stoneycase

did you see me blaming congress anywhere in my post? did you see me saying i wanted to ask 'them' for relief? did you see, anywhere, where i said was even 'entitled' to relief? did you see me say that new legislation was the answer? no. you didn't see me say any of that. at the most, i criticized the effectiveness of the CAFE laws on the here and now-->3/5+yrs and argued that the consumer is the real loser in the entire situation, as a result of laziness on the part of the auto mfr. and for pete's sake, how can you miss the point that i'm focusing on the us auto mfr? did i maybe miss something where they became a part of congress? or do YOU think congress/legislation is the answer to everything? Does whisky count as beer? - Homer There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

hey bill. hope all is well for you on this friday. although i agree with what you're saying: the customer drives the mfr to produce what the customer wants, are you trying to tell me there was no one, in say, the 1990's that wanted a hybrid vehicle? i won't argue with you that the majority of the american population wanted more bells and buttons, rather than new 'technology' under the hood, but what i'm saying is that we're generations/versions/years behind where we should be with alternatives right now, becuase the car companies were lazy and R&D was stagnant. it is the IRR argument that you even point out: why spend the $ on new tech under the hood when only 1-2-3% of the purchasing market is even 'remotey interested'. here's why: because if you don't innovate, especially in a biz like car mfr, you're going to get beat by someone who will innovate. it's a risk, sure, and i bet the EA's that were done by their analysts showed conclusively that $ spent into new tech under the hood was a bigtime risk and the risk/reward ratio was better if they thought about how to work a dvd player into the center console. imho, the car companies deliberately sat stagnant and were lazy because that was the most profitable for them at the time. they had zero thoughts about 10/15/20/25yrs down the road (and why should they, car companies have only been around for say 1/2/3yrs, right??) and zero motivation to spend .01 on developing alternative fuels/technology. this is bad for the american consumer, and bad for the american economy. hence my willingness to let them 'die in a fire'. ;) although CAFE laws do exactly what you're saying that does ZERO for me, you, and the next guy who are NOT buying a NEW car(in the immediate future)! do the CAFE laws suddenly make my 1999 vehicle more fuel efficient? does it give me a specific exemption at the pump to pay .15 less than the guy with the 2006 prius? no, it doesn't. so while all the legislation gets sorted out, the car companies get their acts together, and i save to buy a new vehicle i'm stuck with the responsibility of absorbing the higher fuel costs from now-->then. btw, http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.43ac99aefa80569eea57529cdba046a0/ seems like they're focused on 2008 model year. at the very earliest(and really its 2011, according to the PDF 'final rule'). what do you and i do from now till then? i still have to drive to/from work everyday in something... upon further reading (this analysis may be incorrect tho, so take it as .02) seems like they are making SWEEPING changes from their current standards for 2008 MY (which is 22.5mpg for a mfr fleet) to a whopping 24MPG. WOW! a whole 1.5 additional mpg avg on their entire fleet... (pg 12, para 2, 'we estimate...) Does whisky count as beer? - Homer There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

*** Who knows where we'd be now had oil prices been extremely high back in, say, 1994 any of the large american automakers gotten up off their fat asses and put some valuable dollars into R&D prior to 2005/2006? Odds are we would have had more advances in alternative technologies. fixed that for you. yes, higher oil prices will (hopefully) lead to positive change. but, imo, the person who still loses is the 'little guy', i.e. the middle class and lower class. who's going to absorb the high cost of fuel from now-->alternative fuel/vehicles becomes more widespread? you and i are, my friend. some people think i'm crazy for having an opinion like this, but personally, i look at the american auto companies as one of the primary reasons we are all f***ed. rather than innovate they sat stagnant. rather than risk spending $ on R&D on alternative fuels or alternative 'engines' they spent .5$ coming up with 'heated seats' and SUV's with TV's. *gasp* a TV in a car?? now THAT is an accomplishment HOOORAY american auto mfr's!!! (*sarcasm*, ya know, i knew a guy in high school who was installing LCD's into cars/trucks in his garage for spare change. that was 1996 or something. so you'll have to excuse me if i don't look at that technology as 'new' and 'innovative') the only way ANY of the american auto mfr's do ANYTHING is when their little house of cards has already tumbled. rather than operate in a forward looking capacity - they are more concerned with IRR: if i spent $50 now developing this new 'technology' whats my internal rate of return? nothing, of course, because it's not in your best interest, mr american auto mfr, to come up with alternative fuels or 'new technology' until the public is screaming bloody murder, and you've laid off 1/3 of your workforce. until then, its best you work on new colors and more buttons for your customers to push on the dash. that hardly costs you anything and the IRR is obviously higher, because you aren't really innovating jack-shit. the same way you probably feel odd about 'welcoming' (and i use that loosely) higher oil prices because you believe they will motivate positive change, i feel odd about 'welcoming' the complete collapse of america's auto manufacturers (and in turn, a large portion of our economy). imo, that's the reality. you run a business, like an auto mfr, and sit on your ass rather than innovate you deserve to go bankrupt. rather than place the blame on the price of the fuel used to operate the vehicle, why not place the blame on those manufacturer responsible for the technology inside the vehicle? where would we all be now, had american auto manfucturers made an all-out effort to get hybrid (or alternative, whatever) cars into every garage in america? Does whisky count as beer? - Homer There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

Let's try this again: He's accused of breaking the law. That's the nature of being a defendant. As to these charges under review the state says, "hey the law has said these actions were always criminal offenses". The defense seems to be saying, rather eloquently, the actions are irrelevant. The law you say Mr. Delay broke was not further clarified to *specificially include conspiracy* (the action in question) until later. Due to controlling precedent, you cannot legally apply the clarification to Mr Delays actions, since they occurred prior to your amendment. That's a technicality. They aren't debating what he did/did not do. They're debating whether or not the law was clear, at the time of delay's actions, on what was legal/illegal. In this case, there seems to be controlling precedent that indicates, even if the 'spirit of the law' was to prohibit conspiracy, the letter of the law was different, therefore charges dropped. See the technicality? For me, and I'm sure YMMV, the biggest difference is that the debate is focused 'on the letter of the law' and specifically the amendment. Rather than focusing on say, what the facts are and whether or not delays actions were conspiracy or not. That's not the defense's argument. They aren't saying, "there is no conspiracy here" They are saying, "There is no conspiracy here because, at the time of mr delays actions, the law was unclear. Even though you further clarified the law to include mr delays actions, that is irrelveant, as controlling precedent stipulates that you can not apply the amendment to mr delays actions." Your simplification, is well, a little too simple. Mine is perhaps as well, considering the article takes up some serious space discussing HOW and WHY the precedent exists and HOW it applies to this specific case. To sit there and say, sarcastically: it's a technicality if you are accused of breaking a law that doesn't exist is purporting to say mr delay did nothing wrong. And what I'm saying is, if you look closely, the defense hasn't made their cornerstone "delay did nothing wrong". They've made their cornerstone "the law was unclear, and was not further clarified to include mr delays actions until after mr delay had committed the specific acts. you cannot charge him with a crime based on the amendment, when the controlling precedent says otherwise, *therefore* delay has done nothing wrong." Does whisky count as beer? - Homer There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

without talking about politics, correct me if i'm wrong here, but delay is getting off on what most folks would call 'a technicality'. and just to throw this in there: most folks don't consider getting off on a technicality the *same* as being innocent. from your article: According to the 3rd Court's April 19 opinion, the Texas Legislature amended the Election Code in 2003 to incorporate a conspiracy offense. But the state cannot rely on that amendment because DeLay is charged with conduct that took place prior to its enactment ... The Election Code conspiracy charges stemmed from how the DeLay-founded Texans for a Republican Majority Public Action Committee (TRMPAC) used corporate contributions in the 2002 election cycle. ... Although the state argued that conspiracy to violate the Election Code has always been an offense and that the 2003 amendment merely clarified the law, Austin's 3rd Court is bound by controlling precedent that limits the applicability of the Penal Code's conspiracy provision to offenses found in the Penal Code, reads to me like somebody is getting off because the court is, essentialy, following the 'letter of the law' rather than the 'spirit of the law' (in the state's interpretation). i'm not a lawyer, but my guess this isn't the first time that this has happened - but i bet it has also gone the other way as well. so then, the facts of mr delays actions become only a secondary issue. the primary issue, it seems here, is the legislation itself and the precedent that controls its applicability. delay got lucky? naw, i dont think so, give the man some credit - $1 says he knew the legislation and saw the loophole. A+ effort and creativity, but a F for 'remembering the goals of your public office - serving the public' because, sorry, i don't much trust an elected official that makes his criminal defense focus on the technicalities of the law, rather than his actions/inactions themselves. maybe i'm weird? /oh, almost forgot, but but but clinton.... Does whisky count as beer? - Homer There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

The way he's taking the beating. AHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Was it the way he took the beating, or the way he kept coming back for more.... I find that clip sad, but extremely funny. If I was a woman, I might even find it 'empowering' i.e. 'damn she kicked his ASS! i wanna kick some ass too!' sucks that kids are around, but you can pretty much tell this isn't 'new' to them. in fact, you might be able to argue that it's good the little girls get to see this...do you think this woman's daughter is going sit there and let her b/f beat on her? prob not. something tells me that little girl is going to grow up thinking 'just because i'm female doesn't mean i can't kick some serious male ass' oh, and that lady should've thrown in a few kicks in the ass. that would've rounded out the beating quite nicely. Does whisky count as beer? - Homer There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

dammit, i should've made a poll.... man woman or beast. Does whisky count as beer? - Homer There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

I'll be damned if this isn't the best looking canopy pilot I've ever seen. What do you think? (might be NSFW) http://www.lemonzoo.com/content/P/15679-content.jpg Does whisky count as beer? - Homer There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

1 of 3 ways, imo: 1 - do like the law man says: realize the question is code for something else, and do your best with that 2 - do like the lady says, and turn it back on her, "why, do you think your butt looks big?" 3 - distract my fav is 3. i dont have any funny personal experiences for you, but i once watched a good good friend of mine employ tactic #3 at a large party. didn't quite work out as planned. we're standing there, he and i, kind of wall flowering at the party. his girlfriend is out mingling and my date is out doing the same - i wasn't really into her anyway. i was more concerned with keeping the keg w/in arm's reach than anything else. anyway, as we're standing there 2 girls come up to get some beer and he strikes up a conversation with the cuter of the 2. like a good bro, i make sure to step in and wing it with him. the girls are laughing, we're chatting, having a good time. well these 2 girls leave, and not 10 seconds later, up walks his girlfriend and my date - absolutely fuming. the exchange b/w my buddy and his girl that follows (to the best of my memory): "who were you talking to?" "i don't know, just some girls, what's up?" something something 'i can't believe you, those girls are such sluts, etc etc" "oh come on, give me a break, its not like i had sex with her" "oh so you want to have sex with her?!" at this point my friend realizes he's screwed, the hole he's in is getting deeper. his decision, i have no idea why, was to dump his entire beer onto his own head. no joke. he stood there, quiet for a second, took his cup, raised it and just dumped it all over himself. as he stood there dripping he said something like, "there, i took care of it for you, now everything's fine" well it wasn't, without a word, his girl took her own beer, and snatched mine out of my hand, and poured them all over him. "now everything is fine" and she walked away. i almost died with laughter. they're still together btw, my good friend and that gal. she's actually one hell of a girl, they're getting married in August. every once in awhile when we get together that story comes up and she just *loves* to tell the ending. Does whisky count as beer? - Homer There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

I figured someone would question that. I've heard the two-year estimate on the news, as well as the ten-year estimate. It took the U.S. only four years to develop the bomb in WWII, and that was starting from absolute scratch, with no pre-existing plans, no pre-existing equipment, nothing! The Iranians, on the other hand, I'm sure have plans from Russia/China/N. Korea or the internet, and the equipment is readily available. The fissile uranium is likewise available from rogue nations. They're not starting from scratch - they just have to acquire the equipment and components. Thus, I don't find it unlikely to presume that they could have their first workable bomb in just a couple of years. so here's a "hum-dinger" for you then: Why are our panties all twisted about Iran and their potential & desire to build nuclear weapons, when our friends the N. Korean's already *have them*. Why not get our panties in a bunch over that? Why not support our argument that "dangerous regimes of the world must not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons" by cracking down on those 'dangerous regimes' that *already have them*? What is it that makes us think Iran is more of a threat than N. Korea? Are we more scared of N. Korea, because they *do* have the technology? IMHO, its partly a "most terrorists are arab" type thing, and the fact that Iran's Pres is one of the most outspoken and aggressive leaders in the world today (he's actually interesting to watch, imho, the last time someone had the balls to stand up at the podium and say the shit he's saying, was quite some time ago, and i wasn't around to witness it) and then of course, you have the Israel factor... I think I'll go with Bill on this one: fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me. (btw, absolute scratch is, well, kinda inaccurate. i wouldn't say 'stealing' all the top german/euro scientists is starting from scratch, when discussing how the US built the bomb) Does whisky count as beer? - Homer There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

Homer: Say, what's going on? Hank: Just having a little problem with the Government Homer: Oh, those jerks, always walking over the small businessman. Don't get me started on the government Hank: Homer, on your way out, if you wanna kill somebody, it would help a lot. Does whisky count as beer? - Homer There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

i've read what's posted on defense link. i don't see anything in there that indicates Rumsfeld has half as much "time in the field" as any one of the 6 now retired Generals that are criticizing him. did i miss something? like i said above, if you want to try and place statistical value on these Ret Gen's opinions than i suggest you look @ their time in the sand and the number of men underneath them. upon first glimpe of only one: Gen Batiste, it becomes painfully clear that the value of their opinion is rather high. like bill said, it's 6. from different branches even. so both the army, and the marine corps have it wrong, while Mr. Rumsfeld has it right? you're right, the larger the group of people, the more likely it is that everyone will have a differing opinion. but lets put this in context: you've got 6 men, career military men, at some of the highest leadership posts, out in the field, coming back and saying "something is wrong with our leadership at the OSD". comeon, you're going to put that in a drawer and just label it "another opinion"? i don't see any of these 6 running for office, i don't see any of these 6 out there charging $10K on the lecture circuit. for some reason, i guess i tend to value their, imo, honest opinion as someone who has *actually been there and doing the job* no, but instead of calling them "dissidents" why don't you give them the respect they are due, after all, they've served this country for almost their entire life. do you think they woke up a few months ago and decided they no longer wanted to be an american citizen? no, and if you look even closer you'll see these men are die hard "we cannot fail, we must not fail, failure is not an option" types. these are men that want to get the job done. these are men that want to bring all their soldiers home to mom. they're sick and tired of the leadership (or lack thereof) and you criticize them as if they are deserters. and then folks go and wonder why its difficult for someone in the military to actually voice their opinion to their superiors. hell they can't even do it after they've retired without being labeled "dissenters". i've never had my feet in the sand, but i'll be damned if i take rumsfeld's, or bush's, word over any of these men. Batiste turned down a promotion to be #2 on the ground in Iraq. #2. What, do you think, is going through the mind of a career officer that decides to turn down a top post like that? Something tells me it's a lot, and we should all take a step back and look at what his decision says about leadership that is managing (or mis-managing) this "War on Terrorism" Batiste didn't say he turned down the job, so he could retire and fly-fish. He didn't say his wife wanted him home, or that he wanted to spend time with the kids/grandkids. Does whisky count as beer? - Homer There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

...is exactly the sort of thing that bred the expression: "Lies, damned lies and statistics." LOL, i was just going to say... and, imo, if you really wanted to try and do something 'slightly meaningful' to determine their 'real value' - why don't you look @ time in Iraq (or time spent working on it) and # of troops commanded. oh wait, that's not gonna work for the Bush supporters. ever heard of "The Big Red 1". last i checked, that was one of the army's largest infantry divisions (i could be dead wrong, but i dont think so) and the last man to command them in Iraq, for a year, was Gen Batiste. also, the fact that these general's span the different branches of the armed services...kinda says something...too bad it isn't 'everythings swell'. another article: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1842450 Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division forces in Iraq, said he declined an opportunity to get a promotion to the rank of lieutenant general and return to the wartorn country as the No. 2 U.S. military officer because he could not accept Rumsfeld's tough management style. Does whisky count as beer? - Homer There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

yeah...i agree. it would be nice to give him life and let him rot. the only sad thing, imo, is that we're parading around in that courtroom as if we have a pilot from flight 93 on trial. when in reality, imo, we've got the freaking janitor, all the pilots are dead already. kind of reminds of the Scorpio episode of the Simpsons. instead of prosecuting Hank Scorpio, we're trying Homer Simpson and calling him a "mastermind". Does whisky count as beer? - Homer There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

those generals don't have the *correct experience* /sarcasm oh, and their work ethic sucks. it's not as good as rummy's, therefore he is smarter (sorry folks, but just because you spend 10hrs reading every night doesn't make you bright. working hard is great and all, but at the end of the day its *comprehension* that counts. and some might even argue, working harder is idiotic - work smarter) loved this quote from a seattle pi article: Bush's dilemma, said Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst with the Brookings Institution, is that Bush "shares a lot of the responsibility for the key decisions on Iraq." "Bush is implicated. For Bush to fire Rumsfeld is for Bush to declare himself a failure as president. Iraq is the main issue of his presidency," http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1152AP_Rumsfeld_Generals.html Does whisky count as beer? - Homer There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

"I don't know what weapons will be used to fight WWIII, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones" - Einstein Neither India, nor Pakistan has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, yet we aren't all wound up about their nuclear arms, are we? Why should we be? The two countries only *despise* each other. Yet Iran has signed on to the treaty... double standard? Think about who borders Iran. We're in two of the countries bordering Iran engaged in a "War on Terrorism". Israel's in their backyard. Not a whole lot of "outs" for them. I bet this sounds horrible, but I can't fault them for wanting nuclear weapons. Nobody enjoys being bullied. and imho, we aren't the ones to worry about when it comes to Iran, it's Israel. if you want put your microscope on someone, and watch them fuck up, put it on Israel. $1 says Israel responds to Iran faster than we ever could (or want to). and another $10 says we get *dragged* into the mess, rather than starting it ourselves. (course you could always put on the tinfoil and say we're pulling israel's strings...) Does whisky count as beer? - Homer There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

i'd probably slip the guy a valium. i think he needs it. personally, although i could give a shit less about the guy in general, i think he's making himself out to be more important than he really was because he wants that "martyr" label. it's his purpose for everything. so yeah, i'd slip him a valium....maybe a lude. Does whisky count as beer? - Homer There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

my main problem was thinking rumsfeld was a good def sec *because* of the re-org. i posted the quote to remind everyone that just because the org chart looks different, doesn't neccessarily mean you're more productive/efficient/etc. therefore, theres no reason to go running off defending rummy by pointing to his "success" with the re-org and actually, both quotes still remain valid, imo 1 - goes to show just how "beneficial" a re-org can be, including any re-org done by mr rumsfeld. 2 - not only goes to the question about the military industrial complex (and therefore mr cheney), but it also highlights how EXPERIENCE and PAST HISTORY are extremely important in evaluating candidates for public office (back to rummy again) disagree? Does whisky count as beer? - Homer There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

i actually watched a show on the history channel last night where a maritime engineer said it was "feasible" for noah to build the ark and for the ark to carry the animals and float. i dont think they took it any further than that really. something about the boat essentially meeting the length v depth requirements and some other factors. basically, given what we now know about ship building and carrying cargo, it's possible that "an ark" could be built and that it would float. personally, i could care less if the ark could fly and do donuts in the sky. but it was an interesting show nonetheless. i think it was this one, it was on last night, some time after 1000PST: Bible Tech. Airs on Saturday, April 15 at 7:00pm ET Arguably the most influential book ever written, the Bible provides a glimpse into the origins of ancient technology and its use to withstand the elements, build great structures, wage war, and conserve precious water. We examine the technological plausibility of biblical structures and machines--including the Tower of Babylon, the Temple of Jerusalem, ancient bronze and iron forging, and shipbuilding skills that might have been employed to build Noah's Ark. TVPG from http://www.historychannel.com/modernmarvels/?page=upcoming Does whisky count as beer? - Homer There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

not sure what the point of your question is - are you just trying to ensenuate that i could never think any sec of def is "good" therefore my opinion of the current sec of def is invalid? re-org can be good, and it's fine by me. i was just trying to head off the "but but he re-org'ed us so the terrorists/muslims can't win therefore he is the jesus christ of secretaries of defense" argument. bec, imo, that's a ridiculous argument. there's a long list of military and civilian people that contributed to that re-org, long before rumsfeld put pen to paper. this guy, for one: http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/pentagonsnewmap.htm (good book btw, i don't agree with all parts, but obviously this guy knows his $hit) of that list there, the only person that's relevant to this issue, imo, would be cheney, as this thread is talking about this current administration and it's current sec of defense. and as far as cheney is concerned, he is the exact reason why so many people in history were worried about defense contractors getting involved in politics at the highest levels. imo. another quote for you ;) "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex." - Eisenhower, 1961 Does whisky count as beer? - Homer There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

here's an interesting thought: the guys name is DANIEL BROWN. not exactly a one-of-a-kind, ya know? i don't really know whether it's a SSN that nabs him, his DL #, or whatever. But damn, the articles about this stuff always indicate it's a "name on a watch/nofly list" the name DANIEL BROWN. why don't you just put "John Smith" on there... Does whisky count as beer? - Homer There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

rumsfeld, the greatest sec of def. yeah, right. i hope you're joking. the only piece of paper that could ever say that would be his autobiography. please don't start rambling about re-organization...yes it's important, yes there is a new "area of threat" or w/e you would like to call it. but i would like to remind of you this quote, before you start spouting how wonderful his plans were/are: "We trained hard...,but it seemed that everytime we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized...I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization." Petronious Arbiter, 210BC Does whisky count as beer? - Homer There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

and where do you think mr rumsfeld gets his marching orders? if it's time for rumsfeld to go, then is it time to change the strategy? to change the resources? to change the environment? to ultimately, change our position? who do you think *really* controls those? is it not the commander-in-chief? isn't he ultimately the one who sets the tone for those in his cabinet to follow and execute by? or is it just time to throw a new name in there and march on to the same beat. Does whisky count as beer? - Homer There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

perfectly valid question. i don't know where you draw the line, honestly. do you give them an aptitude test? see just how much "military knowledge" they actually possess? i can see both sides - bring in an outsider for a fresh perspective, someone who's thinking outside the box, who hasn't lived "the culture". then there is the opposite the side that says, realistically we can't use an outsider. we need someone who has lived the culture, who has seen and done what we *actually do*. i don't know if you will agree or not, but to me, this is yet another instance of an administration that has struck out on its own - with its own beliefs and agenda - against the advice of many people. now they've run themselves into a situation where the leaders on the ground, the ones really *responsible* for getting the job done are pushing back. it'll be interesting to hear the replies. i'm really wondering how many that support bush will support this Gen or "Resign Rummy" argument. honestly, Bush has always been Rummy's biggest supporter. to me, supporting one is supporting the other. so to say, as a bush supporter, its good for Rummy to resign, to me, is like saying Rummy is the wrong man for the job, especially the wrong man to *continue* the job. and what does that say about Bush? yeah it's a bitch, but guess what, the work that your "employees" do reflects directly on you as "management". Does whisky count as beer? - Homer There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

nope, they don't. i wonder if its a coincidence that Rumsfeld's "military history" reads like half desk-jockey/half wrench-turner. from the defenselink bio: Mr. Rumsfeld attended Princeton University on academic and NROTC scholarships (A.B., 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor. In 1957, he transferred to the Ready Reserve and continued his Naval service in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975. He transferred to the Standby Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and to the Retired Reserve with the rank of Captain in 1989. slightly better than Bush's own history, but when faced with the question of whom to trust - a General with more than enough time in the field, and a "former aviator turned flight instructor turned administrator turned Sec of Def", I'm going with the guy who actually saw time in the field, rather than the guy who spent his time pushing paper. Does whisky count as beer? - Homer There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell