_BiB_

Leave it to Beaver...

The way you do. It's your sources of information. I basically never watch the news, especially network. Last night, I had Nightline on TV. Subject was the guys who refused the convoy order, and a few other Iraq tidbits. Ted Koppel is a seriously poor excuse for a newsman. So is his staff. It has been a long time since I have seen anything that badly slanted, biased and invented. The entire message was not to inform, it was to say "Bush Bad". If this is how some of you get your information, well, it clears a lot up for me.

I'm tired. And I'm going to bed. Maybe I will sleep. Maybe not.

I'm maybe not as dumb as I sound.

And life is kinda like that in the beltway. If you want to, you can get maybe more than your 15 minutes. You just have to have the lack of scruples and the lack of concious to look at yourself in the mirror. I personally have zero respect for anyone who parlays their trusted position into bucks. Plenty of people know as much or more. If the flow had gone to Gore, you would have gotten a similar book with different enemies. Of course, who cares about my opinion or respect. Fortunately, in spite of what many of you think. I have had the excellent fortune to be able to work with some brilliant, and capable people that are clearly voting for Senator Kerry for other reasons. We have had animated conversations, but the fact is DC is Democrat. Almost a different world here. Some of them are actually pretty cute, too, (I'll try to find a way to sneak in some gratuitous T/A shots, for Keggypoo and Thailog)

That, and I like pure Kona or Jamaican Blue Mountain. Pretty well a coffee tossup. OK. I lean towards Kona. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting tired. I have to deal daily with "your" choice, whether it be Bush, Kerry or Mickey Mouse. Since I don't care about anyone else at this point in my life, I know what choice will make my job harder. Kerry. Call me a know it all self important prick (hard to do because I don't know much besides this) but I do know this. I'm also not an E-4 in the radar room. I work at the national policy level. You either believe me, or you don't. I either have credibility with you or I don't. I've tried to give some insights that are not political over the last several months. Non-partisan, non-political. I'm pretty sure they are not viewed that way because they favor Bush. So be it. That's the way it is. Once again, if you want to vote Kerry, on the basis of economy. health care, whatever-please do. I have no comment. I sincerely, from the standpoint of someone who does this everyday-ask that you at least do some internet searches before you vote for him based on National Security.

I appreciate the read. Thank you. I'm also pretty sure this is another dead thread. What's always much more important is that Bush mispronounced something or Kerry has three purple hearts. Teresa speaks with an accent and Cheney loves Halliburton. That's why one should vote, if one can find their way to the proper voting station without being led. Forget what is reality. Make it all a reality show. Costa Rica is looking real good.

(Hitting self in head with a hammer) We weren't good at it. We have a ways to go, but we are much better at it than we were. I was doing war plans stuff in the 70's and 80's. I, and my peers, fondly remember those days. Almost, well, yes with lots of nostalgia. I've even discussed it with my former counterparts. We have tons of cooperation with the Russians. We have tons of disagreements. Much easier then. This is really, really hard stuff. Real hard. I really hate seeing all this crap about everyone hates us, and we have no allies. Anyone here besides me drank Vodka with the guys who were going to overrun us in the Fulda Gap? It's a new world.

I never meant to imply anything of the kind. I use the term capabilities as an overall. If one can interdict the support system, one interdicts their capabilities. It's not all guns and bombs. As a matter of fact, most of it is not guns and bombs. Guns and bombs have focus in Iraq, but that's not really what "The War on Terror" is about. Yes, we hunt and kill where required, but this is more smart guys and criminal investigation-which isn't very glamorous for CNN and FOX.

Yeah, we got snookered. Political reality being political reality, after all of that you think ANY administration is going to come out and say "We was wrong, oops?" They'd be impeached. That's the reality. That wasn't the only reason to invade Iraq, and those reasons WERE mentioned, but that's the horse that got rode the hardest. Honest question for anyone reading the thread. If Colin Powell had gone to the UN with a speach along the lines of: "Saddam Hussein is and has been a long time supporter of several terrorist groups. He has agents in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas providing laundered funding for entities detrimental to the ideals of world peace. He has shown no scruples in the manufacture and use of Weapons of Mass Destruction. He is a threat to us all. He has consistently defied every UN resolution aimed at forcing him to join the cooperative family of nations. Upwards of one million of his own people find no eternal peace handcuffed in mass graves. We face another pervasive, dangerous enemy. The enemy of an ideology that threatens the very existance of the values we hold dear. Theirs would be a government of hate, of blackness where the common man and especially the womanhood of society would be held in contempt for the benefit of a select few. They are allies in the desire for this blackness. Sadaam and the various terror mongering affiliates who would take the region farther to the dark days of centuries past without hope for the gleaming beacon of a prosperous future for all. Our argument is not, and never has been with the Iraqi people-nor with the peoples of any nation. We understand that you presently do not have the power, or the means, to determine your own destiny. A destiny of prosperity, of hope, of self determination. We ask this body, for perhaps the final time-to hold Sadaam Hussein accountable for his contributions to the madness of the region, and of the world. We understand that he and his regime are a stumbling block to once and for all ridding this world of despots and those who consider peace, human rights and the dignity of a citizen to be a far second to their quest for power. It is a new century. And a new millenia. We can cooperatively work with all nations for the betterment of the world as a whole, we can take justified actions against those who would thwart this ideal-or we can, as we have done-time and again, stand idly by. This nation. The United States of America, has been the champion of those aforementioned rights for 200 years. We have had known our sorrows, we have had our failures. We have learned from our mistakes. Yes, we have made them. I'm sure we will make more. But as it stands, many of you would not be sitting in this hall, in protest-if it were not for the dedication and resolution of the United Sates of America. You did not mind our methods when it was of benefit to you. No longer is it a time to stand idly by. We face a clear and present danger. The United States of America respectfully asks, but also in the spirit of what is right and just demands- A beginning to the end of the madness. Mr. Hussein? We give one week for you to show the spirit of compliance with all the resolutions passed by this body concerning your affairs, those that were agreed to following your unwaranted invasion of Kuwait. On behalf of the United States of America, we have every intention of holding you to your written promise. The choice is yours." Would you agreed to go to war? Not.

Gawd-there IS an issue to bring everyone together! If you are too lazy to find out how and where to vote, you should be considered too lazy (I didn't say stupid, but they go hand in hand) to be allowed to vote. Non-Issue. Oh, that's right-the poor downtrodden masses might have to take a bus and walk two blocks. Rights should be CONVIENIENT! By God! I love this country, I really do-but damn! I'm considering Costa Rica.

Just in general terms. This is totally non-partisan. stevestojan moves so slow in Government that it takes probably two years to even get something started. Any new administration is dealing with the programs and policies of the old because it takes time to get things staffed and implemented. I personally acknowledge that Bush was in office 9/11. I further acknowledge that his gang, as well as the gang who actually does things no matter who is president were flat on their ass. 9/11 has promulgated a complete revision of the Defense Department, and other agencies. It's building on things started under the Former Bush and Clinton administrations and interjecting many new concepts of their own. Whether it sounds partisan or not, I'm really being objective here, is that current policies and strategies-as well as organizational efforts and changes in how we do almost EVERYTHING are generally sound, and effective. Nothing is perfect. There will always be something wrong. Is the situation in Iraq screwed up? Sure it is. But the decision to be there taken in context with the overall was the right one. It's been echoed by many that even the best of plans go out the window once the first bullet is fired. Oddly enough, in terms of fighting "The War on Terror", the Iraq situation is working out to our advantage. Doesn't do a lot for the Iraqis though. I have no way of convincing you, or anyone else on a message board that things are actually a lot better than they appear to be. My problem is since it takes literally years to make changes, and we are going the right way in terms of the overall "war", this is a piss poor time to start over. Most of you opine on the stuff. I do it for a living. What I mean by that is I'd love to sit around the fire and Kumbaya, but that's not the reality. Do I think we should have done things different? Of course I do. Me and about 30,000 other people who understand hindsight. We're going to be in Iraq until Iraq is stable and an ally. Period. Anything else is stupidity, and a waste of billions of dollars and thousands of lives. If it takes a year, fine. If it takes 20, that's fine too. Not preferred, but fine, as long as it gets done. That said, we really ain't doing bad. Senator Kerry-I hope-is aware of the realities and is just pandering soundbites to the electorate. Since 99% of the electorate doesn't have a clue as to what is really going on it doesn't matter. He's going to have to play some of the same games should he get elected. What's bad for him is they will be in direct contradiction to his promises. Maybe he hopes no one will notice, I would suspect more of a "blame Bush" type of approach. But, whatever. Within the DoD, Kerry's "ideas" are probably much more known than what one gets from the mainstream media. Fortunately, some of his ideas will take a Congressional vote to change. But you never know. There's no changing how people in their own hearts view things. An example is bringing in "Our Allies" (euphanism for the UN) to settle up the problems. Believe me, they are drooling at the thought. Bush basically says "if they agree, they agree, if they don't they don't". Some of you prefer the former, some the latter. One has to decide what is in the best interest of the United States of America. We are the only remaining Superpower. The rules are different for us. Many, many questions. how about this one? Does Al Qaida, North Korea or Iran prefer an America that plays resolution time at the UN? Or do they prefer an America that will just go out and do? I don't know that voting for Kerry will result in another attack anymore than I know if voting for Bush will. Welcome to the chess game. Great arguments for both. I'm frankly surprised in some ways we haven't had another yet. I could say that we have crippled Al Qaida enough that they are probably not capable right now, but those on the left would call that partisan. This also doesn't mean that they can't come up with something for later. I do know that statedpolicies will, 10 years from now, as far as Americas best interests are concerned give advantage Bush. Why are some folks so concerned with whether the guy on the street in France or Jordan likes us? News Flash! They have NEVER liked us. We've given them something real visible to B word about. And the happy media pollers are only too happy to oblige. The key thing is that the governments are working with us, and us with them. That's what's important. France doesn't want to send Troops to Iraq? If it were in their own interest to do so, they would. The French, under Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative have also intercepted and interdicted WMD technology being proliferated by their own people. Whatever, just trying to put some kind of perspective on things that isn't a spin.

The simple, no-stevestojan answer is that for 50 years we've had a defense establishment that looked "out". There wasn't much of a mechanism to look "in". We're learning how to do that now, and will probably make more mistakes as time goes by.

There's about a thousand years of history that result in this. Even looking at the modern perspective, you have to go back to 1914. Why does it matter to the election? 90% of voters are going to vote based on what their candidate said last. Neither is telling the truth, so what's to gain? I understand the immediate issues, as I chose to. It's not my problem if someone else doesn't. How many times have I tried to explain some of them? What good does understanding the mistakes of 1947 do? The dynamics have radically changed, and what happened over the last 5 or 10 years are only a part. In a broader sense, yeah-a lot of people have spent and are spending a lot of time figuring these things out. But as far as fighting a war goes, it's immaterial to it. We are now at the point of "put steel on target", whether it be miliatry, economic, political or diplomatic. In order to come anywhere near defeating our adversary we will very well probably make some of the same mistakes again-even intentionally, because they fit the overall solutions. And, BTW-I pretty well know what the definition of winning the war on terrorism is. I also pretty well know that if we do, it won't be for many, many years. Probably generations. Winning hearts and minds is on the list-but it isn't in the short term that important. Defeating the present capabilities of the adversary is what's important. Once you've gotten a handle on that-you can start the nicey-nice.

Hey guys. The real crux of the issue here is that it really doesn't matter at this point how we got here. The issue is what do we do with what we've got. A big problem here, a very obvious one-is that very few people are comfortable talking about the solutions-the real ones, not the hypothetical. People are going to get sent places they don't want to be. Some of them will die. So will bad guys, and folks walking to the corner grocery store. Tradeoffs will be made and soldiers will be often hamstrung by politics and diplomacy. Allies will turn on you when it's in their self interest to do so. The public will abhor whatever decisions are made. Period. Someone will not like something every time. Successes will rarely be discussed. Failures, and there will be many will be played continuously. This is a dirty business. It's not a Tom Clancy novel, nor is it the West Wing.

I don't know that God is on our side. I often think that he has all but given up on the shooting match. He gave us free will, and look what we've collectively done with it. Spidey, sorry if that comes out too strong. It has been covered quite a bit in this forum. One of the key things to take into consideration is that this is an overall campaign. Iraq is a part of it-not a separate issue. If the search thingy works, pull up some of my posts on the goals of Al Qaida and the strategies required to defeat them, the roles of alliances, etc.. I thought my posts might be useful to some, as they don't come from the media or a campaign website. Unfortunately I guess that limits my credibility as after all no one can believe anything that doesn't come from Fox or CNN. That's why I also advocate independant study. If anyone actually cares about the issues other than to have something to argue about-take mine or anyone elses posts and run some search strings on the content. You might find it to be a good distance away from what either candidate is saying. You have a democratic candidate out there muddying the waters with "we didn't go after Al Qaida" which is absolutely untrue, and the incumbent who can't say much that is truthfull because it will sound horrible to the average voter.

This has been covered, in detail, 20 or 30 times. Every single time someone brings up a factual, basically neutral informative post-the libs scurry like cockroaches in the sunlight, only to start the same rhetoric in another thread. If you don't like what I have to say on the subject, do some homework and refute me. Not my thread, but this has been explained about a dozen times. And, about a dozen times it was the end of the thread. I've said before-if you want to vote for Kerry on economy? Health care? Gay rights? I have no knowledge nor do I have an opinion. Vote for Kerry on Defense? Please, please, read some independant sources.

You big fella, you...

Well said. They don't read anything not on a Kerry site, and they damn sure haven't read me. But then again, I'm just a know it all wanna be.

Spoken like a true closet homo.

Ok, Keggypoo.

If you've watched the Ravens defense this year at all, you might be concerned with people getting killed, let alone win the game. Bills can't score. Saving grace is that Baltimore can't either. Ravens 13 Buffalo 6

I'd love it. Having lived in Baltimore, and presently around DC nothing would be better. Ravens suck. Bunch of pardoned criminals.

Well, I guess football just isn't my game.

I'll be happy if I'm still on this continent by then.