Politics: A new beginning - Page 276

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 01-15-2004, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Why would that make a difference? Unless we are making spacecraft out of materials found on the moon, everything leaving the moon for Mars has to leave the Earth and land on the Moon first.

You're forgetting your basic budget principles. If you count the social security surplus, the weight of the materials leaving earth will be substantially less than the ones leaving the moon.

Atticus Grinch · 01-15-2004, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Why would that make a difference? Unless we are making spacecraft out of materials found on the moon, everything leaving the moon for Mars has to leave the Earth and land on the Moon first.

Bilmore said earlier a moon-launched vehicle could be made from lighter parts. Of course, those parts would have to be assembled by humans and robots in an industrial facility constructed from piles of moon rocks, or from other construction materials which are themselves much lighter than every single deep-space vehicle we would have sent directly from Earth under this program.

Oh, and maybe there'll be a 384,400 km pipeline directly from ANWR. You know, to save the fuel costs of transporting, um, fuel.

Hank Chinaski · 01-15-2004, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Huh. So GW scientists are biased because they want their research funded, but anti-GW scientists are not quite so venial, and all the scientific community that's not studying this is assumed to be anti-GW by virtue of their implied apathy?

No. My point was the lack of direct pecuniary interest by the GW scientists should gather so much deference, as you implied. Scientists are not perfect. There are guys out there who got 2.5's, there are guys out there who are egotists, and greedy shits, They're just people. The fact that they say things makes a lot of people bow down, seeing Moses' tablets.
I'm just trying to wake you all up to reality.

sgtclub · 01-15-2004, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I was thinking that, but now I'm thinking that everyone will be too bored with this sort of "gotcha" by the general election to give a sh*t.

I think you and I will be bored. I think most are not paying attention yet.

Tyrone Slothrop · 01-15-2004, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think you and I will be bored. I think most are not paying attention yet.

I think the journalists will be bored. They are paying attention. What excites journalists is very important.

Atticus Grinch · 01-15-2004, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm just trying to wake you all up to reality.

Board motto!

{Or, whiff.}

Tyrone Slothrop · 01-15-2004, 02:37 PM

O'Neill's book gives more detail about how, before 9/11, the Bushies blew off the warnings about Al Qaeda and instead worried about how to build missile defense:

In The Price of Loyalty, the former treasury secretary recalls that Bush's National Security Council began to discuss the overthrow of Saddam at its very first meetings during the winter of 2001. Despite emphatic warnings from the departing members of the Clinton foreign policy team that al-Qaida posed the most immediate threat, the Islamists don't seem to have appeared on the new administration's target list.

O'Neill gave author Ron Suskind an important memo distributed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld during those early days, which mentions various potential threats to the United States. The Rumsfeld memo doesn't mention al-Qaida or Islamist terror, but frets about the possibility that smaller nations will obtain missile capability -- and urges an immediate increase in missile defense funding.

Were the Bush planners so preoccupied with Iraq and missile defense that they ignored warnings from their predecessors about the imminent threat from al-Qaida?

linky

Secret_Agent_Man · 01-15-2004, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I'll read the Crichton essay after I find time to read any of his books. Don't hold your breath.

Don't make that mistake, its good reading.

S_A_M

[ETA: Not _everything_ that Hank agrees with is crap. His agreement may make a prima facie case for crap, but . . . ]

sgtclub · 01-15-2004, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I think the journalists will be bored. They are paying attention. What excites journalists is very important.

Perhaps, but I see a flood of GOP ads that replay the attacks made on the eventual winner by the current potentials, and I see that as the story that will excite journalists.

sgtclub · 01-15-2004, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
O'Neill's book gives more detail about how, before 9/11, the Bushies blew off the warnings about Al Qaeda and instead worried about how to build missile defense:

I've been trying to assess this book from an objective prospective. The question I have for you is how do you square this portrayal with the portrayal in Woodward's book? I don't know if you read it, but he paints a very different picture and was given pretty wide access during the research process.

Hank Chinaski · 01-15-2004, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Not _everything_ that Hank agrees with is crap. His agreement may make a prima facie case for crap, but . . . ]

I don't recall taking a position on one of his book. I did recommend reading books generally, and I will stand by that point.

sgtclub · 01-15-2004, 03:10 PM

http://www.drudgereport.com/mattwc.htm

[link to drudge - allegations that Clark, in congressional testimony, supported (a) the Iraqi invasion, (b) the presence of WMD, and (c) our right to act unilaterally.]

[edited to add:

Ty: you should check your boy Josh's site today for your debunking points on this]

Atticus Grinch · 01-15-2004, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I did recommend reading books generally, and I will stand by that point.

Luddite.

Tyrone Slothrop · 01-15-2004, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I've been trying to assess this book from an objective prospective. The question I have for you is how do you square this portrayal with the portrayal in Woodward's book? I don't know if you read it, but he paints a very different picture and was given pretty wide access during the research process.

I have not read that Woodward book, but I have read others, and I think it's a mistake to see them as anything but a selective account offered by the senior officials who choose to use him as a source. He gets great access, and you have to ask what he gives to get it.

Tyrone Slothrop · 01-15-2004, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.drudgereport.com/mattwc.htm

[link to drudge - allegations that Clark, in congressional testimony, supported (a) the Iraqi invasion, (b) the presence of WMD, and (c) our right to act unilaterally.]

[edited to add:

Ty: you should check your boy Josh's site today for your debunking points on this]

It is damning, but it's not damning Clark. Did you even read it? He's talking about self-defense. Without WMD or links to Al Qaida, your guys are trying not to sound that note anymore.

Again, you're using sound bites to try to embarrass people without even considering the real issues of substance. Clark has lengthy opinions on these things, and they take you in a different direction than the President has. Either you are just playing a mindless game of "gotcha," or you think that Clark agreed with the President's policy's, and neither reflects well on you.

eta:

Now I've looked at Marshall's site, with the more complete version of what Clark said, and it's clear that Drudge is taking Clark out of context. Why do you even bother to repeat this crap?