Besides , the Dems are already sufficiently outrages at Gibbs for predicting they might lose the majority in the House (to illustrate what the MSM finds newsworthy)

Quote:

---

“The White House waving the white flag creates panic,” said a senior House Democratic aide. …

One senior House strategist said that the timing of the comments could not have been worse as the third fundraising quarter, which spans from July 1 to Sept. 30, is the most critical of the year since media buys — typically the costliest part of any campaign — are made during this time. “The NRCC was struggling to raise enough money,” said the source. “This is not a mistake we needed now.” …

---

The Fix - The White House, the House and the impact of a majority in the balance

You see ? It's not the fact that their electoral chances are sinking . The problem was Gibbs gums flapping . He is next under the bus if I may make a bold prediction
You speak of false rumors ? Wait until you see PUMA Democrats join the birther movement .

There are so many priorities and I don't think they realize that many of them can't be put on the back burner, such as the military related ones. Social programs they can do ten at a time. Not to stray too far from the topic and I don't think it does but the Defcon 3 light has been flashing on the Iran matters for about 3 years and more. You and I thought Bush might clean that up before he left as I recall. Is there something going on possibly that israel has a date in mind and O. is trying to talk them out of it, causing the real riff? I pray that something is in the works. Iran can muster 3,000,000 troops according to a military site I was looking at. Or does O. think the esteem tour will make it all better?

Quote:

---

There are so many priorities and I don't think they realize that many of them can't be put on the back burner, such as the military related ones.

---

Oh they have the military in their cross hairs all right .
In the spirit of bipartisanship ,Barney Frank and Ron Paul created an adhoc group of 'experts 'to come up with recommendations on cutting the military budget. The name of the group is the very misleading "Sustainable Defense Task Force".
The people selected for the group are a motley crew of disarmament advocates .
Carl Conetta, Project on Defense Alternatives
Benjamin H Friedman, Cato Institute
William D Hartung, New America Foundation
Christopher Hellman, National Priorities Project
Heather Hurlburt, National Security Network
Charles Knight, Project on Defense Alternatives
Lawrence J Korb, Center for American Progress
Paul Kawika Martin, Peace Action
Laicie Olson, Center for Arms Control and Non-ProliferationMiriam Pemberton, Institute for Policy Studies
Laura Peterson, Taxpayers for Common Sense
Prasannan Parthasarathi, Boston College
Christopher Preble, Cato Institute
Winslow Wheeler, Center for Defense .

I did a quick search on them because I recognized Lawrence Korb as Assistant Sec Def in the
1st Reagan term.
I thought there was a chance that it would actually be an objective task force. I was wrong.

Carl Coretta writes for an on-line site called antiwar.com .

Winslow Wheeler has written books like “The Wastrels of Defense: How Congress Sabotages U.S. Security” and wrote under the pseudonym "Spartacus," about in an article about Congress' reaction to the 9-11 attacks ("Mr. Smith Is Dead: No One Stands in the Way as Congress Lards Post-September 11 Defense Bills with Pork").

Chris Preble of Cato wrote 'The Power Problem: How American Military Dominance Makes Us Less Safe, Less Prosperous, and Less Free ' and 'Exiting Iraq: Why the U.S. Must End the Military Occupation and Renew the War against Al Qaeda '

Christopher Hellman works at the 'Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation'.

Charles Knight is co-director of the Project on Defense Alternatives and founded the Ground Force Alternatives Project at the Institute for Defense and Disarmament studies .Formerly Knight was a fellow at the Institute for Peace and International Security .

Paul Kawika Martin is the Political Director of Peace Action where he shares blog space with former Yippie Tom Hayden and Michael Moore .

Lacie Olson works at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation .She recently penned that sanctions against Iran are counter productive .

Miriam Pemberton is a Research Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, writing and speaking on demilitarization issues for its Foreign Policy In Focus project. She recently opined that climate security was a greater national security concern than military concerns .
Institute for Policy Studies: Military vs. Climate Security: Mapping the Shift from the Bush Years to the Obama Era

You really can't make this stuff up !

Laura Peterson is with the National Security Program at Taxpayers for common sense. Deficit reduction on the back of the military .

Finally Prasannan Parathasarathi is a professor at Boston College who specializes in the economies of the European colonial era .

Korb would seem to be the odd man out from this group . But on further review I found that he is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and has written articles recently defending the work of the group and compares it to Ike's warning to beware the military industrial complex.

The National Interest

Would you believe this line would ever come from a former Reagan Assistant Sec Defense :
As more Americans come to understand the high costs and dubious benefits of U.S. military dominance, a backlash is all but inevitable.
So there you have it ;the ad hoc advisory group...
Their recommendations to Congress are here
Drastic cuts outlined in think-tank report - MarineCorpsTimes.com

Quote:

---

I don't think it does but the Defcon 3 light has been flashing on the Iran matters for about 3 years and more. You and I thought Bush might clean that up before he left as I recall. Is there something going on possibly that israel has a date in mind and O. is trying to talk them out of it, causing the real riff? I pray that something is in the works.

---

There is a lot of movement on the Iran front and I'll try to post them in the next day or so. I'm still gathering the info and trying to connect the dots. There is a lot of interesting stuff going on .

But 1st I'd like to add some closing thoughts about General Bolden.

I keep wondering what would've happened if President Bush had asked former NASA director Michael Griffin to something simularily bone-headed and contrary to NASA's mission.
I think he would've resigned before accepting the directive ;and that is what I think Bolden should do now.

NASA appears directionless to me and the President has no vision for the agency beyond being a part of his propaganda arm. Still Bolden serves at the pleasure of the President and his only honorable move left is to resign.

I am encouraged that there appears to be a bipartisan revolt against the President's plan to gut the agencies biggest projects , the Ares heavy lift rocket and Orion capsule .But I think the agency will languish aimlessly until the President leaves office .

Thanks Tom.

I will be eagerly awaiting the Iran info.
You would think someone would at least try to get a 'No Comment" from Gen. Bolden. If we had a spacecraft, he could get out of Dodge in style. Refresher course and gone but he would probably mess up the commands and sequences, being unable to even understand and execute the simple 3 step orders from the CIC.
I know the press is lame but how did they get chased off this story so fast. Wartime national security claims? There's a second story there I think. The Dubai ports management matter was slightly similar and it was like wildfire for 3 weeks or more. I know that was Bush and this is Obama but still
Seems out of whack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smearcase

I know the press is lame but how did they get chased off this story so fast.

---

That's easy. O calls his college prof who calls his colleagues at the schools of (propagandized) journalism who call their students. The students check their sources in Gibbsie's office and the story is dead. Total telephone tree time - lunch.

Pure speculation on my part, of course.

Cat,
I think that is palusible. Maybe the National Enq. Will cover it, eventually. What about McConnell and Boehner etc, Lindsay? Some of my friends tell me not to even listen to the news because it will just up my blood pressure and nothing can be done about anything anyhow. If that is the philosophy of American citizens today, there is little hope, just accept what is served up. Good thing our ancestors didn't see it that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smearcase

Maybe the National Enq. will cover it, eventually.

---

Yup, they cover all the important stuff: Celebrity News | Photos | Crime | Gossip National Enquirer Magazine

Whoops It might be plausible, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smearcase

Cat,
I think that is palusible. Maybe the National Enq. will cover it, eventually. What about McConnell and Boehner etc, Lindsay? Some of my friends tell me not to even listen to the news because it will just up my blood pressure and nothing can be done about anything anyhow. If that is the philosophy of American citizens today, there is little hope, just accept what is served up. Good thing our ancestors didn't see it that way.

---

Call me Cats. Cat is my wife. She hangs out on the Marriage and relationship threads.

What you can do is your darndest to up the voter turnout in November. Drive your neighbors to the polls, if necessary. These Liberal/Progressive/Communist/Socialist/Feudalist (whatever they're calling themselves this week) have profited from voter apathy for half a century.

When the turnout was over half, America won. Parties don't really matter, we've had great Democrats and great Republicans. If you look closely, however, the great ones were elected by a majority of American voters, not a majority of Americans voting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

These Liberal/Progressive/Communist/Socialist/Feudalist

---

You may want to educate yourself on the definition of those words before lumping them together. You've been listening to too much Fox News, Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh. Don't let them lower your IQ!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

You may want to educate yourself on the definition of those words before lumping them together. You've been listening to too much Fox News, Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh. Don't let them lower your IQ!

---

They all want to rule while I pay for it. Feudalist is probably the most accurate title.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

They all want to rule while I pay for it.

---

That's the neo-conservative right there.

Cats, That's fine and that's the American way and over time it MAY-- a real big MAY (I may win the big lotto tonight, but I better wait and see before trying to buy my mansion) eventually work. What else are these traitors going to cook up and implement before Nov. and how many more after the election, and how long will they have until things change IF the right people are elected and can work their way through the labyrinth? Elected officials are not the answer, they're the problem. We're trying to operate in the 21st century using 18th century rules. Treason affects the troops of TODAY.

So smear, what's your solution if all of government officials are the problem and the rules are old?

And Karm, It took the NI to bring John Edwards out to the lectern after the powerful media tried for several years and failed. I don't care who brings it out but it needs to be explained. The only near feasible explanation from the WH is that he misspoke. I just want to know what he should have said, and hear from WH that a Marine General can botch a simple order from the CIC and still head up one of the most detailed agencies on the globe (I would consider the Globes reporting too)

Karm,
The question is at the top of the page. Which country are you referring to? But I will try to answer your question--Force the present govt. to do their jobs through citizen input like it is supposed to be--in the U.S. I've tried to answer your questions and stay on topic even though you ignored my question from July 14th. What's you military bio? You inferred I was a deserter. What's your expertise in that subject? That's a fair question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smearcase

What's you military bio? You inferred I was a deserter. What's your expertise in that subject? That's a fair question.

---

Here's how it works: you're the one that said you were going to follow the generals into battle, not I. It appears that you aren't currently in the military so it must be a figure of speech I guess. I didn't infer desertion, I was inferring keyboard courage. :)

Karm,

Translation: With regard to the original questions, one of which is: What's the real issue in this controversy? I don't know if the issue is high officials lying or a new policy of praising the enemy or is it-- why the press is not following up on an important issue.
My comment was:I'll follow the Generals into battle. I'm not going for the touchy, feely, praise your enemy/ pay him not to shoot at you philosophy.
In plainer English: I believe Bolden; and I do not believe Gibbs. I will follow Bolden and other generals of his standing before I follow Gibbs. The battle in this case is finding the truth. They have I will accept a reasonably documented explanation from the President and it is way overdue (maybe I missed it). I would even accept a recantation from Bolden, along with his resignation.
That's the crux of my statement.