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.

I never should have counted out Britney Spears.

Yikes.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:20 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

Adam Nagorney and Sheryl Gay Stolberg have thoroughly amusing article in Wednesday's NY Times, Some Democrats Are Sensing Missed Opportunities. I thought it could use some clarification.

Democrats are heading into this year's elections in a position weaker than they had hoped for, party leaders say, stirring concern that they are letting pass an opportunity to exploit what they see as widespread Republican vulnerabilities.

In interviews, senior Democrats said they were optimistic about significant gains in Congressional elections this fall, calling this the best political environment they have faced since President Bush took office.

But Democrats described a growing sense that they had failed to take full advantage of the troubles that have plagued Mr. Bush and his party since the middle of last year, driving down the president's approval ratings, opening divisions among Republicans in Congress over policy and potentially putting control of the House and Senate into play in November.

Asked to describe the health of the Democratic Party, Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said: "A lot worse than it should be. This has not been a very good two months."

"We seem to be losing our voice when it comes to the basic things people worry about," Mr. Dodd said.

And what "basic things" would those be, Senator?

Being able to remember an icon without turning her casket into a soapbox? Would you be referring to "basic things" such as Democrats cheering the fact they torpedoed an attempt to reform Social Security? Perhaps a shocking tendency towards behavior that helps terrorists? Do tell.

Democrats said they had not yet figured out how to counter the White House's long assault on their national security credentials. And they said their opportunities to break through to voters with a coherent message on domestic and foreign policy — should they settle on one — were restricted by the lack of an established, nationally known leader to carry their message this fall.

Let's be honest, kids. Democrats 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 imaginary gulags, 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 Pink Badges. It is a dishonor hard-fought, and well-earned.

As a result, some Democrats said, their party could lose its chance to do to Republicans this year what the Republicans did to them in 1994: make the midterm election, normally dominated by regional and local concerns, a national referendum on the party in power.

"I think that two-thirds of the American people think the country is going in the wrong direction," " said Senator Barack Obama, the first-term Illinois Democrat who is widely viewed as one of the party's promising stars. "They're not sure yet whether Democrats can move it in the right direction."

Mr. Obama said the Democratic Party had not seized the moment, adding: "We have been in a reactive posture for too long. I think we have been very good at saying no, but not good enough at saying yes."

Or in Senator Obama's case, not good enough at saying anything truthful.

Some Democrats said they favored remaining largely on the sidelines while Republicans struggled under the glare of a corruption inquiry.

I wonder why?

And some said there was still time for the party to get its act together. But many others said the party needed to move quickly to offer a comprehensive governing agenda, even as they expressed concern about who could make the case.

Their concern was aggravated by the image of high-profile Democrats, including Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, challenging the legality of Mr. Bush's secret surveillance program this week at a time when the White House has sought to portray Democrats as weak on security.

"We're selling our party short; you've got to stand for a lot more than just blasting the other side," said Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee. "The country is wide open to hear some alternatives, but I don't think it's wide open to all these criticisms. I am sitting here and getting all my e-mail about the things we are supposed to say about the president's speech, but it's extremely light on ideas. It's like, 'We're for jobs and we're for America.' "

Haven't you heard, Phil? There's a better way.

To a certain extent, the frustrations afflicting Democrats are typical for a party out of power. In Congress, the Democrats have become largely marginalized by the Republican majority, depriving them of a ready platform either to make attacks or offer their own ideas.

Who needs a platform, when you've got a casket? Not Jimmah Cartah!

Presidential campaigns typically produce prominent party leaders, followed around the country by a cluster of reporters and television crews, but that is at least two years away.

What? You're forgetting the Man with the Magic Hat so soon?

Yet in many ways, the Democratic Party's problems seem particularly tangled today, a source of frustration to Democratic leaders as they have watched opinion polls indicating that the public is souring on the Republican Party and receptive to Democratic leadership.

And the problems are besetting Democrats at a pivotal moment, as they struggle to adapt to a shifting American political landscape, and a concerted effort by this White House to make permanent inroads among once traditional Democratic voters.

Since Mr. Bush's re-election, Democrats have been divided over whether to take on the Republicans in a more confrontational manner, ideologically and politically, or to move more forcefully to stake out the center on social and national security issues. They are being pushed, from the left wing of the party, to stand for what they say are the party's historical liberal values.

What are "liberal values?"

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...

You can have "liberal." You can have "values." Which is it?

But among more establishment Democrats, there is concern that many of the party's most visible leaders — among them, Howard Dean, the Democratic chairman; Senator John Kerry, the party's 2004 presidential candidate; Mr. Kennedy; Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader; and Al Gore, who has assumed a higher profile as the party heads toward the 2008 presidential primaries — may be flawed messengers.

And your first clue was what exactly?

One of the party's most prominent members, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, has been relatively absent for much of this debate, a characteristic display of public caution that her aides say reflects her concern for keeping focused on her re-election bid. Mrs. Clinton, who has only nominal opposition, declined requests for an interview to discuss her views of the party.

Mr. Kerry said the party's authority had been diluted because of the absence of one or two obvious leaders, though he expressed confidence that would change.

"We are fighting to find a voice under difficult circumstances, and I'm confident, over the next few months, you are going to see that happen," Mr. Kerry said in an interview. "Our megaphone is just not as large as their megaphone, and we have a harder time getting that message out, even when people are on the same page."

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.

Beyond that, while there is a surfeit of issues for Democrats to use against Republicans — including corruption, the war in Iraq, energy prices and health care — party leaders are divided about what Democrats should be talking about and about how soon they should engage in the debate.

Just a quick reality check for the Times:

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 do have the market cornered on unhinged shrieking, however, so all is not lost.

In a speech last week in Washington and in an interview, Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who is considering a run for president in 2008, sharply criticized fellow Democrats who were arguing that the party should focus only on domestic issues and turn away from national security, since that has been the strong suit for this White House since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.

"I think the Republicans are ripe for the taking on this issue," Mr. Bayh said in the interview, "but not until we rehabilitate our own image. I think there's a certain element of denial about how we are viewed, perhaps incorrectly but viewed nonetheless, by many Americans as being deficient on national security."

In his speech, to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Mr. Bayh said: "As Democrats, we have a patriotic duty and political imperative to lay out our ideas for protecting America. Frankly, our fellow citizens have doubts about us. We have work to do."

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 burned it." Badly. If you want to protect America, start by muzzling Pat "Leaky" Leahy and Jay Rockefeller before the Justice Department does.

"When you bring it out early, you are going to leave it open for the spinmeisters in Rove's machine, the Republican side, to tear it to pieces," said Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois.

I translate that to, “Dude, I got nothin'.”

"What the American people are hungry to hear from us is, what is the difference?" Mr. Edwards said in an interview. "What will we do? How will we deal with the corruption issue in Washington? How will we deal with the huge moral issues that we have at home? This is a huge opportunity for our party to show what we are made of."

*crickets*

Historically at least, Democrats should be in a strong position. The out-of-power party typically gains seats in the midterm elections of a president's second term. And Democrats said they had a particularly compelling case for voting out the party in power this year because of investigations centered on the White House and Congress, including the influence-peddling case involving the lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

"We're going to keep hammering this," said Mr. Dean, the party chairman, referring to the scandals. "One thing the Republicans have taught us is that values and character matter."

Yet some Democrats warned that it would be a mistake to talk only about ethics.

Harry Reid, or Ted Kennedy?

"It's absolutely required that the party talk about things in addition to the Abramoff scandal," said Martin Frost, former leader of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "I think the climate is absolutely right to take back the House or the Senate or both. But you can't do it without a program."

And Mr. Bayh said, "I don't believe we will win by just not being them."

Ms. Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, did not dispute that argument. But, pointing to the Democratic strategy in defeating Mr. Bush's Social Security proposal last year, she said there was no rush.

"People said, 'You can't beat something with nothing,' " she said, arguing that the Democrats had in fact accomplished precisely that this year. "I feel very confident about where we are."

And Senator Barbara Boxer, also a California Democrat, said: "We have a strategy. First is to convince the American people that what's happening in Washington is not working. We have achieved that. Now we have to, at this stage, convince people that we are the ones to bring positive change."

Boxer's plan is working... somewhat.

The American people have 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.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:15 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 2079 words, total size 14 kb.

Well, we can't say this is exactly a surprise:

Former President Jimmy Carter criticized the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping program Monday and said he believes the president has broken the law.

"Under the Bush administration, there's been a disgraceful and illegal decision _ we're not going to the let the judges or the Congress or anyone else know that we're spying on the American people," Carter told reporters. "And no one knows how many innocent Americans have had their privacy violated under this secret act."

Carter...

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.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:27 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

Via Drudge, this bit of unpleasantness:

IRAN'S largest selling newspaper announced today it was holding a contest on cartoons of the Holocaust in response to the publishing in European papers of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed.
"It will be an international cartoon contest about the Holocaust," said Farid Mortazavi, the graphics editor for Hamshahri newspaper - which is published by Teheran's conservative municipality.

He said the plan was to turn the tables on the assertion that newspapers can print offensive material in the name of freedom of expression.

"The Western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let's see if they mean what they say and also print these Holocaust cartoons," he said.

Doesn't everyone enjoy a good Holocaust cartoon?

And so I came up with one of my own, though it is just a draft so far. What do you think? more...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:49 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.

Pakistani doctors, still fuming over controversial Dutch cartoons showing the Prophet Mohammed, have sworn off using European drugs:

The Pakistan Medical Association has vowed not to prescribe medicines from firms based in some European countries where controversial cartoons portraying the Prophet Mohammed were published, said Shahid Rao, the body's general secretary for Punjab province.

The association will boycott drugs from Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Germany and France to protest the 'blasphemous' drawings, Rao said.

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.

Shortly after the announcement, an estimated 40 insurgents armed only with shebriya 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."

(h/t Michelle Malkin for the medical story)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:52 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.

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.

Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom, 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, Identity Politics, Free Speech, and the Future of worldwide Liberalism, 2: a follow-up.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

The last time I say this face was after hearing the words:

A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti... Fly back to school, little Starling.

h/t Instapundit

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:14 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

The latest of the so-called "Downing Street Memos" is the most laughable one yet. According to a key passage in this latest theory:

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]".

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.

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.

Iraqi aggression against Coalition planes carrying out U.N.-mandated missions occurred with enough severity that they warranted an armed response more than 47 times in 2001, and more than 76 times - 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 33 times in just 12 weeks in the Southern Watch area alone.

Over the course of 12 years, more than 1,100 missiles were expended in defensive actions against a minimum of 350 Iraqi targets, most of them when anti-aircraft weapons had "gone hot," committing the exact 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.

This "new, explosive memo" as some are calling it (the "Mother of All Downing Street Memos" according to others), is therefore based upon some demonstrably false information.

Update: Dropped speculative theory of what dissiminating false info might mean. We'll stick with the facts for now.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:05 PM | Comments (101) | Add Comment
Post contains 433 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Can't argue with that.

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 GodÂ’s name does he cling to the feeble minded argument that Chimpy wasnÂ’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. IÂ’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 GodÂ’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. IÂ’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)

101 What memo?

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.

In a vicious, hate-filled speech 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.

Julian Bond is right about one thing, however: if you are black in America you have no freedom today. 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.

Why should blacks vote for Democrats, simply because they were born black? That is the real issue in a nutshell, and one Bond does not 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 no other ethnic group 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.”

Someone is certainly disparaging the intelligence of the black voter, Julian Bond.

I think it's you.

Update: Generation Why? says it all: "NAACP Chairman Julian Bond crawled out of his hole this morning and saw his shadow, indicating 6 more weeks of racism."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:50 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.

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.

From Forbes:

CIA Director Porter Goss said Thursday that the disclosure of President Bush's eavesdropping-without-warrants program and other once-secret projects had undermined U.S. intelligence-gathering abilities.

"The damage has been very severe to our capabilities to carry out our mission," Goss told the Senate Intelligence Committee. He said a federal grand jury should be empaneled to determine "who is leaking this information."

His testimony came after National Intelligence Director John Negroponte, who directs all intelligence activities, strongly defended the program, calling it crucial for protecting the nation against its most menacing threat.

"This was not about domestic surveillance," Negroponte said.

[snip]

"I use the words `very severe' intentionally. And I think the evidence will show that," Goss said.

He said not only have these revelations made it harder for the CIA to gather information, but they have made intelligence agencies in other countries mistrustful of their U.S. counterparts.

"I'm stunned to the quick when I get questions from my professional counterparts saying, `Mr. Goss, can't you Americans keep a secret?'" he said.

Goss cited a "disruption to our plans, things that we have under way." Some CIA sources and "assets" had been rendered "no longer viable or usable, or less effective by a large degree," he said.

"I also believe that there has been an erosion of the culture of secrecy and we're trying to reinstall that," Goss said.

"I've called in the FBI, the Department of Justice. It is my aim and it is my hope that we will witness a grand jury investigation with reporters present, being asked to reveal who is leaking this information," he said.

Somehow, I just don't see the left wing blogs jumping all over the Times 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.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:35 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 3 kb.

Let me get this straight... we go from DeLay, to Blunt to Boehner? This isn't a House Republican leadership race as much as it is a Levitra ad. then again, I guess that is what we can expect when all the candidates are guys in their mid-50s...

Of course, let's see what he can do with it before we talk about it too much. His position, I mean.

His political position.

Buncha pervs...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:48 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

Dear "Gary" from a certain "Axis of Evil" member state,

If you are trying to change public opinion by meddling in the comments of a small blog (and I'm not necessarily 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 some guy named Gary.

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.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:50 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.

The longer it goes on, the more pathetic terrorist surveillance opponents become:

The Bush administration is rebuffing requests from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for its classified legal opinions on President Bush's domestic spying program, setting up a confrontation in advance of a hearing scheduled for next week, administration and Congressional officials said Wednesday.

The Justice Department is balking at the request so far, administration officials said, arguing that the legal opinions would add little to the public debate because the administration has already laid out its legal defense at length in several public settings.

But the legality of the program is known to have produced serious concerns within the Justice Department in 2004, at a time when one of the legal opinions was drafted. Democrats say they want to review the internal opinions to assess how legal thinking on the program evolved and whether lawyers in the department saw any concrete limits to the president's powers in fighting terrorism.

With the committee scheduled to hold the first public hearing on the eavesdropping program on Monday, the Justice Department's stance could provoke another clash between Congress and the executive branch over access to classified internal documents.

Translation: 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... a little help, please!

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 they 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.

Regarding the NSA intercept program, the Justice Department issued a 42-page white paper 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 In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (FISA Ct. of Review 2002), clearly stated:

([A]ll the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information... We take for granted that the President does have that authority...").

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 NY Times.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:23 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 545 words, total size 4 kb.

Is it just my perception, or has self-serving NY Times reporter James Risen all but vanished since it was announced that the Justice Department was conducting an investigation into allegations that he and his sources might have broken federal espionage laws?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

AC-130 "Fry Daddy" (conceptual rendering)

(h/t Austin Bay)

al Qaeda better hope Coppertone comes out with SPF 4,000,000, or they are going to be in for a whole new world of hurt:

The U.S. military has been developing a gunship that could literally obliterate enemy ground targets with a laser beam.

The military plans to test the Advanced Tactical Laser, a laser weapon mounted on a C-130H air transport that could destroy any weapon system without collateral damage.

The laser could have tremendous repercussions on the battlefield, particularly in urban warfare in such countries as Afghanistan and Iraq. "It's the kind of tool that could bring about victory within minutes," an official said.

The applications of ATL could change military dynamics on the battlefield. Officials envision the laser being able to destroy or damage targets in an urban area with virtually no collateral damage.

A very nice weapon indeed, except for those targeted. I would like to know just how effective the radius of the weapon is, however, and how the heat effects of such a system might work.

While it is rather obvious how this weapon would affect, say, a Shahab-3 missile (developed, appropriately enough, from the North Korean No-Dong missile, which, while obviously accurate when considering the source, is a name I did not make up), it is not so clear how well a weapon of this type would affect a concrete bunker or mud brick structure.

Would such a laser provide enough immediate heat damage to cause the entire structure to violently fail, thus incapacitating or killing all enemies within, or would it it simple burn through in a restricted beam, perhaps slicing through Omar but leaving Abdul free to to operate an IED? Is it able to burn through such heat resistant structures at all?

I reserve the right to be absolutely wrong, but it seems to me that a weapons system that promises "virtually no collateral damage" is a weapons system of reduced lethality useful in only specific, limited circumstances.

Update: Created and added image.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:03 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 344 words, total size 2 kb.

President George W. Bush, in his January 31, 2006 State of the Union Address:

"In a time of testing, we cannot find security by abandoning our commitments and retreating within our borders. If we were to leave these vicious attackers alone, they would not leave us alone. They would simply move the battlefield to our own shores."

A massively outnumbered border patrol agent somewhere on the U.S. Mexican border (original source unknown).

Mr. President, we cannot retreat within our own borders, because you have done almost nothing in five years in office to protect them. Despite attempts to fight for American security in battles overseas, you are failing the nation's security in a far more fundamental way on the domestic front.

A nation that fails to control its borders fails in "a fundamental act of sovereignty." United States ex rel Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 542 (1950). President Ronald Reagan is credited with later echoing this sentiment when he stated, "A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation."

President Bush, we do NOT control our borders in any way, shape, or form under your present administration. We suffer an invasion of illegals equivalent to 160 12,500-man military divisions every year under your presidency, and this torrent shows no signs of abating.

Only 25% of Americans approve of your handling of immigration, Mr. President. You have failed to secure America itself, and that fact is not lost on the American voter.

As Rep. Tom Tancredo said tonight:

The President must enforce our immigration laws before we consider any guest worker proposal. Until we bring law and order to our border anarchy, importing more workers into the equation is out of the question.

In 1986, Congress passed a blanket amnesty on the promise that border security would come later. We all remember the '86 bait-and-switch, and we won't be fooled again. There is no way to determine if we need guest workers, and there is no way to gain control of this broken system until we seal our borders and control our country's interior.

We expect leadership on this issue, Mr.Bush, both from you and the Republican Congress. If you will not provide this leadership, we will eagerly seek it elsewhere this fall.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:47 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 379 words, total size 3 kb.