New Battlestar Galactica - no spoilers.
I just watched the first episode, of the second part of season 2, that I had saved on DVR from last night. I have always liked it from the start, but that show just gets better and better. I didn't see that end coming. Well, at least the end that will be concluded next week. Earlier in the week, I watched the BSG primer on Sci-Fi. I knew that Jamie Bamber was British, but it never occurred to me about his accent. After listening to him speak, I'm impressed that he does such a flawless American accent. But then again, I grew up around Brits and sometimes don't notice British accents. Anyway, I hope that BSG doesn't peak early and then go downhill. __ ...speak your mind, even if your voice shakes... - Maggie Kuhn ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
Original Message: - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 21:33:10 -0800 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Let's Roll Bush wasn't interested in nation buildingboth his statements and his actions indicated that he thought it was a do-gooder waster of effort.before 9-11. The article seems to be based on statements made by Secretary Powell who, in retrospect, had about as much influence on the Bush White House as Dan Rather. Were there any statements by Bush or Rumsfeld or Cheney? I'll answer this one quickly because it is a point that can easily be adressed with a few quotes. With all due respect, Doug, I think you are getting old like I am and forgot who was on which side in the debate over withrawing from the Balkins. :-) The following website states the two positions quote well: quote of position 1 Some foreign policy experts argue that peacekeeping and peace enforcement missions are an appropriate use of American military power in pursuit of U.S. interests abroad. Resources unique to the military should be harnessed in support of international efforts to resolve humanitarian crises and in UN or alliance peace operations. They emphasize that the U.S. should provide international leadership in preventing and or ending violence, using military power as necessary to do so. end quote quote of position 2 Other national security experts assert that peacekeeping operations distract the military from its principal mission, which is to defend U.S. territory and the physical security of its citizens, and to promote American interests abroad. They point out that the use of military forces must be limited in order for the military to remain prepared for strategic combat missions and major regional conflicts. It is also critical for the U.S. military to be active in collective defense arrangements with important allies in areas such as Europe and Asia. The unique demands of peacekeeping erode the military's war-fighting capacity and leave it unprepared to defend security interests. end quote The first position, working with our allies in Europe was the position advocated by Powell. The second position, was Rumsfeld's and Cheney's. We can see that from other websites. For Powell's position, we have: http://www.alb-net.com/pipermail/albsa-info/2001-June/001868.html quote Stay with your words. I was impressed with the very clear message Colin Powell conveyed to other ministers and me both in Skopje and Budapest: the United States will maintain its presence in southeast Europe. It?s a very good message, with certain political weight. Such a message has put an end to all gossiping. end quote Joe Biden, nicely summarized Rumsfeld's position in a Senate speech against it, given at: http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=229872; quote Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to take strong issue with remarks by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as summarized in the Washington Post on May 18 and subsequently reproduced in their entirety on the paper's website, that he is ``pushing'' to pull U.S. troops out of Bosnia. According to Secretary Rumsfeld, ``the military job [in Bosnia] was done three or four years ago.'' end quote In addition, Powell actually was winning this arguement. He lost most of the arguements with Rumsfeld and Cheney, but did win some. Dan M. mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Battlestar Galactica - no spoilers.
Gary Nunn wrote: Anyway, I hope that BSG doesn't peak early and then go downhill. Given the Sci-fi Channel's past, I think it's a better hope that the show reaches a conclusion before it's canceled. I like this new BSG too, and I never was a fan of the original, so that says a lot, but Sci-fi only cares about the same thing that other networks do: ratings. I liked the Invisible Man. I liked Farscape. Both of those series died before their time, so just hope that BSG's ratings stay up. Or better yet, make sure its ratings stay up by talling all your friends to watch. As for BSG's story, I can see where they are taking it, and I wouldn't be too worried about it peaking early and going downhill. If the story goes where I think it is, then there's lots of room for action and drama. One series that I hope wraps up in this or the next season is Stargate: SG-1. Despite Ben Browder being one of my favorite actors, I think the series has had a good run and really needs to conclude rather than running it until it fizzles out like Sci-fi Channel seems intent on doing. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
Original Message: - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 21:33:10 -0800 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Let's Roll OK, let me accept that he was more interested in Iraq than AQ. The number of public statements he made on the dangers of appeasing North Korea were significantly greater than the number of public statements made about Iraq. Yet, I saw no indication that he was preparing the nation for an invasion of North Korea. Know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em, Dan. Private statements as reveiled by administration insiders are much more compelling than public statments. Both would be needed for an massive invasion. Quit planning and a fait accompli might work for a small clandesent effort. But, something as big as the invasion of Iraq could not happen quietly and quickly. Bush I, even after UN approval, had to get Congressional approval for Gulf War I. Bush got Congressional approval for Gulf War II, even after the omnibus resolution. One way or another, he would have to prepare the nation for such an action. You can see such a preparation after 9-11. You could even see the start of it with Bill Clinton's early '98 speach. But, I don't recall, and I'm pretty sure there wasn't, a comparable speech by Bush before 9-11. Thus, 9 months or so into his presidency, there was no indication of the first steps needed to prepare the nation for war with Iraq. Second, the private conversations you quote don't include statements akin to you know that invading Iraq may be necessary or we need to make a case that will convince Congress to invade Iraq. If there were plans to invade Iraq, which requires Congressional approval, then the first steps in planning would need to include such actions. How is this inconsistent with him _knowing_ that there must have been a connection? Why is this evidence that he planned on invading Iraq before 9-11. Why couldn't it just be the perspective that it takes the resources of a country to mount such an attackand knowing that Hussein has supported other terrorists with cash, him believing that it must have happened again. Because it follow that if the projectionn of power into the middle east and regime change in Iraq were administration priorities (as illustrated in points 1, 2 and 4), then the administration would be anxious to find an excuse to invade Iraq. Both were priorities for Bush I, and he deliberately stopped Gulf War I before invading. James Baker made a very convincing case why invading Iraq would have been a mistake. Projecting power in Asia and regiem change in North Korea were defense priorities of Clinton. He did not plan an invasion of North Korea. Well, it was a goal of the Clinton administration to remove Kim from power. They thought that this would provide an opportunity to defuse the Korean crisis. This was after Clinton decided not to bomb the nuclear facilities. But, he had no plans to invade. I know that Bush I had the removal of Hussein as a goal of his policy. Clinton certainly rattled the saber more in 1998 than Bush did pre-9-11. So if there had been an incident and Clinton had invaded and then it turned out that the incident had absolutely nothing to do with N. Korea then Clintons proclivity to unseat Kim would have nothing to do with why he invaded??? OK, let me give a parallel. Lets assume that Clinton, mistakenly, was conviced that North Korea was working with/behind the terrorists. These terrorists attacked the US, and he then says we have to invade North Korea. That's a totally consistent scenario. All that is required is the belief that Iraq/Hussein was connected to terrorism and, in the post 9-11 world, that Hussein needed to be removed for the security of the US. We know that Bush believes in creationism. I think that, given that, it is reasonable to assume that he actually believed that Hussein was the most significant risk to the US and had strong ties to AQ. All this conjecture assumes is that Bush's reasoning is faulty. For example, Powell stated that the sanctions were working with Iraq early in 2001 and that no military action was needed. Why is it you think that Powell is a good indicator of what the administration was thinking? Whatever he said had only coincidental importance to what the ral Bush insiders were thinking. Because that statement wouldn't have stood by itself if it contradicted plans. It would hurt the plans to invade Iraq. You quote Richards stating that Bush was more interested in Iraq than AQ. He also stated that Bush wasn't very interested in AQdidn't consider them to be a serious threat. If the Bush administration had Iraq as a priority, wouldn't Richards, or Wilkerson, or someone have gotten wind of that pre 9-11? Clarke relates, I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense,
Re: Technique
Dan Wrote: After thinking about it overnight, I arrived at the conclusion that we have fundamentally different understandings of technique. Let me give an example. You quoted a website that stated that Bush called the Constitution just a piece of paper. The website owner stated that he heard this from two high ranked government officials. Three, not two. And he wasn't going to publish until the third volunteered the information. And he's not just a blogger or a website but the oldest political news site on the web, a former reporter, real estate lobbiest, and a GOP congressional staffer. And not a liberal by the way. http://www.capitolhillblue.com/dtbio.asp And he breaks stories long before the mainstream press: http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7894.shtml Conclusion: We get calls at least once a week from mainstream media outlets wanting access to our sources. We always tell them the same thing: We don’t burn our sources. We suggest they get their own. Our track record of getting to the truth of a story is a good one. We were a year ahead of other media outlets on Bush’s temper tantrums and the concern it caused White House staff. Recently we beat the Associated Press by two weeks on a story about former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay living large with lobbyists paying the bill. We break big stories because I’m an old-fashioned journalist who believes the way to find out the truth is by digging out the facts. I work the phone, pump sources and research every item that crosses my desk. And, as the record shows, it can take the mainstream media as long as two years to catch up. That's their problem, not ours. The keyboard commandos who litter the partisan bulletin boards like cockroaches don’t get it because they only want news that fits into their limited view of the world. They don’t want truth, just partisan spin that conforms to their own political philosophy. The same is true for the partisan political pukes who claim to be journalists but who are, in reality, nothing more than spin machines for one party or another. Truth is never served when presented through bias. So let them doubt. Let them claim we don’t have the facts. Our record proves otherwise and that drives them crazy. Are we that good? You bet we are. And we’re getting better every day. Your reliance on the mainstream press is unlikely to lead you to the truth of the matter because they have become cautious to the point of being timid. The New York Times held on to that story about Bush spying on us all for a year. Both the Times and the Post spouted Bush propaganda prior to the invasion and burried contradictory stories in the neither regions of their papers. And so on and so forth. They're slow, timid and unreliable, but you may see the god damned piece of paper there yet. Give it a year or two. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
Dan wrote: So, is your argument that the first step in the plan was to facilitate a major terrorist attack on the US, like 9-11? Via negligence, yes. But I'm not saying Bush knew anything about it. Hell he was on vacation most of the time and he's as dumb as a shirt anyway. Cheney, Rumsfeld are the puppeteers. All they had to do was pretend that they didn't think they had to worry about Bin Laden et all and pooh-pooh a few reports that the terrorists were stirring. Its an easy conspiracy to contain because all you have to do is have a few people in key positions act dumb and fail to act. And that's pretty much what happened. Other terrorist attacks came and went without much stir, (the Cole, the embassy bombings, etc.), so it would have to be a big one. None of those attacks came while the PNACs were running the show. And Clinton couldn't have acted if he wanted to anyway because of the Republican congress and blowjobgate. I don't think they anticipated the scale of 911, but its scale empowered them that much more than they would have been otherwise. Maybe this Abrahms thing will blow the whole thing open. I just heard that Delay has given up any attempt to retain his leadership. I think the next few years will be dominated by stories about Republicans being indicted and jailed. Surprise, surprise. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Battlestar Galactica - no spoilers.
Michael Harney wrote: Given the Sci-fi Channel's past, I think it's a better hope that the show reaches a conclusion before it's canceled. I like this new BSG too, and I never was a fan of the original, so that says a lot, but Sci-fi only cares about the same thing that other networks do: ratings. I liked the Invisible Man. I liked Farscape. Both of those series died before their time, so just hope that BSG's ratings stay up. Or better yet, make sure its ratings stay up by talling all your friends to watch. As for BSG's story, I can see where they are taking it, and I wouldn't be too worried about it peaking early and going downhill. If the story goes where I think it is, then there's lots of room for action and drama. One series that I hope wraps up in this or the next season is Stargate: SG-1. Despite Ben Browder being one of my favorite actors, I think the series has had a good run and really needs to conclude rather than running it until it fizzles out like Sci-fi Channel seems intent on doing. - I saw the BSG mini-series (they actually ran it on AFN-Korea) and thought the show had potential. AFN also ran Season 1, but only for a station that shows on military bases, so those of us living off-base can't get it. I was hoping one of the Korean Channels would pick it up, but they haven't yet. They do show the Stargates. So, I asked for and recieved the first two seasons of BSG DVDs; I have something to do for a while. I only seen the first 7 episodes of Farscape; I borrowed the DVD pack from a friend. I rather enjoyed it. So I went to Amazon to see if I could get the entire season and saw the prices. WOW! Do they think they are Star Trek? Even in the military exchange the price is $89.00. I still may save my allowance . . . I also recently watched Season 1 of Atlantis. I really liked it--a lot! What a cliffhanger. Too bad they couldn't have found a better foe than a reace of Lestat's. One cool thing is that not all humans are getting along. The planet with Colm Meany looks to be a thorn in the Atlantis side for sometime to come. Looking forward to season 2. George A ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Battlestar Galactica - no spoilers.
Michael Harney wrote: One series that I hope wraps up in this or the next season is Stargate: SG-1. Despite Ben Browder being one of my favorite actors, I think the series has had a good run and really needs to conclude rather than running it until it fizzles out like Sci-fi Channel seems intent on doing. I would interested to see it continue for some time. No American Sci-Fi tv show has yet to build a good wrong across cast generations. I'm not saying that SG-1 could ever be as venerable as, say, Dr. Who, but I would love to see at least one show in my lifetime survive a decent secondary run with a new lead. The key here is, are the writers up to the challenge? (Slider's writers in a few key seasons certainly were not.) -- --Max Battcher-- http://www.worldmaker.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
