Monday,
November 26, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, tensions continue
between Baghdad and Erbil, the most superficial of agreements today is
portrayed (falsely) by some as a resolution, charges continues that
Iraqi female prisoners are being mistreated, abused and, in some cases,
raped, corruption charges attach themselves to Nouri's son, the
continued Petraeus scandal, and more.
The
tensions between Erbil and Baghdad continue. Nouri al-Maliki turned a
tense situation into a crisis by sending forces (Tigris Operation
Command) into the disputed areas in northern Iraq. The Kurds see this
as an attempt by Nouri to seize control of the areas. Due to Nouri's
past record and his refusal to honor the Constitution he took an oath to
(specifically to implement Article 140 of the Constitution to resolve
disputed areas), they're wise to see this as yet another power grab on
Nouri's part. The World Tribune observes today, "Over the last 10 days, KRG and the Iraq Army have been in a standoff for control of a disputed town of Tuz Khurmatu."
Zaydan al-Rabii (Al-Monitor translating Al-Khallej) reported
this morning that despite the fact that "a Kurdish military delegation
is arriving in Baghdad on Monday [Nov. 26] to meet officials from the
Iraqi Ministry of Defense, news indicates that additional Kurdish
soldiers and armored vehicles are moving towards disputed areas."
In a development everyone is trumpeting, representatives from the KRG and the central Iraqi government met in Baghdad today. KUNA notes,
"Iraq's federal government and provincial government of Iraq's
Kurdistan region reached an agreement in principle stipulating return of
all military foces to their previous locations." In principal? And
that's the more upbeat version. Isabel Coles and Alison Williams (Reuters) lead
with, "Iraqi military leaders agreed on Monday with commanders from the
Kurdistan region to defuse tension and discuss pulling their troops
back from an area over which they both claim jurisdiction." That's not
quite the same thing and when you include a quote from Iraq's
"commander in chief of the Iraqi armed forces" (that would be Nouri)
that states the two sides will "discuss a mechanism to return the forces
which were deployed after the crisis to their previous positions." So
they're going to discuss that. And even less has been accomplished
according to Almanar,
"Top federal and Kurdish security officials agreed in Baghdad on Monday
to 'activate' coordinating committees between their forces and work to
calm the situation in northern Iraq, a statement said." Almanar also notes that those attending the meeting including US Lt Gen Robert Caslen.
Let's take a little side trip since a US military officer is attending meetings in Iraq. Last night, Xinhua reported on US efforts to beef up their presence in Iraq, US military efforts. They note Independent Press Agency
has quoted an Iraqi government source stating, "Dozens of giant U.S.
airplanes C-130 Hercules had carried out successive flights to the once
second largest U.S. military airbase al-Asad in Iraq's western province
of Anbar." They include the official government denial. While Buratha News Agency
has noted a Special Ops unit has come into Iraq in recent weeks and
that there are negotiations going on to send more in. Then the report
notes:
On Sept. 24, the New York Times newspaper quoted
Lt. Gen. Robert L. Caslen Jr., an American commander in charge of
speeding up weapons sales to Iraq, as saying that Iraq and the United
States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of
small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions.
According
to Caslen, "A unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently
deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with
intelligence," the newspaper.
Back in September, Tim Arango (New York Times) reported:
Iraq
and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in
the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training
missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General
Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed
to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence.
That's the New York Times report Xinhua
is referring to. And please note, 'fact checker' and corpulent TV
personality Candy Crowley felt no need to tell debate watchers that very
real fact. But China's Xinhua can note what NBC News, CBS News
and ABC News all ignored. But it wasn't just television news that was
ignorant of Tim Arango's report. Mere weeks ago the editorial board of
the New York Times wrote an editorial on Iraq that made clear
they hadn't read what one of their own reporters had written. And when
'fact checking' the presidential debates, the New York Times team repeatedly came up stupid when it had to do with the US government in negotiations to send more US troops into Iraq.
The
Chinese may end up better informed about what the US is working on in
Iraq than the American people. Back to the current standoff in Iraq.
Kelly
McEvers has a major report on the conflict today for NPR's All Things
Considered (link is audio right now -- transcript will go up at link
tomorrow). McEvers notes the history of the conflict and the recent
skirmish in Tuz Khormato. Calling it the best US broadcast report on
the conflict really isn't a compliment becuase it's also the only in
depth broadcast report in the US so far. That said, it's a very strong
report. We're going to stay with today's 'big news' and note this from
her report.
Kelly
McEvers: Kurdish and Arab military leaders tentatively agreed today to
pull their troops back to previous positions but the restaurant owner
back in Tuz Khormato is not optimstic. "It's not the politicians in high
place who suffer from this war of words," he told us. "It's us. The
people on the ground."
Things
are now so tense between the Kurdistan Regional Government out of Erbil
and the Baghdad-based central government of Iraq that rumors usually
used to justify the start of open war are flying around. Al Rafidayn reports
rumors being spread that the Kurds are sending shooters into Kirkuk in
plain clothes to kill people. This is the sort of thing the US
government has repeatedly used to justify moving on the Syrian
government. While rumors fly, Kitabat notes that efforts to de-escalate the situation and prevent armed conflict continue with talks continue.
But Nouri never plays fair. Alsumaria reports that Nouri has announced the issue is one for the federal courts. That would be the federal courts he controls. All Iraq News notes
that Jabbar Yawar, Secretary General of the Ministry of Peshmerga
(Kurdish elite forces) has stated that their demand is that Nouri's
forces leave the disputed areas. Alsumaria adds that Nouri has sent in six more additional military helicopters to the area.
This isn't surprising. This has been building for years and there were many red flags raised in the process.
KRG
President Massoud Barzani: Iraq is facing a serious crisis today.
Yesterday, we have discussed that very frankly with the President
[Barack Obama], the Vice President [Joe Biden] and it's going to one-man
rule. It's going towards control of all the establishments of state. So
we have got a situation or we ended up having a situation in Baghdad
where one individual is the Prime Minister and at the same time he's the
commander-in-chief of the armed forces, he's the Minister of Defense,
he's the Minister of the Interior and the Chief of the Intelligence and
lately he has sent a correspondence to the president of the Central Bank
in Iraq that that establishment would also come under the Prime
Minister. Where in the world would you find such an example? We as the
people of Kurdistan, we believe that this government has come to be as a
result of the blood that we have shed and as a result of the sacrifices
that we have contributed. We are eager to see the situation reformed.
Therefore, we will not leave Baghdad for others. So, therefore, we see
the situation in Iraq that it requires to be ruled in partnership -- for
that power-sharing and partnership to consist of the Kurds and the
Arabs -- both the Shia Arabs and the Sunni Arabs.
After
increased tensions between the Iraqi and the Kurdish governments,
Kurdistan Region President Massoud Barzani told Alhurra TV last Thursday
that Baghdad is considering the use of F-16 fighter planes against the
Kurds.
In the interview,
Barzani says the issue with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is not
personal, but it is about his dictatorial policies. "I still consider
him a brother and a friend," he said. According to Barzani, division
commanders in the Iraqi army are supposed to be approved by parliament,
but this hasn't happened.
Barzani
told Alhurra that he has confronted the Iraqi PM many times and been
told by Maliki that he will act, but he hasn't, and suggested there is
talk of a "military solution" to confront the Kurds in Baghdad. Barzani
said that in an official meeting with Iraqi military commanders, it was
stated that they should wait for F-16s to arrive to help push back the
Kurds.
"Given
the fact that the Maliki government doesn't represent a true coalition,
won't this agreement [make it appear] we are taking sides in the civil
war especially when most Iraqi Parliamentarians have called for the
withdrawal of troops?"
That's an important question. Then-Senator Russ Feingold asked it in the April 10, 2008
Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing when the US was attempting
to hand Nouri the moon and stars in contract form with the Status Of
Forces Agreement. He wasn't the only senator bothered by the US
government getting into bed with Nouri and the issue of a civil war in
Iraq. Another senator pointed out that this arrangement raised "many red
flags with me and other Americans. We've pledged we're not only going
to consult when there is an outside threat, but also when there is an
inside threat. We've just witnessed when Mr. Maliki engaged in the use
of force against another Shia group in the south, is this an inside
threat?"
Good questions. They deserved answers.
The
person asking that question, like Russ Feingold, is no longer in the
Senate. The person asking that question is Joe Biden, now the US Vice
President.
It's a shame those questions weren't answered before Joe left the Senate.
Of greater interest to us (and something's no one's reported on) is the RAND Corporation's report entitled "Managing Arab-Kurd Tensions in Northern Iraq After the Withdrawal of U.S. Troops."
The 22-page report, authored by Larry Hanauer, Jeffrey Martini and Omar
al-Shahery, markets "CBMs" -- "confidence-building measures" -- while
arguing this is the answer. If it strikes you as dangerously simplistic
and requiring the the Kurdish region exist in a vacuum where nothing
else happens, you may have read the already read the report.
[. . .]
The authors acknowledge:
["] Continuing
to contain Arab-Kurd tensions will require a neutral third-party
arbitrator that can facilitate local CMBs, push for national-level
negotiations, and prevent armed conflict between Iraqi and Kurdish
troops. While U.S. civilian entities could help implement CMBs and
mediate political talks, the continued presence of U.S. military forces
within the disputed internal boundaries would be the most effective way
to prevent violent conflict between Arabs and Kurds. ["]
[. . .]
The
report notes that, in late 2009, Gen Ray Odierno (top US commander in
Iraq at that point) had declared the tensions between Arabs and Kurds to
be "the greatest single driver of instability in Iraq." It doesn't note
how the US Ambassador to Iraq when Odierno made those remarks was Chris
Hill who dismissed talk of tensions as well as the issue of the oil
rich and disputed Kirkuk.
It's
a real shame the White House ignored Odierno, sidelined him, told him
couldn't give interviews all to appease and please Chris Hill who didn't
know the first thing he was talking about. As Michael Gordon and
Bernard Trainor note in their new book The Endgame, for the White House to realize what a mistake they'd made, it would take Odierno speaking to then-Secretary of Defense Robert
Turning
to the topic of the death penalty, last week US Ambassador to the
United Nations Susan Rice helped kill the UN General Assembly resolution
which would have placed a moratorium on the death penalty worldwide.
Susan apparently needs blood flowing in the street to wake up feeling
safe each morning. This week? Kitabat reports
that Iraq's Foreign Affairs Minister Hoshyar Zebari met with Fadh Abdul
Mohsen al-Zaid. al-Zaid is based in Jordan and acts as Saudi Arabi's
Ambassador to Jordan as well as being Saudi Arabia's non-resident
Ambassador to Iraq. Zebari and al-Zaid discussed attempts to normalize
relations between Iraq and Saudi Arabia and the issue of Saudi prisoners
in Iraq and of Iraqis in the Saudi Kingdom and the need to ratify the
agreement on the exchange of prisoners. Thamer Qamqoun (Saudi Gazette) reports
Saudi national Ali Hassan Ali Fadel is in an Iraqi prison and has been
sentenced to death, "Sources in Iraq said Fadel was tortured and his
confessions were extracted from under duress while he had proved to the
court that he had entered Iraq to visit his friends in Al-Mosul" and not
for 'terrorism.' Most of Iraq's 'confessions' are derived from
torture.
Staying with violence, as noted in the October 15th snapshot, Iraq had already executed 119 people in 2012. Time to add more to that total. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported
last night that 10 more people were executed on Sunday ("nine Iraqis
and one Egyptian"). Tawfeeq notes the Ministry of Justice's statement
on the executions includes, "The Iraqi Justice Ministry carried out the
executions by hanging 10 inmates after it was approved by the
presidential council." And, not noted in the report, that number's only
going to climb. A number of Saudi prisoners have been moved into
Baghdad over the last weeks in anticipation of the prisoners being
executed. Hou Qiang (Xinhua) observes, "Increasing
executions in Iraq sparked calls by the UN mission in the country, the
European Union and human rights groups on Baghdad to abolish the capital
punishment, criticizing the lack of transparency in the proceedings of
the country's courts."
At
least 129 executions so far this year. Iraq is on the verge of setting
another record. Sadly, not one to be proud of but there aren't many
records the government's set that anyone can be proud of since Nouri
al-Maliki was installed by the US government to be prime minister.
Weeks
ago, Nouri traveled with a delegation to Russia and, while there,
signed a $4.2 billion weapons deal. The deal was a surprise and it
involved so much money that it garnered huge press. Russia took bows on
the world stage as did Nouri. As with all other weapons deals, Nouri
insisted that it was to protect Iraq from external forces. Nouri then
went to Prague, signed another weapons deal, then returned to Iraq and,
shortly after, announced the Russian deal was off.
Long
before he made that announcement, there was calls for him to appear
before the Parliament to explain the deal. There were accusations of
corruption and graft. These accusations have not vanished. Ali
al-Dabbagh, Nouri's spokesperson until this week, felt the need to
publicly announce this week that he was not part of the deal. Saturday,
All Iraq News reported
that Nouri's son is now accused of being part of the alleged
corruption. Ahmed al-Maliki has long been accused of benefitting from
nepotism but now the Sadr bloc has accused him of being in on the
corruption. Sunday morning, Kitabat reported
on it. Both also noted that Ali al-Dabbagh's public denial last week
of being involved in the deal has not cleared him of charges of
corruption.
Still on the Iraqi Parliament, Saturday All Iraq News reported
that the Women, Family and Children's Committee is calling for the
Ministry of Justice to make prisons and detention centers open to
legislative committees so they can see what the conditions are. In
addition, All Iraq News noted MP Safia al-Suhail is calling on the Ministry of Women to focus on eliminating violence against women in prison. Today Alsumaria reports
that Iraqiya MP Hamid al-Mutlaq accused security forces of raping and
torturing women prison and he traces the culture back to the torture of
Iraqis by Americans at Abu Ghraib prison. On Sautrday, the article
notes, Iraqiya MP Ahmed al-Alwani discussed the large number of women
who have been raped in Iraqi prisons and are in fear of further
assaults.
Moving
to the US and the Petraeus scandal. For those who don't know, David
Petraeus was the CIA Director. That was his last position. He stepped
down, this month, with the title of Director. I'm sorry if you're so
stupid that this confuses you. He was not "General David Petraeus the
CIA Director." That did not happen. Petraeus was following in Michael
Hayden's footsteps. That CIA Director (2005-2009) chose to use the
title of his position "Director." He could have insisted on General.
But we don't militarize other branches of government. Hayden actually
grasped that and corrected the press when they attemtped to call him
"General" after he assumed the position. Good for Michael Hayden. (And
we said that in real time when he corrected a member of the press on
that.)
So all this worship of a person -- which is how it plays out -- is pretty sad. Ava and I already took on the ultimate military whore Sunday in " TV: The 10 Most Disgraceful People" in which we imagined Barbara Walters hosting a needed program:
"Thank you very much, General Woodward," Barbara Walters said. "Six commanding officers received some form of a disciplinary actions and two more were removed, according to the Air Force.
My next guest chose to remove himself. He flew from obscurity to
national prominence with the help of media admirers like Thomas E.
Ricks. Interestingly, Ricks has a book that insists that generals
should be fired when they don't win wars but Ricks has spent the last
weeks defending this man. Former general David Petraeus, at one point,
the top US commander in Iraq. Oversaw a failed war and what some call an unethical policy of counter-insurgency.
Despite those realities, President Barack Obama would go on to put
Petraeus over the war in Afghanistan and then to make the military
retired Petraeus the CIA Director. It was a sensitive post and one that
must be free of any potential scandal out of concerns over blackmail.
Mr. Petraeus has resigned over an affair which, he insists, did not
start until after he left the military in 2011. Director, how do you
explain this affair? And why did you decide to resign not when the FBI
learned of the affair but when you learned the affair was going to be
made public?"
We were as shocked as Walters when David Petraeus'
knees parted and Thomas Ricks crawled out from between them and began
speaking.
"We now seem to care more about the sex lives of our leaders than the real lives of our soldiers."
As
Ricks attempted to filibuster and brought up President Dwight D.
Eisenhower's alleged affair when he was a general, Walters cut him off.
"You
are a disgrace but not enough of one to be on this show. Why do you
prattle on about this general and that general and the military and all
the other crap? He is not a general who was forced to resign because of
the military code of ethics. He was a CIA Director. As usual, your
stupidity has confused the issue. As I was saying before, the Director
could live with the feds knowing of the affair but could not handle it
going public. Which would indicate that if a foreign government
discovered the affair and attempted to blackmail him with it, he would
be very open to blackmail because he so clearly did not want the affair
to go public."
Barbara Walters will host her annual Barbara Walters Presents: The 10 Most Fascinating People of the Year
Wednesday, December 12th on ABC. That's the special Ava and I were
re-imagining. And the quote from Ricks with a link? That's Thomas E.
Ricks' own stupid words. "General David Petraeus" did not step down.
Director David Petraeus did.
I
cannot stand the hypocrisy of my country. We have presidents,
presidential candidates and corporate executives who fornicate and
adulterate with impunity, some when their wives were stricken with
cancer, yet this one man who has given his entire life to America errs
one time and the media and hacks like Michael Hastings attack him with
impunity. There should be no mass audience for a situation should remain
a private issue between General Petraeus and his wife.
Oh, grow up, you little man. Let's examine your stupidity in that paragraph sentence by sentence.
I cannot stand the hypocrisy of my country.
Can't
you? You served in an illegal war but a news cycle has you on edge? I
didn't realize they grew 'em so weak these days. Let's call Cokie
Roberts and see if she can loan Blake Hall her pearls so he can wear
them when he's doing these clutch-the-pearls moments. And doesn't Hall
offer his own hypocrisy in his next sentence?
We
have presidents, presidential candidates and corporate executives who
fornicate and adulterate with impunity, some when their wives were
stricken with cancer, yet this one man who has given his entire life to
America errs one time and the media and hacks like Michael Hastings
attack him with impunity.
Well,
clearly, if someone has a spouse and they also have an extra-marital
partner, they're not giving their ENTIRE life to the country. That's
just a factual. But maybe John Edwards -- I don't care for John Edwards
and have felt that way since I was planning on being a donor to his
first presidential campaign but instead got groped by Scummy Edwards and
I lfet, but not before telling told Elizabeth to put her husband on a
leash (and then instead donated to John Kerry's campaign -- but for one
brief moment, John Edwards could have had me as a donor until he thought
he could 'have me' in another way) -- feels he gave a lot to his
country? Maybe he feels that some of his legal cases and his Senate
service and even running for president in two primaries and running for
the vice presidency in one were giving his "entire life" to the
country?
He may feel that way. He may not.
But
it's strange, Blake Hall wants to draw a cone of silence around
Petraeus' extra-martial affair(s) but still feels he can trash John
Edwards for the same thing? For someone who, just the sentence before,
was decrying hypocrisy, Hall certainly seems willing to embrace it with a
'logic' that appears to be: "Don't talk about Petraeus sex life! Let's
talk about John Edwards sex life instead!"
Hall feels Michael Hastings is a "media hack." That's Hall's opinion. Many others feel differently.
Hall also insist that Petraeus "errs one time" and is punished which confuses me?
Is the argument that Petraeus only slept around once or that he only had one mistress?
Long
before Rielle Hunter entered the picture, John Edwards was trolling.
Because that's what cheaters tend to do. Now maybe people serving a lot
closer with Petraeus in Iraq than Hall did, maybe these two people told
me wrong and maybe a certain reporter who confessed to me that she had
an affair with Petraeus during that period was just looking for another
notch on her lipstick case (to be Pat Benatar
about it) but even though those things I've been told never happened,
human nature really doesn't allow for a person to be married for over 30
years and then, suddenly, out of the blue, decide to cheat.
Add
to that the fact that Petraeus is sixty-years-old which really isn't
the age for a man to either be in his sexual prime or facing a mid-life
crisis (two 'triggers' for sleeping around).
I
bring that up because Hall's the one who's defending Petraeus
and basing it on his belief that Petraeus is someone who "errs one
time." If you're going to make an argument with any attempt at logic
and you're going to acknowledge that Petraeus did cheat, I really
wouldn't rush to shore up an argument for a cheater based on how few
times the cheater says he cheated.
Because
most people lie about sex. That's why I never supported the
impeachment of Bill Clinton. I liked Bill (I still do) and I think he
did a good job as president. But, no, I wouldn't impeach someone
because they said they hadn't had a sexual relationship with someone
when indeed they had.
There should be no mass audience for a situation should remain a private issue between General Petraeus and his wife.
He
is not a general. At best he is "retired General Petraeus." At best.
I don't know why your bring his wife into it. We're not naming her. I
have nothing to say about her on this topic. She has done much good
with regards to veterans and we will surely note her again in relation
to that.
But grasp that I am damn tired of
an innocent spouse -- wife or husband -- being dragged through the
smutty river because of a cheating spouse. The David Petraeus scandal
is about many things but the wife is not a part of that scandal and
that's why -- check the archives -- since this story broke I have not
mentioned her name here. No spouse should be dragged into this
nonsense.
She's not doing a thing to bring
disgrace to herself. Leave her out of it. And that includes those of
you who want to offer crocodile tears for her to try to cover for
Petraeus. The secret is out. She has to live with it publicly and
privately and that is not fair but neither is life. She's always
conducted herself in a professional and caring manner and I assume she
will continue to do so.
Hall's biggest mistake
is he doesn't seem to grasp what actually happened. Petraeus --
according to the offficial record -- retired from the military (Hall
doesn't even grasp that), became Director of the CIA, slept with what
appears to be an unbalanced person, ended the affair after several
months at which point the person began creating problems leading one
woman feeling unsafe, that woman contacts authorities about the possibly
unbalanced person, an investigation ensues, during the investigation it
comes out that Petraeus has slept with the person. Do we follow those
events so far?
A CIA Director is put into a
compromising position. This is where people have to start exploring
national security issues -- that go far beyond, "Did he tell the woman
classified information!" The primary concern here is are you open to
blackmail. When gay men and lesbians had to live in the closet, they
were considered security risks with the official justification being
that they were open to blackmail. In those witch hunt days (funny how
people never want to talk about the sexuality witch hunt of that period
despite the fact that it was a big deal in real time and among the
reasons a former general, Frank McCarthy, left the State Dept and
relocated to California where he'd go on to live with longterm love
Rupert Allan while producing a number of films including Patton).
Petraeus
admitted to the affair and planned to continue in the post. The
official story states that and states that he only decided to step down
when he learned that the affair was going to become public.
If
Petraeus was prepared to stay on as CIA Director if the affair was
private but took the dramatic option of stepping down when he found out
that the affair would go public, you need to grasp what that says.
It
says he didn't feel he did anything worth resigning over. It also says
he was, indeed, a potential blackmail target. He was prepared to stay
on with the Justice Dept knowing but the whole world? That freaked him
out. Which means a foreign power, if the affair had been kept quiet,
could have discovered it and could have attempted to blackmail him with
it.
I'm not saying they would have succeeded.
I am saying his actions in stepping down indicate that there was reason
to be concerned that he was a blackmail risk.
That's the official story.
If
Blake Hall knows differently, if he knows or even suspects, that the
official story isn't correct, many of us would appreciate him stating
so. Unless/until that happens, Petraeus chose to step down, he was not
forced out and he chose to step down not when the government learned of
his affair but when the public was about to.
That's not really "Poor Petraeus."
Michael
Hastings and others like him are really responsible for ensuring
freedom and accountability. They are not the only ones. And if Michael
Hastings is involved in a sex scandal or drug scandal tomorrow, you
better believe it will be in the news cycle.
Blake
Hall wants Petraues to have privacy and, again illogically, seems to
think that the best way for that to happen is for Hall to write a piece
about it.
Seriously?
I
have two friends who have been the tabloids for sometime because they
both got caught cheating. I haven't said a word about it publicly.
I've said, for Third, "You can all write about it but I have nothing to
say on the matter and will not be participating." I don't even discuss
it with friends who I love but I know are prone to gossip. Because the
best way I can help the two cheaters who are embarrassed (and more
importantly,the two innocent spouses who didn't do a damn thing to
warrant their marriages being held up to ridicule) is by not saying
anything. It's a tactic that Hall might want to explore if he truly
wants people to stop talking about David Petraeus. It doesn't mean
they'll stop, but he'll know he hasn't helped fuel the discussion.
And
Hall's not helped by using terms he's doesn't grasp the defintion of.
Fornicate with impunity? Seriously? That's a real grasp-the-pearl
moment. Fornication is not cheating. Fornication is sex outside of
marriage. In America, a huge portion of people have 'fornicated.' And
most of us? We've done it "with impunity" -- gasp. I'm sure there's a
CEO fornicating somewhere without impunity right now. But "fornicate"
doesn't mean that said CEO is cheating on a spouse -- only that the CEO
and whomever they are sleeping with are not married. Maybe Hall does
grasp that. Maybe he's arguing for everyone to be a virgin until
marriage? If so, he'll probably have about the same luck with that as
with getting people to stop writing about Petraeus.
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment