Politics: J'accuse!

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...ion/index.html

[discusses the current Commission's failure to request testimony from the 1998-2001 Commission on terrorism, which gave a report to the Bush administration early in 2001.]

This kind of goes against Clarke's testimony, in which he said that even if everything he suggested had been implemented, they still could not have stopped 9/11.

Also, aren't there reports that Roosevelt did know about Pearl Harbor pre-bombing?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub


Also, aren't there reports that Roosevelt did know about Pearl Harbor pre-bombing?

Well, the radar had the Zeros coming from hours away, but the operators thought they were clouds or an equipment malfunction.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
No, they have the understandable, and more than reasonable, concern that she will provide handsome background scenery for long-winded, political diatribes and lectures. Public hearings are less about gathering information from witnesses and more about setting out the commissioners/senators/reps' political agenda.

OK, but to me those understandable concerns would be outweighed if they thought, as sgtclub seems to, that Condi will blow Clarke out of the water. That was my point.

I don't think Rice's testimony will change a thing about this "debate". I just hope that those who wish to see her testimony as giving the lie to Clarke's will point to contradicted facts in their analysis rather than the spin put on those facts.

[SlaveNoMore]

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore

That guy is open W! What, are you waiting for the white guy to break coverage?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
OK, but to me those understandable concerns would be outweighed if they thought, as sgtclub seems to, that Condi will blow Clarke out of the water. That was my point.

I don't think Rice's testimony will change a thing about this "debate". I just hope that those who wish to see her testimony as giving the lie to Clarke's will point to contradicted facts in their analysis rather than the spin put on those facts.

I don't think that at all, but I do think it will neutralize him a bit. That said, it won't do a damn thing to change this "debate."

[sgtclub]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal...home-headlines

[Justice Department to go against porn industry]

[sgtclub]

rehashing the abortion debate . . .

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ts_5&printer=1

[Dr. testifies that fetus feels pain after 20 weeks]

[Not Me]

The coalition is fighting on several fronts right now in Iraq. The coalition is mounting an offensive under heavy fire in Fallujah and fighting Sadr's followers in several locations.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...span-headlines

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
rehashing the abortion debate . . .

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ts_5&printer=1

[Dr. testifies that fetus feels pain after 20 weeks]

Many researchers believe it occurs even earlier than that - at least as early as the completion of organogenesis when the peripheral and central nervous systems have formed (about 9 weeks). The fetus at that point has been observed to react to painful stimuli.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Well, the radar had the Zeros coming from hours away, but the operators thought they were clouds or an equipment malfunction.

It turns out that the radar operators had an open telephone line to the White House that Sunday morning, and were telling Roosevelt -- but not Pearl Harbor -- about the blips. Oh the humanity!

This is wandering into tinfoil-hat territory.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The operational factors precluding invasion do not hold up to scrutiny. See my prior posts.

Was it something other than this:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think what I'm suggesting is something more than a few cruise missles and more along the lines of 2002. I don't recall Congress declaring war in Bosnia/Serbia either, and we didn't stage in Pakistan in 2002 anyway. Not sure about Uzbekistan, but given that they are New Europe, I doubt they would have had a problem.

I'm missing any real "scrutiny" of the operational factors constraining our ability to put troops on the ground in a landlocked country not adjacent to any of our allies. Pakistan wasn't really with us until we put it to them after 9/11. Remember how 9/11 "changed everything"? That was one of the things. It's still not clear what you think we should have done, or how it could have been done.

And you're just wrong about the use of bases. Invading Afghanistan required the use of facilities in a bunch of countries throughout Central Asia, including Pakistan and Qatar. Domestic political considerations in these countries would have made staging a war against another Muslim country pretty impossible before 9/11, and we just couldn't invade the country staging out of Diego Garcia.

Don't believe me -- according to the US Army War College Quarterly:

• America is fortunate that Osama bin Laden chose to locate in Afghanistan, a country without ballistic missiles or weapons of mass destruction—or for that matter, even a conventional army of any size. Taliban and al Qaeda forces numbered about 50,000, one-tenth the size of the Iraqi forces engaged in Desert Storm, but about the same size as Serbian forces in Kosovo. US forces could attack Afghanistan with impunity. The only real challenge was the remote geography and lack of existing agreements with neighboring states regarding base rights.

(Reminds me I've got to renew my subscription.)

We didn't stage in Pakistan? Wrong. See the South Asia Tribune story linked above:

• But more mind boggling are the other stats revealed by the Centcom about use of Pakistani air and ground space and facilities provided for Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). For instance the Centcom data reveals that:
  
  - Pakistan provided five air bases/airfields. However in emergency planes could land anywhere in Pakistan.
  
  - On the average 400,000 liters of fuel per day was provided to US.
  
  - A total of 57,800 sorties were generated from Pakistan’s air space/soil.
  
  - In order to facilitate launching of air ops into Afghanistan, Pakistan provided 2/3rd of its air space as air corridor to the US/Coalition Forces. By so doing, Pakistan had to reschedule/ redirect many of its commercial flights.
  
  - Pakistan Navy provided landing facility to the US/Coalition ships at Pasni.
  
  - At sea, Pakistan Navy operations/training were curtailed in order to accommodate and facilitate the operations of US/Coalition Naval Forces.
  
  - According to the US Marine Corps Gazette of June 2002, the Coalition Naval Operations at Pasni were the largest amphibious operations in size, duration and depth that the Marine Corps had conducted since the Korean War.
  
  - In all, 8,000 Marines, 330 vehicles and over 1350 tons of equipment/logistic were off loaded at the beach and later flown to Kandahar from Pasni.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal...home-headlines

[Justice Department to go against porn industry]

Comcast offers hard-core porn? How hard-core is this? I thought all they had was hotel-room level porn, but this article implies otherwise.

I imagine this increased curiosity on my part is not really what the JD is after . . . .

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal...home-headlines

[Justice Department to go against porn industry]

Do I get some sort of prize for being the Cassandra on this?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Do I get some sort of prize for being the Cassandra on this?

All the porn you can eat.