Talk:Eric Shinseki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:


This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

Contents

[edit] Dispute

[edit] NPOV

Kerry and other Democrats say:

After testifying to United States Congress that the 2003 Iraq War would require perhaps twice as many or more troops than predicted by the George W. Bush Administration and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Shinseki was essentially forcibly retired by the Administration.

Others say that he was forced out, but that the retirement announcement came BEFORE the troop requiremnts testimony. Let's get this resolved before putting this sentence back in.

Also, see retirement of General Shinseki. --Uncle Ed 17:04, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have to disagree here. I agree that "Shinseki was essentially forcibly retired by the Administration" is a POV interpretation, and that should be taken out. But the fact that many observers including the current Democratic Presidential candidate and the subject of the article believe his retirement to be forced and politically motivated, should go in -- along, of course with the fact that many observers including the current Administration dispute this interpretation. I mean, there's simply no consistency in saying "Let's have an entire article, retirement of General Shinseki, about the controversy over this retirement, but let's remove any reference to the controversy from the article on the man himself." -- Antaeus Feldspar

Antaeus, I agree with you, and I've found quotes to back up the first 2 points you make. But before we insert the last point (about Bush administration 'disputing' the forced retirement thing), we better get some quotes.

Specifically, we have to distinguish between:

  1. They concede he was forced to reture, but say it was over war-fighting philosophy (not for the troop-strength statement); or,
  2. They dispute the claim that he was forced to retire (for any reason).

It looks like they wanted to fire him for a long time. Then, if I have the timeline right, they announced his retirement. It was only AFTER the retirement, that he made the troop-strength remark.

So the dispute would be between:

  • Democrats said he was forced out BECAUSE he made the troop-strength remark.
  • Republicans say they decided to force him out BEFORE he made the troop-strength remark.

Am I reading this stuff correctly? It seems a bit confusing: chicken and egg, cart before horse, tail wagging the dog. What really happened here? --Uncle Ed 17:32, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding me, Ed. You're saying we have to solve the controversy, that we have to determine the real reason General Shinseki retired, before we can put anything about it into this article.
I'm saying that we don't have to solve anything. Particularly on this article; for us to indefinitely hold back on even admitting that there is a controversy because we haven't come to a consensus (as if we'd ever be likely to) on what the 'real story' behind the retirement is, makes no sense; it would be as if the news networks failed to mention that the Challenger blew up until the Rogers Commission Report verified that it was the O-rings that caused the disaster.
I don't think we have to do that -- or should do that -- even on the "Retirement of General Shinseki" article. Even assuming we could, it would be original research. What we need to concentrate on on this article is simply acknowledging the fact of the controversy; on the Retirement of General Shinseki article, we need to put in facts, but we only need to put in interpretations if they're somehow notable in and of themselves (for instance, the candidates' interpretations.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:03, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I just read in a newspaper article here that makes no bones about it: "Shinseki, was rebuked by Rumsfeld and his career essentially ended." But the article as it stands says he served out his term and retired on schedule. My question is: can a chief of staff be appointed for another term? I mean, couldn't they have kept him in the job longer? Often not renewing someone's contract is tantamount to firing them. Would the sentence be more balanced if instead of "in fact, however, he served his full term and retired on schedule" it said "he did complete his full 4-year term, but he was not reappointed for another"? --Smithfarm 16:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any law that would prevent a Defense Secretary from re-appointing a Chief of Staff, but it would be utterly unprecedented. Since the fixed 4-year term was introduced, no Chief of Staff of the United States Army has ever served more than one term. The last one to serve more than 4 years was George Marshall, and you'll remember that there was a war on; almost as soon as it was over, he retired (and I think that was before there was a fixed term for the job). The idea that his career was harmed in any way by the many disputes he had with Rumsfeld is utterly without foundation.

For that matter, I'd like someone to explain exactly how this "leak" was supposed to have undermined his authority. Even supposing that Rumsfeld really had decided to appoint Keane, and that the "leak" came from Rumsfeld (and we have no reason to suppose either of those things), how was this supposed to have had that effect? Everyone knew that Shinseki's term would end no later than June 2003, and that someone would replace him then. How would having that person's name be known have changed anything? zsero 18:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not comfortable enough with the facts to make any changes myself, but I would agree that this article doesn't seem to be communicating the controversy effectively... the consensus seems to be that Gen. Shinseki did not make administration figures happy with his comments, and the language in the article equivocates and seems to almost weasel out of saying as much. ("However, it was seen by some as undercutting Shinseki's authority within the Army in some unspecified manner." is an especially confusing sentence.) Regardless of whether he was forced into retirement early, I would suggest that you tighten up the writing to emphasize that the central point of the controversy is that a) Gen. Shinseki contradicted his political masters; and b) the DoD officials "rebuked" Gen. Shinseki for his comments. See this NYT article for details (which includes some interesting comments from Gen. Myers): http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/17/washington/17military.html

Hope that helps... I don't mean to be critical, it just seems like there's some beating around the bush.

Loremipsum 04:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course he didn't make them happy with his testimony to Congress, but the "leak" about his replacement had absolutely nothing to do with that. That's undisputable. And "seen by some as undercutting his authority in some unspecified manner" means that, so far, I haven't seen anybody explain how the "leak" was supposed to have this effect. And that's assuming that the press report was in fact a deliberate leak from Rumsfeld or someone close to him, and not a) someone carelessly letting slip something he shouldn't have, or b) someone without a clue, who was just making shit up. The central point of the controversy is that Shinseki was not retired, or otherwise punished, for his testimony, but nor did everyone take his opinion as gospel. zsero 01:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • In a military environment I think it should be pretty obvious how having his replacement leaked well prior to what is normal would undercut his authority. First, it signals an eagerness to replace him on the part of the civilian administration, which sends a strong message indicating a lack of faith or support in his leadership. On a more day to day basis, it creates an alternate person to bring ideas to. Personnel realize that this new replacement has the ear of the Secretary of Defense and, while he may not be able to act on proposals immediately, will be able to do so in the near future. The military is all about the chain of command; anouncing the future chain of command to early creates confusion. Of course, as mentioned, there's absolutely no way to verify whether this is is legitimate, and as the person named in the leak [i]didn't[/i] become Chief of Staff it may very well not be. Astarf 20:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numbering

The article says that Shinseki is the 34th Chief of Staff of the US Army, yet the article [Chief of Staff of the United States Army] puts him at 35th. Which is it? --Calton 01:23, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Born in Hawaii

Fortunately for young Shinseki to be born in Hawaii, as "Sansei" in 1942.

The Sansei are the third generation of Japanese Americans living in America. Some of the older Sansei, on the continent, were born in the relocation camps and may have only the vaguest of childhood memories concerning their days behind the barbed wire fences. However, most Sansei know very little about their parent's wartime experiences in the relocation camps and for some, in military or civil service.

The Sansei helped the Nisei bring the issue of reparations for the economic losses suffered due to the forced relocation and evacuation. Although the government had not admitted wrong doing and had never issued an apology, a movement began in the 1970's to seek redress. The Japanese American Citizens league and the newly formed National Coalition for Redress and Reparations began lobbying for reparation payments to the people who were interned. There was opposition to the redress movement from some veteran groups and others, but slowly the redress movement gained support in Congress. On February 19th 1976 President Gerald Ford signed Proclamation 4417 which referred to the evacuation as a "national mistake". Although not a formal apology, President Ford's action was the first step on the long road back from shame and despair.

On August 10th 1988 the "Civil Liberties Act of 1988" passed by Congress and signed by President Ronald Reagan made way for appropriations of $1.25 billion for $20,000 in reparations to Japanese American internees and an official Presidential apology on behalf of the United States government to those evacuees and their families.

On October 1st 1993, President William Jefferson Clinton signed an official Presidential apology on behalf of the United States government to those Japanese Americans and their families affected by the internment. In the apology it is stated, "In retrospect, we understand that the nation's actions were rooted deeply in racial prejudice, wartime hysteria, and a lack of political leadership."


Takima 19:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Japanese written form of his name

I find the use of Japanese characters in the general's name, and Asian-Americans persons in general, to be inconsistent with the general usage of non-Roman versions of proper names on Wikipedia.

Typically for proper names of European descent, the non-Roman version of their name is only given if the person has a strong association with the nation/region associated with that language, either by citizenship or other activity; ancestry by itself doesn't seem to trigger the inclusion of non-Romanized names. For example, the Hebrew version of Albert Einstein is not given, but it is for Yitzhak Rabin. I find this convention to be agreeable because it does not emphasize ancestry in articles where it is not warranted. Certainly the fact that Einstein was a Jew is a fact worth mentioning elsewhere in the article.

In the case of this article, the use of the non-Romanized name in the first five words is particularly noticable because of the general's life, service, and actions strongly associate him with the United States, and one might say that he has earned the right to be represented as an American general first and foremost. As an ironic aside, the European name "Eric" is represented in romanized Japanese katakana characters.

I appreciate the work of linguaphiles that take the time to translate names, but in this case I believe that the tone of the article is better served without it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hashkey (talk • contribs) .

I concur. He's American, Japanese-American if you want to be technical, not Japanese. If you really wanted to be political about it, Japan itself would probably prefer to write his name in katakana rather than kanji, since he's foreign-born.

Actually there is no Japanese surname called "Shinseki". Shinseki means relative or inlaws in Japanese. I think his name is a made up name or a mixed name created by his great grandparents who came to Hawaii long ago. There are many names that start with "Shin" and "Seki" or end with "Seki" but I have never heard of a surname called Shinseki. Actaully the Japanese think it's funny that people outside of Japan think it's a true Japanese surname when it is not.

[edit] Claims of insubordination

Zsero (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly inserting the sentence "According to one source, Shinseki came close to insubordination." and has provided the following citation and no other: Babbin, Jed "Purge of the Princelings?" National Review Online, August 14, 2003. Among Zsero's defenses of this addition in edit summaries:

  • "There's no WP policy requiring double sourcing; in any case, the text makes it clear that it's single-sourced, as are many facts cited on WP. Or are you calling Jed Babbin a liar?"
  • "all irrelevant. the article isn't cited for those PREDICTIONS which didn't come true, but for a STATEMENT OF FACT."
  • "restoring. it remains a factual claim from a reputable journalist, and is explicitly qualified as single-sourced. 193.130.196.1 has a history of bad-faith vandalism"
  • "sigh. once again, it's a FACT cited from a reputable source, and appropriately qualified. That the fact is contained in an OPINION piece is irrelevant. Editor has demonstrated bad faith."

Now, if the cited piece, which even Zsero acknowledges is Jed Babbin's opinion piece, had contained a factual claim that someone Babbin was writing about stated Shinseki to have come close to insubordination -- for instance, if Donald Rumsfeld made such a statement, and Babbin reported it -- then it might be a legitimate addition, though we would prefer getting a citation for it from a news article rather than someone's opinion article. If, however, the "one source" that Zsero is Jed Babbin himself, then Zsero is completely incorrect to describe it as a "factual claim" and a "STATEMENT OF FACT" -- it is Jed Babbin's opinion, and it is completely incorrect to regard it as 'Jed Babbin's factual claim about what Jed Babbin's opinion is' or the like; if such a procedure was legitimate, there would be absolutely no opinion that could not be promoted to a so-called "STATEMENT OF FACT" by similar means. However, having examined the alleged source, the above is entirely moot, because Babbin's opinion piece does not contain any statement at all, from Babbin or from anyone else, that Shinseki came close to insubordination. The word "insubordination" does not even appear in the piece. The idea that Shinseki "came close to insubordination" appears to be wholly Zsero's own original research based on Babbin's opinion piece. Needless to say, it is inappropriate for the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with me. I have not been "repeatedly inserting" the piece, I've been repeatedly reverting the vandal's attempts to remove it. There's a big difference, and I'd thank you to remember it.
Nor does Babbin offer it as opinion; he presents it as an actual fact, from an anonymous source (emphasis mine):
According to an Army source [...] Let me run things my way, said Shinseki, and I'll make you look really good on the Hill. But forget about transformation. The Army doesn't need it, and we don't plan to do it. Rumsfeld, to the surprise of his interlocutors, declined the offer they thought he couldn't refuse.
The reason the source would want anonymity is obvious, and it's common journalistic practise to provide anonymity under such circumstances. Unless someone has a reason to suppose that Babbin has made this up, it deserves as much credence as any similar source. Nevertheless, the article does qualify the statement as coming from a single source, and the reference is provided, so the reader can form her own judgment.
The fact that Babbin's article as a whole is an opinion piece isn't at all relevant. Opinion pieces by reputable journalists, published in reputable journals, often contain factual revelations, which form the basis for the writer's speculations, predictions, and opinions. The latter are not citable on WP; the former are. The "outing" of Valarie Plame occured in an opinion piece by Robert Novak; nobody would suggest that it's therefore not citable as fact on WP.
Bottom line: the allegation belongs in the article, and I will continue to resist attempts to remove it, particularly attempts by Mr IP Addresses, who has already demonstrated his bad faith by randomly vandalising various unrelated pages.
I am going to wait until at least 9pm EST tonight (about 4 hours from now) before reverting, to give you (or anyone else) a chance to convince me that I should not. After that, if I have not been convinced, I will revert it.
Zsero 21:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
First off, kindly cease immediately referring to the person who is -- quite rightly, according to everything I see -- disputing content with you as a "vandal". "Vandalism" has a quite specific meaning on Wikipedia and specifically excludes good-faith edits even if such edits are erroneous, which in this case they are not.
As for your "actual fact", you are still offering us original research and calling it "actual fact". Nowhere in the piece does it says that Eric Shinseki came close to insubordination. Period. The fact that you judge certain attitudes purportedly expressed by General Shinseki to "come close to insubordination" means absolutely nothing. Or are you saying that any time any editor reads in the New York Times about particular actions taken by George W. Bush and feels that those actions come close to treason against the people of the United States of America, that editor is justified in inserting "According to the New York Times, George W. Bush has come close to treason against the people of the United States"?
As regards the passage you quote, even if you were not offering your own interpretation of that passage rather than the passage itself, it's doubtful we would choose to use it anyways. Why? Because it's already interpretation, rather than any sort of fact. It isn't what Shinseki actually said, it's what some anonymous source interpreted Shinseki to mean. We don't need "a reason to suppose that Babbin has made this up" to doubt the significance of this account, we only need a reason to doubt that some anonymous person's belief about what Shinseki's statements amounted to was an accurate representation of what Shinseki actually said. You make the point that factual revelations have been made in opinion pieces, but this is irrelevant to the current case, because the passage you are basing your insertions on contain not one single fact. We don't know that Shinseki said "Let me run things my way and I'll make you look really good on the Hill." We don't know that Shinseki said "forget about transformation. The Army doesn't need it, and we don't plan to do it." All we know is that some anonymous source interpreted it that way.
Bottom line: the allegation does not belong in the article, because it is your original research based on what was itself very dubious "reporting". If you reinsert it, it will be removed again, as Wikipedia policy calls for original research to be removed.
As for your accusations of bad faith against so-called "Mr IP Addresses", I hardly need to point out that IP addresses do not always represent the same individual. If the same IP address is used repeatedly within a short span of time it's a fair bet that it's the same individual, but you single out 193.130.196.1 (talk · contribs) and allege that he/she "has a history of bad-faith vandalism". There are only four edits that have even taken place from that IP address in the last week, and none of those can be classified as vandalism. You would do well to apologize and concentrate from here on restricting your edits to what is actually supported by your sources. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
That's all very well, except that 193.130.196.1 (talk · contribs) is the same person as 172.209.253.72 (talk · contribs), 172.201.220.183  (talk · contribs), 84.13.136.207 (talk · contribs), and 84.13.4.119 (talk · contribs), who engaged in clear bad-faith vandalism. Which you'd realise if you looked at the history of this particular edit war unrest.
As for the substance of the alleged fact, Babbin's source told him as a fact that Shinseki had told the SecDef that his orders would not be implemented. To say that that comes close to insubordination is hardly "original research". It's a perfectly obvious one-phrase summary of what the article says. If anything, it pulls its punch, and should say "was insubordinate". (His testimony to Congress was itself clear insubordination, hardly different than the behaviour for which Macarthur was fired, but the paragraph in question is talking about the history of tension between Shinseki and Rumsfeld long before this testimony. Babbin's article is cited to show that it went all the way back to the day Rumsfeld first became Shinseki's boss.)
Zsero 07:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I only have your word that all those IP addresses are the same person and I only have your word that those IP addresses "engaged in clear bad-faith vandalism" in a time frame that would indicate it was actually the same person you are referring to now. Since I also had your word on it that an anonymous source reported that Shinseki was close to insubordination and that turned out to be only your own original research, you're going to have to come up with some more convincing evidence.
And yes, it is all your own original research. It is your interpretation of the implications of what Babbin reported as being the substance of what an anonymous source reported to be the substance of Shinseki's actual statements. Even if you had access to the actual, verified, unedited transcripts of everything Shinseki said at that meeting, you are not a reliable source who can judge who "came close to insubordination" and who didn't. The fact that you are trying to make that judgement based not on actual, verified, unedited transcripts of Shinseki's words but on nothing that even pretends to be Shinseki's actual words just makes the fact of the original research all the more blatant. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
You don't "only have my word"; you can easily look at the history of this particular edit to see that all of those IP addresses are the same person, and you can check each of their contribution history to see that they each engaged in clear bad-faith vandalism.
And summarising a lengthy quote in one phrase is not "original research", it's what an encyclopaedian does. Is there another interpretation that can be put on Shinseki's words, as Babbin's source reported them?
I'm giving you until midnight tonight EST (i.e. nearly another 10 hours) to convince me not to revert your removal of the sentence in question. (Note that I am not "repeatedly inserting it", Mr IP Adresses, and now you, are repeatedly removing it.)
Zsero 19:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
First of all, you are not "summarising a lengthy quote" because you are not summarising a quote. There are no quote marks around the words that supposedly represent what Shinseki said, because they are not his actual words but an anonymous party's interpretation of his words. Second of all, even if it was a quote or we had reason to believe that they were at least an accurate rendition of Shinseki's words -- which we do not -- you are not "summarising a lengthy quote" because you are not summarizing, you are judging. Is the gist of what Shinseki is allegedly saying "I am coming close to insubordination"? No? Then your insertion of "Shinseki came close to insubordination" is not "summarising", it is insertion of your own personal judgment, which is prohibited both before midnight tonight EST and after midnight tonight EST. End of story. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
You keep harping on this, but you still don't claim there is any other possible meaning to what Shinseki is reported to have told Rumsfeld. Telling ones superior that his plan will not be implemented is insubordination; that's what the word means. "Came close to" is pulling the punch. And whether it's in quote marks or not, it's what Babbin's source told him Shinseki said. I'm not convinced, so unless I see a better argument within half an hour, I'm going to restore the line, as it was before the vandal with the multiple IP addresses started messing with it. Zsero 04:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, no. If you were yourself a reliable source then perhaps your opinion about what constitutes insubordination and what does not would be encyclopedic, but you are not. You are simply a private citizen who is working from an account at least two generations removed from what actually happened and with an understanding of what "insubordination" means that is not necessarily perfect. You seem to think, for instance, that replying to what a superior says, under any possible circumstances, with anything other than "yes", is insubordination. You seem blissfully unaware that whether Shinseki's response to Rumsfeld could be described as "insubordination" might depend on whether Rumsfeld was presenting his 'plan' as an order, something that the Babbin piece does not establish. Or is it your understanding that the role of the Chief of Staff of the United States Army is purely as a rubber stamp for the Secretary of Defense, that he is not supposed to respond with anything but "yes" even if he thinks a plan presented to him by the Secretary of Defense is ill-considered? It seems to me that perhaps the chief military adviser to the President of the United States on Army matters just might be in a position to have some opinion about plans for the Army -- and yes, even to say "No way, Jose" until such time as it is presented not just as "a plan" but as an order. You are asking the wrong question when you demand to know if anyone has a different interpretation of what Shinseki (purportedly) said; such a question distracts from the essential fact that you are not a reliable source we would look to for interpreting what Shinseki said in the first place, and certainly not from an account so many generations removed from the original. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Way too many levels of indentation, so I'm breaking back to zero. If a subordinate officer thinks his superior's idea is a bad one, it's his duty to say "this is a bad idea, and you should reconsider it". It is emphatically not his duty or his right to say "not going to happen". That is insubordination. (Publicly undermining one's superior's policy is also insubordination, which is what his testimony amounted to, but as I said that's not the topic of this paragraph.) You've failed to convince me, so I'm reinserting it. But I've emailed Mr Babbin, to see if he can shed any further light on what exactly it was that his source told him. Perhaps his reply will convince me to reconsider. Zsero 05:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: How about this: why don't we let the reader decide for herself what constitutes insubordination? I've changed it to "According to one source, at their first meeting Shinseki told Rumsfeld that his orders would not be implemented." I hope that's a compromise you can live with.
Zsero 05:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the quoted article should be included in an encyclopedia. I have not removed it but will detail my complaints later. In the meantime, I have included a quote from Rumsfeld himself praising Shinseki after the alleged insubordination. I expect Zsero to remove it because it simply doesn't agree with his viewpoint. I've only posted one article where Rumsfeld praises Shinseki, though there are numerous ones.

No one has charged Gen. Shinseki with insubordination. Not the US Army, not Rumsfeld, not any Judge Advocate General. Implicit within military authority is the power of the superior to discern insubordination within certain limits. While the dispute over Gen. Shinseki's alleged insubordination seems to be carried out in second-hand heresay, it is not, by definition, insubordination as the superior involved (Rumsfeld) did not charge him with insubordination. What may be insubordination to one person isn't insubordination to another. This discretionary power and flexibility of command is inherent to any understanding of military authority. It's only insubordination, if and only if, his superiors deem it to be so, and if he is duly charged and convicted, or pleads guilty or otherwise makes no contest. I believe any insinuation or accusation of insubordination violates terms regarding living people and their bios, when it is not borne out by any other involved principal parties. There is no controversy here outside of armchair laywers, generals and pundits. There is no legal, military or professional controversy regarding insubordination; only watercooler talk about whether or not they got along. That does not qualify as historical or relevant. Anything more is coming dangerously close to defamation. -PRS

The whole article is a nice whitewash of Shinseki's less than stellar Army leadership and an artfully crafted smear of Rumsfeld, it really reflects nicely on Wikipedia's reputation. Awotter 21:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break - all history will remember that Rumsfeld was incompetent and that Shinseki warned against deploying too small a force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antarctica moon (talk • contribs) 10:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Retirement

Sorry, I don't really know how to use this site -- just read the article, and was startled by this passage: "Contrary to Democratic candidate John Kerry's claim, in the first debate of the 2004 presidential election, Shinseki was not "retired" for his testimony before Congress. His official term as Chief of the Army ended four months later and he retired as scheduled." This is followed by an endnote (16), but the cited article does not, in any way, support the claim. This passage is phrased in a way that intends to resolve or take a stance on a political dispute; it says, essentially, that John Kerry and other Democrats were mistaken, or that they were lying; but it fails to even begin to meet the burden of proof. 71.229.156.105 13:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)New Guy

The reference was added by User:ERcheck on 2006-05-27, presumably to prove that Shinseki did indeed retire on schedule. The relevant quotes are: Shinseki retired ... June 11, and As I was on the first day of my tenure four years ago. I don't see what greater proof you could ask for that Kerry was wrong to claim that "they retired him" for his testimony. Zsero 18:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Text of retirement speech

I've been looking for the text of Shinseki's retirement speech, which was very memorable. It would be nice to include it as a reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chrisbak (talk • contribs) 04:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC).