Command Responsibility and Bush Failures

George Z. Bush wrote:

From the beginning of the conflict captured Iraqis (including Saddam
Hussain)
were accorded everything due them in the Geneva convention.

If that were the case, why did the International Red Cross repeatedly advise
us
both verbally and in writing since
February 2004 that there were systemic
failures in the treatment of detainees in Iraq

You're not following the argument George. I agree, this winter when things
started to turn into a full blown insurgency, our jailors began to act
unlawfully. What "Walt" is arguing is that since the beginning (March 2003) of
OIF, Iraqi PWs have been abused. According to Walt, its because Bush ordered
it, or somehow (through his "behavior") condoned it. I'm not arguing with what
happened this winter, but if you and Walt believe that this was the standard
since combat ops began, you're ignoring facts. The Red Cross had access to
Iraqi PWs since April 2003, they didn't report abuses until this past winter.

Why did nobody in
our government pay attention, or investigate, or do anything about cleaning
up
the mess until a couple of weeks ago, when the stuff hit the fan and became
public knowledge?

Investigations were begun before this became public a few weeks ago. Why was no
immediate action taken as soon as the Red Cross report was provided? My guess
is because those who read the report didn't believe it. Prior to seeing the
pictures I wouldn't have believed it either.

A captured Saudi is
*not* afforded protection under the Geneva convention for fighting
Americans
in
Iraq.

If he's a detainee, he certainly is.

You'll have to point out where Geneva states that a third party national
conducting military operations in a foreign country is a "detainee" and not an
unlawful combatant.

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities

While there were some "suspects" in Abu Gharib, most were captured unlawful
combatants.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time
and
in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life...snip

Once again George, you aren't following my argument. I'm not trying to justify
these horrible acts. I am making two points. First, while we choose to follow
the Geneva convention for *all* combatants, both lawful and unlawful, it does
not mean that all our prisoners are automatically entitled this protection.
Second, this abhorant behavior is not a reflection of anyone other than those
immediately involved. If you listen to our resident leftist troll Walt, Bush
ordered or at least condoned these abuses and should be held accountable. Walt
attempts to prove Bush's direct involvement by claiming U.S. forces, since
combat operations began, have never afforded Iraq PWs the treatment due the
under Geneva.

If they're Iraqis and in uniform they have Geneva convention rights.
Remove
either of the two and they are not protected under Geneva.

You obviously haven't read the Geneva Convention....

Sorry George, every year we were required to take a test on the Geneva
Convention articles during our "Laws of Armed Conflict" training. I'm sure I've
either read or been briefed them many more times than you.

take another look - if they
were not fighting while taken prisoner, they're covered, whether or not they
were soldiers.

Who has said anything about non-combatants? This is the first introduction of
non-combatants into the issue. Do you have a point to make about
non-combatants?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set the tone for the prisoner abuse scandal
in Iraq by refusing to give captives rights due prisoners of war under
the Geneva Conventions.

Actually an *editorial* in a "leading military newspaper" made that
claim.

The editors at the Military Times pretty much support the same
interpretation
of command responsibility that I do.

I read editorials every week in Air Force Times that are based on
nothing
more
than the opinion of a single person.

The posts you make on this NG -- are they the opinion of a single
person?

"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set the tone early in this war by
steadfastly refusing to give captives the rights accorded to prisoners
of war under the Geneva Convention," it said.

"it" was wrong. OIF differed substantially from OEF until a few months
ago.

No, "it's" right. President Bush is ultimately repsonsible for what has
happened in Iraq, which James Webb -- no leftie, he-- called the
greatest
strategic failure in the last 50 years.

From the beginning of the conflict captured Iraqis (including Saddam
Hussain)
were accorded everything due them in the Geneva convention.

If that were the case, why did the International Red Cross repeatedly
advise us
both verbally and in writing since February 2004 that there were systemic
failures in the treatment of detainees in Iraq that were in violation of
the
Geneva Conventions relating to the treatment of detainees? Why did nobody
in
our government pay attention, or investigate, or do anything about
cleaning up
the mess until a couple of weeks ago, when the stuff hit the fan and
became
public knowledge?

Since February 2004? Maybe because by that time we were already in the midst
of our own investigations, had already releived the Abu Ghraib MP
leadership, and were developing criminal charges against involved personnel?

If you are referring to the *original* ICRC concerns, from *last* year, then
yeah, we are guilty...of forcing PW's to sit in unlighted cells? Gosh, now
that *is* nasty...given that 90 plus percent of the *rest* of the Iraqi
population was also without benefit of electric lighting at that time.
Beyond that we don't know very much about what the specific concerns of the
ICRC were, though we know they were none too happy with our detainee policy,
etc., in general (who'd have thunk it?).


Many have not been. In fact, I don't know that the record shows that
any
large
number have.

What has come out in the media in the last few days is that General
Miller was
brought in from Gitmo (I have been there too, BTW) to make all the
detention
facilities into interrogation centers in direct difiance of the Geneva
Convention.

It wasn't until the
introduction of foreign fighters that things got blurry.

You can try and show that.

A captured Saudi is
*not* afforded protection under the Geneva convention for fighting
Americans
in
Iraq.

If he's a detainee, he certainly is.

Where do you see that?

This is part of the 4th Geneva Convention, enacted in August 1949, to
which both
the U. S. and Iraq are signatories:

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character
occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each
Party to
the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of
armed
forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by
sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all
circumstances be
treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour,
religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time
and
in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,
mutilation,
cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and
degrading
treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without
previous
judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the
judicial
guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.


Nice, but that would only apply to the former members of the Iraqi armed
forces, or the local populace, not external insurgents; note that Article 3
also applies only to "conflict not of an international character" (i.e., a
civil war). You get an "A" for effort, but a "D" for applicability to the
posited case of the Saudi fighter captured in Iraq. You might want to peruse
Article 4:

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including
those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the
conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this
territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps,
including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following
conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and
customs of war.

Note that the four requirements must *all* be met, in addition to the bit
about being a memeber of "a party to the conflict". Sorry, but the posited
Saudi insurgent does not seem to fit that mold, either. So,,,nope, he is not
entitled to PW status.


From the moment they are captured, prisoners are hooded, shackled and
accorded no rights whatsoever

If they're Iraqis and in uniform they have Geneva convention rights.
Remove
either of the two and they are not protected under Geneva.

You obviously haven't read the Geneva Convention.....take another look -
if they
were not fighting while taken prisoner, they're covered, whether or not
they
were soldiers.

Not necessarily. See Article 4. Itappears that you obviously HAVE read only
those portions of the GC that (appear at first glance to) suit your
preconceived notions.


Then why did Rumsfeld --say-- they were being treated in accordance with
the
Geneva Conventions?

You've never heard of "CYA"? Maybe it's been a while since he looked at
the
Fourth Convention; anyway, anybody who can read par. (1)(c) of the
Convention
(look above) wouldn't be saying that.

Again, read both the preamble to the Article 3 and the entire Article 4. If
you can do so with an open mind (doubtful, I am afraid, given your past
track record), you will see that the case can definitely be made that the
external sourced insurgents don't meet the PW criteria, and that activities
of some of the former Iraqi military personnel who have since retaken up
arms puts them outside the purview of Article 4.

Brooks


Does this mean they
should be treated as they were in Abu Gharib? Hell no, but lets not
confuse
the
issue with dubious "facts".

You're practically a shill for the Bushies. You typically stay well away
from
the facts.

Walt

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
George Z. Bush wrote:

From the beginning of the conflict captured Iraqis (including Saddam
Hussain)
were accorded everything due them in the Geneva convention.

If that were the case, why did the International Red Cross repeatedly
advise
us
both verbally and in writing since
February 2004 that there were systemic
failures in the treatment of detainees in Iraq

You're not following the argument George. I agree, this winter when things
started to turn into a full blown insurgency, our jailors began to act
unlawfully. What "Walt" is arguing is that since the beginning (March
2003) of
OIF, Iraqi PWs have been abused. According to Walt, its because Bush
ordered
it, or somehow (through his "behavior") condoned it. I'm not arguing with
what
happened this winter, but if you and Walt believe that this was the
standard
since combat ops began, you're ignoring facts. The Red Cross had access to
Iraqi PWs since April 2003, they didn't report abuses until this past
winter.

Why did nobody in
our government pay attention, or investigate, or do anything about
cleaning
up
the mess until a couple of weeks ago, when the stuff hit the fan and
became
public knowledge?

Investigations were begun before this became public a few weeks ago. Why
was no
immediate action taken as soon as the Red Cross report was provided? My
guess
is because those who read the report didn't believe it. Prior to seeing
the
pictures I wouldn't have believed it either.

We don't really know much about *what* the ICRC was actually reporting--the
only specific example I have seen so far released to the press was that they
mentioned they were concerned over keeping prisoners in unlit cells, which
would appear to be not only a pretty trivial concern but also understandable
as the lights were out across a goodly portion of Iraq during the first few
months after we took over.

Brooks

snip

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ...
"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
Ditto on weapons of mass destruction supposedly held by Saddam.

When the head of the CIA says its a "slam dunk" case, who should argue with
him?

Please point us to some documentation that head of the CIA says its
a "slam dunk" case.

That's what Woodward's book "Plan of Attack" says.

That's not all. Here are a few more links that prove the point:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...woodward.book/
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/prather.php?articleid=2383
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38198
http://www.wnd.com/news/printer-frie...TICLE_ID=38198
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1124110/posts


Those all refer back to Woodward's book "Plan of Attack". In fact
most of those are copies of the same article published on multiple
web pages.


There's a lot more but that ought to prove that an awful lot of people heard and
reported the statement.

There is NOTHING in there to indicate that anyone other than Bush
and Tenet allegedly heard or reported the statement. McLaughlin
hould have heard it, has he said he did? Woodwards says he interviewed
75 people, he does not say that 75 people confirmed the statement.
Tenet has covered for Bush befor.

Tenet has covered for Bush befor.

No one has ever shown any hard evidence that the US intelligence
abotu WMDs in Iraq was substantively in error. It has only been
shown that the public statements were contrary to fact.

If anyone needs an audio tape of the statement, they
can probably find one somewhere in Google if it's worth the effort.

But could you authenticate it?

--

FF

No one has ever shown any hard evidence that the US intelligence
abotu WMDs in Iraq was substantively in error.

Except we can't find them.

Walt

From the beginning of the conflict captured Iraqis (including Saddam
Hussain)
were accorded everything due them in the Geneva convention.

If that were the case, why did the International Red Cross repeatedly advise
us
both verbally and in writing since February 2004 that there were systemic
failures in the treatment of detainees in Iraq that were in violation of the
Geneva Conventions relating to the treatment of detainees?

Because Bufdrvr is in a dream world of slaveish devotion to Bush and his
agenda.

Why did nobody in
our government pay attention, or investigate, or do anything about cleaning
up
the mess until a couple of weeks ago, when the stuff hit the fan and became
public knowledge?

Many have not been. In fact, I don't know that the record shows that any
large
number have.

What has come out in the media in the last few days is that General Miller
was
brought in from Gitmo (I have been there too, BTW) to make all the
detention
facilities into interrogation centers in direct difiance of the Geneva
Convention.

It wasn't until the
introduction of foreign fighters that things got blurry.

You can try and show that.

A captured Saudi is
*not* afforded protection under the Geneva convention for fighting
Americans
in
Iraq.

If he's a detainee, he certainly is.

According to the Genevea Convention, he certainly is.


Where do you see that?

This is part of the 4th Geneva Convention, enacted in August 1949, to which
both
the U. S. and Iraq are signatories:

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character
occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party
to
the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of
armed
forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by
sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances
be
treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour,
religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time
and
in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,
mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading
treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without
previous
judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the
judicial
guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.


From the moment they are captured, prisoners are hooded, shackled and
accorded no rights whatsoever

If they're Iraqis and in uniform they have Geneva convention rights.
Remove
either of the two and they are not protected under Geneva.

You obviously haven't read the Geneva Convention.....take another look - if
they
were not fighting while taken prisoner, they're covered, whether or not they
were soldiers.

Then why did Rumsfeld --say-- they were being treated in accordance with
the
Geneva Conventions?

Good point.


Walt

BUFDRVR sends:

George Z. Bush wrote:

From the beginning of the conflict captured Iraqis (including Saddam
Hussain)
were accorded everything due them in the Geneva convention.

If that were the case, why did the International Red Cross repeatedly advise
us
both verbally and in writing since
February 2004 that there were systemic
failures in the treatment of detainees in Iraq

You're not following the argument George. I agree, this winter when things
started to turn into a full blown insurgency, our jailors began to act
unlawfully. What "Walt" is arguing is that since the beginning (March 2003)
of
OIF, Iraqi PWs have been abused.

I don't recall saying that. I've been wondering that as things have gotten
worse and worse, and their November 2 drubbing draws closer and closer, that
the Bushies haven't ramped up the pressure. But it doesn't seem to have started
out this bad, this pressure on the detanees. Don't forget -- the Bushies
-expected- a walk over.

You do have to wonder how they could let the prisoner abse thing bite them in
the butt so badly. Hopefully, it will precipitate a Watergate-like fall. It
would be nice to see Bush and Rumsfeld given criminal indictments.

According to Walt, its because Bush ordered
it, or somehow (through his "behavior") condoned it.

Bush is ultimately responsible.

I'm not arguing with
what
happened this winter, but if you and Walt believe that this was the standard
since combat ops began, you're ignoring facts.

I don't recall ever saying anything like that.

The Red Cross had access to
Iraqi PWs since April 2003, they didn't report abuses until this past winter.

Fine with me.



Why did nobody in
our government pay attention, or investigate, or do anything about cleaning
up
the mess until a couple of weeks ago, when the stuff hit the fan and became
public knowledge?

Investigations were begun before this became public a few weeks ago.

And yet the president first saw the pictures of the abuse on "60 Minutes II"

Why was
no
immediate action taken as soon as the Red Cross report was provided? My guess
is because those who read the report didn't believe it. Prior to seeing the
pictures I wouldn't have believed it either.

I don't know why that would surprise anyone. The Bush administartion has kept
a U.S. citizen in jail for over two years with no charges, no trial and no
access to lawyers. That's Jose Padilla.

Now we recently see the heretofore unbelieveable spectacle of the Solicitor
General of the United States going before the Supreme Court to argue that an
American citizen should not be granted the protections of the sixth amendment.

The prisoner abuse episode was not the first time the Bushies have tossed out
the law.


A captured Saudi is
*not* afforded protection under the Geneva convention for fighting
Americans
in
Iraq.

If he's a detainee, he certainly is.

You'll have to point out where Geneva states that a third party national
conducting military operations in a foreign country is a "detainee" and not
an
unlawful combatant.

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities

While there were some "suspects" in Abu Gharib, most were captured unlawful
combatants.

That's not true. In fact, you're lying, as it's been reported that 60-70% were
essentially picked up at random.


To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time
and
in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life...snip

Once again George, you aren't following my argument. I'm not trying to
justify
these horrible acts.

You lied and you got caught. Does that Bush re-election campaign have a shill
telling lies on every newsgroup?

I am making two points. First, while we choose to follow
the Geneva convention for *all* combatants, both lawful and unlawful

We haven't done that. We've done just the opposite.

, it does
not mean that all our prisoners are automatically entitled this protection.

The ones held in Iraq a

"Rumsfeld replied that the Geneva Conventions applied to all prisoners held in
Iraq but not to those held in Guantanamo Bay, where detainees captured in the
global war on terror are held."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4855930

But the POW's in Iraq didn't get those protections, did they?

Second, this abhorant behavior is not a reflection of anyone other than those
immediately involved.

Of couse it is. Where were the lieutenants and captains? These soldiers were
put in a permssive situation, given a wink and a nod from the MI or whomever,
and it was off to the races. And the Red Cross report said such abuses were
widespread and systemic. An Afghani has also come forward to tell how -he- was
abused in similar ways.

If you listen to our resident leftist troll Walt, Bush
ordered or at least condoned these abuses and should be held accountable.

Bush is ultimately responsble, yes. And he should be held accountable. He
may be worried about winding up in the dock next to Slobodan Milosovic.

Walt
attempts to prove Bush's direct involvement

I never said that. I said he is ultimately responsible. You're missing my
take on GWB. I think he's a puppet. He sounds like a retard to me.

Why did he have it leaked last Thursday or Friday that he had "admonished" the
SecDef, and then this Monday say he was doing a "superb" job? Maybe Cheney
crossed his signals.


by claiming U.S. forces, since
combat operations began, have never afforded Iraq PWs the treatment due the
under Geneva.

I never said anything like that. I said that Bush was ultimately responsible
for what happens or fails to happens -- the concept that was drilled into me in
the Marine Corps.


If they're Iraqis and in uniform they have Geneva convention rights.
Remove
either of the two and they are not protected under Geneva.

You obviously haven't read the Geneva Convention....

Sorry George, every year we were required to take a test on the Geneva
Convention articles during our "Laws of Armed Conflict" training.

Then you are lying. George -did- quote it after all, and as the SedDef's
testimony I quote above shows, he knew he was obligated to make sure that the
detainees in Iraq were not sodomized, or threatened with attack dogs and all
the rest.

You seem to be forgetting also, that the SecDef has -taken- responsibility. He
-said- he was responsible. Of course he reports to GWB.


I'm sure
I've
either read or been briefed them many more times than you.

take another look - if they
were not fighting while taken prisoner, they're covered, whether or not they
were soldiers.

Who has said anything about non-combatants? This is the first introduction of
non-combatants into the issue. Do you have a point to make about
non-combatants?

You got caught lying. Well, it's not the first time.

Walt

Brooks:

4. If
you can do so with an open mind (doubtful, I am afraid, given your past
track record), you will see that the case can definitely be made that the
external sourced insurgents don't meet the PW criteria, and that activities
of some of the former Iraqi military personnel who have since retaken up
arms puts them outside the purview of Article 4.

Brooks, did you ever post a retraction of your statement that Gen Shinseki was
retired when he said that "several hundred thousand" troops would be required
in Iraq? He was in fact on active duty, you know.

Was that just a big fat lie on your part, or were you honestly mistaken?

In any case, your statement above is wrong:

"Rumsfeld replied that the Geneva Conventions applied to all prisoners held in
Iraq but not to those held in Guantanamo Bay, where detainees captured in the
global war on terror are held."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4855930


But those prisoners in Iraq didn't get the protection of the Geneva Convention,
did they? They were stripped and sleep deprived and humiliated and sodomized
and threatened with attack dogs, weren't they?

This is a horrible national disgrace and you and your co-shill are having a
really hard time not telling telling big fat whopping lies to cover it up.

Walt

BUFDRVR:

Actually an *editorial* in a "leading military newspaper" made that claim.

The editors at the Military Times pretty much support the same
interpretation
of command responsibility that I do.

Actually the guy that wrote the editorial believes those higher in the
command
chain are also responsible, but he does not call for Bush to take
responsibility.

I believe he used the term "highest levels of civilian control" or words to
that effect.


I read editorials every week in Air Force Times that are based on nothing
more
than the opinion of a single person.

The posts you make on this NG -- are they the opinion of a single person?


I post my own opinion, but support them with facts.

You seldom do that. See below. You posted several items that are false.

You on the other hand
just
spout your typical leftist crap supported by nothing.

Others can judge whom they find more credible.


No, "it's" right. President Bush is ultimately repsonsible for what has
happened in Iraq, which James Webb -- no leftie, he-- called the greatest
strategic failure in the last 50 years.

No comment about Webb? He's one of my heroes, and he did call the invasion of
Iraq the greatest strategic ---blunder- may have been the word he used.


Once again, you suffer from lack of knowledge. You claim Iraqi prisoners have
never been treated according to the Geneva Convention;do you have any
supporting info for this claim? No? I thought not.

I haven't said they -never- had been granted the protections of the GC. What
seems obvious is that by last fall, pressure was being put on some that was
well outside the bounds of what the GC calls for.

I think the Bushies started getting nervous as their plans disintegrated and
the election began to loom.


Many have not been.

Then prove it.

What has come out in the media in the last few days is that General Miller
was
brought in from Gitmo (I have been there too, BTW) to make all the detention
facilities into interrogation centers in direct difiance of the Geneva
Convention.

Interrogations are legal by the Geneva Convention you nit wit.

Not with attack dogs.

I remind you again that Rumsfeld testified that all prisoners in Iraq were
covered by the Geneva Convention. But not all received that protection.


It wasn't until the
introduction of foreign fighters that things got blurry.

You can try and show that.

So far all the abuse cases and even the Red Cross reports date back to this
winter, not to the beginning of the operation. The Red Cross had full access
to
Iraqi PWs from APR 03 on and they did not report any abuse cases till this
past
winter.

You haven't demonstrated your point about foreign fighters. And you won't
either. It was a lie.


A captured Saudi is
*not* afforded protection under the Geneva convention for fighting
Americans
in
Iraq.

Where do you see that?

Where do I "see" that? In the Geneva Convention you moron.

Rumsfeld this week testifed to another effect:

"Rumsfeld replied that the Geneva Conventions applied to all prisoners held in
Iraq but not to those held in Guantanamo Bay, where detainees captured in the
global war on terror are held."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4855930



If I decide I want
to pick up and fight for India in the Kashmir region tommorow and do so
without
becoming an Indian citizen and putting on a recognized military uniform I am
an
unlawful combatant.

Only in the Bushie world, where they flaunt any laws they don't like.

Not only does the Geneva Convention offer no protection,
it
states unlawful combatants, depending on their activity, can be considered
spies and executed.

That doesn't square with Rumsfeld's testimony.


If they're Iraqis and in uniform they have Geneva convention rights. Remove
either of the two and they are not protected under Geneva.

Then why did Rumsfeld --say-- they were being treated in accordance with the
Geneva Conventions?

Because we have treated every captive in accordance with Geneva.

Even that poor guy threatened with attack dogs?

Even the
unlawful combatants captured in Afghanistan have been accorded the treatment
specified for legal combatants (with the exception of repatrioting them after
the conflict is over).

Flatly false.

Walt

I wrote:

What I've said on this issue is pretty much what the editorial staff at the
Military Times has said. I am willing to leave it there.



BUFDRVR wrote:

Actually, its what one reader wrote, but keep making yourself feel better
troll.


No, Sorry. It was the senior editor, Robert Hodierne. He was interviewed on the
"Today" show also.

His online resume:

http://www.hodierne.com/

You lied -- again--.

You got caught --again--

Walt