Nothing demonstrates the Bush administration's commitment to Family Values than the number of its officials who have resigned to spend more time with their family. The latest is Julie A. MacDonald, an Interior Department deputy assistant secretary in charge of the Fish and Wildlife Service's endangered species program. The context for her new interest in family matters is the usual one for Bushies: conflict of interest charges, providing internal documents to lobbyists and the arbitrary alteration of the findings of her own scientific professionals in the Interior Department.
MacDonald's departure came a week before a scheduled congressional oversight hearing to investigate whether Bush administration officials have ignored scientific findings in their decisions on endangered species.In 2004, MacDonald was criticized for overruling field biologists on the habitat requirements of the greater sage grouse, disputing their conclusion that oil and gas operations could interfere with the birds' breeding and nesting.
The inspector general's report outlined instances where MacDonald, a civil engineer with no formal training in natural sciences, advocated altering scientific conclusions in ways that favored development and agricultural interests.
H. Dale Hall, director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, told investigators that MacDonald overrode field experts on designating habitat for the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher.
Scientists concluded that the birds had a "nesting range" of 2.1 miles, but MacDonald ordered the number reduced to 1.8 miles without providing any scientific basis for the change.
Hall, a wildlife biologist, told investigators he was in a "running battle" with MacDonald over the issue. Hall said MacDonald had a particular interest in endangered species rulings that affected California because her husband had a ranch in the state. (Julie Cart, Los Angeles Times)
MacDonald also insisted staff combine three different populations of California tiger salamanders to reach a size large enough to avoid triggering provisions of the endangered species act. This bit of legerdemain was overturned by a federal judge (one of the activist types, no doubt), who found it reflected no semblance of agency reasoning. And there's more, lots more, according to a report by the Interior Department's inspector general in March:
The report also said MacDonald had ordered department scientists to reverse their conclusions on the habitat for bull trout in the Klamath River Basin. She insisted on a 90% reduction in habitat. The final ruling reduced the habitat from 296 miles to 42 miles, an 86% reduction.
[snip]
The report said MacDonald improperly provided department information to lobbyists and private-sector interests, such as the California Farm Bureau and the Building Industry Assn. of Southern California.
"MacDonald appears to have a close personal and business relationship with a farm bureau lobbyist," the report said.
In once instance, the report said, MacDonald sent information about a contentious endangered species issue to a friend she had met in an online role-playing game. She told investigators she took part in the Internet games to relieve stress created by her job.
MacDonald often overruled government biologists and recommended cutting habitat for threatened species, saying the economic costs outweighed any potential benefits to the species. But she told The Times in 2005 that because of a miscalculation, she had wildly overstated potential costs in at least one case.
In many instances, MacDonald's changes caused scientists to request that their names be removed from documents. The inspector general calculated that in the last six years, 75% of the endangered species reports from the Fish and Wildlife Service's Western offices did not have standard signoffs by scientific staff members.
Meanwhile, there is other news on the endangered species front, this time from the eminence grise of the American Conservative movement, William F. Buckley:
The political problem of the Bush administration is grave, possibly beyond the point of rescue. The opinion polls are savagely decisive on the Iraq question. About 60 percent of Americans wish the war ended -- wish at least a timetable for orderly withdrawal. What is going on in Congress is in the nature of accompaniment. The vote in Congress is simply another salient in the war against war in Iraq. (William F. Buckley, National Review Online)
So maybe Ms. MacDonald isn't going to spend time with her family, after all. Maybe she is just moving to take a job trying to save another endangered species, the Republican party. I hope she goes about it as competently and disinterestedly as she did the California tiger salamander. The GOP deserves no less.
- Log in to post comments
What will they do and who will they have to blame about the ills of the US when Bush is out? EVERYTHING has to be blamed on Bush. Not a word about all the species that disappeared while WJC was in office.... not one. Not a word about all of the electric projects that were permitted under his watch by TVA, Enron, Pacific Gas, etc and in a like type fashion.
Civil Engineers in the field were allowed to do wildlife surveys and run roughshod over Indian burial grounds. I guess that those were Bush's fault too. Water quality fell during WJC's administration. But hey, 12 cities are reporting much improvement on ozone levels under Bush... No credit, no not one bit. Cant be that things improved at all because that doesnt fit the attack agenda.
One thing that I do know is that as Bush becomes extinct the realities of the world are going to come crashing down on the left. He has kept their attention focused and committed as it was with the Republicans against Kerry and Gore. Both of those lefties have a huge carbon footprint in this world to this day. Gore in particluar. Look who's daddy was on the board of Occidental Petroleum. As for Bush, he will leave and then the Dems are going to only have themselves to eat as the special interest groups are going to demand changes for their little commitment of votes to Aunt Hillary. She may or may not make it. Those changes could be dramatic and to the detriment of the US. Could it get worse? Yep, start saving your money because the lefties believe it belongs to someone else. Well we will just tax it and steal the money for other things other than development of new sources of oil. The lefites created the "ENERGY" department. Thats so nice. To date, has anyone seen any energy created by the department.? I can account for four volumes of regulations and that expends a lot of energy. We can give Sheryl Crow a sheet per day and it will last her for the rest of her life.
17 months and counting to the lefties implosion after Bush is out. We will have either a lefty prez, and a lefty Congress or a rightist prez and a near 50/50 Congress.
Anwar will go down in the next four years no matter who is president-its national economics. Its just not cost effective yet to do it. The oil off of Florida is also going to go down as will deep rigs in the Gulf. These are just givens and its just hasnt brought the pressure up enough to go there with the libs. They know if they dont, they will go when gas hits 3 plus per gallon as a regular item. It will become a campaign issue in the following elections. Revere could be right about the above and the environment, Global Climate Change etc. But they have no proof that is definitive beyond about a degree of warming. They also cant prove that its not just having about 1 billion more people with a temp of 98.6 acting as heaters either. I hear you Revere. You will be happy when Bush is gone. What are you going to do if another Republican goes in, commit Hari-kiri? The blame will lie with the lawmakers and the above doesnt change the fact that NEPA statutes have and were followed. Its the laws and not the people. If the laws leave things open to interpretations then you get the above. It was so happily the same with WJC as he couldnt define what is, was.
Randy: Your assumption is that all administrations are the same. If that's true, why vote? If a new adminstration -- Democrat or Republican -- is as bad as this one, and that bar has been raised pretty high in blood and dollars, then I will come down on them like a ton of bricks. I did it with LBJ over Vietnam and Nixon and to a lesser extent the others whose crimes don't compare with George's. But I'll do it. We'll take it congress by congress, administration by administration.
Can't they be called to testify even after they resign?
Crimes Revere? IYO.......No charges have ever been brought against GWB. If perceptions make people criminals then I am as bad as Hitler. Would you be Neville Chamberlain? In some people opinions maybe. I dont really see you that way though. Combat hardens you to the realities of the world. I think that you dont necessarily see it thru rose colored glasses, but I do think that the world you would like to see doesnt and isnt possible to exist. To have it would create a larger population on the planet, creating ever yet more problems and pulling on ever decreasing resources. Even Cousteau wept when it finally hit him that the sea wouldnt be able to feed the planet as he once envisaged. Doesnt make you wrong either Revere. What I put down here is my perception of whats really going on and that is that we have just to damned many people on the planet.
You also seem to suggest and correct me if I am wrong that Bush and the US are always wrong and that going to Iraq was a bad idea. So go find your next dictator and put him into power. Saddam would have been overthrown by someone or perpetuated by his madmen sons. You seem ot suggest that getting rid of him was a bad idea and that I find unfathomable. 523,000 now and STILL counting in the killing fields. So maybe I am missing something. I guarantee you that the guys that are out in the military right now know that they stopped that train for the rest of time, until the next one shows up. 3000 plus soldiers have given it up for that ideal, and its noble. Its for oil, its for the stop of mass murder, its for the stopping of an incursion and takeover by Iran, its for the economies of the world. Its for a lot of things but IMO its for it all of that and more. I just dont understand how you could support NOT going in there with the power on here, you eating food, not worrying (too much anyway) if an extremist is going to take you out on the campus, you drive a Volvo instead of a solar powered car. I just dont get the Bush bash at every turn. You guys got George Soros..... leave me with Cheney. At least Bush and Cheney arent trying to run guns thru the UN. We dont like subcontracting that unless its to Halliburton.
Randy,
You might want to study the straw man argument. You take up a lot of space and might want to learn a little HTML so that you can back up your assertions with some links. Right now, all you have are assertions, not arguments, since you never respond to any of the criticisms you receive with anything other than assertions.
You say shit and can't back any of it up.
Writerdd-Not generally unless there were on going criminal activities. The know that they all signed on for the Iraq war. The book that Tenet just wrote is full of I didnt know or say nothings, I was the sole voice of reason, I wasnt responsible. Several people that were holdovers from Clinton would have to answer for things too. Witholding information from Congress is not and I underline this a crime. There is no obstruction of justice unless someone turned around and asked a question like that and said, "Did you withhold information regarding the WMD's from Congress." and then they lie. Now that is a crime. Fact is GWB followed the law, got everyone on the wagon and then we found out that at least in part, the WMD's were not there. We found lots of them in Jordan, Syria, and hello in N. Korea. Again I reiterate for the repeating record there are 2000 gallons of VX that the UN verified, the Iraqi's said they didnt destroy and its out there somewhere. If its out on the ground it would kill everything and the soil wherever it touches. So where is it? WMD....just not found. Everyone keeps on with this lightweight bioweapons stuff. Screw that. Atomize a cupful in a cropduster over New York and its gone. Seems to be a lot of efforts to minimize the effects and that we dont have a problem here. You get about three or four convulsive jerks with this stuff and your dead within about a minute. But I am supposed to ignore that in the face of "this debacle in Iraq". To me the debacle is that we continue fighting a restricted war, in a politically correct manner. I would take Al Sadr and tell him straight up that I was going to eliminate his area of town if there were any more attacks and to prove it, I would take down about a tenth while I was telling him. The PLO grabbed Russian citizens in Lebanon back during Reagan and shot one of them. The KGB went out and grabbed three of the PLO leadership and shot two of them, kneecapped the other and left a note on him that they had four hours to release their people. Jimmy Carter just sat back and watched his presidency and the credibility of the US go down the toilet.
Back to your question. Under executive privilege, the testimony of individuals can be restricted by the attorneys for the former executive. E.g. What did Al Gore really take from the Buddhist monks who were agents for the Chinese government? What was promised? Amazing that nuke and missile technology was secretly declassified into "space" technolgy. To date, NO administration has ever declassified nuke tech for any reason. One year later the Chinese fired a missile that was thought to be a two stager into the Pacific. It was indeed though a 3 stager, it broke up but only because of aerodynamic stresses. This is an effect of a throttling problem, they will fix that and when they do Alaska, California, inland to Denver, Dallas, Chicago, Moscow, down to Italy and North to Norway all come under their nuke opportunity list. They also orbited a Chinese astronaut using our technology. It could have been a nuke just as well with a payload.
But we cant question them on it. Its executive privilege and its futile to ask.
Randy, going to war with Iraq would have been a breathtakingly stupid idea even if the assertions then afloat about Saddam's arsenal hadn't all turned out to be a pack of lies.
The Brits tried something much like this nearly 90 years ago, and they had their asses handed to them, too.
We've pissed away somewhere around half a trillion dollars to date, if not more.
We've lost most of our diplomatic leverage with just about everybody in the Middle East past Israel. And with a good many countries not in the Middle East as well.
And we've broken our Army into the bargain.
We'll be another quarter century putting the pieces of that back together. We'd all better hope and pray to whatever gods we worship, that we don't have much need for an Army until that job is done. Me? I have about as much confidence in the inherent goodness of Man as I do in the inherent goodness of hammerhead sharks. So I think we're going to need that Army sooner rather than later, and it won't be ready.
For what? Why, to hand hegemony over a large chunk of the Middle East to Iran, that's what. Assuming, that is, that anything survives the present Iraq Civil War past heaps of bones and rubble. Which is a pretty large assumption once the Kurds make it official and the Turks intervene.
And, don't forget, we also handed al Queda a nice little playground, free, gratis, for nothing. AQ is attracted to failed states for the same sort of reason that flies are attracted to rotting meat. And Iraq, circa 2007, is the absolute best referent I know of for the term "failed state".
If any of that lot had so much as stuck a toe over the border, back when Saddam was in charge, he'd have had their obviously and brutally tortured bodies dumped on the street faster than you can say "Jimmy crack corn". They knew it, too, which is why they preferred Afghanistan.
Why do the neocons hate America?
Sources, please.
Randy: Lea (in another thread) mentioned Christopher Hitchens (whom I disagree with strongly on Iraq but agree with on religion). He also wrote a powerful little book, The Trial of Henry Kissinger, where he demonstrates to my satisfaction (and many other people's) that Kissinger was a great war criminal. Of course he can't be charged as a war criminal (is that the main criterion?) because he was on the winning side or at least the side of a Great Power. By definition, they cannot be war criminals. It's only the petty dictators.
So if you want one with all the proper qualifications for being a dictator as bad as Saddam, try Robert Mugabe. Do you think we should invade Zimbabwe? Maybe they'll even have oil, to sweeten the deal. Or make the deal.
Charles-Hit continuing price of War 1.
Look guys, I wasnt in charge and if I had been I would have gone in and stomped the hell out of Al -Sadr and others because in our war gaming we always knew we were going into Iraq. The politicians FUBAR'D this one. Our military game plan? KILL THEM ALL, at least those that opposed our will. That meant full on bombing of civilian targets. Go in and break their toys. We were stopped by our leadership that said we were being inhumane. Tell that to the 3000 plus who are dead whose parents picked them up in a brown paper sackf rom a 500 pounder going off next to a road. I would also tell Musharraf that we are going to visit his country with a division on both sides of the border to get Osama. Sure he is alive and well, but if we dont stop this stuff soon its going to escalate. Our lovely carry a rose in the barrel of a gun lefties have assured that this war is going to go on now for years. Simple and final answer is to kill the offending parties en toto. Make the destruction complete and final. Take a look at Hamas, all of a sudden they want to negotiate after the Israeli's hit them so hard. Roar up the road into Damascus while you are at it and depose that jerk Assad, and then above all LEAVE! If something starts later that you cant or wont accept or find acceptable, hit them again.
We learned from Vietnam that this shouldnt be allowed to escalate into an insurgency war but it did and is. We lost 50,000 and percentage wise a goodly number were not in combat but blown up in nearly the same manner they are now. Charles remember the eatery bombings in Saigon? Nothing dif here except they dont have eateries.
The stupid thing would be though to leave and just leave it at that. Iran would take Kuwait and the S. part of Iran very quickly. This is an old feud and a blood one at that. As Charles said 90 years ago this started and in the 1920/30's the country was carved up by a British general. Okay and they lost to an insurgency too. My point is simple. We have another threat that CLEARLY has nuclear intent. So if your idea is to just let it go then sorry I dont ascribe to that. I would go to bombing the living shit out of the areas that are not being nice. I am told by one of my old unit guys who is in Baghdad that we could literally take the thing off the map where the biggest problems are and do it in a day. Just like Linebacker 2 we would hit every target that was worth hitting. Kind of like winning a war. What a concept!!!!
Then we have to do something about Teheran. By all means be politically correct and when they get a bomb either dirty or otherwise and they use it or give it to someone to use then it renders all previous rhetoric on both sides moot. The use of a nuclear weapon will result in the annihilation of Teheran because we will know who did it. Even if they didnt, they wont be around to even think about it because we would strike and hard and likely in kind.
Ahamdinejad and his little cast of idiots will be a flaming ruin. Would we do it? I think that the sheer anger would ensure that it would happen.
So do we take down their ability to do it in the next few months? Remember boys GWB only has Iraq as a legacy and No Kid Left behind isnt going to do it. He also doesnt like a mess. He is very, very likely to order massive air strikes before August. No one that I know of is against that other than the lefties.
But please for once, lets just go in and kill them humanely with bruising, monstrous Dresden/Bremen raids.Just no more nation building exercises afterwards. They havent worked except in Japan and Korea. Those took about 20 years to do. We cant afford to be in Iraq for the next 20 years. Revere complains about the military then fine, put me in charge and I will assure you that there wont be any more insurgency. The old one springs up in their place will be that posies spring up in their places. I say again I would kiill them all to make sure that all Americans and our allies suffer no more attacks. The effect of another attack WILL RESULT in WWIV kicking off.
So you guys will of course say "bomb civilians" is wrong. I disagree because they aint civilians. If they are not turning them in, they are supporting the insurgency. We should cut the head of the chicken off in Teheran conventionally and then use terrain cutters to peel away the layers over their nuke facilities. It would take about three days to penetrate down to them. The contamination will be minimal and no explosive detonation would occur. It will poison all of their toys and ensure that at least for this generation and about the next that they wont get a bomb. We can always go back in and give them a front end alignment for pissing us off.
Oh and one other thing. For once when we bomb them dont send humanitarian aid because they are the enemy. Bomb them into the 10th century if they want to be in it. Cold hard and nasty aggression. Dont occupy Iraq or Iran any longer, bomb them and take their military capability off the map. Keep the fleet in the Gulf and warn everyone that this is no more than a card shuffle. The deal will come out in a few and I think that they all will have much weaker hands afterwards. The Saudis, Kuwaiti's, Jordanians, Israeli's, maybe the Syrians, Omani's want us to do them. I want to do them because if they dont our soldiers will be killed later because they didnt do them. Its time to do them hard and nasty.
Its a reprise of the facts. Four 3 stars went through here yesterday and to a man the quote was "they are coming for us." Anyone who agrees can stand with me, anyone who doesnt can stand in front of me and negotiate while I load clips. Political deals with morons and Kissinger be damned, I dont care. If we just go in there and act like policemen then we are going to see more of the same for the next couple of years. Its time to get really serious. I know that they and others have killed and tried to kill americans for years and the ultimate result is that if I dont get my thousand pound answer dropped on them, they are going to get a 35 meg W88 dropped on them later. Anyone want to take bets on who is going to be found right?
I hope to hell it is Revere because if its not, the half tril that Charles is complaining about is going to be peanuts. Shit send the fucking Frenchies in there, they are responsible for about a third of the problems with both the Iranians and Iraqi's. Brings new meaning to the words "French Whore".
So Revere, lets just say that Bobby Mugabe doesnt affect the worlds economy so he isnt on our radar. Thats the parsing I was talking about. Bomb the Hell out of him too. Then we can have Africa on our asses too. It brings out the worst in people and if they are where we can see them, we can shoot them. No more deal making. Time to make dead people.
Oh by the way Revere, Kissinger may be a war criminal but he is on the side of the winning and I said it before he who wins gets to make the rules. Bomb them but not their oil pumping capability. Create the situation that they have to pump hard and fast just to stay in power.
Dont have to respond. I know what you will say.
"That meant full on bombing of civilian targets."
September 11 showed you that if enough people want to hurt you, and they want it badly enough, they *will* eventually get through. And your response is to make MORE enemies.
Brilliant.
Slaughter civilians and the fence sitters become your enemies. Your allies become fencesitters. Now what? Bomb all of the new enemies? Then you end up at war with the entire world. It is pure, gold plated idiocy.
THINK. When terrorists hit on September 11 2001, were you cowed? Were you ready to back off, to leave them alone? NO! You wanted revenge, at any cost. It made you MORE belligerent, not less. So why in god's name do you expect other people to feel differently? This whole "pacification by destruction" plan only works if others aren't half as human as you are.
Guess what? Americans aren't the only people on earth who will defend themselves.
The world has changed. A couple of people can set up a bomb lab. Hell, one can. DIY bioweapons are, quite frankly, overdue on the scene. All you need is enough angry people, enough attempts, enough little cancers to batter against the defences, and eventually something will get through.
...and your answer is to build anger, resentment, and hatred towards America at the maximum possible rate? You answer is to create *more* chaos, *more* opportunity for your enemies, *more* terrorist recruits, *more* shattered militaries for terrorists to plunder for supplies, *more* people willing to fund the terrorists, *more* people willing to do anything, absolutely anything, to hurt what would be the evil empire.
Whose side are you on?
Smelly-And your big answer to this is what? Its moving more quickly now than ever before. There was to me no question who did 9/11 and it was radical fundamentalists, so we picked one off the list and went. We will do the same again, and again in the next 10 years because if we dont one of them will do exactly as you said and make a WMD and use it on us.
So you eliminate the threat in several ways. First you push them off their power bases which are their military and weapons. Sure they will get thru, then you eliminate the ability to make that kind of war. You destroy their CBW capability. Sure they will get thru but now more limited. You dont negotiate with terrorists, you kill them. If you take out civilians then they dont make new ones. Their ability is more limited at that time. Then you get hit again.
Then you make the consequences so terrible that they wont think about it and then yes, you are right just as we slept for the time that WJC was president they will get thru again, and again. Finally, you put it to the moderates, "Either you take care of them or we will."
There is no difference between our bozo's and their's and that is that we dont want a war anymore than the next guy. If it comes though Shock and Awe will no longer be an option. Incineration by nuke or another method will be. You cant make a nuke without facilities and taking them off of those facilities is coming. Either the Israelis will or we will. What do you think they were planning in the UK this past week, a barbeque?
Your position is taken Smell. Appeasement, deal making and that my friend over the last 40 years has ended in multiples of wars in that region. Then US intervention time and again, two regional wars, a third multi-lateral, a unilateral war. It has happened in stages and under every president of the US since Ike. Who's side am I on? How about those that just havent been killed yet in the US or the EU. Thats who's side I am on.
Now we have the Israeli's who are the truly wild card in this. If Teheran gets a nuke and gives it to be used or uses it themselves then your position is going to be what, more lets play nice? The position is simple. Diplomacy is for diplomats. Didnt and hasnt worked even with the lefty based UN at the time. Saddam who had already used WMD's against his own people threw the inspectors out. An already bombed US gave them the option, let the inspectors back in. They refused. Fine, then watch what happens. Proactive response to an enemy rather than reactive. OOohhh my gosh, we were too hasty in our assessments. Screw 'em. It was more of that UAR crap that Hussein was touting in the 60's. Saddams army was engaged in some of the most dangerous weapons making since the 60's. Quite a bit of it verified. Still were and it was still verified. Weapons that had no purpose but to be used upon his neighbors. Whose side are you on? Do you want to put him or another idiot of his class back in charge over there? I am confused. Do you want another butcher in charge Neville?
Your attitude is that the US is dangerous. You are danged skippy about that. The best way not to have a war is just that, dont have one. We should just all sit back and drink tea and negotiate. How about instead that you prove to the world you are not building a bomb and all will be forgiven? They had their chance and didnt take it.
Chirac was sneaking not oil for food but nuke parts for oil and this is a member of the UN Security Council. Someone who was supposed to be above it. But alas they got caught. No more cheap oil and when Ms. Bush went last year to visit the Prez of France, all of a sudden he doesnt want to run for president any longer. Might it be because the US was going to out him? Might it have been that we were going to kill him. Time to go Mr. Chirac. He made millions off the deals personally so he can live the life of luxury for the rest of his life at the expense of who?
The Germans are not without fault either. They too were selling to them for cheap oil. Machine equipment necessary for centrifuge making. Its economics, terror and whether you want to see a major US city go up. We are the targets pal and remember that we were hit in the early 90's when Willie was President and he got a pass. Every goddamn security lapse that could have been made was then too. He got a pass. We got hit in Africa and we ran out the door like screaming little girls. WJC also told Bush when he was coming in that Osama was the biggest threat to security in the history of the world. No shit.
So Smelly you and others keep trying to apply the law to a military situation. How do I know that? Because we are still seeing attempted attacks. They are not being brought to justice for even trying. You worry about their fucking rights? How many people in our country do they have to kill for you to get it that they dont care about your rights? These people are being funded by someone. If that someone is a nation then they are a terrorist nation and you cant take them to court in a lawsuit. You hit them. Iran is clearly a hot bed and its time to move them off of their money that funds it. That means the oil. I would appeal to the moderates and have a nice big conference so that it looks good for the media, but in that same breath its just going to look good with no results. Look for that in the coming months. In reality.... They are coming for the Westerners, and they are going to blow up things time and again until they get what they want and that is a Muslim world. Period. If they have to kill a few then they will. Problem is they just want us to be dead. So whats your answer Smell......Come up with something that doesnt include dead anybody and I'll listen. So far though history isnt working for you in recent years. Aum, embassies in Africa, WTC try 1, WTC try and completions 2, Madrid, London last year..... go ahead and tell me that diplomacy has worked out.
Sitting around singing, tossing flowers at a peace convention isnt going to solve this one Smell. Hard hitting and very discriminate use of weaponry ..... might. But you have to have a political solution and if that is in part the implied or actual use of power then so be it. These people are networked, they are in our country and others and they CAN bully a nation into submission. That is right up until the time they finally piss the majority off enough to fight. Spain will figure it out in short order and start to fight. They want their nice little society with their olive oil ideas not to be disrupted because if they did, it would require them to take a stand. We are just ahead of the game here is all. We are taking a stand. They instead tossed an election. I guess they forgot who invaded their country in the 10th century. Smell it was 172 in the UK. I wonder how many are here and waiting. They could knock a huge part of our infrastructure down in under a day. We would recover but that kneejerk that caused Iraq is about to be repeated over and over again until it becomes the order of the day rather than the exception to it.
How will you know we are heading for the big one? When you see terrorists forming into visible armies then the die will be cast. That was done in Iraq and we took action against it. They now have instead of the fourth largest army in the world, the rank of about 18th.
You say they'll be fence sitters. You are right and it will hold until just about the time that they get bombed themselves. France is already about to be taken over by birth and they are figuring it out. Humanitarianism is about to be replaced globally with militarism and anyone who doesnt think so is delusional. Its not going to be business as usual as the resource list is now starting to head downhill having been taken up by almost another billion people in my lifetime and another billion before I go under natural circumstances.
Brilliant Smell? No, I just wish it wasnt so. You seek negotiations with someone who would kill you on the street. The world needs an intervention and BF just might be it. Your reference is that all of this is going to create more chaos, you are right. More opportunity for your enemies, you are right. More people willing to fund the terrorists, you are right. I repeat my first question... your answer though is what? More appeasement that leads to bigger and bigger armies getting into bigger and bigger clashes? We took on the fourth largest and were stopped because we were slaughtering them. They became terrorists instead...day job gone and all.
I saw nothing but WJC running during his tenure.... It made him look so good to the people. If a beam had broken during the first WTC's it would have gone over and then what? He wouldnt have looked so good now would he? At what point in time Smell do you take a stand. The bones are on the floor now, we are at war and will be for some time to come. Iraq is the key to the Middle East. Hold it and you hold the region. Lose it and you have big problems. Teheran before GWB leaves. I would have thought it would have been before now. I know I would have. Evil empire? Who bombed who?
God damn, who put a quarter in this guy? Let's discuss one thing at a time and stay on topic, eh? And "the last administration was bad too!!" is a childish argument. What can one do but acknowledge that this person was a disaster, and then examine how she came to hold her position of power and what can be done to prevent it from happening again.
Mr Kruger's deluded and bigoted rants are a reminder as to why we need checks and balances at all levels to stop people like him and the sort people he votes for screwing us all.
Just skip Kruger's rants, folks, makes for faster, more intelligent reading.
How many people in our country do they have to kill for you to get it that they dont care about your rights?
Clarification please: Who's "they"? Every single Iraqi? Every single Arab? Everyone with brown skin? Every single Muslim? Every non-American? Get's to be kind of confusing.
First off, I'm a Democrat. Been one since 1968. Secondly, I think Mr. Kruger's posts are spot-on.
Thirdly, I am embarassed to admit in public I am a Democrat, with the likes of Nancy Pelosi & her ilk trying to run this country into the ground. There's a storm coming folks, & I don't mean the the weather, or Avian Influenza either. So, all you left-wing liberals...just go right on cuddling up the the Jihadist's & radical Muslims. We'll see who's right.
Anton-I dont let people call me a bigot. My record on THAT particular little item is very, very clear. I also dont name call on someone elses turf. You want to have a nice little discourse then feel free to email me personally at memphisservices@bellsouth.net.
RJB-Should be clear to anyone who is thinking beyond 1776. Anyone who would attack us on our soil which has been done, attack our aircraft which has been done, taken our citizens hostage. My point is simple and obviously you think that its too simple and all so many do is sit around and Bush Bash. Clinton had some really big losers too like Hillary for one and Janet Reno on the other, Bill "I declassified nuclear technology" Richardson, Ron "I just got killed in a mysterious way" Brown. But Republicans as an endangered species.... Not really.
JeffK-I can see you have never been in the military. If you had then you would know that we are now into a Vietnam phase in Iraq. They wont let us win. The fact that one of you tries to make it a racial/religious issue indicates that you really dont understand whats about to happen. To win this war we have to kill civilians and a lot of them then the left will turn it into that racial/religious thing.
The header is Saving an Endangered Species. Neal gets it that its not just the Republicans that are endangered, its the Dems too. We are about to face the biggest challenge we have ever met and the reason is that unlike Communism we have an enemy that outnumbers us by at least 5 to 1 that can strike on his terms at any time. VTI was a GREAT example of this and how one determined man can do one hell of a lot of damage. You guys are worred about some chick with an agenda in an area that is so full of crap in many ways its ridiculous. I wonder how many Iranians give a shit about environmental issues. The assertion is about how many Republicans are leaving to spend time with their families.
I believe its just about as many who resigned in the last few months of Clintons Administration. Most of them to avoid subpoenas.
And I second Neal's motion: "I think Mr. Kruger's posts are spot-on".
If you don't see that Iraq, Iran, and China are a problem just wait until Hugo Chavez gets going.
Actions in war times must be swift and decisive, with the end result being submission. It isn't pretty, it never is however, it's a necessary evil in this world.
Bush did make one mistake, not following Colin Powell's advice to send more troops at the very beginning.
Where are the weapons of mass destruction?
Jeb-It appears that munitions, rocket engines and lots of chem/bio manufacturing gear just up and dissapeared. This was the stuff that the UN verified. The question no longer remains as to whether they had it, just did they have it when we attacked. They threw the inspectors out a few days before our attack and the equipment that they had was definitively there and by Blix's account there were indications that it was being reconstituted in some manner. They found some of the rocket engines in a junk yard in Jordan, centrifuges in Syria, a few munitions out of thousands of rounds in a weapons dump and my favorite-VX that is missing. Those rounds that were missing were old but they did have them. Now they are gone. Did they use them and other things on on our troops? Dont know. I do know that there were about 2000 gallons of VX that had been tagged and bubba....its gone. Where? I dont know that either and none of the scientists say that they know either. Might it have been a Werner Von Braun deal where they hauled ass for either Syria or Iran with it? I dont know. Might they have destroyed it? Not very likely they could do it without killing a bunch of people in the process. Is it underground? Its a country the size of almost Texas. The WMD's existed and they were UN verified, we never found them though. So where did they go? This will make the case for going into Iran only one of nukes, but we might be met with chemical munitions that were Saddamed out of there. He sent his Air Force to Iran and those planes are still there and part of the Iranian AF now. So did the same happen to the WMD's? I dont know. I do know that if we get sanctions and they dont work that there likely will not be a land battle only a battle to destroy the nuke facilities. If there are still WMD's in Iraq and someone knows where they are, thats when they will pull them out and use them. Lets hope not.
You can check the EXTREMELY long post on CONTINUING PRICE OF GULF WAR 1 on the left for the references and there are hundreds that state the same thing. I tried to stick to the original documents so it wasnt Scott Ritter'd or from a left or right wing agenda group.
I feel very strongly about what we are doing over there. Mostly because we aint green gassed yet here so that we can get rid of the oil problem. We have plenty of oil here for our needs but its hard to get out of the ground so we and everyone else go to the Middle East. Call it what you will. A war, an economic war, an anti-terrorist war, or a religious war. Its a war and it should be fought like that and we havent been. If Teheran is deliberately trying to destabilize the government of Iraq then we should destabilize the foundations of their Presidential Palace with some thousand pounders. There are those that say we shouldnt be there, I give them the word that I say the same thing because I think we should have just destroyed it and then moved up to Damascus and then swung East into Iran with Afghanistan on the right flank. But thats just the military in me that says kill your enemies. But as we are there, we need to kick their damned asses so hard that they dont even think about bombing us or shooting up airplanes, or taking hostages.
Unfortunately, this time around we have to kill a part time civilian/part time terrorist and some of their families to get this to a conclusion. And yes the lefties will call them all civilians and that they arent terrorists. Yep, they could be right but if you kill them all and let God sort them out then there isnt a question. They are being paid to be terrorists by the Iranians and if we knock down the buildings in Teheran then they might get the picture. That does mean civilians there too. We will hit them very soon.
Iran has had almost 20 years to get ready for us. Their Hawk batteries have been upgraded and many French systems have been bought and placed in anticipation of what they surely know would be an attack by the US or a US coalition. The US isnt going to let Israel do it because the only way they have to do it is with a nuke or two and that would escalate so fast that I dont think it would be controllable. A UN resolution here or there, they will not comply of course and then we will hit them. 17 months and counting until GWB leaves.... this may be his finest hour or his worst one. We will also possibly find out if Dr. Khan gave the Iranians enough information to build a limited capability nuke. If they can only get close with a fitted missile on an Exocet or something like it, they could take out a carrier battle group. Its going to be a very warm and rhetoric filled summer, and then when it cools off you can expect for a build up to occur and by spring of next year or into October of 08. Politics and all, you want to time these things for elections you know.
I also think they know where Osama is and they are saving him to monitor his traffic like they do dopers and then when they are ready they'll take him. I could be wrong, but thats my read on this.
...I know it's way too late, but:
Neal: "There's a storm coming folks, & I don't mean the the weather, or Avian Influenza either. So, all you left-wing liberals...just go right on cuddling up the the Jihadist's & radical Muslims. We'll see who's right."
Imagine there's a fire. Someone is throwing oil on it. All the time he's saying to the people who tell him to stop: "Well at least I'm doing something! Damn you crazy fire fighters, there will be a terrible fire soon and then we'll see who's right!"
No crap there will be a fire. YOU'RE MAKING IT WORSE. You're making more radicals, more anger, you are HELPING YOUR ENEMIES. Weak and damaged countries with angry, grieving survivors, are EXACTLY what AQ wants. Iraq is a terrorist's wet dream. Talk about providing aid and comfort to the enemy!
How is this difficult to understand? A solution which makes the situation worse is NOT A SOLUTION. Yes - it IS worse than doing nothing. Not that anyone is suggesting we do nothing.
What's the solution? Ok, take anoher trip down imagination lane. Imagine if the police in your city took up a new policy: if they find the location of a murderer, they bomb the entire block. How long do you think it'd take for the populace to be shooting at the cops?
Yes, police work is dirty and hard and yes, a lot of people get away. But the alternative is worse.
So yes, cooperation with other nations (forced, where necessary, by trade and sanctions), and solid intelligence work, and internationally recognised terrorist registers, and treaties, and local propaganda, and - hell - genuine efforts to address people's greivances, all of this is unglamorous, it's hard, and it's dirty. Yes it is less than perfect. But it is VASTLY superior to a plan that makes things worse.
ST: I quite agree with you. Moreover I remember all too clearly the anti-communist rhetoric of the 50 and 60s and this has the same feel to it. Demonize them without acknowledging our own demonic demeanor in their eyes. We've killed far more of their innocents than the other way around. Of course we did it in the name of God and they did it in the name of fanaticism. 'Nuff said.
Both ST and Revere could be right. But it doesnt matter. Everyone is so fast to say we bring it upon ourselves. Is that what happened in the desert the 60's with the three airliners, or was it our support for Israel?
On the other hand, once motivated they start down the slope and we are standing at the bottom like the great croc of death. Mouth wide open. I believe that indeed that as I have stated before that cold hard agression regardless of politicals in between, will end up finishing this. Yep, you guessed it. This means a tactical strike against whomever the perceived enemy is. We can rant all we want but this is going to be logical end conclusion. It will happen sooner than later if the Dems go into the White House. They will penetrate our borders and do something that will force our hands. Innocents will be lost here, we will respond massively. 9/11 wasnt the opening round, it will go 15 full with one left standing and badly beaten up.
Well, let's be logical then. If every strike makes more enemies than it eliminates, then the only logical victorious endpoint is where you kill absolutely everyone else on earth.
Is that the plan?
Let me use the example of Iran. A lot of people in Iran genuinely believe that the US will invade them the moment it gets a chance. It's not a view without some justification - mentioned in the Axis of Evil with Iraq and North Korea, Iran has seen Iraq invaded on a transparent pretext. North Korea, however, despite far greater provocation than Iran or even post-Gulf-I Iraq, has been safe from overt military posturing. Why? Nukes may have had something do do with it...
So Iran sees the invasion hit Iraq. They also see the following possible responses to avoid a similar fate:
1. They can try to make sure the US is so badly hurt in Iraq that they won't be able to so much as consider an invasion of Iran later on.
2. They can try to tie US forces to Iraq for as long as they possibly can, as this aids both #1 and #3.
3. They work on a more long term defence. ie nukes.
Do you see that these are perfectly reasonable responses? They are looking at the likely destruction of their nation. Imagine if the invasion of Iraq had been a massive and rapid success. How long would Iran have lasted?
So do you see that the belligerent attitude of the US, in words as much as action, has essentially FORCED Iran into a war by proxy against the US in Iraq? How many soldiers have died in Iraq to Iranian weapons (and compare that to the number of Americans killed by Iranians throughout the rest of history)? Sure it ups the tensions, but when they were looking down the barrel of the most powerful military the world has ever seen, when they had absolutely nothing to lose, then what other choice did they have?
Now, tbh, Ahmadinejad is a nut. But Iran is not as repressive as a lot of outsiders seems to think. The hierarchy will not let him commit national suicide. With some kind of good faith from the US government they would never have stomached the terrible risk they have taken on by giving such a high level of support for (and, in a large way, creating) the Iraqi insurgency. But again, they saw that they had nothing to lose. Or at least, enough people did that Ahmadinejad got his way. He is not a dictator.
For the same reason, though, the drive to nukes has significant opposition inside Iran. Those who believe invasion is unlikely (and there are more of these every month that the US bleeds in Iraq) don't think it's worth the provocation - it would never be more than an act of desperation, unlikely to succeed. But the moment they think invasion is inevitable, they will have to go for nukes because it will be their only chance.
So, expand now. Imagine the US wipes Iran from the face of the earth. Which nations decide they'll probably be next, and begin to work on nukes? Who else decides it's in their interests to tie the US down in some bloody conflict? Who else thinks America needs to die a death of a thousand cuts?
And when you take them out, who next? And then who?
...and what does the world look like when you finish? Failed states on one hand, and nuclear-armed foes on the other. In between, hordes of terrorists that'd make the present situation look like the garden of eden.
This is not an optimal outcome.
Well ST its like this, sometimes you have to define acceptable losses and this may be one of them. A land war isnt possible in Iran as it would take over one million troops to subdue and hold, and diplomacy being what it has in the last few years before and during WJC and GWB I would say neither has worked and a land war wont. So really a conventional strike by the US and possibly NATO is the only option. If we dont, the Israelis will and they will only have one option. I dont think they would go for the nuke facilities except conventionally. They very likely would though attack Teheran with a nuke. Head of the chicken thing. So do we sit idly by while the next Hitler annexes the Sudetenland? Thats when appeasement started and it would happen the minute they had a nuke.
Of course you fail to mention the one true option and that is for Iran to stop building bombs. They could do that, allow the inspectors in, totally unfettered and everything would be forgiven. You miss the Russians and the Chinese in this. Radiation from a nuke attack would definitively end up on their soil and they want the Iranians to quit screwing around for their parts themselves. But as Chirac of France is gone the machine parts went with him. Make no mistake of it, they were an oil for weaponry country under his rule, not an oil for food. They tried to expand upon that with Saddam and you saw our response. What the US should have done was outed the French and then let nature take its course. I think thats the reason Chirac decided not to run again. Think not? Remember Laura Bush's trip to France last year? Amazing that almost a month later Chirac decided to step down. Hmmm......
What Iraq's "defensive " posture became was an offensive stance. We know Saddam had the WMD's, no one can account for where they went and I aint talking about the maybes, I speak of the UN verified weapons. That VX stuff hangs in my hair like dried concrete. Revere thinks of a ground attack with it. I dont. A Cessna 172 with an aneroid black powder charge could atomize enough to kill all of downtown NYC. They would never see what killed them. 3 atoms of this stuff in your system is all it takes and Iran has it too. Couple of quarts and he had thousands of gallons of it.
So do we end up killing them all or applying slow, steady even pressure on them? Might not have the option here due to time. They are now less than 5 years away from getting the bomb. They have missiles that can strike Israel, Mosow, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India and all points in between now. That also means they could close the Persian Gulf to the militaries of the world and force their neighbors to charge anything they say for oil. As for the nuke, its not a re-entry problem for the warhead for this particular item as it doesnt experience the aerodynamic stresses for a high-altitude re-entry and heating. Its almost an artillery shell. So its feasible on all fronts. Be advised of one important thing, the centrifuges that were illegally sold to them are designed not to make a few bombs but hundreds. Now which is the aggressive stance here? Making bombs, or get bombarded for making them?
NorKo is a good example of that. When their bomb went fizzle rather than boom they had a dilemma. That being they had spent the entire GDP to develop a bomb and people were starving. So now they have made a decision to quit enriching uranium. Did diplomacy work or did they stop on their own for economics? I dont know for sure but they have stopped.
Your assertion that Iran is not as repressive as people think is media hype. We know that they arent but really who gives a shinola if they are? It aint about repression. They are building a nuke for what? Electricity? BS. The Russians offered to let them buy a nuke plant that produced electricity only. No dice. So in doing so they flipped the Ruskies off too. So instead of a customer and partial ally they now have what we all fear and thats a rogue state with a bomb program.
Iran has really but one choice and it is stop or else. Revere thinks we couldnt hit their facilities and take them off the map because they are so deep. Well I can tell you now that we indeed could do it and it wouldnt take more than a week to destroy the place(s). We would first take down their Triple A capabilities, then we would start peeling away the layers of rocks with massive penetration capable weapons. We would pull the head off of the onion until we got to the facilities. Would we invade? I doubt it. Ike did it in 55, the year I was born to keep the place from falling into Russian hands.
Where do we go from here? Next move on the chess board is the Iranians.
Put it in context: the cascade assemblies are in a known location and piss easy to hit. They know it, we know it, it's a given. No-one is going to let them build nukes. It won't happen. Again, they know it, we know it, it's a given. It is being used purely at a bargaining chip.
If they were serious, *then* they'd be using a deep facility. They aren't. They won't. This is all about keeping face. Populations do not tend to respect governments that slavishly follow foreigners' demands.
/shrug
ST-Al Bushehr is they estimate about 500 feet down and thats about 250 more than we have for a first shot. But not with a deep penetrating nuke by the Israelis or the US. Any deeper than that and they would have to decompress for a week each time they went to work. Even then they would have to do it in stages. So we uncover them with bunker busters (conventional) and remove theire capabilities and their brain trust with it. I agree they know we are coming. So they might as well just give it up instead.
But they wont, and we will and it will be business as usual.
Tonights news ST
"Inspectors for the United Nation's atomic agency have concluded that Iran is starting to enrich uranium on a far larger scale than before, according to The New York Times.
Top officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) came to the conclusion Sunday after a short-notice inspection at Iran's main nuclear facility at Natanz, the Times reported late Monday.
The inspection was conducted as a report is due early next week on Iran's program to the United Nations Security Council."
That report I am told referenced the spinning of the centrifuges and the balancing mechanism for it. Those centrifuges are not something you can tool up with a tinkertoy set. It came from France. But shipping something and setting it up are two different things. The process is that uranium is heated which produces a gas that is injected into the cylinders of the centrifuge and it whirls at incredible speeds and compresses the gas into metal. We all know what that metal is and what its used for. Its not reactor grade stuff. Its bomb quality. To use it in a reactor you would have to cut it and add cadmium or graphite to it to slow the reaction. With two you get eggroll. They could also if they have the capabilities of milling high quality cakes of explosives and the plans for our W-XX series go straight to a hydrogen bomb. Do they have them? I dont know but they have a hell of a lot of engineers in Iran and they can read and write a bunch off of a set.
The report will tell everything and produce nothing but rhetoric. Diplomacy isnt going to work with these guys. Even the Chinese are letting them know its not a good idea.
Stay tuned. We might actually get the insurgency problem under control in a couple of months by reason of insanity.
Iran needs to stop what they are doing. Everyone inside of 1000 miles is very nervous and the Gulf States are letting us know they want us to do something. Add in the economies of the world that would be affected by a nuke tipped Iran and its cause enough to do them based upon that.
Bushehr isn't underground. You do mean the reactor, don't you, or am I missing something? Look: http://www.eurimage.com/gallery/webfiles/thms/qb_bushehr.jpg
What in hell would it be buried for, anyway? It's an LEU reactor, and it's a piece of crap at that. It's a bloody awful design for PU recovery. Seriously, AWFUL. Horrible impurites galore. And of course the Russkies are stipulating that the spent fuel comes home, so everyone will know if it's been swiped for PU and then it'll be tactical-strike time.
The real issue is the LEU fuel deliveries for Bushehr being run through Natanz to make HEU (the up-to-LEU step is hard as hell, so if they can get Russian LEU it'd bypass a lot of the problems they've been having). The deepest part of Natanz is somewhere in the order of 20 meters (60-odd feet), and it's a buried installation, not a hard-rock tunnelled job. My grandma could take it out.
See: http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1030/we-are-not-going-to-nuke-iran
Iran has always maintained that they'd be using low enriched uranium in their reactors. Reactors, by the way, that the US was pushing them to get back in the pre-revolution days. So what if they're enriching uranium? They have to if they want to make reactor fuel. (Yes, it's a genuine cause for concern, but it really does fit in with their peaceful claims. It should not be unexpected and proves absolutely nothing, especially while inspectors have access to look for HEU).
Now it's become a macho-dick thing - if they cave in to US demands they'll look like pussies. Pussies do not get to stay in power. This why people try to propose a negotiating position that will let the loser keep some face. Expecting people to cheerfully commit electoral suicide is not terribly realistic.
With adequate monitoring the international community could be absolutely certain there was no HEU being made. This is not an impossible task, the processes are well prepared - IF people can talk the Iranians into cooperating, which they have no reason to do if they think they're screwed anyway.
So that's the point: maybe they will decide they are desperate enough to try for a secret HEU program and get some basic nukes - which really couldn't be kept secret. So maybe they will force someone's hand and get their shit blown up (which is the likely option if more than a sniff of HEU is detected beyond the residue already found). But an attack on Natanz would only strengthen the domestic position of the hard-liners. And when the options are "get attacked" or "get attacked", people will tend to pick the one that makes them look best.
...which is why you need to offer an option other than "get attacked", and why a lot of people in the international community wish the US would shut the hell up for a while re: Iran.
Bushehr has facilities as well as Natanz that are deep underground. They do that for two reasons. First is keeping someone from knocking the living shit out of it and second is that the gas that they are making is toxic as hell. Its about containment. As for the HEU, the IAEA inspectors made a no notice inspection (they called it short) and found they are indeed enriching uranium. That report goes to the UN Security Council today or tommorow.
Sanctions will be imposed but they will continue to build a bomb. Once the US or someone else sees something they dont like they will either get the accord of the UN or not. As for the US shutting up, well now dont plan on that happening. Lets face it, Germany isnt going to be the second option. We all know where this road leads and the only "option" is for them to stop and verifiably stop.
The Ruskies got no where with the Iranians on the fuel thing. You are right 80% of the facilities are above ground. The important stuff is below. I dont know ST, they are marching towards Hell for a lot of people and no one wants to bomb them but when you say in one breath you dont want a bomb, only electricity then why not make the order for the fuel from the Rus, French, Americans, Japanese, Germans for fuel rods? Its not cheaper for them to make their own facilities.