Echoing McCain talking point, Chris Wallace asked Clinton: "[W]hy are you so determined to declare defeat" in Iraq?
SUMMARY: While discussing the war in Iraq with Sen. Hillary Clinton on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace echoed Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain by asking Clinton, "[W]hy are you so determined to declare defeat?" McCain has repeatedly referred to Clinton's and other Democrats' proposals on Iraq as "surrender."
On the February 3 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, while discussing the war in Iraq with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), host Chris Wallace asked: "Senator, you started calling for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq in November of 2005. If we had followed your policy, wouldn't Al Qaeda by now be able to say that they had driven the U.S. out of Iraq?" Later, Wallace played a video clip of Clinton's response to Gen. David Petraeus' September 2007 testimony before Congress regarding the troop surge and asserted: "Senator, since then the violence is clearly dropping, has continued to drop. The -- Baghdad is sharing oil revenue with the provinces. They have passed a law to allow at least some Sunnis back into the government. Clearly, there are a lot of problems, but why are you so determined to declare defeat?" Clinton responded: "Well, that's not at all what I'm doing. I think there's a difference between tactical success on the ground -- and I've been, you know, very positive about what our young men and women in uniform can accomplish, especially if we put them in in sufficient numbers -- and strategic success," adding, "And I think you're overstating what is happening in Iraq."
During the January 15 Democratic presidential debate, Clinton stated that if she were to become president, "[W]e will start withdrawing [troops] within 60 days" and would continue to withdraw "one to two brigades a month" with the goal of having "nearly all the troops out by the end of the year [2009]," except for those necessary to "protect our embassy" and other "strategic interests."
Wallace's characterization of Clinton's proposals about Iraq as "declar[ing] defeat" echoes Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (AZ), who has repeatedly referred to Clinton's and other Democrats' Iraq proposals as "surrender." For instance, on the January 27 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, McCain falsely claimed that Clinton "would set a timetable within 60 days of withdrawal, complete withdrawal from Iraq" and said to host Tim Russert: "To me that's surrender." Additionally, during the January 30 Republican presidential debate, McCain stated, "I'm proud to have played a role in making sure that we didn't raise the white flag and surrender in Iraq, as the Democrats wanted us to do and we would have done if we had set timetables for a withdrawal."
From the February 3 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: Senator, you started calling for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq in November of 2005. If we had followed your policy, wouldn't Al Qaeda by now be able to say that they had driven the U.S. out of Iraq?
CLINTON: You know, Chris, I think we have to look at this in the context in which it's taking place. The so-called surge was designed to give the Iraqi government the space and time to make the tough decisions that only the Iraqis can make for themselves. It's my assessment that only now is the Iraqi government starting to grapple with problems that many of us have been pushing them to resolve for five years. And the problem is that they have up until now believed that they didn't really have to take any tough action, that President Bush had given them basically a blank check, that the American military would be there to protect them and protect other parts of the country. And I think that putting forward a very clear objective of beginning to withdraw our troops is the best way to get the Iraqis to take responsibility. So I think that it's clear there is no military solution; we can stay for a day, a month, a year, 10 or a hundred years, as Senator McCain has said would be fine with him, but I don't think that's the answer. I think we've got to bring our troops home and really require and put the pressure on the Iraqis to make the tough decisions that they have to make.
WALLACE: Well, let me follow up on that if I can. Last September, when General Petraeus testified before Congress about the surge working, here was your reaction -- let's take a look:
CLINTON [video clip]: I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.
WALLACE: Senator, since then the violence is clearly dropping, has continued to drop. The -- Baghdad is sharing oil revenue with the provinces. They have passed a law to allow at least some Sunnis back into the government. Clearly, there are a lot of problems, but why are you so determined to declare defeat?
CLINTON: Well, that's not at all what I'm doing. I think there's a difference between tactical success on the ground -- and I've been, you know, very positive about what our young men and women in uniform can accomplish, especially if we put them in in sufficient numbers -- and strategic success. And I think you're overstating what is happening in Iraq. There is a lot of problems getting money from the central government into the Sunni areas. The oil bill hasn't been resolved yet. De-Baathification is tied up in their parliament because there's such a reaction to it by so many of the Shiite factions. You know, this is obviously a fractious and often contentious government. And I think we would not even see the small signs of progress unless they knew that there was an election going on in the United States and one of the biggest issues was whether we would stay for up to 100 years or whether we would start bringing our troops home.
If ever there was proof that Democrats should stay away from Fox News, this is it.
First, Mr. Wallace, define "victory" in Iraq. In its current incarnation, the Bush administration defines victory as a stable Iraqi national government that's capable of carrying out security and conducting elections and other day to day operations. By their own definition, then, there is no "victory" in Iraq, in that its government has proved completely ineffective and shows no signs of improving.
Second, I DARE you to pose the same question to supporters of the Iraq war -- how long will they chase their "victory" before they realize it's not achievable. Then what? Why, they change the definition of "victory" again!
The only thing you can count on Iraq war supporters for is to first, ALWAYS tell us that everything is going great, and second to ALWAYS tell us that if we give them just six more months, then we'll see "real" progress.
Can't they come up with something better than "declare defeat"? Unbelievable that such a low level of propaganda can survive.GOP talking points become conventional wisdom.
Last night I saw one of the Fox reporters( I think it was that Yellin woman) commenting on the subject of potential GOP Supreme court appointees.She mentioned in an off-hand way that the Repooplickens would be likely to select "strict constructionists" who wouldn't try to legislate abortion rights from the bench.Because,obviously, there's a part of the Constitution that I missed that says the government can force people to give birth.
you, colonel, should be demoted. roe v. wade is an abomination of judicial activism. they just made it up. i am certain you never read it, but they just pulled it out of their butts.
now as for the constitution requiring someone to give birth, well that is about the dumbest statement i ever heard. can't even deal with something so idiotic.
so, colonel, from now on you are a private.
you, colonel, should be demoted. roe v. wade is an abomination of judicial activism.
The court made the correct decision. No state should be allowed to limit the rights of anyone.
what right? where is the right to an abortion? personally, I am in favor of abortion, I just hate roe v. wade because it's poorly decided.
But states limit citizens every day. They tell you how fast you can drive, whether you can discharge a firearm within city limits, what type of lightbulb you have to use, that you can't have sex with someone underage, etc.
Colleges and Universites have speech codes which really do limit a right we have under the first amendment, and they get away with it.
what right? where is the right to an abortion? personally, I am in favor of abortion, I just hate roe v. wade because it's poorly decided.
We have every right imaginable and the court made the correct decision.
But states limit citizens every day. They tell you how fast you can drive, whether you can discharge a firearm within city limits, what type of lightbulb you have to use, that you can't have sex with someone underage, etc.
If my right to do something interferes with someone else's rights then the states or the courts arbitrate the situation.
Colleges and Universites have speech codes which really do limit a right we have under the first amendment, and they get away with it.
Do you know why they put limits on speech?
you're wrong. sorry, can't debate it with you, because you have no legal background and it would be a waste of time.
Actually most conservatives are wrong on this issue.
well, it's not a cliche, it comes from a supreme court case. but they want to limit you from using speech someone may find offensive. that goes far beyond any limitations countenanced by the court.
they won't let you put a creche in front of a fire station.
all you libs want to run our lives. that's why you're #2
Buf,
What have you done to make sure we win in Iraq? Does the Constitution spell out every right we have? Since you have a legal background, what do you think about slavery being illegal via amendment? Was that coercion?
Roe v. Wade was based on the fourteenth amendment.
The state should not be in the business of abridging the rights of any individual unless it conflicts with someone else's right.
Hsty,
Two questions:
1) If the South was brought back via coercion, do you have a problem with that? 2) Why aren't the conservatives, if abortion is truly unconstitutional, pushing a law up to the SC to get it overturned? Do you think Kennedy would overturn it? Honestly, I think conservative politicians will never overturn abortion. If they do, they'll lose a lot of their base.
but they want to limit you from using speech someone may find offensive.
For example?
"what right? where is the right to an abortion? personally, I am in favor of abortion, I just hate roe v. wade because it's poorly decided."
You can't possibly be in favor of abortion. That's ridiculous. No one is FOR abortion, unless they're crazy. People are FOR the right to choose. Saying you are in favor of abortion just makes you sound nuts.
"...now as for the constitution requiring someone to give birth, well that is about the dumbest statement i ever heard. can't even deal with something so idiotic." (Hissy)
We agree that it's dumb. That's why I mentioned the Fox reporter stating it as fact .I'm sorry you can't deal with it, I can. I don't understand why you're upset with me for something the reporter said.
Keep up the good work.
Or do pro-bono work for the fat ladies in pink.
private, do you remember that guy named Harry Reid saying, The War Is Lost. That sounds like declaring defeat to me. In spite of the efforts of others, you are not restored to your previous rank, and never will be.
The war was lost when Bush started it because it was based on lies.
I don't know whose histy you're buffing, but Senators don't get to make military decisions.I disagree with Reid's statement, there is no war to be lost nor won, only an invasion and occupation. As the lone superpower, we "lose" the minute we get suckered into messes like this.
But all of that aside, what the hell does Harry Reid have to do with me?
you didn't like the declaring defeat lanaguage wallace used. i think reid declared defeat. of course, it carries no weight of law, but it was a declaration nonetheless.
what i understand from the posters here, is that the u.s. can never win at anything, so let's just disband the military, save the money, and have a beer bust.
what i understand from the posters here, is that the u.s. can never win at anything, so let's just disband the military, save the money, and have a beer bust.
- - hstybuf6553 / Sunday February 3, 2008 4:09:16 PM EST
What the military can't do is get the Iraqis to like other and form some sort functional government. The role for the military is over.So I do not know about that...however,
it is clear from this interview and others that
Mr. Wallace
is incapable of asking an honest question.
Play hardball, fine, but at least ask an honest question.
For every question he has asked any Clinton there has been
an alternative, good faith, inquiry (without obvious spin and distortion)
that could have been submitted.
With all due respect to his father, Mr. Wallace the Younger is a bit of a hack, and obvious one at that...
Shame on him for his _Foxifications_
I believe Reid said the war was lost if we continued on Bush's path.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone say that we can't win a war. What I've seen is people saying that there should be a plan, a definition of victory, a valid reason for it and legal basis. That's the disagreement with this war. If you genuinely think otherwise your understanding is sorely lacking.
I hate beer.
Meanwhile, I'm eager to see the vast collection of quotes that show how posters here want to disband the military. Or maybe you were just lying?
Romney has added a little coveat to defining victory. Not only does Iraq have to put in place a government fully capable of functioning in defense of that nation, but it also must be a government FRIENDLY TO THE USA.
This may seem like an "of course" requirement, but in fact it puts a restriction on everything the Iraq government must do. In order to forge agreements, all parties may agree that one component needs to be the USA must vacate entirely, including the bases we have built there.
Bush would NEVER agree to such an arrangement, and neither would either Romney or McCain.
So, it's not ENOUGH for Iraq to form its own sovereign and self-sufficient government. That government must be amenable to dictates by the government of the United States, friendly and allied TO the USA ... according to Republicans.
If we insist on this "condition", it is the USA that is preventing the compromise and conciliation necessary for Iraq to show the progress necessary for us to claim a "VICTORY". If we continue insisting for 100 years, the WAR will then last 100 years.
it was the same for vietnam. if we leave, the world will end.
"all because the dems.."
Ignorant response.
All because that "dem" Nixon campaigned to end the war with his "secret plan". Before he finally got around to what was inevitable from the very start, he allowed thousands more Americans to die.
absolutely was not inevitable. we had them whipped, and then cronkite threw in the towel and johnson gave up. tet '68 was a major defeat, but the dems wanted to end it, which eventually they did by pulling funding from the south.
it is because of actions like these,, shich the lady wants to repeat in iraq, make the u.s. an uncertain partner. can't trust what the govt will do when a dem is in the office, or has control.
"we had them whipped"
My god you're an ignoramus.
it is because of actions like these,, shich the lady wants to repeat in iraq, make the u.s. an uncertain partner.
What does this mean?
it means when we renege on our commitments and undertakings, no one trusts us. so when people say we will give israel iron clad guarantees if they take this or that risk, well what good is that. we'll only honor the guarantee if it suits our fancy, but if we are otherwise occupied, or don't want to take the risk, the guarantee will not be fulfilled.
Hillary undermines our credibility.
it means when we renege on our commitments and undertakings, no one trusts us.
What commitments and undertakings? Bush had no right to invade Iraq and most Iraqis regretted our presences there for years.
so when people say we will give israel iron clad guarantees if they take this or that risk, well what good is that.
Israel can defend itself. They don't need our help.
we'll only honor the guarantee if it suits our fancy, but if we are otherwise occupied, or don't want to take the risk, the guarantee will not be fulfilled.v
I have no idea what you're talking about. What guarantee?
people offer a u.s. guarantee as if it means anything. with people like you, it is clear a u.s. promise means nothing.
as I recall, the u.n. security council authorized action against iraq, and the senate, including her thighness, authorized the president to take such action as he found necessary.
people offer a u.s. guarantee as if it means anything. with people like you, it is clear a u.s. promise means nothing
What guarantee? Bush should have never invaded their country.
as I recall, the u.n. security council authorized action against iraq, and the senate, including her thighness, authorized the president to take such action as he found necessary.
The UN didn't authorize the invasion and the @ssholes in Congress left the decision to invade up to the idiot in the White House.
so he did have the authority.
Arguably by Congress but I could put an argument that the authority was null and void because he lied to Congress. Don't forget he could still be charged with war crimes and tried in The Hague."Arguably by Congress but I could put an argument that the authority was null and void because he lied to Congress. Don't forget he could still be charged with war crimes and tried in The Hague."
And where did that get us?
Buf:
1) You said that when we renege on our commitments then nobody trusts us. Do you include Bush I telling the Kurds that if they rebelled that the U.S. would support them, then allowing them to be massacred by Saddam?
2) Do you think anybody trusts us NOW, after Bush II has done things like ignore treaties, lie about connections between Iraq and 9/11, and allows prisoners to be tortured? He only allows protesters in "free speech zones," ignoring the fact the the entire COUNTRY is a free speech zone. He signs bills into law and adds signing statements claiming that the President does not have to obey them--there is no basis for this anywhere; the President is bound to obey the laws of the land. If Bush TRIED to trash our reputation he couldn't have done much better than he has.
Hstybuf:
You need to actually study history before you spout off.
Hsty,
Thank you for your service, but its clear you hate America. You are advocating a military coup if the popular vote doesn't go your way. Why do you hate American Democracy?
Buf:
You say you spent 1969 - 1972 in Viet Nam and still say we were winning???
Buf:
Where were you stationed in Viet Nam? What unit were you in? What was your rank?
Senator Clinton,
Are you still beating your husband?
I will no longer refer to Wallace as a "tool" at FOX NEWS - he's sunk to the point where "stool" is a better fit.
Hey! When Turd Blossom joins (officially) the FOX NEWS team, maybe they can team up for The Stool & Turd Blossom Show.
Oh Master electrician!
Oh Prince of the violet dawn!
I am Boris Fuse, bearer, ninth dregree, too your alternating eminence.
I bring the vile and trembling victim along the Circiut of Doom!
Past the Row of Crossed Switches!
Along the Path of Least Resistence!
Finally conducting him accross the Great Volyage Drop!(Don't fall!)
Now Master, Tool of the Universe! Expose yourself to us!
Umm, mybe I didn't get that last part right.
Don't think its resolvable online Col.
Its a bit from The FST's The Tale of the Giant Rat of Sumatra. Their most Linear work.
While enjoyable trying to desrcibe the plot is not an easy thing. It is a denuenment scene, but who's is questionable. Jonas Acme, fair haired pharoe of American Industry, was flushed into Chicagoe's sewers, by Boris. He is escorted to The Electricians Lair for a face to mask meeting. The lines are Boris's who besides being a syncpathic killer, gangater's flunky, and evil villin's assistent, is also a Sumaratran trying to find the Zeppilin Tube, aka, The Sacred Ohmwhatamp, The useless tube or tool from heaven (A power so great that it can only be used for good or evil), which was stolen by Acme, who was hiding in the Rat's Eye.
Now arn't you sorry you asked?
Despite Wallace's stupid question trying to put words in her mouth or change the meaning of what she's said, I think Hillary handled him pretty well this morning.
If it were me sitting there I'm sure I'd have told him to go {blip} himself - but as usually, she kept her poise and gave an intelligent comprehensive response. In my book, the woman has class, can hold her own under pressure, and makes great Presidential material - which is more than I can say for any of the Republican candidates.
"it was a dumb response. she wants to cut and run"
Cut and run... How original. How 2006. How trite.
"CUT AND RUN" ...DEFINED:
Reagan, 1983, terrorist bombing in Beirut, 241 DEAD American military, mostly Marines (stationed there on Reagan's orders).
Reagan pulls out of Lebanon. Response or retaliation: NONE.
A CLASSIC case of "cut and run", courtesy of that great Republican Conservative ICON, Ronald Reagan.
Tell us about your courage, tell us about WAR, you Republican phonies, cowards, and hypocrites!!!!
Tex:
Pointing out reality like this to right wing-nuts may make their heads explode.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
I find the debate on whether we should continue an occupation of an oil rich middle-east nation an incredibly ignorant argument in the context of whether we could define a victory other than installing a provencial government that will not be capable to lead without American's occupation.
We installed the Shah in Iran, and look how well that worked out. Who in their right mind believes we can stay in Iraq, and anything but disaster being the final result!
Look at Saudi Arabia as it is step by step is imploding on it's self while trying to be the Arab World's keeper of the faith in Mecca. This is like using nitro in your martini that is only shaken, and not stirred. Boom! It was the outrage of American troops on it's soil that started this Jihad to begin with.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
"how dumb was that?"
Not as freaking ignorant as you are.
WALLACE: "If we had followed your policy, wouldn't Al Qaeda by now be able to say that they had driven the U.S. out of Iraq?"
Notice the effect of Wallace using "wouldn't" in his question as opposed to "would".
Only two letters separate a propagandist from the true journalist.
2 letters?
Perhaps better said: "Two letters and a truckload of journalistic integrity."
If Edward R. Murrow ever came back and saw what was being done in the name of journalism, he'd never stop throwing up.
Fine, let's just declare victory and get the hell out of there.
Mr. Backtracker,
She said the reports require suspension of belief.
You stated Hillary called Petraeus a liar. She never said that or that he was lying.
Get your facts straight.
Hillary calls Petraeus a liar and she wants to lead the military. How would that work? She's not fit to shine his boots.
I don't think Petraeus would be involved if Hillary became president. His mindset is different from most Americans [in regards to Iraq].
"my wife went to Welleseley with Hillary. Can't stand her."
You can't stand your wife? Maybe the feeling's mutual.
From what I can remember from buff's posts, he's been to Vietnam, works as a lawyer, and his wife went to school with Hillary.
From my viewpoint, buff's too much of a coward to go to war, too stupid to be a lawyer, and too much of a loser to even have a wife (non-inflatable, that is.)
"criticism is one thing. bu questioning their integrity"
Again, she questioned the reports. She never questioned Petreaus' integrity or "called him a liar" as you claimed earlier. You can say it a hundred more times and it'll still be you that's lying, not Clinton.
thanks for clearing that up. I guess the reports he provided and testified about wrote themselves. jeez you are a fool.
so, if you see a comment I post here that you believe contains a lie, in the future please refrain from calling me a liar, for it is the comment alone that is lying.
Sounds much more pleasing to the right-wing brain that way, that's for sure. But it's a lie.
Solon:
It is possible, though unlikely, that Buf is not lying; he might simply be delusional.
"I guess the reports that he provided and testified about wrote themselves." - Buffy
No, they were written primarily by the White House. This was widely reported at the time, and Petreus never denied it. Petreus was simply serving as a political representative of the Administration when he appeared before Congress.
criticism is one thing. bu questioning their integrity does not win points. my scenario is that hillary wins, then there's a military coup.
You're nuts.
HSTYBUF:
LOL. Now you're going for a DIM CAP defense? Fantastic legal move!
(Diminished Capacity, as a defense, rarely works ... only in cases of the most extreme evidence of delusion/derangement. In your case, it's a LOCK!)
defeat, nah, we're going to kill every last damn aztec.
Apparently someone taught you to read and write, HSTYBUF, thereby illustrating the damage a little education can do to a mind with no discernible connection to a human heart.
genocide for the inventers of the vacation? Thats cold man.
You ottah find your self a mate. Someone to tip over outhouses with. Release that mindless aggression in less harmful ways. Though a berserker is a berserker. You can play softball with them. They don't have to kill, but in the back of their minds, its not a bad idea.
Petraeus was/is in a tough spot.
Are you dutiful, and execute all orders given by the Commander in Chief, and keep your career? Or do you stand on PRINCIPLE of humanity and reason that transcends military service, REFUSE to carry POLITICAL water, and get FIRED?
Several chose to defy the White House, and were fired. Just as Nixon went through people with conscience who REFUSED to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox, until he landed on Robert Bork (who HAD no such principles), Petraeus decided to follow orders and present the White House's version and "vision" of the Iraq war. As he was ORDERED to.
Whether Petraeus really BELIEVES what the White House has told him to say is irrelevant. He's staked his career and reputation on GW Bush being CORRECT. That has been a fatal mistake for a great many Americans. Petraeus is thus just another casualty of the Bush Administration (following Colin Powell in disgrace). Such a shame. So many good men of honor USED, RUINED and TRASHED by the endlessly corrupt Bushies.
Hstybuf sure seems to have a lot of things going on for him. Let's see, his wife went to college with Hillary, allegedly. He served in Vietnam for 3 years, probably never happened. He has some high falutent law degree, and yet can't write very coherent sentences in his postings. Something smells fishy around here. Or, in other words, there's something rotten in Denmark again. Even highly conservative lawyers that I personally know have a lot more common sense than this guy, and then there is the whole I'm a lawyer thing, and yet he starts talking about wanting to overthrow the government if Hillary is elected, isn't that what normal rational people call a dichotomy? Methinks so.
Hey Hsty whatever your name is. Put me on your list. I'll give you my address, and if you feel like stopping by sometime you'll see what it feels like getting a shotgun full of rock salt show into your arse. Internet tough guys. Go back to your mom and dad's basement, and turn on the black light. I have my doubts that you're anything anywhere near what you say you are. Because in my time on the old internet, the people who brag the most, are normally the biggest liars/name droppers, and whatever else you claim to be is probably very far from the truth. Most people, including lots of folks on here, are pretty smart, can express their opinions well without going into vitriol and histrionics (such as yourself), and can actually back up what they say with some sort of fact, and normally if they can't, they can just leave it at that's my opinion and here's how I came to it. Bear in mind, that normally when someone comes rolling in here claiming to know this person, be tied to that family, and so on, 99.95 times out of 100, they're lying and trying to prop themselves up to look better. This is what you're doing Hstybuf, and you're just a fairly worthless troll who really has not much to add to any discussion on this board, as far as I can see. You should really just take your ball, and go home, and let the adults argue in peace.
He's a troll. He just spews this nonsense to tweak us. No one could be so ignorant
to answer some question posted earlier, i was in the first signal brigade. originally i was a 2nd lt., and then promotoed to 1st lt.
solon said that we did not invade cambodia. this is not true. there was the incursion in 1970. two men in my unit actually took a taxi to pnomh penh. one was depicted by john malkovich in the movie the killing fields. his name is alan rockoff.
for solon, i graduated from stanford. ruth bader ginsburg was not yet on the supreme court and she took a leave to do something at a think tank in the palo alto area. her husband, marty ginsburg, I believe he was with fried frank in n.y., joined her and taught corporate tax law at stanford. it was the hardest class i ever had. He focused solely on Chapter C of the code.
i never claimed to be a constitutional scholar. i had the course and passed, that was about it. it was not my type of course because there is all that weighing and balancing. i did much better at things like real property, contracts, u.c.c., evidence, etc.
prince of wheels, i was stationed in Long Binh, but we had satellite units in phu bai, da nang, pleiku, quang tri, cam rahn bay, saigon, and can tho. We were able to travel freely throughout the country, except for dalat, and i did so.
magnolialover, i was indeed using the example from Charley wilson's war.
foghornleghorn, not only did i volunteer for vietnam, i was in israel during the 1973 war and volunteered for the israeli army. the unit to which i volunteered was a paratrooper unit under the command or arik sharon. it was the first non-armored unit to cross the suez canal and help surround the egyptian third army. when i first appeared at their base they wondered how i got there, thought i worked for time or newsweek, and threw me out. i went to a kibbutz and picked almonds during the war.
the kibbutz was not far from the golan heights but i had no ide how desperate the situation was there.
i no longer practice law.
Arquitectonica is a successful miami architectural firm founded by forte-brescia (don't recall his first name), a cuban, and his wife who is jewish. i represented that firm on two projects in houston. forte-brescia went to princeton, was a member of the eating club called ivy. i believe his wife went there too, but can't be certain. my brother-in-law was also in ivy with forte-brescia.