THe other shoe...

[poadeleted3]

Joe, One serious question. When is the war on Terrorism over?

When we've killed off a lot of our enemies and our leadership, and made the countries that harbor and support them, along with the rest of the world, tremble in fear at the thought of attacking us, or letting groups within their border do so. Saudi Arabia has gotten the message, and is tracking down terrorists within their border. Libya has gotten the message, and turned over it's weapons of mass destruction and renounced terrorism. I've noticed ya'll like to forget those successes that happened as a direct result of our war. They bear mentioning.

The governments of Iraq and Afghanistan did not get the message, and have been destroyed. The war will be over when other such governments are destroyed, or unwilling to allow their hatred to overrule their sense of self preservation.

 

[Anthony]

OK Dan, you've convinced me. Bush and the Republicans s*ck. Pelosi, Dean, Kenedy, Durban, Kerry et al have all the answers. I can't wait to vote in the next election now that I've seen the light. I'm selling the plane and donating all my money to Move-on.org as they don't have enough Billionaires donating.

In reality Bush and the R's s*ck slighty less than all of the above and the only true freedom we all have is to pay taxes and not be represented.

 

[Greebo]

The CEO is the CEO. The buck stops at the top. If the government passes BS laws the man at the top is ultimately responsible. I apply that rule whether the man at the top be Rep., Dem., Green Party, whatever. The man at the top lets the government do BS things, the man at the top is incompetent. Period. You don't like that fact, fine, but it is the way I prefer to run my world.

While I generally agree, it isn't as simple as that.

In our Government's case the buck can stop at a lot of places. The buck stops in the Executive branch at the President, sure, but what about the "buck" in the legislative and judicial branches?

And more importantly, what about the buck stopping at the feet of the schmucks who voted for whoever's incompetent?

We forget that our government, under the terms of the Constitution, is supposed to derive its power from US, not the other way around. They aren't our bosses, we're theirs.

 

[woodstock]

Dan,

I disagree. This is NOT about politics. It is about power.

Right now, in Washington, what you have for personal security is taken as a measure of "status". The more metal detectors people have to pass through, the more powerful you must be. Status and power feeds both sides.

The Dems have done just as much to damage this country as the Republicans. In different ways, but it all comes down to the same thing: "What power can we exercise over the people". Yes, the Republicans are taking away personal rights and freedoms in the name of "security" (e.g. protecting the people). At the same time, Democrats are taking away rights and freedoms (think gun control or limitations on business) in the name of "protecting us".

When you get right down to it, there is political gain from being able to say "protection" and downside to not doing anything that gives appearance of same. Both parties are wrapped up in "protection". They conveniently forget that freedom does not *ever* mean "risk free". As long as that's the case, we, as pilots, have to be seen as contributing to the solution, not contributing to a threat. And busting the ADIZ is seen as a threat.

Whatever happened to "Courage"?

hear hear! complete agreement.

 

[woodstock]

snip

We forget that our government, under the terms of the Constitution, is supposed to derive its power from US, not the other way around. They aren't our bosses, we're theirs.

in a perfect world...

 

[corjulo]

When we've killed off a lot of our enemies and our leadership, and made the countries that harbor and support them, along with the rest of the world, tremble in fear at the thought of attacking us, or letting groups within their border do so. Saudi Arabia has gotten the message, and is tracking down terrorists within their border. Libya has gotten the message, and turned over it's weapons of mass destruction and renounced terrorism. I've noticed ya'll like to forget those successes that happened as a direct result of our war. They bear mentioning.

The governments of Iraq and Afghanistan did not get the message, and have been destroyed. The war will be over when other such governments are destroyed, or unwilling to allow their hatred to overrule their sense of self preservation.

Libya has been trying to get us to ease sanctions for years. Remember Libya, they blow up a passenger plane, killed a friend of mine in the process.. They turn over a few chemistry sets and Bush say's all is forgiven. Its all smoke and mirrors.

Joe, all Iraq is doing is breeding more and more terrorist. And what its showing the world is that American does have weaknesses that can be exploited. North Korea really seems to be shaking in their boots. Iran just elected a hard liner. And, judging from renewed violence in Afghanistan, it would appear we declared all clear a bit too early. Too bad we don't have enough drops to send in.

 

[corjulo]

OK Dan, you've convinced me. Bush and the Republicans s*ck. Pelosi, Dean, Kenedy, Durban, Kerry et al have all the answers. I can't wait to vote in the next election now that I've seen the light. I'm selling the plane and donating all my money to Move-on.org as they don't have enough Billionaires donating.

great, I know they'll appreciate it. Don't forget to send Hillary a few bucks.

 

[Anthony]

all Iraq is doing is breeding more and more terrorist. And what its showing the world is that American does has weaknesses that can be exploited.

Oh, the not so new mantra from the left. We are creating the terrorists. Its our fault! If we'd just leave them alone they would leave us alone. Please.

 

[corjulo]

Dan,

I disagree. This is NOT about politics. It is about power.

Right now, in Washington, what you have for personal security is taken as a measure of "status". The more metal detectors people have to pass through, the more powerful you must be. Status and power feeds both sides.

The Dems have done just as much to damage this country as the Republicans. In different ways, but it all comes down to the same thing: "What power can we exercise over the people". Yes, the Republicans are taking away personal rights and freedoms in the name of "security" (e.g. protecting the people). At the same time, Democrats are taking away rights and freedoms (think gun control or limitations on business) in the name of "protecting us".

When you get right down to it, there is political gain from being able to say "protection" and downside to not doing anything that gives appearance of same. Both parties are wrapped up in "protection". They conveniently forget that freedom does not *ever* mean "risk free". As long as that's the case, we, as pilots, have to be seen as contributing to the solution, not contributing to a threat. And busting the ADIZ is seen as a threat.

Whatever happened to "Courage"?

All valid points. But I take exceptions with two issues. 1. Gun control. With Howard Dean running the DNC gun control is OFF THE TABLE..PERIOD. Dean has a 95 NRA rating and is dead serious in his opposition to gun control. I had this conversation with him personally, He sees it as a disaster issue for the democrats and utterly ineffective public policy. As a hunter and gun owner I agree.

As for limitations on Business. Yes, too much regulation. I'm working on them, give us time.

 

[corjulo]

Oh, the not so new mantra from the left. We are creating the terrorists. Its our fault! If we'd just leave them alone they would leave us alone. Please.

Here we go again, attack attack attack. Play the "they blame Amercia" card. Keep on playing it. We aint getting any safer. I don't blame America, I BLAME BUSH. IRAQ was a diversion, a score to settle, a Freudian attempt to one up Dad, but it was not smart strategy and it is now a disaster.

There was a right way to do this and a wrong way. If you don't believe me that read what the Hoover institute has to say. Last time I checked they where on the ground in Iraq and where a conservative think tank

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/editorial/11990717.htm

 

[poadeleted3]

Here we go again, attack attack attack. Play the "they blame Amercia" card. Keep on playing it. We aint getting any safer. I don't blame America, I BLAME BUSH. IRAQ was a diversion, a score to settle, a Freudian attempt to one up Dad, but it was not smart strategy and it is now a disaster.

snip

Blame America? He didn't blame America, you just pulled that out of your butt to create a diversion. You blame Bush? Your failed policies are what Bush is responding to. We aren't safer? Haven't been a lot of terror attacks on Americans around the world, which is something we can't say when your hero was in office. Iraq was a place to fight the war, to make the enemy go somewhere besides here. It succeeded. The only disaster is to the political power of the liberals who failed, or did not wish to protect this country, and are now busy trying to talk us into defeat. Liberals did not protect us before, and are busy spreading enemy propaganda now to help our enemies achieve their aims.

 

[Anthony]

Dan. I'm just going to agree to disagree and be done with it. I like Dean's stance on gun control and business regs. I learned something new today. Thanks.

 

[poadeleted3]

Libya has been trying to get us to ease sanctions for years. Remember Libya, they blow up a passenger plane, killed a friend of mine in the process.. They turn over a few chemistry sets and Bush say's all is forgiven. Its all smoke and mirrors.

Joe, all Iraq is doing is breeding more and more terrorist. And what its showing the world is that American does have weaknesses that can be exploited. North Korea really seems to be shaking in their boots. Iran just elected a hard liner. And, judging from renewed violence in Afghanistan, it would appear we declared all clear a bit too early. Too bad we don't have enough drops to send in.

Chemistry sets? Come on, Dan, don't be deliberately dishonest. They were chemical weapons, and you know it. Bush, by going to war, forced Libya into the concessions that no one else could, and has welcomed them into the international community as he should have. As for Iraq breeding MORE terrorists, that's another flight of fantasy. The terrorists were already there, and again you all know it. They've been killing us for a decade while your ideological soulmates did nothing about it but wring your hands. North Korea is at the bargaining table, where we are trying to keep them from building the nuclear weapons with the material a liberal President gave them, and from building missiles with technology a liberal President sold the Chinese in return for campaign donations. Don't you think we should keep talking to them while they will talk? Or do you think we should go to war against them? Why go to war against Korea, but not Iraq? As for declaring all clear, the only person to have done that was Nancy Pelosi as part of the ongoing liberal campaign to undermine our war effort and aid our enemies.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

When we've killed off a lot of our enemies and our leadership

LOL... Now THERE is an idea!

 

[corjulo]

Chemistry sets? Come on, Dan, don't be deliberately dishonest. They were chemical weapons, and you know it. Bush, by going to war, forced Libya into the concessions that no one else could, and has welcomed them into the international community as he should have. As for Iraq breeding MORE terrorists, that's another flight of fantasy. The terrorists were already there, and again you all know it. They've been killing us for a decade while your ideological soulmates did nothing about it but wring your hands. North Korea is at the bargaining table, where we are trying to keep them from building the nuclear weapons with the material a liberal President gave them, and from building missiles with technology a liberal President sold the Chinese in return for campaign donations. Don't you think we should keep talking to them while they will talk? Or do you think we should go to war against them? Why go to war against Korea, but not Iraq? As for declaring all clear, the only person to have done that was Nancy Pelosi as part of the ongoing liberal campaign to undermine our war effort and aid our enemies.

Joe, Mustard gas is not a WMD. It not even much of a weapon, as far as 100 year old technology goes. Most importantly is was not a threat to the US. Intelligence report said they had WMD weapons programs, but, like Iraq, those program turned out to be small and crude. The negotiation with Libya went back to the Clinton years. The Bush people kept up the negotiation when they took over. It was a done deal that had NOTHING to do with Iraq. And Libya got a lot out of the deal. A deal the neocons strongly opposed I might ad.

The point is it was a great deal for Libya, they get rid of minuscule weapons program and a small stockpile of mustard gas (used in Chad BTW), plus $10 millions and the sanction go away. It had nothing to do with Iraq. Bush needed the deal! Is it a good deal for the US? Yes, it is. It shows the value in negotiated settlement. It shows a path away from WDA programs for nations. AND it was a deal Clinton could have never accepted. Republicans would have screamed bloody murder

And what material did Clinton give the North Koreans? Light Water reactors can't produce the stuff. Fact is Korean didn't have nukes when Bush took office and now they do.


As for all clear. I would venture to say most American's assumed Afghanistan was a done deal. It seemed like that during the last election.

I'm done with this, I yield the floor to Mr William for the final comments. Gotta go to work

 

[anonn]

I don't think ATC clears folks over the FRZ even above FL180.


bill

This is not correct.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

While I generally agree, it isn't as simple as that.

In our Government's case the buck can stop at a lot of places. The buck stops in the Executive branch at the President, sure, but what about the "buck" in the legislative and judicial branches?

I agree, but in the specific case at hand I note two issues:

1. The article that started this thread cited "administration sources", not legislative sources, or any other sources. IOW, sources that work for the CEO. This new crock is the CEO's plan,not the legislature's plan.
2. When the ADIZ was placed in to effect I didn't see the CEO lobbying against it as being ineffective, wasteful, etc., nor did I see the CEO exercise a veto in order to make the legislative branch work twice as hard in order to be successful in their idiocy. IOW, if the CEO isn't part of the solution then he does indeed own the problem.

And more importantly, what about the buck stopping at the feet of the schmucks who voted for whoever's incompetent?

I think we agree here. My original premise was that as pilots we should band together and use our voting power effectively. IOW, yes, we pilots are responsible for creating this fiasco.

We forget that our government, under the terms of the Constitution, is supposed to derive its power from US, not the other way around. They aren't our bosses, we're theirs.

Won't happen if we don't make our collective voices heard (and felt).

 

[poadeleted3]

LOL... Now THERE is an idea!

Oops

 

[Dave Siciliano]

but how is it a mitigating circumstance if he decided "on the fly" to change his plans without the proper charts? doesn't GPS also show the ADIZ now? even in my little ol' plane with really old stuff in it, the (nearly text looking) picture shows the rings...

Elizabeth:

--I'm referring to the charts one must carry for a flight--not busting the ADIZ. Maybe that wasn't clear. It's a mitigating circumstance in that one cannot plan for every possible scenerio; there should be some reasonableness standard. In a King Air where he can travel over 1,000 miles on a trip and go up into the flight levels, he/she can cover a lot of gound.

Some of the flights I fly are over six hours long. I take charts for the route not the entire U.S. On more than one occassion, I've had to divert around weather so much, it took me off the charts I was carrying. This has been exceptional and IFR, not VFR. Normally, I can divert a couple hundred miles and have charts aboard.

Someone pointed out one must have charts appropriate for the flight; I'm just pointing out the reasonableness standard.

As for busting the ADIZ, think I'm on the same track you are: should be on a GPS; should be talking to someone in that area---period. Even if he was VFR with IFR charts; the ADIZ--Class B areas are on low altitude enroute charts---maybe not on High Altitude Enroute charts.

Best,

Dave
Baron 322KS

 

[poadeleted1]

lizabeth, you are free to have your opinion on this one, but the fact is the rules are in place and pilots are required to follow the rules. OK, the gummint put the rules there, and maybe they are crappy, but until pilots demonstrate the ability to follow the rules, we should not expect them to loosen up.

By your logic the national speed limit would still be 55 mph. After all, people were unable to perfectly abide by that law, right?

The ADIZ is a BS law, enacted by a BS administration. Hold the BS administration accountable. Period. Until pilots take a lesson from Jessie Jackson and start voting as a 500k vote block we can expect to be stomped on at will.

Ed, OK, my logic is flawed. So tell me, what DID get the speed limit raised from 55? Are you implying that by disobeying the law (and a very lucrative revenue stream), we the people overcame the state and *viola* the speed limit was raised? I think not.

From Wikipedia: On interstate highways in the United States speed limits range from urban limits as low as 40 mph (65 km/h) to rural limits as high as 75 mph (120 km/h). Before the 1973 energy crisis, some states posted no speed limit on the interstate highways. At one time Kansas had an 80 MPH (130 km/h) speed limit on its turnpike system. In 1974, Congress imposed a nationwide 55 MPH (90 km/h) speed limit by threatening to withhold highway funds from states that did not adopt this limit. It was estimated a speed of 55 mph used 17% less fuel per mile than a speed of 75 MPH (120 km/h). It was also believed, based on a noticeable drop the first year the limit was imposed, that it cut down on highway deaths, but later studies were more mixed on this point. This limit was unpopular, especially in Western states. In 1987 states were permitted to raise speed limits to 65 MPH (105 km/h) on rural interstate highways.
All federal speed limit controls were lifted on November 28, 1995, leaving the task of setting maximum speeds to the states. Immediately, all states except Montana imposed numerical speed limits on their interstate highway segments, many higher than 65 mph (105 km/h). However, no Interstate highway, freeway, or expressway is currently signed for over 75 mph (120 km/h), and within major city limits, few freeways have speed limits over 65 mph (105 km/h).

For four years, Montana had a "reasonable and prudent" speed limit during the daytime, a limit it already had on state highways. As a result, drivers of high-performance automobiles began to regularly visit Montana for the specific purpose of driving at high speeds on its freeways (as if they were German autobahns). In June 1999, Montana joined the rest of the nation and imposed a maximum speed limit of 75 mph (120 km/h) on its Interstate highways.

and from the CATO Institute:

Speed Doesn’t Kill
The Repeal of the 55-MPH Speed Limit

by Stephen Moore​

Stephen Moore is director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute.

Executive Summary

In 1995 the Republican Congress repealed the 55-mile-per-hour federal speed limit law. At the time, the highway safety lobby and consumer advocacy groups made apocalyptic predictions about 6,400 increased deaths and a million additional injuries if posted speed limits were raised. Ralph Nader even said that "history will never forgive Congress for this assault on the sanctity of human life."

But almost all measures of highway safety show improvement, not more deaths and injuries since 1995. Despite the fact that 33 states raised their speed limits immediately after the repeal of the mandatory federal speed limit, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported last October that "the traffic death rate dropped to a record low level in 1997." Moreover, the average fatality rate even fell in the states that raised their speed limits.

Higher speed limits have not caused one million more auto injuries. In fact, in 1997 there were 66,000 fewer road injuries than in 1995, the year before the speed limits were raised. The injury rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled fell to its lowest level ever recorded in 1997. If the injury rate on the roads had been as high in 1997 as it had been in 1995, approximately 17,000 more Americans would have been injured on the roads.

All of the evidence thus far indicates that Americans have not responded to higher speed limits by converting the highways into stretches of the Indianapolis 500. Any loss of life has been very minimal—and at most a tiny fraction of what had been predicted by the safety lobby. Meanwhile, Americans have saved some 200 million manhours in terms of less time spent on the road. The net economic benefit of raising the speed limit has been between $2 and $3 billion a year.
*****************************************************

I don't see anything about a popular uprising; on the contrary, I drove in that period, and I will admit that I drove as I chose to and took the risk of prosecution for speeding on more than one occasion. I even once received a citation in NV for speeding in an "R&P" (Reasonable and Prudent) area. I guess over 130 is neither in some parts of Northeastern NV. .

True, as a block of pilots, we COULD do something, but with 500,000 pilot voters spread over 50 states the solution is ineffective due to dilution of our strength. Come up with a way to seriously concentrate the strength andthen maybe we could be effective.

Serious thoughtful letters used to be the way....when we had snail mail. Now with email, every crackpot (or crack head) has the ability to swamp an opinion poll or skew a survey if they choose to. We have been relegated to a bit player role because of technology. And that's another thing I just don't know how to fix.

But your thoughts are welcome.

 

[mikea]

Higher speed limits have not caused one million more auto injuries. In fact, in 1997 there were 66,000 fewer road injuries than in 1995, the year before the speed limits were raised. The injury rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled fell to its lowest level ever recorded in 1997. If the injury rate on the roads had been as high in 1997 as it had been in 1995, approximately 17,000 more Americans would have been injured on the roads.

All of the evidence thus far indicates that Americans have not responded to higher speed limits by converting the highways into stretches of the Indianapolis 500. Any loss of life has been very minimal—and at most a tiny fraction of what had been predicted by the safety lobby. Meanwhile, Americans have saved some 200 million manhours in terms of less time spent on the road. The net economic benefit of raising the speed limit has been between $2 and $3 billion a year.

Those facts are no reason for the meddlers to give up. We just had a major cry in the state that the cops are routinely allowing a 5 or 10 MPH leeway on the speed limit that HAS TO STOP! You know: "I'm doing 55 in the left lane and cars are passing me on the right!"

A study released in 1999 by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety estimated an increase in deaths on interstates and freeways of about 15 percent in the 24 states that had raised their speed limits in late 1995 and 1996.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0506130161jun13,1,6574250.story

We are close to banning all smoking in public, even outdoors. The law has a few exceptions. You are allowed to smoke in a private residfence. (Horrors! How can we allow THAT?) The bogus excuse of second hand smoke is the only thing they can hang the law on, so they'll use that fiction.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-smoke30.html

Disclosure: I don't smoke cigarettes. I don't like having a smoker near me when I'm eating in a restaurant. I still think smokers should be left to do their thing.

 

[poadeleted1]

The CEO is the CEO. The buck stops at the top. If the government passes BS laws the man at the top is ultimately responsible. I apply that rule whether the man at the top be Rep., Dem., Green Party, whatever. The man at the top lets the government do BS things, the man at the top is incompetent. Period. You don't like that fact, fine, but it is the way I prefer to run my world.

I would agree if the CEO had absolute power. But you know that is not the case Ed. The stroke of a presidential pen can do many things, but many more are absolutely not at all dependent on that same pen. And in many cases, the "loyal opposition" makes it a point to deny the "CEO" what he wants. He cannot fire them, so he must compromise or enlist the will of the people to make things happen.

I think that the fifth estate is a willing accomplice in the effort to prevent the President from doing what he thinks needs to be done. If he has an idea and is prevented from acting on it by that same "loyal opposition", whose fault is the failure?

Remember T. Roosevelt: "Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorius triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."

I see the "loyal opposition" in that group. Afraid to try for fear of failure; afraid to do nothing for fear of failure. Afraid of being afraid, afraid of waekness, afraid of strength......just flapping their gums and saying it's all wrong.

 

[Lance F]

This thread has meandered a bit, but if anyone still cares about the incident that started all this here's some more info.
First, Scott was fired from his job today. He was chief pilot flying the KA 350, a Citation I, a couple of KA 90s and...da-da...a 450HP Stearman (which I also have a couple of hours logged in ). A sweater deal I've never seen. So he's paid that price already. What the FAA does is yet to be seen. He did file the NASA form .
I don't think he was ever IFR. He took off intending to fly to Ohio at 16,500 VFR (a very unthrifty thing to do in a KA350) not talking to anybody. That plane does not have a a moving map GPS. The chart he had showed the ADIZ located with the B airspace. He knew the top of B was 10,000' and didn't think anything more of it until the F16s showed up. He saw them on his TCAS and called them on 121.5 before they called him. That was a good thing as they knew he wasn't a threat. The plane does have onboard radar and I'm sure he deviated south in the first place to avoid weather.
A bad thing for Scott and of course a very bad thing for GA.

 

[Anthony]

This thread has meandered a bit, but if anyone still cares about the incident that started all this here's some more info.
First, Scott was fired from his job today.

What do you think Lance? Just because a thread wanders doesn't mean we don't care. I feel badly for Scott, but he really screwed up and I'm sure has learned this harsh lesson. He also may loose his ticket for a while which may reinforce the need to follow the rules. He and the guy from Smoketown could kill GA as we know it for all of us. He deserves the punishment, and I hope it makes him a better pilot.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

What was this threat about originally? Of ya, Incursion. This one doesn't seem to have generated near the negative coverage the last one did. Maybe the public is getting wise to the lack of a serious threat.

The names change along with relatively minor changes in circumstance, otherwise I think most of the whole set of comments from the previous massive thread on the incursion could be superimposed here.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

I would agree if the CEO had absolute power. But you know that is not the case Ed. The stroke of a presidential pen can do many things, but many more are absolutely not at all dependent on that same pen. And in many cases, the "loyal opposition" makes it a point to deny the "CEO" what he wants. He cannot fire them, so he must compromise or enlist the will of the people to make things happen.

It would be worth arguing the subtleties if it weren't for the fact that the article starting this discussion attributed the idea of expanding the ADIZ to "administration officials".

Where's the buck stop for that idea, in your mind?

 

[Ed Guthrie]

What the FAA does is yet to be seen. He did file the NASA form .

I haven't researched the FAA information for confirmation, but according to Potomac TRACON the NASA form is a futile effort with respect to an ADIZ bust--it affords zero protection.

 

[Richard]

It would be worth arguing the subtleties if it weren't for the fact that the article starting this discussion attributed the idea of expanding the ADIZ to "administration officials".

Where's the buck stop for that idea, in your mind?

Ed, that is a very good point. Although, I think "administration officials" is code for, "we don't actually know of any one person thinking this but we've heard a rumor that someone is thinking about it". Notice the anonimity,ergo, freedom from responsibility, in that statement?

 

[Ed Guthrie]

Ed, that is a very good point. Although, I think "administration officials" is code for, "we don't actually know of any one person thinking this but we've heard a rumor that someone is thinking about it". Notice the anonimity,ergo, freedom from responsibility, in that statement?

In the land of Washington speak this tactic ("according to an administration official') is referred to as "a trial balloon". IOW, the stated idea is George W's personal goal/desire, but he wishes to check the political wind and/or have a friend/associate do the dirty work. If the balloon is later popped George W. maintains "plausible deniability".

 

[poadeleted3]

In the land of Washington speak this tactic ("according to an administration official') is referred to as "a trial balloon". IOW, the stated idea is George W's personal goal/desire, but he wishes to check the political wind and/or have a friend/associate do the dirty work. If the balloon is later popped George W. maintains "plausible deniability".

You stated that as a fact a fact you know George Bush's personal thoughts on this. I would be interested in knowing how you came by your knowledge of George Bush's personal thoughts. Have you spoken to him lately? Spoken to any one who has? When, exactly, did the President tell you that he personally wants to expand the ADIZ? What exactly did he say?

Or was your statement of fact in reality just more smoke, another excuse for you to Bush bash with absolutely no basis in fact or reality? Was your statement of fact actually true?

 

[Richard]

You stated that as a fact a fact you know George Bush's personal thoughts on this. I would be interested in knowing how you came by your knowledge of George Bush's personal thoughts. Have you spoken to him lately? Spoken to any one who has? When, exactly, did the President tell you that he personally wants to expand the ADIZ? What exactly did he say?

Or was your statement of fact in reality just more smoke, another excuse for you to Bush bash with absolutely no basis in fact or reality? Was your statement of fact actually true?

Joe, I didn't see it that way. What I saw was Ed was using George W as an example to illustrate his point. Ed could have used any politician who uses the 'trial balloon' tactic as such an example.

 

[poadeleted3]

Joe, I didn't see it that way. What I saw was Ed was using George W as an example to illustrate his point. Ed could have used any politician who uses the 'trial balloon' tactic as such an example.

No Richard, Ed's statement was quite clear... He most certainly was not making a general point. He was most specific, I think.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

You stated that as a fact a fact you know George Bush's personal thoughts on this. I would be interested in knowing how you came by your knowledge of George Bush's personal thoughts. Have you spoken to him lately? Spoken to any one who has? When, exactly, did the President tell you that he personally wants to expand the ADIZ? What exactly did he say?

Or was your statement of fact in reality just more smoke, another excuse for you to Bush bash with absolutely no basis in fact or reality? Was your statement of fact actually true?

Okay, you got me. I assumed too much. For example, I assumed George W was minimally competent as a manager. For example, I assumed he could hire staff reasonably qualified for a highly sensitive job. IOW, employees in a high security job that only spoke when he wanted them to do so. You might be correct--George W could be more incompetent than I imagined.

 

[poadeleted3]

Okay, you got me. I assumed too much. For example, I assumed George W was minimally competent as a manager. For example, I assumed he could hire staff reasonably qualified for a highly sensitive job. IOW, employees in a high security job that only spoke when he wanted them to do so. You might be correct--George W could be more incompetent than I imagined.

Assumed? No, you just didn't tell the truth in your post. As for comptence? Bush has kept this country safe, despite the best efforts of his enemies home and abroad, if anyone can tell the difference between them. I can't tell the difference between your propaganda and that of Al Queda, personally.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Hey: How did I wind up back on the AOPA board again!!?? What was the initial topic of this discussion

Best,

Dave
N322KS

 

[bbchien]

OK guys. Keep it within the rules. Ed probably shouldn't have claimed that he can source GW's unstated desires, and Joe needs to not revel in the fact that he caught Ed.

Keep it non-personal. As I think we've seen all the useful comments that we can hope to see here, and we're all depressed about the ADIZ and the incursions, and the BS, the string is closing.....

Sigh.