Ghost of BiB

Surprisingly, at the agency I worked at I don't recall anything being "leaked" that was of any national security value. Security is a very big deal there, and because of how things are compartmentalized, and the nature of the work any "leak" could be attributed fairly easily. Probably more to the side of caution than needed to be, but better safe than sorry. Even the inter-departmental "political" stuff. What I ran into as more of a problem is some blast in the media, sometimes out of capitol hill that basically pulled the rug out from under something either going on or being planned. I'm sure, mostly out of ignorance more than malice. Hence, some of my past rants about the responsibility of not only our elected leadership, but of the press. For example, pushing something that inflames anti-American opinion in a certain region can very easily undermine something important going on in the background, causing the leadership in that region to back away for their own immediate interests.

Wow...didn't see that one coming...

Three words: Senior Executive Service

Not that far off the mark. I'm referring to actual operational documents vs. legislation. And there is no way in hell that most of Congress will ever set eyes on any of it. I'm pretty sure that there are a few here and there who do, for oversight reasons but it's better for everybody that they aren't aware. I think the temptations would be too great.

I'd buy into a lot of this line if it weren't for the fact I've personally been involved in writing some of these plans - and I don't recall copying anything from a Democrat staff memo from the Clinton Era. Since 9/11, a lot of stuff had to be rethought from scratch, as what was already there apparantly wasn't working real well. But, if you want to credit the democrats for being the TRUE counter proliferation, homeland defense and counter terror leaders in government, nothing anyone can do to stop it. But...you raised doubt...which is all those grasping for a new rookie quarterback needs.

I've heard of those guys...

Yup, not hard to see where you worked for several years, and who you worked for.

Once again, risk vs. reward and cost benefit analysis. The sidebar here, is that increasing a bunch of Federal spending to urban areas will invariably result in programs and facilities that can have dual purpose when they aren't being used to respond to the "inevitable attack". If the Dems want a bunch of Federally funded public health clinics in the inner urban, call it that. If city governments want more fire trucks, manage your city as to be able to afford them. More fire trucks would have mattered not one bit in Manhattan September 11th, 2001. Except to maybe get more firemen killed.

I didn't say anything against paying the troops more money. I would suspect, since that is what they led in with, that the Dems are going out whole hog for the military vote. What upsets me is the obvious rhetoric and misinterpretation, at least in some areas I'm a little familiar with. You have also carefully worked in the next phase of a possible dem startegy I hadn't considered: "Yeah, they ARE doing that stuff...but we thought of it first!" SEE? Here's a Clinton Memo.

Nobody needs or wants me anyway. So what's new? I'd use my crying towel, but spilled my Chunky Mouldy soup and used it to wipe the table.

I'd do her.

The "spend spend spend" thing is something, too. How many billions for first responders and other related issues? Just from my own perspective and opinion, that has been one of my bigger issues with what little I have seen regarding Homeland Defense and Security coming from the Democrats. The fact that the "Fireman Guy" is one of their keynote personnel reaffirms to me that a lot of their intent is to dump money "into firetrucks" (figuratively speaking) and call that increased security. Just for clarification, my position is that if one does a proper job in prosecuting an effective global counter campaign, one doesn't need billions of federal dollars for "fire trucks". Not money intelligently spent addressing the problem. "Fire Trucks" are for when you fail. The emphasis here is in responding to attack, rather than defending against one. As an American, especially one living in the ground zero significance of the Nation's Capitol, that mind set doesn't make me feel very secure.

Where's Tom and his marketing post? The Republicans pretty well sat back and let the Democrats steal their own successes and claim them as their own new ideas. Much of what I see "new" in the areas I follow, at least, are simply undoable. Or, pointless. Either someone within the democratic party hasn't done their homework, or as you suggest they are banking everyone will forget about any details, but remember the "message".

Apparantly, waited for Bush to write one for him.

I see some areas that really bug me, especially with regards to Homeland Security. I predicted fire trucks and public health clinics, they have been riding that horse for some time. Lots of Democrat style special interest is hidden in that. But all in all, at least they aren't promoting wholesale dismantling of what is working.

The negotiators already have that power. Basically, a lot of this is the Democrats agreeing with the Bush Administration approach to doing things (and wanting to continue what Bush is doing), while at the same time saying Bush Bad. 646706[/snapback] That's the part I don't get, from their tactical standpoint. It's not going to be difficult to show that they are embracing current Bush administration policies in many areas. So, what's the line? "We can do it better?"

The disservice here, is to the American people. Whether this kind of stuff is written by the Democrats, or the Republicans. It amounts to a disinformation campaign, and when rebuttal time rolls around, you will probably see more of the same from the other side. Most of this sounds like it was lifted directly from the current National Strategy to Combat Terrorism. It's on the web, it can be Googled. There is more than one plan in effect for adressing these issues, and they are comprehensively integrated throughout the government. They are being addressed, and quite successfully in most cases. A difficulty in explaining things coherently is the level of classification attached to the actual operational plans and actions being undertaken. I'm particularly tickled by the advancement of US interests line, though. There already are metrics for success. Conceptual and operational plans are not written without them. Once again, all already being done. What they don't mention is that PSI is a Bush initiative, invented by and promoted by this administration. PSI is a relatively new program, but so far has been pretty successful. And, once again, much of this sounds like it was lifted from current policy documents. Behind the scenes, a lot of money and effort has gone into training and equipping foreign customs control agencies, border controls, law enforcement and military activities in order to network their counter-proliferation efforts into a comprehensive global system. We regularly participate in PSI related exercises with our foreign partners. As far as 2008, goes - As this is the MEAT document of the two, I'd be interested in seeing how they plan to do that. There is plenty of money and effort being placed not only on securing the nuclear materials, but also de-milling chemical and biological stockpiles, including delivery systems. A lot of the problems here are the Russians themselves. A lot of money hasn't been spent yet because of bureaucratic crap within the Russian ministries. Sort of the same as above. I'll defer to KRC on the negotiating details. As for what I highlighted...what? For one thing, there's about 500 of them now, check out Global Security Org. For another thing, what good is that going to do anybody. But, that's a start. I guess we could bandwidth this to death. I just don't think most of this is representative of the realities of what is really going on, but America doesn't have much choice but to swallow what they are given. A lot of sounds nice until someone starts to really think about it, and looks beneath at the details behind the proclamations.

I'm not even going to bother addressing the parts I know about. I always thought you gave me enough respect to think I did know about some of it, namely counter terror and WMD. But, I get that you know much, much better than anyone who has spent virtually a lifetime dealing with it. Yeah, I read the second link, and they are full of rhetoric sh--. Yes, rhetoric sh--. One more time, rhetoric sh--. I looked at the second link.

Oh. Way cool. Thanks.

Sorry, I forgot to include Ngata IS the answer.

Meat? Stick to biotech.

Ah, you must browse.

I have no message.

Maybe politics aside, Scraps knows his subject? We just normally disagree. Doesn't mean he doesn't know what a truck is.

I'm so easy. Crap. Got me.