Article

2003-08-13 Home Front

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2003-08-13 10:02:07 AM|| || Front Page|| [11134 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 What, are we afraid of a little success? This is disgusting news. Yes, Bush, veto it and let the chips fall where they may. You've got the momentum. Don't slow down. We're counting on you.

Posted by Michael 2003-8-13 11:14:37 AM|| 2003-8-13 11:14:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Steve you beat me again! Here are my comments:
I used to work in DC and this is a clear case of someone who thinks itâs a good idea for Congress to approve EVERYTHING that the military does. The reason our Armed Forces are so successful is because the commanders have the FLEXIBILITY to fight the battle. Making a Commander gain approval every time he wants employ SpecOps for a certain situation would be a HUGE mistake. Next they will want to approve troop movements and bombing targets (That was the FAILED model in Vietnam). Stephen Cambone must be a big fan of the Soviet doctrine that centralizes all decisions with the political apparatus. I second the Tar/Feather party for Mr. Cambone.

Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2003-8-13 11:21:29 AM|| 2003-8-13 11:21:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 "The senior official said the report language was inserted based on misunderstandings that resulted from conversations between Mr. Cambone and several senators, who were not identified."

Let's not string up Cambone yet. Sounds like the DoD made it clear that the military was not supposed to be subject to the "finding" requirement, but some bozos on the Senate Intelligance Committee tried to get their paws on covert military deployments. I wouldn't be surprised if Rummy had this leaked to embarrass the Senators involved.

BTW, isn't "Senate Intelligence Committee" a contradiction in terms?

Posted by Tibor 2003-8-13 11:55:30 AM|| 2003-8-13 11:55:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 ...a contradiction in terms?

I believe you mean OXY[gen][deprived]MORON

Posted by Anonymous 2003-8-13 12:17:21 PM|| 2003-8-13 12:17:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 I ain't going back to the 1970s when our intel organizations had their hands tied. This isn't happening as long as I can shoot my mouth off about it.

Congress needs to grow up and let the special ops guys do their jobs, unemcumbered and free to dispose of our national enemies.

God Bless the CIA, ONI and our special forces. Let them go through our enemies like crap through a goose.

Posted by badanov 2003-8-13 12:56:07 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2003-8-13 12:56:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Bush won't veto it though. I don't think Bush is tough enough to veto anything.

Posted by Cal Ulmann 2003-8-13 2:25:03 PM|| [http://ulmann.blogspot.com] 2003-8-13 2:25:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Anonymous:

From the Merriam Webster Dictionary: Oxymoron - a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (as cruel kindness).

From the American Heritage Dictionary: Oxymoron - A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in a deafening silence and a mournful optimist.

So, yes, Senate Intelligence is a contradiction in terms.

Posted by Tibor 2003-8-13 2:40:44 PM|| 2003-8-13 2:40:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Guys, let's not forget who's got the majority in the Senate. The party, which, in the words of its favorite ~~harridan,~~ ~~harpy,~~ gibbering commentator (Ann Coulter) referred to compromise as date rape! If the Republicans don't want this to move forward it won't.

Posted by Not Mike Moore 2003-8-13 2:45:14 PM|| 2003-8-13 2:45:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 The reason our Armed Forces are so successful is because the commanders have the FLEXIBILITY to fight the battle. Making a Commander gain approval every time he wants employ SpecOps for a certain situation would be a HUGE mistake. Next they will want to approve troop movements and bombing targets (That was the FAILED model in Vietnam). Stephen Cambone must be a big fan of the Soviet doctrine that centralizes all decisions with the political apparatus.

Someone hasn't been reading his Art of War (Sun Zi) ... the liberals, of course ;-) but he did note that two of the most important elements of battle were control on the ground, and the real need for spies (the sole form of SpecOps back in the Warring States period). There's a famous incident where he demostrated to a king by setting up a king's harem as an impromptu unit, then executing the two "commanding officers" for negligence - refusing the king's plea for mercy, to demonstrate that so as the king could do nothing against this, he could do even less with an army deployed far away. (See both delays in the relaying of orders/intelligence, and common sense.)

Incidentally, didn't the Soviets have an instance where their centralization cost them dearly? (The USS Clueless noted that in the Korean War, Chinese centralization - ironic for a people who produced Sun Zi - prevented them from extrapolating and capitalizing [excuse the pun :-D] on any tactical victories, which were always followed by powerful counterattacks from the post-MacArthur commander of US Forces Korea.)

Posted by Lu Baihu 2003-8-13 3:18:42 PM|| 2003-8-13 3:18:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 The Democrats are so anti-american that they have to hamstring anything that is effective.

Remember the little piece of legislation that lead to the fall of Saigon...Democrats passed a bill that forbid military aid to the South.

Remember the little piece of legislation that got Ollie North in trouble...bill forbidding military aid to rebels fighting a marxist regime in Nicurfreakinagua....

This piece of legislation and the two examples above are essentially violation of the separation of powers provisions of the Constitution. Seems the founding fathers came up with this inconvenient thing that says the President will conduct foreign policy...Congress cannot limit the Presidents ability to conduct foreign policy.

I think this little tidbit should be run up the flag pole and the writers, lets see, Graham and the other minority members of the Senate Intelligence(??) Committee, should be publically humiliated.

What a bunch of crap.

Posted by SOG475 2003-8-13 3:57:00 PM|| 2003-8-13 3:57:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 This MUST be vetoed. This president has gained much respect for making efforts not to repeat the lethal mistakes of Viet Nam. To allow this to pass would again have politicians deciding which bridges to bomb...whoooaa...I'm having a flashback. Say it ain't so!

Posted by Sgt.DT 2003-8-13 4:39:47 PM|| 2003-8-13 4:39:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 This is our illustrious Senate Intelligence Committee notice that even the Republicans have got some weak sisters in the lineup (Snowe, Hagel) but the Dem package is just plain dumb...heard Dick Durbin or Barbra Mikulski or Wyden talk about intelligence lately? They can't even spell it

Posted by Frank G 2003-8-13 7:09:19 PM|| 2003-8-13 7:09:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 There aren't many people in the US Senate that I'd trust to feed my dogs if I went away for the weekend.

Posted by tu3031 2003-8-13 10:15:58 PM|| 2003-8-13 10:15:58 PM|| Front Page Top

22:58 Phil Fraering
01:22 Mike Kozlowski
00:22 Ernest Brown
23:57 Steve W.
23:43 Uncle Joe
23:26 Uncle Joe
22:46 tu3031
22:43 jfd
22:29 Chuck
22:27 whitecollar redneck
22:15 tu3031
22:07 tu3031
21:59 tu3031
21:58 Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter)
21:57 LVK (C-1-18 1ID RVN)
21:53 tu3031
21:49 tu3031
21:45 Frank G
21:44 tu3031
21:27 tu3031
21:03 Zhang Fei
20:56 john
20:47 john
20:33 11A5S