ANDY MARTIN: Michael Steele was right, John McCain is wrong on Afghanistan

Middle East expert Andy Martin rips geezer Senator John McCain and warrior-wannabe candidate Mark Kirk to shreds for attacking Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele over Steele’s remarks concerning “Obama’s war.” Martin joins Ann Coulter in defending Steele.

Internet powerhouse Andy Martin defends RNC Chairman Michael Steele against attacks by Geezer John McCain and Weasel Mark Kirk

ContrarianCommentary.com
“The Internet Powerhouse”
Andy Martin
Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not Politically Correct”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Andy Martin says Michael Steele told the truth about Barack Obama’s “ownership” of the war in Afghanistan

Martin says the Afghanistan mission is wrong and Steele is right

Andy slips into bed with Ann Coulter (uggh)

(NEW YORK)(July 8, 2010) This is a column I would prefer not to write.

I am not a particular supporter or admirer of Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. But in this instance I am defending Steele against the attacks of the Republican Party’s designated geezer John McCain and the comments of the party’s designated weasel Mark Kirk. (I actually sued Michael Steele last year for supporting America’s Biggest Liar, Mark Kirk, in the Illinois senate primary.)

Supporting Steele also puts me in bed with Ann Coulter, who is one of the more obnoxious stooges on Fox news.

But because I value truth more than party loyalty, here goes.

Last week Michael Steele told the truth. He said Afghanistan was “Obama’s war.” Steele also said the war was “not winnable.”

I am something of an expert on Afghanistan and southwest Asia. I first went to Afghanistan over 30 years ago. I was an early critic of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and I spent a good deal of 2003 in Baghdad. As a Republican candidate, I have consistently opposed escalation in Afghanistan. My views are informed by real experience on the ground all across Asia, and particularly the hotspots of Iraq and Afghanistan. And my views, for partially differing reasons, line up with Steele’s.

Unfortunately, my voice is drowned out by the extreme blowhard and increasingly incompetent Senator John McCain. McCain and his “war party” love Afghanistan because they claim an expanded war in Afghan is part of the global war against terror (which I strongly support). So can I be for the war against terror and against a buildup in Afghanistan? Absolutely. Read on.

There is a third party in bed with me and Ann Coulter (thankfully): General Stanley McChrystal. McChrystal and his staff knew that Barack Obama was a dilettante warrior who would tire of Afghanistan when it no longer suited his political purposes. That’s why McChrystal’s staff was so dismissive of Obama in the controversial Rolling Stone article.

Obama became a supporter of the Afghan war in 2008 when it suited his political agenda of opposing our involvement in Iraq. He characterized Afghanistan as a war of necessity. On the contrary, Obama’s “support” was pure expediency.

When Steele waded into this controversy last week he had the Afghan issue exactly right. Obama “adopted” Afghanistan during the 2008 campaign, and Obama has expanded an unwinnable war. (The war is unwinnable except in the vivid imagination of Mark Kirk, who previously claimed he “came under fire” in Kandahar, Afghanistan but yesterday “retreated” from his combat claim to say “read my efficiency reports.” Kirk is the greatest warrior in recent history, certainly greater than McChrystal, but it is all in Kirk’s vivid imagination; Kirk has no combat record in reality. He is a military imposter.)

Last week we had Grandpa John McCain, who is running for reelection in Arizona next month, wasting taxpayer’s money by going on a 4th of July junket to Afghanistan. From Kabul, McCain attacked Steele for telling the truth. With the notable exception of the 2007 “surge” in Iraq which McCain supported, McCain has always been totally wrong on Middle East military matters.

McCain, who appears to increasingly be out of touch with any reality, except his own vanity, strongly supports another unwinnable war, this time in Afghanistan. Weasel Mark Kirk chimed in by saying Steele should “reassess” his RNC role. (The only one who never “reassesses” is the “Closeted Congressman” himself, Mark Kirk. Kirk has made a laughingstock out of the Republican Party.) On and on they go.

To her credit, Ann Coulter gave one of the most precise and intelligent analyses of recent Republican miscues as she defended Michael Steele: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=176033

While Coulter and I disagree on the folly of invading Iraq (we could have taken down Saddam Hussein much more cheaply and easily) we agree totally on the mess in Afghanistan and Steele's take on our current role there.

So why are Republicans attacking Steele for telling the truth? As a Republican I am embarrassed to say that when it comes to foreign policy, Republicans are often as dumb, if not dumber, than the Democrats. In 2006 I ran a commercial across the State of Illinois warning President Bush that he had to pay more attention to Main Street and less attention to the Arab Street in Baghdad. Republicans viciously attacked me (I still have the e-mails). They were blindly loyal: to war. They could not see the developing 2006 electoral debacle.

The media encourage Republican stupidity. Liberal media honchos (and Fox News) promote Republican John McCain and his trio of castratos, Lindsay Graham and Joe Lieberman. Instead of going home for the Fourth of July, McCain and his buddies ripped off the taxpayers for tens of thousands of dollars to “inspect” Afghanistan. The trip was a publicity parade. McCain is looting our tax dollars to generate coverage for his primary reelection next month. It’s disgraceful. But because McCain serves the media as the Republican Party’s designated loser, no one questions his waste and abuse of taxpayer resources.

So what’s the bottom line?

First, the criticism of Steele that President Bush, not Obama, created the Afghanistan war is nonsense. That's the media's first lie and distortion. No one doubts that Bush authorized the successful attack in 2001. (Sadly, Bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan and blundered into Iraq.) But Obama took ownership of the war in 2008, and it is increasingly “his” war.

Second, when Obama adopted the Afghan war in 2008 and made it “his war” he did so for purposes of political expediency. Obama has no problem playing politics with the lives of our men and women in uniform when it furthers his own political aggrandizement.

Third, General Stanley McChrystal was Obama’s man in Kabul. McChrystal was chosen for the Afghanistan mission by Obama’s team, not Bush’s. The general was following Obama’s orders, not Bush’s.

Fourth (I am writing myself into the story), last year and this year I have strongly opposed expanding the Afghanistan mission. More men mean fewer results. In order to succeed (not "win") in Afghanistan, we have to starve the mission and reduce our commitment. Afghanistan is a Special Forces and special ops conflict, not a “land war in Asia.”

Fifth, as long as the corrupt Karzai regime is in power, which we keep in power, Afghanistan is a sinkhole. Victory is impossible. “Karzai Corruption” is defeating our efforts much more than Taliban bullets.

Sixth, while Republicans should not play politics with war, they should start tuning their antennas to political reality: the majority of the Democratic Party in Congress is now voting against Afghanistan, and it is only a matter of time before Republicans are stranded high and dry and attacked as war mongers by Democratic candidates. Read My earlier column on McChrystal.

Seventh, it is possible to strongly support the global war against terror, as I do, and equally strongly oppose expanding the mission in Afghanistan. While the two share some common elements they are not one and the same.

Eighth, John McCain is ripping off American taxpayers by taking joyrides to Afghanistan and Iraq with his pals, all as part of his primary reelection campaign, none of which has any military or congressional oversight value. McCain is a delirious geezer whose views on military policy have been totally discredited with one notable exception (even broken clocks tell the right time twice a day).

Ninth, the liberal media have a real desire to demonize Michael Steele and to discredit him as a Republican Party leader. The media are “whipping” Steele because they want to “whip” African-Americans out of the idea that an African is welcome in the Republican Party. Most Republicans (except dodoes such as McCain) have nothing against Steele. But if you are going to invite diversity in a political party, you need to realize that people have diverse perspectives. And diverse opinions.

The natural home for African-Americans should be the Republican Party. Conservative cultural views and economic opportunity flow from Republican values. Democrats imprisoned blacks on welfare “plantations” in Chicago and other major cities for decades. So the media are working overtime to discredit Steele and to force him off the stage as a Republican leader. Republicans, wake up! (And yes, that goes for African-Americans too; it is time you woke up and abandoned the Democratic Party, unless you enjoy being perpetual victims and hostages of Democratic welfare programs.)

Thank you Michael Steele for telling the truth. If you had more guts, you would shove it right back at McCain and weenie Kirk, and the rest, and tell them they are wrong and their views are what got the Republican Party booted out of Congress and the White House in the first place (2006-2008). Memories are short.

When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?

As for blowhard geezer McCain, the fact that he is the favorite of the liberal media should tell you something. Wake up, Arizona Republicans!

And as for Coulter, I do have to salute her honesty and intelligence in defending Steele. But stop pulling the sheets, Ann.

-------------------------------------
ABOUT ANDY: Andy Martin is the legendary New York and Chicago-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He has over forty years of background in radio and television and is the dean of Illinois media and communications. He promotes his best-selling book, “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask” and his Internet movie "Obama: The Hawai'i years." Martin has been a leading corruption fighter in Illinois for over forty years. He is currently sponsoring www.AmericaisReadyforReform.com
Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of the “Internet Powerhouse,” http://www.contrariancommentary.com/. He comments on regional, national and world events with more than four decades of investigative and overseas experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City University of New York (LaGuardia CC, Bronx CC).

UPDATES: www.twitter.com/AndyMartinUSAwww.facebook.com/AndyMartin Andy's columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com.
contrariancommentary.typepad.com[NOTE: We try to correct any typographical errors in this story on our blogs; find our latest edition there.]

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com © Copyright by Andy Martin 2010

Andy Martin: Hillary Clinton is the big winner in General McChrystal shakeup

Foreign policy and Afghanistan expert Andy Martin says that President Obama’s decision to remove General McChrystal is understandable, if unwise. But the net effect is to saddle Obama with full responsibility for an unwinnable war that is going to drive the Democratic Party into Hillary Clinton’s hands in 2012. Martin’s “McChrystal ball” predicts that Obama’s political decline, and Clinton’s corresponding rise, can be measured from today.

Internet powerhouse Andy Martin with his surprising political analysis of the McChrystal shakeup

Andy Martin’s “McChrystal ball” says Hillary Clinton wins big as the general loses his command
ContrarianCommentary.com
“The Internet Powerhouse”
Andy Martin
Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not Politically Correct”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Andy Martin says “Today is the start of the Hillary Clinton for President campaign”

Martin says Obama has now assumed complete ownership of a failed military strategy, and that the real beneficiary of his decision to remove Stanley McChrystal will be Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

(NEW YORK)(June 23, 2010) I first went to Afghanistan exactly thirty years ago, in 1980, to link up with the anti-Soviet Mujahideen. One of my closest associates, an Afghan native, was later killed by the Northern Alliance. Afghanistan has been on my stove, sometimes on a front burner, sometimes on a back one, for over three decades.

Earlier today I posted a column that suggested President Obama should not fire General McChrystal. Getting rid of McChrystal was the easy way out. But the easy out today will doom Obama’s presidency in 2011-2012.

While the cable TV bobbleheads, most of whom have never been to Asia, cackle on about Obama and “civilian control of the military,” which was never even remotely a concern with General McChrystal, I am going to provide you with the type of insight that formed the core of my bestselling book, “Obama: the Man Behind the Mask.”

The big winner today: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

I will write later in greater detail about why our strategy in Afghanistan is a failed approach. But anyone reading today’s papers and watching today’s “analysis” knows “Obama’s War” is doomed. As I said earlier today, while I supported General McChrystal as a loyal officer, I believe Vice President Joe Biden was right on the policy.

Can General David Petraeus now save Obama’s flawed policy? That is doubtful. Petraeus may also take a hit as a result of today’s shift in command. Petraeus came out of Iraq as a hero, and he has been supervising our Central Command since then. He is a competent officer. But even a military genius can’t rescue a failed strategy. My guess is that Petraeus’ star will also be tarnished. I would not be surprised to see Petraeus retire in January. He may hang on, but he may decide to hit the silk and get out before July, 2011.

So why is Clinton a winner? No one has mentioned her in any of the news analysis today. Why am I out there alone?

Most “analysts” on cable TV are not analysts at all. They are parrots who are told to respond to the immediate issue. They have never engaged in long-term strategic thinking and political analysis.

Clinton was the only member of Obama’s team that was not criticized in the Rolling Stone article. She has been an outstanding team member because she follows orders and does what she is told. And she obviously knows better than to have a reporter join her entourage.

The July, 2011 withdrawal date which was agreed on as Obama’s “policy” last year was a compromise between the “McChrystal Plan” and the “Biden Plan.” Biden lost the strategic debate, and he was rewarded with the consolation prize of a withdrawal date that is illusory.

McChrystal may have been the one who got fired today, but the more interesting battle took place last weekend when Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said the July, 2011 date was flexible. The result: there will be a rigid "withdrawal" in July, 2011, but the army will be retreating, not leaving after a victorious campaign. Gates contradicted Biden. Both of them are civilians:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38779.html

Where does this leave Obama? The left is restive. Obama is drifting. Congress will be in the hands of the Republicans. Normally dropping a president after one term would be disastrous for a political party. Hillary Clinton is the only person with the stature to replace Obama as a presidential candidate without causing a Democratic Party meltdown. Clinton may not be able to win the White House, but she will be the only Democrat who can revive a party tainted by Obama’s incompetence and hubris.

When this columns ends up on Hillary Clinton’s desk, as inevitably it will, her reaction? “Dang,” she’s going to say. “Andy again. He almost perfectly timed my resurgence during the 2008 campaign. How does he do it?” In 2008, Clinton started to fight back against the Kenyan pipsqueak, but it was too late. This time around, the McChrystal decision makes it clear that it is too late to save Barack Obama.

Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Party’s nominee in 2012.

----------------------------------
ABOUT ANDY: Andy Martin is the legendary New York and Chicago-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He has over forty years of broadcasting background in radio and television and is the dean of Illinois media and communications. He is currently promoting his best-selling book, “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask” and his Internet movie "Obama: The Hawai'i years." Martin has been a leading corruption fighter in Illinois for over forty years. He is currently sponsoring www.AmericaisReadyforReform.com
Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of the “Internet Powerhouse,” www.ContrarianCommentary.com. He comments on regional, national and world events with more than four decades of investigative experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City University of New York (LaGuardia CC, Bronx CC).

UPDATES: www.twitter.com/AndyMartinUSAwww.facebook.com/AndyMartin Andy's columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com.
contrariancommentary.typepad.com[NOTE: We try to correct any typographical errors in this story on our blogs; find our latest edition there.]

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com © Copyright by Andy Martin 2010

Andy Martin on “Shattered McChrystal:” The saga of Barack Obama and Stanley McChrystal

Andy Martin says Barack Obama’s management approach failed in Afghanistan. Martin says Obama should meet privately with McChrystal, and find out why a man he relies on is not loyal. But firing McChrystal would do serious damage to Obama. Martin, who is usually a critic of Obama, offers the president a way out of the White House-created morass.

Internet powerhouse Andy Martin tells President Obama how to survive “shattered McChrystal”

ContrarianCommentary.com
“The Internet Powerhouse”
Andy Martin
Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not Politically Correct”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Andy Martin says this is a time when Obama really must be a “no drama” leader

Martin says the Obama-McChrystal meeting is a time for a beer, not a baseball bat.

(NEW YORK)(June 23, 2010) I was Obama’s first critic, way back in 2004. And, of course, I literally “wrote the book” on Obama. My book, “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask,” begins with a psychological profile of then-Senator Obama. Looking back at something written in 2007 surprises me at how current and how correctly we analyzed the future president. It’s still a book worth reading. Buy it before they sell out. So, yes, I am a strong critic of Barack Obama.

It is not often I give Obama advice on how to “man up” as a leader, but this is one of those rare times. The prevailing wisdom is that General Stanley McChrystal will be fired Wednesday. One TV bobblehead said Obama has to “look strong” and firing McChrystal give Obama a chance to look presidential. Allusions to President Truman’s firing of General Douglas Macarthur are also being raised. This is all typical cable TV nonsense.

First, some practical advice for the president. You don’t know soldiers. It’s about time you learned something about our men and women in uniform. To Obama, our military has been a set of chess pieces, to be moved around on a “policy" board. Has Obama ever had a beer with McChrystal? Doubtful. Other soldiers? Also doubtful. Obama was more of a fugitive than a commander when he recently visited Afghanistan, in and out in a few hours. That kind of slam “bam” visit to a war zone does nothing to encourage the troops despite the artificial photo ops that are always generated by the media.

So, advice number one to BHO: to use your own phrase, use the McChrystal controversy as a teaching and learning moment, and learn what you don’t know about our men and women in uniform.

Second, who loves his boss? So McChrystal & Co. bitched about the senior management of Obama’s team. In my opinion, too much has already been made of this incident. Obama has been poorly advised.

Yes, Stanley was stupid. But he will be harder on himself than anyone else can be. Soldiers are like that. He let his men down. That’s a heavy burden for a real commander to bear.

Third, there was no “insubordination” by McChrystal. Stupidity and bad manners in not necessarily insubordination. “Crazy Keith” Olbermann was reading from the Uniform Code of Military Justice. What “order” did McChrystal disobey? The UCMJ clearly has overbroad restrictions on free speech by military personnel. It is one thing to disobey an order. It is quite another to bitch, bitch, bitch.

Soldiers have been bitching since the dawn of organized forces. Willie and Joe would have landed Bill Mauldin in jail during World War II if we applied the McChrystal test being applied by cable TV’s “warriors.”

Fourth, Barack Obama has never been a man’s man. Yes, he played poker with the boys down in Springfield, but that was politics and play acting by the then-state senator. When McChrystal said Obama looked intimidated when the two met at the Pentagon, he was probably telling the truth. Barry Obama is not a man who feels at ease around soldiers. He has to admit that to himself. To take a line from the old song, “President Obama, you’re in the Army now.”

Fifth, McChrystal has spent his life in special ops. The “snake eaters” are even more macho and occasionally goofy than ordinary troops. And, yes, the men bitch. Bitching is part of Army life. There is no law that says you have to love your commander-in-chief. The law only requires you to obey and follow orders. I have no doubt that if Obama was in danger on Wednesday (today) McChrystal would risk his liFe to protect the president. He is that loyal. Loyalty is not the issue in this Gilbert and Sullivan operetta.

McChrystal has faithfully obeyed Obama’s orders and, moreover, he has interpreted them in a way that has given Obama “cover” for politically incorrect decisions, such as the policy of restraining air strikes and artillery to avoid civilian casualties. The Obama/McChrystal policy is costing American lives while it saves Afghan lives. That’s a tough call. That’s real leadership. Where is Obama going to find a generally so totally devoted to following Obama’s directives?

McChrystal has been a loyal soldier. Firing McChrystal will devastate Obama’s strategy in Afghanistan. Firing McChrystal might make the anti-military pasty-faced weenies in the White House feel good for a few hours. But in doing so Obama would have shot down his best hope of a deal in Afghanistan. Truth be told, Obama needs McChrystal more than McChrystal needs Obama.

So how does a boss deal with unruly employees that pick up a few brewskis and start bitching? Fire them? I don’t think so.

Basic management would tell you that when middle management (the general in the field and his combat team) are unhappy, something is wrong. There was a management failure in allowing the Afghan operation to become alienated from the policy wonks in Washington. The management failure is Obama’s, not McChrystal’s. When did Obama ever sit down with all of his feuding barons and get them to work things out? That's what Obama's "pay grade" is supposed to do. He failed. There is dissension in the ranks.

Much as I disliked George Bush’s Iraq invasion, Bush had the good sense and management skill to sit down with Paul Bremer. Alone. Turns out Bush may have been a better manager than Obama.

If the team doesn’t assemble and meet informally from time to time, the team is going to grouse, bitch, and engage in sniping and cattiness. Jesus’ disciples used to argue about who was the greatest among them. So what’s new? Has Obama ever played football? Baseball? What does he think players do off the field or the mound? Sing love songs to management?

My management prescription: It’s time for a beer. The real solution to Obama’s “shattered McChrystal” is the counterintuitive one. Obama needs to do something he is usually accused of doing too much of already, he needs to apologize. (In private.) Only this time he really has to mean it.

Obama needs to clear out the room, and bring in some beer and chips. Then he needs to be a man, among men, and have a heart-to-heart with Stanley. Obama’s “apology” is not an apologetic act. Rather, it is an affirmation of the fact that he remains estranged from another man on whose shoulders so much of the Obama foreign policy rests. If I had a man who was carrying the burden of making me a success, I would come close to that person and create loyalty, not enmity. That’s basic leadership.

The White House, moreover, is a bad place to fire a general. McChrystal would start to leave the grounds, stiff upper lip, and say he was fired or relieved or whatever. Not good for anyone, and not good for the United States. As much as I want to see Obama out of office, I still love my flag and my men and women in uniform more. I do not want to see the office of president crushed by a lack of familiarity with the military ethos. Or with basic Management 101.

Think of the difference in perception if Obama and McChrystal meet alone, without aides, and they have a genuine, honest and open discussion of why McChrystal’s team feels alienated from so many of the Obama team.

Think of the real victory Obama could win if he and McChrystal come out smiling, and Obama says “General McChrystal and I understand each other. We share the same values and are committed to the same policy. And I told the general, the next time he wants to complain, he should pick up the phone. While I was disappointed in the statements attributed to the general and his leadership team, I also realize that blowing off steam is not a basis to end a military career.” End of story.

Obviously I could write at greater length, but you get the picture. TV loves smiling pictures, not scowling faces and stiff upper lips. Americans want to see a positive message, not retaliation against some officers for getting drunk and blowing off steam with ridiculous remarks to a writer.

The irony is, of course, that I was an early opponent of the Afghan surge, and I do not support Obama’s policy. But the decision was made to surge. As a recent book by Jonathan Alter makes clear, Obama erred. He brokered harmony over his Afghanistan policy by appeasing Joe Biden with a rigid timetable for withdrawal.

General McChrystal and anyone who has ever been in a combat zone (excluding Field Marshal Mark Kirk) knows a pre-announced, rigid withdrawal schedule is impractical and unrealistic.

We have a strange situation when we have Hamid Karzai backing McChrystal, and Senator John Kerry sounding like a serious statesman. As for me, I favor Joe Biden’s policy approach, but Obama rejected that pathway. I love and respect McChrystal as a warrior and patriot, and I believe he should continue in Afghanistan. But on the policy merits I think Joe Biden was right. The bottom line: we have a very complex situation, with honorable people taking different views of how to solve the same problem. That’s precisely the kind of situation in which managers blow off steam by bitching.

For me, Barack Obama will show me that he’s more of a man if he has a beer with McChrystal, instead of beating him with a baseball bat. As for our policy in Afghanistan, that’s a topic for another column. For General Stanley McChrystal and President Barack Obama my recommendation is “bottoms up,” not a baseball bat beating. America will be the better for it.

-------------------------------------
ABOUT ANDY: Andy Martin is the legendary New York and Chicago-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He has over forty years of broadcasting background in radio and television and is the dean of Illinois media and communications. He is currently promoting his best-selling book, “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask” and his Internet movie "Obama: The Hawai'i years." Martin has been a leading corruption fighter in Illinois for over forty years. He is currently sponsoring www.AmericaisReadyforReform.com
Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of the “Internet Powerhouse,” www.ContrarianCommentary.com. He comments on regional, national and world events with more than four decades of investigative experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City University of New York (LaGuardia CC, Bronx CC).

UPDATES: www.twitter.com/AndyMartinUSAwww.facebook.com/AndyMartin Andy's columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com.
contrariancommentary.typepad.com[NOTE: We try to correct any typographical errors in this story on our blogs; find our latest edition there.]

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com © Copyright by Andy Martin 2010