For more than a month, members of my family and I have been engaged in private meetings to see what common ground is left between us and the Eisenhower Memorial Commission.
In response to an announcement by the Eisenhower Memorial Commission on March 26, outlining their “total and unqualified” support of Frank Gehry’s design for the Eisenhower Memorial, the Eisenhower family had this to say.
The news media has been full of the testimony from Tuesday’s hearing on “The Proposed Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial” before the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
The following testimony was given by Susan Eisenhower before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands of the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources at a hearing titled “The Proposed Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial” on March 20, 2012.
After many months of public debate and behind the scenes interaction, the Eisenhower Memorial Commission (EMC) announced yesterday.
In writing on the collapse of the Soviet Union in my 1994 book Breaking Free, I noted the relish with which Soviet jokesters challenged the communist regime, and its ludicrous use of propaganda to trumpet the future and erase all traces of past failures.
One of the oldest ploys in the strategist’s handbook is to create side skirmishes of little value, except as a way to avoid or delay fully engaging the “enemy” or “adversary” in real battle.
For decades I have worked in the national security and energy security arenas where passions run high, but they are tempered by facts and figures, data and verifiable results.
After some months of escalating controversy, many people’s good intentions have been distorted.