The point about having political parties is that they are supposed to work out positions inside their parties. They can, indeed, field questions from a broader field, including those of other parties. This is done so that each party can utilize its internal workings to arrive at what it thinks the best decisions are on matters of outlook and policy. CNN had put forward that this debate would have 'undecided individuals' who were just ordinary folks asking questions.
If you take a look at the last Democratic debate that CNN hosted it, also, had partisan activists that were, decidedly, not undecided in their issues or their support. By winnowing the audience and removing participation by the host organization, a university, and limiting ticket sales to students, it was pre-decided to shift the demographics of a venue away from candidates that might have some appeal to that demographic (younger voters of college age). CNN also pre-screened individuals and found, strangely, party activists and folks committed to candidates.
At that point I must ask: is that deceit or just incompetence?
Last night Anderson Cooper answered that in favor of incompetence.
And it shows, and clearly. If the candidates wanted a rip-roaring, no-holds-barred INTERparty debate, then go for it! Put up the venue, the agenda and such and invite them on in... do not put forth that this is about 'undecided voters' asking questions when you then select partisans who announce same on their YouTube accounts or that your own network has previously interviewed and identified them as partisans.
I would enjoy *just* Democrats and *just* Republicans answering questions within their own parties, so that we can get a better view of how the ideologies of each are represented in the form of their candidates. In the general election they answer to the People of the Nation, and we will have seen just where they are coming from due to publicized intra-party work. Unless, of course, you don't like the two party system and want it homogenized... which is one possible result of putting interparty plants in such venues.
I don't like this being done to *any* political party. I like differences between them to give the Nation the greatest interplay of ideas worked out as best as possible by their supporters. You want to ask questions in those venues? Join that party and push for your ideas and ideals. That is why we have political parties.Comment Posted By ajacksonian On 29.11.2007 @ 14:10
What has gone unnoticed by the bloggers and punditry is the stand up of the IA forces and their hard work at making them non-sectarian in nature. The IA has an integrated mix of Arabs, Kurds, Yezidis, Turkomen and Shia, Sunni, Yezidi, Alawite, Christian (RC and Syriac)... This is, perhaps, the most integrated and diverse force in the ME and is now being sent to get Sadr's JaM. Also being targeted is the Badr work with the 'Secret Cells' from Iran... done not *just* by the MNF, but by Iraqis. The investment of the left-over revenue from 2006 into 10 more brigades, and an increase in overall military funding this year is allowing Iraqis to demonstrate their competence in training and execution of operations with minimal support from the US and more frequently fully autonomously, save for deconfliction of operations with the US.
That is not descriptive of an organization that will let 'insurgents' come back. Integrated top to bottom and getting rid of AQI, JaM, Badr, Qods, and good old fashioned organized crime which the previous forces turn to when things get too hot for them. You cannot describe Iraq without its military and police organizations, both of which will require a minimum of 5 years to get functional up to the NCO level and then another 5 for a full fledged command officer corps to advance to those ranks. Advancement is done on what works, not bribery or sect or tribe, which is also something of a novelty outside of Israel in the ME.
What we are seeing is the National reconciliation that America had to go through *twice* in its history: first after the Revolution when 15% of the people had left for other crown colonies or back to England, and then, again, after the Civil War. Ever hear the phrase 'The South Shall Rise Again'? In some ways America *still* has not recovered from the Civil War, but we do seem to have recovered from the Revolutionary war.
For Iraq to keep terrorists out and at bay requires buy-in from the lowest levels to the highest and you will not get that until the provinces and local governments fully stand up. This then puts a premium on the provincial elections which will then undercut the large parties that populate parliament as they will find they don't serve the provinces well as organizing groups. The Iraq Awakening movement, now spread to Diyala and south past Baghdad province and into the Shia areas is slowly becoming cross-sectarian, cross-tribal and cross-cultural.
Watching this from SEP 2006 there has been one very, very pointed thing the tribal chiefs have put forth: technocratic government is the best way to go. That is getting to be a very appealing idea to a lot of people after AQI, Badr, Sadr, JaM, Secret Cells and just thugs and killers roamig around killing folks on contract. Getting the electricity on and keeping it on, and ditto for water, sewage, roads, railroads, airports, oil infrastructure... that sounds kinda nice to the folks in the Iraq Awakening movement.
Some of those that have left will *never* come back, and Iraqis will deal with that.
On the 'segregated neighborhood' deal, I grew up with the remains of that in Buffalo. An area of the city called 'Kaisertown' had some of my family in it. They were Poles, and there were Italians, southern black families, Thai, Greeks... it was 'Kaisertown' due to the large number of immigrants from Germany there... in the 1880's. So just how well has America done with that population? Separated them for good and all?
Those neighborhoods in Iraq cannot stay integrated if their families and tribes are multi-sectarian and there is a pretty high 'marry out' rate to other ethnicities and religion has been no obstacle in marriage in Iraq. That really bollixed up AQI, BTW. Really, really got them in bad straights thinking that 'sect' mattered more than 'tribe'. Now we, in the US, must learn from *their* mistakes and not make the exact, same one in approaching Iraq. The fundamental unit in Iraq is blood ties via tribe, and that only gets watered down with 3-5 generations of city dwelling. As the tribes go, so will go Iraq, and we best start learning that really quickly before we make the same mistakes as al Qaeda did. Luckily our troops are smarter than that... our political pundits? Unfortunately not.Comment Posted By ajacksonian On 25.11.2007 @ 12:20
One of the huge problems is that the partisan political scientists want to use data over a short, set amount of time and not look at the overall set of data sets covering... say... 600 million years.
Still, even stepping into the post-KT event world and moving down to a 1,000,000 year time scale, we find high temperature variations peaking much, much higher than our present day climate. Those then shift downwards, yet again, so that glaciers shift across the northern and parts of southern continents. This a repeating cycle over that time scale *alone*, and is caused by outside variables of which carbon dioxide plays little or no role save that we have so little of it in the atmosphere that we are abnormally chilly.
The planet, as a whole, has experienced much more regularity in temperatures over 600 MY, averaging about 14 degrees celsius higher than today. Those causational factors are independent variables across which carbon dioxide fluctuates to a point up to 20 times higher in atmospheric concentration than today. Indeed, at that point of over 7,000ppm of concentration (vice current hovering in the ~300ppm range) we also saw one of the largest concentrations of methane *and* water vapor: both greenhouse gases that make carbon dioxide look weak, in comparison. With all of that, the global temperature did not budge from that stable 14 degrees higher, which appears to be a normal state of affairs for Rock 3 from Star Sol.
The thing that *does* appear to be driving global temperatures with a biosphere present on Earth is: plate tectonics. The Carboniferous saw a large upswing in plant life (as a result we see lots of coal, methane and oil deposits, along with vast layers of calcium carbonate permanently removing the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere) but also saw a shift in plate tectonics in which a pangaea supercontinent not only removed lots of lovely coastline, shoved inland oceans into a single large planetary basin, but then slid into the southern polar region. The break-up of *that* marked the Permo-Triassic extinction as global temps drastically climbed... and 95% of all species got wiped out. With that we got an upswing in carbon dioxide as life forms were disappearing due to a truly, massive climate change. That sucker is still not well understood as it includes: flood basalts going out over what we call Siberia today, increased volcanic activity, shifting of the supercontinent from the south pole, and a possible cometary impact. Pretty much simultaneously on a geologic timescale where 1MY is a bare tick of the clock.
So while the climatologists argue and the political scientists preach, the geologists look at the data and ask: 'Say what?'
If you want to get to the nice, balmy, temps of the late Cretaceous, then re-unite the continental land masses, slow down the convection flow of the mantle, and let the continents subside to let the ocean waters flow over the continents again. Of course most of Europe, Asia, Africa, North and South America would disappear under half-mile or so of water. But Cheyenne,WY and Denver, CO would be prime beach front property! The Appalachians a nice island chain along with the Alps...
Until then, expect continued cold temperatures, with mile thick continental glaciers and temporary inter-glacial periods with sudden, wide variations in temperature before the thermostat goes back down to glacial. Check back in 5 million years for an updated forecast.Comment Posted By ajacksonian On 18.11.2007 @ 15:32
I have had some problems with the analysis and backing of Col. Hunt for some time. Last year he was reporting on problems that were months if not a year or so old in Iraq and that had been addressed and fixed... yet to him they were 'current'. I have a tough time believing someone talking about the problems in Anbar last year at this time, when the reports coming there via military and embeds was highly different. How do you count Anbar 'lost' when over 10,000 men had signed up from there in one *month* to join the IA and IP, and the recruits were still flowing in? That, amongst others, really do make me question his sources and reliability.
I honor him for his service, but after that he is a civilian and due the same scrutiny as any other civilian.
There is some I remember from the early Tora Bora incident, and coming from one of the INTEL Community Agencies, the confidence level was not as represented as Osama had already started using doubles and putting parts of his retinue in different areas to confuse where he was. Simple counter-measures, yes... they also do work. Today, if al Qaeda has gone to Tora Bora again, they may learn that it is not wise to go into a place surveyed by the Army Corps of Engineers. Not wise at all...
On the higher level vis a vis Pakistan, the US has never, ever declared al Qaeda to be an organization of international outlaws that respect no law or power other than their own. Congress has the direct power to legislate there via the Law of Nations which is directly mentioned inside the main body of the Constitution. There are a host of outlooks within that which puts forward the proper laws that may be put in place to address those fighting predatory warfare. It goes a fair bit beyond piracy, although that is cited in the US Code directly, also, to cover the land based portions of that form of warfare. It also gives view as to what to do with unwanted foreign recruiters for their military organizations. Which would *include* every single individual in a 'charity' collecting for any organization on the Foreign Terrorist Organization list.
Going after outlaws who put themselves outside of all law, and giving other Nations fair warning that these organizations mean them no good and that we intend to go after them with all means, is a right all Nations have under the Law of Nations. It is also expected that there will be cooperation to end these lawless scourges and recognition that violation of territory in hot-pursuit can be understood against a common threat. Explain and make amends, of course, that is what diplomats are for... but end the individuals causing the problem and put to heel those that support such ones.
To decry the problem of 'not getting Osama' points to the problem in our not naming him, his organization and all that support them as targets due to their being outlaws. It is a problem of being too refined to actually call a predator 'a predator'. That problem is now decades old and getting worse. Of course addressing that means that politics must be seen as a contributing cause on all sides that puts our Nation and all Nations at peril from those we dare not name.Comment Posted By ajacksonian On 26.10.2007 @ 10:32
Ah, gamesmanship! And when Congress sets unrealistic expectations that, too, is gamesmanship... although pretty poor gamesmanship as no quick wit was used to jab at Iraq, just a bludgeon of expectations that even this Congress could not meet. Say, its August, just how is that federal budget coming along that has to be passed by 01 OCT? Over 80% done? Lovely 'benchmark'! Which is, of course, 'gamesmanship'.
Diplomacy is all about 'gamesmanship', and those wishing to point it out can also then point it out on our side and, indeed, on the side of any Nation on this planet.
The current government in Iraq is scrambling and hard to try and get something done because something is being done without them: local control of the towns and provinces is returning. Nary a national government to be seen, either. There are now a number of mayors with a 'can do' attitude on clearing the streets, getting businesses up and running, ensuring that the infrastructure works as best as they can... and then looking at what the national government should be doing for them, but isn't. Had to be quite a bit of a shock to the panjandrum of food distribution in Sadr City to have a Sunni mayor come into his office with US and Iraqi Army officers to get food that was due them. Had to hand it over, too, but the paperwork took a few hours to fill out... now Baqubah announces the re-opening of its flour mills so that Iraq can start producing its own flour and other goods depending upon that. Ramadi is re-opening factories, putting folks to work, getting things running and securing their city.
The US is one thing, and 'gamesmanship' with the Congress is fully comprehensible. If a few mayors start to arrive in Baghdad to demand what their people deserve as put forth by their national government... ahhh... that is something entirely other now, isn't it? You can't do much in the way of 'gamesmanship' with that, especially when they start asking for the money, food and, oh BTW, the election laws so that local parties can run to govern the provinces. Congress and the US leaving are one worry, but competent mayors who have been overseeing the rebuilding and re-invigoration of their cities and that are renouncing terrorism and killing them off?
We do forget our citizen soldiers take a specific view of the world with them, and then, apparently, adapt it to different circumstances. Will Iraq be a 'Jeffersonian democracy', nope! Will it be something that holds different governments accountable to different power structures? Ahhhhh... thats the question now, isn't it? Because these national parties are seeing that they have very little 'grass roots' and that, somehow, the grass is now growing. Add in the changes to the oil revenue sharing due to the reserves now found in the Sunni Arab provinces and things will get interesting there.
Personally, I really don't think much of a powerful central government. Much prefer the kind accountable to the people of the nation involved. Someday in America we may get that, but the trend is in the opposite direction. Someday we will remember what federalism and democracy are about...Comment Posted By ajacksonian On 27.08.2007 @ 07:46
Ah, the blessed sinecure of 'competence'! As we have shown zero competence in responding to anything that has been done to the US by Iran and its Foreign Legion, plus its agents, lets just give up to them, shall we?
We did nothing in reprisal to 1979 and couldn't even stage a rescue with competence.
We did nothing after their Foreign Legion called Hezbollah led by Imad Mugniyah bombed our Beirut Embassy in 1983... well, we gave them a bunch of Marines to get blown up by those same folks, Mugniyah and Hezbollah, and then we ran in less than 6 months. Then, in 1984, they bombed our Embassy again. No competence there on our part, tons on that of Iran, Mugniyah and Co.
Then the Khobar Towers attack, well we were so blessedly incompetent after the OPM-SANG attack that we really did deserve to have US soldiers die. Yes, rank incompetence all the way around.
Let us not forget that Imad Mugniyah has actually run terror support operations in the US, with the NC to Detroit cigarette smuggling ring to help finance Hezbollah. In fact we have run across multiple funding operations using credit card fraud, gray/black market goods sales and the movement of pseudoephedrine to Mexico to have it made into Meth by, yes, Hezbollah's operatives here in the US. So, since we can't really figure out the extend of their operations for support and INTEL *here*, well, we must be damned incompetent, to say the least. Time to close up shop, the US is done for... not a speck of competence to be found.
Remember that letting competent terrorists and pirates attack us is far preferable to incompetent warfare waged by us. Until we are PERFECT at it, we should not do one damned thing, anywhere, ever. Because we are the height of incompetence.
Don't mind the death toll that comes with our incompetence.
And, unless you have a much better way to competently and perfectly *stop it*, then you, too, are incompetent. America the Incompetent!
Unless, of course, you believe in the incompetence that our Founders did when they put forth that we must make a MORE PERFECT UNION. They recognized our inability to do things well, so we set high goal and fail to meet them, but do try to do them BETTER. We will never reach perfect competence, but we can strive to do things BETTER. And calling for Americans to be killed and not respond, which is what asking for things to be done competently *is*, is not making a more perfect union or providing for the common defence or getting us domestic tranquility and is damned sure not passing on the blessings of liberty to our posterity. Lessening it by quite some amount, in fact.
Remember that we always have the worst record for school children in the world. And we always get the most productive and capable citizens in the world, because we learn from our mistakes and do things ever better. America is built on mistakes, learning from them, then continuing on towards our goals in a better fashion.
The death toll of incompetence is bad enough.
The loss of liberty by stopping in our opposition to tyranny and despotism is fatal.
We did not start this conflict, did not ask for it and do not want it. But it has been handed to us. And we will damned well win it or die trying, because not doing so is on the road to losing liberty and freedom forever. That decision was made in 1776 and we must fight in large ways and small each and every day to maintain that revolution. And, strange to say, it is opposed, this revolution in human affairs, and is damned well still revolutionary to this day. And the incompetence of the Founders was manifest with 10% of America dead and nearly losing the Nation under the Articles to internal revolt. They failed and picked themselves up to try *again*. America is ALWAYS failing... it never stops... until it succeeds. The moment we stop failing, then we stop succeeding.
You want 'competence'?
Offer a damned well better way forward to end this with sustaining our goals of freedom and liberty which are Universal. Because the moment we stop the revolution is *over*.Comment Posted By ajacksonian On 16.08.2007 @ 14:07
The huge problem with Afghanistan is the need for Mountain or Alpine forces. Afghanis and Pakistanis both realize that sending lots of flatland ground forces into mountains is asking for high casualty rates of said flatlanders. NATO, unfortunately, because of the small force sizes in general have absolutely tiny Mountain/Alpine forces. Canada can send in a few thousand because they *train* for it. The US has been splitting the 10MD between Afghanistan and Iraq using Iraq as more restful place for them to practice their skills... yes, those 'light infantry' 10MD have been extremely effective in Iraq, and that is to hand some lighter duty to them! The reason these forces are so sparse is that they need to train at altitude for at least a full year and be specially equipped for it. Last winter the Canadians did something never done before in Afghanistan in living memory: went on a winter offensive against the Taliban. Worked, too, as the Taliban and al Qaeda have only tried to get their forces together in JUN-JUL...
Afghanistan has sucked in nearly every Mountain/Alpine troop from NATO and the main problem has been in the ROE, not their effectiveness. The Danes and Norweigans, along with Canadians have done great work with training Afghan troops, but sparse population, difficult terrain and the need for experience is the reason things lag there. Do *not* ask for lots of flatland troops unless it is for guard duty, as they are not the sorts of troops to fight at altitude and climactic conditions of Afghanistan. Can we get off this jag on 'troop amounts' and get on one of 'combat effectiveness'? Do you notice the Nations that the Canadian General cites? ALL are committing Mountain forces to Afghanistan, often only a few hundred but they count at least 10:1 compared to flatlanders. That should be something we can arm-twist out of the Germans for their GebirgsjÃ¤ger, the French Chasseurs Alpins and Italian Alpini. Those are what we *need* in Afghanistan. And if these 'allies' will not cough up a few hundred Mountain soldiers, then they are not much in the way of Allies. Those amounts are truly minimal, yet they can't even do that?
This is a 'reality check' for Allies. And its getting time to 'rebalance' who *is* and who *isn't* one these days. Look at those contributing in Afghanistan and Iraq... even the Japanese sent their military medical staff to help and are looking to change their damned constitution to send *real* combat forces overseas. Now THAT'S an ALLY. We are getting to see who really is a friend and ally of the US,now... time to rethink these 'strategic alliances' and start pulling close to help those who help us.
That is getting to be a short, but very respectable list...Comment Posted By ajacksonian On 14.08.2007 @ 11:22
One of the things that has always made me scratch my head is that the Earth has had far larger amounts of carbon dioxide than now... and while temps were warmer we had a different configuration of the continents and less tectonic activity, too. The current inter-glacial period we are in has sudden changes, up and down, temperature-wise, but within a relatively small range. That range is way, way, way below the pre-K/T norm. So, the outlook remains the same for the next few million years at the very least: bitter cold with sudden, short warming periods before heading into the deep freeze again. People forget that when you want to analyze long-term climactic patterns you do not talk to meteorologists, but to geologists. Call me when real global warming data has been accumulated, but on no account before 10,000 more years have passed. Because the things that change the climate don't have much to do with carbon dioxide, save at the low end, and lots to do with continent position, plate tectonics and having one continent in a heat sink position... that last makes this place very chilly.Comment Posted By ajacksonian On 10.08.2007 @ 20:42
When I look at these stories and other things being done by the MSM and other sources, like the AQI/insurgent sniper videos run at the NYT website and CNN, or the actual lack of understanding about a subject, like the criticism of the WaPo on the rebuilding effort in Iraq last year that misses the key concept of 'Federal fiscal year in budgeting', my problem is not with the pieces, per se, but with the abysmally low ethics of the reporters, editors and everyone in the 'loop' of control at those publications.
As a lone blogger I try to ensure that my readers have articles that can be backed up and I give extensive quotes and links so that they can decide for themselves if I am giving them the 'real deal'. With the Reuters problem of last year I put together a series of pieces on what various individuals and institutions could do so as to provide proof of their veracity and the legitimacy of their stories.
That first article covered still and motion imagery and how to work agreements with the major 'for pay' image hosting sites so that ALL of one's work was available for review for a given session. That is not done by *law* but by photojournalists and motion imagery journalists being willing to do this thing known as 'show all their work'. The originals are housed safely with other organizations and news editors can examine an entire run of images and actually broker for them. And when hiring on such a journalist you can get an idea of just how they compose and composite shots by 'seeing their work' in full. And if any question about the legitimacy of the imagery is brought up, then all of the metadata from cameras, scanners and processing programs is also available.
This then gives the evidentiary basis for a non-partisan group of image experts, analysts and others in various fields to be brought together whenever problems arise with the veracity of images and their time-sequencing for events. Such a review panel could be kept on retainer or have time donated by universities and other organizations that serve as the basis of image sciences to ensure that such images were taken by such cameras in the places purported at the time given for them. This is in the interest of the MSM so as to have an outside checking system that is not composed of journalists but those with forensic skills necessary to find if what has been imaged is correct.
We are heading into an era where fabrication of 3D scenes will move very quickly in the next few years onto our desktops at a reasonable price. Without such organizations working hard to ensure the legitamacy of such images that will be rendered from them. The still imagery folks warned about this in the mid-1990's and now the 3D community is giving similar warning signals.
The print/text media do not escape this, as we have seen, and the cure is to 'show all work'. When digital storage was expensive, that was difficult, but that is no longer the case and releasing source documents and interviews days or at most weeks after a story is released should be satisfactory to demonstrate that proper editorial oversight and review has taken place with stories. For lone individuals, such as myself, I do my best to put up the links and text and have even started to use online notebooks so that even more of that is available to go through. There is *no* replacement for showing the foundation of one's writing and the era of 'limited column space' and 'expensive storage media' are no longer excuses for full and open access to source documents and historical archives of same to be opened up to the public. Protection of 'anonymous sources' is something that can be done by having redaction of names and full names held not just by the journalist but by the editorial board(s) involved at publications.
Finally, however, there are some areas where I feel that the ethics of MSM organizations have stepped over the line of legality during reporting on wars. The Treaties signed by the US and any Nation involved with such multi-lateral Treaties are in full force upon those collecting, editing and disseminating information. The 'freedom of the press' is a subordinate part of 'freedom of speech' and is fully accountable to the laws put in place to restrict coverage of events via Treaty. Primary restrictions are put on by the Geneva and Hague Conventions and the restrictions are not onerous, but rigorous. One of the main ones that I have had extreme feelings on is the publication of those sniper kill videos shot by 'insurgents' or AQI and released to the press which immediately puts them out. That is a direct violation of allowing governments due time to find out who was killed and properly contact family and next of kin and publish such names afterwards. It also shows NO respect for the recently killed and that is a paramount part of wartime: respect for the dead is enforced at all times and places, and the press has severe limitation on what can and cannot be immediately shown. This is not just lack of ethics, but crossing over into the Nation State Treaty concept which we hold ourselves accountable to via the US Code and other Nations by their Nation's civil criminal code. My view on the TNR publication was not on the truth or lack of same, but the lack of ethics and breaking of the US Code by the publication of such material.
Apparently, holding folks accountable to the actual Treaties negotiated for warfare and the EXACT SAME ONES they resort to so as to bash others is something that is just not done and are all just 'political' in nature. That is not 'equal enforcement of the law' without regard to race, religion, color or politics.
I a not worried, overmuch, by the whistleblowers crying 'foul'.
I am extremely worried that the freedom of speech no longer has ANY limits upon it and that common laws held between the citizenry can be broken for political need at no cost. That is not the road to a civilization holding up equal enforcement of the law as its standard. That is heading down the road to authoritarianism and totalitarianism and the miasma of Orwellian speech where any word means just exactly what you want it to mean and nothing else... until it is changed yet again... and again... and mere words are meaningless.Comment Posted By ajacksonian On 7.08.2007 @ 09:41
My major problem with TNR, as with AP, Reuters, WaPo and others, is the lack of ethics involved and holding themselves accountable to their own standards... or any standards... of reporting. Beyond that I have a severe problem with one part of the account given by Beauchamp: the mass grave bit.
That is a war crime: desecration of graves under your control. The dead are to be treated with dignity and respect, no matter what sort of person they were while living, they become fully equal upon death. Not doing that is a war crime under the 1899 Hague Convention and has been ever since then. There is a Federal law on the books for that in the Civil Code, and not immediately passing that information on to any military authorities for investigation is a crime. Beauchamp's writing about it indicates a lack of many things on his part and the publication of it by TNR shows similar lacks on theirs. For Beauchamp it is not keeping up to standards of conduct and understanding that desecration of graves is a war crime. Similarly, for TNR, for not going to the responsible parties that, too, is a war crime. You do not do these things during wartime.
But, perhaps, we will now have *that* shoved aside because respect for the dead is so 'old fashioned' and 'out of synch with the abused soldier' and 'the need to publish' trumps having any accountability in the organs that defend society. For not understanding those things, and that there are limits to what may be done in warfare with such areas, TNR is caught in the bind... if it is a *true* story, backed by evidence, they did not properly report it to allow a full and thorough investigation to take place. And if it isn't *true*, above and beyond the first, it is sedition. This is *truth* in the old fashioned forensic sense of having an account validated by others and physical evidence. Not the modern version of it being 'fake but accurate'.Comment Posted By ajacksonian On 29.07.2007 @ 12:01