Thom Hartmann/06 --- BINGO!!! ---The inescapable conclusion

[kpete]

BINGO!!!

after today, this gem sums it up for me. the last years have been hell....kp, ps. i would add mrs. cheney among others...

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0213-28.htm

Published on Monday, February 13, 2006 by CommonDreams.org
Rumsfeld and Cheney Revive Their 70's Terror Playbook
by Thom Hartmann


The inescapable conclusion we must draw is that the Bush administration policy leading into the Iraq War was dominated by officials, grouped under Cheney and Rumsfeld in particular, principally neocons and including Wolfowitz, Libby, Feith, Perle, Abrams, Shulsky, Luti, Bolton, Joseph, Hadley, Wurmser, Franklin, Cambone, Ledeen, Card, Hughes, Rhode, Rove and others who as a matter of policy, and without any moral qualms, deliberately practiced deception to build their case for war. They were not duped by conniving Europeans or badly served by incompetent CIA analysts. They were engaging in “psyops,” psychological operations, principally against their own people, whom they needed to delude with the most frightening imagery (”a mushroom cloud”) to get their job done.

more at:
http://www.thomhartmann.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102&Itemid=38

[spanone]

1. k&pete&r

[Mme. Defarge]

2. Took the words right out of my mouth -- n/t

[Supersedeas]

3. wondering why Rice and Powell were not included?

[hfojvt]

5. they aren't neocons

privately and weakly they opposed the Iraq invasion, but they followed orders and used their reputations to carry water for the administration for one reason or another.

[EFerrari]

4. What Thom means is, we should have impeached Reagan.

:)

[MadMaddie]

11. It goes further back then that...all Individuals involved in the

Nixon regime should have been prosecuted and banned from US politics. Many of those same people listed would have been out of the picture if they were prosecuted then.

This is why it is imperative once Barack is President for the Democratic Congress to have open hearings against all that have any suspicion of crime and to get them prosecuted. If this does not happen we will see some familiar faces in twenty years and we will wish we would have done something.

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. THAT only took two years to become timely news.

[katty]

7. Indeed they were/continue to!! Right you are!

[Pastiche423]

8. A little off topic...

"Wolfowitz's group, known as "Team B," came to the conclusion that the Soviets had developed several terrifying new weapons of mass destruction, featuring a nuclear-armed submarine fleet that used a sonar system that didn't depend on sound and was, thus, undetectable with our current technology. It could - within a matter of months - be off the coast of New York City with a nuclear warhead."



Doesn't sonar work on sound?

Recommend

[chknltl]

9. Yes Sonar uses sound. 'SO'und 'NA'vigation and 'R'anging.

Shades of Red October if this doesn't sound almost familiar. I fail to see how some new stealthy sonar system would render a sub invisible so IMO Wolfowitz is full of crappola.

Yes sonar works on sound. There are two types, PASSIVE and ACTIVE. ACTIVE sonar emits a sound which when reflected back gives one a picture of the area that the sound travels through. Fish finders use ACTIVE sonar to find fish. Submarines use it primarily to navigate and to find other objects. PASSIVE sonar is used strictly for receiving all kinds of sounds including the 'pings' from an ACTIVE sonar system.

The USN has plenty of PASSIVE sonar listening posts scattered throughout strategic locations and plenty of subs and ships and sonabouy equipped aircraft out keepin an eye on things...I suspect that sneaking up to our coast is possible but quite difficult all things considered. The stealthy sub might gain a small advantage by having an undetectable type of active sonar if one exists (for navigation) but hiding everything else with that new fangled type of sonar seems a bit of a stretch of the imagination.... did the Wolfowitze's sneaky sub have a caterpillar drive*?

OK so back in the real world, if a sub's ACTIVE sonar is turned off does that mean that the sub is less detectable? Well I suppose a PASSIVE sonar detection system would not be getting the active 'pings' from the sub's deactivated sonar BUT it would surely get everything else. (Engines, props, crew-members singing the Russian National Anthem* and etc.

Of course if one were to stick a submerged WWII sub in a large enough ship's prop-wash, (the Kelsy Grammer/USS Stingray maneuver), one might be able to go undetected and get close enough to our shores to cause a bit of havoc.**

I am no sailor but if asked, I would say that Wolfie's Team B was proposing something which smells like dead fish.


*(Snarky references to the movie "The Hunt For Red October")
**(Another snarky reference to a different movie "Down Periscope")

[Pastiche423]

10. Thank you for the great explanation

When I read that sentence, it jumped out at me. I've heard for so long that the sound waves that sonar produces can damage the ears of dolphins, whales, etc.

It sounded like bullshit to me too, but I wanted to be sure.