Koskinian quotes show he covered up Lord's report:

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

This from David Franke, World Net Daily.

Uncovering the cover-up How Jim Lord foiled White House, Pentagon plans

------------------------------------------------------------------------

By David Franke ) 1999 WorldNetDaily.com

You may have noticed that many of the articles appearing on our Y2K page are, shall we say, rather sobering in their analysis of what's ahead with the Year 2000 problem. And I'm not referring to commentary by right-wing crazies like me, but rather to news articles reporting actions and comments by diplomats, investors, business leaders, government agency heads, and NGO chiefs, among others. There are a lot of serious people who are seriously concerned about Y2K.

You may have also noticed that every utterance coming from the White House and its Y2K czar, John Koskinen, is upbeat, reassuring, dismissive of any worries about Y2K. Oh, foreigners are fair game -- they will have problems. But not us.

How can the White House concoct such a Panglossian view of Y2K -- a stance so breathtakingly one-sided in its portrayal of the most serious public issue of our time? Simple. You just put a lid on any news that doesn't fit the slant. When you run across that kind of news, you cover it up.

Now, that's a pretty serious accusation, and it sounds rather fringy. But this past week we were delivered a "smoking gun" pointing to a rather serious cover-up, by someone who admires John Koskinen. In other words, this person doesn't have an axe to grind against the White House.

In case you were vacationing in Uzbekistan this past week, Jim Lord is the Y2K author and speaker who unveiled a website last Thursday that is registered in Tonga, an island nation in the South Pacific. On this website he presented his account of a "secret" Navy report that "was obtained from a confidential source of the highest reliability and integrity." Since Lord is a retired Navy officer, most people have assumed his source is in the Navy.

According to Lord, the Navy report's "results are horrifying. They expect more than 26 million American citizens in 125 cities to be without electricity, water, gas, or sewer services next January." Lord listed those cities, classified by the Navy according to probable and likely risk.

Whatever the validity of this report, I expected nothing but derision and stonewalling from the White House. Instead, within hours John Koskinen acknowledged that the report did, indeed, exist.

Of course, the Panglossian spin also began immediately: The report Lord quoted from was weeks old, based on old and incomplete data. That report has been supplanted by newer updates that (surprise!) find that almost all those utilities are now ready for Y2K, and the few laggards will be ready soon.

And the Navy quickly goose-stepped in line behind its commander in chief. A follow-up story by the Associated Press Aug. 21 quoted Navy spokesmen as saying, "I don't think we have a problem with utilities ... there are no indications of likely widespread failures of water, electricity, gas or sewers," and, in case you still missed the point, the Navy's assessment is "right in sync" with the White House's.

Now, I plan to address the validity of the Navy report quoted by Jim Lord, but that has to wait for another article. Here I want to look at Lord's accusation that this was a "secret" report and "they're holding this information back" from the public.

The original AP story gave the White House response to that charge:

"Koskinen said the Navy wasn't withholding information from anyone, noting that the continually updated report was available until recently on a Web site maintained by the Defense Department.

"The report was pulled off the Web site two weeks [ago?], Koskinen said. Neither he nor Defense Department officials offered any reason why."

Incidentally, that last paragraph did not appear in two later editions of the AP story. Every other paragraph of the original AP story was repeated. A suspicious, cynical mind might wonder whether the AP came under fire from the White House for such a negative, provocative ending.

So, was this a "secret" report? Well, it certainly was when Jim Lord told us about it on his website, because by then it had been pulled off the Internet. If it had been on the Navy website earlier (I have only the government's word for that, at this point), that site was so obscure and technical in nature that it's hard to portray it as "public."

For more light on what happened, let's turn to one of the many commentaries about this affair that appeared on the Internet this past week. This one comes from Steve Davis, who, according to Sanger's Review, "represents Coalition 2000, an organization that fosters community Y2K planning and preparedness." I urge you to read http://www.davislogic.com/NavyAssessment.htm">this commentary in its entirety.

Here is what Davis says about Lord: "I have nothing against Jim Lord. I met him a year ago in Boulder and found him to be a rather nice chap. I am also a commentator and on that account we are on equal footing -- but with clearly different opinions and modes of operation."

And here is what Davis says about Koskinen: "I have had far more interaction and disagreement with John than with Jim. We have not always agreed on things -- I would have liked to see the government take a much more proactive approach on preparedness. However, I have grown to trust John and know him to be a credible and trustworthy source of information."

Fair enough. Davis trusts John, and has nothing against Jim. Davis clearly seems to be a rather nice chap who likes people, and is on no vendetta against anyone. He also states openly that he wrote this commentary after having "quickly contacted John Koskinen at the President's Council." With that in mind, let's cut to the really juicy part.

Davis is writing about the "secret" aspect of this report: "Seems Jim had been given a copy of an official Navy report dated June 1999 and titled, 'Master Utility List.' While he claims to have gotten the report he says he does not have the detailed information and he is launching a Freedom of Information Act campaign to get it."

Then Davis continues: "However, two weeks earlier on August 5th, someone else got a hold of the report and instead of creating a public furor, they went to John Koskinen with it. Seems that Mr. Koskinen was not aware of the report before this contact but quickly checked into it and informed him that the DoD (Department of Defense) was taking down the site and reviewing it and others to be sure they were appropriate for public access."

Stop the presses! This story obviously comes straight from John Koskinen, the president's Y2K czar, so think about what is being said here and what is being implied here:

First, this report was so "public" that the president's Y2K czar wasn 't aware of it. (I personally have no doubt that Koskinen was terrified when told about this report -- not because of the truly alarming content, but because this was theoretically available to the public.)

Second, a good citizen, it is implied, doesn't go about "creating a public furor," but instead goes directly "to John Koskinen with it."

Third, Koskinen "quickly checked into it" and told his informant "that the DoD was taking down the site and reviewing it and others to be sure they were appropriate for public access" (emphasis mine).

Folks, that is as open an admission of a cover-up as you'll ever get from a government official without physical torture!

Makes you wonder what was on those "other" sites, doesn't it!

And, oh yes, fourth, that good citizen obviously kept the secret, because we never heard a word about this until Jim Lord spilled the beans.

Remember, once again, that all of this is revealed to us by someone who has access to John Koskinen and who has "grown to trust John." Doesn't sound to me like Steve Davis is an agent of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

As for me, I cannot deliver a verdict on Jim Lord's Navy report until I actually see it. But I do know now who's on the side of the American people, and who isn't. Jim Lord, thank you for bringing all of this out into the open. It's obvious that without your brave action this would still be a secret buried in the government's vaults, along with those other reports.

David Franke is a new Washington-based WorldNetDaily contributing editor for technology and Y2K issues. He can be reached by email.



-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), August 24, 1999

Answers

*sigh*

Thanks, Robert. Maybe there are some reservation left in various "bunkers" for good citizens?

-- Jon Williamson (jwilliamson003@sprintmail.com), August 24, 1999.


David Franke is cordially invited to kiss my speckled arse.

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), August 24, 1999.

I got so irritated, I forgot the link to my confession of my evil particpation in this sordid coverup.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001HGi

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), August 24, 1999.


Robert -- painstakingly outlined. Thank you, sorry to say. I have come to understand that EVERYTHING on the part of Koskinen/WH is geared towards spinning citizens away from serious thinking about Y2K exposures. Occasionally (cf the Senate Report), slightly off-center agendas get in the way for a small period of time, but they can be "handled".

Is it too paranoid to think that, by and large, those entities who are remediating have taken their cue (sometimes implicitly, sometimes explicitly) from the spinmeisters at the top. If so, why?

It is not necessary to assume that everyone is lying to judge that most everyone is spinning -- and spinning with a goal in view that has nothing to do with "mere facts" about Y2K, those troublesome things.

The die is not only cast with respect to Y2K impacts but with the way Y2K will be handled near- and post-rollover: everything will be presented to "minimize" anything that might cause "unwarranted concern" on the part of the populace. Spin. Spun.

Even if Y2K turns out BITR (remarkably unlikely), the unashamedly Orwellian character of its "handlers" has left a permanently sour taste in the minds and hearts of those who know what is happening.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 24, 1999.


Lewis -- I don't see your account, which was appreciated, as contradictory to this one -- am I missing something? And am I missing something about the way Y2K has been handled by Koskinen?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 24, 1999.


BD, as is often the case, WorldNet Daily is more interested in sensation than information. The author is twisting the Holmesian approach:

Holmes:"and then then there is the curious fact of the dog barking in the night."

Watson: "But Holmes, the dog did not bark in the night."

Holmes"Yes, that's what is curious!"

The fact of the matter is: THERE WAS NO DOG!

This is unbelievable. koskinen had it taken down for either of two good reasons: it was serious security breach endangering military personnel, or he knew it would be taken out of context, misinterpreted and hoisted up as Proof Of Everything We Already Believe About The Y2K Conspiracy. I've reviewed these bloody spreadsheets, and they are not "data".

And the piece so sloppily researched, he didn't even follow the link on Davis' page to my post about what happened.

Knucklehead.

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), August 24, 1999.


Lewis...what is up with your response?

Did you not admit here, on a public forum, that it was you who contacted Koskinen regarding that website that you found? Are you not the "citizen?" We need some answers here.

And, the site did go down just after your revelation to Koskinen did it not?

With your intimate involvement in this unfolding story I think you would be open to not only discussing the issue further but also the circumstances that have followed your disclosure.

Also, this Franke editorial doesn't seem to offer any new insight into the situation it only puts questions already offered into a concise form.

I have to know, Lewis, what is your problem with this?

Thanks for the heads up Robert!

Mike

===========================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 24, 1999.


Mike, I think we cross posted. I'm just annoyed that a simple, reasonable explanation of the sequence of events was not, and will apparently never be, enough.

Wish I'd never found the damn thing.

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), August 24, 1999.


now I'm really puzzled Lewis because you started this thread before your response here

Jim Lord Speaks

Mike

=================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 24, 1999.


I started it because I think it's important that Jim be allowed to present his side of the story. That's how I'd want be treated if our roles were reversed.

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), August 24, 1999.


And the piece so sloppily researched, he didn't even follow the link on Davis' page to my post about what happened.

Knucklehead.

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com)

Lewis

I agree that the report was a poor document to stand behind but what concerns me is how are we to get good information?? This just shows folks "winging it" which is worse that having verifiable information.

If this is the standard of research then the problem just may be bigger. When ever I research something links and or referances are included so the information can be clearified by others.

If this isn't the beef tell me where is the beef?? GAO reports?? SEC disclosures?? Self assessments?? If you can't rely on the entity that assures the protection of the strongest nation on earth then who do you rely on??

-- Brian (imager@home.com), August 24, 1999.


Lewis

I see you were responding to the article and not the report. Sorry

My point still stands

How is the common person going to get good information if the Navy can't

-- Brian (imager@home.com), August 24, 1999.


Lewis,

Thanks, I appreciate it. I hope you don't feel I'm attacking you because that isn't my intent. I can't imagine the power and the pressure that you are under right now.

There are so many unanswered questions and so much on the line.

You did us all a great service by telling your side of this story. I don't think you are a "government shill", just a concerned citizen as mentioned in the editorial above. I don't think you are part of any cover-up.

Do you see a cover-up? Do you see over-reaction? Are you under any pressure from the Federal Government?

Mike

============================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 24, 1999.


No prob, Mike I'm not irritated at you guys.

Brian, I'm with you. Clean Normalized data is my Holy Grail at work, and with y2K research. I've looked at y2K hard for a year, and there ain't much that I'd call "data".

I haven't been under any pressure- so far, I've seen no sign that "they" know or care who I am. I haven't been publicly identified and I'd really rather keep it that way.

But this thread just got an amazing new post that makes me nervous:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001HLt

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), August 24, 1999.


ahum -

sounds like when this is all done, and all is known by all, Monica & Ken be the least of Billy-bobs worries

good work, all you who can spend the time digging for the rest of us...

Many thanks,

Perry

-- Perry Arnett (pjarnett@pdqnet.net), August 24, 1999.



This directly from the "newly updated" navy's list, as they enerstly try to make it look like they are as confident of success as the White House wants them to be:

Background: now remeber, we've been told that "the good news" is all the water, gas, sewer, electric and steam services utilities that are reporting "1" or "2" - little to no impact. A "3" means they got no reply, right?

Now, when did the Navy facilities administrators assign a "1" or a "2"? According to them, a "1" or "2" was assigned whenever << there are a few loose ends (normally remediation, testing, and contingency planning) that the company needs to finish.>>

Pardon my french, but "loose ends" are NOT remediation, testing, and contingency planning: that's the whole thing.

Which means that as long as the company responded, and as long as they were doing something involving "remediation, testing, or contingency planning" - they got assigned/re-assigned a "1" or a "2" (probably mostly '2's"). And the White House can explain that the database was updated and the utilities are all fine now....cause they all have '1" or "2".

Not that they are finished, not that they can reliably provide servces next year, but merely that they are now changed to a "1" or a "2".

But that depends on what your definition of a "2 is", is.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), August 24, 1999.


Robert, that is exactly what I've been trying to get across: The information in that spreadsheet is essentially meaningless.

Seaman Jones sends a letter to Big Utility Inc: are you compliant?

Gets a letter back: Yep

Seaman Jones types a neat "0" in the cell, and goes to lunch.

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), August 24, 1999.


Lewis,

After visiting the thread I see your concern and I share it. I had those same feelings when the whole thing went public.

One thing gets to me. Ever hear the phrase "hidden in plain sight"?

One of the things that really gets to me about the use of pdf documents is that they aren't always necessary. PDF technology was created to make files more transportable and accessible to various computer platforms. This was especially true for large, graphic files like the ones I get to create. You know, take a 44 megabyte Quark file, save it as a postsript file, run it through Adobe Distiller and the end product is a 1.5 megabyte pdf suitable for e-mail.

Some of the documents I've seen that have been converted to pdf are just word docs, powerpoint presentations or spreadsheets which can't be all that large in size to begin with. All of these can be translated directly to HTML can't they? Why make pdf files, a static file that isn't searchable?

Maybe TPTB don't understand or don't get the use of the technology. Seems possible.

But the whole, "hidden in plain sight" thing keeps popping in my mind.

Seems that the new August version certainly made it to the web pretty quickly, in HTML form as opposed to pdf a more web friendly version.

I just got through typing out a pdf file of the GAO report in July regarding the 21 largest cities and where they stand on Y2k. It's as scary as the "Pentagon Papers" and it too could have been easily made into a more web friendly document.

Mike

======================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 24, 1999.


Taking a broad brush view here, how is this for speculation: No one, not the local utilities, and not the Navy, has the slightest frigging idea what will happen come January!!! The Govt is assuming the worst and making their martial law plans. The sheeple are being told to assume the best and not worry about it. If the best happens, every one wins; if the worst happens... I think that answer is pretty obvious.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 24, 1999.

Mike, the PDF's you were created after the fact. I think Steve Davis did the HTML version it himself. (The newer Excel's have a "Save As HTML feature).

The originals were excel spreadsheets, which can be a little wonky to download on some browsers.

King, I had a parallel thought earlir today:

I've been appreciating the irony.

Pop quiz:

When faced with a risk of unknown probability but with potentially disastrous effects, it is prudent and responsible to:

A) Hope for the worst and plan for the worst.

B) Hope for the best and plan for the best.

C) Hope for the best and plan for the worst.

Gary North and some of more adamant TB2Krs would answer "A"

Most every day folks would answer "B"

The Navy, and most of us, would answer "C"

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), August 24, 1999.


You forgot Clinton's White House answer: poll the public, find out what your supporters want to hear, then publicize that through your local compliant national media.

Then quote the national media as they poll the public to buttress your original "want to hear" vresion.

The facts - of potential failure, of potential success - DON'T MATTER.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), August 24, 1999.


Lewis,

I would answer C, no need to even think about it.

However, hoping for the best and planning for the worst may indeed not even be an option. The worst is entirely possible.

Based upon information supplied by the local governments themselves in the GAO report in July, the 19 of the 21 largest cities in the US are not in great shape. And this report ONLY deals with services THEY THEMSELVES have control over. The timing of this report as it relates to the information you and Jim Lord accessed is interesting.

Bottomline is that assessments are underway and even the GAO report says that only an average of 45% of the work has been done as of July 15.

The report you found may indeed list cities more in danger because many don't have nearly the budgets nor the resources nor the control over the systems they depend upon.

Logic suggests that there isn't enough time to fix everything especially because many of these large cities started their projects years ago.

The government and Koskinen have said over and over again that their worry is about local and county preparedness and remediation efforts.

The spin now is that this isn't the case, these local and county projects are doing great. I don't buy it. Especially since this point of view changed literally overnight.

Mike

=======================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 24, 1999.


For those of us that believe y2k has the potential to cause serious problems the Navy Report was just another piece of the puzzle.

I believe that the REAL story lies with the intense reaction from the K-Man and his y2k Team. You can bet that ANYTHING negative with regard to y2k has been and will continue to be COVERED UP by these folks, it's their job.

Rest assured, if the news is negative we will NEVER get the TRUTH from them.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 24, 1999.


To quote a famous talk show host...
"ye suckers"

Lewis is just another polly trying to stir things up. Just remember these idiots when they are at YOUR doorstep begging for food or water. Print their posts. Flash it in their faces. Then slam the door shut.
To those that are prepared, Semper Fi
To those that are not, the .223 has an effective range of 500 yards. Remember that when approaching my property.
Oh, and have a nice day.
John Galt

-- John Galt (jgaltfla@hotmail.com), August 25, 1999.

John, I'd like to put you and Y2K Pro in a room together and lock the door. Gawd!!!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 25, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California

Lewis, I don't see anything that Mr. Franke has said to be casting any negative aspersions on you. Even the "good citizen" phrase relates not to suggesting that you're a bad citizen, but rather to Mr. Franke's characterization of Steve Davis' spin. Mr. Franke's commentary seems to me to be completely in synch with what my understanding of what you said about how you had reported the availability of this document to John Koskinen.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage.neener.autospammers--regrets.greenspun), August 25, 1999.


Although I suspect much of the data was strained through supervisory officers' personal knowledge of local officials, we need to remember too what Sen. Bennett said about self-reporting back in February at the Senate Y2K Committee's Food Supply Hearings. Bennett stated that in "every circumstance" where ANY industry spokesperson had self-reported their status, later GAO checks revealed such reporting to be "overly optimistic." A read of the Ag Sec's testimony shows that their rosy picture of the food supply was based on "round-table discussions" and such, not an actual physical check of the situation. In fact, given what we have learned in the past six months, another read of the hearing notes wouldn't be a bad idea. I remember watching those hearings (as do many of you, I'm sure) and feeling chilled to the bone as the testimony unfolded. This was the point at which I decided that a month's worth of food might bot be sufficient. There's good info here--for instance, that it takes 9 months from decision to table to increase food production.

Here's the cold link.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000T5E

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), August 25, 1999.


From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California

It would be best to not refer to the Navy Master Utility Plan as "Lord's Report."

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage.neener.autospammers--regrets.greenspun), August 25, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ