President Bush has been sending signals of late that he’s “flexible” on changing the strategy in Iraq — at the same time, he seems to be ruling out most options, including a phased withdrawal, troop buildup or partition of Iraq.
One Bush idea being floated would give the Iraqi government target dates for achieving certain goals, such as disarming militias.
But how would such timelines exert any influence on the Iraqis without real leverage, such as the threat of troop withdrawal?
The fact is, the United States doesn’t have any good options in Iraq. But there is a growing bipartisan sense that we can’t “stay the course” — which is no doubt why the White House has now stopped using the term. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Monday that Iraq is “on the verge of chaos,” and the current plan “is not working.”
A new U.S. strategy has to fully face that reality with a bold course correction.
First step: Fire Donald Rumsfeld.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
41 Comments
Hey man, we’re in a morass; that means it’s going to be hard to get out of it! Of course Bush can always declare “Victory” and leave. Reality has never been his strong suit anyway. The Iranians will move in and take over, and then all that mess will be their problem. Unfortunately, whatever we do, or anyone else does, the Iraqi people are fucked! At least maybe we’ll remember (for a generation) what happens when we get into a morass.
The Arabs, Kurds and Persians have been f***** ever since it was discovered, by Europeans, that the “primitives” were sitting on top of massive amounts of black gold. Since the residents weren’t using it, and didn’t need it, while Europe did need it, it was only “fitting” for Europeans, followed by Americans, to exercise their “natural right” to extract it for the purpose of advancing their industrial economies, and give the Third Worlders token payments for their “cooperation”.
Our leaders don’t want to acknowledge that Islamic terrorism is the very natural consequence of resentment of Islamic perception of theft–we may recall that the “Indians” of North America had the same perception, as did the real Indians, and they also carried out many acts of “terrorism”.
You can believe it is a religious matter, but every educated Muslim knows that the Catholic Church originally incited Christian-Muslim conflict 1000 years ago, but we haven’t seen any “Islamofascist” attacks on Catholic countries such as Mexico, Brazil or Venezuela, or any other Catholic country of South America, nor for that matter against Protestant Norway. It is not irrelevant that these countries have their own abundent energy supplies, and are not viewed by the Middle Easterners to be either thieves, nor complicitous with thieves.
We suffer a peculiar conceit that because we are smarter than the desert dwellers, and we discovered the oil to whose existence the “primitives” were oblivious, it’s our right to exploit it for our benefit, and they just have to take it. They’ve come to the conclusion that they don’t.
The real tragedy is threefold: 1) We possess the brainpower and natural resources here to become energy-independent of the Middle East over time;2) If we had to pay the full price of oil in a truly free-trade market, alternative-energy would become cost-competitive, and it would be rapidly developed; 3) if we paid the desert dwellers the full price of oil, and worked to help them build modern economies using their oil revenues, we could learn to get along. How do we know this? Because we have Middle Eastern Muslims living right here in Wichita, and we’re all getting along.
Yes this is a sticky one, a true majority rule means a Shiite ran country and that would mean a satellite of Iran. Of course it is wishful thinking on Bush&Co. part that it will not happen, the Sunni had their thumb on the Shiites too long for there not to be pay back. The only unify force in Iraq is the presents of U.S. Troops.It gives them a common enemy to distract them from each other. But it is unlikely that in a country where the chief export is oil, that the Shiites will be willing to give a share to the Sunni who oppressed them.
The best we can hope for is that we can slow down the fighting and ease the parties into a Shiite rule.That would be bring Democracy to Iraq, but at best bring about the three country in one idea. With the Sunni being a under class. Since they occupy the center of Iraq where there is no oil.
The problem with that is that Turkey is oppose to the Kurds having their own country, to the extent that Turnkey actually threaten the U.S. with a two front battle during the invasion with Turkey on one side and the Iraqis on the other. Turkey even had 80 thousand troops on or just over the boarder before the invasion.They held back because of Washington’s assurances that a separate country for the Kurds would not be allowed. So now we have Iran on one side, Turkey on the other side and Syria on yet a side pinching Iraq between. So who is it that is keeping the country from folding in on its self? Three guesses and two of them do not count.
Might just as well divy up Iraq between Syria, Iraq, and Iran. “Worth the Fighting For?”
What a waste of life.Nobody in the world (except bushco)wanted us there, why in the world would the population cooperate with anything we want?Kurds, Shiite and Sunni all want their own seperate states.They are fighting a war of independence that we can never stop.Our “beach-head” in the middle East is a joke and a travesty of justice.
While it might not be clear just how we get out of Bush’s quagmire one thing is certain: Bush and the BushBots are not those to lead us out. If the so-called “bipartisan” Baker Comission is to have any impact there must be a force to press Bush to follw its recommendations. Bush has already ignored their advice – more than once.
Where is the energy policy that will get us out of future wars for oil? Why hasn’t TT shown any real leadership on developing the alternative energy industry (ok add any of our politicians) in Kansas. He claims to be responsible for job and economic growth in Kansas — other than Boeing layoffs — what has he done. Oh, I remember he wrote a 9 step plan of action for Congress — and nothing has been done. He voted against a raise in the minimum wage? (Is the Kansas min wage really only $2.65 p/hr?) Vote for McGinn — we won’t have to pay him as much as TT — at least saving us a few pennies.
Randy,
Fire Rumsfield? Why?
First step to bringing about a better change for the Wichita Eagle: Fire Randy.
I don’t know why we would fire Randy, but hey it sounded good. Perception is what counts…
A minimum employer-paid wage of $2.65 is possible, but it would only apply to tip earners such as waitresses, and if the wage + tip combination is less than the federal minimum wage of $5.15, the employer must increase his wage rate to ensure a $5.15 combined-source income.
Just to clarify the Iraq ethnic factions: Kurds are members of the Sunni sect of Islam. But they aren’t Arabs.Negotiations are in progress to try to divide oil revenues equitably among the three factions. My hunch is that if this can be done to the three groups’ leaders’ satisfaction, there’s a reasonable chance that things will settle down.
Heartlander, there are two minimum wage laws in play; one, the Federal minimum wage, $5.15 per hour; the other, the Kansas minimum wage, applicable to businesses not subject to the Federal law, $2.65 per hour. There are also two workweek standards, e.g., before a worker is eligible for overtime. The Federal, 40 hours per week; the Kansas, 48 hours per week, again applicable to those employers who are not subject to the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act.
Yeah! It’s time to kick butt and win the peace.
HAW HAW HAW!
I think it’s great to watch you moronic Bush shills (particularly F.U.W.P.) deny reality with regard to the civil war in Iraq.
Keep it up! It’s working great!
Oh, and welcome back, Joe Williams!
Joe Williams–
Are you going to pay up or not?
In other words, are you a man of your word or not?
Yup, dittos, CF.
They’re damned if they do stay the course in Iraq, and damned if they don’t (since they insisted for so long that everyone support their “stay the course” and if you don’t you’re a “defeatocrat.”)
Unfortunately, American soldiers are dying while Worst. President. Ever. tries to get out of a hole by digging it deeper.
Hey fed up? Let’s have lunch.
Joe Williams are we going to have to start calling you Joe Welcher?
bush himself has deviated from stay the course and is now “re-evaluating” Iraq. Too bad it’s only costing everyone but him.
Where’s the money, Joe Williams?
What, you’ve never had any? Hmmm…
Bush acknowledges U.S. concern on IraqTERENCE HUNTAssociated PressWASHINGTON – In a somber but combative pre-election review of a long and brutal war, President Bush conceded Wednesday that the United States is taking heavy casualties in Iraq and said, “I know many Americans are not satisfied with the situation” there.
“I’m not satisfied either,” he said at a speech and question and answer session at the White House 13 days before midterm elections.
He’s “not satisfied” but still wants to “stay the course”
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/breaking_news/15844512.htm
From June 14,2005:http://www.feingold.senate.gov/statements/05/06/2005614.html
Statement of U.S. Senator Russ FeingoldOn the Resolution Calling on the President to Create a Timetable for Achieving Goals and Withdrawing American Troops From Iraq
As PreparedJune 14, 2005
Mr. President, I rise to introduce a resolution that addresses a gaping hole in the Administration’s rhetoric and strategy with respect to Iraq. My resolution calls on the President to define the mission of our military in Iraq, and to issue a plan and timeframe for accomplishing that mission. It has been over two years since the President launched the war in Iraq, but we still don’t have a defined mission or timeframe that would allow us to hold ourselves accountable for giving the military the tools they need to succeed in achieving those goals. My resolution also calls for a plan for the subsequent withdrawal of US troops, so that we can provide some clarity with regard to our intentions and restore confidence at home and abroad that there is an end date in mind.
This resolution does not establish a timeframe for troop withdrawal – that is for our military commanders to determine. Any such timeframe has to be flexible – there are variables that will affect how quickly various missions can be accomplished. But it’s hard to conceive of an effective strategic plan that isn’t linked to some timetables.
The rationale for our military action in Iraq has changed over time. The projections regarding the resources that would be required were wrong. And now, we seem to be in the midst of some vague policy of muddling through. When I speak to servicemen and women in Wisconsin and in Iraq, and when I speak to their families, their pride in their service is evident and it is well-earned. But their frustration with this open-ended commitment, with the stop-loss orders and the multiple deployments, with the extensions and the uncertainties, is equally evident, and it is painful. We can do better by them, by insisting on clarity, by insisting on accountability, and by assuring them that we have a plan with clear and achievable goals.
In fact, by leveling with the American people about our commitment in Iraq, the Administration can regain some of their confidence. After the shifting justifications for this war, after the premature declarations of “mission accomplished,” after the exciting and inspiring elections, we still don’t have any kind of finish line for our military engagement in Iraq. The American people and our troops deserve a sound plan that is linked to real timeframes and real achievements.
A real timeframe will also help us achieve our security goals in Iraq. The most common argument against clarifying how long we plan to keep troops in Iraq goes something like this: If we reveal a timetable, insurgents and terrorists will simply lie in wait, emerging in force to achieve their goals once we are gone.
But any responsible timetable for U.S. withdrawal would be based just on the establishment of a competent Iraqi force. Americans won’t leave until that force has the training it needs to succeed. An Iraqi force, which would not suffer from shortages of translators or struggle to bridge the cultural divide, is the right force to handle any resurgent threat.
Contrary to the conventional wisdom, the Administration’s refusal to set a plan and timetable about just how long vast numbers of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq is actually an advantage for insurgents and terrorists. This large U.S. military presence smack in the middle of the Arab world is a major recruiting tool for international terrorist networks, and young men are coming to Iraq from around the world to get on-the-job training in attacking Americans. These foreign forces are motivated by our presence, and they feed off conspiracy theories and suspicions regarding American intentions. When I was in Baghdad in February, a very senior coalition officer confided to me that he believed a public U.S. timetable for withdrawing from Iraq would “take the wind out of the sails” of the insurgents.
What’s more, Mr. President, the indefinite presence of vast numbers of American troops could also undercut the legitimacy of the Iraqi government in the eyes of many – ironically, destabilizing Iraq despite our best intentions. Having a timetable for the transfer of sovereignty and having a timetable for Iraqi elections have resulted in real political and strategic advantages for the U.S. Having a timetable for the withdrawal of troops should be no different.
Clear plans could also help lead to responsible budgeting. This administration has bypassed the regular budget process, placing hundreds of billions of dollars on the country’s tab, on the grounds that requirements are simply “unknowable” and cannot be incorporated into responsible budget planning. This is simply not credible, and continuing to mortgage our children’s future with these irresponsible policies is unacceptable. It is time to hold ourselves accountable for the costs of this war, time to accept the tough choices that come with responsible budgeting, and time to insist on sound planning and clarity about all of this is going.
Mr. President, this resolution is not some kind of cut-and-run strategy, or a call to bring all of our troops home now, regardless of what remains to be achieved on the ground. It is clear to me that we still have military missions on the ground – most notably, training the Iraqi forces to provide for their own security. Moreover, a military response – as well as a diplomatic response, and a financial response – is vital in combating terrorist networks in Iraq and elsewhere. It may well be that some units – perhaps special forces – will be operating in Iraq in coordination with the Iraqi military well into the future as part of the counter-terrorism strategy that we need to be pursuing around the world, not just in Iraq.
But Mr. President, the military is only one part of solving the puzzle that we face in Iraq. For many years to come, we will have to work diligently to combat a burgeoning culture of corruption in Iraq, or the rule of law doesn’t stand a chance. We need to make reconstruction work and deliver real democracy dividends for the Iraqi people, and this work will go on for some time. Intense American diplomatic and political engagement and support are likely to continue long after all or most of the troops are withdrawn.
Mr. President, our troops on the ground are truly amazing in their resolve, their professionalism, and their sincere desire to help the people of Iraq. Their courage and commitment was underscored for me during my trip to Iraq earlier this year. I want to help these brave men and women succeed, by insuring that they have an achievable mission, sound planning, and a reasonable timeframe in which to finish their part of the job.
About fucking time they started listening to the Democrats!
Dave s,
A timetable gives those who oppose us a time to wait us out till.
The Commandant of the Marine Corps opposes that idea as do many other military leaders who understand that timetables are like giving the enemy our plans so they can simply plan for everything according to our timetable.
I know it makes liberals feel good to know that on day X we will be gone, but it also gives the enemy the exact day of our departure as well.
BAD IDEA.
I wonder where in the hell the 300,000 trained Iraqi troops I read about are? They outnumber us.
I fail to see any improvement there unless the is a large increase in our troop levels.
Nathan – how about giving our “allies” and the ARI time to get ready and take over their fight. How many years should i take to train them?
There are 300,000 ARI. There are only a few thousand “dead-enders”. It is time for the ARI to take over. Maybe give them logistical and air support but there is no reason they cannot take over. Unless, of course, the problem is that they WILL not.
Ben,
As wonderfully intelligent as you are when it comes to anything military related, I am going to have to say no to your suggestion…
Once again, you look at those 300,000 numbers like it is something on a dry erase board.
Here in this little place called reality those numbers are spread out over an entire country.
Those numbers are real life Iraqi men who are putting their lives on the line every day here.
They are taking more of a beating than we are when it comes to dead.
Oh sure, lets just leave them here to fend for themselves… because according to the genius Ben they are 300,000 strong…
I think I will leave the strategy up to the people who are infinitely better suited at it.
Then we had better get new stategists in Iraq soon because the ones we have had obviously are not doing the job.
And how many decades will it take for them to take responsibility for their country?
Those few thousand dead-enders in their last throes are also spread across the country.
Hey Nathan,Hate to break the news to ya, but Bush is talking timetables for getting out of Iraq. Maybe you’d better have a word with that terrorist appeaser, too.********************************************************************White House set timetables for Iraq missionALAN FREEMAN
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration acknowledged yesterday that it was using “benchmarks” and “timetables” to nudge the Iraqi government to take more responsibility for the nation’s security, but insisted it hadn’t threatened the Iraqis with any ultimatums.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061024.IRAQ24/TPStory/TPInternational/Africa/********************************************************************
Liberals as well as conservatives chose Iraq as one of the war fronts on terror. Americans should realize by now that liberals are not capable of sustaining a winning war footing. George Bush’s failure is not factoring this in his decision to make Iraq the focal point in the war on terror. We are only as strong as our weakest link. Unfortunately for America democrats are wimps.
Thing is, Dick, we need to be focusing on those that are a threat on the US. Our ally Saddam was a thug but he was not a threat to us. Osama bin Forgotten IS a threat. And, our invasion of Iraq has strenghened OBL.
So, “stay the course” is getting it done?
Vaughn,
As an attorney would you edify those of us who are not attorneys on the $2.65 exceptions. (If Wichita had had an ABA-approved law school, I would have enrolled five years ago. Don’t get me started on why Kansas’s LARGEST CITY can’t open a law school that can get ABA approval, so that it’s grads can take any state bar exam in the country. This is why Kansas’s largest city is a hick town.)
I’ve spent some time in the county bar association library. Through research there, I edified a full partner at one of Wichita’s leading firms about federal criminal law he was not aware of, that jeapordized one of Wichita’s largest corporations, and motivated him to study the law. I say “edified” because this attorney studied federal statutes and told me I was correct.
I’m not an attorney, but I know how to read statutes and case reports, and rationally interpret them. In reading appelate case reports, I’ve seen how losing attorneys have sometimes failed to utilize cogent arguments, that had they used, they could have prevailed. Not to say they would have, but they undermined their clients’ positions, and made it easy for their adversaries to win.
When I was a teenager, I had a job in which my employer had me scheduled to work in an ice-cream store on Saturday mornings. Business was slow in the morning, so he told me to go to the bowling alley across the street, and wait on unpaid standby, until he called me to the store to work. That was illegal in the state I lived in. He didn’t tell me I could go home, where I could do my homework or whatever I wanted to do, until being called up to work. He captured my time without compensation. That was unlawful in the state in which I lived. I didn’t like it, but I ate it, because I was only a teenager who wanted the job.
I haven’t been to the law library to research Kansas’s minimum wage. The matter of tip-compensated workers being paid less than federal minimum wage by their employers has been widely reported. I can see “on call” employees being paid less than minimum wage, such as nurses, who being on call can do things they would normally do in-town while not working in the hospital, although not being able to travel to Kansas City or such. I can maybe see home-care workers who get to sleep in homes they are working in getting $2.65. But are there any regular onsite work-at-all-times jobs that don’t have to pay $5.15? If there are, I think that would be illegal under the federal minimum wage law. Am I wrong here?
Can you edify me and others here?
hearylander – I think there are certain employers that are not covered by the federal law. So, it is not just tip-employees that can be at 2,65.
The President says we can’t have a timetable; the Prime Minister of Iraq reacts angrily to a timetable on when his security forces must takeover (but without sanctions), notwithstanding the news conference the day before with the Ambassador and General talking about deadlines and timetables; and finally, even though “stay the course” cannot be uttered anymore, the President’s comments at his news conference sure sound that way.
My conclusion: there will be no “coaliton” timetable, but there sure as hell will be one imposed on the Iraqis, likely with severe sanctions, for them to “stand up”, which, in practice, will be a timetable for the US, in that “When the Iraqis stand up, we’ll stand down”. We can only hope that the training goes better than it apparently has to date, because the “timetable” or whatever it might be called will surely alert the ‘bad guys’ in Iraq to when a US pullout might reasoably be expected to occur.
BTW, I am of the opinion that the worst thing that will occur by immediate withdrawal of forces is that the current government will fall, with the individuals holding whatever power there is in grave personal danger.
For what it’s worth, immediate withdrawal creates a vacuum, into which Turkey, Iran and Syria will step to futher their respective parochial interests. However, I think a phased withdrawal or “redeployment” could have this result as well, unless those parties can be convinced it is not in their best interests to do so.
Personally, I would like to see the security of the cities turned over to the ARI, with the US and other coalition forces (assuming any of those are still there) withdrawn to the borders for overall security of Iraq. The air force and navy would still be available to provide needed air and sea power to the ARI. Hopefully, the presence of our ground forces on the borders will deter the neighbors. With all that said, I suspect US troops will be needed on the borders for a minimum of 5 years, assuming the ARI can stabilize and secure the cities.
PS. I can also see teenage babysitters, and piecework agricultural workers being exempted. When I was a starting strawberry picker who made less than minimum wage, I had to learn the ropes, and then I earned more than minimum wage. My girlfriend made 50 cents an hour watching other families’ kids.
heartlander, the real area of inquiry for you to pursue i the Federal law, which defines which employers are subject to the Federal Minimum Wage. The federal statute is located at title 29, United States Code. I don’t have the precise cite, sorry. A direct answer to your question is yes, there could be regular jobs not subject to the federal minimum wage.
If the federal minimum wage does not apply, due to the employer not being subject to the provisions of the federal law, then K.S.A. 44-1203(a) imposes a minimum wage of $2.65 an hour. I erred in my earlier post; under K.S.A. 44-1204(a), 46 hours is when overtime is to be paid.
By the way, Kansas law also recognizes the different treatment afforded those who receive tips; see K.S.A. 44-1203(b).
A full explanation of the arcane ins and outs of the federal and Kansas law would take too long to set out here; be aware that there are certain “industries”, agriculture being one, which are exempted from the minimum wage/maximum hours provisions. There are many more.
Also, your girlfriend, babysitting, would be construed as an “independent contractor” and not an “employee”, thus making her compensation subject to direct negotiation between the parents of the children and her.
Thanks Vaugh
Bring back the draft
Vaughn (sorry for the earlier typo),
I examined K.S.A 44-1203 (a) and (b) athttp://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatuteInfo.do.
Unfortunately the statute’s case citations are not linked, and I no longer subscribe to Findlaw, which would be enlightening.
K.S.A. 44-1203 (a) specifically formulates tip-earnings, specifying that the first 40% of tips can be deducted to meet the $2.65 hourly compensation requirement, which appears to me to mean that the first 40% of tips may absolve the employer of ANY employer-wage payments, if the first 40% of tips equals or exceeds $2.65. If my read on the statute is correct, and please correct me if it is incorrect, Kansas is REALLY FEUDAL. And frankly, I don’t see how this statute can hold, because it would in effect treat waiters and waitresses as “independent contractors” but their place AND TOOLS of work are prescribed by their employers.
29 U.S.C.A. section 206 provides that workers under the age of 20, during the first 90 consecutive calendar days of their employment may be paid a minimum of $4.25/hr, but afterwards must be paid the $5.15/hr minimum.
On the face of federal law, which supercedes state law, it would appear, so far as K.S.A. 44-1203 prescribes, that Kansas’s $2.65 minimum wage law violates federal law, if it is deemed applicable to commercial-enterprise employers as specified in subsection (a). The case citations are key, which I cannot currently access.
The bottom line is, when I was in Chicago a few years ago, McDonald’s was offering $8/hr to starting workers. If Kansas commercial-enterprise employers are truly paying $2.65/hr, this is sad testimony to how feudally backward and poor Kansas is.
PS. When I am carrying sufficient cash, I pay my restaurant bills on credit card, and do not include a tip, but pay a cash tip to waiters and waitresses.
I want to reward people for good service, and reward those who perform outstanding above-and-beyond service accordingly (up to 25% of the tab). The idea of an employer keeping this money can be viewed as rewarding him for hiring excellent people, but he’s giving me a charge for the food, his cooking staff, and his real estate costs, with a surcharge profit on that, I think that’s enough for me to pay HIM. I see a lot of waiters and waitresses who are using their income to pay for college. I want to help them, not hold them back in permanent wage-slavery.
heartlander, what is crucial to this issue is a determination of whether the employer is a “covered” employer for purposes of the statute. If the employer is, then the federal minimum wage applies; if not, then the state wage applies. BTW, most jobs are covered, as the tests for federal coverage aren’t too terribly hard to meet. For example, all McDonald’s employees are covered by the Federal law, notwithstanding the franchisee’s situation.
With respect to the tip thing, what I think that means (not at the office) is that no more than 40% of the $2.65/hr may be offset by tip income. Thus, the employer is on the hook for at least $1.59 per hour.
Finally, on tips: I resent the wage differential built into the Federal and State law for “tipped employment”. In essence, the customer, on top of paying for the costs of the owner, is also absobing part of his labor costs. There should be no differential. Tips have become expected, almost as a separate part of the bill, not as a reward for good service. (BTW, I compute the tip on the bill before sales tax is added; just a quirk of mine.)
As to cash vs. charge, as an employer, I want there to be charged tips, due to my social security tax requirement. If my employees are underreporting cash tips, and the IRS finds out, guess who has to come up with the appropriate differential on the FICA, etc. I don’t think it’s a dirty little secret that the servers like cash tips, as they actually make more money by under-reporting their tip income (for all purposes).
Vaughn, I can’t contest your point, because it’s sound.
At the same time, if restaurateurs are pocketing some of the tips, then it becomes a disinsentive for patrons to tip. A tip is a “gratuity” for good service. I’ve given no tips for poor service (rarely), such as getting a cockroach in some fries in Florida, and the waitress didn’t deduct the cost, and a fly in a salad in KC, and the waiter didn’t deduct the cost. They didn’t even apologize for the kitchens’ errors.
Jim Ryun out of touch with the troops he represents on the Armed services comittee:
http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2006/10/stay_the_course.php