Engorgeous George

I agree he did nothing morally or legally wrong. I would go so far as to say he provided a public service in bringing to light the shamefully cavalier security practices of the inexperienced Cabinet. I would argue he conflated, a bit, the import of the information disclosed by refering to them as war plans but the story here, to me, is frankly the incompetence of the officials involved in allowing this mistake.

Had Rep. Crocket referred to Gov Abbot as the Travell Agent in Chief, or as Governor Greyhound, or as the Mayflower Van lines Governor I could believe, and would have believed, her explanation. Governor Hot Wheels, well her explanation does not pass the sniff test. As for Tim, I don't care that he is liberal. You are quite liberal and I like and respect you. I get along with the liberals here because on many issues I am liberal. True I am fiscally conservative and I am a constitutionalist which means I oppose judicial activism, but I am hardly far right or a MAGA sort of fellow. No, the thing that bugs me about Tim is he states his opinions as facts, he purports to cite studies as indisputable facts when he has not read them or understood them and as often as not they actually refute the proposition for which he cites them, and frankly he is a liar. He cedes points only after there is no other option. He does so to pretend he is open minded, and yet a day, week, or month later he goes right back to espousing the completely discredited crap he admitted to earlier under duress of the facts to try to save face. He believes none of us have any memory. Basically he routinely insults our intelligence. When you couple that with him being a poor sport and trying to weasel out of a bet/bed of his own making, insulting me as he did so and lying about the history of the matter only to have me resolve the matter magnanimously by releasing him from his obligations, well I just don't like him, and his posting style, didactic as it is, reminds me of that on a daily basis. Is it immature of me to poke at him, sure. But if he does not like it he can go and infest another place with his drivel. Maybe he should create his own site instead of arriving at communities built by others and trying to appropriate them to his own use by his overly ubiquitous presence.

The only cribs I knew were corn cribs.

Have you adopted a different, updated nicname for your wife's vagina?

Good advice, generally. in this instance I find her tone and look unmistable and her "explanation" to fail the sniff test. Still, your point is generally taken by me. In fact I believe you will generally find me restrained and prudent, just not so much in this particular instance.

Your buffoonery knows no bounds.

Her meaning, and the naughty joy she took immediately upon making the comment were and remain unmistakable. All you are telling us is what we already know, you are so blinded by partisanship you are unable to discern context, though you like to claim otherwise.

I try to leave room that some are from time to time reasonable and genuinely concerned for our national security though I do recognize that political posturing and opportunism seems a substantial element in much of this kerfuffle. Your mileage may vary.

BTW, I would let the Irainians, the Yemenies, and the houthies all know that any counter measures will be met with massively disproportionate military and economic sanctions. I would let them know that an act by one will be treated as an act by all. Their actions ahve been acts of war. If congress had any balls they would have already stated as much.

It is an indication that those involved have a long way to go on the learning curve. Fortunately, in thjis instance it had absolutely zero military ramifications though the political fallout, the criticism is more or less merited, if occassionally hysterical.

I don't care. i was merely opining on the nature of the semantic dispute between the White House and the Atlantic. BTW, pending military plans are not classified. We generally know the gist of them. In fact Congress is suppose to declare War, a plan to go to war, which is some plan. the logistical specifics of said plans are classified, and should be. In the instant case we got close to specifics. We did have description of assets, although not the amount of said assets to be used. We did have inception times, though we did not have targets or vectors of attack.I have stated i don't know whether war plans is the proper term for the information carelessly, even recklessly leaked. I have condemed the irresponsibility of the parties involved. You, however, seem in a mood to try to dispute what I wrote, but you seem to lack the comprehension to take all of what I wrote as a whole. I happen to agree the Administration's "it depends on what the meaning of is, is" is Clintonesque and ultimately unproductive. Were I in charge I would take the L and not try to ameiiorate it by arguing semanticvs. They are hurting themselves and are keeping the story alive to their own detriment. That exhibits a lack of experience, a lack of political acument. I note this may be the first time in my life I have constructed a sentence with "is" written three times in a row.

Rabbits and cane toads in Austrailia Dutch Elm disease Snakes in Hawaii Monkey pox in Fire Island. Unintended consequences abound.

I think it is nice of him to be making Bostonians safer in spite of themselves. Me, were I opposed in insulting terms as the those politicians have done to Homan I would use my efforts and resources elesewhere while they suffer the consequences of their own ignorance.

I think of war plans as being of far greater specificity than the general intent to initiate a punitive strike on known targets on a known date or time. To my memory we have actually broadcast such information in the past so that civilians can flee the areas of punitive strikes. The general information does not seem that sensitive to me, though what do I know. This is not to excuse what I consider an inexcusable error, an inexcuasable lack of caution and security awaremess. This is only to say that to me the term war plan connotes something more. To me it suggests units or assets to be deployed, the timing and specific direction of attacks on specified targets. It conotes communication channels and frequencies. It would include logistical support and intelligence both before, during, and after. I think what we had here was some discussion of a punitive strike operation. Now do I condem the reporter for his choice of words, no. he was describing the matter in general terms and the administration is apparently grasping on to the excuse that his general term is not their specific term of art. Now the foregoing is merely speculation by me. i have never been asked to draft a war plan nor to maintain its confidentiality.

Maybe he was postulating multiple folks with that name, one of whom who may have been nearby, though who may not have been THE Ted Cruz she was referencing.

Correct.

To my knowledge the courts have always applied an immediacy element, a proximity to the target element, and a present ability to carry out the encouraged violence element to incitement cases. In other words were I to encourage a group of Alaskan quadraplegics to murder a federal government offiical living and working in Washington DC by opummeling he or she to death with large asian carp it would not be actionable incitement as they clearly lack the present ability to carry out the specific plan and tchen time and distance allows a cooling off period such that those folks are no longer incited widthin the meaning of the law.

I remain immature enough to occassionally laugh at the misfortunes of others. I laughed. I rewound and viewed again and had a good smile. I am likely to revisit this video from time to time when I need a smile. It is not the politics, its the cumeupance of the presumptuous who are clumsy.

I go pretty far with free speech. I am not convinced what Crockett did or said was actionable in the criminal courts, nor should it be. If the Congress as a whole, her party, or her voters object they can discipline her. I find her comments below the bar and beyond the pale of good taste and tending towardfs incitement without reaching that level.

Saw it on Television. Being a black and white set it was less than compelling. It was what we could afford.

If only that could be made to be Jasmine Crockett, but alas, she is clear of this.

I roundly condem this error. It signals sloppiness which is unacceptable at that level. That fully acknowledged I wonder, could I not have sent the reporter the battle plans. Let me guess. Our carrier strike force in the Indian Ocean approached the destroyer screen interdicting Somali pirates and trying to keep shipping running through the Suez. As we approach our destroyers, cruisers, and missile carriers released missles from several ships miles apart so the incoming missles would have different telemetry, making defense more drfficult. Immediately as the missles were sent the Aircraft carrier would have launched a defensive screen of a few fighters which would have supplimented the destroyer screen. They would be responsible for interdicting any retalitory missles. Next drones, old preaators and reapers would have been launched for recon, confirmation, and additional targeting if needed. An AWAC from Diego Garcia would have monitorerd the operation as would at least two satelites. The Carrier Group would have retired within 30 minutes of the first launches. Then, margarita and boorish behavior time. My point. This was not the plan for operration overlord. This was a punitive strike, a police action, hardly the stuff of hyper sensitivity. Still, the sloppiness is nearly inexcusable even as the opotential harm was always low on this particular opreration.

Incomprehensible that any reporter should be in the address list. That a reporter can be imported into a group from the general address list is stunning. Quite an oversight.

First sign of the eventual rise of the Apes? This is not going to end well. Worth it though if we all got ourselves one of these.... https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvQ_zz9-kbs5hSAi8zO_wJcXpC67fsqPtID3CvrS_u6h_9PRK2L4tw4GYyFhEPXB0HY7X4oyt4hLc1LnnAC4UZFg3u5tpuxuMCf_mehaBCP7Aq-gcJ_Zk2F_KDK_n_hNw2tVjAeostGNn8wfRqAiU7Bqv-voA3YeoC8IkmHreQbd7HOhQ72YpXBSrD/s795/linda-harrison-8.jpeg

And such recklessness is not a nothing burger, as you characterized it earlier. Lets hope some good comes of this and they tighten up thier procedures. I believe they will, if given the chance. This can be a learning opportunity, if they let it be.