A Diamond in the Debate Rough
As an active duty member of the military, I am very focused on military policy. In the midst of flag pins, 9/11 drinking games, and weathermen right wing talking points, Obama issued what I believe to be a profound statement that zeroes in on his image as a change agent:
OBAMA: Because the commander-in-chief sets the mission, Charlie. That's not the role of the generals. And one of the things that's been interesting about the president's approach lately has been to say, "Well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus." Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And, unfortunately, we have had a bad mission set by our civilian leadership, which our military has performed brilliantly. But it is time for us to set a strategy that is going to make the American people safer. Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics, once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately, in an orderly fashion, out of Iraq, and we are going to have our combat troops out. We will not have permanent bases there. Once I have provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. But, ultimately, the buck stops with me as the commander-in-chief. And what I have to look at is not just the situation in Iraq, but the fact that we continue to see Al Qaida getting stronger in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. We continue to see anti-American sentiment fanned all across the Middle East. We are overstretched in a way -- we do not have a strategic reserve at this point. If there was another crisis that was taking place, we would not have a brigade that we could send to deal with that crisis that isn't already scheduled to be deployed in Iraq. That is not sustainable; that's not smart. National security policy is going to change when I'm president.Seeing this in written form is more profound than when you view it through the bread and circus debate format. It struck me like a bolt of lightning. The military is ultimately run by elected and appointed civilian leadership. 4 star Generals of each branch of the armed forces bring their ideas and proposals to the Department of Defense and through Congress for approval or disapproval. Even so, their proposals are dependent on missions that are set by these civilians. Allow me to elucidate: if you give the U.S. armed forces a mission, they will do their utmost to accomplish it and will not admit defeat or failure. Historically speaking, the military has a hard time knowing when to quit--just ask MacArthur. The job to set the overarching mission and make the final determination of accomplishment or failure belongs to the Secretary of Defense, Congress, and the President in his constitutional role as Commander in Chief. The image being presented to us by Bush and by McCain is disingenuous. They use the generals as shields to deflect criticism. General Petreaus is acting on orders from the Bush administration. Of course he’s going to say that the situation is too fragile for immediate withdrawal. He is not ordered to withdraw. If President Bush told him to “make it happen,” he would confirm this order and follow through systematically and thoroughly. Unfortunately, General Petraeus is being used politically to justify his orders, and his orders are to stay. So he is going to systematically and thoroughly carry out the orders to stay, and that includes presenting a fragile picture of the political and social situation on the ground in Iraq. So Bush and McCain are walking the American people in rhetorical circles. A soldier’s job is to follow such lawful orders as may be given from time to time by their chain of command, not dictate policy for public consumption. What Barack Obama said in this debate is crucial. He is asserting the primacy of civilian leadership and dictating the constitutionally appropriate delineation of power. Bush has postured like a Commander in Chief, but does not hesitate to hide behind military officers that have no business setting the policy. If President Bush told General Petraeus, “I want at least 15% of your NCOs to be trained lion tamers,” then General Petraeus would use his authority to implement the orders and make a statement before Congress about the necessity to hire lion-taming contractors as experts to train NCOs. This kind of clear and proper thinking is what is needed in our federal government. Half of the madness going on this country is Bush’s unitary executive philosophy that undermines the constitutional separation of powers. I can see from statements like this that Barack Obama has the insight necessary to lead not just the country, but our nation’s military, of which I am a proud member. That is change I can believe in.
Advertisement
That moment of clarity was really amazing to hear. Obama too the frame of the debate about Iraq away from Bush, and put it in its rightful perspective. The Commander in Chief does set the strategic mission.
Too bad the media circus drowned out the comment.
April 17, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post. Thanks!
April 17, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post. Thanks!
April 17, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post! Highly recommended. Merit sticker of choice for you!
April 17, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
To me the comment had leadership, gravitas, and swagger. Unlike the false swivel-hipped machismo of Bush and Cheney, Obama laid down his intention to lead the armed forces in the manner that a President should. To that I say bravo! I could re-enlist under a leader like that. It is nice to know that there is a candidate who is swearing to protect the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
April 17, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course also Bush believes that the President sets the mission - with his ego how could he not. He only suggests that he follws the lead of the generals so that he can cynically (or cowardly) use the military as a sheild against criticism of his mission there.
April 17, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
new10:
It's more sophisticated than that (sad to say):
Not only is Bush using the military as a shield, the military is following its orders by presenting information to the public that buttresses the continued occupation of Iraq. The orders from Bush are: stay and build. General Petraeus is doing his duty by ensuring that, up to and including prevaricating before Congress.
April 17, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Particularly enraging is this point you highlight---that the mechanics of government have been corrupted to support the politics of the administration, instead of implementing the goals directly. The extreme case is the Justice Dept. looking for Democrats to target just before elections.
April 17, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
a wonderful post. It aught to be an op-ed in newspapers in Penn as some voters still look to newspapers for guidance on how to vote. Thanks.
April 17, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
While not stated, this was directed right at John McCain. The other day during the Petraeus hearings McCain slipped up and made clear he doesn't understand the relationship between the Generals and the CINC. Or perhaps he does understand it, but thinks it works just as Bush has been acting like it does.
You can expect that once we get into the GE, Obama will be playing the clip of McCain with Petraeus and contrasting it with the quote you provided from last night's debate.
April 17, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. Very few generals are going to admit that they cannot achieve "victory", even when victory is as ill-defined as it is in Iraq.
Strange as it is to us civilians, there are many people in the military who want to fight. Combat is what they are trained for, and for officers, the quickest way for promotion is to do well in battle.
Asking military officers whether we should fight is like asking a surgeon whether surgery is the answer to your medical problem. Absolutely no disrespect intended, but their job is to fight, and they shouldn't be asked whether or not fighting is the correct option.
April 17, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I see what you are saying from an outside view, I can assure you that with very few exceptions soldiers, Sailors or Marines would rather do anything but fight a war.
They would rather get paid to pretend to fight in exercises with other countries in exotic lands. Play with all the toys and not die? Great!
They would rather get paid to serve in a peace-time military and get 75% tuition reimbursement and travel the globe on Uncle Sam's dime becoming an adult and gaining perspective.
They would certainly rather not spend three or four tours in the desert separated from their family or not knowing if they will ever see that baby daughter they have yet to meet.
I served for ten years in a peace-time Navy and it was AWESOME! If I didn't have other plans I would have re-enlisted in a minute.
Trust me, we can have a lean, smart and happy military with zero wars.
They will be ready to kick-ass in a minute if needed, but much cheaper to maintain on our own soil and used only as a last resort.
April 17, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
My view wasn't exactly that of an outsider. While I don't doubt that you are correct about soldiers, sailors, and marines (at least the enlisted who bear the brunt of the fighting), I spent about a year and a half in close proximity to a bunch of USAF fighter pilot instructors. Some of these guys would nearly come to orgasm at the thought of being able to actually shoot down another airplane.
There was a sign at this Air Force base. To the best of my recollection it said: The mission of the USAF is to fly and fight, and don't forget it.
April 17, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I recall the prospective fighter pilot in ROTC who told me "what's the point of serving if you don't get to fly real missions?"
And fighter pilots never make general if they haven't served in combat, from what I have heard. Conveniently for them, there's a war often enough that they have a chance to make that star.
April 18, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of my best friends flies F-18s and when he was heading home he said to me, "I feel pretty good about this tour, J, flew a lot of sorties and never had to unload my weapons. I'm not sure how I would be feel if I was dropping bombs on people I don't even know."
Again, I don't doubt that certain select groups in the military have a certain amount of blood-lust (SEALs and Force Recon come immediately to mind.) Some may even have an abject disregard for the moral implications of war.
I would call them exception, though, and not the rule.
April 18, 2008 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's not besmirch anyone who serves in whatever capacity or to say that blood-lust and moral flexibility is even a bad thing. I can see where we need people to fulfill that mission.
My friend would have unloaded those weapons if ordered to do so. He would have been wounded inside for some time to come, but that wouldn't stop him from doing his duty.
One of the main points of this original blog, I suspect. Make sure our military have moral missions with achievable goals. Not so much to ask.
April 18, 2008 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo to you!
Sensational post.
April 17, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I commend you for sifting through the dog and pony fluff and excavating this gem of a quote.
Under Bush, America's leadership I.Q. has virtually flat-lined. With Obama at the helm, it will soar!
April 17, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. This is a point I actually tired to make last year when Bush was pushing the surge and the "differing" of decisions to "commanders on the ground" as a defense.
It is all a part of using the "Vietnam syndrome" to hide behind. It is using the generals to shield themselves form the basic flaws in the mission that this administration fraudulently sold the public on and then presenting ever changing rationales, and using the Vietnam era problems of the White House micromanaging field tactics as the cover for it.
April 17, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair, Clinton's answer that followed Obama's on this point was also very good and premised on the same basic point. That the responsibility of the mission comes from the civilian control of the military, and not the Generals on the ground at the strategic level.
April 17, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was appalled at Clinton's answer and not too happy with Obama's. Clinton presented total rigidity of both tactics and policy. Obama allowed for flexible tactics, but refused to consider the possibility of needing to change policy to avoid a genuine "total disaster." I realize both were trying to give sound-bite-worthy responses, but neither was a GOOD response. Clinton's response was as bad as Bush's actions have been, while Obama's was merely below my expectations.
April 18, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post! It's these types of answers that make me support Obama!
April 17, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome post. I've been saying for years that the military is the gun not the shooter. Finally we have a leader who gets that.
Cheers.
April 17, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama was repeating what had been said by Biden in the early debates.
April 17, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also think this is an excelent point. I am originally from South America, so I am talking from life experience. If you start using, like Bush has been doing, the Armed Forces for your political purposes, sooner or later, some of their leaders would say: "You know what, if I am going to be used for someone else politics, I would use the Army for my own politics". And that is the end.
If the president says "This policy, good or bad, is mine" then all falls into place. That is what Obama did and I applaud him for that. I hope the public appreciate that that is more important that a flag pin.
April 17, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for your post. I too thought this was a key point.
April 17, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congratulations on a compelling, cogent post. Well done! Thank you.
April 17, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant post. Stay safe while we try to elect someone who is sane enough and capable enough to keep our military focused on achievable missions with the proper amount of support and resources.
April 17, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
i am sorry but this point has been made by both hilliary and senator biden on numerous occasions. what's up with you folks? when obama says it...it's suddenly like the second coming. he didn't bring any more of a new perspective to this argument then what has repeatedly regurgitated by dems on the primary trail. you guys sound like you are causing yourselves self inflicted orgasms.
what a weird bunch of folks lately.
April 17, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Put this troll on "ignore."
April 17, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's why I suggested Self-Censored Social Networks as a solution.
Perhaps "Personal Black List" gives people the wrong idea. "Give us an ignore button," is much more succinct and palatable.
Maybe we can push for that solution.
April 17, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ignore.
April 17, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
While Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton made similar pronouncements, they were not identical and their credibility on the issue is suspect. Both of them voted for the AUMF against Iraq. That was a clear signal from both of them that they were willing to continue to strengthen the executive branch and deprive the Congress of its traditional war-making powers.
Obama is making the point here that the military leaders are obligated to implement the orders of the civilian leadership, and the the military does not dictate policy. I have heard both Biden and Clinton use the "let's wait for Petraeus" defense before, during, and after the surge.
Obama questioned General Petraeus last week and deiiberately poked at the issue of what the mission really is in Iraq. General Petraeus admitted in a roundabout way that the mission was to stay until ordered to do otherwise. General Petraeus is tactically obligated to this mission. So far, Obama is the only one through word and deed to point this out. All I have seen from Clinton and Biden is "When I'm the Commander in Chief, I'll be IN CHARGE," without specifying what that leadership means.
In my mind, statements like these from this debate and his speeches proves that he crosses the Commander in Chief threshhold.
I think you raised a legitimate question. I hope that I answered it to your satisfaction. Obama doesn't lay golden eggs--he's just a man. But he is proving himself to be the most capable to handle the job of chief executive in these troubling times.
April 18, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Eric,
You have certainly cut to the meat, in the midst of the muddle. I am sending my friends to read your comments.
April 17, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forgot to add, am posting a link to your post over at DKos.
April 17, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Eric -- As with 90% of the comments here, nothing more is to be said. That's the sign of a fully formed, airtight, intelligent and compelling essay. Good work.
April 17, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make me feel proud!
Thank you, sir, for your service and this thoughtful post.
April 17, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great comment. Hope you and others in military understand we support you and all the troops and did and always will deplore this senseless war in Iraq. ..a granny for Obama!!
April 17, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. McClure,
I am honored that people like you are serving this country. What a suscinct and brilliant examination of what was said. It hit me as being as important a point as you are describing.
More to the point, if you want the constitution followed, hire a constitutional law professor
April 17, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Eric,
Thank you for your insightful post. The fact that you are an active duty member of the military makes your input even more compelling.
I will share this post with the members of my personal email list.
I pray that you will make it home safe and undamaged, and I deplore the crazy politics that put you in harms way in the first place.
I am reminded again of something Obama once said about Iraq:
"We need to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in."
I did not vote for Bush, but I still feel that we, the American people, owe you, the members of the military, an apology for allowing this war to happen in the first place.
April 17, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
They certainly should get your post broadcast out over PA and the remaining contests, including the GE.
Semper fi', Eric.
April 17, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric,
When you join the military I believe you take an oath to defend the constitution, and you are doing just that with this post today.
You recognize with great clarity how it has been put under attack by Bush and Co. and you are calling attention to it. I hope you will inspire others to join the fight to protect what our forefathers built.
Thank you.
April 17, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where are the Flag pin waring patriots?
I didnt see this on Faux news
Military Denied Benefits to Surviving Son
By GARANCE BURKE,
AP
Posted: 2008-04-17 12:26:22
Filed Under: Nation News, Politics News
FRESNO, Calif. (April 17) - Forced to leave the combat zone after his two brothers died in the Iraq war, Army Spc. Jason Hubbard faced another battle once he returned home: The military cut off his family's health care, stopped his G.I. educational subsidies and wanted him to repay his sign-up bonus.
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/military-denied-benefits-to-surviving/20080417072509990001
April 17, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for highlighting this point. I'm afraid I missed that in my fury over the other stuff.
April 17, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
They do that with everything, but yes, they've been masters at doing it with the military. What has been so particularly scurrilous, as far as I'm concerned, is how they attempted to deflect their war crimes off on the ranks, not even the officers, at first.
The first and biggest deflection game, though, has been the one Bush has played with the constitution - his oath of office, specifically. He has told us over and over that it is his duty to protect us. No, it isn't. It's his duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and he is certainly guilty of dereliction of his duty, but that's another post.
Thanks a lot for this one. Great post.
April 17, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kind of a side issue - has the neocon ideology perverted the last 8 years of promotions in the armed forces amongst higher rank officers?
We know many have quit after being whored out by Bush but what of all the Pentagon staffers that have had to thrive in this type of environment since 9-11?
April 17, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I especially appreciated the "no permanent bases" in Iraq comment. That definitely sets him apart. I think the people of Iraq need to rule themselves-there's an idea.
April 17, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
it is disingenuous for anyone to suggest that we won't have bases in Iraq. The Green Zone is home to the largest US embassy in the world and the military support personnel there inhabit an extremely large military base, even if they don't officially call it one.
April 18, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
We have tons of bases in Iraq. That doesn't mean that they will be permanent homes for US personnel. I can see having personnel stationed at the embassy... to PROTECT the embassy and VIPs that will frequently arrive because this country still needs support and diplomacy.
It is disingenuous to say that just because bases are here, they must house the US armed forces. You can turn the land and infrastructure over to the Iraqis (as we have done at several COPs here in Al Anbar), and they can use it. The bases have plumbing, electricity, refrigeration, fiber optics, etc. necessary to create housing, schools, and other vital services for the greater Iraqi population. It's called swords to plowshares, such as was enacted from the Marshall Plan.
April 18, 2008 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
The US personnel in the green zone number about 30,000 (thirty THOUSAND). That's mostly security forces. I suspect a large portion of them will stay. A stateside base with 5,000 military personnel is a reasonably large military base. To suggest that a military post that might conceivably be 2-3x as large shouldn't be called a base because officially it won't be called a military base is also disingenuous. To suggest that something that is 1/10 of the manning or roughly 3,000 military personnel (a medium military base in the USA) is not a real base is still disingenuous. You'd have to slash the Green Zone personnel by a factor of 30 to get it down to merely "a large military presence" [in the embassy].
April 18, 2008 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I should also point out that military personnel stationed in a non-combat zone for extended periods of time expect to have their families with them. A 5,000 person base would easily have 2-3x that many civilians, including families and support for families associated with the base, so an embassy complex that houses 30,000 would be about right to support a huge embassy, 5,000 military guards and everyone's families and associated support personnel. Its a "Little America" in the MIddle East--exactly what the neocons wanted when they invaded Iraq (forget about oil, thats a near/mid-term issue: its all about China and projecting a USA military presence from a base in a liberal Moslem Middle East democracy friendly to the USA).
April 18, 2008 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're making assumption after assumption with little regards for the facts. If President Obama says that we will take all of our troops out of Iraq then that is what will happen.
If he says, "I want everyone out and only the Marine security detachment for the Embassy to remain." that is what will happen.
We have embassies all over the world without attached military bases. In fact, I suspect Obama begins looking at the bases that exist all over the world as a possible source of trimming the budget.
We have plenty of BRAC facilities in the States to house those troops at lesser cost to us and great positive impact to the local communities.
If you say it is naive to think that we won't have troops stationed in Iraq after the withdrawal, I disagree with that assumption as well.
The only likely, long-term security fix for Iraq will involve a huge, multi-national peacekeeping force under the leadership of the UN. We may have a small number of troops and gear attached to that force, but it would most likely be a shorter, unaccompanied tour.
Think the Balkans vice Korea.
April 18, 2008 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are missing my point: the facility for the embassy in Iraq is huge, and as far as I know, its not designed to be partitioned. What is naive is to assume that we are going to abandon our largest embassy complex to Iraqi control, leave perimeter security to the Iraqis, and in general, turn such a huge US flagged facility over to partial control of the host country.
Ain't gonna happen, because it is impractical logistically.
And if it doesn't happen, we WILL have a substantial military presence in Iraq, even if the thousands of personnel fall under the heading of security for the embassy, its staff and their families.
April 18, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
We should have heard some of these thoughts and discussion from the pundits on TV. Unfortuately they were so busy rehashing the inane portion of the debate they didn't give much time to the substance. It's self perpetuating. Thanks for calling our attention to a great point!
April 18, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice catch and and and even nicer post to go with it.
April 18, 2008 2:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why do fake soldiers want to strip General Petraeus of his power to declare war? He has enough colored squares on his lapel to build you a coffin out of legos! (Please, no flash photography of the lego coffin).
April 18, 2008 2:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post! I wonder if in your opinion, this war and permanent occupation of Iraq is really for the oil? This seems to be a strategic goal for security, but the WRONG approach (military and colonialism) to secure it.
April 18, 2008 4:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for your service and excellent post.
April 18, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent. Some substance squeezaed out of a complete joke of a debate. This is so refreshing to read, and heartening to think we may actually have some real leadership in '09.
April 18, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
McClure,
You make a good point. However, this is not the first time that Obama has asserted the difference between the strategic goals and the tactics deployed.
Obama said this the last time Petraeus testified. That was when they took out the ad claiming that Petraeus had 'betrayed us'. Obama refused to participate in that grandstanding if you recall.
Obama said at that time that Petraeus was being scapegoated by this administration as the war was a strategic failure and that the Commander in Chief sets the strategy and the military executes the mission set by the President.
I am glad that you heard it this time during the debate. The problem is that our media chooses to hype inconsequential bullshyt rather than focus on the brillance of Obama's judgment and strategic analysis. Obama has consistently said since this primary race began 15 months ago that this war cannot be won militarily and that Bush is doing our armed forces an extreme disservice by setting forth an undefined misssion.
Whenever Obama has opportunity to question the General's he makes this abundantly clear. You may wish to go back and pull up the transcript of the last time Obama questioned Petraeus. If was during that hearing that he demonstrated how undefined the mission was that Petrateus had the responsibility to carry out.
Obama is outstanding, not even Hillary understands the role of the commander in chief. She simply thinks that Bush can give an order to withdraw. She does not understand the process for setting a strategic mission.
And that crazy ass surreal umbrella mission she set forth for the entire Middle East in this last debate is nothing but WWIII in 'umbrella' terms. The USA has no such NATO obligations in the Middle East nor should we with the volatility there UNLESS we want perpetual WAR.
Obama would never said anything so incredible inane and incendiary for the very same reasons he gave in 2002 for not going to war. It would be a dumb idea and the region is too fractured into tribal alliances to even consider such a role for the USA in the Middle East.
Hillary is a warmongerer and folks hopefully heard that during this last debate, when she claimed she would use massive retaliation to defend Israel.
April 18, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post. (A happy exception to the other post-debate rants.)
So, as a military man, do you think we need more lion tamers?
April 18, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I did not want to even touch that concept. I originally wanted to compare and contrast Obama's sober military philosophy versus Hillary's excellent adventure... but I wanted to highlight Obama because he is the Democratic candidate.
But...BUT...
That little umbrella comment was just daffy. Seriously daffy. PNAC daffy. The United States is fast approaching an era where we will be unable to enforce our strategic interests by military might alone. Hillary's idea of a middle east umbrella is so laughably Cold War as to betray a fundamental incompetence that would scare me if I were actually afraid of her becoming President. Best to leave that kind of retro adventurism in the Limbaugh Letter.
April 18, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please keep writing -- you have a lot to say that is worth hearing.
Your fan,
April 20, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink