's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

anybody heard about the Poindexter appointment?(64 posts)

anybody heard about the Poindexter appointment?MJ
Nov 19, 2002 1:16 AM,12271,843074,00.html

shouldn't we be worried when the US appoints a convicted felon to head up an intelligence gathering unit?

why isn't anybody asking questions about this?
Worried? Maybe; Concerned? Maybe not.TJeanloz
Nov 19, 2002 5:52 AM
Who's to say that a convicted felon isn't the best man for the job? And if he is the best man for the job, should a nearly two-decades old conviction keep him from it? I don't know enough about the affair to pass judgement, and I don't believe what I read in the Guardian, so I don't have anything relevant to say about this particular appointment. But it seems to me that a felony conviction should not, in and of itself, prevent one from serving the public- Marion Barry was re-elected after all.
Worried? Maybe; Concerned? Maybe not.MJ
Nov 19, 2002 7:09 AM
while you may not agree with the political slant of the Guardian - I've not seen any factual innacuracies in the paper - certainly this is story is accurate - disagree with the commentary but you can't disagree with a fact

fact is - Poindexter was convicted on felony charges in respect to Iran-Contra

fact is - he is now appointed to a super snooping government agency

if he couldn't be trusted to act within the law in fairly clear parameters how can he be trusted to act within the law when there are few guiding parameters - it seems with his record he'd be the last person you'd want on the job

rather than passing judgment maybe you could just clarify if you think it's a good thing to appoint convicted felons to spy on anyobdy they see fit after having abused previous positions of power

Barry was elected - Poindexter was/is being appointed - there's a big difference in that

FWIW other UK/Euro newspapers have reported on the appointment with a few eyebrows raised across the political spectrum
Nov 19, 2002 7:22 AM
Are not what they always appear to be.

Fact: Abraham Lincoln was responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of Confederate citizens

Fact: Abraham Lincoln was responsible for the restoration of the Union.

Nov 19, 2002 10:45 AM
Abraham Lincoln was convicted of murder?
Nov 19, 2002 4:00 PM
Responsible. I assume you can read, as you continue to post your misguided responses to discussion topics. It does appear, however, that you have a problem with comprehension, as you insist that "responsible" means the same as "convicted", which it does not. It must be all that tear gas you inhaled at the last WTO convention you attended.

Facts are not always facts. It depends on who is interpreting the information.

Sorry I confused you.czardonic
Nov 19, 2002 4:26 PM
I was hinting in my own subtle way that murder is a legal term meaning the unlawful killing of another person. Thus, even if Abraham Lincoln is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Confederate citizens (can one be a citizen if one seceeds?), if he has not been convicted of killing them unlawfully, you have no bases to claim that he committed murder. Get it?

Facts are indeed, always facts by definition. People who attempt to reserve a degree of ambiguity or room for interpretation among in the realm of "facts", are better known as "liars". Then again, maybe you were just mistaken.
I'm not confusedmoneyman
Nov 20, 2002 7:47 AM
But you appear to be.

The people of the South considered themselves to be citizens of the Confederacy. Fact.

Lincoln said the states could not secede. Fact.

Lincoln ordered the Federal Army to attack the southern states. He defeated the Rebels and preserved the Union. Fact.

Lincoln ordered the Federal Army to attack the sovereign nation of the Confederacy. He was responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of Confederate citizens who were protecting their homes. Fact.

There is nothing untrue about any of the statements. These are all well documented, verifiable facts. The statements appear to contradict each other, which is also a fact. Which of these "facts" is wrong? And are the Confederate sympathizers "liars" or are the Union supporters "liars"?

If you had studied history, you would realize that all facts are not equal. There is plenty of room for interpretation and ambiguity in the presentation of a "fact". Did you miss class the day they discussed that? You were probably lobbing Molotv cocktails at the riot police while your parents were spending their hard-earned rewards of capitalism on your failed college education.

Nov 20, 2002 8:10 AM
Yes master, he has a point. Are you a Weatherman or an SLA sleeper? What were you doing that day in history class?
Sorry, you seem confused.czardonic
Nov 20, 2002 12:04 PM
Especially because I explained to you that "murder" is a legal term, and thus to be guilty of "murder" one must be convicted in a court of law. I apologize if I did not explain this to your satisfaction.

While it is a "fact" that one can claim anything to be a "fact," the ultimate "fact" is that "facts" can be proven while your "interpretations" can not. But again, if your "History" books include documentation of Linclon's trial and conviction for murder, you can be forgiven. Otherwise, you are lying when you call it a "well documented, verifiable fact." No?

All "facts" are indeed equal. Where the "facts" are unknown or unverifiable, as is often the case with long past events, interpretation is our only recourse. I think this is where you are getting confused. Interpretations (not facts) may not be equal. A given interpretation is judged by its ability to reconcile what facts can be known of verified.

Thus, if "Confederate citizens" (or "traitorous rednecks", as they are known among my commrades) can show records that prove that Lincoln ordered the deaths of Confederate "citizens", then then it is a fact that he was responsible for their deaths. Even without such documents, the fact that Lincoln commanded the Union Army makes the interpretation that he was responsible for these deaths reasonable. However, unless you can point to a trial and conviction for murder, it is a lie to refer to Lincoln as a murderer.

I hope this clears things up for you.
Minor correction53T
Nov 20, 2002 1:50 PM
People of the South considered themselves to be citizens of whatever soverign State they resided, like Alabama, or Georgia. The dual citizenship concept (State/United States)was only formalized after the civil war in the fourteenth amendment.

BTW George Washington ordered the killing of hundreds of soldiers of the army of his own King. He is a national hero.
And that's a fact!moneyman
Nov 20, 2002 7:15 PM

Nice Try,TJeanloz
Nov 19, 2002 7:27 AM
I'm mildly bored, so I took the effort to look into the "facts" here. Poindexter was convicted of a felony, but the conviction was OVERTURNED by an appellate court. So, yes, he is technically a convicted felon, because he was convicted by a jury. Even the Guardian is wise enough to point this out (though vaguely). It seems mildly unfair to judge a man based on a conviction that was not upheld. A bit like continuing to punish somebody who was wrongly convicted of murder.

If Poindexter is the best man for the job, he should have it. Obviously, his past needs to be figured in, but after that analysis is done, if he remains the best man for the job, he should have it. Do I think he is the best man for the job? I have no idea. On the surface, it doesn't look like it- considering his past; but I don't have nearly enough information about him, and the other job candidates, to make a reasonable judgement on whether or not he should have been appointed. My eyebrows are raised, but I don't make appointment decisions, so that's where it ends.
The Guardian is always right?TJeanloz
Nov 19, 2002 7:39 AM
Like I said, I'm bored and empowered with Google.

And it should be noted that the Guardian has been on the losing end of a number of libel claims.
The Guardian is always right?MJ
Nov 19, 2002 7:48 AM
that guy was convicted by a court (not of his peers) - anybody can set up a website if they get upset (admittedly it is a good one though)

any other evidence re this?

BTW - I don't buy everything I read in any publication also I do get through a fair number of dailies and periodicals (biased towards left and right) - it just seems the Guardian provokes more, er, interaction here than the FT...

but if you wanna talk about all things FT fire away
hey scruffyduncanMJ
Nov 19, 2002 7:49 AM
what say you re this? you work there after all...
what about this?trekkie1
Nov 19, 2002 7:05 AM

No Less Than SEVENTY TWO Violations of the UNITED STATES CODE:
The President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, is both responsible for his own personal acts in office and for those appointed by him when he appears to tolerate the misconduct of others under his governance. When apologists for gross injustice insist that the American people are unable to offer "specifics" of laws which appear to have been violated by the President's administration, the People respectfully submit the following references, publicly known which involve:
Bribery, Graft, Conflict of Interest and Other Violations of Public Trust:

(18 USC 3), Accessories After the Fact. The White House knowingly comforted and/or otherwise hindered apprehension of those who violated campaign funding laws, some of whom have evidently fled to foreign countries.
(18 USC 4), Misprison of Felony (Having knowledge of, and approving, numorous felonies committed by his staff in the White House, i.e. the raiding of Vince Foster's office after his death, the illegal solicitation of political funds by Gore and others, etc.)
(18 USC 13), Assimilative Crimes Act (Actions and practices promoting anti-competitive combinations in violation of the appropriate anti-trust statutes).
(18 USC 201(b)) Offering A Bribe (Hush money to Webb Hubbell)
(18 USC 201(c)), Seeking or Accepting A Bribe, and (18 USC 1957), Hobbs Act (Though Maggie Williams and others, Clinton and DNC sought and received millions of dollars from Shady contributors like Charlie Trie, Wang Jun, Jonny Chung, Pauline Kanchanalak, and many others in exchange for policy decisions favorable to their business interests in Asia.)
(18 USC 201(d)), Offering a Bribe to a Witness (Hush money to Webb Hubbell)
(18 USC 201 (e)), Seeking or Accepting a Bribe as a Witness (Whitewater, Cattlegate)
(18 USC 201(f)), Offering Gratuities or Graft to a Public Official (Hush money to Webb Hubbell)
(18 USC 201(g)), Soliciting or Accepting Illegal Gratuities (Vice President Gore)
(18 USC 201(h)) Offering Gratuities to a Witness (Hush money to Webb Hubbell)
(18 USC 201(a)) Seeking or Accepting Illegal Compensation (The White House's campaign through the media to obtain donations to "legal defense" slush funds)
(18 USC 203(b) Offering Illegal Compensation to a Government Employee (The White House creation of "legal defense" slush funds)
(18 USC 205) Illegal Activities in Connection With Claims (Whitewater affair)
(18 USC 207 (a)) Conflict of Interest by Former Employees (Webb Hubbell taking large pay-offs from special interests with ties to US agencies.)
(18 USC 207 (g)) Illegal Activities by Partners of Federal Officers (First Lady actions in the Heath Care "reform" process banning the publicfrom meetings and participation provided under the Sunshine Act, and the Administrative Procedures Act.)
(18 USC 208(a)) Acts Affecting a Personal Financial Interest (Whitewater, interference with RTC investigations).
(18 USC 209(a) Receiving Dual Compensation (Clinton "Legal Defense" Funds)
18 USC 210) Offering to Procure an Appointive Public Office (The Clinton reelection campaign, indicated its readiness to make government appointments based upon non-merit factors of race, gender, and national original as part of a scheme to obtain votes).
(18 USC 211) Soliciting to Obtain Appointive Public Office (The Clinton reelection campaign, indicated its readiness to make government appointments based upon non-merit factors of race, gender, and national origin as part of a scheme to obtain votes).
(18 USC 211) Accepting a Fee for Federal Employment (The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee appointed ambassadors and others based upon the monetary ("soft money") contributions made by the nominee. i.e. M. Larry Lawrence, Mr. Hormel, etc.)
(18 USC 371) Conspiracy to commit any offense against the United States (i.e. all the f
I didn'tMJ
Nov 19, 2002 7:11 AM
realise Clinton was being appointed to head up a government spy agency - or that he was a convicted felon

did you read/hear something I didn't?
convicted? no.trekkie1
Nov 19, 2002 8:15 AM
I guess you missed the point. Then again, I know you didn't. You just don't want to acknowledge it.

I'll be more clear: There is clear precedent from the Clinton administration that committing a crime is not grounds for denial of an appointment, election to office, or remaining in office.
You are right, butEager Beagle
Nov 19, 2002 8:18 AM
it is splendid grounds for undermining the integrity of the system. Which is probably not helpful at a time where the US appears keen to be seen to be a nice clean reasonable democracy?
convicted? no.MJ
Nov 19, 2002 8:32 AM
agree with Eager Beagle

there's a big difference in an elected official and an appointed official

I didn't realise that Bush wanted to follow so closely in Clinton's footsteps - is that what you're trying to say?
who's we?mohair_chair
Nov 19, 2002 7:29 AM
Why are you worried? You aren't even in the USA.
who's we?MJ
Nov 19, 2002 7:39 AM
I understand the spying powers extend to anybody anywhere - I'm that we

US political decisions affect people outside the US

should you be worried about the appointment?
who's we?mohair_chair
Nov 19, 2002 8:05 AM
The spying powers of the USA abroad have not changed because of this appointment. This is a domestic issue. I guess if you were worried about the USA spying on you before, you should continue to be, because nothing has changed.

Of course the British government would never spy on its own citizens, or citizens abroad. Just the big bad ol' U.S. of A., out to subjugate peoples everywhere.
who's we?MJ
Nov 19, 2002 8:26 AM
spying is a necessarry fact of life - I want those who do it to be damn good at it - whether it be the US or the UK

the point is (which you seem to be avoiding) - is that it's more than questionable to involve someone with Poindexter's background to head such an enterprise

the agency which he is being appointed to lead is not a domestic only affair - and its powers/resources are apparently greater than other spy agencies

if you wanna take shots at the UK go ahead - I'll probably agree with you

do you have anything to say about the Poindexter appointment or not?
He's the perfect man for the jobmohair_chair
Nov 19, 2002 8:40 AM
Your whole point is that he is a criminal, and therefore a bad, bad, man. Well, who best to spy on criminals than a criminal? Who best to know what the bad guys are doing than a bad guy himself? Do you want some prissy high brow aristocrat from Oxford or Yale?

Here's what you refuse to understand: the spy business is amoral. I don't think it's questionable, I think it's perfect. You've totally convinced me. The best man for the job is the one who has the least scruples. The one who is not afraid to get his hands dirty. The one who knows he will have to pay for doing something illegal that really needs to be done, and does it anyway. Is there a better candidate than Pointdexter?
When does your essay have to be inEager Beagle
Nov 19, 2002 8:42 AM
I assume this is practice?

Do you get more marks for spelling or for argument - the former I hope.

damp squib nmmohair_chair
Nov 19, 2002 8:46 AM
Look at it this wayEager Beagle
Nov 19, 2002 9:00 AM
The US is a big country; famous for it. Lots of people in it; well-known fact.

Are you really seriously suggesting this man is the best she can offer for this job?

Doesn't that strike you as just a tincy wincy bit worrying?

Interesting concept by the way. Why not just empty all the prisions and give all the ex-cons full police powers - that should clear up crime in an instant, taking your argument to just one logical conclusion?
there's plenty of gang members out thereMJ
Nov 19, 2002 8:54 AM
who can do the dirty work too - some of them can even read

I think you are confusing real life with that Vin Diesel film XXX
since when are gang members spies?mohair_chair
Nov 19, 2002 9:07 AM
That's a really pathetic reply. Pretty close to an adhominem, which shows that you have no reply.

As an aside, if there ever is a need for some kind of national gang office, I certainly hope they employ gang members. White bread kids from the suburbs cannot possibly understand gang life at a level deep enough to deal with it.
since when are gang members spies?MJ
Nov 19, 2002 9:16 AM
I can't wait till they have keyboards with built-in I.Q. sensors; it will put a stop to all this nonsense....

normally gang members aren't spies then again neither are convicted felons in most countries...

at least TJean can string an intelligent argument together -the XXX strategy you so love is ridiculous - I hope you aren't serious and are just trolling
Nov 19, 2002 9:30 AM
The fact that you seriously read the Guardian shows that logic and reality rarely meet in your world. From what I can tell, you have this bizarre dream that we can defeat bad guys through niceties and due process and smiles. Grow up! Defeating bad guys on the level we have been dealing with is very messy and unpleasant business, and I want my country to have the baddest guys on the block.

I've never seen XXX by the way, but you seem to be fixated on it. If that is your vision of an intelligence agency, then you are right, Pointdexter is no the man to head it. Bruce Willis or Wesley Snipes are better candidates.

Perhaps if you watched some more intelligent fare, you might have more intelligent comments to make. Start with the Teletubbies.
This really is all a bit beyond you isn't it?Eager Beagle
Nov 19, 2002 9:34 AM
And that post, after you had just said that attacking the person rather than the issue was the sign of weakness.

Oh dear oh dear. Looks like you are going to have to re-write that essay.
sore loser nmmohair_chair
Nov 19, 2002 9:39 AM
Even better! Any more pearls? nmEager Beagle
Nov 19, 2002 9:42 AM
I think you are on pretty thinEager Beagle
Nov 19, 2002 9:17 AM
ice, starting to make points about other people's use of logic, especially in that manner.

"More powers / Resources"TJeanloz
Nov 19, 2002 8:45 AM
The Guardian reported his agency's budget at a whopping $200 million - at the Pentagon, that's hardly enough resources to buy a screwdriver, let alone wield any power. The CIA and NSA both have more power, influence, and resources than this new agency.
"More powers / Resources"MJ
Nov 19, 2002 8:55 AM
I think it's the nature of the spying - all electronic

if it's redundant then why set up a separate agency at all? pork barrels anyone?
Let me assure you....Eager Beagle
Nov 19, 2002 7:55 AM
that "we" who are not in the USA are very worried about what the USA is doing at this time.

Very worried indeed; I'm not a great fan of being on the receiving end of terrorist attacks because someone wants to start a war ahead of election time....
"Ahead of election time"?TJeanloz
Nov 19, 2002 8:01 AM
We don't have another set of real elections in the US until 2004 - starting a war now is hardly 'ahead of election time'. And a war with Iraq will take what, two weeks?
we tooMJ
Nov 19, 2002 8:04 AM
have the Left Wing on TV here and know that campaigning for 2004 starts now and continues for the next two years
FunnyEager Beagle
Nov 19, 2002 8:14 AM
I thought you had just had some in which your Mr Bush did rather well for his chums?

So when exactly is "ahead of election time" then if now - before election time - is not so?

2 weeks? I shall assume that is meant as a joke.
Bees and Honeymohair_chair
Nov 19, 2002 8:17 AM
It's a little different here. Wars need to be timed properly to coincide with elections. We can't just call new elections after invading, say, the Falkland Islands, to ensure that a party will dominate.
ExactlyEager Beagle
Nov 19, 2002 8:21 AM
Call me a cynic, but it seems that there was a mighty lot of tub thumping ahead of the last lot of elections...

Perhaps you just have a far more optimistic view of the time-scale of the "war" here. I think you could still be pretty closely involved come election time.

Err - I think you need a small history lesson. The Argentineans invaded. The British government called the election. Two different entities.
You're right, but the timing is clearly wrong...TJeanloz
Nov 19, 2002 8:41 AM
Mr. Bush is often accused of wanting to 'finish his fathers business' and if that is the case, we might assume that he learned from his father's mistake- which was that the war was too premature to help his re-election campaign. If we started a war on the same timetable as Gulf War I, we would begin bombing pretty shortly, considering our troops are already more or less deployed. If we learned from that experience, the war will be over and forgotten by 2004, when Bush is up for re-election. Short, successful wars are political currency, long, protracted wars are a political liability. I doubt that a war that lasted from now until the Presidential election in 2004 would be popular in November 2004.

Does America have an optimistic view of the war time-scale? Maybe. I find it hard to believe that the war would last more than 6 months though. Considering the practice run took what, a week? There are always pessimists, saying that the war will be long and bloody- remember the critics of action in Afghanistan, who pointed out the empires that had been ruined by Afghan wars? That war took what, three months?

This war is no more driven by elections than any American action is- which is to say that everything is election driven. Of course elections are on the mind of politicians, and I don't discount that Bush helped win the elections in the last round- but I don't see that starting a war now helps you win in 2004.
What do you mean byEager Beagle
Nov 19, 2002 8:49 AM
"war". Sure, the rockets and bullets may be over in 6 months, but what about the vacume filling and the humitarian aid aspects? This is not going to be a situation that the US can pack up and drive away from in any short time. It's not like Q8, where the norm was restored, this is supposed to be all about regieme change, and that is a long drawn-out business.

As far as I can see, no one ever finished the Afghan war, as seems to be apparent from the current situation there; where the resolution and stability?

I think the point is more general. If Bush isn't seen to do some serious ass kicking after 9/11, especially now that he has been talking a big game for so long, he doesn't have hope in hell in any election. If he does, and it'll take a good while in my view, providing there aren't shiploads of body bags coming back to the US, he'll win, and I think he shares that view.
I mean rockets and bullets- what do you mean?TJeanloz
Nov 19, 2002 9:03 AM
I don't really consider doling out humanitarian aid to be war. I'm pretty sure I limit my definition to rockets and bullets. Rockets and bullets are done in Afghanistan, and consequently, American voters have stopped paying attention. Humanitarian aid and peacekeeping really doesn't get any airtime in the U.S.- it doesn't help a politician a bit. Do we still have troops in Kosovo? I have no idea, but I suspect we do. American voters really only pay attention to ass kickings, (be it our ass doing the kicking or being kicked), and if we have a long-term non-war presence in Iraq, it won't help or hurt our President's re-election drive (look at Korea). I'd enjoy a cynical "wag-the-dog" scenario, but I just don't see it in the current situation- yet. If this were November 2003, I think you could make the case much more compelling.
I mean all the stuffEager Beagle
Nov 19, 2002 9:15 AM
that will have to happen before the US/West can actually get out of there.

If they bomb the place to a standstill and get out, the vacume will be filled by another Sadam (or the same one of course - didn't get Bin Laden after all). Result? Similar/same regieme and more terrorism than you can shake a stick at all around the globe - we've had more than a flavour already.

I think it will get press, as there will have to be a large residual troop/resources commitment in theatre when the (baulk of the) shoooting stops, as well as all over the world to protect US interests, and I mean commercial as well as State/government interest - this one will run and run. I think about 2 years might be the time it takes to get any form of stable alternative government in place; how long such will last is another matter. For an idea of time-scales, take a look at the Balkans. And for the most part, that was a nice simple bullets and guns war - no international terrorism and WMDs to complicate things.

Of course you may be entirely correct, and Bush will keep blabbing on and venting hot air for another year, then get into a ground war, and have an election in the middle of it - history says that in general, goverments tend to win war-time elections.
Yes we still have troops in Kosovo.sn69
Nov 19, 2002 7:23 PM
And Haiti. And the Eastern Sahara. And Korea. And Germany. And lots of other places that I won't tell you about. And yes, it's a fair estimation that there are special operators in place, in country in Iraq.

And there are still lots of troops in Aghanistan, not just in the peacekeeping/nation building role. There are still firefights on a daily basis.

I'm not going to engage in a political argument about any of this, but suffice it to say that a great portion of the Western World fails to recognize this for what it is--a World War of an unprecendented nature. It's an assymetrical conflict whereby the enemy defines the battle grounds as much as we do. Surprise is the modus operandi. We lost the first two battles--the Cole and the 9-11 attacks. We've won the major ones since then, but there is still a lot to be done.

Politics aside, we in the military have the unfortunate, unpleasant task of not only dealing with this, but of also bearing the full knowledge of what is really going on across the globe.

All I can ask you to do is to trust me when I say that the public doesn't understand, comprehend or truly appreciate the nature and scope of this conflict.

You folks go ahead and argue the politics. That's fine. Please, whatever your affiliation, however, remember that your friends, peers and countrymen/women are walking in harm's way on your behalf.

Well saidEager Beagle
Nov 20, 2002 1:40 AM
I spent 10 years full time in the military and 6 in the reserve (still there). Looks like the reserve (in the UK) are going to be mobilised to a large degree soon.

It staggers me that in this day and age of on-the-spot media reporting from the coal face of conflict, people can seriously think that a war in anywhere can take anything like a fortnight.
The dual edged sword of the Gulf Warsn69
Nov 20, 2002 5:57 AM
We--the West--became acustomed to "easy" war where smart munitions and six months of prepatory air strikes reduced the largely conscripted enemy to witless rubble long before the ground troops swung into a brilliantly planned and perfectly executed action. That's not war. What happened in the 101 hours of ground combat was much like Nelson or Oldendorf crossing the enemy's T, a once-in-a-century combination of planning, training, timing and luck.

And in spite of that and in spite of the media's coverage, most Americans still don't know about some of the tank on tank engagements or the hand-to-hand combat that took place at Kafji. When I was a young pilot on board the USS Constitution, I remember one of our Marine Detachment officers telling us about Kafji. The average Westerner would be stunned to learn that the killing wasn't at a distance, seen through a FLIR designator. A lot of it was with rifles, pistols and knives. That IS war.

For the most part, I'm satisfied to allow the pundits to speculate. The further off they are from the truth as we prepare, the better off the military is. I'm a fervent believer in the freedom of the press, yet I doubt their aggragate ethical standards. ...Anything for a story.... I don't want that getting my people, friends and peers hurt nor do I want that potentially affecting our ability to accomplish our mission.

Oddly, I've also seen things from the media's perspective. I'm a journalist by trade, opting in stead to fly for a living. Some day I'll have to grow up. =)

What's your role in HM's military? I used to work with a chap from the RN. We, in turn, also worked with a Kraut, whom we both really liked but never failed to bag-on at every chance.
Used toEager Beagle
Nov 20, 2002 6:42 AM
fly too, but moved acress to Intel, as you guys call it.

I would have been spolied for choice - whether to take the piss out of the Kraut or the Navy first :-) Actually, I worked with the RN lots - I like them, they always seen to have a good laid back attitude, but come up with the goods when they need to. Boy, do they drink for NATO too...
OOOF, talk about drinkingsn69
Nov 20, 2002 7:34 AM
Nigel The Grumpy Lymie Bastard--our RN guy (his callsign, although we used Nig for short)--was kind enough to introduce us to the fine qualities of single malt. Things went down-hill from there as we introduced him to the various types of tequilla.

He invited me twice to the Queen's Birthday Cocktail Party, and aside from the fun of watching my wife and the British Ambasador's wife get tanked, Nig, Fritz the Kraut (our master race pilot), and I were the last three left standing both years. I'm proud to say that we put those Aussies and Cannucks down!
You did well to get out alive...Eager Beagle
Nov 20, 2002 7:53 AM
In my experience it's unusual for the Navy to drink more than one glass of anything that can be purchased in only one bottle.

If you ever get the chance to go to a Trafalgar Night dinner, you'll see what I mean. They are great, great events, but make sure you have a spare liver on the bedside table ready for when you come home....

Best one I saw was a big silver cup of Top Shelf (one shot of everything in those odd bottles at the top of the back of the bar - like Galliano - always tastes of cherry brandy for some reason) going down in one. Feel sick just thinking about it...
You did well to get out alive...sn69
Nov 20, 2002 8:07 AM
Yikes, it hurts just thinking about it. Of course the sight of three naval officers, one Seppo, one Lymie and one Master Race Kraut, in their mess uniforms with the drunken wives staggering around Pacific Beach at 0200 looking for Mexican food must have been a sight.

Nigel was/is a Lynx guy and always wanted to drag me to one of their Tarranto celebrations. I feared for my life.

Actually, I just remembered...Eager Beagle
Nov 20, 2002 8:32 AM
There is a celebrated recent legal case here concerning a Naval Captain who was working at the Ministry of Defence in London. He went to a Happy Hour at the bar on a Friday night, and amist the general hulabaloo, literaly drank himself to death.

The point of the case was that the Navy owed a duty of care to prevent the 40 something father of two from killing himself with beer.

Now if that doesn't show that the public doesn't understand the military.

Actually that case had a severe effect on the rest of the Forces. If I recall rightly, for about a week after that decision, our mess bar refused to serve Gin and Tonic by the pint - you had to get two half pints. I'm not kidding..
the campaign starts nowMJ
Nov 19, 2002 9:00 AM
then he can fall back on a short effective war to prove his metal as a leader

Afghanistan isn't finished - I understand the Afghan war lords are still on the payroll

Iraq may be a different ball game this time if regime change is the goal - mind the UK is on board too - both planes are scheduled to be in attendance - I've read some reports here that the SAS and US special forces are already in Iraq...

hwo long do you give Bush before he pulls the UN team?
It's not important when it starts, it's important when it ends..TJeanloz
Nov 19, 2002 9:07 AM
Leading polls two years ahead of time doesn't help, ask GHWB, who was considered unbeatable at this point in his term. Also ask his father how 'falling back on a short, effective war' went.

Afghanistan isn't finished, but as far as the American voter is concerned, it is. If Iraq followed the same timetable, it won't help GWB win re-election. Especially without a solid economic recovery.
It's not important when it starts, it's important when it ends..MJ
Nov 19, 2002 9:20 AM
Bali, supertankers, Russian hostages, alleged planned gas attacks on the tube in London

Afghanistan isn't over - can it be the whole of the US suffers from ADD?

I do agree the economy may be the key to the next election if things don't improve - I read that there is more office space empty in Manhattan due to Enron than to the WTC attack

the campaign starts now - it's tub thumping from here on in - it's his strongest card and he'll use it - hopefully it'll have the same effect - he is advised by the same people as his father was after all
I was going to stay out of this, but...Matno
Nov 19, 2002 1:10 PM
The point is that a "convicted felon" whose conviction was overturned is NOT A CONVICTED FELON. Furthermore, I, for one, do not believe that anything wrong was done by the US gov't in the whole Iran-Contra affair. Oliver North was a hero and a good man.
hardly surprisingMJ
Nov 20, 2002 1:01 AM
for someone with neo-Nazi views on health care

screw the poor - they're all lazy
Let the man work.czardonic
Nov 19, 2002 2:20 PM
Even if he were technically a convicted felon, shouldn't people who break the law be given a chance to redeem themselves? Plus, even if he were rejected based on prior acts, its clear that Bush has an unlimited supply of shady and compromised characters from which to draw his next appointment. If Bush wants to hang these albatrosses around his neck, I say let him go for it. At least, in the case of Poindexter, we know he isn't devious enough to avoid getting caught.

You might argue that in certain cases, the potential harm of a new breach of the public's confidence warrants continued scrutiny, but what real harm is this guy going to do in the posistion in question? This "Total Information Awareness" project has boondoggle written all over it. By the time the Pentagon figures out how to amass the information they think they need, they will figure out that a)there is no way filter it effectively and b) with the nature of information security, the data will not be trustworthy. Other than wasting $200m that could be used to help the needy or refunded to the taxpayers, I don't see much harm (or anything else) resulting from this project or Poindexter's appointment.
Plus the guy's name is Poindexter. I mean ,come on. nmSintesi
Nov 20, 2002 5:54 AM