DEMOCRAT SHORT TERM MEMORY
Sunday Kim Jong Il detonated a nuclear devise that many have stated was similar in power to the Hiroshima bomb none of which has been specifically confirmed as of this writing. It was not long before the Democrat spin machine flew into action attempting to blame the Bush administration for the detonation of the device. First let me set the record straight. The only person or government that is responsible for the actual detonation of this device is Kim Jong Il and the government who bows to this lunatics every whim and fancy, North Korea. The odd occurance from the Democrats is the short term memory loss that each of them seem to have suffered concerning the Korean situation and how the world finds itself in this nuclear predicament with Kim Jong. First there was the Hildabeast, (Hillary Clinton), blaming the policies of the Bush administration for allowing this detonation and a nuclear North Korea to happen in the first place. Either she was asleep or was too busy investigating who her husband was sleeping with to recall correctly that it was the Clinton administration and specifcally their envoy Jimmy Carter who negotiated the selling of nuclear technology to North Korea in the first place trusting the , "word, " of a proven lying dictator that he would use it for peaceful energy means only. Hillary also must have been on an extended vacation to forget the state visits that then Secretary of State Madeline Albright made to North Korea with one on one discussions placating to the whims of Kim Jong's demands for such talks which the Bush administartion has not and will not do, which gave him the illusion that he was a player on the big stage of the world because he talked directly to the United States. On one such trip she gave him a Michael Jordan autographed basketball as a sign of friendship with this Korean lunatic. Kim Jong then went back on his word, (surprise, surprise), and proceeded to blame the United States for his actions which was his motive for one on one talks in the first place. The six party talks prevent this blame since he would have to include China in that blame which he will not. Senator John McCain quickly went on the offensive setting the record straight as to how this situation is a direct result of the failed Clinton policy. How does he know ? Because he was part of this negotiation process under the Clinton administration for two years. I am NOT a McCain fan but what is right IS right! Harry Reid tried to follow the Hildabeast's example in the blame Bush game again forgetting where this nuclear North Korea problem began. Many Democrats including the hapless Jimmy Carter are urging the Bush administration to follow their failed example and placate Kim Jong with one on one talks. We are seeing the result of this Clinton failed policy.
This morning on CSPAN Representative Helen Trauscher (D Cal) member of the House Armed Services Commitee actually made the claim in light of the Korean situation that the Democrats are in favor and have always been in favor of a missile defense system and the Congress should hold the administration accountable for this. Now either I am getting senile or do I recall correctly that when President Reagan used the possiblity of the Strategic Defense Initiative and instigated the research and testing of this program which I might add he used as a bluff against Gorbechev which was instrumental in the collapse of the Soviet Union, was it not the Democrats who called Reagan and idiot for this idea and stated that it would cause a greater arms race with the Soviets and the end of all social programs to pay for it? Was it not also the Democrats who have fought the current missile defense program and have slowed the full implimintation of this program by dragging their feet in procuring the funding to totally complete this program?
This short term memory loss by the Democrats is quite possibly an indication too that their internal polling in which they live and die on is showing that the Foley flak and other attempts by the Dems to twist this election is failing and that they are attempting with the North Korea situation to falsly portray themselves as strong on security and defense which is what most voters are interested in with the situation in the world as it is today. This strong on defense perception that the Dems are trying will also fail because the people realize which party is truly strong on defense and also which party when in power has consistantly weakened the military and the defense of the nation.
Ken Taylor
This morning on CSPAN Representative Helen Trauscher (D Cal) member of the House Armed Services Commitee actually made the claim in light of the Korean situation that the Democrats are in favor and have always been in favor of a missile defense system and the Congress should hold the administration accountable for this. Now either I am getting senile or do I recall correctly that when President Reagan used the possiblity of the Strategic Defense Initiative and instigated the research and testing of this program which I might add he used as a bluff against Gorbechev which was instrumental in the collapse of the Soviet Union, was it not the Democrats who called Reagan and idiot for this idea and stated that it would cause a greater arms race with the Soviets and the end of all social programs to pay for it? Was it not also the Democrats who have fought the current missile defense program and have slowed the full implimintation of this program by dragging their feet in procuring the funding to totally complete this program?
This short term memory loss by the Democrats is quite possibly an indication too that their internal polling in which they live and die on is showing that the Foley flak and other attempts by the Dems to twist this election is failing and that they are attempting with the North Korea situation to falsly portray themselves as strong on security and defense which is what most voters are interested in with the situation in the world as it is today. This strong on defense perception that the Dems are trying will also fail because the people realize which party is truly strong on defense and also which party when in power has consistantly weakened the military and the defense of the nation.
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 2:39 PM
51 Comments:
Bush has been President for 6 years. He is THE DECIDER. Who do you think is responsible for allowing NK to move ahead with its nuclear program?
In December 2002, NK kicked out the IAEA inspectors, broke the seals on their shuttered nuclear facilities, and turned off the 24-hour surveillance cameras in those facilities. What did Bush do? Nothing.
As for Trauscher, I don't know what she said or what she was referring to. Here are my thoughts on missile defense - a complete and utter waste of money. The hundreds of billions of dollars would be better spent on human intelligence, securing our borders, more troops, troop pay and health care, and other defense-related programs.
The only way to insure that you get a rogue missile is to blow it up on the launch pad or in the launch silo.
Rob,
Look I really don’t get into long-winded discussions over say economics because it is something I have not spent my life studying, really much at all. That is the reason I just can’t debate you on it, I do not know enough to basically know what the hell I am talking about… on economics.
“The only way to insure that you get a rogue missile is to blow it up on the launch pad or in the launch silo.”
I suggest that since I doubt you know as much about missile defense as I do you not make factually inaccurate comments like that one. You can argue it is a waste of money if you so chose, but if I were you I would stop short of declaring it a system that is impossible.
A full scale attack from Russia, no system could handle that. However, one missile from a rogue general and launcher in Russia or rogue state, I am quite confident about the systems abilities. Once you combine all of its components from land, sea, and air. Regardless of your actual knowledge of the program it is a pretty simple concept that “A system” has a better chance at taking out a missile than “NO system” at all.
If we had unlimited resources for national defense I may agree with you. But, spending tens to hundreds of billions of dollars to stop one missile (maybe) is a waste. We are years away and tens of billions of dollars away from having a system that actually works. In the meantime, we are much more likely to have terrorists walk over the Mexican border and detonate a dirty bomb. We could have an attack on our food or water supply. We could have a bomb on a communter train system. Etc.
We spent almost $11 billion on missile defense development last year. That is just about twice as much as we spend on border patrol and customs. Missile defense is a boondoggle of a program that may or may not actually ever work. It is making military hardware contractors rich - but it does nothing for the very real security concerns of the country now.
The dollars that are going to missile defense come at the expense of other security measures. That is simple economics, but I am sure you understand what I am saying.
"Bush has been President for 6 years. He is THE DECIDER."
Nice try, but Bush isn't the one that handed N. Korea billions of dollars worth of oil and two nuclear reactors, based on the promise that they wouldn't make nukes. Oh, and it also wasn't Bush that handed N Korea these bribes with the promise "we also won't send weapons inspectors for 5 years." That was the Clinton.
Rumsfeld's firm sold LIGHTWATER nuclear reactor technology to NK - because it is extremely difficult to produce plutonium from LIGHTWATER nuclear reactors.
As part of the 1994 agreement, NK agreed to seal its existing nuclear facilities, install 24-hour surveillance cameras, and allow IAEA inspections. I have no idea what you are referring to about no weapons inspectors for 5 years. IAEA inspectors had living facilities in Nyongbyon - they were there the whole time.
There is no evidence that any weapons grade plutonium was produced for 8 years after the agreement. Bush stopped providing the agreed-upon fuel shipments and NK kicked out the IAEA inspectors, turned off the cameras, and broke the seals on their facilities and re-started their nuclear weapons program.
It was in late 2002 that NK did all this - who was president again? That was the time for Bush to do something - he didn't.
If Clinton's efforts in NK are so bad, why is it that Bush offered Iran basically the same deal? He wants American taxpayers to pay for a LIGHTWATER nuclear power plant in Iran as part of the incentive deal he is offering.
Bush has had 6 years to "correct" Clinton's approach. His policies have been an abyssmal failure and now we are left having to beg China to solve the problem.
Correct me if I'm wrong but North Korea is not the only country rumsfeld has sold nuclear technology to.
First about the interception of an ICBM. Of course it is possible. Russia had an operational nuclear defense plan for Moscow. (it included an airburst of a nuclear weapon though) We currently employ a layered missile defense system for our carrier battle groups.(which includes interceptor missiles)
Why anyone would be stupid enough to say that something is not possible that is physically possible is beyond me. Financially feasable? Sure that is at least a reasonable defense... Not possible? Somebody get the stupid stick.....
Is an ICBM defense system worth it? Democrats and Republicans alike agree that Sept. 11th was catastrophic at 3,000 casualties. Well if someone is content with the possibility of 5-7 million casualties (assuming a semi coordinated strike against the West Coast) and the decimation of several commercial centers, then they are plain nuts.
The key is the understanding of what a nuclear tipped ICBM is capable of compared to a backpack full of uranium. The difference is astronomical.
Second, the blame for North Korea is everyones. What has Bush done? Not enough. What did Clinton do? Way too much. Clinton handed the technology to them but Bush has not taken a hard enough line.
PS- I agree we need to tighten up the border too.
Short term memory loss has been proven to be one of the symptoms of having smoked too much pot. Long-term memory loss has been proven to have be one of the symptoms of indulging in far stronger drugs than pot. I maintain that Liberals suffer from nearly complete memory loss, both short term and long term, by imbibing too much of both.
Excellent post, by the way.
LOL! That's supposed to read "proven to have been" of course. I have not ever gotten in the habbit of previewing before I publish. Sorry!
The facts on NK are the facts - their nuclear weapons program was under seal and 24-hour surveillance for 8 years (until 2002). When they cut the seals, kicked out the IAEA inspectors, and turned off the cameras Bush didn't do anything.
As for missile defense it is a matter of priorities, risk assessment, and investment of limited resources. My view is it is a boodoggle that takes away funding from other programs. We spend more on missile defense R&D than we do on border security. Missile defense funding is equal to 20% of our total homeland security budget. If you think that is appropriate that's up to you. We can just disagree.
Your assertion that missile defense systems are a waste of money makes it hard to take you seriously rob. The "facts" about N. Korea are indeed the facts: Clinton gave them two nuclear reactors, and we have no way of knowing what the hell they were doing.
We have a $250 billion budget deficit, we have a monthly trade deficit of $70 billion, and we added nearly $600 billion to the national debt last year.
I said earlier that if we had unlimited resources for military spending then it is worthwhile to pursue, but when we look at economic realities then we have to make choices. Spending $8 billion a year on missile defense is foolish when we have open borders to the north and south that is easy enough for a terrorist to drive across with a dirty bomb.
"Spending $8 billion a year on missile defense is foolish when we have open borders to the north and south that is easy enough for a terrorist to drive across with a dirty bomb."
That's true enough. Though I would rather just secure the border rather than stop funding for necessary missile defense.
OK, at least we agree that protecting the border is more important.
I am going to assume that you are reasonable and are willing to look at actual numbers. Let's just look at the National Debt figures provided by the U.S. Treasury Department. Here are the Debt numbers:
Today - $8.55 trillion
9/30/05 - $7.93 trillion
9/30/04 - $7.38 trillion
9/30/03 - $6.78 trillion
9/30/02 - $6.23 trillion
9/28/01 - $5.81 trillion
9/28/00 - $5.67 trillion
Look it up for yourself:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/...pd/ opdpdodt.htm
Do you at least agree that the U.S. Treasury Dept is not lying?
Sorry, I just saw that the link doesn't work. I'll try it again.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm
The Bush Treasury at that.
It still isn't working for me, but I'll take your word for it. The debt isn't my main concern. My safety is. Missile defense systems work. Its that simple.
The missile denfense system has never worked.
There's something I find dishonest. At the top of the page, the site-author tries to link his words with Ronald Reagan's, dispite the ambiguous and unorthodox, psudo quotation marks.
Notice, people, the Reagan doesn't actually say anything about liberals in his statement (at the top of the site) but the site author has tried to tie in his own personal put down of liberals and leftists with Reagan's actual words, which were in fact endorsing classical liberal ideals. I know irony isn't big on rightwing sites, but this is the height of it.
Speaking of the rightwing, I take exception, even to the idea that this site IS a conservative site. It is NOT. It is a reactionary, rightwing site, masquarading as conservative, bordering on radical.
Conservative means to "play it safe." Here's some more irony for you...today the true conservatives are the liberals.
It was Rummy's company who sold the reactors to NK - fact.
The only people too busy investigating the sex lives of the Clintons were the rightwing republican leadership - fact.
The deal for the nuke tech transfer to NK was negotiated under Reagan - fact.
While Albrigt clinked Champagne glassed with NK in detante; no plutoniom enrichment, and no detonations - fact.
(And let us not forget the picture of Rummy shaking hands with Saddam, as long as we're talking dueling photographs.)
While Bush pushes his phoney either/or false dichotomy that the talks can't be both bilateral and multilateral, and while Bush has been touting his "tough stance" there's not only been enrichment, but at least one detonation - fact.
Seems to me that the Clinton plan was working fine untill the Bushites came along and fucked everything up.
Who doesn't want a missle defense system that works? But Reagan's StarWars? Come on children.
Highboy, you can either cut and paste the link I gave you above, or you can come to my blog and link to it. I have a post on the debt at:
robsobs.com
I have a simple question for you mudkitty. Is the missile defense system in development today "star wars"?
No, it's the illegitemate son of Star Wars.
And I have a simple question for you; why the question, what's your point? Wasn't it rather a statement? Why not just be honest?
It was an honest question. Because many people that are against missile defense have no idea what it actually is. “Star Wars” involved placing nuclear missiles and other satellites in space to shoot down upon ICBMs. This has the same ultimate goal (taking out ICBMs), but is a completely different concept in function. The question came because you made the statement “Who doesn't want a missle defense system that works? But Reagan's StarWars?”
Well this is an entirely different way of thought than “Star Wars.” So first I doubt you have more knowledge in to the system than I. Second if you want a missile defense system that takes development. You might learn a thing or two if you read my piece at CIR. I feel Rob has come a little off his position that the system doesn’t work and never will and is now making a fair argument that he doesn’t think the budget of the program is appropriate. It is a far leap from standing and saying you don’t think the system works and never will… and arguing that you don’t think it is the best place to spend the money.
I would spend more on defense and less on social programs. If you want missile defense then get on board, it doesn’t happen overnight. But don’t try to say the current missile defense program does not work and try to tie it to “Star Wars.” It is actually much closer to ideas prior to the Reagan time.
And on the petty side: asking you if you think the current system is “star wars” was more of a question than your rhetorical statements saying I was just making a statement, and of course implying I am dishonest. But freedom of speech, claim what you want of me. I simply wanted to look into your knowledge of the system.
That's a lot of verbage for "simply" wanting to look into my knowledge of the system.
My knowledge of the system is that year after year we shovel billions down a black hole, and when I write year after year, I include the development to which you refer dating back to the Reagan era, but you knew that, which is why I found your question disingenuous.
My knowledge is that each and every test has failed. Now I'm all for "try, try again" but I don't trust republicans, rightwingers, or so-called conservatives to get the job done. And I certainly don't trust the Bush administration to get any job done.
You guys have had your chance. You've fucked it up. Now it's over. The only way you guys can possibly hold on to power is thru illegal means.
By "you" I mean Republicans, and Bushies.
"The missile denfense system has never worked."
Proof? Source?
"It was Rummy's company who sold the reactors to NK - fact."
Clinton signed off on the deal-fact.
"The deal for the nuke tech transfer to NK was negotiated under Reagan - fact."
False. It was negotiated under Clinton by Jimmy Carter in '94.
"Who doesn't want a missle defense system that works? But Reagan's StarWars? Come on children."
Any sources to back up these liberal talking points?
Btw, thanks Rob, before I forget.
Other than the so you're half right. Do you do any research before you flap your gums?
"You guys have had your chance. You've fucked it up. Now it's over. The only way you guys can possibly hold on to power is thru illegal means."
Keep telling yourself that. Kerry was going to smoke Bush like sausage in '04, and the Dems were suppose to regain power ever since '94. Hasn't happened yet. Even if you win the House, it will only piss you off more, since Bush will veto everything the Dems throw at him, instead of signing off on every thing like he has been. In the end, right-wingers like us control liberals like you. Deal with it.
I suppose if Clinton signed off on the deal that makes if allright for Rummy, you republicans and you're "two wrongs make us right" stuff is getting old.
No problem Highboy.
If you really want to understand the government financials, let me know. I will try not to be condescending. :)
I think all Americans - on the right and the left - should understand the numbers. I think most - on both sides - do not. We cannot really have an honest debate about public policy unless we have a fact-based understanding about the resources this country has. Contrary to what people think, the government does not just print more money. We have limited resources and need to make choices.
"I suppose if Clinton signed off on the deal that makes if allright for Rummy, you republicans and you're "two wrongs make us right" stuff is getting old."
You mean the Democrats "two wrongs make a right" don't you? Seeing as how YOU are the one justifying Clinton's signature on the deal? Newsflash genius: Rummy couldn't have sold the two reactors if Clinton hadn't green lighted the agreement. Again, thanks for coming out mud.
“but you knew that, which is why I found your question disingenuous.”
- No I didn’t, hence the question. Good grief the left is all about oversight and questioning things but I pose one question and get my head chewed off.
“My knowledge is that each and every test has failed.”
- That is why I ask you questions, and the above statement is false, demonstrating that your knowledge of the missile defense systems development is lacking. I never argue that it is cheap! I do argue that it is on the road to being very successful in the future.
“We not only achieved all of the test objectives for that flight, but we also accomplished many of those objectives we identified for the next flight test scheduled for this spring. Based on the many tests we have conducted to date, including three successful flight tests of the operational longrange booster now emplaced in Alaska and California, we maintain our confidence in the 12 system’s basic design, its hit-to-kill effectiveness, and its inherent operational capability. We will continue to test this system to ensure it will remain mission ready.” - Lt. General Obering, USAF in congressional testimony
So what were you saying about “every test has failed”? But I am sure like the NYT you will argue that the tests were rigged, but as they were in the past and you will be proven in the future… wrong.
“Now I'm all for "try, try again" but I don't trust republicans…”
- No you aren’t, you want to talk about disingenuous statements. You want to stop funding to the “black hole” as you call it. That is not trying, that is ending. You know… Rob and I disagree on about everything, including this. At least he treats me with respect and has an adult conversation. Backing up his argument with sustained numbers that allow a debate. You just stick with it doesn’t work.
“You guys have had your chance. You've fucked it up. Now it's over. The only way you guys can possibly hold on to power is thru illegal means.”
- What does that have to do with missile defense? PLEASE explain to me how POTUS “fucked up” missile defense. What by funding it? Or have you just resorted to a lame attack based on the fact that you don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to BMDS and you have to pull out your “Bush is horrible” non-sense.
Highboy, what do you think about the deal that Bush is offering to Iran.
Do you agree that the U.S. and western countries should pay for a lightwater nuclear reactor? The framework for the deal is almost exactly the same as what Clinton offered and signed with NK.
"Do you agree that the U.S. and western countries should pay for a lightwater nuclear reactor?"
Nope.
HB - why are you "thanking" me for "coming out?" Are you the site owner? If not, I might as well be thanking you for coming out, and then we'll spend all of our time thanking each other.
You argue that a missle defense system will or MAY be successfull "in the future." If what you say is true, it certainly won't happen under a republican administration. (That's the connection, silly.)
"I'm sure you'll ague that the tests were rigged..." False. I wouldn't argue that, because I never believed that. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth.
Who doesn't want to stop funding a black hole...but I didn't say I wanted to stop missle defense programs altogether. What I want is more oversight of all Pentagon programs, and less waist. Now THAT'S conservative. The missle defense system as it is, is grandioise. And what I want is a different, non-rightwing, non-republican administration in charge of it.
So as for what I want, and what I think, please let me speak for myself. I think I'm more qualified than you are when it comes to knowing what I think and what I want.
Less "waste" (sic.)
OK, Highboy, then call/write George W. Bush and your Senators and Congressman and tell them to take the lightwater nuclear reactor off the table.
Bush is the one who is offering it to Iran.
"You argue that a missle defense system will or MAY be successfull "in the future."
No I didn't. I told you there already is missile defense systems that are fully operational: The Patriot Missile Defense System.
"And what I want is a different, non-rightwing, non-republican administration in charge of it."
So you don't want a missile defense system, you want a Democrat who likely give it away to our enemies after begging forgivness for not meeting their demands? Strange.
"So as for what I want, and what I think, please let me speak for myself."
But you never tell the truth and are grossly misinformed. Why should we trust your judgement?
"Bush is the one who is offering it to Iran."
Yes, I'm aware. I never claimed Bush was blameless.
Highboy, will you stop putting words in my mouth?
So you think Bush carries some blame? Would you elaborate to the same extent that you would if you were blaming a democrat?
*****
I am telling the truth, and there is more than one "missle defense system" so whose being disingenuous, really? And you can trust my judgement precisely because I am well informed, and none of your protestations to the contrary will change that fact. But even if what you said was true, and even if I wasn't well informed, that's still no excuse for your putting words in my mouth, and for your misrepresenting my positions, as well as the positions of other liberals you hate and bear contempt for.
“What I want is more oversight of all Pentagon programs, and less waist.”
- Well it would seem FROM YOUR WORDS (as not to place words in your mouth), that pretty much everything is a waste if done under a republican administration.
“The missle defense system as it is, is grandioise. And what I want is a different, non-rightwing, non-republican administration in charge of it.”
- You know the saying that “you get what you pay for” does actually have some truth. You can’t pick up a BMDS at the dollar shop in the mall. You want the system under a non-republican administration, you mean like in the 1990’s when the then Democrat President requested nearly half of the other years…
Yet it was President Clinton’s SECDEF Aspin credited Reagan’s SDI with helping to end the Cold War. No way! Then of course:
“There were two sources of the resurgence of NMD: a change in political divisions in the U.S. government and intelligence assessments of threats posed to the U.S. homeland by potentially hostile states. The first factor emerged in November 1994 when the American electorate gave the Republican party control of both houses of Congress for the first time in decades. Given previous Republican positions on ballistic missile defense, it was apparent to Pentagon officials that the new Republican majorities in the House and Senate were likely to require higher FY96 funding levels for the missile defense program, especially those elements of the program related to national missile defense. Should this situation arise, it would be without precedent, for in every year since the first SDI budget was submitted, Congress had reduced the president's funding request for missile defenses.”
And we KNOW what the left likes to do, leak classified information:
“Although the NIE was classified, its main conclusion surfaced in a December letter from the CIA to Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) and was then used to undermine Republican-supported missile defense measures. Republican leaders cried foul and called for the General Accounting Office to review the NIE. This marked the beginning of a controversy that continued throughout 1996 and into 1998.
The issues involved in this controversy included the possible politicization of the American intelligence process, the lack of wisdom in focusing on the threat to the continental United States as opposed to all fifty states and U.S. territories, and an unwarranted air of certainty about the NIE's main conclusions. Regarding this latter point, in the spring of 1996, Lt. Gen. Malcolm O'Neill had been among the first to express concerns about the way in which the NIE handled the issue of uncertainties. Moreover, after his retirement a few months later, he repeated his concerns. "'I'm a scientist,'" he said, "'and I know that nothing is absolute.'" The NIE had mentioned several "'wild cards'" that could spawn a threat to the American homeland inside the NIE's fifteen-year window of security. "'Why not assume that someone plays the wild card, why not assume the intelligence gap persists, assume all this, worst case it, then tell me how long it will take.'"
I could go on and on about how if you are serious about missile defense in any form the democrats most certainly are not the answer. I shall stop now because I am certain that every point mentioned falls on deaf ears. I’ll do my best on not putting words in your mouth, as long as you refrain from talking about something you obviously do not have any real knowledge of or real desire to obtain.
Mudkitty: “My knowledge is that each and every test has failed.”
“’I'm sure you'll ague that the tests were rigged...’ False. I wouldn't argue that, because I never believed that. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth.”
- What is it you claim everything has failed, yet don’t believe the tests were rigged. Well there were tests that were successful so either way you are wrong.
Your right, MD, I do think everything under this republican president (W) has been a waste. And not just a waste, but a failure. And not just a failure, but a deliberate failure, and racket, in other words. Welcome to the United States of Saudi Arabia.
"You get what you pay for?" Then shut down the system right now, cuz we ain't gettin dip!!!! And I wouldn't buy a used car from you either, with a line like that.
MD - what you're saying is that congress funded Reagan's somewhat denutered MDS, not Clinton. Clinton went along with a republican congress. And ever since, each and every test has failed. Get your money's worth folks. The longer it takes for something to work, the more money goes down the black hole. Get it? The MDS is a racket, as run by the GOP.
NIE are often declassified, as Bush has made clear by his whims. What's you're point? That only the left leaks classified info, like the name of CIA opporatives? Do you even want to go there?
But, the Bushis had the same info, so why didn't they pay attention the the NIE to which you refer? After all, they're always using 1998 (five year old) Clinton intel to justify the WMD threat.
As for succesfull tests, could you site a single one, and not conflate two different systems?
“And not just a failure, but a deliberate failure, and racket, in other words.”
- I can understand people that don’t like the President, but it is the ones that feel he wants to screw things up on purpose are the intellectual failures that lump in with the Scholars for 9/11 and think the entire thing was a Government conspiracy. I didn’t like Clinton, but his failures I don’t equate with being deliberate.
“Clinton went along with a republican congress. And ever since, each and every test has failed.”
- No he didn’t they funded the program to his displeasure. He didn’t want the money going there. And that is the last I can really say because if you want to keep this garbage that “every test has failed” I don’t know how to talk to someone that refuses to look at the facts. YES, there have been failures. There have also been successes. Why don’t you listen to Rob and take issue with the system because of the funding. A very sound argument, but drop this “every test has failed” because I would say it is a lie, but I suppose it isn’t because you do not have the intricate knowledge nor have you been present during testing. So spare me.
“The MDS is a racket, as run by the GOP.”
- Really, so tell me how the Democrats would “make it work”? Or just be honest don’t say you think the republicans are screwing it up. You don’t want it so under the Democrats it would be gone. That is what you really mean so just say it.
“NIE are often declassified, as Bush has made clear by his whims. What's you're point? That only the left leaks classified info, like the name of CIA opporatives? Do you even want to go there?”
- Yes they are, to declassify something you must be the person who classified it in the first place or out rank that person. The only one in the United States to have the legal authority to declassify something like the NIE is POTUS. A Senator or Employee under the DoD or CIA does NOT have that right. Ah yes, Plame. That is all you have? How about the fact that the Washington Post (not Times) published the article detailing how the story was blown out of proportion and should not have been touched. Ending with if anyone was responsible to the outing of Ms. Plame it was her husband.
“But, the Bushis had the same info, so why didn't they pay attention the the NIE to which you refer?”
- The NIE refers to the fact that they believe either currently or in the future that there are rogue nations that would use missiles to attack the US. So………… Bush started spending more money on missile defense and made it a priority. In layman’s terms he did listen to it! Clinton did not. Clinton was too afraid to even touch BMD because of the ABM treaty. So he ignored the United States intelligence warnings, because of a treaty that was one of the dumbest things ever.
“As for succesfull tests, could you site a single one”
1) October 14, 2000 “The PAC-3 missile intercepted and destroyed the ballistic missile target.” (WSMR)
2) March 31, 2001 “The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization and the U.S. Army conducted a test of the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missile, today at 6:24 a.m. Mountain Standard Time. Preliminary test data indicate that the PAC-3 and PAC-2 missiles intercepted their assigned tactical ballistic missile targets and all other test objectives appear to have been met.
The test involved a simultaneous engagement using two PAC-3 missiles against a Hera ballistic missile target and one PAC-2 missile against a Patriot missile configured as a target. Test objectives included demonstrating a PAC-3 tactical ripple engagement of a tactical ballistic missile target in a remote launch configuration; demonstrating system capability to simultaneously engage multiple TBMs with PAC-3 and PAC-2 missiles; and demonstrating PAC-3 hit-to-kill intercept of a helix-maneuvering full-body TBM target.
The PAC-3 missile is a high velocity, hit-to-kill missile and is the next generation Patriot missile being developed to provide increased defense capability against advanced tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and hostile aircraft. The PAC-3 missile uses kinetic energy rather than an explosive warhead to destroy its ballistic missile targets.” (WSMR)
3) January 27, 2004 “The completion last night of another successful flight test involving a new booster rocket designed to support the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system to intercept and destroy long-range ballistic missiles of the type that could be aimed at any of our 50 states.” (RTS)
Do you want me to keep going? You asked for ONE I provided THREE. So for pete’s sake stop this “every test has failed” garbage.
Mudkitty,
You have lost the argument of "every test has failed." If you require more proof that you are WRONG I welcome you to peruse the FACTS:
http://ci-report.blogspot.com/2006/10/every-test-has-failed-news-to-me.html
Mudkitty: your claim was that missile defense systems were a waste of money. Don't try and weasel out of your stupid remarks. If you meant a specific missile defense system, you'd have cited it. By the way, claiming to be well informed is not enough. You have to show it. So far, you're lacking in this area.
HBoy - I claimed that there is great waste in the various so-called missle defense systems, not that all defense systems are a waste. Again I have to ask a rightwinger to stop puttin words in my mouth and in the mouths of liberas in general.
But I'm defenetly saying they are a waste under Rummy, Cheney and Bush. Thank you, Boy for the opportunity to clairify that.
And by the way, every BALLISTIC missle defense text has failed.
MD - you conflated different systems, but of course you had to, it's the only way to rationalize your POV. Also test flights of rockets (launchers) don't count. Come on. Give me, give us all, give yourself, a break.
Just admit. You rightwingers really suck at national security, or any kind of securtity for that matter. And now the curtain has been pulled.
And finally, MD...you do realize that Bush has been president for 6 years, don't you? Why are there so many references to Clinton in your arguments?
"And by the way, every BALLISTIC missle defense text has failed."
Being an old thread you most likely will not read this but I figured it can't hurt to prove you wrong for the record one more time.
Your claim NOW is it hasn't shot down a "ballistic" target, but I gave you an example of using the PAC system to take out a Hera target. Do you know what that is?
"Hera consists of modified second and third stages from the Minuteman II missile, a modified Pershing II guidance and control section, various interstage hardware, and an instrumented ballistic re-entry vehicle."
Am I talking to a child? I am speaking very slowly now... The Minuteman missile is our ICBM, that stands in part for "ballistic missile." What a waste of my time but it can't hurt to try and educate.
You are just wrong, and until you open your eyes, get over your hatred of the SECDEF and POTUS, and put the country first... maybe then you will see the light and realize the entire time I have presented facts and you have personally bashed "Rummy."
Whatever floats your boat I suppose.
خدمات دبي
تركيب مكيف شباك بدبي
تركيب مكيف سبليت بدبي
خدمات دبي
تركيب مكيف شباك بدبي
تركيب مكيف سبليت بدبي
Post a Comment
<< Home