Comment: Of course he got it wrong.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Its the new term for a (see in situ)

Of course he got it wrong.

What you can't measure is the effects of his relentless attempts to expose corruption. He reaches several million people and its growing. He's very abrasive, but someone needs to be. the point is he impinges. Right now he only needs to create awareness, and despite the complaints, for example on his Piers Morgan rant, he got positive attention for a key issue.

Let's presume for a moment that he did have credible sources. If he does nothing, he is irresponsible. If he says something, the effects cannot be measured. He obviously sees this and still has the balls to stick his neck out, and he does.

It took Ron Paul decades to get peoples' awareness up but it means we have a chance now that we would not otherwise have had.

We like to look for "saviours" but they are extremely rare. Probably Ghandi and Mandela started off with an audience of one. More importantly, however many times AJ is wrong, he is creating not only an awareness but an umbrella under which others can speak out -- and who knows what twists of fate could produce stellar future figures that would just be quiet if not for that.

AJ may be a good leader for some and a terrible one to others. What is clear is his courage. These times need courage. Someone who will go head-to-head and toe-to-toe with the media and gain ground is a phenomenon.

As for Iraq, the salient difference is that the bulk of the pressure was external. AJ is an internal force. The PTB are still somewhat dependent on creating internal consensus for their actions because of a partial dependency on the electorate (however much opposition they overcome with cheating).

When you have such overwhelming resources stacked against you, one might do well to evaluate every resource you have and do a thorough evaluation of its NET effect in deciding whether to attack, tolerate, or assist any one of them.

The reason I couldn't quite make sense of the acronym is that CSI is a detail thing, while I was talking broad principles. But I get your drift now, thanks :)