News Biden & Graham Debate Iraq: 1/7/07 on Meet the Press

[BobG]

Bush, right now, is mostly just following the advice of his commanding general. Is that a good policy?

Not surprisingly military people generally come up with military solutions so if one bases one's foreign policy on advise from generals you are likely to end up in a lot of wars.

It would be pretty irresponsible (and borderline insubordinate) of Petraeus to recommend a foreign policy that directly contradicted his commander in chief. Giving honest answers about the number troops needed to provide the security desired by Bush is completely within his duties and responsibilities. He could even give his honest opinion about whether providing the necessary number of troops is even feasible (something he seems disinclined to do) which would obviously reflect on the feasibility of the Bush's policy. He has no business giving any direct foreign policy advice.

So, yes, a general is going to give military solutions to problems stemming from someone else's foreign policy, but that's because solving the military problems associated with a foreign policy is what he does for a living.

He actually was asked about his opinion on Clinton's and Obama's plans and he wisely avoided being drawn into the election campaign.

If Congress wants answers about the foreign policy, itself, they should be asking the guy that's making the foreign policy; not the guys that are hired to carry that foreign policy out.

 

[turbo]

Bush, right now, is mostly just following the advice of his commanding general. Is that a good policy?

I don't think that's an accurate assessment of the situation. Bush and Cheney are following the their own policies and the advice of neocons and Petreaus has to support their policy to keep his job.

The Bush administration has culled the top brass of any dissidents until they got a commander who will "play nice" and tell them exactly what they want to hear. Fallon wouldn't do that, and that's why he was forced to resign. Bush and Cheney didn't like the advice coming from Fallon, so they canned him before Congress could ask for his assessment and recommendations. Petreaus acts like an echo-chamber for Bush/Cheney policy which is why he's still got his job.

 

[edward]

I would like to see what Baghdad really looks like. According to a local newspaper article, it isn't good.

The city of 6 million has largely been carved up along sectarian lines, a patchwork of neighborhoods surrounded by 10-foot-high concrete walls and dotted with checkpoints.
Violence declined last year and early this year following a cease-fire by Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, an influx of 30,000 additional U.S. troops and a Sunni revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq.

Emphasis mine

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/233751

It seems like every time Muqtada al-Sadr chooses, all hell breaks loose.

BAGHDAD — Errant mortar shells slammed into houses and a funeral tent Wednesday, leaving three children among the dead during clashes in a Shiite militia stronghold under siege by American and Iraqi forces on the fifth anniversary of the U.S. capture of the capital.
The fighting came as the U.S. military announced the deaths of five more soldiers.
That raised the number of American troop deaths to 17 since Sunday.

 

[lisab]

Bush, right now, is mostly just following the advice of his commanding general. Is that a good policy?

No, it's not a good policy. In fact it's a *horrible* policy. Policy is set from the top down, not the botttom up.

Look, if you go to a surgeon with a backache, chances are you'll be advised to have surgery. Go to a chiropractor, you'll be advised to get your back cracked (or whatever the heck it is they do). Go to a massuese, he'll tell you you need your back massaged.

Patreus is a military man. Show him a problem - say, Iraq - and he'll advise a military solution.

If Bush is setting policy based on Patreus' advise, no wonder we're in such a mess.

 

[edward]

No, it's not a good policy. In fact it's a *horrible* policy. Policy is set from the top down, not the botttom up.

Look, if you go to a surgeon with a backache, chances are you'll be advised to have surgery. Go to a chiropractor, you'll be advised to get your back cracked (or whatever the heck it is they do). Go to a massuese, he'll tell you you need your back massaged.

Patreus is a military man. Show him a problem - say, Iraq - and he'll advise a military solution.

If Bush is setting policy based on Patreus' advise, no wonder we're in such a mess.

Bush has based his policy on the advice of military officers that he knew would tell him what he wanted to hear.

Yet it was civilians who wanted the war, and civilians who dictated the strength of the invasion force.

Bush's War on Frontline is a must see. It is divided into short segments for online viewing.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No, it's not a good policy. In fact it's a *horrible* policy. Policy is set from the top down, not the botttom up.

Look, if you go to a surgeon with a backache, chances are you'll be advised to have surgery. Go to a chiropractor, you'll be advised to get your back cracked (or whatever the heck it is they do). Go to a massuese, he'll tell you you need your back massaged.

Patreus is a military man. Show him a problem - say, Iraq - and he'll advise a military solution.

If Bush is setting policy based on Patreus' advise, no wonder we're in such a mess.

Tell me what to do so that I may lead?

Yes, ideally Bush's job is to integrate the best advice possible from all points of view; not just that of his Generals.

At this point I pity anyone who is tasked with solving this problem.

 

[turbo]

At this point I pity anyone who is tasked with solving this problem.

This is a mine-field for the next president. No matter how they try to deal with this complex problem, they will be blamed for any negative repercussions. Bush's one-dimensional (and delusional) approach to Iraq has fostered so many seemingly intractable problems... the next president will need to establish a knowledgeable and skilled task force to coordinate the diplomatic and military efforts necessary to keep our soldiers safe while withdrawing them in a manner that is supportive of a smooth hand-over to Iraqi forces. This will be a HUGE job - one that the neo-cons never intended to pursue, nor were mentally/ethically-equipped to pursue.

 

[rewebster]

I don't think that's an accurate assessment of the situation. Bush and Cheney are following the their own policies and the advice of neocons and Petreaus has to support their policy to keep his job.

The Bush administration has culled the top brass of any dissidents until they got a commander who will "play nice" and tell them exactly what they want to hear. Fallon wouldn't do that, and that's why he was forced to resign. Bush and Cheney didn't like the advice coming from Fallon, so they canned him before Congress could ask for his assessment and recommendations. Petreaus acts like an echo-chamber for Bush/Cheney policy which is why he's still got his job.

yep--that's the way I see it too---

and, in a way, its looks more and more like Enron----the people at the top are making money, getting promotions, etc.--and when it 'collapses' and just a few will be punished, while many will suffer, (even more) when it is over

 

[chemisttree]

Hillary's http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/Iraq/"

Starting Phased Redeployment within Hillary's First Days in Office: The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration. would also direct the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to prepare a comprehensive plan to provide the highest quality health care and benefits to every service member -- including every member of the National Guard and Reserves -- and their families.

Securing Stability in Iraq as we Bring our Troops Home. As president, Hillary would focus American aid efforts during our redeployment on stabilizing Iraq, not propping up the Iraqi government. She would direct aid to the entities -- whether governmental or non-governmental -- most likely to get it into the hands of the Iraqi people. She would also support the appointment of a high level U.N. representative -- similar to those appointed in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo -- to help broker peace among the parties in Iraq.

A New Intensive Diplomatic Initiative in the Region. In her first days in office, Hillary would convene a regional stabilization group composed of key allies, other global powers, and all of the states bordering Iraq. The- mission of this group would be to develop and implement a strategy to create a stable Iraq. It would have three specific goals:

Non-interference. Working with the U.N. representative, group would work to convince Iraq's neighbors to refrain from getting involved in the civil war.
Mediation. The group would attempt to mediate among the different sectarian groups in Iraq with the goal of attaining compromises on fundamental points of disputes.
Reconstruction funding. The members of the group would hold themselves and other countries to their past pledges to provide funding to Iraq and will encourage additional contributions to meet Iraq's extensive needs.
As our forces redeploy out of Iraq, Hillary would also organize a multi-billion dollar international effort -- funded by a wide range of donor states -- under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to address the needs of Iraqi refugees. And as we replace military force with diplomacy and global leadership, Hillary will not lose sight of our very real strategic interests in the region. She would devote the resources we need to fight terrorism and will order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region.

Gee, if only Bush had thought of that. Convene the experts and follow their plan. Stabilize the country by removing support for the only stabilizing factor there. Give money and aid directly to the insurgents. (it does cut out the middleman) Get the UN to tell Iran to do something they don't want to do. (can you say "uranium enrichment"?) "Attempt" to mediate disputes between warring factions that describe the other's leaders as "enemies of God"... but of course this time we will HAVE A GOAL IN MIND! Convene a meeting of key allies and bordering states to come up with A PLAN FOR IRAQ! I think Iran is already working on their plan for Iraq... no meeting required, Hillary

And it's a http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/"

Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

Press Iraq’s Leaders to Reconcile
The best way to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq’s Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing.

Regional Diplomacy
Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors — including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction.

Humanitarian Initiative
Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis — two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.

Sounds like these two believe in the "Easy" button. Shame on you Bush! Why haven't you "attempted" to do something in Iraq before?

 

[Astronuc]

She would also support the appointment of a high level U.N. representative -- similar to those appointed in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo -- to help broker peace among the parties in Iraq.

Geez - who could that be? Maybe one of her top foreign policy advisers - Richard Holbrooke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Holbrooke

 

[baywax]

This just in:

WASHINGTON - Iraq's financial free ride may be over. After five years, Republicans and Democrats seem to have found common ground on at least one aspect of the war. From the fiercest war foes to the most steadfast Bush supporters, they are looking at Iraq's surging oil income and saying Baghdad should start picking up the tab, particularly for rebuilding hospitals, roads, power lines and the rest of the shattered country.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080414/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_free_ride_over

 

[edward]

Corruption in Iraq is rampant. I normally don't watch CBS's 60 minutes anymore but this segment on the corruption in Iraq caught my eye.

Money from many of the various ministries often ends up supporting insurgents.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/11/60minutes/main4009328.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4009328

 

[rewebster]

Sounds like these two believe in the "Easy" button. Shame on you Bush! Why haven't you "attempted" to do something in Iraq before?

Bush's plan: Throw money at it!




(that way a lot will fall into RNC friend's hands and a minute portion of that money will then be given back to the RNC---FULL CIRCLE


--except that 98% gets absconded as corruption)


lets see---how much have they spent? some estimates as high as 2 trillion divided by 20 million Iraqis equals $100,000 per Iraqi

 

[quadraphonics]

Corruption in Iraq is rampant. I normally don't watch CBS's 60 minutes anymore but this segment on the corruption in Iraq caught my eye.

Money from many of the various ministries often ends up supporting insurgents.

All petrostates are corrupt. Regardless of what anyone else does, so long as Iraq's economy is dominated by oil exports, it will remain corrupt.

 

[turbo]

All petrostates are corrupt. Regardless of what anyone else does, so long as Iraq's economy is dominated by oil exports, it will remain corrupt.

Iraq has no reasonable expectation of having an economy that is NOT dominated by oil, at least not for a VERY long time. The brain-drain that resulted from middle-class and better-off people fleeing Iraq cannot easily be reversed, because of ethnic tensions. People are afraid to come back home to even the "relatively" quiet areas of Iraq, and until there is security, doctors, professors, engineers, etc, are going to try to make a living in other countries instead of repatriating.

 

[mheslep]

lets see---how much have they spent? some estimates as high as 2 trillion divided by 20 million Iraqis equals $100,000 per Iraqi

Some estimates? How about some estimates high as $20 trillion. No, $400 trillion! $200 trillion stolen by evil neocons and $200 trillion to Iraqis. Every Iraqi got $10 million!

Spending in Iraq has averaged $144B/year.

 

[baywax]

Spending in Iraq has averaged $144B/year.

Who's your source?
Does Waxman agree with the estimate?

What are you (taxpayer) spending 144 b a year on? Are there new bridges going up? Does maintaining a fleet of tanks cost that much? Do all the figher jets and helicopters cost that much to maintain or did they buy brand new ones for this war? Are the force's breakfast lunch and dinners costing that much? Are the Canadian made bullets dinging the budget so much? Where are the fire fights that are using up all these bullets? Is this a case of toilet seats costing $596.37 each?

 

[quadraphonics]

Iraq has no reasonable expectation of having an economy that is NOT dominated by oil, at least not for a VERY long time.

Indeed. And, as a corollary, we should give up on the idea of Iraq not being corrupt in the same time frame.

The brain-drain that resulted from middle-class and better-off people fleeing Iraq cannot easily be reversed, because of ethnic tensions. People are afraid to come back home to even the "relatively" quiet areas of Iraq, and until there is security, doctors, professors, engineers, etc, are going to try to make a living in other countries instead of repatriating.

It probably wouldn't matter if they did return, with the high prices of oil likely to be with us for a while. I.e., it'd be a petrostate regardless, and the resulting corruption and inefficiency would probably drive out the most talented, productive people anyhow.

 

[edward]

All petrostates are corrupt. Regardless of what anyone else does, so long as Iraq's economy is dominated by oil exports, it will remain corrupt.

This doesn't explain why almost every ministry in Iraq is corrupt. Many of them are far removed from oil.

CBS) "According to the report, these are some of the ministries where corruption seemed to be rampant: the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Trade, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Oil, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Water Resources, Finance, Electricity, Labor, and Social Affairs, Displacement and Migration, Science and Technology. I mean, what's left?" Kroft asked.

"I was going to ask you that. Okay? It's pretty much across the board in every ministry," Mattil replied.

Mattil says shortly after the unclassified report was leaked to the press last summer, the State Department decided to make it classified.

Asked for what reason it was classified, Mattil said, "The embarrassment factor, I would think."

But the State Department's decision to try and bury the report didn't change the facts in Iraq. In some cases, Mattil says the corruption involves outright theft of government funds, or bribery, with some of the money finding its way into the hands of insurgents or Iraqi militias.

emphasis mine

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/11/60minutes/main4009328.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4009328

 

[edward]

This week in political cartoons

From MSNBC Who's who in Iraq

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24067535/displaymode/1107/s/2/framenumber/14/

 

[quadraphonics]

This doesn't explain why almost every ministry in Iraq is corrupt. Many of them are far removed from oil.

"Far removed" in what sense? In their designated function, sure. But all of their budgets come directly out of oil revenue, and the appointment of ministers is highly politicized. Which, in a petrostate, means that they're appointed to those positions not so much because they're qualified for them, but as a pretense for those in power to pay them out of the oil revenue and so solidify their grip on power. This corruption propagates down through the ministries. The point is that, in a petrostate, a government doesn't need to tax its population, and so doesn't need to do things to improve their productivity (such as maintain functional, noncorrupt ministries for stuff like education, infrastructure, etc.). All that's required to stay in power is that leaders distribute enough oil revenue to buy patronage (well, and a little cheap populism from time to time). This corrupts the entire state, as there is no incentive for it to function properly; it's all simply a pretense for the distribution of oil revenue. It all works the same way in every petrostate, from Saudi Arabia to Venezuela. Indeed, the oil sector itself is often the *least* corrupt part of the state, as it DOES need to function, and typically requires investment from and collaboration with entities from Western countries who don't view corruption as acceptable.

 

[edward]

"Far removed" in what sense? In their designated function, sure. But all of their budgets come directly out of oil revenue, and the appointment of ministers is highly politicized. Which, in a petrostate, means that they're appointed to those positions not so much because they're qualified for them, but as a pretense for those in power to pay them out of the oil revenue and so solidify their grip on power. This corruption propagates down through the ministries. The point is that, in a petrostate, a government doesn't need to tax its population, and so doesn't need to do things to improve their productivity (such as maintain functional, noncorrupt ministries for stuff like education, infrastructure, etc.). All that's required to stay in power is that leaders distribute enough oil revenue to buy patronage (well, and a little cheap populism from time to time). This corrupts the entire state, as there is no incentive for it to function properly; it's all simply a pretense for the distribution of oil revenue. It all works the same way in every petrostate, from Saudi Arabia to Venezuela. Indeed, the oil sector itself is often the *least* corrupt part of the state, as it DOES need to function, and typically requires investment from and collaboration with entities from Western countries who don't view corruption as acceptable.

I agree with you to a great extent about petrostates. What is different about this situation is that the country is occupied by liberation? forces, and the Iraqis did it right under our noses.

Much of the money even funded the insurgents who were killing Americans, when it was supposed to be used to pay for the cost of the war.

They even managed to scam money in the early years of the war when the so called coalition was supposedly in charge of the purse strings. There is a link to the early fraud below.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6621523/

This is one hellava way to fight a war.

 

[Astronuc]

"He who is able to fix the public utilities holds the keys to the kingdom in terms of winning the support of the Iraqi people and ultimately ending this conflict."
SGT. ALEX J. PLITSAS, of the Army, on conditions in the Sadr City section of Baghdad.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/world/middleeast/22sadrcity.html

BAGHDAD — Even as American and Iraqi troops are fighting to establish control of the Sadr City section of this capital, the Iraqi government’s program to restore basic services like electricity, sewage and trash collection is lagging, jeopardizing the effort to win over the area’s wary residents.

For weeks, there have been reports that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki is preparing to move ahead with a multimillion-dollar program to rebuild the southern swath of Sadr City, which is currently occupied by Iraqi and American troops.

But almost a month after American and Iraqi forces pushed into the area, there are no signs of reconstruction. Instead, the streets are filled with mounds of trash and bubbling pools of sewage. Many neighborhoods are still without electricity, and many residents are too afraid to brave the cross-fire to seek medical care. Iraqi public works officials, apparently fearful of the fighting, rarely seem to show up at work, and the Iraqi government insists the area is not safe enough for repairs to begin.

On Saturday, three Sadr City residents gingerly approached an American Army position to deliver a warning: Unless the Iraqi government or its American partner did something to restore essential services and remove the piles of garbage, the militias would gain more support. . . . .

I wonder if anyone is Washington is paying attention, or are they simply trying to avoid another inconvenient truth.

 

[Art]

Here is an interesting investigation by the BBC which identifies $23 billion of reconstruction funds either stolen, lost or simply unaccounted for. Apparently a gagging order is restricting any media coverage / investigations in the US.

BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions
By Jane Corbin
BBC News

A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.

For the first time, the extent to which some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding has been researched by the BBC's Panorama using US and Iraqi government sources.

A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations.

The order applies to 70 court cases against some of the top US companies.

War profiteering

While George Bush remains in the White House, it is unlikely the gagging orders will be lifted.

To date, no major US contractor faces trial for fraud or mismanagement in Iraq.

The president's Democrat opponents are keeping up the pressure over war profiteering in Iraq.

Henry Waxman who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said: "The money that's gone into waste, fraud and abuse under these contracts is just so outrageous, its egregious.

"It may well turn out to be the largest war profiteering in history."

In the run-up to the invasion one of the most senior officials in charge of procurement in the Pentagon objected to a contract potentially worth seven billion that was given to Halliburton, a Texan company, which used to be run by Dick Cheney before he became vice-president.

Unusually only Halliburton got to bid - and won.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7444083.stm

 

[Astronuc]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080708/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=Aqz1m4rsW4Jr_cknBu73e6Ss0NUE

BAGHDAD - Iraqi officials stepped up pressure on the United States on Tuesday to agree to a specific timeline to withdraw American forces, a sign of the government's growing confidence as violence falls.

The tough words come as the Bush administration is running out of time to reach a needed troop deal before the U.S. election in November and the president's last months in office. Some type of agreement is required to keep American troops in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires on Dec. 31.

The Iraqi timeline proposal made public Tuesday appears to set an outer limit, requiring U.S. forces to fully withdraw five years after the Iraqis take the lead on security nationwide — though that precondition could itself take years.

"Our stance in the negotiations under way with the American side will be strong," said Iraq's national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, a day after the country's prime minister first publicly said he expects some type of timeline.

Maybe it's time to leave.

 

[Astronuc]

Has a deal been drafted to leave Iraq?

Iraqi officials say they have a draft of a deal to reduce American troops there. The White House said not so fast. Host Kai Ryssdal talks about the U.S. in Iraq with Ken Pollack, author of "A Path Out of The Desert."

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/08/20/exit_strategy/

Kai Ryssdal: Iraqi officials said today they've reached an agreement with the United States to reduce the U.S. troop presence there. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said it's not quite a done deal yet. But any agreement would be a big step toward rebuilding the American presence in the Middle East. In his new book on that topic, called "A Path Out of The Desert," analyst Ken Pollack says the first step for the United States is to admit it has a problem.

Ken Pollack: When it comes down to it for the United States, it's all about the oil. It's a hard thing to say, but you need to think of oil in this way: Oil underpins our economy and the economy of the entire developed world. It is important to us because the loss of major supplies of oil would cripple our economy, but also because it would devastate the economies of our trade partners. And in the interdependent globalized world, we can't afford for that to happen either.

Ryssdal: Once you get past the fact that we are there for the oil, there are other problems in that region that the United States will have to deal with to get a path out. There are demographic issues and political issues and socio-economic issues. How do you unify all that in a theory that gets the United States out of the Middle East.

Pollack: The Middle East has problems abounding. And, you know, the good news is that that is something that we and other countries, other regions of the world have found ways to address. Think about Europe before the Second World War. It was the worst region on earth. The heart of genocide, of the world wars, of the worst slaughters, the worst religious wars, starvations, you name it. And through a process over about 50, 60 years, the United States helped Europeans to basically completely reforge their own societies. Now, I don't want to suggest that what happened in Europe is exactly what's going to happen in the Middle East. Not the case at all, 'cause it's going to be up to the Middle East to decide, the people of the Middle East to decide what kind of a path they want to take. But we've never worked with them to try to find a way to make it possible for them to reform in a way that they find palatable. Nor have we really committed ourselves to this kind of an effort the way that we did in Europe, in East Asia and more recently in South America.

. . . .

Certainly there are economic interests (trade and access to oil) as well as security interests.

 

[turbo]

A study at UCLA indicates that sectarian violence in Iraq declined not in response to the surge, but because ethnic cleansing and homogenization reduced the number of minority targets available. The analysis uses Northern Ireland as a comparable case and notes that reduced violence does not equate to "peace".

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN1953066020080919