All Hank, all the time.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
but even you said, when we still thought sadaam had weapons, that he wasn't a threat-

Wha?

how come Clinton let Osama go free?

He didn't. He tried to kill him, which is more than Bush tried at Tora Bora.

I would have arranged a peace conference where JFK Jr. would fly OBL to it.

[ppnyc]Cuz that's how you roll.[/ppnyc]

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky

And it didn't matter if Saddam was poor after 91. Its not like he cared about his people and he still had money. There was no reason to believe that he didn't start building them again.

2. North Korea is poorer. But Spank, arguing logically with Ty is like explaining to PPNYC that maybe she isn't making sense.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Wha?

I said- Paraduxx 2001 then eased into the Grey Goose.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes - he had exact knowledge of where all the chemicals were stored and got rid of them all by launching cruise missiles from hundreds miles away. He got rid of the chemicals just like he got rid of Osama and all the Al Queda infrastructure in Afghanistan.

That is such B.S. That is just giving way to much credence to airpower. Since that attack there are many liberals that claimed that those attacks achieved absolutely nothing. I am glad Clinton did them but to aver that they took out all of Saddam's WMDs is just blind partisan denial of what is possible. The only way to insure that we got all the WMDs was through a ground invasion.

And the claim that these cruise missles almost brought down the regime - please. During the Gulf War we bombed IIraq mercilessley and two major insurgencies were started and Saddam still held on. But a few cruise missles launched at the country almost brought him down. Yeah right.

And it didn't matter if Saddam was poor after 91. Its not like he cared about his people and he still had money. There was no reason to believe that he didn't start building them again.

(1) Please respond to the profiling post from this morning. That's more interesting.

(2) Ricks wrote a book about this shit, with military officers as his sources. If you think your deep experience with Republican fundraising leaves you better qualified to explain what was what, that qualifies you to make foreign policy in a Bush administration.

[Gattigap]

Originally from a Spanky post from far, far away
Every proposal for research and spending on missile defense should get 100 percent vote of the house and senate. Anyone that is against spending on SDI, or wants to reduce, is a moron. Plain and simple.

Woo hoo! We're done! Now, on to armoring Humvees.

Navy Times

• By the end of the year, the Navy will have a total of six warships capable of tracking and shooting down ballistic missiles.
  
  Three cruisers — Shiloh, Lake Erie and Port Royal — already have the capability to track ballistic missiles with upgraded Aegis radar. They also have the ability to hit a ballistic missile with an SM-3 missile, shot out of standard Navy vertical launch system tubes.
  
  ***
  
  The cruiser Lake Erie has been used in agreement with the Missile Defense Agency to test seaborne anti-ballistic missile systems.
  
  Eventually, the U.S. wants 18 cruisers and destroyers with the missile-defense capability.
  
  During a test June 22 off Hawaii, an SM-3 launched from the cruiser Shiloh hit a target warhead 100 miles above earth. That intercept was the seventh successful hit out of eight tries in ship-borne tests.

This is certainly good news if true, but first reaction is, "shit, really?" I thought that the actual logistics of an antiballistic missle shield were super-duper complicated or something, and we'd never actually hit one, and the Bush Administration tended to mumble and stutter anytime people brought that point up.

Wouldn't news like this have Rumsfeld and Cheney dancing in the streets, or at least on Hannity & Colmes?

Gattigap

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Gattigap

This is certainly good news if true, but first reaction is, "shit, really?" I thought that the actual logistics of an antiballistic missle shield were super-duper complicated or something, and we'd never actually hit one, and the Bush Administration tended to mumble and stutter anytime people brought that point up.

Wouldn't news like this have Rumsfeld and Cheney dancing in the streets, or at least on Hannity & Colmes?

Gattigap

See, e.g., http://mediamatters.org/items/200606260009 for a different assesment.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I have very little confidence that the current procedures make us safer, although they do manage to impose massive costs on all of us by wasting people's time.

I am sorry - I forgot - since these procedures were implement how many planes have been hijacked in the U.S. since 9-11?

If no planes have been hijacked does that mean Al-Queda and all the fruit loops that are tryinng to help them, are just not trying.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am sorry - I forgot - since these procedures were implement how many planes have been hijacked in the U.S. since 9-11?

Using that analysis, you would have concluded that our procedures were perfect as of September 10, 2001.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
The only way to insure that we got all the WMDs was through a ground invasion.

Operation Just Checking.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

(2) Ricks wrote a book about this shit, with military officers as his sources. If you think your deep experience with Republican fundraising leaves you better qualified to explain what was what, that qualifies you to make foreign policy in a Bush administration.

Yes and I have talked to military officers. Big deal. Ricks has an agenda. And he draws absurd conclusions, and anyone with an agenda can write a book and find "evidence" to back it up. His book, and his allegations, are a joke.

I find your post ironic, because just by reading left wing blogs, magazines and books you think you are an expert on domestic security, how the department of Homeland Security is run, and how we should screen for terrorists.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am sorry - I forgot - since these procedures were implement how many planes have been hijacked in the U.S. since 9-11?

If no planes have been hijacked does that mean Al-Queda and all the fruit loops that are tryinng to help them, are just not trying.

How hijackers have been foiled by these procedures? I believe that people would like to hijack U.S. airplanes, and that law enforcement is doing a good job stopping them, but I don't think these procedures have anything to do with it.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Woo hoo! We're done! Now, on to armoring Humvees.

Navy Times

• By the end of the year, the Navy will have a total of six warships capable of tracking and shooting down ballistic missiles.
  
  Three cruisers — Shiloh, Lake Erie and Port Royal — already have the capability to track ballistic missiles with upgraded Aegis radar. They also have the ability to hit a ballistic missile with an SM-3 missile, shot out of standard Navy vertical launch system tubes.
  
  ***
  
  The cruiser Lake Erie has been used in agreement with the Missile Defense Agency to test seaborne anti-ballistic missile systems.
  
  Eventually, the U.S. wants 18 cruisers and destroyers with the missile-defense capability.
  
  During a test June 22 off Hawaii, an SM-3 launched from the cruiser Shiloh hit a target warhead 100 miles above earth. That intercept was the seventh successful hit out of eight tries in ship-borne tests.

This is certainly good news if true, but first reaction is, "shit, really?" I thought that the actual logistics of an antiballistic missle shield were super-duper complicated or something, and we'd never actually hit one, and the Bush Administration tended to mumble and stutter anytime people brought that point up.

Wouldn't news like this have Rumsfeld and Cheney dancing in the streets, or at least on Hannity & Colmes?


Gattigap

When we face a crisis with North Korea, and they start threatening to hit Los Angeles with a Nuclear Missile, you are going to want those cruisers right of the coast of San Pedro. In addition, at that particular moment in time you are going to wish they had spent more money on the research.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How hijackers have been foiled by these procedures? I believe that people would like to hijack U.S. airplanes, and that law enforcement is doing a good job stopping them, but I don't think these procedures have anything to do with it.

Without these procedures, you don't think other would be hijackers would be walking on to more airplanes? Would you feel safe if the system were dismantled. I really doubt it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes and I have talked to military officers.

So did he. That's who his sources are, as you would discover if you read Hewitt's interview of him.

Ricks has an agenda. And he draws absurd conclusions.

A Washington Post writer has an agenda, but a GOP fundraiser doesn't? OK, then.

I find your post ironic, because just by reading left wing blogs, magazines and books you think you are an expert on domestic security, how the department of Homeland Security is run, and how we should screen for terrorists.

Here's a hint: That's not irony. Look it up.

Please find me evidence that Iraq's WMD program survived after Operation Desert Fox. As you may have heard at one of your GOP functions, we invaded Iraq and discovered that there were no WMD. (For those of us in the reality-based community, it's not news anymore.) Although we didn't know it then -- a claim you incorrectly seem to think Ricks made -- we now know that Desert Fox was instrumental in ending those programs. This has been reported elsewhere -- it's not like Ricks is the first person to say it. But when I refer to it here, reality-challenged conservatives like you always ask for a cite. The next time it comes up, I can search the board instead of Googling.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Without these procedures, you don't think other would be hijackers would be walking on to more airplanes? Would you feel safe if the system were dismantled. I really doubt it.

Did you recently suffer a head injury? I'm not opposed to airport security, but I think the current system is not useful and wastes people's time. I think we should copy the Israelis, as I've said more than once.