September 02, 2007
I Love the Smell of Daily Kos in the Morning
It smells like... well, you know what it smells like if you've ever been on a cattle ranch:
I have a friend who is an LSO on a carrier attack group that is planning and staging a strike group deployment into the Gulf of Hormuz. (LSO: Landing Signal Officer- she directs carrier aircraft while landing) She told me we are going to attack Iran. She said that all the Air Operation Planning and Asset Tasking are finished. That means that all the targets have been chosen, prioritized, and tasked to specific aircraft, bases, carriers, missile cruisers and so forth.I asked her why she is telling me this.
Her answer was really amazing.
By all means, please go over and read Maccabee's post. When you do, see if you can spot what appears to be wrong with the story, and then check your answers against mine. Who knows? You might just catch a few things I've missed. more...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:31 PM
| Comments (110)
| Add Comment
Post contains 652 words, total size 4 kb.
1
This story has so many holes in it that Beauchamp is jealous.
Check on what it takes to be an LSO and get back to me.
Posted by: YardBird at September 02, 2007 02:50 PM (1aM/I)
2
Oh and find me anywhere but a super carrier you can land an F-18 on.
She is bogus.
There is no arresting gear or catapult on where she had to come from.
Sooooooo Bogus an id, even if the rest of the story is gospel.
Posted by: YardBird at September 02, 2007 02:52 PM (1aM/I)
3
"...and an unblemished combat record."
"She" has a combat record?
In the United States Marine Corps?
Posted by: Dave at September 02, 2007 02:53 PM (/AAA6)
4
I had my doubts about Beauchamp's story when that first broke out, but Maccabee's correspondent is playing in my sand box. You're right, s/he is wrong in so many ways. Much more here if you're curious..
Posted by: lex at September 02, 2007 02:58 PM (+FbEw)
5
I don't mean this as any denigration of our brave and loyal Marines, but during my husband's 26 year Navy career, Marines on a ship were considered more or less cargo, since the ships were to transport them, with their equipment, to whatever location where Marines were needed for their special talents.
I did a big "what?" on the eating in the galley bit. Even I know that officers don't eat in the kitchen. When my husband was a Master Chief and I would have dinner with him onboard, we ate in the Chief's Mess. When he became a Warrant Officer, we ate in the Wardroom and were served by stewards. I used to be amazed at the amount of fine china and sterling silver that is sailing around on the oceans on U.S. ships, although I recall being told that all that gets packed away and even the paneling is removed when a ship goes to war. That I never saw.
Also, it was my experience that it was your Detailer in Washington who held the power to transfer you to a new billet. You would call him and find out what was available for your rate or rank and expertise and you could voice a preference, but that did not always mean you would get what you wanted.
Posted by: Sara at September 02, 2007 03:31 PM (hGL+y)
6
Follow up on the link Lex provided and look at the comments over at MacRanger's place.
This is someone who is throwing out pretty words about Navy terms (many of which don't apply to deployed carriers) and it all just smells pure plain bogus from the git go.
All that they needed to add was "this is a no sh***er to put it in context.
Posted by: YardBird at September 02, 2007 03:52 PM (1aM/I)
7
Not to defend Mr Malignant Narcissist himself, but apparently Maccabbee's diary is a little too wacky even for Markos:
Don't believe everything you read on the internets
Posted by: Spiny Norman at September 02, 2007 03:57 PM (OdRCs)
8
My guess is the Kos diarist stepped out to far and it may be the last we will see of him.
This story just has so many holes I could turn a carrier around in it and don't even ask just how much of a hole in the ocean that takes.
Posted by: YardBird at September 02, 2007 04:12 PM (1aM/I)
9
Someone can actually boil the entire foreign policy of the deployment to Kosovo down to a single sentence? And not one of these 500 word, run-on monstrosities...a clear and decisive sentence on the mission in Kosovo?
If it was so clear and decisive, then why don't they have a constitution, elections and are self-governing by now? Because if it is so damned clear, then why hasn't anyone talked about it? Could be a useful thing this concept of what the actual mission was supposed to achieve in Kosovo. I know that I didn't hear it at the time, that's for sure. Still haven't, come to think of it... unless it was a planned failure.
Posted by: ajacksonian at September 02, 2007 04:14 PM (oy1lQ)
10
Ok
Next we will hear how we modified our old Trident subs to tube load and launch F-117 or F-22's from tube 6.
I gotta go get another beer , I'll be back.
This is so much fun.
Posted by: YardBird at September 02, 2007 04:17 PM (1aM/I)
11
If you look via the search engines there is only one hit on a female LSO and she is on a ship that mostly support choppers and she was enlisted not commissioned and was a prior command master chief.
Which means she was pure Navy all the way.
Don't get me wrong, when I was in the Navy Nuke program way back when ALL people in the program were personally interviewed by Adm Rickover we had an ET Master Chief on my boat who was a conversion from the Marines.
I did 4 years on the bird farms and spent many hours on "vultures row" and did a twist for a year in the safety department including working the decks during flight ops.
From first person experience this whole story is a bunch of stuff thrown up that ties into that story on the web right now of the 1200 target strike being report over in jolly old England.
Posted by: YardBird at September 02, 2007 04:29 PM (1aM/I)
12
I am surprised the post is still there on Kos Land and now has about 1300 plus comments.
Posted by: YardBird at September 02, 2007 04:38 PM (1aM/I)
13
What I find most amazing is there is not a single poster in the comment section that has even the minimum knowledge to call bs on the original diary.
All the discussion is about the politics of the situation and none of the technical wrongness.
I am waiting for the original diarist to come out and say it was all satire and he fished everyone.
Posted by: YardBird at September 02, 2007 04:44 PM (1aM/I)
14
A Command Master Chief would never talk like this. I know, I was married to mine and he served in that capacity in 3 separate commands. Although, as Command Master Chief, she would have more access and probably spend much of her time with the XO as the liaison between command and crew.
Posted by: Sara at September 02, 2007 04:56 PM (hGL+y)
15
An afterthought, the Command Master Chief knows all, whether scuttlebutt or actual fact.
Posted by: Sara at September 02, 2007 05:03 PM (hGL+y)
16
Note it takes by their own link five missile hits to do in a 20k ton ship.
Care to guess the displacement of a Nimitz class carrier and then beyond that guess how far you have to punch through to even get to the ballistic bulkheads.
Sure you can do a bunch of cosmetic damage but look at the warhead size on a Sunburn and say, what was that a flea ala Bill Cosby.
Posted by: YardBird at September 02, 2007 05:04 PM (1aM/I)
17
Sara
A Command Master Chief is not God, but he is qualified to stand the watch.
Posted by: YardBird at September 02, 2007 05:06 PM (1aM/I)
18
Shsssshhh! Don't tell a Command Master Chief he isn't God, Yardbird. :0
Posted by: Sara at September 02, 2007 05:07 PM (hGL+y)
19
Ok here we have another streetcar submarine admiral who went to test depth during his commute in SanFran
It has a modern, upgradable (2+ / 0-) Recommended by: mrblifil, DWGnav system, it is not state of the art guidance, but is considered reliable.
The Soviets designed it SPECIFICALLY to attack the US Navy Aegis system. Iran just fired 1000 cruise missiles, you are a US Navy commander, you have 2 minutes to figure out which of the 1000 targets, are the 10 sunburns.
You have 45 seconds for any jets in the air to engage.
You have a bit more than one minute to shoot any old sub sonic missiles you have.... at a mach 3 to 4 target.
You have 3 to 5 seconds from when the Phalanx gun fires and the sunburn impacts your air craft carrier, if the Phalanx misses.
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
by Roger Fox on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 08:42:43 PM PDT
Posted by: YardBird at September 02, 2007 05:17 PM (1aM/I)
20
Of Course, I am going to assume that the rate would determine how much in the know a Command Master Chief would be. My husband was an HT/Repair Officer and was pretty much in on all facets of the ship's mission. He was also a master cumshaw artist, which made him a very valuable member to the command, especially when it came to repair. It pays in kudos from your bosses to be a skilled junkyard dog.
Posted by: Sara at September 02, 2007 05:18 PM (hGL+y)
21
Shsssshhh! Don't tell a Command Master Chief he isn't God, Yardbird. :0
Posted by: Sara at September 2, 2007 05:07 PMWell Sara I guess that makes you a goddess.
Personally I'm good with that since I have seen pictures of you, and yes you clean up nice.
Posted by: YardBird at September 02, 2007 05:20 PM (1aM/I)
22
One last thing and then I'm off to lie down and try to ignore how bad my head hurts and my nose is running from a bad cold.
She said that all the Air Operation Planning and Asset Tasking are finished. That means that all the targets have been chosen, prioritized, and tasked to specific aircraft, bases, carriers, missile cruisers and so forth.
Why is this news? I would expect that these types of details were all worked out and incorporated into any larger plan long before the ship ever sailed from its homeport.
Posted by: Sara at September 02, 2007 05:27 PM (hGL+y)
23
Sara
How can you have a cold in 110 degree temps?
A heat rash maybe, hot flashes (oops you are beyond that) or dehydration , but a cold.
Suggestion more Tequila.
Take as much as necessary and nudge me in the morning.
Posted by: YardBird at September 02, 2007 05:32 PM (1aM/I)
24
Ok
I have taken the time an waded through all the comments over at Kos Land.
Not one called bs on the technicals of the post.
Not even a guess or a maybe.
The only downside they did was telling the poster he had to fake info about his source to protect her.
OKKKKKK.
Got that.
Posted by: YardBird at September 02, 2007 06:04 PM (1aM/I)
25
Sara
That was over the top by me and wrong , too much beer out by the grill working with the laptop.
My bad and I did wrong.
PS I know you are a quality lady.
Posted by: YardBird at September 02, 2007 06:09 PM (1aM/I)
26
I'm not sure what you are referring to YardBird, but I can assure no offense was taken. This cold started about 2 weeks ago, sick as a dog, then I got better and began to feel good again. Today it flared back up, worse than the first time around. I think it is because I live with a couple of polar bears and coming in from 110-113 degrees outside is like going from the equator to Antarctica in the time it takes to open the door.
I probably should have started with your suggestion of the Tequila, but I'm woozy on Benadryl right now.
Summer colds suck!
Posted by: Sara at September 02, 2007 06:34 PM (hGL+y)
27
Ralph Peters reported this: http://tinyurl.com/2mdej8
That take-no-prisoners humor was on display in the Fallujah area of operations. As I walked into a headquarters shack, a poster on the front door made me do a cartoon double-take. To appreciate the beauty of it, you just have to understand one military term, "OPSEC," or operations security - the protection of any tidbit of information that might be of value to an enemy.
On the poster, a frightened kitten bounds across a field of wildflowers straight toward the viewer, as if about to leap into your arms for protection. Fanged gingerbread monsters are in hot pursuit. The main caption:
"Every time you break OPSEC, God kills a kitten."
At the bottom, flanked by twin photos of beseeching kittens, the poster begged: "Please, think of the kittens."
BS doesn't kill kittens OPSEC leaks do, so it pretty obvious that NO KITTENS DIED as result of this "leak"
Posted by: tmitsss at September 02, 2007 07:15 PM (/WmPm)
28
Neptunus Lex does a military takedown on this story.
"ItÂ’s not that thereÂ’s any one thing wrong in the post, which purports to tell the inside story of an upcoming US naval attack on Iran, but rather the accumulation of many, many little things that arenÂ’t quite right:"
http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/09/02/hoisting-the-flag/
Posted by: Nobody at September 02, 2007 07:50 PM (3H6in)
29
Looks like Kos finally wizened up and "disappeared" the thread.
"Sorry. I can't seem to find that story"
Gosh, I love the tolerance of the left.
Posted by: TomB at September 02, 2007 08:37 PM (2AkLB)
30
What I find most amazing is there is not a single poster in the comment section that has even the minimum knowledge to call bs on the original diary.
All the discussion is about the politics of the situation and none of the technical wrongness.
This is classic, baby: mock the people discussing the actual issue of a possible invasion of Iran (trial balloons for which have been floated by the Administration for a long time, of course) and spend your time discussing the minutiae of weapons systems. When you're done you can climb into your camouflage pajamas and play with your GI Joes. Maybe your mom will let you build a fort in the living room tonight!
Posted by: nunaim at September 02, 2007 08:41 PM (0K/xd)
31
The story has been deleted.
"Sorry. I can't seem to find that story."
I just love how they always seem to disappear....
Posted by: Cargosquid at September 02, 2007 08:49 PM (YZKzR)
32
This is classic, baby: mock the people discussing the actual issue of a possible invasion of Iran (trial balloons for which have been floated by the Administration for a long time, of course) and spend your time discussing the minutiae of weapons systems.
Ah yes, we finally have the first "fake but accurate" post.
If that poster felt the subject was so cut-and-dried, why did he have to make up so much?
And if the subject is such a slam dunk, why did Kos delete it?
Remember people, THEY are the "reality-based community".
Posted by: TomB at September 02, 2007 08:57 PM (2AkLB)
33
The story has been deleted.
No, no, no -- that story was never there. Its shoes may be showing at the bottom of the photo, but I assure you the story never existed.
Maybe this would make a nice topic for De Palma's "Redacted II - the moonbats that never were"
Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 02, 2007 09:01 PM (NiDeC)
34
Hilarious that a bunch of the commenters automatically assumed the diarist was a Rove/Cheney/Israeli plant inserted on the site to "discredit" the Kos brand. Why does the brand need any more discrediting would be the question I would be asking? Has the left gotten anything correct on Iran since Sy Hersh started predicting our invasion three or four years ago. He's like the Jason Leopold of the Iran invasion, but the moonbats still eat it up.
We don't care if we were fooled, it's a story worth talking about. Yup, fake but accurate. What's that term again, confirmation bias. Kos hit it on the head in his warning to his minions on this one.
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 02, 2007 09:08 PM (0pZel)
35
FYI,
Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran
September 2, 2007
Sarah Baxter, Washington
From The Sunday Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece
THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the IraniansÂ’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.
Posted by: Steve J. at September 02, 2007 09:57 PM (t5JPa)
36
spend your time discussing the minutiae of weapons systems.
Heh - well, since the basis of the "story" was on the " minutiae of weapons systems" it's no ones fault but Kos kids, they couldn't spot false "minutiae" even if were written in crayon. Can't help that the jokes on you Num.
Posted by: Peach at September 02, 2007 10:18 PM (0Dt9v)
37
Steve J. - Tell us something nobody has heard. What's Sy Hersh's latest super duper secret scoop on our Iran invasion? He's da man, right! Have you heard about Peter Paul's litigation against Hilary? How come the media doesn't write about that?
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 02, 2007 10:21 PM (0pZel)
38
Steve J, the military also has plans to wipe out Sweden, Canada, Portugal, and every other country on the planet. Planning for any enemy, and knowing their strengths and weaknesses, is what the military does.
Do we have perhaps dozens of up-to-date plans on how to carry out attacks of varying types and intensity against Iran? I certainly hope so. Once again, that is what they do, and this kind of planning is what we want them to do.
You don't see any argument here with the media stories reporting this all-too-obvious truth. What we're hammering is yet another fabulist.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 02, 2007 10:28 PM (HcgFD)
39
CONFED -
The interesting thing (I think) about the London Times article is that it's based on neo-con sources, like Kimberly Kagan.
Posted by: Steve J. at September 02, 2007 10:30 PM (t5JPa)
Posted by: Jacob Freeze at September 02, 2007 11:18 PM (5pr/S)
41
Here is my favorite comment from the Kos thread (from Fish Out of Water:
"Kos insulted us all by calling us gullible for our recs. I gave it a rec because it was a good story not because I believed it was true."
Sounds like "fake, but accurate."
Posted by: Lorie Byrd at September 02, 2007 11:22 PM (LXj2j)
42
Ahh, Steve J. pulls out the neo-con label.
Well, now I know what side of the aisle he is posting from (not that there was much doubt, of course).
Posted by: C-C-G at September 02, 2007 11:32 PM (viASe)
43
Anyway, back to the main article...
You folks all fail to realize that Dubya is planning to use the new super-ultra-top-secret VTOL FA-18. Those are also the ones that Dubya has hovering over DNC headquarters (they're stealthed so they can't be heard) to gather information for the (everybody whisper now) Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.
[/sarc]
Posted by: C-C-G at September 02, 2007 11:44 PM (viASe)
44
Those neocon sources Steve J. is citing are think tanks. I guess the lefties are so paranoid they take everything published by a conservative think tank as gospel truth because they are all controlled by PNAC Bushchimplerburtonkilbotgodbotheringhomophobes directly tied into the administration. The problem is the lefties also take evertything said on dailyKos as gospel as well. What is said between the sides is often in conflict. Cognitive dissonance and hilarity ensues.
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 03, 2007 12:25 AM (0pZel)
45
My military experience is on dry land and in the air, but even a landlubber like me knows that it would be highly--highly--unlikely for a junior grade officer--on a ship with a compliment of some 5000(!)--to be privy to the kind of information this "LSO" claims to possess. It is just not the kind of information a LSO would have access to or care about in their daily work, and even senior chiefs would be far more likely to have that kind of access than junior officers.
Dumb. Just dumb, and the lefties lap it up like kittens with milk.
Posted by: Mike99 at September 03, 2007 12:40 AM (eD2kz)
46
Matbe Kos and Maccabee can ask the folks over at TNR help them fact check the diary. I hear that's something they claim to be really good at.
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 03, 2007 12:44 AM (0pZel)
47
Upthread, a commenter quoted some TruthOut posts about the capability of the Iranian military and weapons - specifically missiles.
What is TruthOut's point? That the United States military can't possibly survive against such superiority?
Beliefs such as that have cracked me up for decades.
In the seventies and eighties it was the USSR is too powerful. We can't possibly win, therefore we should kiss their butts and take pains not to provoke the Soviet Bear.
In 1990/91, against Iraq, they were the fourth largest army in the world. They were entrenched in Kuwait. Iraq wasn't going to rollover and play dead for us, we were going to face a determined, brutal enemy.
In 2001, when we went to Afghanistan, the chicken littles were again out in full song. The Soviets couldn't take Afghanistan in ten years with hundreds of thousands of troops. It was going to be a quagmire. Our next Vietnam.
In 2003, we wouldn't be able to take Baghdad without 10,000 body bags, with American troops in them, coming back to the United States. The Republican Guard were to well trained, loyal and disciplined. They would make a final stand and chew up our troops in the meat grinder of house to house fighting.
And now, we can't possibly gain anything by attacking Iran. It will be too costly. Fraught with risks and possible blowback. We'll be trapped in the Persian Gulf. Iran's missiles are too potent.
Not only do we have the most technologically advanced military in the world, we have the best trained and most professional. And right now, we are the most combat experienced military in the world. They are well trained, well equipped, disciplined - and blooded.
We should never underestimate our enemy. We rarely do. And our military never loses. Our politicians and our national will too often do.
Posted by: John in CA at September 03, 2007 03:01 AM (PQVEt)
48
The "Ah, yes, 'fake but accurate'" brush is too easily employed by people who can only think in blurbs and bullet points.
How about this one: "One part of the story was clearly inaccurate, while another part was quite possibly accurate"? You can then dismiss the clearly inaccurate part and devote serious cogitation to the possibly accurate part. In this case, the possibly accurate part of the story seems worthy of discussion.
Posted by: nunaim at September 03, 2007 07:35 AM (0K/xd)
49
And our military never loses. Our politicians and our national will too often do.
Amen bro.
Posted by: R30C at September 03, 2007 07:53 AM (XcXLi)
50
Nutrooters always forget that cache thing: http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:NOiHRw6oH2AJ:www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/1/183018/1527+http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/1/183018/1527&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Poor little liberals.
Posted by: William Teach at September 03, 2007 07:57 AM (NaHh8)
51
Nutrooters always forget that cache thing: http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:NOiHRw6oH2AJ:www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/1/183018/1527+http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/1/183018/1527&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Poor little liberals.
I honestly don't get you guys. You're worked up when the stuff is posted--as witness the existence of this entire thread--and you're worked up when it's taken down (note the snarky messages about how it has been taken down). To retain credibility, choose a position and stick with it.
Posted by: nunaim at September 03, 2007 09:19 AM (0K/xd)
52
AFIK, I was the first student out at Point Loma to "beat" the TAC trainer (a PC-DOS based anti ship missile simulation of an overwhelming Soviet strike using all available assets against a battle group) the first time out.
The final missile I had to defeat was a sub-launched SSN-9 ("Ten Seconds To Deadline," for those who remember the training film). I did that by placing my frigate's rudder "hard left," declining the launch angle of my starboard SRBOC launcher and, in essence, spraying and praying my last round of chaff. It wasn't pull off, it wasn't centroid, the TAC trainer scored it a ballistic hit against the SSN-9 by the SRBOC round. (And even I have no idea how the trainer figured that: a bunch of little bundles of metallized Mylar vs an antiship missile?)
That's only one tiny anecdote from a decade of active duty: there are more from a decade of reserve duty. There are a lot of my anecdotes that get a "That's a no shitter, ain't it?" response from other sailors...but no, it isn't.
I have no idea what makes the nutroots think that they will have any credibility whatever when they post shit like "Maccabee" did.
(And, BTW, its choice of nic offends me as well: I started studying Judaism 25 years ago with a thought to converting but decided I wasn't worthy of being a Jew, so content myself to being a Noahide.)
Gah.
Posted by: EW1(SG) at September 03, 2007 09:32 AM (YcNsA)
53
I honestly don't get you nunaim. Don't you get tired of making excuses for the dishonesty of the left and then the gullibility of those taken in by the dishonesty? Why not take a look in the mirror and figure out that something is fundamentally wrong that your side feels compelled to lie so frequently in its attempts to communicate and persuade.
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 03, 2007 09:47 AM (0pZel)
54
Gack. Apologies for the double post: I got a wait and try again in a minute message due to spam the first time.
Posted by: EW1(SG) at September 03, 2007 09:53 AM (YcNsA)
55
Hey, what's the big deal about made-up stories on attacking Iran, when major US newspapers publish stories about being nicer to terrorists ... um ... oops, I meant ... pedophiles?
www . philly . com/ inquirer/currents/20070902_The_Point___CRIMINAL_HYSTERIA.html">LINK
I don't make this stuff up.
Posted by: Eris at September 03, 2007 10:00 AM (h9CTW)
56
The link is
www . philly . com/ inquirer/currents/20070902_The_Point___CRIMINAL_HYSTERIA.html
(remove spaces)
Posted by: Eris at September 03, 2007 10:01 AM (h9CTW)
57
nunaim sez:
I honestly don't get you guys. You're worked up when the stuff is posted--as witness the existence of this entire thread--and you're worked up when it's taken down (note the snarky messages about how it has been taken down). To retain credibility, choose a position and stick with it.
I would think that it would be obvious even to a demagogue like you: when you lie, then try to hide it, people notice.
My position is that you are colluding with liars, and therefore not worthy of this response. So, consider yourself graced by my attention...it's the last you will receive from me.
Posted by: EW1(SG) at September 03, 2007 10:04 AM (YcNsA)
58
nunaim, I will grant you one point.
The Pentagon does have plans to invade Iran.
Of course, the Pentagon also has plans to invade Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, Japan, and even the Vatican City and Lichtenstein.
That's their friggin' job, you microcephalic moron, to make plans for future invasions if they become necessary.
As for whether or not those plans are being implemented, there's just too many holes in your Kos friend's story for me to take her word for it.
In short, all the other errors have destroyed her credibility. And if you want to destroy the remaining shreds of your own credibility, nunaim, just go right on defending her with the "fake but accurate" meme.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 03, 2007 10:08 AM (viASe)
59
Over on Wizbang, a commenter brings up another error.
There is no "Gulf of Hormuz."
There's the Strait of Hormuz, which lies in the Persian Gulf, but no "Gulf of Hormuz."
If our Kos Kiddie had bothered to even look at a map of the region, they'd have known that.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 03, 2007 10:30 AM (viASe)
60
"I honestly don't get you guys. You're worked up when the stuff is posted--as witness the existence of this entire thread--and you're worked up when it's taken down (note the snarky messages about how it has been taken down). To retain credibility, choose a position and stick with it.
Posted by nunaim"
How is it a position change for our side? You lefties are renowned for deleting your posts, once you have been caught.
Here is the position: lefties will make up anything to support their advanced BDS and hatred of America.
Posted by: William Teach at September 03, 2007 10:32 AM (TFSHk)
61
nunaim, what part of EW(1)'s position was in error?
dem-a-gogue (v): to treat or manipulate (a political issue) in the manner of a demagogue; obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc.
The original Kos author's post was clearly demagogic in character, feeding upon the left's antipathy towards President Bush, their paranoia about "secret plans," and their lack of knowledge about the Armed Forces. In short, the author appealed to their emotionalism and their prejudice in order to distort their response. See definition above.
col-lude (v): to conspire in a fraud.
Since you are defending the demagogue described above, you could be considered to be colluding with them according to the definition above, since the fraudulent nature of the original Kos article has been so well established that even you aren't trying to defend it on those merits.
grace (v): to favor or honor.
EW(1) certainly has graced CY, and you, with his presence.
Looks like you need to consult the dictionary yourself. I recommend Dictionary.com, where all of the above definitions were found.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 03, 2007 11:24 AM (viASe)
62
all: I'd like to remind everyone that CY allows no profanity to be posted in the comments, and that even those comments that are otherwise stellar will be summarily deleted for such language.
nunaim: you're really close to being classified as a troll, and banned.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 03, 2007 11:26 AM (HcgFD)
63
Re Yardbird
"What I find most amazing is there is not a single poster in the comment section that has even the minimum knowledge to call bs on the original diary."
My comment upon reading the original:
Sorry, don't believe the military parts, (4+ / 0-)
irrespective of the politics.
by valion on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 08:46:04 PM EDT
Posted by: valion at September 03, 2007 11:40 AM (R2jye)
64
I used no profanity in my post, CY.
Posted by: nunaim at September 03, 2007 12:03 PM (0K/xd)
65
nunaim, I reread the DKos post and scanned all 1343 replies (I still have that page open and saved), and nowhere is there a discussion of the problems Iran poses and what, exactly, should be done. Instead, its nothing but a Bush bash fest. If the purpose of that post was to discuss Iran, it didn't seem to work, and the writer did not seem too eager to try to bring the discussion back to topic.
Uh, try again???
Posted by: TomB at September 03, 2007 12:18 PM (2AkLB)
66
"Sorry, don't believe the military parts, (4+ / 0-)
irrespective of the politics."
How is saying that you don't believe something mean that had the minimal knowledge needed to call BS on the post?
Posted by: Blarg the Destroyer at September 03, 2007 12:23 PM (I+C25)
67
nunaim, I reread the DKos post and scanned all 1343 replies (I still have that page open and saved), and nowhere is there a discussion of the problems Iran poses and what, exactly, should be done. Instead, its nothing but a Bush bash fest. If the purpose of that post was to discuss Iran, it didn't seem to work, and the writer did not seem too eager to try to bring the discussion back to topic.
Uh, try again???
Try what again? I'm not sure what your point is. I'm talking about this site and the responses here. If this person is wrong about the military stuff, does that mean that there is no push to invade Iran? The two things--this Kos commenter's post and the actual intentions of the Administration--are, in reality, unrelated.
An invasion of Iran seems like a reasonable possibility. Wouldn't it make more sense to hash that out than to focus on what aircraft carriers can or cannot accommodate a whatever? Why spend time on stuff that you know is not true?
Posted by: nunaim at September 03, 2007 12:40 PM (0K/xd)
68
nunaim, the fact that the Kos author was clueless about what carriers launch what is a clear indication that he/she/it has absolutely no idea about the military.
Therefore, they have absolutely no credibility on any military issue.
Therefore, you can either continue making a fool of yourself, or you can shut up now.
It's your call.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 03, 2007 12:58 PM (viASe)
69
CY:
all: I'd like to remind everyone that CY allows no profanity to be posted in the comments, and that even those comments that are otherwise stellar will be summarily deleted for such language.
CY, my apologies; I really am a sailor (unfortunately with the attendent language) so if I mispoke, my sincere apologies. And if you were so kind as to have cleant up what I thought I said, good on ya' and I'll try not to do that again.
Posted by: EW1(SG) at September 03, 2007 01:48 PM (YcNsA)
70
CCG:
You're saying that, because this person was wrong about the details of military hardware, there will be no military action between the US and Iran.
A bold assertion, my friend. I personally hope you're right. But what if you're wrong? Surely in that case I can expect the ever-demanded (demanded, at least, by right-wing bloggers) PUBLIC APOLOGY from you? That is to say, if we do, in fact, commence military action against Iran, you will apologize in this forum for your error, right?
Posted by: nunaim at September 03, 2007 01:49 PM (0K/xd)
71
No, I did not say that. Please invest in reading comprehension classes and, if needed, English as a second language classes.
I said that the Kos author's speculations about a war between the US and Iran can be discounted because of the clear and obvious falsehoods already told by that person.
Now, I have explained it as I would to a reasonably intelligent adult. Do I have to explain as I would to a third grader now?
Posted by: C-C-G at September 03, 2007 02:39 PM (viASe)
72
No, I did not say that.
Now you're just lying, and you're embarrassng both of us. The back-and-fill is not going to work; be a man and stand behind what you wrote.
Posted by: nunaim at September 03, 2007 02:43 PM (0K/xd)
73
nunaim, you are the liar here.
Quote for me the exact sentence where I said that there will be no military action between the US and Iran.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 03, 2007 02:47 PM (viASe)
74
Me:
How about this one: "One part of the story was clearly inaccurate, while another part was quite possibly accurate"? You can then dismiss the clearly inaccurate part and devote serious cogitation to the possibly accurate part. In this case, the possibly accurate part of the story seems worthy of discussion.
You:
he fact that the Kos author was clueless about what carriers launch what is a clear indication that he/she/it has absolutely no idea about the military. Therefore, they have absolutely no credibility on any military issue.
Her contention that the US is gearing up to invade Iran is clearly a "military issue." My suggestion that we focus on that instead of the technological details was met with the flat-out assertion that nothing that writer said had any credibility or was worthy of discussion. That would include the part about an invasion.
Don't rewrite history. It's there for all to see.
Posted by: nunaim at September 03, 2007 03:07 PM (0K/xd)
75
Man, you are really stretching, you know that? Either you are so stupid that you need reminders to remember to breathe or you think we do.
Just because I said we can discount the Kos author's assertions does not mean that I believe we can discount the possibility of war with Iran.
Looks like I will have to put it in third-grader terms.
Little Billy tells you that the sky is green, that mud tastes just like chocolate, and that he has four arms. He also tells you that your mommy will get divorced and take up with another woman. You don't believe Billy because you can see that the sky is not green, he only has two arms, and you've tasted both mud and chocolate and decided they taste nothing alike. So, you don't believe anything Billy says. Later, if it happens that your mommy does leave daddy and sleep with another woman, it's not because of what Billy said, but because of other things that happened.
Do ya get it now, or do I need to put in even simpler language?
Posted by: C-C-G at September 03, 2007 03:12 PM (viASe)
76
nunaim, Did you take this:
As for whether or not those plans are being implemented, there's just too many holes in your Kos friend's story for me to take her word for it.
and turn it into:
You're saying that, because this person was wrong about the details of military hardware, there will be no military action between the US and Iran.
And then accused someone of lying for saying they didn't make that assertion? As you said, that's a bold assertion, my friend.
He said, the "source's" story of preparation to attack Iran can be discounted because the "source's" entire framework was made up. Therefore, the "source's" assertion that her carrier group was preparing to attack Iran was also made up.
In short, it's a made up story all around.
Now, nunaim, just so you don't get confused, I will elaborate on a couple of things. We're going to attack Iran. We're going to bomb them back to the stone age. Ackmadinnerjacket needs to realize that.
Next, there is no doubt in my mind that there are up to date, current and viable plans and planning to carry out that mission. I would venture to say that every carrier battle group that gets near the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf is refining plans, practicing for Alpha Strikes and flying attack profiles that would be employed in the event of an attack on Iran. You know why? 'Cuz that's what military people do! It's their JOB!
They're runninc General Quarters scenarios based on attacks by Iranian forces and weapons. They're practicing and drilling based on what the possible actions are in their theater of operations. You know why, nunaim? 'Cuz that's what sailors do! It's their JOB!
Posted by: John in CA at September 03, 2007 03:13 PM (PQVEt)
77
Oh, I get it, John: "Assertion A is not true when somebody else says it, but Assertion A is true when I say it."
Hooray for logic!
Posted by: nunaim at September 03, 2007 03:20 PM (0K/xd)
78
nunaim, why, specifically, are you trying to hard to prove that the Kos source's assertions are true?
Are you not, in fact, attempting to achieve the "fake but accurate" meme by a different method, by proving the accuracy of one portion of the Kos source's assertions?
And did you not assume that we are all too stupid to realize that is what you are doing?
Posted by: C-C-G at September 03, 2007 03:35 PM (viASe)
79
nunaim's just mad that he and the rest of the kos crazies got caught with their pants down again. Face it nunaim, you guys got caught in another Beauchamp style lie.
Jim C
Posted by: Jim C at September 03, 2007 04:27 PM (ON55K)
80
nunaim, if you want to discuss the possible attack on Iran, start your own blog and have at it.
How hard is this to understand. CY wrote a post questioning the veracity of a DKos article. We are discussing that post. You are trying to change the subject. It isn't working.
In addition, that post didn't just discuss an impending attack on Iran, it also went into detail as to how universal hatred for Bush was and how the sailors on the carrier questioned the current policy. That in itself is a significant assertion, one that we can safely discount.
Posted by: TomB at September 03, 2007 04:36 PM (2AkLB)
81
Ooops, sorry, CY. Saw where I messed it up. Please feel free to edit or delete.
And I'll try to 'member when I'm speakin' where ladies like the gracious Sara upthread are present in future.
Posted by: EW1(SG) at September 03, 2007 04:38 PM (YcNsA)
82
CY,
Yes, it is amazing that this latest fabulist tale of US malfeasance and W. malevolence so quickly was accepted as nothing more than conventional wisdom and once discredited, remains somehow "true" to its believers.
I think the feeble and tiresome gymnastics of nunaim notwithstanding, there is little else to discuss here about the story itself, now that the story has been disappeared down the memory hole.
But I will add this.
nunaim is a troll.
I don't think you can read the comments here any other way.
Just sayin'.
Posted by: MeTooThen at September 03, 2007 06:01 PM (1xjmZ)
83
Nunaims' strawman has already been thrashed, but let's just clarify one thing. A new war cannot be launched against Iran without the blessing of congress, which seems to be ran by a majority of the party Nunaim prefers. So if it occurs, it's the fault of, or blessed by the democrats. Feel safer now Nunaim or don't you trust your own people?
And by the way what's with the handle Nunaim (new name)? Have you been banned in the past?
Posted by: R30C at September 03, 2007 06:20 PM (XcXLi)
84
Thank you, CY, for reading Kos so I don't have to. I don't give him any clicks since he exulted over the murder of those lynched American contractors. Screw him!
Posted by: The Sanity Inspector at September 03, 2007 08:01 PM (5ayUr)
85
A new war cannot be launched against Iran without the blessing of congress, which seems to be ran by a majority of the party Nunaim prefers.
R3OC, that's true as far as a war goes. However, the President may not need approval to authorize a military operation. A three day blitz, as the latest reporting terms it, could be accomplished with no authorization from Congress under the War Powers Resolution (aka War Powers Act).
Besides the War Powers Resolution, I bet there is language in the AUMF for Iraq and Afghanistan that could be broadly interpreted as authorization to use force against Iran, especially in light of their activities in Iraq.
Just think of the military actions we've taken in the last 30 years that have required no declaration of war by the congress - Reagan bombing Libya springs to mind. I don't know if Congress was notified or consulted before Grenada and Panama, but neither were declared wars.
So, hehe, the President would surely be able to wreak some mayhem on Iran before Congress could get their thongs in a twist.
Posted by: John in CA at September 03, 2007 08:27 PM (PQVEt)
86
Oh, nunaim... where'd ya go, my friend? I was eagerly awaiting the answer to my question above and you disappeared!
John, if Dubya wants to cause massive apoplexy among the lefties, both in Congress and elsewhere, attacking Iran would be a heck of an effective way to do it. -lol-
Posted by: C-C-G at September 03, 2007 09:05 PM (viASe)
87
nunaim, let me make this as simple as possible.
The Kos poster states the conclusion that the US will attack Iran soon. The conclusion is based on information from a person on a carrier battlegroup. The veracity of the conclusion is based on the credibility of the informant.
Many people here - lex, EW1(SG) - have provided information that challenges the credibility of the Kos poster's informant.
Again, the veracity of the conclusion was dependant on the credibility of the informant. Since the credibility of the informant is false why should anyone continue to believe in the veracity of the conclusion?
That is the entire point.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at September 04, 2007 10:04 AM (O9Cc8)
88
Point that should be emphasized: The conclusion may be correct - it just cannot be supported by the evidence the Kos poster has provided. That evidence is not credible.
If you want that conclusion (the US will attack Iran soon) to be supported, then credible evidence must first be found.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at September 04, 2007 10:21 AM (O9Cc8)
89
Hmmmm.
Sooooooooooo.
TNR back from vacation .... YET?
I'm still waiting for them to finish their investigation.
Posted by: memomachine at September 04, 2007 10:52 AM (3pvQO)
90
Again, the veracity of the conclusion was dependant on the credibility of the informant. Since the credibility of the informant is false why should anyone continue to believe in the veracity of the conclusion?
Because the conclusion that we are ratcheting up for a war with Iran can easily be reached independently of this person's writing. That has been my point--ignore the obvious crapola and deal with what is obviously not crapola.
Posted by: nunaim at September 04, 2007 02:46 PM (22/Qe)
91
That, numian, is the point I made which you missed. You cannot use this Kos posting as evidence of the conclusion; you have to present other evidence. I admit, this sounds good: sailor in th fleet notes preparations for attack! Man, that is top notch stuff real close to the action! It really supports the conclusion!
Only it doesn't, because the informant is not credible. Find other evidence other that "the military has plans" because they always have plans.
Again: the conclusion may be corre4ct, only this evidence is not credible and cannot be used to support the conclusion. Find other, credible evidence that supports the conclusion.
And stop attacking people for pointing out that the evidence isn't credible.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at September 04, 2007 03:28 PM (O9Cc8)
92
nunaim, you have yet to answer my query above.
Perhaps that is because you do not wish to admit that I have discerned your motive?
"Fake but accurate" rides again, methinks.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 04, 2007 06:55 PM (viASe)
93
nunaim, why, specifically, are you trying to hard to prove that the Kos source's assertions are true?
Are you not, in fact, attempting to achieve the "fake but accurate" meme by a different method, by proving the accuracy of one portion of the Kos source's assertions?
And did you not assume that we are all too stupid to realize that is what you are doing?
Well, CCG, you're right about one thing: I do assume that you're stupid.
As I review what I've contributed, I notice that I call the Kos poster's assertions "clearly inaccurate" and "crapola."
I then go on to point out that we can throw all that stuff out and discuss a real issue instead of being distracted by the dog with the puffy tail.
If this constitutes for you "trying too hard" to prove the Kos poster's points, then you're a fool.
Methinks.
Posted by: nunaim at September 04, 2007 08:51 PM (hG7zN)
94
I have seen pictures of Midway with squadrons of Marine F/A-18s. I suspect she and Coral Sea (both only 45,000 tons) were too small to carry F-14s. Abraham Lincoln is 97,500 tons. For comparison, Charles de Gaulle is only 38,000 tons
Posted by: fox2! at September 04, 2007 09:11 PM (mS51q)
95
Okay, nunaim, let's play it your way, just for giggles.
Yes, war with Iran is possible. (I've said that before.)
Yes, the Pentagon has plans for an Iranian war. (I've said that before.)
There, now we've "discussed" it.
Now, let's get back to the topic stated by the owner of this blog, at whose sufferance we all post here.
Kos is populated largely by people whose lack of knowledge about the military is only matched in most cases by their antipathy towards it.
The particular Kos post under discussion was specifically aimed at fulfilling the stereotypes of those leftists who believe that George W. Bush is out to conquer the world a la Dr. Evil. As such, it is of high interest to those of us who find such a belief laughable.
The numerous errors in military technology already enumerated makes it all that much more laughable.
There, I've laid out several points that you should be able to discuss without necessarily having to bring up whether or not a war with Iran is possible or whether plans already exist for it... both of which, I remind you once again, I have already postulated.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 04, 2007 09:18 PM (viASe)
96
If the left is so ignorant of the U.S. military and gets duped so easily by phoney posts like Maccabbee's, why should they be given any credibility in discussing the capabilities of the Iranian military establishment?
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 04, 2007 10:53 PM (0pZel)
97
If the left is so ignorant of the U.S. military and gets duped so easily by phoney posts like Maccabbee's, why should they be given any credibility in discussing the capabilities of the Iranian military establishment?
Not to mention all the other times they have been wrong. "Ten thousand bodybags" needed for the first Gulf War springs immediately to mind.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 04, 2007 11:47 PM (viASe)
98
Because the conclusion that we are ratcheting up for a war with Iran can easily be reached independently of this person's writing. That has been my point--ignore the obvious crapola and deal with what is obviously not crapola.
Ok if that conclusion can so easily be reached independent of everything, why make up all the elaborate (and clueless) lies?? Perhaps because the author was just making up stuff the whole time.
They really have no clue on whether we plan to invade Iran. But they wanted to pretend that they were and so had to make up something to establish credibility. They utterly failed. You fell for it. We called you on it, now you're just embarassed.
You can admit you were wrong, we're here and listening. I won't hold my breath though.
While we're waiting, you might also want to think about why the left so often needs to make up these elaborate lies. If your worldview is so based upon reality, why do you need to invent your own reality?
Posted by: Kevin at September 05, 2007 12:05 AM (NJS4G)
99
You fell for it. We called you on it, now you're just embarassed.
You can admit you were wrong, we're here and listening. I won't hold my breath though.
As memomachine would put it: Hmmmm.
What, precisely, did I fall for? What, exactly, did I get wrong?
Difficulty: actually use what I wrote, and not what you wish I'd written.
They really have no clue on whether we plan to invade Iran.
That's going too far. We definitely have clues, and that's really all we ever have until something actually happens, isn't it?
The Administration's increased public interest in Iran, the stories about Iranian weapons going into Iraq, the increased rhetoric about Iranian/AQ ties--all those are things that suggest that the groundwork is being laid for an invasion. That's exactly what happened before Iraq.
Are you saying that all speculation along such lines is inappropriate? Are you saying that we need to wait for an official press release from the Pentagon before this issue can be discussed by the people? Remember that right up to just before the Iraq invasion the Administration was saying, "Iraq? Bah! We have no plans!" And that turned out to be--how shall we say?--less that forthcoming.
It may even be that an invasion of Iraq is the correct and intelligent course of action. It would take some real convincing on the part of the Administration, however, after the miscommunications of the past few years.
Also: not being a military type, I don't understand how we could mount yet another war when I hear that our forces are stretched pretty thin already.
Posted by: nunaim at September 05, 2007 08:33 AM (xctDK)
100
nunaim is running the usual lefty defense when caught in an egregious falsehood:
"Just because we're lying is no reason not to believe us!"
Just because Kerry was never in Cambodia is no reason Nixon didn't deploy troops there (a full month before he was sworn in as President). Just because Jesse MacBeth was a fraud is no reason his story was false. Just because Scott Thomas Beauchamp was making stuff up is no reason his story is untrue. And just because a few tiny, irrelevant details of the phony LSO story are wrong is no reason the story isn't true.
So if all your supporting evidence is made up, why ought we to believe your claims? I'm just not smart enough to make the logical leap there. I'm simple enough to believe that if your basic story is made of lies, then it isn't believeable. Or is this another "the narrative is right, but the facts are wrong?"
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at September 05, 2007 12:08 PM (Srvjc)
101
Okay, and before anyone questions my street cred, let me just state that I am a retired E-14 Chief Brigadier Corporal, 1st Class with the Eleventy-Eighth US Marine SEAL Ranger Battalion. I've made over a hundred combat jumps into Cleveland, and this was during the time President DeGaulle was publicly claiming that we had no troops deployed to Ohio. Well, it's braised - braised! into my memory.
I could tell you more, stuff that'd turn your hair white, but it's all still classified. Plus, my record is still sealed so you can't look any of it up. In fact, I probably told you too much already. So no offnese if I kill you, okay?
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at September 05, 2007 12:33 PM (Srvjc)
102
So if all your supporting evidence is made up, why ought we to believe your claims?
Dear King Dingdong:
I didn't write the Kos diary entry. I'm not presenting any evidence in support of the description that writer gives of the buildup of various US forces. I have, in this thread, called those claims "clearly inaccurate" and "crapola."
Oops. It looks like I just dismantled your strawman. My bad.
Posted by: nunaim at September 05, 2007 02:37 PM (22/Qe)
103
No, you're the one with the straw man, that being "Why argue about arcane technical details, when the real question is are we going to attack Iran?"
The technical details are what some of us call "facts" and if they are wrong, the there's a good chance that the story is wrong, too. Wrong means "not true."
Yeah, another technical detail. Sorry. But the deal is, if you are going to lie, it has to sound right. This one is fake. Pretending there are some minor technical glitches in the narrative which do not corrode the underlying truth is... well, stupid. Desperately fighting a rearguard action against facts isn't a cunning debate skill, it's delusional tilting at windmills. At least nobody disputed the existence of Don Quixote's windmills, anyway - yours aren't even there to tilt against.
And thanks for the "King Dingdong" slam. Made my day. I haven't been so relentlessly taken down since third grade. Did you just think that one up all on your own, or have you been carrying it around in your hip pocket for years, waiting for the perfect opportunity to use it? Somebody not a moron would conclude that you have lost this argument and have nothing left but name calling. Not you, of course - you'll keep chasing your tail all the while triumphantly claiming you're running rings around everyone else.
If you are about to ripose buy calling me "poopyhead" and claim game, set, match, knock yourself out, big guy.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at September 05, 2007 03:42 PM (Hhuia)
104
Pretending there are some minor technical glitches in the narrative which do not corrode the underlying truth is... well, stupid.
The idea that we are gearing up for an attack on Iran has existed for months--long, long before this Kos thing came along. As I mentioned above, this idea can be discussed independently of the Kos diary. Put yet another way, the seeming inevitability of an attack bears no real relationship to the existence of the diary entry.
I know that it's tough to actually read all the entries in a thread, Steve, but if you tried it, we might save ourselves a lot of mindless reiteration. All your cunning little jabs have been jabbed already; all your Larry Lightbulb attacks on my positions have already been launched.
We have, in short, climbed these stairs before.
Posted by: nunaim at September 05, 2007 04:31 PM (22/Qe)
105
nunaim - "Put yet another way, the seeming inevitability of an attack bears no real relationship to the existence of the diary entry."
I agree, to the lefties it's sort of like Jason Leopold's indictment of Karl Rove. It's coming, he swears it's coming. His sources are good. This diary was supposed to reflect a good source to reinforce the meme that Sy Hersh has been pushing for years. It didn't. Leopold's been discredited. When are you guy's going to discredit Hersh or slam him for his lousy track record. It's like an eventual left hand turn, buddy. The turn signal has been on too long. The diary was intended to add urgency to the immenent turn. It turned out to be a fake. When is the eventual turn going to occur now, nunaim, and based on what evidence? Does the left have anything new or just the same old tripe from unnamed sources? See how it works?
If you want to discuss Iran, try somewhere else, don't try to defend a discredited diary that tried to add urgency to the discussion based on a pack of lies. It doesn't cover you in glory or didn't you read your orders from Kos?
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 05, 2007 05:45 PM (0pZel)
106
I see nunaim is still pushing the "fake but accurate" meme, even though he still loudly denies it.
I, personally, would consider him slightly more credible (note: I said slightly) if he'd just admit that's what he's doing, since it's so obvious.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 05, 2007 06:45 PM (viASe)
107
Those damned traitors over at Fox News! Don't they know that this kind of thing makes them look like idiots? I hate the way those guys are always taking their marching orders from Kos.
Posted by: nunaim at September 05, 2007 08:46 PM (PmB8N)
108
nunaim (or whomever is sock puppeting him)... look at the date on that article.
Posted by: C-C-G at September 05, 2007 09:38 PM (viASe)
109
nunaim (or whomever is sock puppeting him)... look at the date on that article.
It's heartwarming when the other side makes your case for you. As long as seven months ago, Fox News was outlining the reasons why there is a widespread perception that we're gearing up for war with Iran--long, long before the Kos thing.
Fox: "fake but accurate"?
Posted by: nunaim at September 06, 2007 10:27 AM (22/Qe)
110
nun, there has been "discussions" about whether the US is going to invade Iran, and if we should. That isn't being disputed. What is being disputed is the notion that the attack is imminent, that someone acting as an LSO on a carrier would be privy to that info, and that there is widespread anger among servicemen and women toward Bush.
Posted by: TomB at September 08, 2007 02:30 PM (QrRlV)
91kb generated in CPU 0.1996, elapsed 0.2683 seconds.
53 queries taking 0.2492 seconds, 259 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
53 queries taking 0.2492 seconds, 259 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
