icant' I'm sure you are capable.
BTW, HAPPY NEW YEAR to you and your family.
cicerone imposter wrote:Your quote:
I am talking about the legality of the president ordering the wiretapping of telephone and e-mail communications between suspected foreign enemies and their suspected domestic allies (citizens or immigrants or infiltrators or whatever).
He can order the wiretaps, but must get FISA court approval before or after the fact. There is nothing in the law that prevents Bush from performing wiretaps on suspected enemies of the country. If any or all are "AMERICAN CITIZENS," even Bush is required to get FISA court approval.
...
Bush can order the wiretaps, but must get FISA court approval before or
after the fact
In that case, there is still time. He can ask for approval now
Question: What happens if he doesn't get approval
after the fact
I think the FISA law,
as you have characterized the FISA law here, is not only an attempt by the Congress to usurp presidential powers delegated by the Constitution to the president; it is an
absurd attempt by the Congress to usurp presidential powers delegated by the Constitution to the president.
cicerone imposter wrote:icant' I'm sure you are capable.
I am and ican! But I don't wish to discuss the topic unless you in particular are capable of establishing such forum and you do establish such forum.
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU AND ALL THOSE YOU LOVE!
icant wrote:
Bush can order the wiretaps, but must get FISA court approval before or
after the fact
Yes, they have 72 hours to get court approval - after the fact.
The Administration has offered the further defense that FISA's reference to surveillance "authorized by statute" is SATISFIED by the congressional passage of the post-Sept. 11 resolution giving the president authority to use "all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent those responsible for Sept. 11th from carrying out further attacks, The administration argues that obtaining intelligence is a necessary and expected component of any military or other use of force to prevent enemy action"
source- Chicago Tribune- December 21, 2005-P. 23
Article by John Schmidt- FORMER ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER BILL CLINTON 1994-1997.
Okay lets just leave all questions of ethics and morals for the lawyers to settle.
Who will settle them? The philosophers? No one reads them anymore.
The clergy? Don't you realize that the world is becoming more and more secular. The latest report is that only 8%( eight percent) of the population of Holland attends church every week.
Why not the lawyers? Who do you suggest?
I would rely partly on the clergy and the philosophers but I am very much afraid, that, to paraphrase the brilliant Oscar Wilde--"In America, the clergy is unread and the philosophers are unreadable"
There is a thread for this spying issue.
Anyone interested in Iraq on this thread of US and Them: US, UN & Iraq?
Quote:Attacks in Iraq leave seven dead
Seven people have been killed in attacks in Iraq with five dying when a bomb went off outside offices of one of the main Sunni Arab political parties.
The device injured at least two others when it was struck by a car outside the local HQ of the Iraqi Islamic Party in Khalis, 60km (40 miles) from Baghdad.
Two guards were among those killed, according to a party official.
In the capital, a bomb killed two policemen and wounded two others, along with at least four other people.
Talks are being held to form a coalition government in Iraq after December's elections but some Sunni Arab and secular parties have refused to take part, saying the election was illegitimate.
US and Iraqi forces are battling a Sunni Arab insurgency against the existing Shia- and Kurdish-led government in Baghdad.
source
On the other hand I can see why some would not want to talk about Iraq.
The sunnis are boycotting the new gov't for the most part. Does anyone think this is going to end well anymore?
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:The sunnis are boycotting the new gov't for the most part. Does anyone think this is going to end well anymore?
I think it will end well! It will end well despite the Cassandras and haters among us. It will end well because there are enough of us who will persevere until it does end well.
brought to you by the American Committees on Foreign Relations, ACFR NewsGroup No. 651, Monday, January 2, 2006
Quote:Right Islam vs. Wrong Islam
By ABDURRAHMAN WAHID
December 30, 2005; Page A16 Wall Street Journal
JAKARTA -- News organizations report that Osama bin Laden has obtained a religious edict from a misguided Saudi cleric, justifying the use of nuclear weapons against America and the infliction of mass casualties. It requires great emotional strength to confront the potential ramifications of this fact. Yet can anyone doubt that those who joyfully incinerate the occupants of office buildings, commuter trains, hotels and nightclubs would leap at the chance to magnify their damage a thousandfold?
Imagine the impact of a single nuclear bomb detonated in New York, London, Paris, Sydney or L.A.! What about two or three? The entire edifice of modern civilization is built on economic and technological foundations that terrorists hope to collapse with nuclear attacks like so many fishing huts in the wake of a tsunami.
Just two small, well-placed bombs devastated Bali's tourist economy in 2002 and sent much of its population back to the rice fields and out to sea, to fill their empty bellies. What would be the effect of a global economic crisis in the wake of attacks far more devastating than those of Bali or 9/11?
It is time for people of goodwill from every faith and nation to recognize that a terrible danger threatens humanity. We cannot afford to continue "business as usual" in the face of this existential threat. Rather, we must set aside our international and partisan bickering, and join to confront the danger that lies before us.
* * *
An extreme and perverse ideology in the minds of fanatics is what directly threatens us (specifically, Wahhabi/Salafi ideology -- a minority fundamentalist religious cult fueled by petrodollars). Yet underlying, enabling and exacerbating this threat of religious extremism is a global crisis of misunderstanding.
All too many Muslims fail to grasp Islam, which teaches one to be lenient towards others and to understand their value systems, knowing that these are tolerated by Islam as a religion. The essence of Islam is encapsulated in the words of the Quran, "For you, your religion; for me, my religion." That is the essence of tolerance. Religious fanatics -- either purposely or out of ignorance -- pervert Islam into a dogma of intolerance, hatred and bloodshed. They justify their brutality with slogans such as "Islam is above everything else." They seek to intimidate and subdue anyone who does not share their extremist views, regardless of nationality or religion. While a few are quick to shed blood themselves, countless millions of others sympathize with their violent actions, or join in the complicity of silence.
This crisis of misunderstanding -- of Islam by Muslims themselves -- is compounded by the failure of governments, people of other faiths, and the majority of well-intentioned Muslims to resist, isolate and discredit this dangerous ideology. The crisis thus afflicts Muslims and non-Muslims alike, with tragic consequences. Failure to understand the true nature of Islam permits the continued radicalization of Muslims world-wide, while blinding the rest of humanity to a solution which hides in plain sight.
The most effective way to overcome Islamist extremism is to explain what Islam truly is to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Without that explanation, people will tend to accept the unrefuted extremist view -- further radicalizing Muslims, and turning the rest of the world against Islam itself.
Accomplishing this task will be neither quick nor easy. In recent decades, Wahhabi/Salafi ideology has made substantial inroads throughout the Muslim world. Islamic fundamentalism has become a well-financed, multifaceted global movement that operates like a juggernaut in much of the developing world, and even among immigrant Muslim communities in the West. To neutralize the virulent ideology that underlies fundamentalist terrorism and threatens the very foundations of modern civilization, we must identify its advocates, understand their goals and strategies, evaluate their strengths and weaknesses, and effectively counter their every move. What we are talking about is nothing less than a global struggle for the soul of Islam.
* * *
The Sunni (as opposed to Shiite) fundamentalists' goals generally include: claiming to restore the perfection of the early Islam practiced by Muhammad and his companions, who are known in Arabic as al-Salaf al-Salih, "the Righteous Ancestors"; establishing a utopian society based on these Salafi principles, by imposing their interpretation of Islamic law on all members of society; annihilating local variants of Islam in the name of authenticity and purity; transforming Islam from a personal faith into an authoritarian political system; establishing a pan-Islamic caliphate governed according to the strict tenets of Salafi Islam, and often conceived as stretching from Morocco to Indonesia and the Philippines; and, ultimately, bringing the entire world under the sway of their extremist ideology.
Fundamentalist strategy is often simple as well as brilliant. Extremists are quick to drape themselves in the mantle of Islam and declare their opponents kafir, or infidels, and thus smooth the way for slaughtering nonfundamentalist Muslims. Their theology rests upon a simplistic, literal and highly selective reading of the Quran and Sunnah (prophetic traditions), through which they seek to entrap the world-wide Muslim community in the confines of their narrow ideological grasp. Expansionist by nature, most fundamentalist groups constantly probe for weakness and an opportunity to strike, at any time or place, to further their authoritarian goals.
The armed ghazis (Islamic warriors) raiding from New York to Jakarta, Istanbul, Baghdad, London and Madrid are only the tip of the iceberg, forerunners of a vast and growing population that shares their radical views and ultimate objectives. The formidable strengths of this world-wide fundamentalist movement include:
1) An aggressive program with clear ideological and political goals; 2) immense funding from oil-rich Wahhabi sponsors; 3) the ability to distribute funds in impoverished areas to buy loyalty and power; 4) a claim to and aura of religious authenticity and Arab prestige; 5) an appeal to Islamic identity, pride and history; 6) an ability to blend into the much larger traditionalist masses and blur the distinction between moderate Islam and their brand of religious extremism; 7) full-time commitment by its agents/leadership; 8) networks of Islamic schools that propagate extremism; 9) the absence of organized opposition in the Islamic world; 10) a global network of fundamentalist imams who guide their flocks to extremism; 11) a well-oiled "machine" established to translate, publish and distribute Wahhabi/Salafi propaganda and disseminate its ideology throughout the world; 12) scholarships for locals to study in Saudi Arabia and return with degrees and indoctrination, to serve as future leaders; 13) the ability to cross national and cultural borders in the name of religion; 14) Internet communication; and 15) the reluctance of many national governments to supervise or control this entire process.
We must employ effective strategies to counter each of these fundamentalist strengths. This can be accomplished only by bringing the combined weight of the vast majority of peace-loving Muslims, and the non-Muslim world, to bear in a coordinated global campaign whose goal is to resolve the crisis of misunderstanding that threatens to engulf our entire world.
An effective counterstrategy must be based upon a realistic assessment of our own strengths and weaknesses in the face of religious extremism and terror. Disunity, of course, has proved fatal to countless human societies faced with a similar existential threat. A lack of seriousness in confronting the imminent danger is likewise often fatal. Those who seek to promote a peaceful and tolerant understanding of Islam must overcome the paralyzing effects of inertia, and harness a number of actual or potential strengths, which can play a key role in neutralizing fundamentalist ideology. These strengths not only are assets in the struggle with religious extremism, but in their mirror form they point to the weakness at the heart of fundamentalist ideology. They are:
1) Human dignity, which demands freedom of conscience and rejects the forced imposition of religious views; 2) the ability to mobilize immense resources to bring to bear on this problem, once it is identified and a global commitment is made to solve it; 3) the ability to leverage resources by supporting individuals and organizations that truly embrace a peaceful and tolerant Islam; 4) nearly 1,400 years of Islamic traditions and spirituality, which are inimical to fundamentalist ideology; 5) appeals to local and national -- as well as Islamic -- culture/traditions/pride; 6) the power of the feminine spirit, and the fact that half of humanity consists of women, who have an inherent stake in the outcome of this struggle; 7) traditional and Sufi leadership and masses, who are not yet radicalized (strong numeric advantage: 85% to 90% of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims); 8) the ability to harness networks of Islamic schools to propagate a peaceful and tolerant Islam; 9) the natural tendency of like-minded people to work together when alerted to a common danger; 10) the ability to form a global network of like-minded individuals, organizations and opinion leaders to promote moderate and progressive ideas throughout the Muslim world; 11) the existence of a counterideology, in the form of traditional, Sufi and modern Islamic teachings, and the ability to translate such works into key languages; 12) the benefits of modernity, for all its flaws, and the widespread appeal of popular culture; 13) the ability to cross national and cultural borders in the name of religion; 14) Internet communications, to disseminate progressive views -- linking and inspiring like-minded individuals and organizations throughout the world; 15) the nation-state; and 16) the universal human desire for freedom, justice and a better life for oneself and loved ones.
Though potentially decisive, most of these advantages remain latent or diffuse, and require mobilization to be effective in confronting fundamentalist ideology. In addition, no effort to defeat religious extremism can succeed without ultimately cutting off the flow of petrodollars used to finance that extremism, from Leeds to Jakarta.
Only by recognizing the problem, putting an end to the bickering within and between nation-states, and adopting a coherent long-term plan (executed with international leadership and commitment) can we begin to apply the brakes to the rampant spread of extremist ideas and hope to resolve the world's crisis of misunderstanding before the global economy and modern civilization itself begin to crumble in the face of truly devastating attacks.
Muslims themselves can and must propagate an understanding of the "right" Islam, and thereby discredit extremist ideology. Yet to accomplish this task requires the understanding and support of like-minded individuals, organizations and governments throughout the world. Our goal must be to illuminate the hearts and minds of humanity, and offer a compelling alternate vision of Islam, one that banishes the fanatical ideology of hatred to the darkness from which it emerged.
Mr. Wahid, former president of Indonesia, is patron and senior advisor to the LibForAll Foundation (www.libforall.org), an Indonesian and U.S.-based nonprofit that works to reduce religious extremism and discredit the use of terrorism.
Cyclo, Unfortunately, that's rather old news. The signs were all there about the splits between the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. The influence of Iran in southern Iraq, and the push for an independent nation by the Kurds will not disappear just because there was an election to establish a "central government" in Baghdad. These "wars" have been on-going for centuries, and democracy can't be forced from the outside; it must come from within. This administration understands nothing about history or democracy. The change of justifications for this war from WMDs to rid a tyrant to bring democracy to the Middle East are all failures. It's sad that so many Americans can't see what is so obvious as we sacrifice more of our military men and women and our treasury.
cicerone imposter wrote:Cyclo, Unfortunately, that's rather old news. The signs were all there about the splits between the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. The influence of Iran in southern Iraq, and the push for an independent nation by the Kurds will not disappear just because there was an election to establish a "central government" in Baghdad. These "wars" have been on-going for centuries, and democracy can't be forced from the outside; it must come from within. This administration understands nothing about history or democracy. The change of justifications for this war from WMDs to rid a tyrant to bring democracy to the Middle East are all failures. It's sad that so many Americans can't see what is so obvious as we sacrifice more of our military men and women and our treasury.
To win back security of our liberties, we must overcome all obstacles and we must win this war.
In its
1996 fatwah al Qaeda stated:
Quote: Those youths know that their rewards in fighting you, the USA, is double than their rewards in fighting some one else not from the people of the book. They have no intention except to enter paradise by killing you. An infidel, and enemy of God like you, cannot be in the same hell with his righteous executioner.
In its
1998 fatwah al Qaeda stated:
Quote: ~when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: "I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped", Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.
~to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it.
In its
2004 fatwah, al Qaeda stated:
Quote: Once again, we repeat our call and send this clear message to our Muslim brothers, warning against fellowship with the Crusaders, the Americans, Westerners and all idols in the Arab Gulf. Muslims should not associate with them anywhere, be it in their homes, complexes or travel with them by any means of transportation.
The night of Tuesday,
September 11, 2001, the President broadcast to the nation:
Quote:We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.
Thursday,
September 20, 2001, President Bush addressed the nation before a joint session of Congress:
Quote:Tonight we are a country awakened to danger. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. This is civilization's fight.
On Tuesday,
October 25, 2001, President Bush formally signed this new presidential directive:
Quote:The pre-9/11 draft presidential directive on al Qaeda evolved into a new directive, National Security Presidential Directive 9, now titled, "Defeating the Terrorist Threat to the United States[/b]." The directive would now extend to a global war on terrorism, not just on al Qaeda. ... The United States would strive to eliminate all terrorist networks, dry up their financial support, and prevent them from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. The goal was the "elimination of terrorism as a threat to our way of life."
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 by Congress
October 16, 2002:
Quote:
...
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
...
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and,
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
Now therefore be it, Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
50 USC 1541 note.
President Bush said on
12/14/2005:
Quote:A stable Iraq was in the interests of both the Iraqi and American people, he said. And he accused critics in Washington, many of whom had originally supported the decision to invade, of playing pure politics.
Victory will be achieved by meeting certain objectives:
when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's
democracy;
when the Iraqi security forces can protect their own people; and
when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot attacks against our
country.
Loosely quoting George Bush ... " I want the people that can be fooled ALL the time! I would say he is succeeding!!
Anon
Good posts, Ican. They show how unscrupulous and vicious the radical Muslim fringe can be. But they proved that on 9/11, didn't they? They also showed their disregard for the murder of innocent men, women and children in Bali, Madrid and London.
They are mad dogs who must be hunted down and eliminated.
Anyone who doesn't recognize the Sunni tactics with regard to protesting the elections has not paid enough attention to the left wing in the USA. It is EXPECTED that those who were in power( Democrats, Sunnis) will scream and moan that they were robbed.
We are not going to win this war the way it's being fought:
January 1, 2006
The Army, Faced With Its Limits
By FRED KAPLAN
ONE million men and women serve in the United States Army, so why is it proving nearly impossible to keep a mere 150,000 of them in Iraq?
The Pentagon expects to face many Iraq-type conflicts in the coming years, wars that involve battling insurgents and restoring stability. As a result, a debate is beginning to churn in defense policy circles: Should the government enlarge the military so it can more easily fight these wars? Or should the government alter its policies, so as not to fight such wars as often, at least not alone?
Senior Pentagon officials argue that neither shift is necessary, that reorganizing the Army's existing combat units into stronger, faster and more flexible brigades will have the same effect as adding more soldiers. But some analysts doubt these adjustments alone will go far enough.
Lawrence Korb, who was assistant secretary of defense for manpower and reserve affairs in the Reagan administration, states the issue baldly: "We cannot fight a long, sustained war without a larger ground force." He defines a "long war" as lasting two years or more. The Iraq war has gone on now for nearly three.
The claim may seem strange, until you peel apart the numbers. Of the Army's one million soldiers, fewer than 400,000 are combat troops (the rest are support personnel). Only about 150,000 of those combat troops are on active duty; the rest are in the National Guard and Reserves.
Then there is the matter of rotation. Combat units, at least in an all-volunteer force, cannot be deployed for much longer than a year. (To do otherwise would risk exhaustion and demoralization.) Replacements come while the battle-weary go out for rest, retraining and resupply. Therefore, to sustain one active brigade (about 3,500 troops) in a war zone, one or two additional brigades must be ready to replace it.
Finally, Iraq isn't the only foreign country where American combat troops are stationed.
In a study published in October, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office calculated that given all these factors the military could not sustain more than 123,000 troops in Iraq for much longer.
Additional forces, the budget office concluded, would require the United States to "increase the size of the land forces, terminate some other commitment or rotate forces to Iraq at more demanding rates." In the past year, the Pentagon has already stretched the rotation cycle in Iraq, for both active and reserve forces; and it has redeployed one brigade from Bosnia and another from South Korea. "There isn't much more leeway for simply moving people around," Mr. Korb said.
That leaves the other option: adding more land forces overall. How many? James Dobbins and James Quinlivan, military analysts at the RAND Corporation, have analyzed historical data on the numbers of foreign troops in various occupations after a war. They found that all the successful missions involved troop levels totaling at least 2 percent of the occupied country's population.
Taking that figure as a rough rule of thumb, securing Iraq, which has 25 million people, would require 500,000 foreign troops. American and coalition forces now total about 180,000.
Gen. Eric Shinseki, the former Army chief of staff, drew on similar historical studies when he told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2003, a month before the war started, that "several hundred thousand troops" would be needed to restore order after the fighting (a claim that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, at the time, vigorously disputed).
A force that large probably could have been mobilized to Iraq for some period, maybe for a year. In 2003-2004, before the insurgency got seriously under way, that may have been enough to impose order. But now, it is generally recognized that it's not possible to send any more troops from the Army as it stands.When Representative John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, advocated withdrawing troops from Iraq in November, he said he did so in part because senior military officers had told him the Army could not sustain even the existing troop levels.
As a way to do more with less, the Army has begun to reorganize its forces, so that each brigade has more combat troops and fewer support personnel. John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, an independent clearinghouse for military information, estimates that this shift, if it's fully carried out, will let the military "sustain its current level of effort in Iraq indefinitely."
Top Pentagon officials are also seriously thinking about ways to improve the strategies for waging counterinsurgency wars. In December, Gordon England, the No. 2 official at the Defense Department, issued a directive declaring that "stability operations are a core U.S. military mission" and "should be given priority comparable to combat operations."
BUT the 11-page directive notes that carrying out the policy would require not just reshuffling but expanding the armed forces. And the Army's plan for more combat-heavy brigades requires at least keeping the same numbers of troops. Yet in the face of budgetary pressures, Mr. Rumsfeld is reportedly preparing to order cuts in military manpower.
The Army's recruitment and retention rates are declining, in any case. This has led many experts to wonder if the United States, which has relied entirely on volunteer troops since 1973, should bring back the draft.
The presidential commission that proposed ending the draft back in 1970 wrote in its report that an all-volunteer force, which it otherwise strongly endorsed, would be good only for short wars. For longer wars, the National Guard and Reserves would be called on for "the first stage in the expansion of effective forces." If war went on still longer and required more manpower, civilians would have to be brought in, if necessary, "by conscription." For this reason, the report recommended, and presidents have retained, mandatory draft registration.
Few believe Congress will reactivate the draft, short of a threat to national survival or a conflict on the order of World War II. Nor do many senior military officers want to revive conscription. They regard the all-volunteer forces as smarter, more disciplined and more skillful than the draftees of the Vietnam era.
If the Bush administration lacks the resources to meet its expansive military goals, some experts say, maybe the goals should be contracted to meet the resources.
"After the occupations of Bosnia and Kosovo, people said, 'Look how good we are at this,' " recalls Barry Posen, professor of security studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "They forget those places are small. Bosnia has four million people, Kosovo two million. It's just hard to impose your will on a larger country, unless you want to be savage about it. It's always been hard."
Professor Posen adds, "If you do need to go in and occupy some place, you should want everybody and his cousin to go in with you." This would mean a renewed emphasis on multilateralism, alliances and diplomacy - stemming not from moral qualms about the use of force, but from simple arithmetic. "Given the limits on our resources," he says, "it just seems impossible to do it any other way."Fred Kaplan is national security columnist for Slate.
gatos, did you begin collecting social security at 62 or wait for the larger payoff? just curious.
Cicerone Imposter's post features the writer Fred Kaplan who writes one sided posts for the third rate publication- Slate. Slate is characterized as the home of some of the goofiest theories in print. Cicerone Imposter would do much better sticking to the New York Times or the Washington Post. Slate!!!--Really??? Slate is on the left what the National Review is on the right. I notice not many right wingers have the nerve to quote from the right wing National Review.
us and them
further to c.i's entry here is what
...USA TODAY...published on dec 30.
of course the advice and comments by Gen. Eric Shinseki wasn't welcome at all . it's also interesting to hear what former secretary/general colin powell has to say these days . it would have been great if he had spoken up earlier . hbg