Tuesday, January 9th, 2007
There has been some debate regarding President Bush’s soon to be announced plan to “surge” 20,000 troops to Iraq and the ability of Congress to prevent this transfer of troops from taking place.
WATB’s like Sean Hannity and local talk radio dung heap Jason Lewis have been railing against Congress, stating that they are making an unconstitutional move if they attempt to stop the troop transfer. Think Progress details numerous examples since 1970 of Congress exercising that very kind of control over the Commander in Chief’s ability to increase the troops strength.
The real question is whether 20,000 troops is going to make any difference at all. Answer: no.
General David Petraeus, who will replacing outgoing General William Casey as commander of all forces in Iraq, spent the last year writing the Army’s new counterinsurgency field manual. Petraeus is a very smart man who knows what is required to beat back the insurgency in Iraq. Unfortunately, he will not be given the chance to do so. Slate’s Fred Kaplan writes:
Petraeus and his co-authors discussed this strategy at great length in the Army’s counterinsurgency field manual. One point they made is that it requires a lot of manpower—at minimum, 20 combat troops for every 1,000 people in the area’s population. Baghdad has about 6 million people; so clearing, holding, and building it will require about 120,000 combat troops.
That’s 120,000 combat troops just for Baghdad alone. Right now there are only about 130,000 troops in all of Iraq with only 70,000 of these classified as combat troops.
Adding 20,000 troops to Baghdad is not going to make any difference what-so-ever. But it is probably the maximum number of troops that the American people would be able to tolerate President Bush sending into Iraq, not to mention the maximum number of troops that are available to send at all.
Josh Marshall writes:
…if the president and his key advisors hadn’t lied to the country about the number of troops required to stabilize and police Iraq (then-Army Chief of Staff Shinseki said 400k+, I think) we might not have pulled the trigger in the first place.
What a total disaster. Even some Republicans are seeing the light.
Posted by Smithers at 9:22 pm in Politics | Permalink | No Comments »
Tuesday, January 9th, 2007
On Saturday July 8th 2006, Jason Sager was racing in the NORBA national at Deer Valley Utah.
We were scheduled for 3 (laps), but that changed between when I asked, and when we started. Things started adding up when, after pinning it to the line for the “finish”, the finish area was empty. I looked around obviously confused and was then informed I had 1 more lap.
I was so blown from racing the tank empty that when I found out about the 4th lap…there wasn’t another lap in the legs. Absolutely deflated, I watched a few guys race through, chatted with friends and family in the start/finish area for several minutes, and eventually rode home.
On Sunday July 9th Sager was notified by a friend of his that he had missed a random doping control test that was conducted following the race the previous day. As representatives of the United State Anti-Doping Agency were not at the race venue on Sunday, Sager had to wait until Monday July 10 to contact the USADA.
Since January 1 2006 Sager has been on the USADA’s “out of competition” doping control list. This means that the USADA can make a demand that Sager submit to their testing at any time. Sager has the responsibility to keep the USADA informed of his whereabouts 365 days a year and had to report for their testing request within 2 hours after being notified of the request regardless of where he is in the world.
Better hope you’re not on a 6 hr bike ride in areas with poor cell phone coverage, like northern Utah. In fact you’re required to have at least one back up phone number, preferably, another cell phone contact. Harriet got many of those calls when I was in the “sticks”.
Though it’s a burden, it’s one I support in the effort to demonstrate that our sport is made of clean athletes. I’ll submit to their tests, on demand, as they request.
Sager did not notice any notification at the race venue on the day of his race regarding doping control. He does not recall seeing the “white board”, a dry erase board used by race officials to notify riders of doping control. The notes from the chief USADA official state that there was “inadequate” staffing at the event. Those who finished the race only knew that there was doping control because there were race officials at the finish of the race to grab riders and route them to the doping control station.
The USADA, who had all of Sager’s contact information, made no attempt to contact him on Saturday or Sunday regarding the missing test. On Monday July 10 Sager made contact with the USADA regarding the missed test. He was not able to speak with anyone at the USADA regarding his situation and was forced to leave voice mail messages. On Wednesday July 12 Sager was contacted by the USADA with a voice message.
USADA returned my phone call with a vague “don’t worry about it” message regarding what’s next.
Wed afternoon, the OCC testers came to the house and tested me for the 4th time this season.
Two weeks later Sager was notified that he was banned from racing for two years for missing the post race doping control at Deer Valley.
20lb over night package arrived containing the WADA anti doping code, the UCI anti doping code, the USADA anti doping code, and a 2yr ban from racing penalty. Also included a form encouraging me to sign off now and not contest any charges or rulings that have been made or will be issued against me. It was with this package that the chief official’s notes were shared, and there I read that I wasn’t the only athlete that missed the random test. The notes also provided an insight to the operational challenges USADA faced at the Deer Valley venue - they were short staffed, testing stations were distant, and usual procedures were challenged.
Sager is now facing two options. Serve his ban which will keep him from racing again until July of 2008 or fight the ban and incur the thousands of dollars of legal expenses that are associated with the fight.
Its your word against their word, and a set of rules written such that the system is infallible. If they executed protocol properly, that’s great. Should protocol not be followed, if chaperons aren’t available, if signage is poor, away from the lines of sight, or generally undetectable, that’s really more of the athlete’s problem, because USADA is held to UCI code, which is held to WADA code - and protocol is really more of a guideline than a hard and fast rule.
End result, notification can be posted on a tree in downtown Salt Lake City, and if you’re at the Deer Valley event, it’s the athlete’s responsibility to find that sign and then find off site testing control, on his or her own volition, after pushing their physical, emotional, and mental limits, at the end of a bike race.
What would you do in this situation? Would you spend the money and fight the ban?
Posted by Smithers at 1:17 pm in Pro Cycling | Permalink | No Comments »
Tuesday, January 9th, 2007
When you push all your food off the tray and onto the floor during dinner, it means you are done with dinner.
Posted by Smithers at 8:10 am in Family | Permalink | No Comments »
