"After going into Iraq with too few troops and no coherent plan for postwar stabilization, America's general officer corps did not accurately portray the intensity of the insurgency to the American public," he writes. "For reasons that are not yet clear, America's general officer corps underestimated the strength of the enemy, overestimated the capabilities of Iraq's government and security forces and failed to provide Congress with an accurate assessment of security conditions in Iraq."

Yingling said he decided to write the article after attending Purple Heart and deployment ceremonies for Army soldiers. "I find it hard to look them in the eye," he said in an interview. "Our generals are not worthy of their soldiers.".....

The article has been read by about 30 of his peers, Yingling added. "At the level of lieutenant colonel and below, it received almost universal approval," he said.

I could have gone on and on.

Her and her family will be leaving Iraq. They will be joining some three million or so other Iraqi refugees.

What an effing waste.

It's difficult to decide which is more frightening- car bombs and militias, or having to leave everything you know and love, to some unspecified place for a future where nothing is certain.

*

By the way, on the subject of an "interrogative detention," tell me about the following event which took place in 2003 with me the sometimes nudist--

Between the mid-90s and 2003, the Wash state leg changed the Wa state definition of indecent exposure in way that should have and in fact does permit more public nudity.

In the summer of 2003, on seven occasions I was sunbathing nude at Greenlake, a public park.  On the 7th occasion, I was accosted by a policeperson
who had had a complaint about my being nude.  (Not for public sexual conduct, but someone complained about my being nude, face down, sunbathing.)  After the policeperson instructed me to put on my shorts and I complied, he handcuffed me and led me to the vehicle.  He and another policeperson then drove me to the local police station and I was put in a holding cell.   At no point in this procedure up to this point was I told that I was under arrest and the police repeatedly questioned me about my being nude, my motives, my conduct and previous times being nude, etc.  I answered their questioned truthfully, while also directing the police attention to relevant Wa state law, a copy of which I had in my possession at the time of the handcuffing.  

I referred police to the Wash state law as written, and explained that my conduct did not violate it as I understood it.

The police didn't seem to familiar with the law, and seemed to want time to review the law, and to consult with their attorneys or superiors about the matter.  Of course, these events took place on a Saturday afternoon and the city attorney was not immediately available.

After 1 or 2 hours in "detention," the policeperson opened my cell door and said, "you are under arrest," and gave me the equivalent of a Miranda warning, if I recall correctly.  I am unsure about the Miranda warning.  What I am sure about is that the words "you are under arrest," were given more than 45 minutes and perhaps as much as several hours after I was first approached by the policeperson and led away.

Not that I felt my comments earlier to the police were coerced, but in retrospect, this doesn't seem like proper constitutional procedure to me.

It seems to me that, to be handcuffed and confined involuntarily to a holding cell, while being asked questions without a Miranda warning, isn't that something that the Warren Court would have regarded as coercive?

Although I oppose all executions on moral and practical grounds, I feel particularly saddened about Ryan's.  He was barely an adult when his crime was committed.  It was 16 days after his 18th birthday.  His 14-year-old brother, who was with him at the time and is serving a 15 year sentence, testified against him.  I wonder what he is feeling now and whether having been brought to that stand and played a part in bringing his own sibling to his death he will be a positive member of society when he is released.  Those kids were let down by society; the people who should know better are us.

The attached article from the latest "Stanford Report"(an alumni magazine) carries the following statements;

"Ethanol is being promoted as a clean and renewable fuel that will reduce global warming and air pollution," said Jacobson, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering(at Stanford's School of Engineering). "But our results show that a high blend of ethanol (e.g. 85% Ethanol - 15% gasoline ) poses an equal or greater risk to public health than gasoline, which already causes significant health damage."

"We found that E85 vehicles reduce atmospheric levels of two carcinogens, benzene and butadiene, but increase two others formaldehyde and acetaldehyde," Jacobson said. "As a result, cancer rates for E85 are likely to be similar to those for gasoline. However, ..... E85 significantly increased ozone, a prime ingredient of smog and greenhouse gas."

Maybe There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

I have some questions about this.  Suppose the madam puts on the stand several clients such as this.  if they testify there was no sex, then that exonerates the madam.  If they testify there was sex and they paid for it, then, the jury could legitimately wonder why the madam is being prosecuted and not the men who are paying for the sex.  At least, if I were on the jury, I'd wonder about this.  

  It is hardly beyond imagination to envision a day when the BOP is much different and our enemies have the ability to create war here and destroy us.

  One of the dangers of some of the extremist views on the Left, is that despite the often very valid concerns about our projection of our power, we fail to acknowledge that there is a danger of becoming so weak we are on the receiving end someday and that the people who would be giving it to us are not nice people.

 The idea that we can erase a threat by  calling it "fake" is dangerous and irresponsible. One can certainly make many very good arguments that our responses to the threat has been counter-productive in many many ways, but denying even the possibility that radical Islam is a present threat and if left unchecked could become a threat capable of destroying our system is so shortsighted as to be insane.

  All past regionally or globally  dominant powers have ceased be dominant except for us and there is no reason to think our time won't come. Often the causes were internal. Sometimes they were both internal and external and others external --losing conflicts.

  If you want to argue that we run a risk of destroying ourselves in our reactive measures to prevent being destroyed by others, I will wholly agree with you, but if you dismiss the potential for bering destroyed by others then I do no think you are in touch with life on this planet.

  The best solutiion, is, as almost always, somewhere in the middle -- in the vast area between creating a national security state and resolving all problems with force and suppression and pretending the only danger in the world is that we create and that if we just do nothing those that seek to destroy us will just change their own minds of their own accord.  

If you want to argue that we run a risk of destroying ourselves in our reactive measures to prevent being destroyed by others,

The continuation of that course will "destroy" the U.S more quickly than the inevitable attacks that the fanatics are supposed to be cowed into never considering.