Listening to both sides does not necessarily bring about a correct judgment.

There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist.

It is the photographs that gives one the vivid realization of what actually took place. (On photographs from Abu Ghraib prison.)

If a prospective Presidential approach can't be explained clearly enough to be understood well, it probably hasn't been thought through well enough. If not well understood by the American people, it probably won't 'sail' anyway. Send it back for further thought.

If a person is determined to fight to the death, then they may very well have that opportunity.

You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.

The Secretary of Defense is not a super General or Admiral. His task is to exercise civilian control over the Department for the Commander-in-Chief and the country.