I'm looking forward to Congressman Shays next appearance on television Winds of Change.NET: Shays on Clarke
The more you look at his record, his record reflects the worst...on Clarke.
Saturday, March 27, 2004
Charles Krauthammer its the nail on the head in this column Charles Krauthammer: Partisan Clarke
I think that Clarke enjoyed being President Clinton's source for the information Clinton received on terrorism, while knowingly or unknowingly insulating Clinton from criticism that he (Clinton) wasn't listening to his intelligence chiefs. Clinton could make public comments that implied toughness while remaining happily tied down by bureaucratic procedures involving DOJ, State, DOD and the NSC. Clarke blamed NSC chief Rice for his loss of direct access to the President under the Bush Administration. When Clarke did brief the President in a 1:1 meeting, his presentation centered on cyberterror, not bombings or hijackings. Clarke's knowledge of cyberterror has been found wanting by those in the know
Clarke appears to be a thin-skinned bureaucratic bully, skilled in playing and being played as long as he perceives the game is one he can win. However, by "sexing up" his charges against the Bush Administration in his book and before the 9/11 Commission while giving Clinton a pass, he's angered members of the Congressional Leadership enough that they may declassify portions of his testimony before Congress. While further besmirching his credibility--the small amount that remains--he could face Contempt of Congress charges. I find the legal danger somewhat unlikely, but Clarke is likely to wind up wishing he'd played it straight.
I think that Clarke enjoyed being President Clinton's source for the information Clinton received on terrorism, while knowingly or unknowingly insulating Clinton from criticism that he (Clinton) wasn't listening to his intelligence chiefs. Clinton could make public comments that implied toughness while remaining happily tied down by bureaucratic procedures involving DOJ, State, DOD and the NSC. Clarke blamed NSC chief Rice for his loss of direct access to the President under the Bush Administration. When Clarke did brief the President in a 1:1 meeting, his presentation centered on cyberterror, not bombings or hijackings. Clarke's knowledge of cyberterror has been found wanting by those in the know
Clarke appears to be a thin-skinned bureaucratic bully, skilled in playing and being played as long as he perceives the game is one he can win. However, by "sexing up" his charges against the Bush Administration in his book and before the 9/11 Commission while giving Clinton a pass, he's angered members of the Congressional Leadership enough that they may declassify portions of his testimony before Congress. While further besmirching his credibility--the small amount that remains--he could face Contempt of Congress charges. I find the legal danger somewhat unlikely, but Clarke is likely to wind up wishing he'd played it straight.
Thursday, March 25, 2004
Gee, who would've thought that this analysis would have come from this source TIME.com: Richard Clarke, at War With Himself
After reading Rich Lowry's column Rich Lowry on Richard Clarke on National Review Online, I had these thoughts on the Clinton Administration's attitude on terrorism:
It is possible that President Clinton was fixated on trying to "Carterize" his legacy by moving the Middle East peace process forward at the end of his administration, and may well have been "distracted" due to his laser-like focus on the process (viewed somewhat favorably from Clinton's perspective) from rolling up al Qaeda. Perhaps his calculation was that an attack on al Qaeda wouldn't go down well with the Palestinians and their Arab allies, potentially sidetracking his effort. After all, the President hadn't really been called on the carpet for his failures to deal with terrorism; why worry now over the lives of a few sailors?
Also, it seems to me that the Clinton national security team was much more focused on process than results. Each new attack seemed to completely reset their deliberations, not add urgency and impetus towards an effective response.
One takeaway that these hearings have left me with is that another of the great failings of Clinton was his lack of faith in his ability to truly lead the American people towards an unpopular goal. Perhaps some of his advisors may have argued for reforms akin to the Patriot Act; some may have argued for more aggressive changes in diplomacy towards Pakistan and the other former Soviet countries surrounding Afghanistan that provided basing and other support after 9/11. He could have fired generals and/or his CIA, FBI and DOJ heads--anyone who wasn't pulling their weight towards solving the problem rather than finding excuses for inaction. He could have ordered a KH-11 to be tasked permanently over Afghanistan to watch for UBL instead of depending on the Predator and its limitations. He could have done a thousand things to demonstrate action over symbolism--his calculus seemed to be that the latter is always good enough for his image.
It is possible that President Clinton was fixated on trying to "Carterize" his legacy by moving the Middle East peace process forward at the end of his administration, and may well have been "distracted" due to his laser-like focus on the process (viewed somewhat favorably from Clinton's perspective) from rolling up al Qaeda. Perhaps his calculation was that an attack on al Qaeda wouldn't go down well with the Palestinians and their Arab allies, potentially sidetracking his effort. After all, the President hadn't really been called on the carpet for his failures to deal with terrorism; why worry now over the lives of a few sailors?
Also, it seems to me that the Clinton national security team was much more focused on process than results. Each new attack seemed to completely reset their deliberations, not add urgency and impetus towards an effective response.
One takeaway that these hearings have left me with is that another of the great failings of Clinton was his lack of faith in his ability to truly lead the American people towards an unpopular goal. Perhaps some of his advisors may have argued for reforms akin to the Patriot Act; some may have argued for more aggressive changes in diplomacy towards Pakistan and the other former Soviet countries surrounding Afghanistan that provided basing and other support after 9/11. He could have fired generals and/or his CIA, FBI and DOJ heads--anyone who wasn't pulling their weight towards solving the problem rather than finding excuses for inaction. He could have ordered a KH-11 to be tasked permanently over Afghanistan to watch for UBL instead of depending on the Predator and its limitations. He could have done a thousand things to demonstrate action over symbolism--his calculus seemed to be that the latter is always good enough for his image.
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Dick Clarke: channeler of Alexander Haig, as chronicled here New York Post Online Edition: postopinion
I missed Richard Clarke's interview on 60 Minutes yesterday. I watched his interview with Charlie Rose on his (Rose's) PBS show tonight. Here are the key points that I took away:
1) He believes that if the Bush Administration had heeded his advice, the FBI may have apprehended 2 of the 19 9/11 hijackers, possibly disrupting the plot--perhaps causing one of the four teams to abort.
2) The Bush Administration used too few troops in Afghanistan to cut off and capture bin Laden.
3) George Tenent of the CIA may privately agree with him, but probably won't say so until after he leaves government service.
4) He won't serve in a Kerry Administration, should we be cursed with same.
5) Had the Bush Administration followed his advice...had it not gone to war with Iraq (I'm not totally clear that he advised anyone on totally avoiding war with Iraq)...our security situation would be much better.
6) No one in the Bush Administration lied, but they came close to doing so.
My take on his assertions:
1) Pre-9/11, the Bush Administration was still operating under the Clinton Administration's dictum that the FBI and the CIA could not cooperate at the operational level to share information that could be used in domestic counterintelligence. Clarke says that Clinton officials had held high level meetings to "shake the tree" to get such information out that Clarke claims thwarted terrorist attacks going back to 1996. At least, that's the impression that he gave--that Clinton's NSC Director, Sandy Berger, was ignoring or countermanding Reno's order so that better inter-agency coordination could take place. He apparently feels that Condi Rice, Bush's NSC Director, should have listened to him and done the same. The Bush Administration says that the chatter that the intelligence services picked up in the first 8 months of 2001 indicated that attacks would come against US or allied interests overseas, not domestically. I don't know what other arguments he used in classified meetings with Administration officials, but it sounds like they were alert to a threat. Clarke doesn't deal with the issue of the FBI bureaucracy's poor handling of a low-level agent's reports on the terrorists' activities. Apparently, no chatter alerted anyone to activities involving aircraft, and still fewer "experts" would have believed that the goal of the terrorists was to crash the planes instead of holding the passengers as hostages. He seems to be on shaky ground.
2) I expect that Secretary Rumsfeld will comment on the Afghanistan strategy at some point. I believe--based on my reading of history--that the Bush Administration was mindful of the failure of the Soviet Union to conquer the country, despite deploying over 100,000 troops and planting one of the largest minefields in history. Fifteen thousand Soviet troops died during the 10-year conflict. The USSR withdrew in 1989 after reaching a face-saving agreement with the US that called for the ending of US support for the Mujahidin. Afghanistan suffered huge losses during the conflict: almost one million Afghanis died; five million more were forced to leave their homes.
The US Special Ops/Air Force approach destroyed the Taliban and resulted in destroying or capturing 2/3 of the Al Qaeda leadership. Whether we would have suffered unacceptable losses in a more massive buildup--a buildup that would have taken much more time to transport and stage prior to invasion--is a question that Clarke wasn't asked. We cannot know whether more troops would have meant immediate capture of bin Laden given the terrain and weather conditions during the period of the war. Again, Clarke doth protest too much.
3) If Tenent turns on the President, he'll betray a man who stood by him when many in Congress and around the country were (and are) looking for a head to chop off. The "failure" of pre-Iraq war intelligence arguments pointed to Tenent and his daily briefings of the President as a scapegoat for the "failure".
4) Good.
5) That's not clear. Clarke says that Dean was right, that we're no safer after the fall of Saddam. I disagree.
-- Saddam was corrupting the UN, and allied governments, to get sanctions lifted.
-- Saddam gave speeches (see the MEMRI site) praising his scientists for their research on nuclear weapons and other WMD programs. It appears that if he didn't have WMD programs, he had WMD experts in place ready to resume the programs once the sanctions were lifted.
-- Saddam hosted terrorist camps, and paid the families of Palestinian homicide bombers after their deaths in attacks on Israel.
-- Saddam was in a position to destabilize the supply of a crucial national resource used by the entire world--something he had done once before. He could damage the economies of the industrial world, and hold them hostage if he became powerful enough to stand against the West.
6) Don't think so. President Bush is a man who says what he means, and means what he says. I think that's true of the Vice President as well. No senior official would last long in this Administration if caught in a lie.
Richard Perle will appear on the Charlie Rose show tomorrow night to rebut Clarke's assertions. It should be a good one.
1) He believes that if the Bush Administration had heeded his advice, the FBI may have apprehended 2 of the 19 9/11 hijackers, possibly disrupting the plot--perhaps causing one of the four teams to abort.
2) The Bush Administration used too few troops in Afghanistan to cut off and capture bin Laden.
3) George Tenent of the CIA may privately agree with him, but probably won't say so until after he leaves government service.
4) He won't serve in a Kerry Administration, should we be cursed with same.
5) Had the Bush Administration followed his advice...had it not gone to war with Iraq (I'm not totally clear that he advised anyone on totally avoiding war with Iraq)...our security situation would be much better.
6) No one in the Bush Administration lied, but they came close to doing so.
My take on his assertions:
1) Pre-9/11, the Bush Administration was still operating under the Clinton Administration's dictum that the FBI and the CIA could not cooperate at the operational level to share information that could be used in domestic counterintelligence. Clarke says that Clinton officials had held high level meetings to "shake the tree" to get such information out that Clarke claims thwarted terrorist attacks going back to 1996. At least, that's the impression that he gave--that Clinton's NSC Director, Sandy Berger, was ignoring or countermanding Reno's order so that better inter-agency coordination could take place. He apparently feels that Condi Rice, Bush's NSC Director, should have listened to him and done the same. The Bush Administration says that the chatter that the intelligence services picked up in the first 8 months of 2001 indicated that attacks would come against US or allied interests overseas, not domestically. I don't know what other arguments he used in classified meetings with Administration officials, but it sounds like they were alert to a threat. Clarke doesn't deal with the issue of the FBI bureaucracy's poor handling of a low-level agent's reports on the terrorists' activities. Apparently, no chatter alerted anyone to activities involving aircraft, and still fewer "experts" would have believed that the goal of the terrorists was to crash the planes instead of holding the passengers as hostages. He seems to be on shaky ground.
2) I expect that Secretary Rumsfeld will comment on the Afghanistan strategy at some point. I believe--based on my reading of history--that the Bush Administration was mindful of the failure of the Soviet Union to conquer the country, despite deploying over 100,000 troops and planting one of the largest minefields in history. Fifteen thousand Soviet troops died during the 10-year conflict. The USSR withdrew in 1989 after reaching a face-saving agreement with the US that called for the ending of US support for the Mujahidin. Afghanistan suffered huge losses during the conflict: almost one million Afghanis died; five million more were forced to leave their homes.
The US Special Ops/Air Force approach destroyed the Taliban and resulted in destroying or capturing 2/3 of the Al Qaeda leadership. Whether we would have suffered unacceptable losses in a more massive buildup--a buildup that would have taken much more time to transport and stage prior to invasion--is a question that Clarke wasn't asked. We cannot know whether more troops would have meant immediate capture of bin Laden given the terrain and weather conditions during the period of the war. Again, Clarke doth protest too much.
3) If Tenent turns on the President, he'll betray a man who stood by him when many in Congress and around the country were (and are) looking for a head to chop off. The "failure" of pre-Iraq war intelligence arguments pointed to Tenent and his daily briefings of the President as a scapegoat for the "failure".
4) Good.
5) That's not clear. Clarke says that Dean was right, that we're no safer after the fall of Saddam. I disagree.
-- Saddam was corrupting the UN, and allied governments, to get sanctions lifted.
-- Saddam gave speeches (see the MEMRI site) praising his scientists for their research on nuclear weapons and other WMD programs. It appears that if he didn't have WMD programs, he had WMD experts in place ready to resume the programs once the sanctions were lifted.
-- Saddam hosted terrorist camps, and paid the families of Palestinian homicide bombers after their deaths in attacks on Israel.
-- Saddam was in a position to destabilize the supply of a crucial national resource used by the entire world--something he had done once before. He could damage the economies of the industrial world, and hold them hostage if he became powerful enough to stand against the West.
6) Don't think so. President Bush is a man who says what he means, and means what he says. I think that's true of the Vice President as well. No senior official would last long in this Administration if caught in a lie.
Richard Perle will appear on the Charlie Rose show tomorrow night to rebut Clarke's assertions. It should be a good one.
Monday, March 22, 2004
Richard "Dick" Clarke certainly has changed his tune on the administration's approach to dealing with the threat of terrorism. National Review magazine's blog, The Corner, excerpts a portion of an interview PBS's Frontline program conducted with Clarke in 2002 The Corner on National Review Online
National Review also carries the text of a White House document that contains responses to charges Clarke now levels against the Administration here
CBS didn't chalk up any points for journalistic integrity by failing to mention that Clarke's book, like Paul O'Neill's book, were published by CBS's parent company, Viacom. The publishing subsidiary, Simon & Schuster, also publishes books by James Carville, Paul Begala and other Clinton-friendly authors.
National Review also carries the text of a White House document that contains responses to charges Clarke now levels against the Administration here
CBS didn't chalk up any points for journalistic integrity by failing to mention that Clarke's book, like Paul O'Neill's book, were published by CBS's parent company, Viacom. The publishing subsidiary, Simon & Schuster, also publishes books by James Carville, Paul Begala and other Clinton-friendly authors.
Read this http://www.lt-smash.us/archives/002759.html#002759
... then this http://www.lt-smash.us/archives/002760.html#002760
... and then this http://www.lt-smash.us/archives/002761.html#002761
These people don't mind ruling society under martial law, as long as they're the martials. I pray that they are never given the chance here. Their track record speaks for itself.
... then this http://www.lt-smash.us/archives/002760.html#002760
... and then this http://www.lt-smash.us/archives/002761.html#002761
These people don't mind ruling society under martial law, as long as they're the martials. I pray that they are never given the chance here. Their track record speaks for itself.
Monday, March 15, 2004
Sunday, March 14, 2004
Who knew that the 82nd Airborne has a men's chorus? The world's toughest "boy band" gave a great rendition of the national anthem at today's Nextel Cup event in Atlanta, followed by a slow flyover by a formation of 4 A-10 Warthogs. The Warthog is one of my favorite aircraft. This site A-10/OA-10 Thunderbolt II - Military Aircraft contains a great deal of information on the best tank killer in service today. As the A-10 pilots proudly say, "Go ugly early".
In honor of St. Patrick's month
Danny Boy
Oh Danny boy, the pipes,
the pipes are calling
From glen to glen,
and down the mountain side
The summer's gone,
and all the flowers are falling
'Tis you, 'tis you
must go and I must bide
But come ye back
when summer's in the meadow
Or when the valley's hushed
and white with snow
And I'll be here
in sunshine or in shadow
Oh Danny boy, oh Danny boy,
I love you so
But if you come,
and all the flowers are falling
And I am dead,
as dead I may well be
You'll come and find
the place where I am lying
And kneel and say
an "Ave" there for me
And I will hear,
though soft your tread above me
And o'er my grave
will warmer sweeter be
And you will bend
and tell me that you love me
And I will sleep
in peace until you come to me
But if I live
and should you die for Ireland
Let not your dying thoughts
be just of me
But say a prayer to God
for our dearest Island
I know He'll hear
and help to set her free
And I will take your pike
and place my dearest
And strike a blow,
though weak the blow may be
Twill help the cause
to which your heart was nearest
Oh Danny Boy, Oh, Danny boy
I love you so.
Danny Boy
Oh Danny boy, the pipes,
the pipes are calling
From glen to glen,
and down the mountain side
The summer's gone,
and all the flowers are falling
'Tis you, 'tis you
must go and I must bide
But come ye back
when summer's in the meadow
Or when the valley's hushed
and white with snow
And I'll be here
in sunshine or in shadow
Oh Danny boy, oh Danny boy,
I love you so
But if you come,
and all the flowers are falling
And I am dead,
as dead I may well be
You'll come and find
the place where I am lying
And kneel and say
an "Ave" there for me
And I will hear,
though soft your tread above me
And o'er my grave
will warmer sweeter be
And you will bend
and tell me that you love me
And I will sleep
in peace until you come to me
But if I live
and should you die for Ireland
Let not your dying thoughts
be just of me
But say a prayer to God
for our dearest Island
I know He'll hear
and help to set her free
And I will take your pike
and place my dearest
And strike a blow,
though weak the blow may be
Twill help the cause
to which your heart was nearest
Oh Danny Boy, Oh, Danny boy
I love you so.
Saturday, March 13, 2004
After the terrorist attack on Spanish citizens on 3/11, it is worth rereading the remarks made by another world leader a few days after the seminal moment in America's battle with terrorism President Declares "Freedom at War with Fear"
¡Viva España!
¡Viva España!
Sunday, March 07, 2004
Saturday, February 21, 2004
You are an enzyme. You are powerful, dark,
variable, and can change many things at your
whim...even when they're not supposed to be
changed. Bad you. You can be dangerous or
wonderful; it's your choice.
Which Biological Molecule Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
Friday, February 13, 2004
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 9:04 PM
To: 'imus@msnbc.com'
Subject: Cover up?
Have you seen these articles?
http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/003264.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040210-082910-8424r.htm
If the identity of Col. Campenni can be confirmed, the bona fides of his account established, and the assertions laid out in Bill Hobbs' article confirmed, will you retract your charge that the President engaged in a cover up of his service in the Air National Guard? Perhaps the more appropriate charge would be that the President is guilty of allowing those partisans who choose to think the worst of the President to express their black thoughts, and thereby expose their small minds and shriveled hearts before the nation. I think much more of you than I do of that wasted poseur "Fat Teddy", Don.
I volunteered for the Air Force even though I wasn't drafted. It gave me a skill--computer programming--that I turned into a career. I've worked for two start ups as well as, EDS, Apple and Microsoft in my time. The biggest impression that any organization made on in all those years me was the Air Force. The men I served with there were bitter that they weren't allowed to use their full skills and the total power of the Air Force until Nixon authorized Linebacker II. Like the air operation in Afghanistan, the North Vietnamese air defenses were destroyed in days, its infrastructure and war making ability eviscerated, and the North Vietnamese leadership suddenly dropped their bravado and came to the table without pretense. This could have been done on Johnson's watch, or earlier in Nixon's, saving untold thousands of lives.
Veterans like Bush--love Bush--because he doesn't commit troops unless there are no shackles. Once sent to fight, we fight to win, and then to come home, not to die in vain attempts to bomb truck parks, defend non-strategic territory and defoliate the landscape. If the intelligence is bad, that's bad, and the root causes should be corrected. However, what if we'd acted on "bad intelligence" to take down Al Qaeda and the Taliban in August, 2001? Would you "blame America first" like the rest of the fat, smug self proclaimed intelligentsia?
This may be the last time that these real veterans rise up before passing the torch one final time. I predict that they and their brothers and sisters in every service will join them in their rebuke for Kerry and his ilk.
Kerry painted virtually every Vietnam veteran as a war criminal after his discharge. Let him explain himself, not to gatherings of photo op vets, but the thousands of real vets who remember being cursed and reviled, not only by the press and uniformed civilians, but by his "brothers" in uniform. They haven't forgotten the slander, and neither have the families of the POW/MIAs whose hopes for closure he dismissed. At last, Hanoi Jane and the VVAW will have their answer, and the humiliation and shame will be lifted from those shoulders that bore more than just the scars of battle. They suffered unfair curses from the very citizens that they in their innocence were sent by their nation to protect, like so many simple men and women in so many wars before.
The New York Air National Guard flies one of my favorite aircraft, the A-10 tank killer. This is the preeminent close air support fighter bomber, in my opinion. The pilots are brave men and women, some of whom may fly some of your listeners on commercial aircraft when they're not called to duty. President Bush's F 102 Delta Dagger was tasked with the defense of the homeland from a possible Soviet bomber attack. It wasn't meant for ground attack or bombing roles. That is the main reason why that group wouldn't have been called to duty in Vietnam. Lt. Bush had too little time remaining in his service commitment in 1972 to begin the years of training to become proficient on a new aircraft.
I think that he had to be pretty skilled to fly a supersonic interceptor. Taking your concentration from the controls of the twitchy Delta Dagger for a few seconds was a much more serious mistake than looking away from the dash of a Maybach.
I often watch your show when I pull an "all nighter" because I enjoy the humor and your conversations with most of your guests. In the future, I suggest that you take your own advice and just "shut up" until all the facts are in on such stories involving attempts at partisan character assassination of either candidate.
Best regards,
JDF
Tacoma, WA
USAF 1975-79
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 9:04 PM
To: 'imus@msnbc.com'
Subject: Cover up?
Have you seen these articles?
http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/003264.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040210-082910-8424r.htm
If the identity of Col. Campenni can be confirmed, the bona fides of his account established, and the assertions laid out in Bill Hobbs' article confirmed, will you retract your charge that the President engaged in a cover up of his service in the Air National Guard? Perhaps the more appropriate charge would be that the President is guilty of allowing those partisans who choose to think the worst of the President to express their black thoughts, and thereby expose their small minds and shriveled hearts before the nation. I think much more of you than I do of that wasted poseur "Fat Teddy", Don.
I volunteered for the Air Force even though I wasn't drafted. It gave me a skill--computer programming--that I turned into a career. I've worked for two start ups as well as, EDS, Apple and Microsoft in my time. The biggest impression that any organization made on in all those years me was the Air Force. The men I served with there were bitter that they weren't allowed to use their full skills and the total power of the Air Force until Nixon authorized Linebacker II. Like the air operation in Afghanistan, the North Vietnamese air defenses were destroyed in days, its infrastructure and war making ability eviscerated, and the North Vietnamese leadership suddenly dropped their bravado and came to the table without pretense. This could have been done on Johnson's watch, or earlier in Nixon's, saving untold thousands of lives.
Veterans like Bush--love Bush--because he doesn't commit troops unless there are no shackles. Once sent to fight, we fight to win, and then to come home, not to die in vain attempts to bomb truck parks, defend non-strategic territory and defoliate the landscape. If the intelligence is bad, that's bad, and the root causes should be corrected. However, what if we'd acted on "bad intelligence" to take down Al Qaeda and the Taliban in August, 2001? Would you "blame America first" like the rest of the fat, smug self proclaimed intelligentsia?
This may be the last time that these real veterans rise up before passing the torch one final time. I predict that they and their brothers and sisters in every service will join them in their rebuke for Kerry and his ilk.
Kerry painted virtually every Vietnam veteran as a war criminal after his discharge. Let him explain himself, not to gatherings of photo op vets, but the thousands of real vets who remember being cursed and reviled, not only by the press and uniformed civilians, but by his "brothers" in uniform. They haven't forgotten the slander, and neither have the families of the POW/MIAs whose hopes for closure he dismissed. At last, Hanoi Jane and the VVAW will have their answer, and the humiliation and shame will be lifted from those shoulders that bore more than just the scars of battle. They suffered unfair curses from the very citizens that they in their innocence were sent by their nation to protect, like so many simple men and women in so many wars before.
The New York Air National Guard flies one of my favorite aircraft, the A-10 tank killer. This is the preeminent close air support fighter bomber, in my opinion. The pilots are brave men and women, some of whom may fly some of your listeners on commercial aircraft when they're not called to duty. President Bush's F 102 Delta Dagger was tasked with the defense of the homeland from a possible Soviet bomber attack. It wasn't meant for ground attack or bombing roles. That is the main reason why that group wouldn't have been called to duty in Vietnam. Lt. Bush had too little time remaining in his service commitment in 1972 to begin the years of training to become proficient on a new aircraft.
I think that he had to be pretty skilled to fly a supersonic interceptor. Taking your concentration from the controls of the twitchy Delta Dagger for a few seconds was a much more serious mistake than looking away from the dash of a Maybach.
I often watch your show when I pull an "all nighter" because I enjoy the humor and your conversations with most of your guests. In the future, I suggest that you take your own advice and just "shut up" until all the facts are in on such stories involving attempts at partisan character assassination of either candidate.
Best regards,
JDF
Tacoma, WA
USAF 1975-79
Saturday, July 12, 2003
Lou Pinella's return to Seattle and SafeCo Field last night was, in a word, terrific. The crowd roared "Lou!" lustily. Lou's voice cracked with emotion as he thanked the fans during a brief ceremony before the game. TV shots of the crowd showed more than a few fans wiping a tear or holding hand-made signs expressing their thanks and love for Lou.
Lou spent ten years as Seattle's manager. Ten years doing anything is a rarity these days. Lou committed himself to building a successful organization, and demanded commitment to that same goal from his players and coaches. He is responsible for the team's ability to continue to succeed despite the departure of Tino Martinez, Randy Johnson, Ken Griffey Jr. and Alex Rodriguez.
Now the torch has been passed to Bob Melvin and his staff. It will be a testament to Bob, and to what Lou started, if the team continues to perform at the high level Lou set over the next decade. I hope that the fans will continue to turn out and show their love for the team.
Strong, vocal fan support can't be overrated. Anyone who's seen the energy of the Yankee fans during the playoffs can see how the Yankee players turn it up a notch time and again while often playing down to the competition during the regular season. Even the Angels fans with their annoying "thunder sticks" were a force to be reckoned with during the 2002 World Series.
Here's to you, Lou. May we all help carry the torch you lit for many years to come.
Lou spent ten years as Seattle's manager. Ten years doing anything is a rarity these days. Lou committed himself to building a successful organization, and demanded commitment to that same goal from his players and coaches. He is responsible for the team's ability to continue to succeed despite the departure of Tino Martinez, Randy Johnson, Ken Griffey Jr. and Alex Rodriguez.
Now the torch has been passed to Bob Melvin and his staff. It will be a testament to Bob, and to what Lou started, if the team continues to perform at the high level Lou set over the next decade. I hope that the fans will continue to turn out and show their love for the team.
Strong, vocal fan support can't be overrated. Anyone who's seen the energy of the Yankee fans during the playoffs can see how the Yankee players turn it up a notch time and again while often playing down to the competition during the regular season. Even the Angels fans with their annoying "thunder sticks" were a force to be reckoned with during the 2002 World Series.
Here's to you, Lou. May we all help carry the torch you lit for many years to come.
Tuesday, April 08, 2003
I'm delighted that Blogger fixed whatever was wrong with my blog. Thank you.
Thanks of another sort; with a much deeper meaning, go to the men and women of the armed forces. As a veteran, I teared up watching the President's speech from the deck of the Abraham Lincoln tonight. I served during an era when the military was vilified--hated as "baby killers". We weren't then, and we aren't now. Instead, we fight for freedom. Only the will of our leadership affects the outcome. In my day, Vietnam was not a war, but a battle of attrition. Only during the operation named "Linebacker II" was the Air Force allowed to project its true power. After less than two weeks, the North Vietnamese dropped their objections to the shape of the table, and other trivial matters, and earnestly agreed to an armistice so that their entire government would not disappear in a rain of iron bombs.
Today's warriors fight with a mixture of new and old. My favorite airplane, the mighty B-52, can perform close air support missions thanks to the JDAM and other precision guided munitions. The B-52--the BUFF--is older than most of its crews, and is nearly as old as I am. I expect it to serve longer than I will.
Tonight's speech reminds us of the dedication of our best, our young men and women, to the cause of freedom. We did not seek this conflict. Al Qaida and Saddam underestimated our President, and our nation. The President declares us victorious in the battles of Afghanistan and Iraq, but not in the war against terrorism. That war goes on, as does our resolve.
God bless America.
Thanks of another sort; with a much deeper meaning, go to the men and women of the armed forces. As a veteran, I teared up watching the President's speech from the deck of the Abraham Lincoln tonight. I served during an era when the military was vilified--hated as "baby killers". We weren't then, and we aren't now. Instead, we fight for freedom. Only the will of our leadership affects the outcome. In my day, Vietnam was not a war, but a battle of attrition. Only during the operation named "Linebacker II" was the Air Force allowed to project its true power. After less than two weeks, the North Vietnamese dropped their objections to the shape of the table, and other trivial matters, and earnestly agreed to an armistice so that their entire government would not disappear in a rain of iron bombs.
Today's warriors fight with a mixture of new and old. My favorite airplane, the mighty B-52, can perform close air support missions thanks to the JDAM and other precision guided munitions. The B-52--the BUFF--is older than most of its crews, and is nearly as old as I am. I expect it to serve longer than I will.
Tonight's speech reminds us of the dedication of our best, our young men and women, to the cause of freedom. We did not seek this conflict. Al Qaida and Saddam underestimated our President, and our nation. The President declares us victorious in the battles of Afghanistan and Iraq, but not in the war against terrorism. That war goes on, as does our resolve.
God bless America.
Wednesday, April 02, 2003
I don't know why I bother, but I occasionally watch The West Wing on NBC. Tonight's episode included a conversation between a member of the Congressional Black Caucus and "Toby Ziegler" about reinstating the draft in order to somehow make the military more racially and economically balanced. They also said that military service was the only choice for some; the other choice would be a McDonalds uniform.
Well, according to this article, it appears that the composition of the military is diverse. It may not match the exact ratios of the racial composition of the nation according to the census. However, everyone enlisted serves by choice. There are no deferments for the elite; no draft dodgers. The level of professionalism of today's force is far greater than the Vietnam era military.
I became a computer programmer while serving in the Air Force from 1975 until 1979. I learned my skills well enough to join EDS, then a company known as Raychem, then Doelz Networks (a data communications startup), Apple Computer, GO Corporation (a pioneer in pen-based computing), and finally Microsoft. I would never have achieved what I did without that founding experience in the Air Force.
I served with all sorts of people during those years. It was tough; Vietnam had just ended, the economy was bad, almost anything was more popular than the military. However, if anything, our isolation had a positive effect. All of us felt a strong bond with one another. It was the closest experience to the feeling that I get from my family that I've ever felt.
NBC doesn't provide e-mail addresses for The West Wing on its web site--at least, that I could find. I'd certainly like to give them a piece of my mind on this issue. Shilling for Charlie Rangel's loony draft reinstatement idea makes no more sense in Bartlett-land than it does in real life.
Perhaps their overt left slant during these times accounts for their ratings decline. Or perhaps it's for this reason href="http://espn.go.com/page2/s/merron/021024.html"
Well, according to this article, it appears that the composition of the military is diverse. It may not match the exact ratios of the racial composition of the nation according to the census. However, everyone enlisted serves by choice. There are no deferments for the elite; no draft dodgers. The level of professionalism of today's force is far greater than the Vietnam era military.
I became a computer programmer while serving in the Air Force from 1975 until 1979. I learned my skills well enough to join EDS, then a company known as Raychem, then Doelz Networks (a data communications startup), Apple Computer, GO Corporation (a pioneer in pen-based computing), and finally Microsoft. I would never have achieved what I did without that founding experience in the Air Force.
I served with all sorts of people during those years. It was tough; Vietnam had just ended, the economy was bad, almost anything was more popular than the military. However, if anything, our isolation had a positive effect. All of us felt a strong bond with one another. It was the closest experience to the feeling that I get from my family that I've ever felt.
NBC doesn't provide e-mail addresses for The West Wing on its web site--at least, that I could find. I'd certainly like to give them a piece of my mind on this issue. Shilling for Charlie Rangel's loony draft reinstatement idea makes no more sense in Bartlett-land than it does in real life.
Perhaps their overt left slant during these times accounts for their ratings decline. Or perhaps it's for this reason href="http://espn.go.com/page2/s/merron/021024.html"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
