Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditA new memo leaked to the British media last week asserts that George Bush and Tony Blair agreed in January 2003 to go to war in Iraq--not March 2003, as they insist. It also suggests that the leaders knew there was no legitimate case for war, and that Blair told Bush that he was "solidly" behind US plans to invade Iraq before he sought advice about the invasion's legality. Most shocking, it reveals that Bush was so desperate to provoke a war that he proposed painting US planes to look like UN aircrafts and flying them low over Iraq in hopes of inciting an Iraqi attack. (Bush to Blair: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach.")
As with the Downing Street Minutes last spring, international media are covering this story thoroughly, while US counterparts are sitting on their hands. (Click here to see a collection of media commentary to date.)
Public education and outrage have forced the US media to pay attention before. Let's do it again! Check out David Swanson's useful how-to guide for garnering media attention and then click here to email your local newspaper editors and talk-radio hosts, asking them to look into this story.
Hansen Speaks Out
My last post was about the gagging of scientist James Hansen by the Bush Administration. This Friday, February 10, at 10:00am Hansen will speak out publicly at the New School in Manhattan (66 West 12th Street, First Floor). Click here for info and watch The Nation online for a report from the talk.
Share this article
Peter Rothberg
Your guide to expressing informed dissent to war, racism, sexism, environmental degradation and market-based solutions to social problems.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
ah, the beauty of american style obverse democratic fascism. privately owned propaganda machine (aka the msm) and all...
but the weight of their lies is about to cause a complete and utter breakdown that even their corporate ministry of bullshit cannot stop.
HEADS WILL ROLL
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/07/2006 @ 3:06pm
Do you actually think your "ravings" are clever and/or entertaining or are you actually this retarded? I can't figure out if you are trying to spoof the inane ramblings of the right or if you are for real. In any event, you suck.
Posted by MikeRM at 02/07/2006 @ 3:23pm
Is this anything like how Bush wanted to bomb Al-Jazeera?
Or remember the time that Bush said that NASA should be "re-looked at" and the Space Shuttle all of a sudden explodes upon re-entry.
Or how about when Bush didnt call and consult with Robert Byrd (D) WV to discuss the Alito nomination, and then a week later, the mining disaster occur.
Or how about when Bush ordered the Army to blow up the levees in NO.
Coincidence? I THINK NOT!!!!!!!!!
When will the world realize that it is all some massive plot by the CIA to control the information man.
Sorry, couldnt resist.
Posted by CPT at 02/07/2006 @ 3:27pm
MIKERM
So we are clear. I am spoofing the inane ramblings of the LEFT.
Posted by CPT at 02/07/2006 @ 3:31pm
"Most shocking, it reveals that Bush was so desperate to provoke a war that he proposed painting US planes to look like UN aircrafts and flying them low over Iraq in hopes of inciting an Iraqi attack. (Bush to Blair: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach.")"
Anyone dumb enough to believe this, is truly beyond help.
Saddam had ALREADY shot at US aircraft about once a week in the no fly zone! WELL DOCUMENTED, remember that President Clinton guy, who pounded Iraq with missiles for doing so.
You are backing the wrong horse here.
Posted by CPT at 02/07/2006 @ 3:47pm
So isn't trying a sequel like "Downing Street Memo-II"....
like somebody in Hollywood getting the bright idea to try to make a sequel to Spielberg's "1941"?
Posted by Mask at 02/07/2006 @ 3:50pm
I can't figure out if you are trying to spoof the inane ramblings of the right or if you are for real. In any event, you suck.
Posted by MIKERM 02/07/2006 @ 3:23pm | ignore this person
who, me?
if me, then - a - (spoofing right wing ranters - mostly.
and no. i do not suck...do you?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/07/2006 @ 4:06pm
RIO BRAVO
I especially like the U2 flying low scenairo, that is great comedy.
You think we ought to tell them that the U2 is desgined for HIGH altitude flying and that flying low would for prolonged periods of time would create considerable mechinical problems?
But then again, why let facts get in the way of fantasy
Posted by CPT at 02/07/2006 @ 4:06pm
IBBEL
I think he was referring to RIO. They ususally dont attack their own, no insult intended
Posted by CPT at 02/07/2006 @ 4:09pm
The press is rightfully hesitant as the BC BS regime is not beyond planting its own false story in order to point another finger at the far left liberal media that will print lies. Think spun forged National Guard docs...media head early retirement/resignation...
Suppose they could use qualifiers... like 'if', may be, early investigation, etc., but then can be called out as appearing to be spreading gossip. Sneaky stuff loosing credibility can loose either way.
Posted by Bushfools at 02/07/2006 @ 4:25pm
You think we ought to tell them that the U2 is desgined for HIGH altitude flying and that flying low would for prolonged periods of time would create considerable mechinical problems?
Posted by CPT 02/07/2006 @ 4:06pm
Please do.
And elaborate on what those considerable mechanical problems are.
Posted by Will C. at 02/07/2006 @ 4:25pm
CPT--I'm not backing any horses here. Just trying to highlight a potentially impt piece of news that isn't getting much coverage here in the States. I'm also not one to say that the president is dumb. But the memo, if authentic, as it seems to be, is the thing that says that Bush considered the idiotic plan of faking planes. Maybe he didn't realize what was going on in the no-fly zone. Whatever the case may be, I didn't make it up.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 02/07/2006 @ 4:30pm
cpt
so, it would be stupid to believe that bush wanted to paint a plane in un colors because saddam shot at american planes? i don't see your reasoning on that statement. we are not the same as the un. if he had shot at a un plane, he would have been in breach of un resolutions.
Posted by loveloki at 02/07/2006 @ 4:30pm
Good thing it wasn't an SR-71 at full speed and low altitude or a lot of damage would have been done, as well as, by the spent missles falling in other countries when they ran out of "gas" in pursuit!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/07/2006 @ 4:23pm
Iteresting statement. But you're a man that reads a lot. So you could probably tell us the missile systems you are refering to, the max speed of the missle, it's max range, the max speed of the SR-71, and exactly how close to the border each missle system would have to be employed for it's missle to fall in "other" countries
Posted by Will C. at 02/07/2006 @ 4:34pm
i'm sure he can will, voracious reader that he is. i'll be waiting for your informed response as well, rio.
Posted by loveloki at 02/07/2006 @ 4:37pm
Saddam had ALREADY shot at US aircraft about once a week in the no fly zone! Posted by CPT 02/07/2006 @ 3:47pm | ignore this person
You don't suppose Saddam was shooting at us because we were bombing the hell out of Iraq in preparation for the invasion do you? Naw, I didn't think so.
Posted by seattlescribe at 02/07/2006 @ 4:37pm
Posted by SEATTLESCRIBE 02/07/2006 @ 4:37pm | ignore this person
Correct me if I'm wrong....but wasn't he shooting at us...in the 90s?
Posted by Mask at 02/07/2006 @ 4:43pm
I especially like the U2 flying low scenairo, that is great comedy.
You think we ought to tell them that the U2 is desgined for HIGH altitude flying and that flying low would for prolonged periods of time would create considerable mechinical problems? But then again, why let facts get in the way of fantasy Posted by CPT 02/07/2006 @ 4:06pm | ignore this person
Yea, but remember it is George "strategery" Bush talking. It is George, "WMD in Iraq" Bush talking. It is George "they're importing yellow cake from Africa" Bush talking. It is George "bend the facts to fit the policy" Bush talking.
You're right - why let facts get in the way?
Posted by seattlescribe at 02/07/2006 @ 4:48pm
CPT & Rio wouldn't care if they found a memo from GWB to Jeff Gannon which described how much GWB loves it when Jeff wears his Marine uniform. They certainly don't care about such trivialities as the fact that the war was preordained and concocted for reasons having nothing to do with WMD's.
Posted by freedomplease at 02/07/2006 @ 4:57pm
You will find the SR-71 still classified technoloty even in retirement!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/07/2006 @ 4:54
there are specs available on the flight profile of the SR-71.
and you still haven't addressed the missile info I requested.
I'm a little rusty on my OPFOR ADA systems. But you are a man who reads. You must have the specs and the analysis lying around somewhere
Posted by Will C. at 02/07/2006 @ 5:05pm
Yea, and even under the auspicis's of the U.N. security council Saddam could care less!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/07/2006 @ 4:58pm
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't beleive our aircaps over northern and southern Iraq were authorised by the UN.
But you a man who reads, you could point us to the resolution.
Posted by Will C. at 02/07/2006 @ 5:07pm
To those delusional right-wingers that think this is another conspiracy theory:
The only reason Bush has not been put in jail, is the Republican domination of government through corruption (DeLay, Frist, Wilkes, Cunningham, Reed, Abramoff.........) and the extremely weak and cowardly American media. Many foreign journalists and reputable American journalists have extensively and throughly accounted for the lies of Bush since he was elected in 2000. The typical American does not know a tenth of the current affairs of this country compared to what British and French citizens know about their and America's current affairs. Thanks, totally deregulated capitalistic media that is concerned only with profits and not informing the public. It should be noted that according to the founders of this country that a representative democracy was depended on a highly and accurately informed, engaged, and intellectual public; not the retarded-intellectually-deficient and misinformed public we have become.
Posted by dissenter7 at 02/07/2006 @ 5:08pm
Correct me if I'm wrong....but wasn't he shooting at us...in the 90s? Posted by MASK 02/07/2006 @ 4:43pm | ignore this person
I believe that is correct. I think they started shooting at us from the time the US and the UK bi-laterally imposed no fly zones there without UN sanction.
The Downing Street Memos touched on the many bombing sorties flown over Iraq by US and UK warplanes way before Bush talked publicly about invading there. This is one of those nasty things about war. I was (am) opposed to the Iraq invasion. However, if the CIC is determined to send our troops into harms way, then he has an obligation to neutralize enemy fortifications as much as possible prior to the troops going in. I just don't believe the troops should have been sent in to begin with. It is too bad the US press contains so many weenies (there are some exceptions, to be sure.) If these bombing sorties had been publicized, then maybe the invasion of Iraq would have been a non-starter.
Posted by seattlescribe at 02/07/2006 @ 5:09pm
PETER
I did not think for one second that you made this up, I dont agree with what you support, but I do not think you would purposely fabricate anything. I just think its a bad choice of information to spotlight.
Posted by CPT at 02/07/2006 @ 5:14pm
CPT,
Of course you do.....you're an apologist. Duh!
Posted by freedomplease at 02/07/2006 @ 5:15pm
still holding on to the memo, are we? Third party jibberish!
Posted by bush man at 02/07/2006 @ 5:22pm
still holding on to the memo, are we? Third party jibberish!
Posted by BUSH MAN 02/07/2006 @ 5:22pm
Bush Boy
Back for a little hit and run away
Posted by Will C. at 02/07/2006 @ 5:23pm
still holding on to the memo, are we? Third party jibberish!
Posted by BUSH MAN 02/07/2006 @ 5:22pm | ignore this person
(Sigh)
Posted by seattlescribe at 02/07/2006 @ 5:26pm
LOVELOKI
SADDAM had already violated several UN resolutions, if a UN plane appeared in his skies, I dont think it would have matter.
SADDAM had already shot at our planes for years, about every other day a plane was radar locked and about once a week it was fired on. And for that matter, I am unaware of ANY markings that are painted on planes that are visible from the ground.
Remember going at the speed at which jets fly, having used close air support I know for a FACT, that fast movers, like jets do not fly lowerer than a prescribed altitude. At which you would have to have superman vision to see markings.
You distinguish fast movers(jets) by body type, not marking. So there is no way, no how that this plan would even be feasible.
Ask a jet pilot how low they like to fly, only Tom Cruise buzzes the tower.
As far as flying low, well there is one varient of U2 still in the inventory. This is a high altitude designed high speed aircraft.
No shit ZERO, from the ground to the air it flys low, but not for long, key phrase, its body design leaks fuel and aircraft fluid if it flys low for long, as would be needed for it to be identified by Iraqis. At high altitude the body of the aircraft expands so that this is not a problem, how high? dont know, but high.
Who ever suggested it might be laughed out of the room.
Its a free country but I woudlnt give creedance to this fantasy.
Posted by CPT at 02/07/2006 @ 5:41pm
No shit ZERO, from the ground to the air it flys low, but not for long, key phrase, its body design leaks fuel and aircraft fluid if it flys low for long, as would be needed for it to be identified by Iraqis. At high altitude the body of the aircraft expands so that this is not a problem, how high? dont know, but high.
Posted by CPT 02/07/2006 @ 5:41pm
The U-2 wasn't designed to leak fuel from it's body while on the ground.
This might explain why CPT can't elaborate on the considerable mechinical problems that flying low would for prolonged periods of time would create
Posted by CPT 02/07/2006 @ 4:06pm
Posted by Will C. at 02/07/2006 @ 5:57pm
Posted by SEATTLESCRIBE 02/07/2006 @ 5:09pm | ignore this person
So WELL BEFORE we were "in preparation for the invasion"...as you stated earlier?
Posted by Mask at 02/07/2006 @ 6:33pm
Peter--
I haven't read your column or any of the responses yet (but will before I post further), but I wanted to instantly say, Thank you! I saw this item on Salon's "War Room" feature days ago, and have been watching the major media outlets since. Nothing. Shouldn't allegations of this sort get some sort of play? If it's nonsense, fine, refute it. But good God, if it's not nonsense, it's absolute proof that Bush lied us into the war and has been lying ever since. It makes me tired to think of the crap I'm going to have to wade through from the usual right-wing apologists, but I'll do it anyway.
Thanks again, Peter. You rule. But in a good way, not a GW Bush way.
Posted by LisaJo at 02/07/2006 @ 6:43pm
.
No, Evolution is not an example of consensus reality.
It is an example of a scientific theory. The basis of Darwin's argument is the demonstrable proof provided by the fossil record.
For an example of consensus reality look at creationism. Its basis is a widely shared inner conviction, ardently clutched, a common feeling lacking measurable or reasonable proof.
Another example is the unanimity of feeling and judgment within fan clubs of sport team. The herd inside The Nation's corral is a different manifestation of that. So too a society waving Mao's Little Red Book, or Mein Kampf. Consensus reality is what stares down from the walls of 1984. The ingredients are a mixture of love, fear, naivete, peer pressure, moral one-upmanship, mental laziness. It is the batter of ideology.
Consensus reality fears disagreement and will proceed against it with the strongest means available. In Argentina dissidents were put on helicopters and dropped into the ocean. In these fora Zero suggested, on the second or third day of my posting here, that I be excluded; subsequently, that I be ignored. That was the "consensus reality" trying to protect itself.
Of course "unconventional wisdom" is not the same thing. But what you and Zero are after is precisely, a perverse consensus that your goose stepping IS "unconventional wisdom."
.
Posted by nacl at 02/07/2006 @ 6:51pm
OK, I read your article and waded through the crap. There was nothing incendiary or propagandistic or conspiracy-theorist about Peter's article. It was a reasonable call for consideration of a plausible and utterly damning piece of news. The crap was, in fact, crap, but it didn't make me tired. It was just rantings. No one on the right so far is even willing to consider that there may be some reason for disbelieving Fearless Leader. Not even Mask. Proof positive that the Conservative movement is dead. I agree with Digby's assessment of "The Eunuch Caucus:"
I've been digesting this morning's [AG Gonzalez] hearings and I am dumbstruck by the totality of the Republicans' abdication of their duty. These men who spent years running on Madisonian principles ("The essence of government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse") now argue without any sense of irony or embarrassment that Republican Senators are nothing more than eunuchs in President Bush's political harem. They have voluntarily rendered the congress of the United States impotent to his power.
What, do these idiots believe that a Republican will be president forever? Do they not care about precedent, so long as it suits their immediate, short-term agenda (protect Fearless Leader)? I am aghast, watching these (almost entirely) men handing over not only their sacred duty, but their personal power to a Napoleon-wannabe. What is the matter with Congressional Republicans?
And before all the tighty-righties start hollering, "Eunuch Democrats, too!" allow me to add, sure, the Dems have been castrated, too. But at least they didn't castrate themselves. (Well, at least not at first. I honestly have no explanation for their current attitude of, "Well, you guys cut off our balls, so we might as well voluntarily give you our honor and dignity, while we're at it.")
Seriously, righties who STILL cannot find a word of outrage for this wholesale destruction of the rule of law have less credibility even than Bush. At least he doesn't pretend that he's trying to defend the Constitution anymore.
Posted by LisaJo at 02/07/2006 @ 7:03pm
Posted by LISAJO 02/07/2006 @ 7:03pm
You've put your finger exactly on the scariest part of what's been going on. These people (not Bush, but the myriad people behind him) are not about to let a little thing like democracy thwart them. In three years, they expect to be in power still. How? Buying out the Democratic party? They're close already. Arranging for the media to flog for their candidates (not news anymore)? Making sure that the SCOTUS won't stop them (if not there, will be after next appointment)? Using powerful spying tools of NSA and other like agencies to sniff out those in opposition and discrediting them before they become threats? No, they would NEVER stoop to spying on American citizens! How about creating a neverending war and jailing any American they don't like without hope of habeas corpus? Not possible; it would imitate Orwell's 1984.
Look, these people are not going to give up the enormous power they've acquired except at gunpoint. I don't know how they'll subvert what remains of our democratic process, but it does worry me.
Posted by adr at 02/07/2006 @ 7:31pm
Look, these people are not going to give up the enormous power they've acquired except at gunpoint. Posted by ADR 02/07/2006 @ 7:31pm
All good points, ADR, with one exception: They are giving up their enormous power--to an Executive Branch currently controlled by a man whom a whole bunch of them don't even respect very much. That's what doesn't make sense to me. The Constitution (some of our tighty-righties should try reading it, rather than simply quoting it) gives the Legislative Branch considerable power over the Executive Branch--the most important being the power of oversight. By buying into the arguments of Bush and his appointees, they are actually abdicating power. This makes no sense to me.
Unless I look at it in the light of Delay's "leadership." He is famous for using his political money-machine to reward toadies and punish independent thinkers. Maybe the entire Republican party is so thoroughly cowed by the (so far) success of the K Street Project that they are terrified of exercising independence of thought. That is, of course, just a theory.
But it would explain why Republican members of Congress are willing to hang their own fortunes on that of an Executive who is hell-bent on gathering all power to itself. Maybe they're really, truly afraid that if they break with the machine, after abandoning their honor, duty, and sacred oaths, they'll have nothing.
Maybe they honestly don't realize that, by abandoning their honor, duty, and sacred oaths, they've already lost everything that matters.
Posted by LisaJo at 02/07/2006 @ 7:54pm
cpt, i see what you're saying about the paint on the jets. it makes sense to me.
Posted by loveloki at 02/07/2006 @ 8:26pm
nacl, i don't know which thread you thought you were posting too. but this one is about bush and blair's pact.
Posted by loveloki at 02/07/2006 @ 8:29pm
cpt, i see what you're saying about the paint on the jets. it makes sense to me.
Posted by LOVELOKI 02/07/2006 @ 8:26pm
The paint wasn't for the fly over. It was for the photo op after the fly over.
Posted by Will C. at 02/07/2006 @ 8:49pm
OK, I'll admit I've ignored NACL since way back. And really, the rest of the posters I read; but I'm not sure to whom and to what the last couple of posts are replying. So, I'm going to take a short break. Be back soon! No, really, gimme about 20 minutes.
What fun! I love talking to you guys. It's only gotten better since I've figured out that, by ignoring one or two crazies, the thread suddenly becomes sensible!
Posted by LisaJo at 02/07/2006 @ 8:56pm
cpt, i see what you're saying about the paint on the jets. it makes sense to me.
Posted by LOVELOKI 02/07/2006 @ 8:26pm
Actually, makes perfect sense (That's twice now! WooHoo)
But what makes you think bush didn't suggest it anyway? You may support him, but surely, you realize, he's not very bright. It is the men behind the curtain, who run things.
Of course, I don't know the truth of the matter.(And, I'm not attempting to assert that I do.) And your point is well taken. But, that doesn't make it any less plausible, that bush might have suggested it.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/07/2006 @ 9:12pm
eric, you wouldn't be suggesting that our president is not a genius, would you?
Posted by loveloki at 02/07/2006 @ 9:19pm
Me?!?!?
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/07/2006 @ 9:36pm
OK, I'm back, but what happened in my absence makes very little sense. Not because no one replied to me (much), but because, honestly, it seems like my original posts stumbled into a conversation that was already closed.
OK. See you guys on some other thread!
Posted by LisaJo at 02/07/2006 @ 9:59pm
Oddly I see things in NaCl's post I agree with. Is the weather report from hell in...Is it snowing there?
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/07/2006 @ 10:10pm
"OK, I'm back, but what happened in my absence makes very little sense. Not because no one replied to me (much)"
Opps!
Me?!?!?
Eric
Oh, hi, Lisajo.
Posted by MALCONTENT3 02/07/2006 @ 9:36pm
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/07/2006 @ 10:18pm
NaCl
I did answer you claimte item...in that area as is off-topic here.
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/07/2006 @ 10:28pm
WILL C
"The U-2 wasn't designed to leak fuel from it's body while on the ground."
"This might explain why CPT can't elaborate on the considerable mechinical problems that flying low would for prolonged periods of time would create"
When its on the ground, its not flying, hence no fuel is going thru the fuel lines.
Because at high altitude and high speed, which is what the U2 varient is designed for, The body of the plane expands , ever so slightly that it does not leak. At lower altitude this doesnt happen.
The curator of the Air Force mueseum at the Air Force base nearby, explained it to me, in more techinical terms, but that is the meat of it, where by the way an older U2 is on display.
Posted by CPT at 02/07/2006 @ 10:30pm
The curator of the Air Force mueseum at the Air Force base nearby, explained it to me, in more techinical terms, but that is the meat of it, where by the way an older U2 is on display.
Posted by CPT 02/07/2006 @ 10:30pm
The curator is mistaken. The U-2 was not designed to loose fuel, other than thru its engines, during any part of it's flight profile. It is a sub mach glider. Any leaks at at sea level would become catastrophic at extreame altitudes.
Posted by Will C. at 02/07/2006 @ 10:37pm
My appologies
I meant to say: The curator (if he truly exists) is mistaken.
Posted by Will C. at 02/07/2006 @ 11:06pm
Zero asks:
When is bush going to be held accountable for ANYTHING?
And just as important: when is the mass media in the US going to do anything besides serve a stenography service for the bush administration, as it is accused of doing so frequently?
Zero, these are two very important questions. However, I'm afraid they will never be answered. You want to know why? Two words: Corporate media. That's right Zero. I've come to the conclusion that even if 75% percent of America believes that what Bush and his evil cabal are doing is wrong, that this so called "Liberal Media" will continue to spin and deceive in favor of the cabal.
I've been watching this play out, day in, day out for the past couple years, especially CNN & MSNBC. And you can forget about the nightly news broadcasts on ABC and CBS, they're tainted too. The corporate media is in control. It's sort of reminiscent of the words you would hear during the beginning of the show The Twilight Zone: "We will control the horizontal." "We will control the vertical."
The sad part about this, as the seventies band Bachman Turner Overdrive's song goes: "We ain't seen nothing yet"! "It's somthin, you'll never forget"!
Unless the Democrats take over Congress in November, which will be very a difficult task, Bush and Co. will continue on with their mendacity. Unabated! And did I mention Iran? That'll most likely be the next stop on this Bush Axis Tour. Cheney and the PNAC aren't going sit back and allow the Iranian Oil Bourse scheduled for this March. Not on their watch.
Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be quite a bumpy ride.
Ciao
Posted by Munich at 02/07/2006 @ 11:34pm
Peter,
I've said before, I actually like your demeanor and the way you are passionate about your interests. However, as CPT and Rio have suggested, this memo is as phony as they come.
Just a little info on the U-2 and it's advantages and disadvantages
High aspect ratio wings give the U-2 glider-like characteristics and make the aircraft extremely challenging to fly, not only due to its unusual landing characteristics, but also because of the extreme altitudes it can reach. When flying the U-2A and U-2C models (no longer in service) the maximum speed (critical mach) and the minimum speed (stall speed) approach the same number, presenting a narrow window of safe airspeed the plane must maintain. In these models over 90% of a typical mission is flown within five knots of stall speed.
The difficulty experienced by the pilots flying the U-2 led to it being called the "Dragonlady" because the aircraft was extremely unforgiving with respect to pilot ineptness or incompetence.
Because of its high-altitude mission, the pilot must wear the equivalent of a space suit. The suit provides the pilot's oxygen supply and emergency protection in case cabin pressure is lost at altitude (the cabin provides pressure equivalent to approximately 30,000 feet). To prevent decompression sickness, pilots don an S1034 full pressure suit (manufactured by the David Clark Company) and begin breathing 100 percent oxygen one hour prior to launch; while moving from the building to the aircraft they breathe from a portable liquid oxygen supply.
The U-2 is considered one of the most challenging aircraft in the military inventory to fly and requires a high degree of airmanship from its pilots. Its large wingspan and resulting glider-like characteristics make the U-2 highly sensitive to crosswinds. This sensitivity, and the aircraft's tendency to float over the runway, makes the U-2 notoriously difficult to land. Typically, a second U-2 pilot, designated as the mission's backup pilot and referred to as the "mobile," waits in a high-performance chase car at the end of the runway as the aircraft makes it landing approach. As the U-2 passes, the chase car follows it at high speed, with the mobile calling out the aircraft's altitude via radio to the pilot. When the aircraft's main landing gear is within approximately two feet of the runway surface the pilot deploys spoilers located on the top of the wings to reduce lift (spoiling the lift and increasing the stall speed by 2 knots). Retractable stall strips on the wings' leading edges that are deployed prior to entering the landing phase help to produce equal stalling effects. This is done to minimize wing drop, assisting in aircraft control particularly during strong cross winds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-2_spy_plane
No pilot is their right mind would fly this plane at low altitude over the Iraqi desert. Plus, it carries no weaponry, and as stated in the material is very difficult to handle.
This is truly a concocted story and no amount of wishing will change that.
Posted by love liberty at 02/08/2006 @ 12:00am
Will
Correct on the U2 is a high altitude reconnaissance glider the entire body is one big ass jet engine. Had the pleasure of seeing a few of the older models take off from Van Nuys airport in the mid 60's at the Lockheed plant.
You gotta love a plane that has little training wheels on the wing tips while they are rolling it out. Takes about 100 -150 yds of runway then stands on its tail and shoots damm near straight up, very impressive.
In regard to the SR-71 this is the plane that set the NY to Paris record 1hr 59 mins back in 80 something?
The it leaks gas on the ground bit is a catch line from Space Cowboys, Tommy Lee Jones is talking to the flight director and tells her that on the ground it wheezes and leaks but at altitude it tightens up don't know for sure but believe this to be an exaggeration. The last few SR-71's are decommissioned but NASA has I believe 3 or 4 and are using them for high altitude experimentation they have a ceiling of 90+ thousand ft as I recall.
Painting a U2 to look like a UN plane and flying low is questionable and definitely not what they are designed for but a few years ago I saw a U2 goofing around at Lake Tahoe, he was under a thousand ft. Saw the same U2 on display at the Reno Air show that year.
This plan to instigate a war sounds like something gw & crew would consider.
LL once again your analysis is correct but your assumptions are not. by the way the "spoilers" are airbrakes.
Posted by dycel8r at 02/08/2006 @ 12:24am
Dycel8r,
Good Stuff. There is a SR-71 that was at Palmdale (not the display one out on Ave P), but I understand it is back at Edwards.
Posted by love liberty at 02/08/2006 @ 12:34am
Interesting that they would bring one back I recall reading in Science that Nasa had acquired a few maybe they were being refitted?
Posted by dycel8r at 02/08/2006 @ 12:43am
No pilot is their right mind would fly this plane at low altitude over the Iraqi desert. Plus, it carries no weaponry, and as stated in the material is very difficult to handle.
This is truly a concocted story and no amount of wishing will change that.
Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 02/08/2006 @ 12:00am
But Liberty, you said yourself on a different thread that soliders can't think for themselves but instead have to follow orders. Otherwise its the end of the world as we know it.
Now your saying that pilots get to decide for themselves if they want to follow orders.
Are you being wishy washy again?
It sounds like you're being wishy washy.
Oh, and here's a question for you (please feel free to quote from the Christian text) When you say low altitutde, exactly what range of altitudes do you think you mean?
Posted by Will C. at 02/08/2006 @ 12:46am
All,
I am a hardcore civilian. Not a military aircraft expert. But, cpt is right. The SR-71 leaks fuel from it's wing tanks until up to speed. ( I was under the impression, it was heat from air friction, that caused the expansion.) But, again, I'm no expert.
But, I have seen video, of the plane pouring jet fuel, down the runway, as the moderator explained why. Discovery channel, or something.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/08/2006 @ 12:46am
On the other hand, that bush would be dumb enough, to suggest it anyway, is not a stretch for me.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/08/2006 @ 12:48am
CPT is talking about the U-2.
But you are correct, the SR-71 leaks fuel until the friction from Mach heats the body of the aircraft until it expands and closes the gaps that were designed into it to account for metal expansion at high Mach.
It is speed however, and not altitude, that is required to generate the heat needed to close the gaps
Posted by Will C. at 02/08/2006 @ 12:51am
I've been watching this play out, day in, day out for the past couple years, especially CNN & MSNBC. And you can forget about the nightly news broadcasts on ABC and CBS, they're tainted too. The corporate media is in control. It's sort of reminiscent of the words you would hear during the beginning of the show The Twilight Zone: "We will control the horizontal." "We will control the vertical." Posted by MUNICH 02/07/2006 @ 11:34pm | ignore this person
Good post, Munich, though I believe the TV show you were referring to was the "Outer Limits" not the Twilight Zone.
Posted by seattlescribe at 02/08/2006 @ 01:35am
All this talk of the U-2's quirks is enlightening, but the fact that the vehicle would not be suitable for the task in question does not exclude the notion that the empty cowboy hat would offer up the scenario.
Posted by drhammer at 02/08/2006 @ 07:41am
The U2 strategery was simply a case of George Bush channeling Curtis Lemay. George "Chester Nimitz" Bush's backup plan was to sail the USS Carl Vinson up the Shatt al Arab past Basrah to the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. When our trusty Bluejackets were attacked by Saddam's aggressive and well-equipped military (in this case, a squadron of Boston Whalers and johnboats armed with .50 cal MGs, a platoon of Republican Guard firing shoulder-launched Stinger missiles from the back of a Dodge Ram 4x4 on the bank, and a "suicide wave" consisting of a company of swimming draftees armed with sticks and pine cones with which to pelt the mighty warship), we would then claim the waterway as International Waters and our Shock & Awe campaign could commence.
I spent considerable time over the course of several years (1999-2003) as a DoD civilian at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, from which Operation Northern Watch was prosecuted. I always found it curious that the US F-15s and British Tornados would take off with full weps racks in the morning and would return by lunchtime sans bombs & missiles. Never saw anything in the news---where'd all that stuff go?
Posted by geoman77 at 02/08/2006 @ 08:29am
The apologist's on this thread have manuevered to discredit the authenticity of this smoking gun memo on the grounds that a U2 would be unsuitable as fodder for a surface to air attack.
We know a memo has just surfaced but we don't know if it is authentic.
Even if you're an apologist isn't it more likely that the Administartion wrote something so badly researched (in haste) than someone who has had months to think about creating a forgery?
Everything CPT and LL have said only add credence to the notion that this document is genuine.
Posted by freedomplease at 02/08/2006 @ 09:24am
Posted by CPT 02/07/2006 @ 4:09pm | ignore this person
heehee
but what about this cartoon furor, cpt? it was the first thing that put me in a wierd mood yesterday. as you may know, i am a slack yet sincere buddhist. islam has not been very friendly to my co-religionists and the reaction of the islamic world set me off. you would think i would have channeled my consternation into some comeraderie with you and rio and maasch and mask et al., but all it managed to result in was an even deeper disgust with the foolishness, deceit, and arrogance of invading iraq, as well as the underlying foolishness of our lack of energy policy for the last 30+ years.
afghanistan - how stupid can one be to oppose our involvement their? no choice. iraq? what have we done?
and before you say anything about how what i say is damaging the morale of our troops, if thats where you are about to goal, bullshit. i have watched some of the grittier documentaries of the situation and although i do not pretend to truly understand, i am not stupid - blessings to you and all serving over there, prayors for your safe return. but this is the biggest foriegn policy debacle our country has ever undertaken. it is worse by far than vietnam. at least vietnam was populated by some fairly rational types who, a few short years after we left, actually like us despite the 600,000 - 1,000,000 of them we killed in an effort to make them good little exotic americanphile consumers. the middle east? well, witness the reaction to that silly little cartoon...
i have til now, with many reservations, agreed that we must stay in iraq a good long while (despite the fact that i have recognized the underlying mendacity of our dog wagging administration) but after this medievalist, rage filled, barbarian reaction to our (our being the democratic "west's") deeply held belief in freedom of speech, i do not think any positive purpose can be served by continueing our presence in their country. it really does serve as a neverending martyr factory and thereby recruiting ground.
and with the nebulous hundreds of buzillions of dollars thrown into the balck hole of baghdad, maybe we could be that much closer to a solar panel or wind turbine on every house and a world in which the petrol dollars that fund many of these fanatics dries up.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/08/2006 @ 09:25am
.
A family does not so much as take a three week vacation without planning for it weeks in advance. Certainly decisions for an invasion involving a more than 260,000 strong Coalition had to have been made months earlier, many months earlier.
Indeed the original Downing Street Memo is all about how the US had decided nine months before the invasion that Iraq was not going to have a new birth without first aborting Saddam. Britain soon also came to that conclusion.
That does not however exclude the fact that hope remained down to the very last days before March 20th, that on seeing the huge steamroller wheeling to wards him, Saddam would pack his bags for the Riviera. Alas, he stayed put. So it remained for Bush/Blair's final decision in March to order their commanders to proceed and give mother Iraq a D&C.
What was hidden or deceptive about that? Nothing. There is no new memo, no new leak, no new scandal. All there is is a new book rutting for sales through old rubbish.
The first smoking gun memo evaporated into steaming piss. It splashed down around an unfortunate Downing Street note-taker whose summary used the expression, "the data was being fixed to the policy." That Brit meant, the intelligence was being marshaled and nailed down. In short, the data was not being fixed, as in an American horse race, but in the way a cobbler fixes a sole to a shoe.
This time the leak is a warm puddle of urine from the outset.
Finally, silliest is the idea of using the U-2 for low altitude spying. The whole point is to fly high to see far. That delicate plane's high altitude ability keeps it, for the most part, out of harms way, but ALSO allows it to look down and photograph vast stretches of terrain. At low altitude such a plane, like any other, can only see what is immediately beneath it, i.e., very little.
But maybe an attempt should have been made to induce some of the other UNSC members to help patrol the no fly zone, which they had mandated, with their observation planes, in UN markings. Had Saddam fired on them he would have been graphically engaging the UN. (OTOH, a precedent giving the UN an observer air force might not have been a good idea.)
.
Posted by nacl at 02/08/2006 @ 10:00am
NACL is the first of the aplogist's to not attempt to discredit the memo in terms of its authenticity.
One would gather that Nacl feels it is authentic.....but he doesn't care.
Obviously, it is silly to attempt to engage in a discussion with Nacl as to why, as an American, he should care, so I for one will not bother.
But I will ask; if you think it's authentic doesn't it mean you think Bush wrote it? Given how utterly STUPID an idea it would be to fly a high altitude plane at a low enough altitude to be hit with surface flak are you not even the slightest bit embarassed that this "pilot" is our leader?
Posted by freedomplease at 02/08/2006 @ 10:23am
NaCl
Trouser Up!
"That Brit meant, the intelligence was being marshaled and nailed down." NACL 02/08/2006 @ 10:00am
So now, on top of all else you are a psychic as well? Or perhaps you are friends with the bloke? More probably you are viewing the info with "right-wing" blinders and making gross and unfounded assumptions. In any case I am suitably unimpressed. Manipulating the premise to war is a disgraceful act, and that you are justifying it points to what a twisted perspective you must possess.
Viewing such tripe here is amusing much as watching a circus geek, or slowing down at the scene of an accident. It satifies a grim curiosity, but you kinda feel dirty afterwards for doing so.
So "Trouser up" NaCl...we don't appreciate showing us what an asshole looks like, funny as it might have been for a brief moment.
Freedomplease
I would posit that the very fact that the U2 idea IS so stupid, guarantees with fair certainty that it is Dubya's idea. I would note that the only reason that GWB knows his ass from his elbow, is that he has probably tried to wipe the latter with the former.
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/08/2006 @ 10:52am
Thank you Seattlescribe. I appreciate that.
Posted by Munich at 02/08/2006 @ 11:14am
Can anyone tell me why the UCMJ does not apply to the Commander in Chief in times of war?
Posted by freedomplease at 02/08/2006 @ 12:11pm
FREEDOMPLEASE,
You have correctly identified the two largest methods for Bush supporters to rationalize their positions: first, deliberately misstate the facts as known, turning, in this case, the existence of a memo detailing the president's pre-war planning and his lack of knowledge of many things including our jets (wasn't he a pilot at some point?), UN resolutions, and the foundation of the "no fly zone", into a discussion of U2 capabalities. Irrelevant. As irrelevant as a discussion of the Iraqi capabalities for shooting down a fake UN aircraft. And second, when the pertinent facts of the issue are observed, they are dismissed, since the ends always justify the means. When the ends are pointed out as pretty bad things in themselves, then they revert to step one (What? Are you supporting Saddam? Do you not expect the President to do everything he can to protect us? etc. ect.)
Meanwhile, those of us on the other side are left with our jaws in full drop position that any adult would attempt such irrational methods of argument in a serious discussion. And for this, we are deemed "extreme", "emotional, or "of no significance".
If this country is to continue to thrive, its only choice will be to return to our position of hope and belief that the American people welcomes honest, straightforward thinking. It is the truly optimistic position that will win the day, even if it does not exist in the current mainstream political climate. The complete lack of trust that exists today is exactly what the Republicans want. Unfortunately, this does no one but the chosen few any good.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/08/2006 @ 12:45pm
FREEDOM/LoC
It is the most ridiclous tripe, to believe this outlandish story but hey, if your side wishes to be taken seriously, this is NOT the way.
The Commander in Chief is not subject to the UCMJ, we went thru this thing before during the Clinton thing.
If the POTUS were subject to it, then Clinton would have surely been in jail, for adultery. Which carries an average of 6-18 months confinement.
Posted by CPT at 02/08/2006 @ 1:29pm
MALCONTENT
Of course, I don't know the truth of the matter.(And, I'm not attempting to assert that I do.) And your point is well taken. But, that doesn't make it any less plausible, that bush might have suggested it.
Eric
Posted by MALCONTENT3 02/07/2006 @ 9:12pm | ignore this person
Seeing how Bush was a pilot, and flew a fairly sophisticated aircraft, makes it even less likely that he would suggests this.
Posted by CPT at 02/08/2006 @ 1:37pm
CPT,
I know the President is not subject to the UCMJ. I am wondering from a philosophical point, however, whether it would be appropriate during the period in which Congress has authorized war. In other words, the President's actions have clearly displayed that a "war time" president is not constitutionally constained (he has declared himself above the branch that enacted FISA and above the Judicairy in terms of breaking the law). Perhaps, rightly so. But perhaps also, since he has taken this power as a result of military necessity perhaps he should be subject to the conduct of the military.
I'm not asking specifically in terms of GWB, I'm asking in a more broad philosophical manner.
Posted by freedomplease at 02/08/2006 @ 2:41pm
How much more historical information (i.e. Gulf of Tonkin, JFK, Pearl Harbor, Reichstag) has to come out before ignorant humans take their heads out of the sand and pay attention...it's okay to read and find out about events which our gov't, in search of more ways to spread their corporations and greed, have lied and falsified iformation to further their "agenda"...it's basic human motivation for those who believe in privatizing everything...it's just conflicting viewpoints...why is there such a "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" approach to this, whether it's Republican or Democrat...the problem is the "free market" and these corporations who stand to benefit from constant warfare...like anything else, there is a motive...who stands to gain and who stands to lose? Seems pretty obvious to me and anyone w/ open eyes.
Posted by gordy3311 at 02/08/2006 @ 3:14pm
.
You are damn right it's silly. I wrote:
But I must say, I like your handle. It's comforting to know that you're locked up.
.
Posted by nacl at 02/08/2006 @ 4:10pm
CPT,
You beat me to the punch about the President's experience as a pilot. But these posts from the left are an excellent example of how desparation and hate cause otherwise intelligent people to think and act foolishly.
This memo seems an obvious sham and that is also why neither the author nor anyone else posts an actual copy of this nonexistent memo.
Because the left is unable to develop a serious alternative to the successful Bush policies on the War on Terrorism, they are left with these fantasyland approaches.
No matter how many times we try and tell them that these kinds of actions only show how marginalized they are, they keep banging their heads against the wall.
Posted by love liberty at 02/08/2006 @ 6:43pm
CPT
re: "BJ's etc."
I guess if Bill was reading a Defense briefing while Monica was under the desk you might have a point. Of course this is still a far cry from fixing data around policy to start a war....
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/08/2006 @ 7:15pm
"successful Bush policies on the War on Terrorism"
Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 02/08/2006 @ 6:43pm
Name one.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/08/2006 @ 7:26pm
Liberty writes, "Because the left is unable to develop a serious alternative to the successful Bush policies on the War on Terrorism, they are left with these fantasyland approaches."
An attempt at civil discourse with you follows, Liberty. Just answer the questions and don't bring up religion, for the sanity of you, me, and everyone else on the board.
Please point out where the following thoughts I postulated the other day are "fantasyland". I know you were referring to the article on fake painted planes, but please just read and respond:
_____
We cannot win over extremists by appeasement, pacifism, or negotiating, but we must take care not to resort to their methods or descend to their level. Precision-guided munitions, artillery shells, and actions like those in Fallujah will never win enough "hearts and minds" to stem or even slow extremist recruitment.
We cannot expect to eradicate every extremist in any foreign country, but we can be logical and realize the inherent effectiveness of creating and maintaining alliances with other countries and factions with whom we share the mutual interest of preventing future attacks like the ones on 9/11, as well as those in Madrid and London. In this unprecedented age of nearly instantaneous electronic communication, we must work globally to identify, track, and apprehend those who commit extremist acts as quickly as possible, and to investigate, charge, try, and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law, international or otherwise.
Further, cries of isolationism be damned, the United States must pull back and begin working to further secure our country from within before another dime is spent abroad. This means abandoning (or limiting to hardened bases and occasional targeted eliminations of known terrorists) the continuing financial folly of the war in Iraq as quickly as possible and spending those dollars domestically on continuing transportation security, especially airline tranportation, border security, port security, nuclear and chemical and water plant security. We must deeply scrutinize and clean house by getting immigration in order, tracking down and expelling illegals once and for all, as well as implementing whatever methods are necessary to know in the future that those who enter our country are here for legitimate purposes and that they are not allowed to stay here on expired visas. We can return to asking for the world's huddled masses after we are secure.
It is ridiculous to suggest that we are fighting the terrorists abroad instead of having to fight them here when any extremist can walk across the border into our country from Mexico or Canada.
Liberty, your rational, reasoned response, please?
Posted by New Dawn at 02/08/2006 @ 9:07pm
Love Liberty writes, "This memo seems an obvious sham."
TJ writes in stunned response, "How can something 'seem' to be an 'obvious' anything?"
Further he writes, "It seems obvious that Love Liberty has, again, no defense for that whom he worships, and, therefore, he tut-tuts it into the very full wastebasket of his mind. Yes. He does not like something. Therefore that something is simply not something."
And TJ concludes, "Love Liberty is not just on a political fringe at this point. It 'seems' 'obvious' that Love Liberty is on the fringe of becoming a non-conscious being."
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/08/2006 @ 11:30pm
Seeing how Bush was a pilot, and flew a fairly sophisticated aircraft, makes it even less likely that he would suggests this.
Posted by CPT 02/08/2006 @ 1:37pm
And you're in the military. And don't know the difference between a U2 and a sr71. I even conviently over looked the fact you had the two aircraft confused, when I posted about the sr71s leaking fuel.
I am one of those, long hair, wouldn't join the military types, that you probably scorn. (Probably why I bothered to post in your defense. I only enjoy the victory, when fairly achieved, and I felt you knew you were right...and you almost were.) Most of my friends & family, that were in the military, seem way more knowledgable about these things than you do. And you're their salesman.
Add to the fact, that apparently, you and bush think alike. And, well....there you go.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/09/2006 @ 12:19am
New Dawn,
Thank you for a well thought out proposal. Let me state first what I thought was obvious (but then again, ones thoughts always seem proper until receiving 2nd or 3rd party review).
My comment on the left not contributing a serious alternative was a generalization. I didn't spend more time noting that, but that was the intent. But now on to my comments on your proposals.
We cannot win over extremists by appeasement, pacifism, or negotiating, but we must take care not to resort to their methods or descend to their level. Precision-guided munitions, artillery shells, and actions like those in Fallujah will never win enough "hearts and minds" to stem or even slow extremist recruitment.
We cannot expect to eradicate every extremist in any foreign country, but we can be logical and realize the inherent effectiveness of creating and maintaining alliances with other countries and factions with whom we share the mutual interest of preventing future attacks like the ones on 9/11, as well as those in Madrid and London. In this unprecedented age of nearly instantaneous electronic communication, we must work globally to identify, track, and apprehend those who commit extremist acts as quickly as possible, and to investigate, charge, try, and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law, international or otherwise.
My Response: Your analysis and proposed method of more concentrated police actions appears on the surface to be a logical and civil approach, one that I'm sure many would be in agreement with. However, given the historically poor record of other nations to either ensure life sentences or better yet to execute these terrorists, I have little confidence in this approach. Just look at the recent events in Yemen, the Cole terrorists escaped from the prison there and are back out, free to terrorize again. Or how the guy who shot the Pope was released by Italy even though he is a career criminal with multiple murders in his record. Fortunately Turkey just re-arrested him.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/060120190956.ckxrt3ox.html
CNN) -- Interpol has issued "an urgent global security alert" after 23 "dangerous individuals" -- including a man identified as the mastermind of the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 -- escaped from a Yemeni prison.
The international crime-fighting organization said Sunday at least 13 of the 23 who escaped Friday were "convicted al Qaeda terrorists, some of whom were involved in attacks on U.S. and French ships in 2000 and 2002."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/05/cole.escape/
I agree with you that military strength alone will not win this war against the terrorists. I also agree that there is a place for police action. It is just that I have little confidence as I mentioned in the resolve of foreign governments to equal that of the US.
Response on Domestic Security: As to your second point about border control, you will find no argument with me as well as most conservatives. Conservatives like myself would agree with virtually everything you have stated in not all. You can look back at previous posting where I have noted my displeasure with Bush in this regard (usually when asked if I disagree at all) . I believe that he and both sides of Congress have shown no political courage to tackle this huge gap in our security.
Where we would differ is in the budgeting for this. Obviously I still feel that Iraq is a part of the war on terror and would look to discretionary spending combined with shifting of other Defense Spending (like closing military bases in Europe, obsolete or redundant weapons programs, and finally modernizing the defense procurement system which I and many others worked for years to correct. I would love to see the major newspapers and media outlets publish each week (or month as appropriate) the list of pork barrel spending bills approved by Congress and the list of Congressmen that approved that spending, plus the author of the bill.
Now, let the bells chime, for you and I have engaged in civil and serious dialogue;
Posted by love liberty at 02/09/2006 @ 01:36am
Let the bells toll on...
You write, "My Response: Your analysis and proposed method of more concentrated police actions appears on the surface to be a logical and civil approach... However, given the historically poor record of other nations to either ensure life sentences or better yet to execute these terrorists, I have little confidence in this approach..."
We might also agree that this is all the more reason to ensure that we maintain a global presence through diplomacy (wherever remotely possible) with nations that will, at the very least, help us find and track such folks, if not directly apprehend them. Better this than the plethora of Middle Eastern countries who would rather help, say Bin Laden, hide in country, a situation we could also agree that our war in Iraq is helping to exacerbate.
You wrote, "It is just that I have little confidence as I mentioned in the resolve of foreign governments to equal that of the US."
To equal us? Nor do I, but I'd like us to return to our position as a shining example to the rest of the world, anyway, so that's okay. I think we'd agree on this, too.
And you wrote, "Obviously I still feel that Iraq is a part of the war on terror and would look to discretionary spending combined with shifting of other Defense Spending (like closing military bases in Europe, obsolete or redundant weapons programs, and finally modernizing the defense procurement system which I and many others worked for years to correct."
I would debate this point by asking if the combined total amount of funding to be reclaimed by "closing military bases in Europe, obsolete or redundant weapons programs, and finally modernizing the defense procurement system" would be an equal amount to the almost $239 billion dollars (and counting) cost of the Iraq war, which, according to some estimates, could cost as much as two to three times as much by the time it is all over.
With these funds alone, we could have:
added two new divisions to the Army
put 100,000 new police officers on the nation's streets
doubled America's Special Operations forces
undertaked significant improvements to safeguard ports
funded important initiatives to safeguard loose nuclear weapons
hired 4,152,268 additional public school teachers for one year
insured 143,472,119 children for one year
provided 11,615,207 students four-year scholarships at public universities
Posted by New Dawn at 02/09/2006 @ 02:52am
Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat, is one of the "gang of eight" members of Congress briefed on the surveillance program.
Sadly, she has her head all the way up her ass. On the one hand she states that she is in full support of the program (how many ways are there to interpret that?).
Having provided complete endorsement for the program, she goes on to state the following:
"I still believe that under the National Security Act of 1947 the committees have to be fully and completely briefed. And the Senate committee has not yet been briefed.
I also agree with my friend, Lindsey Graham, who did a heroic job on Monday, that the administration's legal case supporting this program is weak and that there's a better way to go there. But I do support the program, and I have said that over the years that I've been briefed on it.
Well, I said then and I say now that I support the program.
But let me describe in general terms these gang of eight briefings. They are in the White House. I won't list who attends but the eight of us, if we're all there, are the leaders of Congress and the chair and ranking members of the Intelligence Committees. We come in there with no aides, no ability to take notes, no ability to consult anyone. And we can talk to each other but not to FISA experts or anyone else once we leave the room.
The briefings were on the operational details of the program, not on the legal underpinnings, and perhaps in hindsight I should have asked for a briefing on that but again I couldn't have consulted anyone. I couldn't go out of the room and call up a general or former general counsel of the CIA, Jeff Smith, whom I did call after the president disclosed the existence of the program and ask him, "Do you think there is enough legal authority for this program?" and have him walk me through all the Supreme Court cases and the history of FISA.
Well, I think the leaks have done a lot of damage, and I deplore the leaks of this critical program.
But I think the fact that the administration has until really today refused to deal fairly with Congress and refused to say to Congress that we will disclose more about this program and if there are some issues with FISA we will talk to Congress about FISA has caused a kind of public uproar and distrust that was unfortunate.
Let me just say one more thing about oversight. The administration says it adequately oversees this program. I think there are in place some very effective mechanisms in the executive branch to oversee the program. But it's overseeing itself."
So WTF?
This woman supports a program despite the fact that she had no clue it was illegal, and didn't bother to ask if it was legal?
Is there ANY reason whatsoever to continue to trust her judgement?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/jan-june06/nsa_02-08.html
Posted by plunger at 02/09/2006 @ 06:27am
Rese,
I asked you a question on another thread when you were posting this nonsense about the 2.6 trillion supposed used by Zakheim. You never answered and continue to spout this drivel.
How could he have stolen more than 2 1/2 times the actual Defense Budget during the period in question?
How if he did this as you charge, did the military and civilian personnel get paid? Defense expenditures for base maintenance, procurement, and on and on?
The 2.6 is a figure of accounting problems for nearly 2 decades. It is not about the money being stolen. Having spent more than 20 years as a middle manager and then executive in Aerospace/Defense companies, I can well attest to the inadequacies (especially at the civilian bureaucratic level) of our Defense Procurement System.
I highlight this particular issue because it goes to the centrality of your flood of conspiracy hijinks. Your anti-semitism knows no limits; you are willing to smear anyone who is either Jewish or who supports the efforts of Israel to maintain it's existence in a sphere of hatred and consuming desire to extinguish the Jewish people.
Posted by love liberty at 02/09/2006 @ 10:23am
NaCl
You old fraud. I just poked a big old hole in your Caliss argument. The paper boat is sinking as you read.... (back on the "warming" thread)
ALL
Sorry about the off-topic ref
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/09/2006 @ 11:22am
MALCONTENT
And you're in the military. And don't know the difference between a U2 and a sr71. I even conviently over looked the fact you had the two aircraft confused, when I posted about the sr71s leaking fuel.
I am one of those, long hair, wouldn't join the military types, that you probably scorn. (Probably why I bothered to post in your defense. I only enjoy the victory, when fairly achieved, and I felt you knew you were right...and you almost were.) Most of my friends & family, that were in the military, seem way more knowledgable about these things than you do. And you're their salesman.
Add to the fact, that apparently, you and bush think alike. And, well....there you go.
Eric
Posted by MALCONTENT3 02/09/2006 @ 12:19am | ignore this person
What I posted was true to what i was told be a fairly knowledgable person, did not get the U2 and SR-71 confused, since I live close to an air force base and as most bases have a small mueseum and the curator is more than likely retired military officer, there happened to be an older model of the U2 on display, he told me about the plane at its capabilites, now he did not fly U2s, he flew B52s, but he seems a greater authority on the subject than anyone here.
If his facts are in error, oh well, but since your credibility is suspect by your own admission, i would error on my side.
By the way, i am in the Army, not the Air Force, so you can inform your family, who were all in the military, nice broad term, that there is a difference, but then again, they SHOULD know that, right?
I suspect you will never realize how foolish you just sounded, accussing an Army soldier of not being fully aware of the capabilites of an Air Force strategic recon plane.
Posted by CPT at 02/09/2006 @ 11:29am
CPT,
I don't think it is that Will EXPECTS an Army recruiter to know the ins and outs of Airforce equipment, it's just that you present yourself as an expert on this topic and a number of other topics.
Nobody likes a blowhard.
Posted by freedomplease at 02/09/2006 @ 11:48am
FREEDOM
In that case, everyone here is a blowhard.
I only present myself as an expert in certain things, everything else is opinion
Posted by CPT at 02/09/2006 @ 12:19pm
New Dawn,
I do believe the funds would be sufficient since I do not agree that your added data about hiring school teachers or other education funding is relevant to the discussion of strengthening our Domestic Security (I understand why you inserted it, but it is still not relevant).
Here are some sites which provide detail about Homeland Security proposals and funding that has been approved for various security issues like the Port Issues.
http://www.counterterrorismtraining.gov/pubs/port.html [url]
Spending Releases for Port Security Summary:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/200402 05 -5.html
Senator Byrd (D-WVA) in 2003 offered a Homeland Security Funding Amendment to beef up these same concerns. His Amendment totaled 1.75 Billion
The amendment I offer today is intended to fulfill the promises made for securing our homeland. It would add a total of $1.75 billion for critical homeland security programs. The amendment adds:
• $602 million for Maritime and Land Security, including port security and transit security;
• $729.5 million for first Responder funding for our police, fire and emergency medical personnel, including funding for high threat urban areas;
• $238.5 million for security improvements at U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico;
• $100 million for air cargo security; and
• $80 million for protections at chemical facilities.
http://byrd.senate.gov/speeches/byrd_speeches_2003july/byrd_speeches_200 3july_list/byrd_speeches_2003july_list_3.html
Byrd's proposal seems to fall well short of other estimates (approx 15 billion over 10 years), but is inline if a one year funding.
Other analysts with far more expertise than I have, make similar recommendations on shifting Defense spending to cover these costs.
"We found that there are quite a few programs on the military side of the budget that could be scaled back in order to provide funds for the higher priority, nonmilitary programs," says Marcus Corbin, senior analyst at the Center for Defense Information. Corbin recommends decreasing funding for Cold War-era weapons and instead funneling that money into additional homeland security measures.
BETHANN ROONEY, MANAGER, PORT SECURITY,THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY provided some excellent testimony before the House of Rep in 2002 on the needs and costs for the major US ports.
http://www.house.gov/transportation/cgmt/06-03-03/rooney.html
This was the White House Budget proposal for increased Homeland Security spending (a 7% increase over FY2005). I realize that many here will disregard because it comes from the White House, but it is relevant to see what they are proposing.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/dhs.html [url]
As noted in a CBO analysis, just removing Army Forces (does not include other military branches) from Germany and South Korea would save 1.2 Billion per year
Eliminate Virtually All Army Presence Overseas This approach--the most significant change of all of the options--would remove Army forces from Germany and South Korea and rebase them in CONUS for use in future conflicts. Small reception forces would be stationed in Germany (2,000 personnel), Eastern Europe (1,000), and South Korea (1,000) to maintain prepositioned equipment and provide support for periodic exercises. For that reason, and because one set of equipment for a heavy brigade would be prepositioned in Romania or Bulgaria, the United States would be able to deploy a brigade combat team to conflicts in the Caspian region just as quickly as from current bases.(6) With unaccompanied tours all but eliminated, family separation would decline by 22 percent from the current level, and annual turnover in CONUS units would fall by 24 percent. Without brigades tied to the defense of South Korea, 4,000 to 10,000 more troops could be available for sustained overseas operations than would be available today. Finally, this option would save $1.2 billion annually--more than any other alternative that CBO examined (see Summary Table 2).
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5415&sequence=1
I believe it's time to bring home the 3000 US troops we have in the Balkans or relocate them to Iraq or Afghanistan and rotate home some National Guard Units.. While this is not a major cost, it is still significant and 3000 troops is not a small number.
Other Savings:
I would exercise a further reduction in the long term production of the F22, the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is a better option and priority= my cuts would save an additional $500-600 million per year over the next 5 years.
I would cancel the V22 Osprey. This has been a controversial program and I don't see it as a critical need. Current budgeting is 2.3 billion for FY2007. Given the costs of exercising a cancellation, costs would be approx 750 million for the next 5 years. That would save about 7 billion dollars.
There are more, but I believe this gives a sense of where I am coming from and the resultant savings that could be re-designated for Domestic Security
Posted by love liberty at 02/09/2006 @ 12:32pm
Liberty -
You write, "I do believe the funds would be sufficient since I do not agree that your added data about hiring school teachers or other education funding is relevant to the discussion of strengthening our Domestic Security (I understand why you inserted it, but it is still not relevant)."
Mentioning school teachers and education funding was indeed irrelevant to the exact question of comparing the funding cuts you mentioned versus using said funds for increased domestic security. I only included these to point out other things that the Iraq spending could be used for, and this in no way invalidates the other five items I mentioned, which are unquestionably relevant to the discussion at hand. Thanks for reasoning and acknowledging my intent in including them.
In continuing to respectfully disagree and civilly debate, your contention that "I do believe the funds would be sufficient..." still doesn't add up to the continuing and projected cost of the Iraq war.
I did the math and added all of the examples you cited:
-----Senator Byrd (D-WVA) in 2003 offered a Homeland Security Funding Amendment to beef up these same concerns. His Amendment totaled 1.75 Billion
-----Byrd's proposal seems to fall well short of other estimates (approx 15 billion over 10 years), but is inline if a one year funding.
-----As noted in a CBO analysis, just removing Army Forces (does not include other military branches) from Germany and South Korea would save 1.2 Billion per year
----I would exercise a further reduction in the long term production of the F22, the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is a better option and priority= my cuts would save an additional $500-600 million per year over the next 5 years.
-----I would cancel the V22 Osprey. This has been a controversial program and I don't see it as a critical need. Current budgeting is 2.3 billion for FY2007. Given the costs of exercising a cancellation, costs would be approx 750 million for the next 5 years. That would save about 7 billion dollars.
Therefore, while I agree with much in these proposed cuts, they still do not invalidate my original concern. Even a very generous total of thse programs' total savings over ten years is only 250 billion. And again, the cost of the Iraq war has already been higher than that in the course of only four years, and is expected to double or possibly even triple by the time it is finished. And rest assured that if we remain in Iraq as we are now, the total cost will most assuredly eclipse $250 billion by a vast margin.
You wrote, "There are more, but I believe this gives a sense of where I am coming from and the resultant savings that could be re-designated for Domestic Security"
I did indeed realize where you were coming from, but still respectfully disagree. The math still does not add up.
Posted by New Dawn at 02/09/2006 @ 1:56pm
New Dawn,
This is a healthy debate. I do feel though in the context that we both agreed, that building up our Domestic Security in terms of the borders, ports, transportation systems, water facilities, and nuclear energy plants do not rise to the 250 billion figure.
Liberals and conservatives have to reach agreement one baby step at a time if we are to make progress. Just like the old adage, "how do you eat an elephant? One bite at at time".
Posted by love liberty at 02/09/2006 @ 2:30pm
Liberty -
I have never agreed with you more than on that last bit... And on all issues, not just the one we were discussing.
"Liberals and conservatives have to reach agreement one baby step at a time if we are to make progress. Just like the old adage, "How do you eat an elephant? One bite at at time".
Posted by New Dawn at 02/09/2006 @ 2:53pm
Liberty -
I'm not clear on what you're saying... Could you rephrase this part for me, "...building up our Domestic Security in terms of the borders, ports, transportation systems, water facilities, and nuclear energy plants do not rise to the 250 billion figure."
The cost of doing these things would be more, less...?
Posted by New Dawn at 02/09/2006 @ 2:55pm
New Dawn,
Definitely less
Posted by love liberty at 02/09/2006 @ 3:35pm
what about that war? how about some "metrics"? elections? three. a working government? none. electricity and oil production? worse than before the invasion. security? twice as many attacks.Iraq army? two sets of militia, bent on revenge for 50 years of abuse.
help me out here, folks
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/09/2006 @ 5:31pm
Liberty -
Got it, and as I say, I agree with much of the cutting you mentioned, but personally still do not see why this means the out-of-control spending in Iraq (on war) isn't misguided.
We may have broken it, and may even now have to "stay the course" long enough to fix (or pay for) what we've broken, but the justification that makes me the most upset is that "this war prevents us from having to fight terrorists at home instead of abroad..."
Again (and on this I don't think we even had a real disagreement),
It is ridiculous to suggest that we are fighting the terrorists abroad instead of having to fight them here when any extremist can walk across the border into our country from Mexico or Canada.
No country on the planet can mount a realistic invasion of the United States of America, and no military would stand a chance even if we didn't see them coming across the water or though the air weeks before they got here.
Short of a nuclear exchange, no country in the world can mount a realistic offensive against us except through terrorism.
We need do less worrying about a war in America (but not America in wars), and more about what we can do to combat as little as nineteen extremists with boxcutters who entered this country legally to commit their extremist atrocities.
Posted by New Dawn at 02/09/2006 @ 5:59pm
Liberty -
Just think if we made your mentioned cuts, and mine.
Possibly as much as a trillion dollars to spend on other things than the Iraq war...
One can dream.
Posted by New Dawn at 02/09/2006 @ 6:00pm
New Dawn,
We must be very careful. People are going to scratch their heads over the detente we have accomplished! One can hope this kind of thing spreads.
Posted by love liberty at 02/09/2006 @ 6:44pm
LEAKED? - Obviously an anti-American liberal polititian you're talking about then!
http://wheresyourbrain.blogspot.com/
Posted by JustaDog at 02/09/2006 @ 6:54pm
"We may have broken it, and may even now have to "stay the course" long enough to fix (or pay for) what we've broken,"
this will never happen. america is walking away from rebuilding the country we destroyed, the mis-administration has admitted as much.
and that's just talking about infrastructure. the civil war we have unleashed will stay with the iraqis long after the US troops are gone.
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/09/2006 @ 6:55pm
just a dog, with btains to match, that site is obviously where many Tories get their marching orders, whatta crock
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/09/2006 @ 7:01pm
Sorry - I don't speak pro-terrorists so I can't understand you.
http://wheresyourbrain.blogspot.com/
Posted by JustaDog at 02/09/2006 @ 7:09pm
Johanne -
I wrote, "We may have broken it, and may even now have to "stay the course" long enough to fix (or pay for) what we've broken,"
this will never happen. america is walking away from rebuilding the country we destroyed, the mis-administration has admitted as much.
and that's just talking about infrastructure. the civil war we have unleashed will stay with the iraqis long after the US troops are gone.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/09/2006 @ 6:55pm | ignore this person
I am aware of all that. I was attempting to be conciliatory and fair in evaluating someone else's positions.
Posted by New Dawn at 02/09/2006 @ 7:10pm
Justadog -
More like just a dumbass. ave you met Libz and Bushman?
Any site that starts with "It's obvious our country is divided - liberals vs. conservatives. I propose we simple divide the nation into 25 liberal states (LaLaLand) and 25 conservative states (HonorLand)." deserves zero attention at all.
Come back when you can have a civilized, reasoned discussion.
Posted by New Dawn at 02/09/2006 @ 7:12pm
New YAWN: Please read the paragraph just above the comment box: Please refrain from straying off-topic and making personal attacks.
I know it's hard for a terrorist supporting liberal to obey the rules, but I try - shouldn't you?
Posted by JustaDog at 02/09/2006 @ 7:15pm
Dawn:"I am aware of all that. I was attempting to be conciliatory and fair in evaluating someone else's positions.
what, by denying what you know to be true? that is not doing your discussion partner any favors.
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/09/2006 @ 8:18pm
Johanne -
Mind if I ask why you feel obligated to take after me of late?
Posted by New Dawn at 02/09/2006 @ 8:35pm
Justadog -
I'm not sure you've actually read the site you insist on acting as a shill for and repeatedly posting...
Talk about attacks...
And you have the gall to write, "New YAWN: Please read the paragraph just above the comment box: Please refrain from straying off-topic and making personal attacks.
I know it's hard for a terrorist supporting liberal to obey the rules, but I try - shouldn't you?"
Terrorist-supporting liberal?
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Figure it out.
Posted by New Dawn at 02/09/2006 @ 8:38pm
Oh, and Dog -
You've obviously never read any of my posts if think I support terrorism, but unfounded attacks seem to be the style of posters like you, Rio, Bush Man, and Libz.
Why are you guys here, again?
Posted by New Dawn at 02/09/2006 @ 8:40pm
And Johanne -
What did I deny to be true? Really...
Posted by New Dawn at 02/09/2006 @ 8:57pm
http://wheresyourbrain.blogspot.com/
21,943 visitors since November 15, 2004
------------
The Nation Magazine
The Nation will not be the organ of any party, sect, or body. It will, on the contrary, make an earnest effort to bring to the discussion of political and social questions a really critical spirit, and to wage war upon the vices of violence, exaggeration, and misrepresentation by which so much of the political writing of the day is marred. -- from The Nation's founding prospectus, 1865
Posted by New Dawn at 02/09/2006 @ 9:01pm
http://wheresyourbrain.blogspot.com/
21,943 visitors since November 15, 2004
21,928 of which were only justadog, humping his mouse.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/09/2006 @ 9:07pm
Justadog -
The Nation was founded on July 6, 1865, and is the oldest weekly in the United States.
Circulation 184,296 as of 2004. Weekly.
The Nation should be shaking in its boots at Justadog and his pet project. Thank God for free speech, as clearly any idiot is free to start a weblog... For anyone who didn't know, that's Justadog's personal site.
Notable mentions:
"In LaLaLand marriage is a pretense that figuratively unites anyone with anyone or anything."
Right, because gays are only one step above animals and objects to Justadog and those who think like him.
"HonorLand (populated only by Republicans) can not raise taxes, they can only lower taxes"
I propose an American government actually tries this and let's see what happens.
"Conservatives sometimes get hung up on this (arguing abortion) and let liberal agendas slide pass - which actually promote sexual promiscuity."
Is there a liberal agenda promoting sexual promiscuity? I must have missed the liberal memo on this one.
"My Governor should return prisons to an institution to be avoided instead of the "not such a bad place to be" facility."
Have you ever been in a prison, any prison, anywhere? Who do you know who thinks prison is "not such a bad place to be"? Except, of course, for one of the country-club federal penitentiaries that Abramoff will likely end up in?
And Guantanamo is probably a picnic, right? Isn't it the right that keep talking about how the prisoners there (not inmates, as inmates have been convicted of crimes) are getting great food, great treatment...?
You are ridiculous.
Posted by New Dawn at 02/09/2006 @ 9:17pm
Throw him some raw meat or something.
Posted by Legba at 02/09/2006 @ 9:17pm
Dawn, relax, I'm not after you at all, I look at a post, yours sometimes, and I take a position, maybe right, maybe wrong.what would you have me do? have I been in any way unfair? if I have, show me, and I will be the first to beg your pardon. I enjoy your posts, and have found you to be fairminded. if I have been anything less than that, I rely on you or anyone else for that matter, to let me know
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/09/2006 @ 10:03pm
Dawn, I responded to this statement:""We may have broken it, and may even now have to "stay the course" long enough to fix (or pay for) what we've broken,"
you say we may have to... I say, Bush has no intention to do so, as he has acknowledged
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/09/2006 @ 10:05pm
I don't know Bush's intentions, either, as they seem to keep changing... No, wait, that was the rationales for war...
And I just figured you were beefed because Liberty and I had more than two posts where we didn't call each other anything...
;)
Posted by New Dawn at 02/09/2006 @ 10:07pm
the mis-administration has stated that they will not rebuild Iraq, did you not see that?
US Has End in Sight on Iraq Rebuilding BAGHDAD -- The Bush administration does not intend to seek any new funds for Iraq ... "The US never intended to completely rebuild Iraq," Brig. Gen. ... www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ content/article/2006/01/02/AR2006010200370.html - Similar pages
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/09/2006 @ 10:11pm
please don't accuse me of being petty. Liberty is not even on my radar screen.
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/09/2006 @ 10:13pm
Why are we not surprised, Johannesrolf?
Posted by Legba at 02/09/2006 @ 10:13pm
Teasing, Johanne!
Lighten up!!!!
And yes, heard that on KGO, which I have on in my office all day.
Posted by New Dawn at 02/09/2006 @ 10:16pm
Legba, I went to the dance with liberty at one time but found out that he was not interested in dialogue, but rather was and is a doctrinaire lackey, so I tune them out, I can't have the same discussion over and over again.
as I stated above, I welcome corrections in both fact and tone
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/09/2006 @ 10:20pm
aside from miscommunicating, or perhaps speaking past each other, that they won't rebuild what they have destroyed is a calamity, and proves all the other lies about bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq and the middle east. come to think of it, one hears very little about that democracy bit any longer.
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/09/2006 @ 10:26pm
Johanne -
At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I never once fell for the line(s)(lies) we were fed on March 19, 2002. It was my lady's birthday, and we watched the entire going to war speech while sadly shaking our heads.
Posted by New Dawn at 02/09/2006 @ 10:29pm
2003 - idiot thing to post, sorry
Posted by New Dawn at 02/09/2006 @ 10:30pm
Dawn, you and the rest of the civilized world. it is important to know that the populations of most of the "coalition" opposed and oppose this war, especially the people of Britain. overseas anti war demonstrations were far bigger than those in this country, excepting the last march on washington.
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/09/2006 @ 10:36pm
Johannesrolf, I quite agree with your assessment of Love Liberty and the other clowns that pop up here, but I also enjoy sharpening my claws once in awhile. Most of the time I'm content to ignore them too, but every once in awhile, like, you know, I just wanna fuck with them. Given that there's so very little satisfaction or room to discuss these things in real life forums anymore- always constraints on the topic matter, always reductionist assessments of the Middle East picture- I think you know what I'm talking about. In every day life, I'm a pretty civil guy, and actually have a reputation for being an effective high school teacher in some pretty tough environments. But I'm tired of watching societal shit get dumped on young people, and seing them get used as "button men" for our late capitalist caporegimes. It makes me ill. So I use this forum as a catharsis. It ain't always pretty, or gracious, or within the "rules"- but it works.
Posted by Sweetdaddy at 02/10/2006 @ 12:51pm
I scanned through as many of the posts as I could but did anyone mention that there's a preference between downing a fake UN plane that is recognizable versus one that becomes almost unrecognizable? If the point is to pick a plane that will blow up and burn for sure... Perhaps the idea wasn't for it to survive, duh. With this administration one must always translate the information through a decoder, remember it's upside down, inside out and in reverse.
Also, as far as the news media thinking that the masses just want them to sit on their hands-- the times they are a changing:
News Media
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Feb. 1-5, 2006. N=1,502 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Which is more important to you -- that the government be able to censor news stories it feels threaten national security OR that the news media be able to report stories they feel are in the national interest?"
_______Gov't AbleTo Censor News___ Media Able to Report___Both Equal (vol.)__Unsure
2/1-5/06________________34_______________56_____________5____________5
2/03____________________42_______________50_____________2____________6
11/01___________________53_______________39_____________4____________ 4
3/91____________________58_______________32_____________5___________ _5
Posted by Bushfools at 02/10/2006 @ 1:44pm
Sweet, how could I disagree with that post? I don't mean to proscribe how others should handle Tory loons, and besides, this blog would degenerate into mutual backslapping and selfcongratulations if only libs contributed. as for myself, I just cannot do the same argument over and over again with fact challeged automatons. things like WMDs were found, Bush didn't lie, the aluminum tubes were for nukes etc life is too short
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/10/2006 @ 1:44pm
Did anyone here see the report on Keith Olberman's show on MSNBC about the contaminated water that was used to cook food for our soldiers and journaliosts in Iraq? The story only broke because a journalists fell ill. It was reported that Halliburton knew about the contaminated water but failed to alert government officials as well as the soldiers themselves. The river, where the water was gathered, was approximately 1 mile downstream from a defunct wastewater plant that was spewing waste into the river. Not only journalists but soldiers also fell ill. Cheney must be proud.
Posted by k330k at 02/10/2006 @ 3:57pm
Olberman makes the Russerts and Mathews look like the fools they are. the only one better is John Stewart
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/10/2006 @ 5:45pm
BTW what was the plane used in 'Dr. Strangelove, or how I learned to love the bomb', didn't they fly real low too. UUUuhhhmm. Must be code for something...
Posted by Bushfools at 02/11/2006 @ 01:24am