Engorgeous George

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.

If they are they are not sharing the event with each other on a less than fully secure network.

No, the appeals court did not say so. One jurist on the ourt opinined as much but not when speaking for the Court through an official written ruling. A small mastter prerhsps, but accuracy is important.

Competence and prudence, or the lack thereof is not a nothing burger. Secured communications, even those which are non-classified but which provide insight into decision-making processes are essential to smooth governmental opoeerations. This was a major faux pas, if true as reported. It may have had minor consequences, but that aoppears to have been fortuitous only. It may not have. Our adversaries on the world stage are judging our competence and planning accordingly. Hegseth may have demonstrated will and resolve, but he also demonstrates inexperience. Which is more evident to our adversaries I cannot say.

Drinking heavily is a relative matter. As for women, I believe he has been accused of both ill manners and some criminal conduct, but only by less than a score of women so I believe a qualifier may be appropirate in your statement,or suggestion. Maybe it should read Pete Hegseth allegedly abused some women and sometimes drank beyond his capacity to hold his liquor. Not something I would list on a resume, but it is part of his bio. Maybe he should have a T-shirt made saying I have abused less women than Donald Tyrump, unless unacted upon intent counts.

Not good, if true. If true I will find out soon enough as a story like this will gain substantial traction, if true. Maybe hegseth should spend less time coiffing his hair, working on his pecs, and picking out socks and a bit more time checking his group address lists.

No subtext deliberately implied in my poor attempt at humor. With the exception of Tim I hold the Jewish people in the highest regards. Smart, funny, brave, industrious though pig-headed, which I suppose is ironic.

I think the general public did not really give a rat's ass about it. Congress would not free up money for the pedestal. A year's long fund raising campaign ensued. To try to draw attention to a matter which was of very minor concern to the country she wrote a poem. Newspapaers pushing the projet glommed on and pushed her poem forward. In the end the opedestal was paid for and she got recognition for funding that private/public partnership. What the average steel worker or farmer thought about it who can say. From memory i do believe it got some traction among school children who sent in their pennies in support of the effort.

As I understand matters St. Patrick came and chased them out. Wait, maybe I have my myths mixed up with facts. Nevermind.