In a speech on the Senate floor Monday to introduce the Senate’s version of the Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), the ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee that worked on the bill, fired a few shots at the Augustine committee and its report. “While I commend the Augustine Commission for their hard work, I find many of the aspects proposed in their summary report to be unsatisfactory and disappointing,” the text of his speech reads. He didn’t go into details about what specifically he found “unsatisfactory and disappointing”, but it should be little surprise that he’s a big supporter of the current Constellation architecture. “This program is built on a foundation of proven technologies, using existing capabilities and infrastructure.”
Shelby also made this curious statement: “And yet, instead of simply providing Constellation with funds to move forward, it is delaying the current mission while seeking to have a do-over on plans that have been authorized by both a Republican and Democratic Congress.” However, NASA is not delaying Constellation: it is continuing work on its various aspects as it awaits any new policy direction from the White House, something explicitly stated when the review was announced in May.
Shelby also threatened to oppose any change in NASA’s direction that doesn’t pass muster with him. “NASA, and this administration, should never forget that the support of Congress will still be necessary to authorize and provide funds as we move forward,” he said. “Mr. President, I will not support any future NASA budget request that does not have a robust human exploration program.” Given that the Augustine committee found that the current plan at its current funding levels (whose appropriations have been shaped in part in recent years by Sen. Shelby) is not executable, one might wonder if NASA has a “robust” program today.
[…] post by unknown and software by Elliott […]
Shelby – Dick.
“Shelby – Dick.”
Eh, I see it as more pandering to the electorate (although of all the people to pander to, his electorate is probably the best option, what with the votes and democracy and all). I don’t agree with hom, of course, as Constellation has become a Spruce Goose spacecraft more and more by the day. It could certainly still fly, but everytime people try to build up hope, those hopes are dashed by more cost increases, more engineering issues, and more deadline pushbacks. I do understand that it’s budgetary and bureaucratic issues that are causing these stumbles, but inspiration is blind to cause and people’s inspiration is faltering.
I’m still hopefull and will be until Contellation either flies or succumbs to the red pen, because although private space is my thing and I expect it to replace big government programs, I see very little benefit in scuttling a program. And right now I don’t really think many other options are viable. Other big NASA rocket options this late in the game may end up costing more and taking longer since we’d be picking them up from scratch. And Lunar is a ways off for private space, so dropping Constellation would delay the proposed lunar program.
In short, I’m a grudging supporter of Constellation, and I’m not in Shelby’s district. I can see why folks with jobs and economies tied to its success would push for it’s continuance.
Aremis
“And right now I don’t really think many other options are viable.”
Let’s see, ISS, three Space Shuttles, Soyuz, Atlas V, Delta IV, Falcon I, Zenit, Proton, Ariane V, ATV, H2-X, HTV, what have I missed? Falcon 9? Taurus II?
Get a grip, man.
[…] here to see the original: Space Politics » Shelby: Augustine inform “unsatisfactory and … Share and […]
All this is is Shelby’s Pete Olsen act.
What did the Inspector say in Casablanca “I am shocked, there is gambling going on”…as the waiter handed him “you’re winnings sir”.
All this tells me is that the home team representatives are positioning themselves for “the end of the world”.
Robert G. Oler
Yet another reason the “vision” is a dead end street.
http://www.onorbit.com/node/1577
Robert G. Oler
[sarcastic tone]
What’s this? More political posturing by an “esteemed” member of congress so that he go back to his consituents and tell them how hard he fought for their jobs?
“I am Jack’s complete lack of surprise.”
That should have been “…so that he can go back…”. I can’t type today. That’s great news about VASIMR. Glad to see someone actually doing something to push the technological envelope.
How these guys can get up there and spout such nonsense is beyond me. The current sad state of affairs is due to duds like Shelby, Nelson, and their colleagues. They must feel that the electorate consists of fools.
One can yell and scream at Richard Shelby until the Moon crashes from its orbit, but one will not get around him. However one can deal with him, figure out something that will satisfy him (and various other Senators) and still maintain a space exploration program worthy of the name. As for posturing, I see that every day from “space advocates” in ways that would put any politician to shame.
“I don’t agree with hom, of course, as Constellation has become a Spruce Goose spacecraft more and more by the day. It could certainly still fly, ”
Well Spruce Goose did fly too, did it not? You sure you want this thing to fly like Spruce Goose did? Where did Spruce Goose end? Please remind me.
“but everytime people try to build up hope, those hopes are dashed by more cost increases, more engineering issues, and more deadline pushbacks.”
So if it does fly and it costs so much so to end the actual beyond LEO exploration part of the plan since there’d be no money left is okay with you?
” I do understand that it’s budgetary and bureaucratic issues that are causing these stumbles, but inspiration is blind to cause and people’s inspiration is faltering.”
Then sorry you do not understand. The technical issues are those issues pushing the various PDRs it has nothing to do with the budget. I’ll try to explain again: The VSE plan was to go explore Space with the budget you have, not the budget you’d like to have. ESAS recommended an option that does not lie within the budget and was based on flawed SRB concepts. The ridiculous idea was that the HLV was important and that after all we’d be able to send a crew on “any” rocket so long it can light. Check ESAS and check the current Ares I vehicle and let me know how wrong I am.
“I’m still hopefull and will be until Contellation either flies or succumbs to the red pen, because although private space is my thing and I expect it to replace big government programs, I see very little benefit in scuttling a program. ”
Huh? So it is okay with you to spend all the cash into a vehicle that is flawed and whose safety is questionable for the crew? Were you on the ESAS team?…
“And right now I don’t really think many other options are viable. ”
See above (Top Dog) for a sample.
“Other big NASA rocket options this late in the game may end up costing more and taking longer since we’d be picking them up from scratch.”
Like how much? How long? Do you have numbers to compare with Ares I?
“And Lunar is a ways off for private space, so dropping Constellation would delay the proposed lunar program.”
Hmm. Interesting. Do you have any idea what the difference might be? Say one of the privates send a capsule to LEO, how much of a leap would it be to go to the Moon? Any idea?
“In short, I’m a grudging supporter of Constellation, and I’m not in Shelby’s district. I can see why folks with jobs and economies tied to its success would push for it’s continuance.”
They you are plain wrong. And you ought to come to your senses because supporting a failed program is not equal to supporting HSF. Shelby’s only interest is his constituency as it should be. But the WH’s and NASA’s interests ought to be the national interests and I hope they will be. If not, mark my words, beyond LEO HSF is dead. Period.
“One can yell and scream at Richard Shelby until the Moon crashes from its orbit”
The Moon will never “crash from its orbit.” Due to Earth’s tidal forces pumping up the Moon’s orbit over long periods of time, the Moon is steadily moving away from the Earth, not towards it. See:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=124
If we’re going to post to a blog about space, we should actually learn something about space before posting instead of applying ignorant metaphors.
“As for posturing, I see that every day from ‘space advocates'”
Please stop slandering entire groups of people. Take your ugliness elsewhere.
Ugh…
As I have stated before, the Orion capsule or what ever it’s called these days will continue to be worked on. Mabe it will fly or mabe it won’t, I think it will dead end in some post Obama administration. Thats it, there is no return to moon project, your kidding your self if you think that, there never was. Except for Orion and Ares1it was pure PR from the Bush years. Obama could care less about space. The future lies in private development of economical RLV’s.The barriers to this are various forms of goverment regulation, high taxes and ITAR [the fear of allowing third world nations access to RLV’s]. In addition we need a organization of private investors that can pool money ,resources and technology to develop a common vehicle they can use to begin space operations and show the way to develop new vehicles.This organization could include other nations interested in developing and exploring space.
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ October 7th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
One can yell and scream at Richard Shelby until the Moon crashes from its orbit, but one will not get around him..
The Moon is not crashing from its orbit…and as for Richard Shelby. sure one can get around him.
The GOP is in the minority in both the House and The Senate…
That means of course that his vote is not all that important in general or on the subcommittee where he is the “ranking member”
The role of the minority is to craft alternative proposals to the majority AND try and work them into legislation through popular appeal.
What Shelby is arguing for is the status quo, something that when the GOP was in the majority he didnt make sure got adequate funding.
Right now the role of the minority on almost every issue is to frustrate the majority, not with any serious alternative plans, but with simple rhetoric and Shelby continues that motif.
“However one can deal with him, figure out something that will satisfy him (and various other Senators) and still maintain a space exploration program worthy of the name”
The Augustine commission has actually done that with the “Jim Oberg” option.
It is a option that pushes technology development which is essential IF there is to be any serious movement out of near earth orbit…and yet doesnt lock us into a program that will take 20 years and tens of billions to execute…and then at its best will only take government employees on short term junkets
As long as the GOP behaves like Shelby on almost every issue…it is toast.
Robert G. Oler
“As long as the GOP behaves like Shelby on almost every issue…it is toast.”
You’d hope so but I am not so sure: If the current WH fails at the economy and healthcare which is very likely considering the odds and the way they go about it you should brace for the next “illuminated” out of GOP. It was a lot closer than people think last time…
As long as the GOP behaves like Shelby on almost every issue…it is toast.
This has nothing to do with “the GOP.” It’s not partisan at all. Bill Nelson is just as clueless. It’s just about a (former Democrat) Senator trying to keep the pork flowing to his state. Shelby’s only political principle is getting reelected.
common sense ..
I agree a lot is going to depend on what happens with health care and the economy. It does puzzle me somewhat how the Dems are acting. Just from a political standpoint (and that is all my personal preferences aside) Obama won a large mandate and it is surprising to me that he is not acting like that.
Now I might have misjudged his style and who knows that could pay off…but Bush won the slimest of majorities then proceeded (as he should) to govern as if he had won a landslide. Obama should do the same.
Having said that…being “anti” isnt enough these days in politics..and unless the GOP can come up with some functioning opposition plans that are more then what is going on now, they will not in my view be able to recover from the dislike that the American people have for how things were at the end of Bush’s term. It gets worse of course if they pick someone who reminds them of Bush…Go look at how the 1936 election shaped out and one can see what I mean. My guess on the economy is that we are in for a very very long period of “crisis”. High unemployment and not a lot of growth. This was inevitable after 8 years of bungling management by both the corporate world and the political world.
As for space. What surprises me is that the GOP has been so slow to jump on the “flexible path” (Look dont touch) that the commission offered. It has the potential if properly crafted to do a lot of things…keep some exploration going but to push and develop the technologies that are needed for real travel in deep space (and I include the Moon in that)….
Shelby in particular has availability with some fairly bright minds who could come up with alternative ideas…and get ahead of where Obama is driving the train. More and more I am coming to the conclusion it is just to shut the program down.
To do that however requires that they recognize we are in the part of the movie AFTER the Titanic has struck the iceberg…and all you hear right now from the GOP is “well given the resources the ship could still make it to port”.
One last note on politics. the 08 election wasnt close…and as the election got nearer McCain faded worse aand worse because in part his sidekick got more and more disliked by the American people. The GOP is going to have to figure out if it is going to keep drifting toward the right wing…and losing election after election by default…or if it is going to try and reinvent itself JUST AS THE REPUBLIC is reinventing itself.
Robert G. Oler
Rand Simberg wrote @ October 7th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
I wrote: As long as the GOP behaves like Shelby on almost every issue…it is toast.
You replied: This has nothing to do with “the GOP.†It’s not partisan at all. Bill Nelson is just as clueless. It’s just about a (former Democrat) Senator trying to keep the pork flowing to his state. Shelby’s only political principle is getting reelected.
The statement of yours that I quoted is a fair statement and in my view reasonably accurate. Opposition by representatives of districts/states that have space facilities (or expenditures) crosses party lines and is centered on pork. In that manner it is non partisan.
The only problem I have with the post you made is that it unfairly takes the sentence I wrote out of context.
Bill Nelson can be seen as opposing any changes that affect his district done by an administration of his party, and it be what in legislative affairs is called “a local pass”. Obama nor the party will hold him to task for it. Nelson (Or Jackson Lee or any of the Dem representatives) from such district fall into that category.
I AGREE with you that Shelby’s opposition is much along the same lines…but as a member of the opposition the role of the opposition is to put up coherent alternatives to either the other parties plans or their status quo. Instead Shelby is critizing the current administration for not doing what the former (GOP) administration was unwilling to do. And in that case Shelby remained silent.
The calling card right now of the GOP just seems to be “opposition” for oppositions sake…and Shelby’s effort fits right into that. A sign of that is that his opposition has become completely rhetoric based. hence the quote from the blog post:
““And yet, instead of simply providing Constellation with funds to move forward, it is delaying the current mission while seeking to have a do-over on plans that have been authorized by both a Republican and Democratic Congress.— nothing right now is being delayed.
Coupled with the fact that Shelby, Olsen and the like are expecting the Obama administration to do for “the vision” what a Republican Administration and Congress were not willing to do…its partisan rhetoric
Robert G. Oler
I say and maintain it was too friggin’ close: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/
46% is way too close for comfort. It should have been a lot less considering the heritage! That is an awful lot of people who would have liked to see us going in the same direction. Not that it has changed much mind you. Yes the WH ought to govern sometime by consensus and sometime by leadership. So far I see a lot of unfruitful consensus, at least for the US people. The GOP may be losing elections but for good or bad they are still very relevant. Note that some Dems are close to the GOP, way too close for comfort here too.
Back to HSF.
We need to continue funding the development of the Orion. And it would be nice if we could also provide for some serious funding for the Altair lunar lander starting in 2010 so that we can return to the Moon a lot sooner.
But we need to terminate funding for the Ares 1 booster systems ASAP. Trying to put a manned space capsule on top of a solid rocket boosters was just a bad idea right from the start; and its starting to turn out to be far more expensive than NASA could have ever imagined.
The SD-HLV, DIRECT, or a Delta IV heavy are much better options for launching the Orion vehicle.
@Major Tom,
Personally I prefer the term until “Hell freezes over” but “until the Moon crashes from its orbit” is more kid friendly and sounds good as a space age equivalent.
But seriously, do you really think Mark Whittington doesn’t understand basic astronomy? He’s been at this far longer then you have and even written a very good hard science novel on space. Please do some research on the poster before attacking them.
The calling card right now of the GOP just seems to be “opposition†for oppositions sake
It only “seems to be” that way to people who aren’t paying attention, or only get their news from selective sources.
But seriously, do you really think Mark Whittington doesn’t understand basic astronomy?
He doesn’t know about much of what he writes about, particularly space technology and policy. He’s a history major.
“The GOP is going to have to figure out if it is going to keep drifting toward the right wing…and losing election after election by default”
I’m inclined to disagree with you on this one. The reason the GOP is losing elections now is because they stopped living up to their rhetoric.
They like to talk a lot about limited less intrusive goverment, free market capitalism, the Constitution and lower taxes, but consider the following:
After 9/11 in a panic they enacted the Patriot Act, probably the single largest increase in government power, particularly executive power, in the history of the country. Not only that ,it’s unconstitutional as well. Was this a “conservative” thing to do?
Also after 9/11, in a panic, instead of correcting the systemic problems with our intelligence apparatus that was in no small part responsible for the failure to stop the attack before it happened, they just created the DHS, another level of burearocracy to “coordinate” the efforts of our various intelligence agencies. This just made the government even bigger. Was this “conservative”?
In 12 years of control of congress, 6 of which was with a GOP president, they did next to nothing to try and stem the tide of illegal immigration. Putting aside how people feel about the issue, it would have been nice if they had at least done something to help those who wish to become citizens do so (not blanket amnesty), while simultaneosly doing something about the drug and gun trafficking.
While they did cut taxes, they also increased spending which drove the deficit higher. Was that fiscally “conervative”?
Point of fact the only areas where they were still “conservative” is on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. And most of the country is not all that conservative on those issues. In fact I would argue that pushing for a consititutional ammendment to ban gay marriage (like Bush did) at the federal level is the opposite of small unintrusive governement. Sounds more like government mandated social engineering to me. Again, is that really “conservative” to anyone other than the so-called religous right?
So, I’m inclined to disagree because from what I’ve seen the GOP is not “drifting toward the right wing”, with the exception of the religous fundamentalist christian right wing that seems to think that everything will be hunky-dory if we can just stop women across the nation from having abortions and keep those gays from getting married. In every other respect they’re just “democrat-lite”.
One can yell and scream at Richard Shelby until the Moon crashes from its orbit, but one will not get around him.
Oh, I suspect that if Obama doesn’t ask for $3B/year more, or even asks for a reduction in the NASA budget, Sen. Shelby will be able to do little more than get red in the face and yell.
Rand Simberg wrote @ October 7th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
I wrote: The calling card right now of the GOP just seems to be “opposition†for oppositions sake
You replied: It only “seems to be†that way to people who aren’t paying attention, or only get their news from selective sources.
………………………..
hmm…at least in space policy I havent seen any “new ideas” from any of the GOP space representatives. Olsen, Shelby et al certianly are reading the tea leaves. This address by Shelby was nothing more then “dont blame me, blame Obama I am standing with the program” as was Olsen’s futile gesture.
None of them are proposing anything new or innovative in terms of a human spaceflight program. And one would think that they would do that…but no they are just in the “opposition” to change mode.
On the other topics of the day…I dont see much innovation either, but thats not the subject of this forum…as for news sources. I get it from a wide variety, not just one source….or one slant.
I didnt write the words you post on Whittington.
Robert G. Oler
I didnt write the words you post on Whittington.
I didn’t say you did. I was responding to multiple posts.
“I’m inclined to disagree with you on this one. The reason the GOP is losing elections now is because they stopped living up to their rhetoric.”
Sorry Loki but the GOP’s rethoric is exactly what Robert is talking about and has been since, when, Reagan? Focusing on emotional unresolvable issues that excite the masses. So basically if you don’t like what they offered why would you still vote for them? Even the GOP has democratically elected leaders, don’t they? If so they do represent “a” majority within the GOP.
[…] original here: Space Politics » Shelby: Augustine report “unsatisfactory and … Comments […]
“But seriously, do you really think Mark Whittington doesn’t understand basic astronomy?”
I don’t know what the poster does or does not understand. All I know is that his post contained a metaphor about space that was scientifically incorrect. On a board about space topics, that’s fair game for correction. If one is going to post to a board on space topics and claim to have some authority in the subject, then logically one’s posts should be scientifically accurate on those topics.
I will note that the same poster has recently written posts in other threads that exhibit fundamental ignorance about how inflation works and about the history of exploration. Again, I don’t know the poster and can’t say what he does or does not understand. For all I know, the poster knows that he’s posting these errors and is trolling to get a reaction. But on a board about policy and politics, these errors are fair game for correction. If one is going to post to a board on policy and politics and claim to have some authority in the subject, then logically one’s posts should be accurate on those topics.
“He’s been at this far longer then you have”
How do you know? Do you know my age, educational background, or work history?
Don’t make unsubstantiated statements.
And a poster’s background shouldn’t matter. They (or I) could be the village idiot, but if we got our facts right and our logic straight, then our arguments should stand on their own merit.
Argue the post, not the poster.
“even written a very good hard science novel on space.”
You have to be kidding. Several points:
1) Even the best science fiction is not science. It’s fiction. It’s not real. It’s not a basis for technical judgements.
2) If you’re talking about “Children of Apollo”, it’s a self-published work. The writer had to pay someone to print it for him. I’m not saying that folks can’t or shouldn’t write their own vanity works to entertain themselves, but we shouldn’t pretend that this work meets the same standards as a published novel.
3) Reading the Amazon reviews, it’s not a “good hard science novel” and is chock full of technical and historical errors. Here’s some excerpts:
“The technical errors concerning the Apollo program also showed a lack of basic research on the author’s part.”
“Then we have the technical errors. I will grant that the author is not an aerospace expert but for this book a modicum of research would have been required. Finding a pilot to answer a few questions would have greatly improved the test flight passages. Certainly no pilot would ever ‘jerk the joystick’. There’s no jerking involved. In fact no pilot would EVER call it a ‘joystick’. It’s just a stick.”
“space exploration is not inherently counter to liberal philosophy as the author suggests… Many conservatives were also against NASA and manned space exploration for fiscal reasons…”
“aerospace company McDonnell Douglas is constantly referred to as ‘MacDonell Douglas.'”
“Alan Shepard (the astronaut) is not spelled ‘Alan Shepherd'”
“Baikonour is spelled in three ways in the book…”
You may like this self-published work, which is fine. But based on these reviews, I wouldn’t argue that the work has even a rudimentary grasp of the aerospace sector during the Apollo era, nevertheless many of the engineering details involved.
“Please do some research on the poster before attacking them.”
Where did I attack the poster? I didn’t call him names or throw adjectives at him.
Please read and comprehend other people’s posts before responding.
Lawdy…
@Major Tom
You really stop attacking posters and focus on the post. Attacking people is more then calling them a name. Look at how you went through his book with a microscope to find things to make him look bad. And you don’t call that an attack on Mark?
Clearly what Mark was stating in his post was sarcasm yet you choose to treat it like a statement of fact so you could attack his intelligence.
Also if you know something about space policy you would be familiar with Mark’s op-ed and writings in newspapers like Space News. I may not agree with them, but he has been active in getting his views out there. The fact that you claim you don’t know who he is makes me wonder about your actual knowledge of space policy beyond the blogsphere.
Focusing on grammar on a discussion board is also another tactic you like to use to attack posters instead of focusing on the post. Discussion boards are not intended to be scientific papers, but discussions. They are not meant to be peer reviewed. Do you correct people that way when you are drinking with them at a pub? Or where ever you socialize when not online?
And again, where is Your space plan. I posted mine. You love to criticize the space plans and ideas of others but never offer any of your own. Do you have any? Or are you just a professional blog post “criticâ€.
As Robert Heinlein (I will assume you have heard of him) stated once on critics.
“A “critic” is a man who creates nothing and thereby feels qualified to judge the work of creative men. There is logic in this; he is unbiased — he hates all creative people equally.’
If you can’t stay contribute to moving the discussion forward then take your venomous criticism to other blogs where it will be appreciated.
I hope Jeff decides to moves to a registration system like NASA Watch has. It’s a great way for getting rid of “professional blog critics†like you. Or at least evaluating their qualifications to be a critic. It will also encourage a lot more professionals in the field to start posting here again under their name since they won’t have to worry about people like you attacking them.
Yuck!!! .
@ common sense:
“Sorry Loki but the GOP’s rethoric is exactly what Robert is talking about and has been since, when, Reagan?”
Maybe I misinterpreted what Robert was saying, but it seemed to me that he was taking the words/ deeds of a couple of legislators who happen to be republicans and using them to make broad generalizations about the entire party. There’s a lot of that kind of thing going around these days and liberal dems don’t have a monopoly on it either. But, whatever…
I think you may have misunderstood the point I was trying to make, so I’ll try one more time.
What I was trying to say was that IMO the republicans are losing elections because they turned AWAY from some conservative values (that’s probably a better word than “rhetoric”), specifically limited less intrusive government, the constitution (as it was originally intended) and fiscal responsibility.
In fact the only “traditional values” that republicans still stand for are moral values such as abortion and gay marriage. For some reason they seem to think that the government’s job is to decide who’s allowed to get married and who isn’t, and what’s moral and what isn’t. In actuality most people that I know would prefer for the federal government to stay the heck out of people’s personal lives, nor is it the government’s job to legislate morality at the federal level. Likewise, many people do still believe in the principles of small government, fiscal responsibility, etc etc, blah blah blah.
Because of that they lost their base with the exception of the fundamentalist “christian right”. Just look at the percentage of registered voters who are registered republicans. It’s been trending downward for some time now.
Anyway, this really doesn’t have anything to do with HSF, and I really didn’t intend to start a political p&*!@ing match, so I suggest we just agree to disagree. Besides, I’ve given up on having political debates with people.
“So basically if you don’t like what they offered why would you still vote for them?”
Whoever said that I did? Point of fact I’m unaffiliated and I try to make it a point to research the candidates before I vote, and if I can’t find a candidate I like, I just don’t bother. Like last year, I didn’t even bother voting for president because I thought both candidates sucked.
Loki/Common Sense.
we are all in pretty good agreement here…and space policy illustrates my point.
The GOP in my view (at least the right wing base) is no longer “conservative” if you are using the word as say Ronaldus the Great or Barry Goldwater or even Edmund Burke would have.
The GOP right wing has grown (as Loki hints at) as fond of government as a tool as the “left wing” is. Indeed the “left wing” isnt really “liberal” anymore either…but that is another story.
Burke’s theory in a nutshell is that conservatism is about “change” ocurring ‘organically’ meaning as a function of the sovereign (in our case thats the people) demanding and getting change. Burke’s repulsion to organized change (ie that of large groups imprinting society) came from the chaos of the French Revolution where essentially the ability of the common man to evolve (and in some cases survive) was stymied by the demands of group think.
the right wing of the GOP has devolved to this. “litmus test” abound…ie if you are not anti abortion (or pro endless tax cuts or…) then you are labeled a “RINO” (the Dems have the same thing)…the folks who have the litmus test are “the true believers” or as Christiane Amanpour (spell) put it “gods warriors”. Most of the time they are unable to sell their viewpoints to the rest of America, so they seek to impose them as a function of government. That brings us to space.
Simberg is correct, most of Shelby’s opposition to “change” in the space program comes from his “constituent service” approach. BUT the reality is that the right wing of the GOP (and Whittington represents this) has come to view their expressions of how government should be (and that includes a big government run space program) as expressions of the nation. The right wing loves to wrap itself in the flag, most of the time that is done through their love of the military (but generally not enough love to serve in it)…but human spaceflight is a good secondary mode.
As I noted in 04 on this board, the “vision” is just simply a big government space program accomplishing things that have no real value to The Republic, but do have value to the government institutions which it keeps afloat…and there is nothing “conservative” about that.
The other instances you (Loki) mention are similar ones of anti conservative thought but only if you are a true conservative…they fit quite in line with modern right wingers who view things like Homeland Security and Gitmo etc right in line with their view of how the state should operate.
I fear folks like that more then I do “lefties”. they would stifle the very core of American liberty..fortunately Bush did us a favor…he discredited them probably forever.
Robert G. Oler
Anon
I dont want to get in between you and “Major Tom” on this…but I would say this.
The currency of ideas is how they are represented, and if those ideas are represented carelessly then the ideas have little or no value. I think that Mark W was using a metaphor (and not a good one) in his discussion of Shelby but having said that it is representative of how careless Mark is sometimes with the facts.
Robert G. Oler
“You really stop attacking posters and focus on the post.”
You really should take a writing class. Your very first sentence is incoherent.
[rolls eyes]
“Attacking people is more then…”
You have to be kidding me. The poster stated that you, me, and every other “space advocate†participates in “posturing… that would put any politician to shame.”
But you somehow think I’m the one who’s “attacking people”?
Are you even reading these posts in full? Or are you just randomly trolling to get a reaction out of other posters?
“Look at how you went through his book with a microscope to find things to make him look bad.”
I didn’t go through the poster’s self-published vanity writing, with a microscope or otherwise. (I have no interest in reading it.) I quoted from several reviews of the poster’s vanity writing on Amazon. Other people wrote those reviews, not me. Don’t blame me for what other people wrote.
And don’t blame me if the poster’s self-published vanity writing is technically and historically inaccurate and contains little, if any,”hard science”. He wrote it. Not me.
“And you don’t call that an attack on Mark?”
No, it’s not. It’s a response to your statement that the poster wrote “a very good hard science novel on space.” Based on numerous reviews, the poster’s vanity writing contains very little, if any, “hard science”.
And, moreover, you brought up the poster’s vanity writing. Not me. If you don’t want the poster’s vanity writing exposed to criticism, then don’t bring it up.
“Also if you know something about space policy you would be familiar with”
How do you know what I am or am not familiar with? How do you know what I do or do not read? Or what periodicals I subscribe to? Or write for? Or serve on the editorial boards of?
For the second time, stop making unsubstantiated statements. If you can’t participate in a argument without making up facts, then leave. You’re wasting your time and the time of other posters.
“Mark’s op-ed and writings in newspapers like Space News.”
I don’t mean to denigrate anyone who reads or has written for Space News. It’s an important source of information for the sector. But there’s a reason these papers are called “industry rags”. They have to get a publication out every week, and to do so, they apply little discretion in terms of the content they accept.
There are scholarly journals of space policy or science and technology policy that subject submissions to rigorous, independent review. For example, see:
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30469/description#description
Getting published in those journals is saying something. Getting your letter to the editor published in an industry rag — not so much.
“The fact that you claim you don’t know who he is…”
Where did I say that?
For the third time, stop making unsubstantiated statements. If you can’t participate in a argument without making up facts, then leave. You’re wasting your time and the time of other posters.
“Focusing on grammar…”
I have not critiqued anyone’s grammar in this thread.
I did just critique your post because, as usual, it contains one or more incoherent sentences. It’s one thing to make a typo here or there. It’s another to repeatedly post incomplete and/or incomprehensible thoughts.
You can’t expect other posters to take you seriously if you can’t even get your own ideas ordered enough to put them into logical sequences and meaningful passages.
[continued in the next post]
[continued from prior post]
“And again, where is Your space plan.”
You have to be kidding. I provided a short, summary plan at the top of this discussion just a couple weeks ago here (add http://www.):
spacepolitics.com/2009/09/24/unconvinced-that-there-is-a-guiding-vision/#comments
I did the same here a couple weeks earlier, after assessing the chances of a $3B/yr. NASA budget increase:
spacepolitics.com/2009/09/14/congressional-reaction-to-the-augustine-report/#comments
In addition to those two posts, I checked the figures in an ATK astronaut’s op-ed in the Washington Times against ESAS figures and debunked them here:
spacepolitics.com/2009/09/29/brief-notes/#comments
I provided a summary of GAO’s latest Constellation report and pointed out several Constellation shortcomings that GAO missed here:
spacepolitics.com/2009/09/25/differing-takes-on-a-gao-report/#comments
And I provided calculations of what it would actually take to make use of the recently discovered transient lunar H2O and OH here:
spacepolitics.com/2009/09/25/lunar-water-and-space-policy/#comments
And that’s just in the past month.
Now, besides bad polling data, false statements, platitudes, generalities, and whiny trolling, what exactly have you contributed to this forum?
“If you can’t stay contribute to moving the discussion forward”
Correcting technically false statements, especially by posters who claim authority, does move a discussion forward by removing those statements from further consideration.
Telling posters who label and slander entire groups of people to take their ugliness elsewhere also moves a discussion by removing them from from the conversation.
If you want to waste your time by arguing over statements that are demonstrably false, be my guest. Just don’t do it here.
If you want to be slandered by someone just for being a member of a group, again, be my guest. Just don’t whine when others object to being treated that way.
“It will also encourage a lot more professionals in the field to start posting here again under their name…”
You do realize that whining about anonymous posting, when you’re posting under the screenname “Anon”, is the height of hypocrisy, right?
Please tell me you realize this now, because it’s the second time it’s been pointed out to you in as many threads. Surely no one is that dense.
Oy vey…
Potentially big news…
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0910/07obama/#
FWIW…
Robert:
Good comments above. I think I may have misunderstood some of the things you had said previously. Unfortunately a lot of people use the terms Republican/ GOP, right wing, and conservative interchageably. I may have assumed you were also. Thanks for clearing that up. I was refering to “classical” conservatives like Reagan and Goldwater types. I’ve heard some people use the term neo-conservatives to describe Bush/ Cheney and other modern day “right wingers”. That probably fits them better than “conservative”.
As for Shelby, I think it’s probably safe to say his opposition to change and support for Ares is probably not based on any kind of ideology. If he was approaching the issue from some kind of ideological point of view I could at least have some respect for him, even though I’d still disagree.
He’s most likely just defending his piece of the pork pie while posturing himself for his next re-election campaign. He’ll go back to the people of AL and tell them all about how he “fought for their jobs” yadda yadda. In short, he’s just another unprincipled politician fighting for his place at the federal feeding trough.
I’ve heard some people use the term neo-conservatives to describe Bush/ Cheney and other modern day “right wingersâ€. That probably fits them better than “conservativeâ€.
All of these terms are pretty meaningless. “Neocon” in particular has become extremely mindless, simply meaning “evil people with whose politics I disagree,” when it’s not simply rank anti-semitism. You can pretty safely discount the opinions of anyone who uses it.
You can pretty safely discount the opinions of anyone who uses it.
No Rand, you can, I can think for myself, thank you. I don’t need an authority figure (which for some idiotic reason you always think is you) to think for me.
Loki
Loki wrote @ October 8th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Robert:
Good comments above.
thanks
you wrote : ” Thanks for clearing that up. I was refering to “classical†conservatives like Reagan and Goldwater types. I’ve heard some people use the term neo-conservatives to describe Bush/ Cheney and other modern day “right wingers—
Neocons are part of what I was talking about, although they are primarily labels for a particular world view. Rand is incorrect…”neocon” is not “evil people with whose politics I disagree”…nor is it “anti semitism” …
it is a description of those who want to be called conservatives (ie they are conservatives in most domestic issues)… but have completly abandoned a “conservative” view of the world. They are the folks who I mentioned who have wrapped themselves in the concept of a “big power” Republic.
Classic “big power” conservatives (like Goldwater and Reagan) believed that American power should be used to further American interest…and they were reluctant to extend the definition of “American interest” to using American power to “enforce democracy” around the world.
In the neo con world it is simple. America has a big military, the most powerful on the planet, we should use it without being provoked ie unilaterally in places where we think we can plant democracy and those regions are important to the US. Most even morph the “democracy” part of it to where it is just simply “a government we like” (or who likes us).
Most (but not all) of these people were players in the first Bush administration who lost out to folks like Colin P, Brent S, and the like in the first gulf war when we decided to leave Saddam in power. Cheney is a notable exception, he was all for stopping in the first gulf war, but after his third heart attack (literally) changed his mind and became part of the “we have to take Saddam out” group.
Problem for these people is that The American people are not that blood thirsty. So to make things like regime change happen, the neo cons in the last Bush administration started to “exaggerate” (and I am being kind) how big a threat Saddam was. Saddam went from no real threat at all (in terms of the rhetoric) in the sleepy summer of 01 down in Crawford to the fall of 02, he was “storm clouds gathering near our shores, the next smoking gun could be in the form of a smoking mushroom”. None of this was true of course, and if the administration had told the American people “there is a 1 percent chance of it” then the American people would have yawned and said “no”…instead we were on the verge of being bombed by balsa airplanes…
Going around willy nilly doing “regime change” for no real reason is not only not prudent, but it has nothing to do with “real conservatism”…it is more this right wing macho group think that tends to smother serious thought (as evidenced by the debate leading up to the invasion of Iraq).
This is one reason that the right likes a government space program…it seems macho and neat and well we are right now the only country that can remotly afford it (even though we deficit spend for it)…and hence folks like Whittington see it as part of American manhood.
Conservatism is not a set of policies or ideas…it is a concept of how change occurs in a Republic where the people are sovereign. Hence if the people want a “single payer” health care system…
Robert G. Oler
it is a description of those who want to be called conservatives (ie they are conservatives in most domestic issues)… but have completly abandoned a “conservative†view of the world.
Once again demonstrating that people who use the word have no idea what it means.
This is one reason that the right likes a government space program…it seems macho and neat and well we are right now the only country that can remotly afford it (even though we deficit spend for it)…and hence folks like Whittington see it as part of American manhood.
And also demonstrating that “the right” is a completely malleable and meaningless phrase as well.
‘Authoritarian’ is pretty specific Rand. That’s you. And your groupies.
““So basically if you don’t like what they offered why would you still vote for them?†Whoever said that I did? Point of fact I’m unaffiliated and I try to make it a point to research the candidates before I vote, and if I can’t find a candidate I like, I just don’t bother. Like last year, I didn’t even bother voting for president because I thought both candidates sucked.”
All right. I misinterpreted your statement prior. I will admit that I felt you were somehow defending the GOP’s position and it got me fuming for all the reasons above. My apologies.
“Potentially big news…”
Are you suggesting that this President in this WH might support HSF??? You must be dreaming!
Hope?
At the risk of pulling the comments even furhter off topic…
“And also demonstrating that “the right†is a completely malleable and meaningless phrase as well.”
Most political labels are malleable. For instance Thomas Jefferson, 200 years ago, was considered a “liberal” in his day. Look at Jefferson’s writings and speeches and see if he has anything in common with today’s “liberals”. You won’t find much, because when most people hear that word today they immediately picture pro big government tax and spend (usually) democrats.
That’s because collectivists purloined the word liberal from the true classical liberals, who founded the nation and believed (and continue to believe) in small government, individualism, free markets, and free expression. I continue to wage a quixotic battle to take it back. I refuse to call these “progressives” (they aren’t that, either) “liberals.”
“All right. I misinterpreted your statement prior. I will admit that I felt you were somehow defending the GOP’s position and it got me fuming for all the reasons above. My apologies.”
No problem. As myself and others have touched on various labels such as conservative/ liberal, right wing/ left wing, etc. often times mean different things to different people. That makes it easy to misinterpret things. I’m guilty of it myself sometimes, as you can see from the comments in this thread.
Take what back, Rand? Your authority?
Progressives simply acknowledge that we’re all constructed of the same amino acids, mineral and salts, and we all come from the same planet.
If that’s ‘collectivism’, then so be it. The reason progressives are interested in human space flight and space development and colonization, is so that you authoritarians can escape and exercise your authority over yourselves, and not authorize your idiotic values, morals and ‘tastes’ onto the rest of us.
“No problem. As myself and others have touched on various labels such as conservative/ liberal, right wing/ left wing, etc. often times mean different things to different people. That makes it easy to misinterpret things. I’m guilty of it myself sometimes, as you can see from the comments in this thread.”
I think what is missing in your list are “realists”. Sometime a free market based approach, a la COTS, might be THE answer at that particular time. Just like a health care single payer may be THE answer today. Not one realist would tell you that this has to be set in stone for ever. And what makes (made?) the strength of the USA was to quickly react and adapt to different socio-economic environments. Is this still true? It does not erally feel so. Of course if any one of the party figures were to say something like this above then they would lose their support! “You are a liberal”, “You are a conservative” to be polite. I thought that this President was the closest to a “realist” I’ve heard in years. So we’ll see how it pans out but here again I am not holding my breath.
Rand Simberg wrote
:”And also demonstrating that “the right†is a completely malleable and meaningless phrase as well.”
not really.
to paraphrase “the prophet” “you are known by your works” and while the neocons, and the last administration which was full of them (as well as right wingers) would prefer that things be labeled to please the people (dead enders etc).
Their works label them otherwise. In the end it comes down to the fact that the right wing and the neocons of the GOP are unable to fairly represent themselves and their product to the American people…and they were tossed for it.
I am sure that is annoying to those who blindly followed them, but that is how it is.
Robert G. Oler
In the end it comes down to the fact that the right wing and the neocons of the GOP are unable to fairly represent themselves and their product to the American people…and they were tossed for it.
This “right wing and neocons of the GOP” remains a product of your fetid imagination, just like Mark’s “Internet Rocketeer Club.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factions_in_the_Republican_Party_(United_States)
“Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, and which supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries.”
Right or left it is just plain WRONG and FEEBLE!
Whatever…
Right or left it is just plain WRONG and FEEBLE!
Yeah, to heck with that liberalism, human rights and democracy stuff. It’s just awful.
“Yeah, to heck with that liberalism, human rights and democracy stuff. It’s just awful.”
So, to you, imposing “democracy” by force is okay? What if it were reversed and some country would think “heck my military is stronger than the US and my democracy is better, I should invade the US and impose my model?” Would that be okay to you? Come on! This is the kind of thinking that led to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetenland After all the Czechs there were Germans and ought to be ruled by Germany and their political model… Invading Iraq to enforce democracy? Any idea what the people over there want? Get a grip! I can’t believe this is still debated.
No, Shelby is right, some work on Constellation (Ares V and Altair) has stopped when it was decided to have a HSF panel.
So, to you, imposing “democracy†by force is okay?
We’re getting way off topic now, but it depends. Was it an awful thing to do to Japan?
This is the kind of thinking that led to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetenland After all the Czechs there were Germans and ought to be ruled by Germany and their political model
Are you really saying that the Nazis invaded the Sudetenland to impose democracy?
Invading Iraq to enforce democracy? Any idea what the people over there want?
We know they didn’t want Saddam. Once he was removed, what were we supposed to do? Turn them over to some other thug, who would be our thug?
“Was it an awful thing to do to Japan?”
No, nor was it to Germany but we were at war with them and if I remember correctly THEY started the war. Not the case with Iraq. Even Afghanistan is not that clear. If I remember correctly most attackers on 9/11 were Saudis… So should we do the same to Saudi Arabia? Then again it was not an explicit act from the kingdom so… Ennemy combatants maybe? Anyway.
“Are you really saying that the Nazis invaded the Sudetenland to impose democracy?”
No of course not. I am saying that the Nazis said these are German people and they ought to be living under Germany’s rules. At the time Germany was one of the most powerful country and were able, for a while, to impose their views. That is all I am saying.
“We know they didn’t want Saddam. Once he was removed, what were we supposed to do? Turn them over to some other thug, who would be our thug?”
Saddam was put there and/or supported by the western democracies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein We should not have attacked in the first place. Any one with any history sense would tell you that both wars cannot be won in the usual sense. So now we’re screwed. We’ll eventually leave there the tail between our legs. And please the US military designed to counter the soviet military attacking sanctionned Iraq? Sure the Iraq military failed! Could we have done any better/worse? How about the aftermath? Anyone thinking of it? So once we’re gone who’s going to rule the place? In Afghanistan it already is the local thugs. So I assume we’ll see the success of the “strategy”.
Yes it is off topic and I don’t think I started this but I cannot just stay on the side. Sorry.
No, Shelby is right
Oh look, it’s yet another forty year old Ares I supporter.
Worst insult ever.
No, nor was it to Germany but we were at war with them and if I remember correctly THEY started the war. Not the case with Iraq.
We had been at war with Saddam’s regime since 1990, when he started it by invading Kuwait, and he had never abided by the truce agreements, or the seventeen Security Council resolution against him. He was attempting to shoot down our aircraft patrolling under UN auspices, he was diverting oil-for-food money from his own people to palaces and bribes; he was funding terrorism against us and Israel.
But this is all irrelevant and off topic to the (other) off-topic point of what a “neocon” is. It is, simply, a former “liberal” who had a road-to-Damascus moment on foreign policy. The canonical examples are the recently departed Irving Kristol, and Norman Podhoretz. The notion that George Bush or Dick Cheney are or were ever “neocons” is laughably idiotic, which is why it’s generally safe to assume that anyone using it as a general epithet to criticize them or their foreign policy can be safely discounted.
And none of this has anything to do with space policy, which is a bipartisan disaster.
“We had been at war with Saddam’s regime since 1990, when he started it by invading Kuwait, and he had never abided by the truce agreements, or the seventeen Security Council resolution against him. He was attempting to shoot down our aircraft patrolling under UN auspices, he was diverting oil-for-food money from his own people to palaces and bribes; ”
I see. Funny I was under the impression we went to war because he was preparing WMDs. I must have gotten the wrong message then. Should we invade Saudi Arabia then? Because they are funding terrorists organization now. How about Syria? Lebanon? Indonesia? Need more? How about North Korea? Why don’t we invade? Could it be they actually HAVE WMDs?
“he was funding terrorism against us and Israel.”
Any proof of that? Or is it like WMDs?
“And none of this has anything to do with space policy, which is a bipartisan disaster.”
On that we do agree.
“The notion that George Bush or Dick Cheney are or were ever “neocons†is laughably idiotic”
Where do you put Paul Wolfowitz then? Neocon? Not neocon? Did he have any role in all that mess? What do you think?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz
“As Deputy Secretary of Defense, he was “a major architect of President Bush’s Iraq policy and … its most hawkish advocate.”[5][6] After serving two years, he resigned as president of the World Bank Group “ending a protracted and tumultuous battle over his stewardship, sparked by a promotion he arranged for his companion.”[7][8] Wolfowitz is a leading neoconservative.[9]”
Actually I would say that even these wars were a bipartisan disaster considering Congress’s actions…
Funny I was under the impression we went to war because he was preparing WMDs. I must have gotten the wrong message then.
You did. There were many reasons stated. Go back and read the 2003 State of the Union. If you were misinformed, blame your media.
Any proof of that?
He was openly and proudly giving a bounty of $25,000 to the families of Arabs who murdered Israelis in ice-cream parlors and kindergartens in suicide attacks. He also had a terrorist training camp at Salman Pak. He also provided a safe haven for Zarqawi, among other terrorists. Here’s a little history from Christopher Hitchens, if you’re really interested:
http://www.slate.com/id/2108636/
Where do you put Paul Wolfowitz then? Neocon? Not neocon? Did he have any role in all that mess? What do you think?
He had a role in the policy. As to whether he is a “neocon” or not, only he knows. I have no opinion, and I don’t really know why it would matter. Wikipedia is not a very reliable source on controversial issues like this.
“You did. There were many reasons stated. Go back and read the 2003 State of the Union. If you were misinformed, blame your media.”
You’re kidding right? Are you denying the whole smoking gun mushroom bs cloud campaign. Did you check what media “you” were checking then? Fox News maybe? http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr.smoking.gun/
“He was openly and proudly giving a bounty of $25,000 to the families of Arabs who murdered Israelis in ice-cream parlors and kindergartens in suicide attacks. He also had a terrorist training camp at Salman Pak. He also provided a safe haven for Zarqawi, among other terrorists. Here’s a little history from Christopher Hitchens, if you’re really interested:”
I did not say Saddam was a Saint and Saddam was in part installed by us when it “fit” our interests. So these are real lame excuses for a war of this magnitude. If so we should take care of other countries actively promoting and financing terrorism and we are not. Worse we are not even taking care of those who attacked us.
“He had a role in the policy. As to whether he is a “neocon†or not, ”
Only a role? http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43339-2003Apr6?language=printer
“The principal reason for going after Hussein, Wolfowitz argued, was the direct threat the Iraqi leader posed to U.S. national security through his possession of weapons of mass destruction. ”
Look you can live in denial as much you want but the facts are the facts and Iraq is a failure politically, and security wise. An abominable failure. We just created generations of terrorists over there. Dis you really think that they would see us as libertators like 1945 France? Flower and music?
This thread has gotten hopelessly off-topic and should probably be locked.
This thread has gotten hopelessly off-topic and should probably be locked.
Go back to NSF and USF where you belong.
I am not an engineer. So I just believe what I read:
Says it all.
I agree.
Rand Simberg wrote @ October 8th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
We had been at war with Saddam’s regime since 1990, ..
this is off topic but it speaks to the state of reality you operate in.
We were no more at war with Saddam pre our invasion then we were with Nazi Germany when we were engaging their Uboats and they were sinking our DD’s…pre 10 Dec 1941.
Bush and his neocons exaggerated many reasons to invade Iraq…and you may not be able to deal with that (or the fact that they were neo cons) …but that is reality
Robert G. Oler
Only a role?
Yes. Only a role. The fact that he made a statement about the reason doesn’t change that.
Are you denying the whole smoking gun mushroom bs cloud campaign. Did you check what media “you†were checking then?
Did you read the State of the Union address? I’m pretty sure that was broadcast on other networks than Fox News. It was delivered by the president, not Paul Wolfowitz.
What is this fetish that when people are losing an argument, they have to trot out the evil Fox News?
I did not say Saddam was a Saint and Saddam was in part installed by us when it “fit†our interests. So these are real lame excuses for a war of this magnitude.
You asked me for evidence that he supported terrorism. I answer the question, and you raise the bar. and change the subject (and spout nonsense like “we installed Saddam”). I guess it’s a waste of time to discuss this with you any further. I agree that the thread should be locked, since no one wants to discuss actual space policy here. They just want to blame everything on the BusHitler.
Rand Simberg wrote @ October 8th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
You asked me for evidence that he supported terrorism…
gee
Saddam and terrorism.
The statement by Cheney that linked Saddam with terrorism that got the American people all excited (and willing to go to war) was that Cheney kept repeating that there were links to Atta and Iraqi intel…indeed Cheney (and Rice) kept claiming over and over that those links were certian…
when in fact they were not. No intellegence agency that the US traditionally relies on (like our own or those of major European powers) were confirming the meeting, even MI 6 was saying that it was bogus (as was our own CIA)…even the agency that originally reported it was backing away from it, as Cheney was saying it was more and more certian
This is Cheney on MTP
““It’s been pretty well confirmed that [Mohamed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.â€
what makes that interesting is that Cheney made that assertion on
December 9 2001…
the DCI told him on Sept 21 2001…
“”Our Prague office is skeptical about the report. It just doesn’t add up.”
so dont pull out some minor links that Saddam had to terrorism, and mostly he is just pooping on the IDF which they did on him as well.
Robert G. Oler
Please stop blathering, Robert. It was possible to link Saddam to terrorism with no mention whatsoever of Atta, which I did. Sorry you weren’t paying attention, because you’re so obsessed with the “neocon” (what a stupidity — Cheney has been a conservative all his life, once again demonstrating your utter ignorance of the meaning of the word) Dick Cheney.
Rand Simberg wrote @ October 8th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Please stop blathering, Robert. It was possible to link Saddam to terrorism with no mention whatsoever of Atta, which I did.
Rand…please pay attention
It was maybe possible to link Saddam to Terrorism but that is not what the Administration chose as its main link. What they chose was a lie that Dick Cheney kept repeating over and over…and you must have bought.
Go back and read the concept of “the right wing” and it all might make sense.
Cheney has been a “conservative” all his life. the “neonut” (or neocon) came after his third heart attack. As General Scowcroft said “he became a person I did not recognize”
facts are tough things Rand
Robert G. Oler
It was maybe possible to link Saddam to Terrorism but that is not what the Administration chose as its main link.
I was responding to a question about how Saddam supported terrorism. Try reading what was actually posted before your next bout of keyboard diarrhea. There was a reason I banned you from my comments section. It is on full display here, and in other posts here. As Anne Spudis pointed out, it is not necessary to do a core dump of every neuron firing in your brain.
Go back and read the concept of “the right wing†and it all might make sense.
I did. As usual, things you write rarely make sense.
Cheney has been a “conservative†all his life. the “neonut†(or neocon) came after his third heart attack.
That is absolutely nutty. He wasn’t a “conservative” all his life. He was a conservative. He remains one. One cannot become a “neocon” after having been a conservative all one’s life, regardless of their coronary condition. To think one can is only to flaunt one’s ignorance of the meaning of the word.
facts are tough things Rand
No one should have learned that hard lesson more than you. Yet you don’t.
Since this conversation has run its course, comments are now closed.
[…] Shelby: Augustine report “unsatisfactory and disappointing†– Space Politics […]