.

Pooke said...

Cass - I follow. I never trust AP reports that cite "anonymous intellegence officials". It could be anyone from the director of the CIA to a plumber snaking toilets. As long as it makes headlines....

As for Pakistan, the presumption that we could expect tribal people to go to tribal war while the great evil west needed to be dealt with, we were kidding ourselves. Kill their funding unless they come around. Otherwise....

If these so called intellegence officials really know where AlQueda is in Pakistan, then they should tell our Marines so we can go blow them into little tiny pieces.

We are quickly losing ground with Iran. They are like a 14 year old that continues to break curfew, with the UN being the mothher pushover. Bomb their installations, tell the UN we're pulling funding due to THEIR ineptness, take our ball and go home.

But that's just MAHO

spd rdr said...

Pooke, you are now officially off of the New Jersey "nice mommy" circuit. Fortunately, Jon Bon Jovi is available to take your place.

portia said...

Dammit, Sista. You are still as wily as hell.

Thank you for noticing, Bro

portia said...

Hardly "anonymous intelligence officials," Pooke.

"Top intelligence analysts, appearing before the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee [Wednesday], said the militant network led by Osama bin Laden has become increasingly active in ungoverned sections of Pakistan near the Afghanistan border, where bin Laden himself is believed to be protected by local tribal leaders.

"They seem to be fairly well settled into the safe haven in the ungoverned spaces of Pakistan. We see more training. We see more money. We see more communications,"
said John Kringen, the CIA's director of intelligence.

National Intelligence Director John McConnell gave the same warning in January.

Iran may be a potential threat, but Pakistan is a reality.

But that's just MAHO:)

portia said...

In case any of you were disappointed that the last link in my comment above didn't work, I'm offering it again. Gratis:)

Pooke said...

I saw the same article, Portia. But "I spy with my little eye" tells me the "intelligence community" is as inept as ever.

Like I said, if they "see" so much, then our troops should be able to see them too... through the sights of a scope.

Cassandra said...

I'm still waiting to learn what you guys want to do about Pakistan, which let's not forget already has nuclear weapons.

Hmmm. Has the OFFICIAL leader of Pakistan threatened to push Israel into the sea lately? Somehow I missed that little news item.

Exactly what do you suggest we *do* about Pakistan? Invade? Sponsor a coup and replace a leader who, at least, is cooperating with us with... what? I'm curious as to what you think our options are, Portia, according to international law as well as why on earth you perceive Pakistan itself (as opposed to the al Qaeda forces within Pakistan, as within Indonesia and other nominally democratic Asian nations) to be MORE of a threat than Iran, which is sending Hezbollah out over half of the ME, destabilizing Lebanon, causing wars and all other kinds of problems as well as currently killing our troops in Iraq (a small fact which may not concern you, but causes me quite a bit of discomfort).

Also I would echo the remark on the Intel community. There is very little they have not been wrong about - they reverse themselves on al Qaeda every few months in the papers and if you read their full assessments always admit they really don't know al Qaeda's strength. Hence my question.

portia said...

as well as currently killing our troops in Iraq (a small fact which may not concern you, but causes me quite a bit of discomfort).

Cass, I gotta be honest with you, I don't know why you see the need to insert these kind of sarcastic swipes into the discussion. I recognize it may make you feel better (on some level) to do so but it does little to advance your argument, much less encourage conversation.

But that's just MAHO

Pile On® said...

When we did something about Iraq the talk was yes but what about Iran. If we propose doing something about Iran the talk turns to yes but what are you going to do about Pakistan? I can't discern if we are spread too thin or if we are not trying to do enough. If you can't do everything you should do nothing but if you do one or two things you are over-extended.

You can talk about Pakistan Portia, but what are you going to do about North Korea?

Cassandra said...

Well, to be honest with you Portia (and I am not saying this to be at all provacative, but in response to your remark) you have both said and posted things in the past that I have taken exactly the same way but I let them go. I take them as harmless venting or as a legitimate expression of your right to disagree with me.

Or, I respond to them if they annoy me enough. But there have been times when they, too, made it hard or even impossible to have a discussion, and then I just stay out of it if I don't trust myself. Not a big deal. At any rate, I try not to read too much into things people say in a comment, especially in an emotional subject like this.

Why ask the question? What can we possibly do in Pakistan? You never did answer. What are our realistic options?


Replace the current government?

Send in our military?

What, precisely, do you propose?

Every time we get into these "either/or" discussions on "why are we in Iraq when we *could* be using our military (which I think I have every right to point out includes my husband) against....[fill in the blank] which is the real danger" I could just scream. Because:

1. No one in this short attention span nation of ours will back my our armed forces if we take military action THERE EITHER, and

2. When we leave Iraq things will implode and Congress will leave a significant component of the military behind in harms' way to "fight al Qaeda" (which the NYT claims is not really there or is somehow not the AQ we should be worried about or was not there before we invaded, all claims not sourced in literal fact, at least according to... well, the archives of the NY Times). This, by the way, is the mission we supposedly can't achieve with ALL our troops on hand but are inexplicably expected to accomplish with FEWER troops. But nevermind. As a consolation prize, for our pains we may watch the carnage unfold up close and personal as we stare deeply into the eyes of the people we once protected and do... nothing.

And what the hell do people think the Iraqis to do once we have betrayed them? Stand quietly by?

No. The sheiks will turn on us. And we will be outnumbered and slaughtered. Think on that one. I have never been afraid for my husband. I am f**king terrified now, thanks to our wonderful Congress who are determined to "help" our military by getting them all killed. You can't pull 150000 troops out quickly.

No. They will have to fight their way out.

So yeah. Sometimes I really do wonder. Not about your heart. Never that. Or your morals. I simply don't understand your reasoning.

I wonder what in God's name people are thinking? I could accept losing my husband to accomplish something for this country.

I will NEVER forgive this Congress if my husband is murdered for no reason; to satisfy their political calculation and cowardice. And by the way, whatever happened to the Iraq Study Group recommendations, which James Baker said the President had pretty much implemented with this current strategy that your Congress is undercutting?

So much for "changing course". So much for "if this President would only listen to reason and adopt the sensible recommendations of the ISG, he'd find this Congress more than willing to work with him."


spd rdr said...

Be nice to each other or I''ll be forced to get the Belt.

portia said...

Be nice to each other or I''ll be forced to get the Belt.

Ohhhh, I love it when you role-play Big Daddy:)

portia said...

Sometimes I really do wonder. Not about your heart. Never that. Or your morals. I simply don't understand your reasoning.

But Cass, suggesting that the killing of our troops "may not concern" me is questioning my heart, and my morals. It's not unlike the unpatriotic inferences that Bush adminstration has been lobbing at those who don't agree with its ______[fill in the blank] policies.

The Republican base got a taste of that treatment last month when Bush suggested that those who oppose the Immigration bill "don't want to do what's right for America." Or worse, they're "cowards." Ouch.

Either way the message is the same: Your heart is in the wrong place.

Peggy Noonan's column in the WSJ yesterday has a pretty good take on Bush's approach:

In arguing for the right path as he sees it, the president more and more claims for himself virtues that the other side, by inference, lacks. He is "idealistic"; those who oppose him are, apparently, lacking in ideals. He is steadfast, brave... unlike those selfish, isolationist types who oppose him. This is ungracious as a rhetorical approach....

I'd like to put an end to the "you don't care/I care more" sentiments here, too. They are a red herring. We both care. Deeply. We all want to do what's best for the country. Because of where we live, because of whom--and what--we love, and because we know what's at stake.

Make no mistake, we all know what's at stake. Even when we disagree.

Anonymous said...

Read "The Afghan Campaign" by Steven Pressfield, a somewhat fictionalized story regarding Alexander's campaign in Afghanistan 2300 years ago. Then come back and tell me how he should have done it differently.

We are all so much smarter today.

He thought it would take six months and it took three years to patch together an awful compromise, with the finest army of soldiers and officers in the world, at that time.

Of course, our goals are different than his, but the same human nature remains at play.

Wading in and fighting with the Pashtuns, Punjabs, etc. to get to al Qaeda is a mistake, and so is leaving the situation alone. Don't bother them when they are busy raising the Umma. That is, of course, their goal for this generation.

Bombing Iran is a mistake, but allowing them to have nukes is a bigger mistake. Wait 'till Sunni Pakistan loans some A-bombs to Sunni Saudi Arabia to maintain the 'balance of power' with Shia Iran, after they get nukes.

Who's on first?
I don't know!
Third base!

There are no simple solutions, and war is Hell. We live in interesting times.
And relying on the inane thoughts of blathering newpaper columnists who know less than nothing and have a sub-human sense of intellectual consistancy is no way to figure it out.

I know that it is somewhat easy
(and creepy) to impugn another's written words (like I just did in the paragraph above) and read a bad intent or judgement into them, but this problem with militant Islam is the Gordian knot of our age. Can we untie it, or do we cut it with the sword?

If it was easy, someone would have solved it already. As I said, we live in interesting times.

-Don Brouhaha

Cassandra said...

Portia, the last thing I want is an argument with you.

Noonan's op-ed was a classic case of projection. She accuses the President of "claiming for himself virtues that the other side, by inference, lacks..." but first of all it's HER inference (not the President's intent necessarily at all) and second of all the entire point of her editorial was to say that he didn't care when he, in fact has demonstrated over and over that he DOES.

So she is wrong. Dead wrong. Not that this bothers her one whit. Isn't she "claiming for herself a virtue that the President, by inference, lacks"?

Ummm... yeah.

It strikes me often that if you want (as you say) to put an end to the "I don't care/you don't care" stuff you first have to stop throwing stones. Like that Dick Cavett editorial.

You have a right to your opinion Portia but if you want to start getting offended at inferences then you have to understand that things like that are highly offensive to anyone who supports what we're trying to do. You can't lob Molotov cocktails and then sit back and feel offended when someone makes a fairly minor remark and say you wish we could get past the partisan division.

I am not angry, and was not angry the other day. To me if you discuss an emotional subject, people are occasionally going to say things that are sharp in tone. I'm sorry if you were offended by what I said, but I always seem to be apologizing to you and yet there have been many times when I've come away from here extremely upset. But I just get over it myself.

I don't expect an apology. It is what it is. But I guess that's me. And I have criticized Pelosi and Reid's ideas and words harshly, but I don't link to things calling them idiots or making fun of their physical attributes. To me that kind of thing is a big part of why no one can talk reasonably in this country about the big issues of our time.

If I seem frustrated, maybe that's why. At any rate, I have apologized and I think perhaps I just need to stay out of these discussions from now on since I seem unable to avoid causing offense. That is not my desire.

portia said...

you first have to stop throwing stones. Like that Dick Cavett editorial

Excuse me Cass, but putting up on a post that I agree with is hardly the same as lobbing personal comments questioning one's committment to the safety of the troops or the security of America.

spd has given me blogging rights to post on his blog with full knowledge of my political positions. He has never attempted to censure me or tell me what is or isn't appropriate for his readers. Until he does so, or until he chooses to take away the "keys" I will continue to post articles/commentaries that I think have merit.

If you find them "highly offensive," you are at liberty either to ignore them or punch holes in them. All I'm asking is that when you do the latter, you argue the issues, and quit questioning whether my intentions are honorable.

portia said...

Thanks Don:) As you say, if it was easy, someone would have solved it already.

This thread began with spd asking "how much longer are we going to wait until we take her [Iran] out?" I wondered aloud what we should do about Pakistan because of the fact that Al Qaeda continues to have a safe harbor along her borders, and because as SecDef Gates confirmed last week:

I think, have pretty good evidence that, for example, al Qaeda in Iraq takes strategic guidance and inspiration from the al Qaeda in the western part of Pakistan, Osama bin Laden's organization, Zawahiri and company. They get advice. They clearly are connected.

The idea that we would talk about going to war with yet another country--and under the leadership of this administration-- while the bastards who attacked us on 9/11 are alive and at work, is IMO an act of madnesss. We moved our troops out of Afghanistan, and into Iraq, and now we're eyeing Iran? Talk about short attention spans.

I'm not advocating that we attack Pakistan--or Iran-- but I do think we should be consistent in the stick we carry. We give Pakistan billions of $$ for its support in the war on terrorism. Perhaps giving safe-harbor to terrorists isn't consistent with those goals.

Maybe allowing Pakistan to expand its nuclear power twenty fold last year wasn't in the region's--or our--best interest.

Can we really say Mushareff acted in good faith when he pardoned Khan and allowed him to keep the money he received from selling nuclear technology to Iran?

Has Mushareff being paying lip service to his promise three years ago to eradicate the madrassas?

And what should we make of Tom Fingar's (office of the Director of National Intelligence) testimony before Congress last week when he states: "It's not that we lack the ability to go into that space...but we have chosen not to do so without the permission of the Pakistani government." [NB this]

Mushareff may be "the right man at the right time" as the administration claims but, then again, Bush found Putin to be trustworthy after he "looked the man in the eye," and we know how good an indicator that's turned out to be.

I'm merely I'm suggesting that maybe it's time for some acountability there, too. One well-placed bullet, and I fear then it may be too late.

Anonymous said...

If you follow Bill Roggio's "The Fourth Rail", it has been apparent for some months that the situation in Pakistan's Northwest Territories has been deteriorating, with respect to the ascendance of al Qaeda's influence.

1) The NW territories are primarily comprised of the Pashtun tribe, whose tribal areas also extends over the border into Afganistan. They are friendly towards the 'Taliban', and their guests, al Qaeda.
2) The majority of Pakistanis are Punjabis, who are not well disposed towards their 'hillbilly' countrymen, the Pashtuns.
3) Pakistan may well be smoldering towards a civil war of the terror-bombing variety.
4) Musharaff is our man just like 'Uncle Joe' Stalin was for FDR.
5) Task Force 145. Look it up.
6) If Musharaff is toppled (he just missed being assasinated the other day...again), and Pakistan turns against us, our army in Afghanistan is in a very bad way, logistically. All the troops would have to air-lifted out, as Afghanistan is land-locked. This has been a strategic concern all along, which is why our presence their has not been and is not more numerous.
7) I had a friend in the Air Force who was stationed in Pakistan in 2001-2002 supporting Operation Enduring Freedom, and things were pretty unsettled even then. There were sporadic rocket attacks on the US Airforce base then from hostile Pakistanis.

All these people, from Morocco to the Khyber Pass are tribal, and will always support the perceived 'stronger horse', and whoever pays them off, or threatens them more effectively.

It's been like this for milleniums, and is unlikely to change soon. When Hillary Clinton is president for a few years, let's see how clever she is in dealing with this sort of intractable tribalism, fused with modern military technology (sold by our friends the Russians and the French, no doubt) and the messianic call of world wide jihad in the name of militant Islam.
We live in interesting times.

-Don Brouhaha

portia said...


8. The videotape Al-Zawahiri released on Wednesday calls upon Pakistani Muslims to rise up and take revenge against the Pakistani Army and the Pakistani government, to back the Muhajideen in Afghanistan, to die honorably in the field of jihad, and--get this--"dont live like women with moustaches and beards."

"Now that's offensive," she said running her fingers over her upper lip wondering if it was time to book another appointment to have it waxed....

Cassandra said...

Portia, I don't want to belabor my point. I thought I was making it, but you don't obviously understand where I am coming from and arguing my position is only going to result in unnecessary aggravation.

Of course spd has given you the keys here with full trust in your judgment. That is why I don't go high and to the right when I get offended.

That is my problem. Not anyone else's. That was my point, and I never expected anyone to cater to my sensibilities.

This is your site, and as I said, I will bow out from now on.

portia said...

But, but...what'll I do with all that lime jello I bought for our rematch?

C'mon Cass, I promise not to talk about Pakistan again...not until next time:)

spd rdr said...

Speaking of not talking about something... let's not talk about this ever again. Okay?

Peace out.

portia said...

I don't know spd. You're either working too hard or getting way too old if the mention of "jello" and "rematch" in the same sentence brings to mind grandma's salad molds.

Kinda makes me glad I didn't use the words "pudding" and "like" in the same sentence. Really glad:)

Cassandra said...

As someone who lives a little closer to the 'pointy end of the spear' than anyone else here (not that that gives me absolute moral authority or anything) the idea that we are about to go to war with anyone else is pretty laughable.

My husband just spent 3 years preparing estimates of the Marine Corps' military readiness for Congress. As of now (forgive me, spd) in the main, only the Army and the Marine Corps are really fighting this war. The other services are in supporting roles. And of the two services, I'm sorry but when something absolutely, positively needs to be destroyed, they ain't calling the Army.

So I have a fairly good idea about whether we are in any shape to take on a 3rd war, though so does anyone who has picked up a credible newspaper, and by this I do not mean the NYT.

As to lime jello, I am of the opinion Portia and I have been thoroughly dissed. mr rdr, I am well aware that the male of the species is only interested in nubile young things well below the legal age of consent. But is it wise ... is it prudent... to so disrespect your two most loyal readers?

Especially considering the total hottitude (notwithstanding our maturity, and let's not forget that with age comes a certain... je ne sais quois) displayed by said readers...err...rdrs?

Yeah. I thought so.

Cassandra said...

And on reflection, I take part of that back. I was being snarky but didn't mean to be unduly insulting. I was watching Sideways the other night and a scene from that movie where one of the actors buys some skin mag called 'Barely Legal' floated into my mind while I was typing. But that was over the top and was really just a function of having the movie scene pop into my head.

Sorry guys. What I meant to imply was that men generally don't fantasize about 40 and 50 something babes :p

/hand to forehead!!!!!

I am going off now to cry in my Chardonnay...

portia said...

the idea that we are about to go to war with anyone else is pretty laughable

Now you tell me! I assume much of the talk about Iran is cage rattling by the administration, and bravado by the NRO folks like Charles Sauerkraut who wonder aloud why we don't just bomb it back to the seventh century but it's provocative just the same. Just ask spd....

* *
Good grief, Cass. Do you really think that spd was implying that we're *too old* by linking to that grandmother's jello recipe? I totally missed that ding. Bast*rd. No more dessert for him:)

Cassandra said...

I dunno... you tell me.

He *could* have been thinking "Yumm... lime jello ...bikinis... women wrestling..." but instead he came up with Granny's limo jello, pineapple and HORSERADISH jiggly jello mold. Not exactly an enticing visual for the aged... err...ages :)

*crickets chirping*

Big old meanie :p And I'm not asking mr rdr anything. I don't think my fragile feminine ego can take being compared to a tomato aspic.