Speaking of college, here’s an article about a prof that presented a paper about a Dallas pastor from way back when
I’ve never been a fan of when the White House, no matter the administration, uses executive privilege. I can understand why they may use it, and perhaps there can be a compromise that details won’t be released until two years after the president leaves office. But trying to protect the social services secretary sure does seem a bit too protective. Heck, Gerald Ford testified before congress as president, I always admired that.
I think the Secret Service is taking the proverbial bullet, and I think it’s a shame the social secretary is being protected.
"With 100,000 troops in Afghanistan at an estimated yearly cost of $30 billion, it means that for every one al Qaeda fighter, the U.S. will commit 1,000 troops and $300 million a year. "
Doing the math, couldn't our intelligence specialists get the names of the last 100 known al Qaeda fighters; invite them to a neutral site; and offer them a deal. We could pay as much as $300 million per al Qaeda fighter and still break even. Both sides would sign a hold-harmless agreement with a non-compete clause. Every dollar beneath $300 million per insurgent that we were able to bargain them down to would then be available to reconstruct America.
"With 100,000 troops in Afghanistan at an estimated yearly cost of $30 billion, it means that for every one al Qaeda fighter, the U.S. will commit 1,000 troops and $300 million a year. "
Doing the math, couldn't our intelligence specialists get the names of the last 100 known al Qaeda fighters; invite them to a neutral site; and offer them a deal. We could pay as much as $300 million per al Qaeda fighter and still break even. Both sides would sign a hold-harmless agreement with a non-compete clause. Every dollar beneath $300 million per insurgent that we were able to bargain them down to would then be available to reconstruct America.