conservatives, we feel their excruciating pain of being—what, 0-17 so far?—in state and national elections. Actually we
I therefore we move that we conservatives unite to help the YearlyKos with their futile effort, by sending Cindy Sheehan to a speaking engagement of
choice. As an activist, Mother Sheehan has a professed and world-recognized interest in meeting with influential politicians, and in keeping with her interests, I'd suggest that we raise the funds to send Cindy Sheehan to speak before the duly-elected and
Iraqi Parliament.
It would be quite moving, one would think, for Mother Sheehan to have the opportunity to speak before such an influential body of legislators. Mother Sheehan would have an opportunity to express her
about the war to those most directly affected by its outcome.
I'm sure the Iraqi people can hardly wait.
With some military companies either currently able or close to being able to monitor real-time battles conditions via layers of GPS, airborne, ground-based and satellite video feeds, layered thermal, chemical scans, and constantly updating individual GPS data currently being tested, a live action, video-game surveillance view for commanders may be exactly what is around the corner in future battle management.
Now if they can just figure out how to add bonus lives...
Yankee Wife and I have been house hunting off and on since we moved back to North Carolina last summer, and seem to be narrowing things down to the southern Wake County area, and a specific three-bedroom homeplan in a developing community where we had to stop for a doe and two fawns crossing the road tonight. Absolutely gorgeous.
to do the trick. Baby
that jetted tub upgrade...
All kidding aside, I would like to pick up some writing gigs to help finance this puppy, so if you hear anything, please pass 'em along.
Thanks to the constantly impending Bushitler-Halliburton Recession, it's like 1929 all over again... isn't it?
While economics is not my bag, the obvious bias in the tone of in economic reporting between the Clinton and Bush presidencies speaks for itself, I think.
.
This is not just one lie, but three blatant, calculated lies in one breath.
The executive order signed by President Bush and implemented by General Michael Hayden was designed not to spy on Americans, but to intercept communications with suspected overseas terrorists. As Hayden himself made clear, any information identifying Americans was sanitized, meaning that information was redacted. Stricken. Not used.
Nor was this program operating "on American soil." The program captured targeted, specific communications as they entered or left the country, much in the same way a customs official has the right to search luggage entering or leaving the country, also a practice that happens legally without a warrant, I may add.
As the President, two Attorney's General, White House counsel, and cohorts of National Security Administration and Justice Department Officials have maintained and existing case law such as the FISA Court of Review's decision in
domestic) surveillance.
That's a whole lot of hyperbole and straight-up lying packed into one sentence, but the Senator is far from done.
, so of course he should feel ashamed, if that emotion still resonates in a being so morally vacuous.
The Fourth Amendment is not applicable to the NSA program whatsoever. The Fourth Amendment clearly states:
What terrorist supporter on this planet that the interception of international terrorist communications does not meet the well-established exemption to the warrant requirement and the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement? Apparently, Russ Feingold.
As stated before and stated often, this is a targeted program intercepting international communications of terrorists, and it
exceed the President's constitutional powers.
Once again, this is not a domestic spying program. No matter how many times shrill Democrats and their allies in the media repeat that hysteric refrain, it remains a targeted program intercepting the communications of suspected terrorists
, trying to slip messages to their agents within our borders. These are the people Russ Feingold is trying to protect, and they are hardly loyal Americans.
The President is not misleading the people, he has laid out his legal case as clearly as prudence will allow without compromising the program, and many scholars and practitioners of the law from all political persuasions agree. There is misdirection and misleading going on, but it is being led by Senate and House Democrats who desire a perceived temporary political advantage more than the security of America's people.
Feingold continues with a shockingly honest (and probably quite accidental) admission:
The President, in reasserting the power of the Presidency as enshrined in the Constitution of the United States, is directly challenging an overreaching Congress. They seek to hold onto a momentary illusion of power that they do not legally possess, and hope to bluster their way though against a president they see as weak, and they challenge the power of the Commander in chief to lead military surveillance against a foreign enemy during a time of war as they plot attacks on our soil, against our citizens.
The congressional way of bluster, accusation, and usurping of executive power enabled by a weak-willed President Carter must not stand, or this nation cannot defend itself. Wars are not led by committees, but by commanders. Congress does not want to acknowledge their own limitations. Acknowledging that Congress will be exposed as having lost its way is Feingold's only accidental honesty.
But not if that commitment involves recognizing that the Congress has overreached. Perceived Congressional power is far more important than American lives.
Once again, Feingold is accidentally correct.
be our top national priority, but instead, members of both Houses, led by Democrats have made upholding their own perceived importance to be a higher priority than enabling the President to carry out his constitutionally mandated duty to carry out foreign surveillance.
Feingold is more guilty of projection that he could ever imagine. It is Democrats that have broken faith with the American people, hoping to turn a crime (government leaks) into a scandal for political gain at the expense of the security of average Americans. No Congressman or Senator-let me rephrase that-no
Congressman or Senator can assert that the President's duty to protect this nation in a time of war is subservient to an unconstitutional statutory law.
The President is accountable to a higher standard than the hyperbole and bombast of a shrill Senator with a track record of
.
Being a Senator, Feingold does go on from there... and on, and on, and on, regurgitating the talking points you have not doubt already chanted a hundred times.
Unfortunately for Feingold, this mantra of deceit is all he has, and history will remember him for the small, self-serving man he continually proves himself to be.
fisks Feingold's "BDS to Power" speech as well.
It's only February, I know, but I figured Michael Jackson had already won the Bad Parent of the Year Award for moving his kids to an oppressive Arab country and starting to cross-dressing professionally.
.
Yikes.
the fact they torpedoed an attempt to reform Social Security? Perhaps a shocking tendency towards behavior that
? Do tell.
Let's be honest, kids.
have done far more to assault their own national security credentials that Republicans ever could. From the false allegations of concentration camp type conditions in Dick Durbin's
, to John Murtha's call to retreat and statement that he would not serve in today's Marine Corps, Democrats have contributed to their own Purple Hearts and
. It is a dishonor hard-fought, and well-earned.
.
.
Quick 'n easy (preferably government-subsidized) abortions, no welfare or social security reform, little or no respect for the troops, snide attacks on Christianity while sharing talking points with radical Islamic fascists...
The megaphone won't work for policy mutes. Until Democrats have a message concocted on this side of 1968, then they might as well go red-faced blowing into a dog whistle. Only Kossacks will hear their call.
Reid is said to be hip-deep in the Abramhoff scandal, and it seems likely that Jay Rockefeller may have committed a felony breach of espionage laws that put this nation in danger. Corruption? Not so good. The War on Iraq? Start by picking a side. Energy prices? John Kerry wastes more gas on ski vacations than some small nations. Health care? Uh, does anyone remember Hillary's last stab at that? They
have the market cornered on unhinged shrieking, however, so all is not lost.
Seantor Bayh, to paraphrase John Houseman's Smith Barney ads, "At the Democratic National Committee, we don't make our reputation on national security, we
it." Badly. If you want to protect America, start by muzzling Pat "Leaky" Leahy and Jay Rockefeller before the Justice Department does.
Boxer's plan is working... somewhat.
seen that what is happening in Washington isn't working.
The way Democrats gave themselves thunderous applause for killing social security reform made that fact abundantly clear to us all.
Carter...
Oops , wrong picture...
, and not a lawyer. He should talk to his attorney general Griffin Bell, who said that FISA, "does not take away the power of the president under the Constitution."
(PDF) of H. Bryan Cunningham, a "national security lawyer" and CIA officer under Bill Clinton, and the Deputy Legal Advisor to the National Security Administration in the George H.W. Bush administration. The letter absolutely guts the arguments of Democrats and libertarians, and strongly suggests that FISA may be unconstitutional as it constrains the President's Article II powers.
, the shiny new blog of a William & Mary law school professor who tipped me off to the letter, has more
.
(free registration may be required) I've read about the FISA flap and the legality of Bush's actions in signing the order to run this NSA program.
And so I came up with one of my own, though it is just a draft so far. What do you think?
Pakistani doctors, still fuming over controversial Dutch cartoons showing the Prophet Mohammed, have sworn off using European drugs:
Spokesmen for al Qaeda announced that the terror organization has also joined in the boycott, and will no longer use small arms, explosives, "or any other device" of either western design or manufacture.
daggers ambushed 3 Iraqi policemen armed with AK-47 rifles.
In accordance with Muslim tradition, all 40 insurgents will be buried within 24 hours.
In Baghdad, Iraqi government officials who said police and military units will not be participating in the arms boycott, said they expected the insurgency to be wrapped up by. "dinnertime, next Thursday, God willing."
I've been sitting back and watching the Danish cartoon flap with great interest, but I've refrained from commenting on it thus far because I haven't decided how to best articulate my feelings on the subject. I'm still letting my thoughts percolate on the subject, and perhaps I'll hold forth in a few days.
, other other hand, has his own observations online and they are well worth a read. I invite you to take a look at his most recent post,
.
The latest of the so-called "Downing Street Memos" is the most laughable one yet. According to a key passage in this latest theory:
, or more than 13 miles in the air. The aircraft simply
, regardless of what paint scheme it manifests, whether it is United Nations blue, or pink with green stripes. The very concept is preposterous.
If Bush and Blair wanted to use Iraqi anti-aircraft fire as their excuse to trigger a war, they hardly had to make up an incident.
Iraq has a long and well documented history of firing upon aircraft enforcing the U.N.-mandated "No-fly" zones in what became unofficially known as the
which occurred more or less continuously from the end of the first Gulf War in 1991 until the Iraq War began on March 20, 2003.
Iraqi aggression against Coalition planes carrying out U.N.-mandated missions occurred with enough severity that they warranted an armed response more than
- more than once a week - in 2002. In the 3 months of 2003 leading up to the March 20th invasion of Iraq, Iraqi anti-aircraft and command and control sites targeting these same coalition planes had to be fired up in defense
in the Southern Watch area alone.
against a minimum of 350 Iraqi targets, most of them when anti-aircraft weapons had "gone hot," committing the
same kinds of breaches that forms the basis of the dubious Bush-to-Blair comments above.
Blair and Bush did not have to manufacture these kinds of incidents to justify a war when Saddam was already breaching the ceasefire on his own.
These are the facts.
), is therefore based upon some demonstrably false information.
mean. We'll stick with the facts for now.
Posted by: Fred at February 03, 2006 09:02 PM (xX+1y)
2
Someone has taught Galloway his ABC's and gave him access to a typewriter. He may have paid for the training since he must have lots of Saddam oil money left over....I know most of the Brit's aren't this stupid so guess they have left wing fanatics to match the dim-wits.
Posted by: scrapiron at February 04, 2006 12:33 AM (Ffvoi)
3
So a memo reporting on a discussion between Bush and Blair is a "theory" exactly how???
If you want to claim the memo is somehow false or is reporting this conversation wrong, fine. You don't even have to come up with any evidence, since we're used to right wingnuts like yourself and "President" Tipsy McStagger lying through their teeth.
But there's no "theory" in this memo. "Let's stick to the facts," OK?
Posted by: dave at February 04, 2006 02:26 AM (PMzuW)
4
Even if the memo is real I don't see why the lefties think this is such a big deal. We know that the U.S. only went to the U.N. because we wanted to at least try to get them to back us up. Saddam violated the ceasefire agreement hundreds of times and we were well within international law to invade. I myself deployed for Operation Southern Watch at least 6 times after Desert Storm and Iraq fired on or targeted our aircraft every single day we were in the Arabian Gulf. Another non-scandal from the irrational left fehh who cares and Dave your email address is most apt.
Posted by: Oldcrow at February 04, 2006 03:00 AM (2PeEn)
5
Just because George Bush suggested something absurd and irrational doesn't mean that's not true. This is the guy who wanted to bomb Al-Jazeera, remember? In fact, that gives it a little bit of added credibility.
Posted by: zenless at February 04, 2006 07:28 AM (E28CF)
6
CY, the moonbats are a-flyin' over this post.
I read the Guardian article. It is an article based on a book written by a Prof Sands. In law, isn’t that referred to as “hear say”? The reporter initially passes himself off as having read the memo. It isn’t until later that he finally acknowledges, “The memo seen by Prof. Sands reveals:” Wow, that would win my unquestioning acceptance, wouldn’t it everyone else’s (especially those afflicted with BDS)?
This reads like a revisionist account of what someone “wishes” were true. The article states, ”Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam…” At that time, everyone in the free world was echoing the FACT that Saddam had WMDs, there was no question. There were intel agencies from five or six different nations that all collaborated the FACT. For crying out loud, even our Democratic Senators and Representatives were expounding the same; that Saddam had WMDs and could not be allowed to continue to be a menace to world peace.
If you BDS folks want to try to “pin” something on the president you would be well advised to come with something other than, “Heard it from a friend who, heard it from a friend who, heard it from another you’d been messing around…”
Posted by: Old Soldier at February 04, 2006 08:06 AM (owAN1)
7
Liberals are so amusing.
Bush graduates Harvard and Yale, becomes the only Governor of Texas to be re-elected and defeats the most brilliant minds the Democrats can cobble together at every turn, and yet, he's the idiot? Right... He's the President, you're on second shift at Appleby's. You do the math.
What these dolts don't seem to grasp is the shear stupidity of their comments. The very first poster to this thread, Fred, is as liberal as they come, but as a former military man, he understands the abject stupidity of the argument on this one. What did he say in response to this post?
Can't argue with that.
Exactly.
AA Missiles are fired by radar control, not upon visual confirmation. What idiots...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 04, 2006 09:00 AM (0fZB6)
8
channel 4 here in the UK has seen a copy of the memo: 'Taken from the White House Meeting Memo, 31 January 2003, seen by Channel 4 News - and detailed in 'Lawless World' by Philippe Sands.
'President Bush to Tony 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"...'
Posted by: rimone at February 04, 2006 09:28 AM (3eDjJ)
9
Think you could send them out for some chem-lite batteries?
Posted by: John Cole at February 04, 2006 09:31 AM (gGq3q)
10
I guess everyone who posts here is using a military email address. If not, they have some openings and I hear they are paying a bonus.
Posted by: Tab at February 04, 2006 10:01 AM (GESQ4)
11
President Bush was a fighter pilot which would give him a greater understanding of aircraft performance than the general public.
The U-2 is basically a sailplane with a jet engine and a pressurized cockpit. It is designed for long straight flight at high altitude and sub-sonic speed. It is not designed for evasive maneuvers. I remember reading that at its maximum service ceiling, there is only a 10 knot speed range in which it operates - below that speed and it stalls; above that speed and the wings will fail as it enters trans-sonic shock. This would make the U-2 an easy target at lower altitudes.
This means that there is a disparity in the opoerational airspeeds of the U-2 against that of any modern fighter. The greater the disparity, the more difficult it is for the fighter to protect the aircraft being escorted.
Posted by: Hornet at February 04, 2006 10:02 AM (rKQdM)
12
rimone, to respond in typical moonbat/watermelon fashion: when you product a copy of the memo rather than people "that have seen" the memo, I'll take notice. Lots of people have "seen" Nessy, but she still hasn't been produced!
Posted by: Old Soldier at February 04, 2006 10:02 AM (owAN1)
13
"One problem with that theory: U2 high altitude surveillance aircraft typically operate near their operational ceiling of 70,000 feet, or more than 13 miles in the air."
Aside from the fact that a U2 can operate at any altitude from ground level to as high as 70,000 feet, one must first consider the mind behind the suggestion.
He is a moron! Get it? He is just a face to way smarter people, (which is not to say that they are all that much smarter). That is why they sequester him 25% of the time, because when he starts out on his own, he makes idiotic statements that they then have to go back and "erase", (the SOTU energy part that was "retracted" the very next day, for instance).
and OldCrow. Do you even know what it means when a ground installation "goes Hot"? I didn't think so...... (i.e., there was no prohibition for an installation to "go hot")
Posted by: Sky-Ho at February 04, 2006 10:14 AM (Y1WIQ)
14
One problem with that theory: U2 high altitude surveillance aircraft typically operate near their operational ceiling of 70,000 feet, or more than 13 miles in the air. The aircraft simply cannot be seen from the ground, regardless of what paint scheme it manifests, whether it is United Nations blue, or pink with green stripes. The very concept is preposterous.
Bush says preposterous things all the time. And you ASSUME Bush actually understood operational ceilings when he made the suggestion. Based on what, dear?
The real reason the memos might be bogus is that Sands indicates Bush used the word "internecine." No way. But maybe Sands was paraphrasing.
Posted by: maha at February 04, 2006 11:22 AM (k55rZ)
15
How is it that CY hasn't starved to death already? I mean, what an unmitigated moron. Why in God’s name does he cling to the feeble minded argument that Chimpy wasn’t predisposed to attack Iraq? What other conclusion am I to draw? CY posted that tripe to refute the allegations that Chimpy planned to go to war, facts be dammed.
Why does CY do that? How can any prudent person evaluating US history over the last three years come to any conclusion other than Chimpy lied us to war in Iraq?
How is it that CY feels so threatened by the truth that he has to write some garbage on his blog? Why does CY feel the need to lie himself on the behalf of Chimpy? When does his-self deception stop? Does he think Iraq is really going well? Does he think Chimpy has made the US stronger?
CY is circling the drain. I don't think CY's self-delusion will stop. At some point I think people like CY do starve to death. I’d just like to help him along before he takes the US with him.
Posted by: P_M at February 04, 2006 11:33 AM (CjeRB)
16
I just love reading the comments, here. Plenty of evidence that the Republican majority is safe. These guys are operating on the "he's so stupid, he can only get by because his advisors are so diabolically clever, so they tell him to do stupid things, because it's ... diabolically clever ... uh ... to do stupid th-- ... what was I saying?" principle.
And somehow, lost in the shuffle, are the two key facts:
1) the analysis holds even if Bush and Blair were both papier-mache puppets held up by their staffs to deflect rotten tomatoes. Flying a U2 in UN colors as a provocation would add nothing to the legal case; at most, it would be a public demonstration of the case as it was. We were flying UN-sanctioned missions (remember, Gulf War was a UN-directed operation) over Iraq for eleven years, folks. There were exchanges of fire on a very regular basis for all eleven of those years. This was a war that got cooled down, not one that ever went all the way cold, let alone ended.
2) George Bush was a fighter pilot. A fighter pilot that doesn't understand elementary-school concepts like "operational ceilings" (literally, folks--*I* understood 'em in elementary school, and I'm *not* a fighter pilot) doesn't just get dead or get busted fast--he never even makes it to flight training. So quit demonstrating your imbecility.
On second thought, keep it up. Nothing makes me glad to be a conservative like watching you morons stew in your juices.
Best,
PGE
Posted by: pgepps at February 04, 2006 12:02 PM (czIG6)
17
pg,
"2) George Bush was a fighter pilot. A fighter pilot that doesn't understand elementary-school concepts like "operational ceilings" (literally, folks--*I* understood 'em in elementary school, and I'm *not* a fighter pilot) doesn't just get dead or get busted fast--he never even makes it to flight training. So quit demonstrating your imbecility."
Calling the moron a "fighter pilot" is like calling a Cub Scout a "SEAL".
Very few people make it through pilot training without a "solo". GWBush is one of those. He joined the only Guard unit with a family style jet that also would not be deployed to Vietnam, the two seat F-102. He was only tasked with another pilot in the two-seater. I wonder why.
You and Hornet, while mentioning bits and pieces of knowledge about aerodynamics hardly have an understanding of aero. Define "operational ceilings" for us. Bet you cannot because every aircraft builder defines it in a different manner.
And you, Hornet. Tell us again what happens when the U-2 exceeds it's operational speeds, both at altitude and low-level. The "answer" you gave is wrong for both. Try again.
Winning elections only means you know how to win elections. It says nothing about your extent of knowledge or how smart you are.
Posted by: Sky-Ho at February 04, 2006 01:02 PM (Y1WIQ)
18
Very few people make it through pilot training without a "solo". GWBush is one of those.
This is an absolute lie.
Posted by: Robert Crawford at February 04, 2006 01:20 PM (Gn9tM)
19
Actually, the TF-102A was deployed to Vietnam. Joe Baugher notes that they were employed as forward air controllers from time to time, and I have a dim recollection of them being sent to ride shotgun on B-52 raids in North Vietnam. (It's more likely that the regular F-102A was used for this, though.)
Posted by: The Country Pundit at February 04, 2006 01:25 PM (xZ4PU)
20
I've got a question for all you left leaning waremelon pilots, especially you who fancy yourselves as knowledgeable about U-2s. What the hell is "UN colors"? We've flown thousands of "UN" missions and our aircraft stay marked as US aircraft. We don't paint our aircraft powder blue just to fly UH missions. That dog don't hunt, people, so put it to bed.
For the rest of you lefties, I have this to say:
"How is it that you haven't starved to death already? I mean, what unmitigated morons. Why in God’s name do you cling to the feeble minded argument that Congress did not authorized the attack on Iraq? What other conclusion am I to draw? Liberals post that tripe to refute the allegations that they can't understand why we went to war, facts be dammed.
"Why do liberals do that? How can any prudent person evaluating US history over the last three years come to any conclusion other than the fact that Democrats supported us going to war in Iraq?
"How is it that liberals feel so threatened by the truth that they have to write garbage on CY's blog? Why do liberals feel they need to lie to themselves on the behalf of BDS? When will their self-deception stop? Do they think Iraq is not really going well? Do they think their lies and obstruction has made the US stronger?
"Liberals are circling the drain. I don't think their self-delusion will stop. At some point I think liberals will starve to death. I’d just like to help them along before they take the US with them."
Posted by: Old Soldier at February 04, 2006 01:54 PM (owAN1)
21
RC-
Which part is a lie?
I know of two who did not solo, yet records indicate they made it through pilot training. (both were foreign nationals).
Tell us the dates the moron soloed.
Did you witness such an event? Where and when?
and Country Pundit,
Was the TF-102A deployed to Vietnam as a Guard asset or Regular Air Force?
Posted by: Sky-Ho at February 04, 2006 01:57 PM (Y1WIQ)
22
Sky-Ho:
I don't know. I've got some stuff around that may give me the answer, but I'm going to be away from it until later tonight. I'll try to have some sort of "theoretical" answer later tonight.
It would help if I knew USAF practice on foreign deployments of ANG units during the period.
Posted by: The Country Pundit at February 04, 2006 02:16 PM (xZ4PU)
23
U2 high altitude surveillance aircraft typically operate near their operational ceiling of 70,000 feet, or more than 13 miles in the air.
Strangely enough, when planes are shot down, the debris falls to Earth, where it's easy to identify. Or are we supposed to believe the law of gravity doesn't work when you're a "we create reality" kinda guy?
And as far as needing a causus belli, all I've got to say is "Remember the Maine" and "Gulf of Tonkin".
Posted by: Pere Ubu at February 04, 2006 02:57 PM (W2x8+)
24
And the BDS victims attack!
Posted by: Jordan at February 04, 2006 03:01 PM (pLJN7)
25
Anyone come up with the "paint scheme" for a US military aircraft flying a UN mission? Just checking...
Posted by: Old Soldier at February 04, 2006 03:05 PM (owAN1)
26
And as far as needing a causus belli, all I've got to say is "Remember the Maine" and "Gulf of Tonkin".
All I've got to say is "No-Fly Zone War."
Posted by: Jordan at February 04, 2006 03:09 PM (pLJN7)
27
I also love how those who can only come up with a "Bush is an idiot" defense, also completely fail to explain why he would have to got through all the trouble to get a U2 shot at as an excuse, when planes on U.N. missions were being fired on with great frequency anyway.
BDS, indeed.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 04, 2006 03:11 PM (0fZB6)
28
Good luck, CY; I'm still trying to visualize what "painted in UN colors" equals and none of these lefty flyboys can come up the paint scheme.
I think the left is guilty of overmisunderestimating the president. In fact, isn't that a common symptom of BDS?
Posted by: Old Soldier at February 04, 2006 04:20 PM (owAN1)
29
This post shows the amazing ways you wingnuts have of twisting an argument. Go back to the initial post: CY is claiming Bush couldn't have made such a statement because as a plan it doesn't make any sense. However, that has absolutely NO bearing on the question of whether or not Bush said it, unless of course you assume that Bush would never say anything that didn't make any sense. And I'm not willing to give Einstein the benefit of that doubt much less our "Yale and Harvard graduate" (and hold your breath all you posters who are already typing 'but Bush is smarter than Kerry..'). If a credible source claims he said it, then I believe it. All the other stuff is irrelevant. Now you have a new job: assasinating the character of the author of the memo
Posted by: zenless at February 04, 2006 04:32 PM (E28CF)
30
Damn, Guys! What is this? The invasion of the mendacious KOS Kiddies and their ignorant ilk?
I made some comments over at AMERICAblog, and they blocked my IP. They can't deal with facts - just empty accusations and flabby logic.
Posted by: Retired Spy at February 04, 2006 04:52 PM (nacM2)
31
PS: Ya need a high-performance, medium- to long-range SAM to shoot down something like a U2 at operating altitude. No such thing in Saddam's arsenal, boneheads.
Posted by: Retired Spy at February 04, 2006 04:54 PM (nacM2)
32
zenless, the "source" was a danged book; not the actual memo (that was "seen by somebody who saw somebody who said it was seen by another..."). Probably find it in the fiction section of the library anway...
Posted by: Old Soldier at February 04, 2006 05:08 PM (owAN1)
33
OK, correction, your job is to assasinate the character of Phillipe Sands, a QC and professor of international law at University College, London, who obtained the memo (the existence of which Downing Street is NOT denying) and published a summary in his book, Lawless World. And I can see, you are right on track.
Posted by: zenless at February 04, 2006 06:21 PM (E28CF)
34
yeah, zenless, just like "we" assassinated the character of Dan Rather and Mary Mapes. (which I'm sure you still believe)
Posted by: JFH at February 04, 2006 07:26 PM (x6z7Q)
35
zenless, If Richard Norton-Taylor were going to write an undeniably believable article don't you think that he would have pursued an audience with Prof Sands and requested to "see" the memo? He could have reported from the first person; not as a repeater of hear say - basically providing a book review.
Dan Rather just knew he had a "genuine article" (also a memo) in his hands that would in essence destroy a sitting president seeking reelection. We all know the outcome of that debacle; the "genuine article" turned out to be a third rate forgery.
There is too much evidence to cast a doubt on this "memo" being a genuine article. Read back thru the comment stream to see the attributes that cause the questions to arise.
Posted by: Old Soldier at February 04, 2006 07:47 PM (owAN1)
36
All you have to say to these guys is to quote two things:
"I took the initiative in creating the internet" - Al Gore
"AAAIIIIIIYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" - Howard Dean
So much for brain trusts. And BTW - I've actually seen both quotes.....
Posted by: Specter at February 04, 2006 08:37 PM (ybfXM)
37
Sky-Ho:
My source, Joe Baugher, gives a bit of conflicting information but seems reasonably accurate in that the F-102A/TF-102A squadrons (probably all regular USAF units) had been withdrawn from the Pacific by 1969. I'm guessing that the TF-102As went wherever the F-102As went; I assume that the trainers were attached to the squadrons that were equipped with the interceptors.
I'm trying to synthesize some information, but it would appear that the things were essentially all in the hands of the ANG by the time that Lieutenant Bush was in the TANG 111th FIS. I haven't the foggiest as to whether they were sending ANG units abroad or not at that point in time.
Anyone come up with the "paint scheme" for a US military aircraft flying a UN mission? Just checking...
Yeah, I did. If you're really looking to make a point, slap a magnetic UN flag on the tail and stencil "U.N." plus that globe-in-a-wreath logo in conspicuous places. Otherwise, do nothing 'cause as Old Soldier said, we do this from time to time.
Posted by: The Country Pundit at February 04, 2006 10:09 PM (xZ4PU)
38
I just have one question:
If U-2's can't fly below 70,000 feet, how do they take off and land?
Posted by: Mary Rosh at February 04, 2006 11:11 PM (nIkFG)
39
Duh! Tou must be an engineer, Mary Rosh. We're referring to operational altitude, loon! Operationalaltitude above Iraq would be about 70,000 feet for best aerodynamic performance. That is the altitude at which we flew these soft gliders when I was in the Intelligence Community.
The bottom line is that no one in Iraq could shoot them down anyway. AAA can't do it.
There is nothing to gain from shooting down anything. They had been shooting at our aircradft in the northern and southern no-fly zones since shortly after the first Gulf War. We could have blown the vrap out of the bastards just for that.
Are you folks all coming over here from David Corn's pathetic site?
Posted by: Retired Spy at February 04, 2006 11:32 PM (nacM2)
40
The U-2 can fly below 70K feet, 70K is their operational ceiling what does this mean? They take off then fly to 70K feet were their engines and airframe make them the most efficeant. After take off U-2's typically ahve to refuel because they use so much fuel taking off as for UN missions U-2's are all painted black even when flying UN missions, the only one I know of that is not that color is the one NASA uses. By the way who gives a shit about this memo? Even if it is real would we really expect our leaders not to discuss or plan going to war before they do it? You moonbats are a bunch of simpletons.
Posted by: Oldcrow at February 04, 2006 11:38 PM (2PeEn)
41
Nice summation, Old Crow.
Posted by: Old Soldier at February 05, 2006 08:08 AM (owAN1)
42
They can't deal with facts - just empty accusations and flabby logic.
one word - "projection".
Pots and kettles.
Posted by: Pere Ubu at February 05, 2006 10:16 AM (NS82l)
43
You believe that statement was 'projection?'
Where is some solid evidence in the flimsy accusations you and your ilk from DavidCorn dot com come up with?
You and David Corn - not to mention the fishwrap Guardian newspaper - provide no proven documentation for anything.
Looks like you are the ones projecting - with no original thoughts or comprehensive alternative plans or programs to hang your tinfoil hats on.
Posted by: Moshe at February 05, 2006 10:37 AM (nacM2)
44
So what you guys are saying is that the U-2 CAN fly below 70,000 feet.
So why are you saying that the Guardian article is wrong, basing your argument on the notion that the U-2 can't fly below 70,000 feet? Are you making this lame and specious argument because you're:
Dishonest?
Lazy?
Stupid?
Dishonest and lazy?
Dishonest and stupid?
Lazy and stupid?
Or dishonest, lazy, and stupid?
Posted by: Mary Rosh at February 05, 2006 01:24 PM (nIkFG)
45
Mary, you bring up a completely irrelevant argument. Every airplane can fly below 70,000 feet. Duh. But that isn't the issue, so try to feign enough intelligence to follow along.
Painting a plane in certain colors is irrelevant when:
A): Iraqi anti-aircraft systems are controlled by radar, and therefore, those firing the missiles would not see the plane as anything other than a blip on the radar.
B): Dozens of other flights had already been fired upon carrying out U.N. missions.
The entire premise you follow is stupid, if you are educated enough to know the history of the No-Fly War.
So guess to answer your question, it is a matter of dishonesty, laziness and stupidity.
Yours.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 05, 2006 01:35 PM (0fZB6)
46
Mary Rosh,
Don't you get it. A U2 would not fly over Iraq at less that 70K feet. What are you? Lazy? Dishonest? Stupid? Dishonest and lazy? Dishonest and stupid? Lazy and stupid? Or dishonest, lazy, and stupid?
What pilot of a U2 would even fly such a mission?
Posted by: Specter at February 05, 2006 01:43 PM (ybfXM)
47
Mary;
You are also missing the point about operational altitude made by old crow. While any aircraft can fly at any altitude, the U-2Rs fly their missions at a very high altitude. One of the reasons is because it gives the sensors a bigger field of view, the other is that it can operate outside the envelope of most SAM and all AAA assets.
Point one: There is no way that shooting a U-2 would make a difference when FA-18s and other aircraft were already being shot at.
Point two: There was nothing in the Iraqi inventory that would reach the U-2 unless it was flown at an altitude so different from normal to make it obvious it was meant to be shot at.
SAM - Surface to Air Missile
AAA - Anti-Air Artillery or "Triple A"
Posted by: monkeyboy at February 05, 2006 01:51 PM (cqZXM)
48
CY, I don't agree that this argument:
"One problem with that theory: U2 high altitude surveillance aircraft typically operate near their operational ceiling of 70,000 feet,"
irrelevant, and I can state with certainty that it is you who brought it up, not me.
Your initial argument, quoted above, was that the Guardian article was wrong because U-2's can't fly below 70,000 feet. Well, of course they can. You were too lazy and stupid to pay attention to that fact when you were "disproving" what the Guardian says, so you are now trying to run away from responsibility for the statements you yourself made, instead accusing me of bringing up "irrelevant" arguments.
So my question is answered. You made your post because you are dishonest, lazy, and stupid.
Posted by: Mary Rosh at February 05, 2006 02:17 PM (nIkFG)
49
Mary Rosh=Troll
Why bother Mary - every time you post you just dig yourself deeper in. It is obvious you know nothing about military operations - even less than I do (and that says a lot because I know little).
You are trying to play the semantics game to prove your point. Numerous posters have already pointed out that, no matter how it was originally worded, the place that the U2 flys is about 70K feet. Why can't you take on that issue rather than playing word games? Oh...I know why...because you can't. Get a grip....
Posted by: Specter at February 05, 2006 02:22 PM (ybfXM)
50
Meanwhile, Mary conveniently ignores this for the millionth time:
If Bush and Blair wanted to use Iraqi anti-aircraft fire as their excuse to trigger a war, they hardly had to make up an incident.
Iraq has a long and well documented history of firing upon aircraft enforcing the U.N.-mandated "No-fly" zones in what became unofficially known as the No-Fly Zone War which occurred more or less continuously from the end of the first Gulf War in 1991 until the Iraq War began on March 20, 2003.
Reading isn't your strong suit, eh?
Posted by: Jordan at February 05, 2006 02:25 PM (xEXsr)
51
And Mary....just so you know:
Saying, "U2 high altitude surveillance aircraft typically operate near their operational ceiling of 70,000 feet" is not the same as saying, "was that the Guardian article was wrong because U-2's can't fly below 70,000 feet."
How do you equate what was said with your imagination? You are the one who claimed CY said that, when clearly he did not. He said, "U2...typically operate..."
So put up or shut up - where exactly did he say that U2 could not fly below 70K feet?
Posted by: Specter at February 05, 2006 02:27 PM (ybfXM)
52
Wow...I can't believe some of the crazy commentary here. My grandmother was right, politics make people lose their common sense.
If you really want to back up to the discussion, since most conspiracies have some truth in it, if I remember correctly, in the lead up to the war, we were flying U2s and various other planes over Iraq in order to get updated intelligence on suspected WMD sites that would be provided to UNMOVIC to add info to their inspections.
In fact, Saddam was continuously complaining about it as a provocation. the UNMOVIC group was upset because not all the info was being given to them for review. We didn't give them everything because the group was compromised by Saddam's security.
Now, the question as to whether the president specifically made statements that "hoped" for a plane to be shot down during a recon mission, specifically a U2, is really the question since obviously planes were flying missions all day every day under the auspices of the UN and could have, with little effort from us or with no hope whatsoever on behalf of the president, been shot down and it didn't have to be a U2 as has been pointed out here.
Really, what the hoopla is about, I'm not sure because it seems that any discussion about potential planes being shot down would have happened and would have been appropriate. It may even have been appropriate to ask whether a U2 could be shot down, largely because we had to have an inkling that the sanctions were busted, that weapons and materials were being smuggled in and the scope of these materials and weapons were not known.
I seem to recall that one of the sanction busters were the Russians. I also seem to recall that the Russians had shot down a U2 in the 50's with some sort of hyper SAM. Now we know that Saddam didn't have that weapon in his arsenal, but it certainly would have been appropriate to discuss the possibilities and the problems it might entail.
On top of that, I might have a hazy memory, but I am quite sure that Saddam was making noises about doing it (of course, it was hyperbole from a guy that had been using hyperbole as a fig leaf to sustain his leadership for an eternity, but that was a problem why we were pushing the UNMOVIC guys in the first place to resume inspections and why we were talking about war to disarm him since he was continuously calling for "jihad" during his speeches and other intel pointed to possible contacts with terrorist organizations).
The question is whether the discussion took place in a "worse case scenario" context or "wow, wouldn't it be cool if" context. No one ont this threat was there, neither were the so called reporters or writers of books and no one has seen the actual memo accept a few that will not produce the actual memo because either they are a) lying and never saw it; b) know that it has classified info that could send them to prison; c) can use that to spin whatever was on the memo (if they ever saw it) since they know the government will never release it if it really exists.
So, we can play games all day about it and some folks can pretend that the president is stupid because he asked questions about risk and others can say that it would have been silly to ask the question given his military experience.
I think both summations are wrong. It is not stupid to ask what the risks are to our aircraft during escalating rhetoric from the guy we're spying on over hostile territory when there is no way to know everything about his arsenal or what was smuggled in or out.
The only funny part is that everyone is attributing the "UN color scheme" to the President and it is probably the words of the writer interpreting what he read about UN sanctioned flights since we know that the media is notoriously ignorant when it comes to military matters and protocals within joint operations.
Further, I see the old "they were going to bomb sweet innocent al jazeera, isn't that stupid" meme showed up here as well. Well, it wasn't stupid. When you go to war, you want your first strikes to blind your enemy. In fact, we bombed the television stations of Iraq because in every war plan against every potential threat from Russia to China to a make believe country in the antarctic, the plans include taking out ALL communication capabilities. While Al Jazeera is based in a neutral country that is generally considered an ally, there is no doubt that AJ acted as an information conduit and propaganda outlet for the regime. Thus, I would not be shocked to find that discussion had been had as well.
The fact that it was decided against was not a sign of cooler or more intelligent heads prevailing so much as a strategic decision not to escalate the war beyond necessity and that AJ could act as a "double agent" by being the open source of information we could use to discover our successes or failures with the operations.
These things are common sense items that, frankly, wouldn't matter who the president was, would have came up as part of the planning and risk discussions. I mean, do I need to mention "Kosovo" or "Desert storm" or any of the other small wars we've been involved with that has involved the same discussions, planning, risk assessment and target structuring?
Really, I'm surprised (or not) how much hatred and stubborness seems to have caused people to lose their common sense and attribute normal activities to some sort of sinister plot to, what exactly, I'm not sure.
I guess it depends on whether you saw Iraq as an ongoing and potential escalating threat in conjunction with escalating terrorist threats or whether you think he was the victim of greedy, warmongering, oil barons trying to take over the middle east and control the measely estimated potential of 4.3 million bbls of oil per day that might come out of Iraq in 2010 if the oil infrastructure can be upgraded (hint, it was 2.3 million bbls before we invaded and is down to 1.9 today).
All I've got to say is that some folks need to double their prozac.
Posted by: kat-missouri at February 05, 2006 03:32 PM (io+Si)
53
Damn! You guys were having all this fun with the ever so dysFUNctional Mary Rosh, and you didn't invite me to the party.
It is obvious that the troll cannot read basic English, and she likes to stir things up with no bases in fact. As you note, Specter, an operational altitude does not preclude flight at a lower altitude than 70,000 feet, and no one stated that the U2 cannot fly at lower altitudes.
So who would Bush and Blair recruit to fly a suicide mission in a U2 at an altitude where AAA or SAM's could engage the target, destroy it and kill the pilot?
Oh! I forgot. It was Bush, too, that recruited the terrorists to fly into the Pentagon and the WTC towers, wasn't it?
We surely do get some damn fools visiting here from time to time, don't we?
Crawl back into your subterranean Troll Hotel, Mary. It is obvious that there is darkness there, and that suits your intellect and vision of reality quite well.
Posted by: Retired Spy at February 05, 2006 03:37 PM (nacM2)
54
In researching some of kat-missouri's comments I find that the US did indeed fly U2s over Iraq in 2003 in support of the UN. US U2 aircraft in support of the UNMOVIC. If this was already happening, why would a speculative comment include U2s in "UN colors" have any relevancy? other than to support a conjecture made by the writer.
Posted by: Old Soldier at February 05, 2006 08:48 PM (owAN1)
55
Here's a link to an interesting article about a U-2 flight: http://www.barryschiff.com/high_flight.htm
Oldcrow, you wrote, "After take off U-2's typically ahve to refuel because they use so much fuel taking off..."
This is incorrect. You might be misremembering stories told about SR-71/Blackbird, which leaked fuel like a sieve when on the ground and *always* had to be refueled for its missions. At operational speeds friction heat would close the tanks. BTW, as a former Signals Intelligence Analyst in the Air Force I have to ask if your posting handle is a nod towards your old Navy job?
monkeyboy, you wrote, "Point two: There was nothing in the Iraqi inventory that would reach the U-2 unless it was flown at an altitude so different from normal to make it obvious it was meant to be shot at."
It was an SA-2/Guideline that hit Francis Gary Power's U-2. Cuba also used an SA-2 to down Major Rudolf Anderson during the missile crisis. Iraq had SA-2s in its inventory.
Posted by: Yeff at February 05, 2006 09:25 PM (ZVI+l)
56
That is correct, Yeff. Iraq DID once have SA-2's in their inventory of SAM's, but I believe we wiped those sites and missiles out long before the 2003 invasion. In fact, we specifically targeted those sites during the first Gulf War, and we continued to obliterate the sites and missiles whenever they shot at our aircraft patroling the no-fly zones.
I'm just waiting for some of the KOS Kiddies to claim that SA-7's could shoot down a U2. Those folks are funny that way.
Posted by: Retired Spy at February 05, 2006 10:26 PM (nacM2)
57
New, explosive? Nah. We've known about bush's plan to invade Iraq for years. Paul O'Neill:
“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”
Posted by: pyrhaven at February 05, 2006 11:18 PM (woF/T)
58
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”
I see that you and Mr. O'Neill have the same reasoning skills as Mary.
Posted by: Jordan at February 05, 2006 11:32 PM (xEXsr)
59
Hmm, good comeback. Unfortunately I don't know what "Mary" said-reading the condesending run on above gets tiresome. Please enlighten me.
I find it amazing that the more untruths are repeated by extremists, the more the general public comes to accept them.
Posted by: pyrhaven at February 06, 2006 12:00 AM (woF/T)
60
Ah, nevermind Jordan, got it. She asks a queston and y'all jump on with the insults. Got it.
I'm not addressing this particular new, explosive info. I'm addressing the issue that this info, for that matter, info from both sides of the fence-that does not fit into the landscape of those who "see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear"-die hard bush fans that feel he can to no wrong-then the the info is flawed, the media is manned by rabid 'libruls', the messenger is on drugs...whatever it takes to rationalize your position without actually examining the issue.
Posted by: pyrhaven at February 06, 2006 12:07 AM (woF/T)
61
Geez--didn't your moms ever tell you guys to "fight nice"...? Lively place, CY.
Country Pundit - Absolutely correct that the trainers go where the squadron goes, especially if the squadron is deploying for more than 180 days. One or more pilot requirements, from annual standardizations (checkrides) to post-mishap commander's evaluations, usually fall due at fairly inappropriate times for one or more pilots.
The ANG had a smaller footprint post-'69 and so did the ARNG--but they were still there.
And why does everyone seem to forget that the ANG units along the coastal states had a "real world" mission during the Cold War? The F-102 squadrons were responsible for intercepting intruders approaching the ADIZ (Air Defense Identification Zone) and evaluating them for hostile intent.
Heh. Having fighters escort a U2 would be like having Los Angeles class subs escorting a blimp--technically feasible and tactically risible.
Posted by: BillT at February 06, 2006 12:25 AM (Ffvoi)
62
"-die hard bush fans that feel he can to no wrong-then the the info is flawed, the media is manned by rabid 'libruls', the messenger is on drugs...whatever it takes to rationalize your position without actually examining the issue.
The irony of your post is quite amazing after you berate me for insulting Mary. It makes it easier to vanquish your opponents when you paint them as absurd caricatures, doesn't it?
I don't care if Bush was trying to build a case to invade Iraq. It was 10 years in the making. Saddam had given us plenty of valid reasons to do it, the most compelling one (in my eyes) being the "No-Fly Zone War" which you and Mary conveniently ignore. Shooting at another nations aircraft is an act of war, in case you forgot.
Posted by: Jordan at February 06, 2006 02:44 AM (pLJN7)
63
I forgot to mention the Iraq Regime Change Act, too.
Posted by: Jordan at February 06, 2006 02:45 AM (pLJN7)
64
pyrhaven (fire haven?),
Mary did not just ask a question. She made an accusation that she could not back up. And it was a ridiculous point. She got what she deserved.
As to your statement, "whatever it takes to rationalize your position without actually examining the issue", I note that you also said, "reading the condesending run on above gets tiresome." So tell me oh unenlightened one (using your words there), how is it that you say nobody here wants to examine the issue, but you can't be bothered with reading the thread? Sounds like somewhat baseless criticism to me.
Remember this:
"Peace is not the end. Righteousness is the end."..."If I must choose between righteousness and peace I choose righteousness."
Posted by: Specter at February 06, 2006 08:32 AM (ybfXM)
65
Oh yeah pyr....with respect to:
"I find it amazing that the more untruths are repeated by extremists, the more the general public comes to accept them." - pyrhaven, February 6, 2006 12:00 AM
You must mean things like:
"We defeated the Patriot Act!" - Harry Reid
"I took the initiative in creating the Internet" - Al Gore
"I'm not really a member of the OWL club, but I pay them $100 per year and I'm going to quit as soon as possible (paraphrased)" - Splash Kennedy
"I didn't have sex with that woman." - Bill Clinton
"But they're not counterfeit..." - Mary Mapes
and on and on and on.....
Posted by: Specter at February 06, 2006 08:38 AM (ybfXM)
66
Pyrhaven:
Maybe you should read through things a bit more thoroughly before making baseless comments. You stated, for example, "Ah, nevermind Jordan, got it. She asks a queston and y'all jump on [her] with the insults. Got it."
Actually, her initial question was a nonsense question:
If U-2's can't fly below 70,000 feet, how do they take off and land?
To begin with, pyrhaven, no one in this forum did say that a U2 cannot fly below 70,000 feet. What was said was that 70,000 feet is the standard operational altitude. Her question was ridiculous and flawed in fact. I referred to her as a loon because of the idiocy and illogic of the question. She then fired back with the real insults - still maintaining the claim that was factually and logically flawed.
You come up with this vacuous and irrelevant statement about some crap in Paul O'Neill's contributions for the book, The Price of Loyalty, that proves that Bush was out to get Saddam from the get-go? Duh! O'Neill was pissed that he was fired by GWB. Of course he would make claims against the man who fired him - just to protect his failing reputation.
Much of what you and O'Neill claim lacks corroborating evidence. Sour grapes? Probably. It is really immaterial. As stated elsewhere in this thread, there are always contingency plans on the table for consideration in international affairs and warfare, regardless of the tyrant or so-called world leader. Things have been that way since the American Revolution.
The real problem with this whole Guardian article and the alleged memo is that there is no corroborating evidence that such a memo exists. Most persons with a functioning brain doubt the existence of such a memo for all the logical reasons expressed.
I don't know of anyone here who would claim that GWB can do no wrong. We just doubt the veracity of the article in the Guardian. It is brainless speculation that has no basis in fact, logic or strategic planning.
Posted by: Retired Spy at February 06, 2006 08:52 AM (nacM2)
67
CY, afraid you're all wet on this one.
http://allintensivepurposes.blogspot.com/2006/02/u-2-say-it-isnt-so.html
T.S.
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop at February 06, 2006 12:30 PM (rfaI6)
68
OMG - another person who doesn't get it. I read your post tyrone....Riddle me this? Did you see the memo? Did the Guardian see the memo? And the claim is that the memo was only "seen" by Sands...So who has it? Obviously Sands doesn't. I want one of you to produce a link to the memo. If you can't, then logic says IT DOES NOT EXIST. Prove me wrong.
Posted by: Specter at February 06, 2006 12:46 PM (ybfXM)
69
If you read my post, you saw where I said that I haven't seen it, and was assuming that it exists and that it says what the Guardian says it says, for the purpose of responding to CY's post above. Maybe the memo doesn't exist, or is a forgery. Nothing CY says here makes that state of affairs more plausible.
I have some idea who Philippe Sands is, and find it somewhat unlikely that he's making this up out of whole cloth, and somewhat plausible that he would be the recipient of this sort of leak. But, hey, who knows? My jury is still out.
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop at February 06, 2006 12:51 PM (rfaI6)
70
You surely did go through a lot of verbiage and quotations on your blogspot to prove absolutely nothing.
And your point is?
Oh. That's right. You don't have to make a point because you have not read this imaginary memo either. Duh!
Do you know the difference between ... Oh. Never mind.
Posted by: Retired Spy at February 06, 2006 01:13 PM (nacM2)
71
Tyrone, the argument at your site can be summed up to say that you don't know the subject matter nor can you comprehend what you've read here, and so you to buy a theory you hope is true.
That is the way of the left, but it means little.
Regardless of altitude, SAMs are fired using radar (rendering paint schemese irrelevant). Bush, a former F-102 fighter pilot, knows this.
Bush also knows that Iraq was consistantly firing upon planes flying U.N.-mandated missions with great regularity, dating back two previous adminstrations. There was no need to create this kindof "bait" at all.
Bush knew both of these things. The author of this fake memo obviously did not. That is why we know this was a fake.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 06, 2006 01:51 PM (g5Nba)
72
I think you're being too literal. The point about the paint scheme, as I understand the suggestion, is not so much that the Iraqis would see the color of the jet as that the jet would be flying under UN colors in the more general sense. Iraq would be shooting at the UN inspectors. This would have been different from "firing on planes flying U.N.-mandated missions." Don't you agree that it would have helped get the issue through the UN to have Iraq shooting at UN inspectors?
Some SAMs are heat-guided, but since the Guardian just uses the word "fired," the memo ("memo") could just be talking about AAA. I don't understand why you think it makes a difference.
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop at February 06, 2006 02:04 PM (rfaI6)
73
Tyrone,
Did you read the whole thread. There were some people with pretty good knowledge of the U2 commenting on the impractical use of the plane at lower altitudes. Why not just take an old Huey chopper and paint it blue and let them fire at it? A lot less money. We might have even been able to fly it remote controlled so no loss of life. Why a U2. The whole thing makes about as much sense as the hundreds of "spontaneous" burnings of Danish flags in the ME. I mean - did the stores there stock hundreds of Danish flags for some reason?
Posted by: Specter at February 06, 2006 02:13 PM (ybfXM)
74
Tyrone, you are trying to split hairs in the most pathetic of ways. Tens of thousands of sorties were already flown under "U.N. colors." but I guess from your position, a weak, false justication is better than none at all. You need soemthing to cling on to, right?
The only shoulder-fired infrared SAMs are short range munitions, used against helicopters and other CAS aircraft. The would never be used against something like a U-2, who even when flying in only the middle third of its usable airspace, would be quite beyond the practical range of such weapons. Again, the paint idea was suggested by someone ignorant of aircraft, anti-aircraft weaponry made in the past 50 years or so, and the history of the No-Fly War, three things Bush was not.
The memo is clearly a fraud. Get over it.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 06, 2006 02:28 PM (g5Nba)
75
For the ploy to work, you had to get the UN to sign on, ex ante. That means using some kind of reconnaissance asset, like a U-2. I suppose you could use a Huey, but it wouldn't add much to the mix, and it would seem to me to be at much greater risk of actually getting shot down. President Bush, being a former fighter pilot, would know this too.
That's a good question about the Danish flags. Perhaps the Saudis have been stockpiling them (see first link here:
http://allintensivepurposes.blogspot.com/2006/02/found-on-web.html
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop at February 06, 2006 02:38 PM (rfaI6)
76
C'mon -- all those sorties weren't being flown under UN colors. They may have been authorized by the UN, but that's different. No one thought the UN was being shot at. There were U.S. insignia on those planes, and they weren't painted baby blue.
I am familiar with the uses of heat-seeking SAMs, thanks. I only corrected you because you said something incorrect. The (alleged) memo isn't specific about the sort of ground fire they were hoping to provoke.
I don't have anything invested in this memo. As I said on my blog, I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised by the proposition that Bush was planning to invade no matter what the UN did. I mean, you can't seriously think that if the UN had declined to support the war, he would have sent the troops home, can you? I just posted because I saw you say something that seemed wrong, and thought it would be fun to kick it around a little.
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop at February 06, 2006 02:46 PM (rfaI6)
77
Again, the only ploy was in the mind of a fake memo writer who crapped out by not knowing his subject matter any better than you do.
The United States and other air forces use reconnaissance pods on. The same planes that kept the skies clear of Iraqi aircraft carried these pods. We do not need U-2s for the role of a recon plane, and Saddam knew this as well. Thanks again for once more proving my point of how ignorant the fake memo writer truly was.
U-2s are essentially sailplanes, and among the least-defensible airplanes in the U.S. inventory. Do I really need to flesh this out for you?
Here's another shot of reality. All "U.N. forces" belong to member nations. They do not belong to some imaginary United Nations Army or Air Force. Therefore, when the United Nations requested patrols of the No-Fly Zones, and the U.S carried out those missions, just as they carried out U.N. missions in Kosovo and elsewhere, they were done under the rubric of de facto "U.N. colors." To actually paint a plane that could not be seen from the ground is a simpleton's idea. Can you grasp that, or not?
You do not know the subject matter, and no matter how much you Google to support whatever point you are trying to make, it shows. Consider stopping before you embarrass yourself further.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 06, 2006 03:27 PM (g5Nba)
78
But is is fun kicking it around Tyrone.
Posted by: Specter at February 06, 2006 03:32 PM (ybfXM)
79
I don't think I've been rude to you, so I'm not sure where the attitude is coming from, but in the spirit of amity etc., let me try one more time.
If the memo says what the Guardian reports, then the suggestion that Bush put out there was to get an unarmed recon plane over Iraq under UN auspices in the hopes that Hussein would shoot at weapons inspectors. So, (a) it didn't matter whether this was the best way to do recon, since that wasn't the point; (b) it didn't matter whether this was the best way to use a U-2, since that wasn't the point; and (c) it didn't matter that the Iraqis had already shot at US and UK planes many times, since the point was for the Iraqis to shoot at UN weapons inspectors.
I don't wish to argue with you about whether US forces performing under a UN mandate are "de facto" UN forces in some sense. It's immaterial here. The objective described in the memo ("memo") was plainly to get the sort of political currency that might convince countries that already knew that Iraq was shooting at US and UK planes and weren't swayed by that.
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop at February 06, 2006 03:52 PM (rfaI6)
80
Specter, the point CY was making was that the Guardian story was disproved by facts about the altitude at which the U-2 flies. Supposedly, the U-2 flies at such an altitude that it would be impossible to contemplate the scenario Bush is described as contemplating.
The altitude at which a U-2 typically flies is irrelevant to that argument. The only way the argument makes any sense at all is if the U-2 CANNOT fly at that altitude. As CY was writing his original post, his laziness and stupidity kept him from understanding that the U-2's typical operating altitude didn't make any difference, that what was important was the altitude at which the U-2 might be flown in ONE PARTICULAR INSTANCE.
After several of you admitted that yes, the U-2 can in fact fly at an altitude contemplated in the scenario discussed in the Guardian article, CY's and your dishonesty prevented you from acknowledging that CY had made a stupid and specious argument. You are now dragging around for various additional arguments for why the Guardian article is supposedly mistaken, but none of those have anything to do with my point, which can be summarized as follows:
1. A U-2 can be operated at an altitude contemplated by the scenario discussed in the Guardian article.
2. CY, due to his laziness and stupidity, made a specious argument based on the idea that a U-2 would not be operated at such altitudes. Whether his laziness and stupidity caused him to fail to realize that a U-2 can be operated below its typical altitude, or whether that laziness and stupidity caused him to fail to realize that a typical condition need not prevail in all cases, is irrelevant. What is relevant is that CY is lazy and stupid, and his laziness and stupidity led him to make a specious argument.
3. Your and his various attempts to disprove my point by bringing up other issues that I did not address are irrelevant, except insofar as they serve to demonstrate your dishonesty.
Posted by: Mary Rosh at February 06, 2006 04:02 PM (nIkFG)
81
""-die hard bush fans that feel he can to no wrong-then the the info is flawed, the media is manned by rabid 'libruls', the messenger is on drugs...whatever it takes to rationalize your position without actually examining the issue.
The irony of your post is quite amazing after you berate me for insulting Mary. It makes it easier to vanquish your opponents when you paint them as absurd caricatures, doesn't it?"
Posted by: Jordan at February 6, 2006 02:44 AM
--------------
Actually, I was not specifically referring to you jumping on this Mary person, just noticing the tone of this site. Although it was you first who inferred that I have no reasoning skills because I disagree.
I won't try to address the fighter plane issue-I'm not a fighter pilot. Those who have this firsthand knowledge, go right ahead.
-----------
"As to your statement, "whatever it takes to rationalize your position without actually examining the issue", I note that you also said, "reading the condesending run on above gets tiresome." So tell me oh unenlightened one (using your words there), how is it that you say nobody here wants to examine the issue, but you can't be bothered with reading the thread? Sounds like somewhat baseless criticism to me.
-------------
You've got me there. It was late last night and I may have been a wee bit impatient :-) However, to think that I don't look at both sides is incorrect. I did show up here, after all.
-----------------
"die hard bush fans that feel he can do no wrong". Did you take this personally because this is your opinion of him? There are many republicans who are mad at bush for not behaving like the conservative he's supposed to be. His fiscal policy, for example, has bothered them. My father, who has voted republican through all his 70+ years, gets angry whenever I bring him up. He is a *true* conservative. To be more clear, my point of view is addressed to those who don't look at both sides-extremists.
-------------
"Duh! O'Neill was pissed that he was fired by GWB. Of course he would make claims against the man who fired him - just to protect his failing reputation."
"Guardian Fetches A Bucket of Prop Wash"
Examples of attacking the messenger.
I'm curious how y'all feel about the Christian Science Monitor? Honestly.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0203/dailyUpdate.html
--------------
"I find it amazing that the more untruths are repeated by extremists, the more the general public comes to accept them." - pyrhaven, February 6, 2006 12:00 AM
You must mean things like:
"I took the initiative in creating the Internet" - Al Gore"
------------
"Snopes:
Claim: Vice-President Al Gore claimed that he "invented" the Internet.
Status: False.
Origins: Despite the derisive references that continue even today, Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore said he 'invented' the Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions of something he said during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition" program on 9 March 1999. When asked to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Gore replied (in part):
During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.
Clearly, although Gore's phrasing was clumsy (and perhaps self-serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet (in the sense of having designed or implemented it), but that he was responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the development the I also invented the microphone technology that we now know as the Internet. "
Just threw that in for fun.
-----------------
I don't care if Bush was trying to build a case to invade Iraq. It was 10 years in the making. Saddam had given us plenty of valid reasons to do it, the most compelling one (in my eyes) being the "No-Fly Zone War" which you and Mary conveniently ignore. Shooting at another nations aircraft is an act of war, in case you forgot."
-------------------
I don't have any problem with Saddam being out of business. But the original reason given for our occupation of Iraq was quite different from those given since then...but that's fodder for another thread. The problem with you not having a problem with his planning this for years (for which I appreicate your honesty)is that when those at the top of the government start manipulating the law to achieve their own goals, the system fails. Because many agree with his way of doing things, the entire country does not feel that way. bush works for *all* of us, not just half of us.
Posted by: pyrhaven at February 06, 2006 04:05 PM (woF/T)
82
Insofar as you are so stupid, lazy and dishonest, CY, it would appear that those who are kicking the can down a blind alley and to beat a dead horse have already stated all that needs to be stated. Indeed, they do not need to know crap about any operational, tactical or strategic matters affecting military operations. Their minds have been made up, and even though their own flimsy arguments are specious at best, we really do not need to read more of the same from these people.
Is an IP block or two in order to save us all from being bombarded constantly by the same script?
Posted by: Retired Spy at February 06, 2006 04:16 PM (nacM2)
83
OK, pyrhaven. Consider the following:
These are Gore's exact words, as presented by two scholars in the field, Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf, on September 28, 2000:
"During my service in the United States Congress I took the
initiative in creating the Internet."
Looks to me like ol' Al was trying to toot his own horn a bit, wasn't he?
There is a big difference in that admitted statement and the one you offered, namely, "Vice-President Al Gore claimed that he "invented" the Internet," don't you think? There is a difference in the definition of the words 'created' and 'invented.'
The concept of the Internet was actually invented by the Defense Advanced Projects Agency in the 1960's. Al Gore entered Congress in 1977.
Touché!
Posted by: Retired Spy at February 06, 2006 04:40 PM (nacM2)
84
Mary,
Let me see if I've got this right. You came in and claimed that CY said the U2 could not be flown lower than 70K feet. Specifically you said that CY claimed, "that the Guardian article was wrong because U-2's can't fly below 70,000 feet." You said that, not CY. At no point up until your last post did you say anything about the scenario being more or less likely due to the fact that the U2 could fly at different altitudes. You simply made accusations. I guess you were just being a LAZY TROLL. And BTW - You still did not point out where CY said that the plane could not fly at altitudes less than 70K?
You also said: "Your and his various attempts to disprove my point by bringing up other issues that I did not address are irrelevant, except insofar as they serve to demonstrate your dishonesty."
Well...my response to you is: Your various attempts to prove your point by NOT BRINGING UP SPECIFIC ISSUES demonstrate your laziness. If you want to debate, debate. Don't accuse.
I notice that you still have not dealt with the entire idea that our planes - on UN missions - and other planes were fired on regularly in the no-fly zone. So why would we need to do anything else?
And finally - no memo - no proof. All we have is that theoretically someone (Sands) saw a memo. Where is it? Who has it? No memo.....I feel it probably never existed and that Sands had to have something shocking in his book to get it to sell...Prove me wrong.
Posted by: Specter at February 06, 2006 04:46 PM (ybfXM)
85
Let’s make this as basic as possible, okay? I'm going to try this one more time, and once more only, and then we’ll have to compromise the program and call it “Several Children Left Behind” because it isn’t worth the effort.
The quote:
Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]".
The writer of this paragraph thinks that firing at an U-2 airplane painted in U.N. colors would be in breach of the U.N. ceasefire that ended the 1991 Gulf War. He would be right.
What the author does not grasp (an what you seem to be missing as well) is that firing upon or even “locking up” (using targeting radar against) any airplane carrying out the U.N.-mandated mission to patrol the No-Fly Zone would be a violation of the 1991 ceasefire. It wouldn’t matter if that plane was a U-2 in U.N. Blue or Snoopy or his red doghouse.
Unbeknownst to the author, Saddamm had already violated this cease-fire hundreds of times between 1991-2003. Each and every instance was a break of the conditions of peace, and would have provided Bush and Blair the legal rationale to re-engage Iraq, if they meely wanted a legal excuse which is what the author is arguing.
Mary, sadly, is in her own little world, and is too ignorant or unwilling to learn to waste further pixels on. Let her think what she will.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 06, 2006 04:47 PM (g5Nba)
86
pyrhaven,
I threw the Al Gore statement in for a reason. The quick defense is that he "never said he invented the internet." You went right for it. Yet, if you read back, I did quote what he said correctly. But let's look a little more closely:
You can replace the two key words in the statement: initiative and creating.
Gore Said: I took the initiative in creating the internet.
Substitution words for "initiative": lead, ascendancy.
Substitution words for "creating": making, generating, producing, fashioning, forming, crafting, building, constructing, inventing, designing, originating, giving rise to, establishing, set up, get going.
Have some fun and play with the words. Either Gore is one of the worst examples that can be held up for brain trusts of the Democratic Party, or he really was trying to claim credit. I suspect the former.
And I know....Gore did sponsor key legislation that helped fund research projects in high speed computing. He deserves a little credit. But all he did was help get the money to the people who did the work.
Posted by: Specter at February 06, 2006 05:03 PM (ybfXM)
87
"The writer of this paragraph thinks that firing at an U-2 airplane painted in U.N. colors would be in breach of the U.N. ceasefire that ended the 1991 Gulf War."
CY, I agree with you that if the point was to get Saddam to breach the ceasefire, there was no need. I also agree with you that the reading you ascribe to the memo, as described by the Guardian, is certainly plausible.
Where I disagree is that in the context of the rest of the memo, as described in the story, a main focus of the conversations between Bush and Blair was getting what they wanted out of the UN, and so I think the idea of getting a U-2 "painted in UN colours" shot at by the Iraqis was more likely suggested as a way to get support from countries in the UN who were on the fence re a second resolution.
I think you make a better case against the memo in this comment than you did in your original post, FWIW.
It would be interesting to actually see the (so-called) memo.
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop at February 06, 2006 05:38 PM (rfaI6)
88
I've found a photo of the attempt! @ http://static.flickr.com/41/96476488_1c5abc234d.jpg
Posted by: M Burke at February 06, 2006 05:51 PM (fEmUv)
89
Specter & Retired Spy,
As I said, I threw in a response to the Gore thing for fun. I've never thought a whole lot about Al Gore, rather than he's another typical politician. Perhaps it's a matter of semantics, but as the article says, "Clearly, although Gore's phrasing was clumsy (and perhaps self-serving)..." Yes he was tooting his own horn, the interview was given during a time he was running for office.
-----------------
"I threw the Al Gore statement in for a reason. The quick defense is that he "never said he invented the internet." You went right for it."
------------------
I said quite a bit, Specter. Actually, I "went for" quite a bit. I quoted a few different poster's thoughts and gave my responses. I asked a few questions. The responses to my Gore bit was the only part I see addressed. Anyone care to answer my other questions, of comment on the rest?
-------------------
I don't know all the inside stuff going on here, as I've only started reading posts yesterday. Normally the sites I take part in have pretty basic terms of service; all are welcome with various differing viewpoints, as long as it remains somewhat civil-and personal attacks are not tolerated. That would apply to both sides of the fence.
-------------
"Is an IP block or two in order to save us all from being bombarded constantly by the same script?"
-------------
Debate is much more interesting to me that hanging out patting each other on the back. Although politics is by nature a very emotional issue, I do try to remember that for the most part, we all desire the same things-the argument seems to stem from the way each side of the fence thinks it should happen.
Retired Spy,
Being new here, I'm a little concerned by the sound of this. Are people banned from here for different viewpoints? If this site is meant for republicans only, or those who won't argue, that should be made clear.I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind here, and vice-versa. But there should be a level of respect, despite the headline, "Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state" :-) A sense of humor is important in discussing politics. I know you think I'm brainless, just as you assume I think you all are.
Unless I see an honest, respectful exchange between myself and you all, I'll have to assume that I'm not welcome, which is fine-it's your party.
Posted by: pyrhaven at February 06, 2006 06:31 PM (woF/T)
90
M Burke, thanks for the levity! That explains all the misperceptions that have occured. The aircraft is clearly below 70,000 feet, too.
Some people feed on details, some people feed on emotions, some people just feed and some people feed on the bottom. My goodness, CY, you attracted more than your share of the last!
Posted by: Old Soldier at February 06, 2006 06:53 PM (owAN1)
91
pyrhaven,
Stick Around. Debate on an open basis without trolling is what I like. I think everyone here would agree with me. 'Course the bottom line is up to CY
Posted by: Specter at February 06, 2006 07:13 PM (ybfXM)
92
The only real problem I have in these ongoing discussions, pyrhaven, is when some people totally distort facts and make claims that we are making statement that we are really not making.
Debate is good. Debate is healthy. Arguing just to make a point or for the sake of arguing is a waste of time and energy. That is why I, for one, totally lost patience with Mary Rosh. She had become totally unreasonable.
CY is in charge here,and he is very open to reasoned debate. He makes the calls.
Posted by: Retired Spy at February 06, 2006 07:58 PM (nacM2)
93
CY et al:
With regards to the point of "U.N. colors", let me revise an earlier statement: Slap a U.N. flag on the vertical stabilizer and stencil the UN logo and initials in conspicuous places. This is useful if you're trying to sucker Saddam's boys into a mess. Why is this? Foreign diplomats (or those outside the U.S. or its military) don't care when an "American spyplane" is fired on, but they might care when a "UN peace-maintenance and observation platform" is fired on/brought down. What's the difference? A pair of flag magnets and about twenty minutes with a pair of stencils and a bucket of paint.
Somewhat absurd, but as I observed elsewhere, that's diplomacy for you. That reasoning is why I figure that US/UK combat aircraft "didn't count" in terms of being fired upon.
Excerpted from my own response piece to this:
f this was some sort of sly attempt to create a pretext for war, the objective isn't for the Iraqis to see the thing from the ground and decide that "Yeah, it's got a UN livery, so blow it to pieces". To be honest, I doubt the Iraqis would be that stupid. The point of the effort would be to do one of two things, assuming a missile engagement:
1. If the aircraft is lost, make certain that cameramen get lots of footage of the wreckage. Special attention to the aforementioned UN decal and stencils, understand? Linger on them, yeah. Even better if they're slightly charred. Get some kids to hold up wreckage and dance with it.
2. If the aircraft returns to base, sequester the pilot and allow some access by journalists to the aircraft, especially after you remove any sensor packages that you don't want seen by Aviation Week & Space Technology or the Red Chinese. Make sure all pictures are posed to include the UN lettering and any damage done to the aircraft. Have people on hand to talk about that, too.
Either way, announce to the world that Saddam Hussein has flagrantly broken the cease-fire agreement or other subsequent UN resolutions, and then go in. "Lookie here what you've done shot at", in other words.
Does anyone see where I'm going with this, or am I just off-base? If the whole thing sounds hostile, er, it wasn't meant to be. I didn't change it because of Posterity. Or lassitude, one of the two.
Posted by: The Country Pundit at February 06, 2006 10:36 PM (xZ4PU)
94
Thank you Specter and Retired Spy. I'm not likely to post a whole lot here, but I'd like to think that if I do, I won't be classified as any more than someone with a possibly differing viewpoint.
RS, it's been my experience that both sides tend to qualify heresay as fact. In the age of Google, it's just a matter of finding a source that supports what you say, be it Al Franken or Rush Limbaugh.
I've generally tried to find sources that are independant/moderate; I have to say, though, that I've often found pretty much all popular news sources dismissed outright by many on the right-thus my comment about the "librul media". It makes it frustrating to try to make my point when so many don't consider it "real" unless it comes from Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. Which is one of the reasons I questioned the right's opinion on the Christian Science Monitor-they also were corroborating the issue credited to The Guardian. I would like to know anyone here's opinion on the Monitor.
Anyway, here's to the fair fight. :-)
Posted by: pyrhaven at February 07, 2006 12:04 AM (woF/T)
95
Well, let me say that I misread the tone of your first few posts, pyrhaven. I welcome a spirited debate too. Welcome aboard!
Honestly, I don't have an opinion on the Monitor. It's pretty obscure to me. I don't trust the Guardian at all. I don't listen to Hannity or Limbaugh.
Posted by: Jordan at February 07, 2006 01:18 AM (pLJN7)
96
I can't believe this has gone on so long and no one point out the biggest screwup that completely shoots down the whole argument that shooting at U2 on U2 supporting the arms inspectors would be no different than shooting at no fly zone aircraft . First evverything that CY calls a FACT is categorically false. At no time did the Iraquis shoot at UN sanctioned aircraft since the NO FLY zone was not a UN creation, was not sanctioned by the UN never approved or supported by the UN. It was unilaterly imposed solely by the American, British and French governments. It wan not created by the peace treaty signed by Saddam Hussein. This was why shooting at the planes was not brought up at the UN as a justification for the war. Contrary to previuous claims, shooting at them is not a clear act of war but an act of defense, arguably legally allowed, since they were univited in Iraquis air space. Or quote FACT that everybody else's intelligence agent agreed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. This is a FACT that is true only when very carefully phrased, something conservatives are not always successful in doing. Yes all intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had tactically and strategically insignificant WW1 era chemical weapons. All but american agencies were absolutely convinced that there was no nuclear program and all but the Britich were sure there was no biological program, in strong disagreement with American intelligence. That was why Powell's presentation at the UN was so inefffectual. The few accusations the ambassadors could confirm about his talk were all known to be false. The rest he insisted the world take on his word.
Posted by: me at February 07, 2006 09:54 AM (9fuqK)
97
What are the odds that this me person has an IP address in some Middle East country? Maybe it's some Baathist scum living in a spider hole somewhere ...
Posted by: Retired Spy at February 07, 2006 10:44 AM (nacM2)
98
If you want to get that technical, you are indeed correct that France, Great Britain, and the United States would not wait for Iraqi allies/customers Russia and China before they stopped the slaughter of Iraqi Shites and Kurds by Saddam's Air Force with a specific United Nations Security Council resolution.
They were under no obligation to do so, as they already claimed authorization from United Nations Resolution 688, recalling of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter of the United Nations. The resolution stipulates that Iraq cannot hurt its own people, and provides the legal basis for the no-fly zones.
And since you asked, Retired Spy, "me" is a writing from the University of Western Ontario. I'm guessing their is a 50/50 shot that "me" is either a Rachel Corrie/weapons grade dhimmi, or is one of many and Saddam apologist/hostiles hiding out north of the border.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 07, 2006 11:03 AM (g5Nba)
99
Considering it's a leaked memo, and no-one has denied that it is true, perhaps your accusations of stupidity would be better directed at your president who seems to bethe one who suggested the whole scheme?
Posted by: sonic at February 07, 2006 05:56 PM (Gsn6c)
100
Sonic Says:
Considering it's a leaked memo, and no-one has denied that it is true, perhaps your accusations of stupidity would be better directed at your president who seems to bethe one who suggested the whole scheme?
Maybe it would be more accurate if the statement read:
Considering it's a probable fabricated memo, and no-one has proven that it is authentic, perhaps accusations of stupidity would be better directed at the Guardian who seem to be the ones who suggested the whole scheme?
Posted by: Retired Spy at February 07, 2006 06:08 PM (nacM2)
Posted by: Specter at February 07, 2006 09:34 PM (ybfXM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Like a bitter, bigoted version of Marley's Ghost, the NAACP's chief rabble(rouser?) Julian Bond is out once again rattling his chains, taking the low road as far as it would go without crawling under the podium.
at Fayetteville State University, Bond spent his time impugning Republicans as “Nazis,” and named two of America's most successful black public servants "tokens" for belonging to the wrong political party.
He intends to make certain of that, by chaining blacks to the Democratic Party with every innuendo, invective, and slur that slithers past his lips.
want discussed.
Blacks are no more homogenous than any other ethnic group, and yet for decades they have been expected to vote Democrat simply because of their race, an expectation put on
in America. It is a racist ploy, pure, simple, and as evil as a burning cross.
Like whites, Asians, and Hispanics, blacks live in every part of the country, rural and urban, across all economic layers, with differing wants, needs, and expectations.
Black voters deserve something other than the “one size fits all” approach the Democratic Party and black community “leaders” have been pushing for the past 40 years, and they certainly deserve far better treatment in non-election years. They are individuals, and deserve to be treated as such, not relegated to the political status of a “sure thing.”
is certainly disparaging the intelligence of the black voter, Julian Bond.
I think it's you.
says it all: "NAACP Chairman Julian Bond crawled out of his hole this morning and saw his shadow, indicating 6 more weeks of racism."
Top U.S. intelligence officials confirmed today that national security leaks published by the NY Times (just as reporter James Risen had a book about to be published) dealt a severe blow to the surveillance efforts of several U.S. intelligence agencies to defend America from al Qaeda terrorists.
for putting the nation in danger, as they seem to share the notion that any damage to national security was merely collateral damage in what they view as a legitimate attempt to destroy their real enemy, President George W. Bush.
"Loyal opposition," my ass.
If you are trying to change public opinion by meddling in the comments of a small blog (and I'm not
saying this is a state-sponsored action, though if it is, it qualifies among the most pathetic ever recorded), you might want to consider, at the very least, a bit better training in English before trying to pass yourself off as
.
It just doesn't quite hang right on you, Hamid.
And try wiping the flecks of foam from your 'stache when you go all anti-Semetic, babbling about "israel soil and zionists."
Somebody might confuse you with Mother Sheehan.
Now that we're hip deep in this sitation of our own design, we find that we don't really have anything to really justify these hearings, so...
As more than one person has predicted, the NSA surveillance case has come into a phase where Democrats in Congress (along with a few Republicans) are determined to re-establish where
think that the borders of presidential authority should lie. Apparently, the evidence amassed so far does not bode well for the self-important legislators of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
They've been reduced to casting about madly, hoping that by dumb luck they might hook something of significance. At the very least, they hope to muddy the waters enough so that they can limp out out of this investigation not perceived as small men and women jealously guarding their fiefdoms.
explaining the Administration's legal position in great detail, establishing that the Presidency has always had "inherent constitutional authority" to conduct warrantless investigations of enemy forces to dissuade attacks upon the United States. The document cites case law, the President's inherent Constitutional authority under Article II, an apparent FISA exemption granted by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), and certainly not least, the fact that the FISA Court of Review, in
, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (FISA Ct. of Review 2002),
It appears that the game was over before it began. The fact that the Senate Judiciary Committee been reduced to such a blatantly weak Hail Mary play reveals just how desperate their hopes for a face-saving gesture have become.
But don't worry, Senators. At least when all this is over you won't face the prospect of Justice Department espionage investigations like your friends at the
.
Yikes.
Oops , wrong picture...
Carter, however, is a lagomorph-phobic peanut farmer, and not a lawyer. He should talk to his attorney general Griffin Bell, who said that FISA, "does not take away the power of the president under the Constitution."
Carter would also do well to read this analysis (PDF) of H. Bryan Cunningham, a "national security lawyer" and CIA officer under Bill Clinton, and the Deputy Legal Advisor to the National Security Administration in the George H.W. Bush administration. The letter absolutely guts the arguments of Democrats and libertarians, and strongly suggests that FISA may be unconstitutional as it constrains the President's Article II powers. Virginia Patriot, the shiny new blog of a William & Mary law school professor who tipped me off to the letter, has more analysis of the letter.
He also provides one of the better Op-Eds (free registration may be required) I've read about the FISA flap and the legality of Bush's actions in signing the order to run this NSA program.
