Big Oil at the Controlsgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread |
Big Oil at the Controls
Subs Aren't the Only Things Dubya's Donors and Oil Buddies Are Mishandling
by Tamara Baker
Feb. 19, 2001 -- SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA (APJP) -- Well, it sure took 'em long enough.The Navy reports that after a "lengthy non-public investigation" the names of the 16 civilian VIPs aboard the USS Greeneville when it destroyed the Ehime Maru are finally being released.
Thanks to the work of several amateur Net sleuths, including the worthy "Delta Dart" of Salon's Table Talk message boards, a picture is beginning to emerge of these 16 VIPs.
Here's their names and their known political and financial affiliations:
#1: JAY BREHMER
OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS
#2: CAROL BREHMER
OVERLAND PARK, KANSASThe Brehmers may not seem at first to have any oil, Texas or GOP connections -- but interestingly, we find that a Public Records: Yahoo People Search yields the following information:
Jay and Carol Brehmer...Spring, TX
Spring, Texas is a wealthy northern suburb of Houston, not far from the very tony suburb of The Woodlands (more on that later).
Also, Jay Brehmer is a Company Director of Aquila Energy as of October 2000.
According to Oil and Gas Investor,
Aquila Energy expanded its financing role in the energy industry when it entered the capital markets in August 1998 with the start-up of Aquila Energy Capital Corp. (AECC). AECC is backed by Aquila Energy, the unregulated energy marketing subsidiary of $7.5-billion Kansas City-based UtiliCorp United (UCU). Since its creation in the mid-1980s, Aquila has grown to become one of the top five gas and power marketers in North America.
Remember how Usurper Boy is a big "energy deregulation" fan? Remember the fact that Enron, the nation's biggest unregulated-energy player (and one of the entities raking in the biggest profits from the deregulation shell-game scam in California) is also George W. Bush's biggest lifetime political campaign contributor?
#3: JACK CLARY
STOW, MA
#4: PAT CLARY
STOW, MAA 'Jack Clary' makes his living as a relatively famous sports journalist. He has written books on baseball and football, and in 1997 wrote Navy Football Gridiron Legends & Fighting Heroes, which was published by the Naval Institute Press. My guess is that this is the same fella.
Now, Bush owned the Texas Rangers as part of a scheme put together by his old buddy Richard Rainwater, part of which involved abusing the eminent-domain laws to force dozens of Arlington-area residents to sell their land and homes to Rainwater's outfit for the creation of The Ballpark at Arlington. Since a good portion of this properly never wound up as part of The Ballpark, Rainwater made a tidy sum selling the excess land for a good deal than he paid for it. But Clary and his wife Pat, so far as I can see, are among the few civilians on the USS Greeneville who weren't Texans, oil/energy people and/or a donors to George W. Bush and/or the Republican Party.
#5: HELEN CULLEN
HOUSTON, TEXAS
The Cullen Family owns Quintana Petroleum, Houston, TX. According to http://www.opensecrets.org, they are big backers of both GW Bush and the GOP:CULLEN, ROY H
HOUSTON, TX 77002
QUINTANA PETROLEUM 07/21/2000 $10,000 Republican National Cmte
CULLEN, ROY H
HOUSTON, TX 77002
INVESTMENTS 04/14/1999 $1,000 Bush, George W
CULLEN, ROY H
HOUSTON, TX 77002
QUINTANA PETROLEUM 07/30/1999 $10,000 Republican National Cmte
CULLEN, ROY H MRS.
HOUSTON, TX 77002
QUINTANA PETROLEUM 07/21/2000 $10,000 Republican National Cmte
CULLEN, ROY H MRS.
HOUSTON, TX 77002
QUINTANA PETROLEUM 07/30/1999 $10,000 Republican National Cmte#6: JOHN M. HALL
SEALY, TEXAS
#7: LEIGH ANNE SCHNELL HALL
SEALY, TEXAS
Note also that, as I mentioned in my last APJ piece, Todd Thoman and John Hall (who was the guy at the buoyancy levers when the sub did its disastrous emergency surface drill) are both employed by Fossil Bay, an oil company based in Dallas, Texas. They were on the sub because of the contributions they made to the USS Missouri restoration foundation......whose 'honorary chair' just happens to be George Herbert Walker Bush.
#8: MIKE MITCHELL
Update from Tamara
Feb. 20, 2001 -- Re: Mike Mitchell, Irving, TX. (The one I couldn't ID.)
It's a PDF file for the 1999 annual meeting of the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA).
On page 8, one of the speakers listed for a talk called (ironically enough) "Show Me the Money!" is Mike Mitchell, Managing Director of EnCap Energy Advisors, Dallas.
IRVING, TEXAS
#9: MICKEY NOLAN
HONOLULU, HI
#10: SUSAN NOLAN
HONOLULU, HIMickey Nolan is a local Honoloulu golf tournament promoter. He probably put together a golfing event for these GOP money people.
#11: ANTHONY SCHNUR
THE WOODLANDS, TEXAS
#12: SUSAN SCHNUR
THE WOODLANDS, TEXASSchnur has an email address at utilicorp.com -- and Aquila Energy is a UtiliCorp United company, as noted earlier. Aquila is one of the biggest wholesalers of energy in the US, and stands to make Enron-sized profits should the GOP's deregulation scam overcome the California catastrophe.
#13: TODD THOMAN
HOUSTON, TEXAS
#14: DEANDRA THOMAN
HOUSTON, TEXASTodd Thoman was Vice President of Corporate Communications, Fossil Bay Resources Ltd., working out of their Houdston office until a couple weeks ago, according to a receptionist reached by one of APJ's New York staffers.
#15: KEN WYATT
GOLDEN, COLORADO
#16: CATHERINE GRAHAM WYATT
GOLDEN, COLORADOGolden is where Adolph Coors has set up shop. As befits its major employer, it's a very rich, very conservative Denver suburb.
Ken Wyatt works for Utilicorp. Oil and Gas Investor.com lists numbers in both Denver and Houston for Wyatt, along with an email address at Utilicorp.
There you have it: the 16 civilian VIPs that rode -- and in some cases drove -- the USS Greeneville on its date with destiny. Many of these same VIPs are driving the US' energy policy, and stand to profit greatly on blackouts and misery just as Enron is profiting in the deregged parts of California.
One wonders if these VIPs, America's secret leaders, will show more discretion and and care and skill at driving the US' ship of state than they did at the helms of the USS Greeneville.
Judging from their rapaciousness, it would seem that the answer is 'no'.
-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), February 21, 2001
You gotta love "Usurper Boy". That's definately in the top 3. LOL Looks like the honeymoon is over.......
-- KoFE (your@town.USA), February 21, 2001.
Good catch Cherri. LOL! Ohhhhhhhh AIN'T!!
-- (@ .), February 21, 2001.
This is too funny Cherri. The donors got a ride! So what! Is this any different than the Lincoln bedroom for rent sign that Clinton hung out the WH? You screaming liberals poo pooed that notion. What makes you think that any conservatives will take this bull? Let's face it Cherri, most of the indigent on welfare won't see their way to any of these perks. And do you think they would deserve any perks?Turn around fair play.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 21, 2001.
No one died when donors were allowed to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom.Sub crewman says civilans distracted him
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), February 21, 2001.
Tar, that's a different topic. And one that I whole-heartedly agree with. No civies should be at the controls at any time, period. I understand why the navy (and all the other departments) do this but I don't agree with it.Cherri was making the comment about $ for perks and I say big fripping deal! Screaming liberals didn't care when Clinton did it, now they scream when W does it. Hypocrisy at its finest.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 21, 2001.
No, it's not a seperate topic. This particular political payback lead to the deaths of nine people. The Navy and anyone else involved in this should be held accountable.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), February 21, 2001.
Yep, our commander-in-thief is basically selling off our country to big oil, just as I knew he would.It is becoming clear why Dumbya tells everyone to forget about Clinton. Dumbya is guilty of worse, and doesn't want to be held up to the same scrutiny.
-- (bush family @ is. scum), February 21, 2001.
Several guests in the Lincoln bedroom have caught deadly STDs from the toilet seats.
-- (nemesis@awol.com), February 21, 2001.
Tar,This post indicates that "Yep, our commander-in-thief is basically selling off our country to big oil, just as I knew he would." (As the above post states). Two separate issues: selling off our country to big oil and the "visitors" at the controls. I don't believe that the hypocrats can make any such claims as the selling off our county, bull. This article ties these visitors to big oil. So What? Who cares what these visitors do for a living. I don't.
I do believe that visitors (no matter what their walk of life) should never be at any weapons controls. The weapons control thing has been going on for a long time and Clinton allowed for his "visitors" to do the very same thing. No cries at that time, were there? This is nothing new, that is, letting the departments show off their equipment to civilians. This is the first time anyone died over it.
Are you saying that because they were from big oil they purposely attacked these innocent Japaness victims? This is the only way (IMO) you can tie these two topics together. If I'm wrong, I'm sure you'll tell me.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 21, 2001.
This is a red herring.Civilians who are well connected have always been able to do ride alongs, this is nothing new. The problem with this incident is that the Captain fucked up by not insuring that the area was clear before doing this surfacing drill, and the incident has ZERO bearing on who gave what money to whom, and who they work for. More knee-jerk Bush bashing by the left.
-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), February 21, 2001.
I do believe that visitors (no matter what their walk of life) should never be at any weapons controls.I don't know that they were at the weapons control, but I do know that at least two were at helm positions, controlling the angle and rate of ascent.
The weapons control thing has been going on for a long time and Clinton allowed for his "visitors" to do the very same thing. No cries at that time, were there?
No visitor caused a fatal accident during the Clinton administration. If a fatal accident had occured during his administration, people would have been as outraged and horrified as they are now.
This is nothing new, that is, letting the departments show off their equipment to civilians. This is the first time anyone died over it.
My point exactly. Sometimes it takes a tragedy to wake people up to the fact that something is wrong. The fact that this tragedy occured under a president you voted for is no excuse to attempt to sweep the tragedy under the rug.
Are you saying that because they were from big oil they purposely attacked these innocent Japaness victims?
No, I'm saying their presence was a distraction. I'm saying their presence caused the captain to showboat for them (the type of maneuver they were doing is not usually done that close to shore).
This is the only way (IMO) you can tie these two topics together.
No one actually brought up the Clinton's political favors except for you. This is the only issue in Cherri's article and the only issue I've brought up. Why you even brought up the Lincoln bedroom scandal is beyond me, except perhaps as a way to minimize and cheapen the deaths of nine people in order to possibly save face for the Bush administration.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), February 21, 2001.
"This is the only issue in Cherri's article and the only issue I've brought up." You've lost it Tar. No where and I mean no where in Cherri's unbiased and factual (yeah right Golden is made up of rich conservatives!) piece does it point to any (I repeat any) deaths. It only points out the backgrounds of these visitors on the sub.It ties how they obtain these "perks" and "favors" from Bush because of their backgrounds. And I say big fucking deal! Please highlight because I am blind where the article actually states the word "deaths". Let me repeat, Tar, it's a report on the ""lengthy non-public investigation" the names of the 16 civilian VIPs", and nothing more. I bring up Lincoln's bedroom because Clinton did the very same thing, sell for perks. What's so hard to understand Tar?
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 21, 2001.
No where and I mean no where in Cherri's unbiased and factual (yeah right Golden is made up of rich conservatives!) piece does it point to any (I repeat any) deaths.Oh, I get it now. You flunked English 101, Reading for Context. One more time, slowly, so even you can understand it:
The only issue at hand here is the Greenville accident, what caused it, and what the end results were(for the record, the end results were nine deaths, a wrecked fishing vessel, and a black eye for the US Navy). These civilians seem to have been a major factor in the accident. They did not appear out of thin air. What were they doing on the sub in the first place? And no, the correct answer is not "Well, look at Clinton's scandal,"
It only points out the backgrounds of these visitors on the sub. It ties how they obtain these "perks" and "favors" from Bush because of their backgrounds. And I say big fucking deal!
It's a big deal because their presence, directly or indirectly, may very well have lead to nine deaths. Since these people didn't simply magically appear on the sub, the question becomes "What were they doing there in the first place?" This article answers that question.
Please highlight because I am blind where the article actually states the word "deaths".
Don't put words in my mouth, Maria. I never claimed the article is discussing the deaths, only one aspect of the tragedy.
I bring up Lincoln's bedroom because Clinton did the very same thing, sell for perks. What's so hard to understand Tar?
What's so hard to understand is how you could be so cold, callous, and committed to Bush that you would seek to minimize this tragedy so as to conduct damage control for the man you voted for. Equating the Lincoln bedroom scandal to the Greenville disaster is like equating a minor fender-bender to a head-on collision on the freeway.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), February 21, 2001.
I bring up Lincoln's bedroom because Clinton did the very same thing, sell for perks. What's so hard to understand Tar?INNOCENT PEOPLE WERE KILLED BECAUSE OF THESE REPUBLICAN DONORS ON BOARD, dopette.
What's so hard to understand, Maria? Does the fact that these money rollers were involved in the deaths of innocent civilians not matter to you? Bush's monied cronies and the Navy messed up big time, and they will pay for their carelessness and their shallow "fun" at the expense of innocent victims' lives.
This accident is an international outrage, and Bush, the Navy, and Bush's donors are responsible for these deaths --- deaths, Maria, not sex, not furniture, not pardons, DEATHS.
-- Quit Defending the Indefensible (shameless@hypocrite.com), February 21, 2001.
To be fair, although these people are supporters of Bush, it is not clear who made the decision to let them on board. It's doubtful that that decision was made at anywhere near the White House level, usually that sort of decision would be made by a liason or staffer (I believe). Nevertheless, regardless of who made the decision, they should be accountable for this mistake, along with the captain of the vessel as well.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), February 21, 2001.
Why aren't these high rollers rushing to give interviews so they can clear up exactly how much personal responsibility they bear for this tragedy? I thought taking personal responsibility was all the rage among Bush supporters.Why have I not heard anyone say,"I take personal responsibilty"?
-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), February 21, 2001.
Tar wrote, "This is the only issue in Cherri's article and the only issue I've brought up. Why you even brought up the Lincoln bedroom scandal is beyond me, except perhaps as a way to minimize and cheapen the deaths of nine people in order to possibly save face for the Bush administration." Thus implying that "the only issue I've brought up . . . to . . . cheapen the deaths".I go on to explain that the article talks about the visitors' backgrounds, as if that had something to do with the deaths. I treat this as two separate issues, not at all connected.
In defense of yourself, Tar, you respond, "Don't put words in my mouth, Maria. I never claimed the article is discussing the deaths, only one aspect of the tragedy."
Yes indeedy, Tar, I need a lesson in "English 101, Reading for Context."
Tar, my posts didn't "minimize this tragedy so as to conduct damage control for the man you voted for". Especially when I write in my very first response to you, "No civies should be at the controls at any time, period. I understand why the navy (and all the other departments) do this but I don't agree with it." Is that emphatic enough for you? I think that this practice should be abolished. How many different ways can I explain this to you for you to understand?
Is there anything else you'd like me to explain to you Tar?
Now on to Quit Defending the Indefensible. INNOCENT PEOPLE WERE KILLED BECAUSE OF THESE REPUBLICAN DONORS ON BOARD Ah the crux of Cherri's (dimwit's) point (which is what I thought Tar was pointing out when he said that they are not separate issues but one and the same). Because these guys were indeed republicans and further those scum big oil tycoons, they indeed killed those Japanese. Ah yes, and Y2K will kill us all! And this supporter of the dimwit club goes on with "Does the fact that these money rollers were involved in the deaths of innocent civilians not matter to you? Yes those big-bad- republicans-who- are- only- interested- in- their- own- money- grubbing- causes- to- hell- with- the- rest- of- the- world conspiracy.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 21, 2001.
I go on to explain that the article talks about the visitors' backgrounds, as if that had something to do with the deaths. I treat this as two separate issues, not at all connected.Since their presence on the sub was related to their background (and because of their background) and since their presence is an all-too likely cause for the accident (as attested to in the first link I posted) clearly their background is important to this discussion. Pretending that the identities and background of these people is unimportant is ridiculous. They were not random citizens pulled off the docks for a sub ride, they were there because of who they are and what they have done politically.
Yes indeedy, Tar, I need a lesson in "English 101, Reading for Context."
I'm glad you agree. Your assignment is to go to your nearest Junior College and enroll in whatever remedial English course they have available, as soon as possible. The post you save may be your own.
Tar, my posts didn't "minimize this tragedy so as to conduct damage control for the man you voted for".
So why did you minimze this tragedy, Maria? Enquiring minds want to know.
Especially when I write in my very first response to you, "No civies should be at the controls at any time, period. I understand why the navy (and all the other departments) do this but I don't agree with it." Is that emphatic enough for you? I think that this practice should be abolished. How many different ways can I explain this to you for you to understand?
As you yourself said, " This is too funny Cherri. The donors got a ride! So what! Is this any different than the Lincoln bedroom for rent sign that Clinton hung out the WH?"
So do you think it's funny when people die, Maria, or is it only funny when people complain about life-threatening situations caused by political backscratching?
Is there anything else you'd like me to explain to you Tar?
Yeah, I'd like to know how equating the deaths of nine people to a tax-payer funded slumber party is not minimizing this tragedy. Can you explain that to me, Maria?
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), February 21, 2001.
Let me try this once more for the reading challenged...The problem with this incident is that the Captain fucked up by not insuring that the area was clear before doing this surfacing drill, and the incident has ZERO bearing on who gave what money to whom, and who they work for.
-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), February 21, 2001.
The reason the Captain was performing this procedure so close to land in the first place was to showboat. At least one crewman has said that he was not able to do his job because these people were on board.Deny it all you want, but the presence of these people was indeed a factor.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), February 21, 2001.
They were "a factor", Tarzan? Where's your head, man? I can see you haven't learned the lessons of the past 8 years. You are being moderate, proportionate and reasonable. All wrong.You must foam and shake with rage and scream:
"Bush is a cold-blooded killer, who should be held responsible for his actions. Don't give me that lame line about he wasn't there or he didn't know - those are just chickenshit excuses. Bush killed the people on that fishing boat just to line his pockets with blood money from his lying, lowlife buddies from Texas. If Bush isn't impeached for this, this country will burn in hell. Think how bad the survivors feel."
Then you must repeat this on every Internet forum you can find. Spam it into knitting forums and music forums. Scream as loud as you can. Show outrage until smoke poursout of your ears, then righteously proclaim, "Where there is smoke, there is fire!"
You must keep this up every day for years. It works. It really does.
-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), February 21, 2001.
Where did I "Deny it all you want, but the presence of these people was indeed a factor." Of course it was a factor! Read again. VISITORS SHOULD NOT BE AT THE CONTROLS from my first response to you.I wrote, "Are you saying that because they were from big oil they purposely attacked these innocent Japaness victims?" So, Tar, you finally answered this question, "Pretending that the identities and background of these people is unimportant is ridiculous." Thanks.
Well it only took you four posts in between when I first asked the question and your last response. Now I'm not putting words in your mouth, so I won't conclude you think they "purposely attacked" but I will conclude that you think that being scum oil tycoons is "important". But why is it important to you (and of course Cherri)?
Unk, I heard a report on the news that a crewman did know that the ship was nearby but when the area become to crowded with people, he stepped away from his post. You're absolutely right. The captain takes full responsibility.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 21, 2001.
Where did I "Deny it all you want, but the presence of these people was indeed a factor."That was directed at Unk. Not everything is about you, Maria.
I wrote, "Are you saying that because they were from big oil they purposely attacked these innocent Japaness victims?" So, Tar, you finally answered this question, "Pretending that the identities and background of these people is unimportant is ridiculous." Thanks.
So you can't make your point without lying about mine. How very sad.
No one purposely attacked anyone.
I'll say it again so that it sinks in. No one purposely attacked anyone.
The presence of these people was a distraction that led to the accident. Note the use of the term "accident" not "attack". It is not meant to excuse anyone. The people who were the distraction would not have been in the position to be a distraction were it not for who they are and what they have done politically.
Now I'm not putting words in your mouth, so I won't conclude you think they "purposely attacked" but I will conclude that you think that being scum oil tycoons is "important".
Yes, you are, and you've compounded your error by lying about my position. I do not think these people are "scum oil tycoons", only that they were in the way at the wrong time and the wrong place. They would not have been in the wrong place at the wrong time were it not for who they are and what they have done politically. As you yourself pointed out, "Let's face it Cherri, most of the indigent on welfare won't see their way to any of these perks. And do you think they would deserve any perks?"
But why is it important to you (and of course Cherri)?
I can't speak for Cherri, but it is important to me that nine people died needlessly. This may not bother you, but it bugs the hell out of me.
You're absolutely right. The captain takes full responsibility.
Isn't this the same captain who's refusing to meet with NTSB investigators?
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), February 21, 2001.
Big contributors have a way of buying special privileges, in any administration. Getting to ride on a submarine is such a privilege. Sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom is another. There are many more, and they are a normal, expected part of politics. Saying "Big Oil is at the controls" is a lame attempt at a smear, but Cherri has a reputation of buying instantly into any attempt to smear Bush, however lame. BUT...My own suspicion is that the Japanese boat had a great deal to do with where this operation took place. I admit I have no new facts, but circumstantial evidence suggeststo me that, as a lark, these guys decided to suddenly broach this huge sub *right next to* the Japanese boat, and startle the hell out of them. "Haw haw, I bet those Japs just shit all over themselves, snort chuckle." Well, oops, they got a little TOO close. They realize that procedures call for clear seas within sensing distance, and that their equipment could not have possibly missed that boat. OK, guys, let's agree on a story here. Well, it was this comedy of errors, see, we were trying to do the operation and simultaneously educate the visitors, and the boat sighting just kind of didnt get communicated in the confusion, no wait, we didn't actually finish looking see, things were not quite standard, nobody is really specifically responsible, please direct any further questions to my lawyer...
I think that Bush being president is irrelevant, and the fact that these were oil people is also irrelevant. Someone at a low level (sub commander) suffered a DAMN serious lapse of judgment, and should be severely punished. If the Bush administration just somehow can't find anyone really at fault here, they really *are* scum. There is simply NO EXCUSE for this incident.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 21, 2001.
Hey dumbfucks Maria, Flint and Deedah - maybe this will help you get it:NINE DEAD DUE TO BUSH'S OIL BUDDIES JOYRIDING A NUKE SUB
Somebody start a tally.
-- Help (for@mentally.challenged), February 21, 2001.
Yes but Bill Clinton left a nasty sperm stain on his girlfriends dress. That's a hell of a lot worse in my opinion.
-- sexually deprived (since@birth.canal), February 21, 2001.
Hey Help, talk about a dumbfuck...Maybe some remedial reading lessons will help you. Let me clear it up for you. Nine are dead because the Captain of that sub ignored US Navy regulations and did an emergency sufacing drill without insuring that the area was clear of shipping. That is all, over.
Dipshit.
-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), February 21, 2001.
Hey Uncle Dickbreath - maybe you need to press the reload button on your browser:Sub crewman says civilians distracted him (CNN.com)
Last time I checked, captain was not spelled C-I-V-I-L-I-A-N-S
-- blow me (you@ass.hole), February 21, 2001.
Hey blow me,The Captain runs the boat, the Captain issues the order to surface, not some 'crewman'.
-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), February 21, 2001.
Maria, first you must ask yourself - were the civilians who were on board that submarine partially to blame for the mistakes that were made, because of their behavior while on board?Next, you must ask yourself, will I ever know the true answer to that question, or will the Navy cover up any culpability of the donors and find scapegoats among the crew, because the top brass reflexively will wish to protect the friends of the president from embarrassment and pervert the truth to serve that end?
Now be honest, Maria, how certain can you be that your belief in the honesty of the Navy's investigation will prove correct - and would the very fact of your uncertainty make you queazy about the quality of justice in America, in much the same way that Clinton's pardons make you ill at ease on that subject?
This is not really a partisan issue. It is a power issue. Tell me. Maria, can either major party be trusted with power today? Why?
-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), February 21, 2001.
Nipper:To be honest, I genuinely don't understand what political parties have to do with this incident. I do not believe what actually happened will ever really come out -- especially since I believe they were pulling a stunt *because of* that fishing boat, because it was there *rather than* because they "didn't know" it was there!
But if that's the case, the military would never admit it, no matter which party ruled any part of government. They would surely write it off as an accident, with a dash of carelessness. In any case, I doubt the terrible judgment exercised in this case extended above the commander of that sub. This case is one I consider to be just like the case where the jets were buzzing the cable car. Yeah, it was deliberate until disaster struck. Then it became an accident.
But this isn't about power, it's about (at worst) a practical joke that went very wrong. And they'll likely hang the commander, and crack down on this kind of thing just like they cracked down on the jets buzzing people. And that will remain in force until human nature combines with a long-standing good safety record to create complacence and risky behavior again.
And big contributors will still get submarine rides. But for a while, they will be "by the book" all the way.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 21, 2001.
I wouldn't know who to blame for this tragedy. I've seen no evidence to indicate that it was a joke [knowing that the Japanese vessel was too close for comfort].John Hall was asked by the Captain if he'd like to pull the lever. He accepted the offer. Heck, I would have, as well. The civilian "accompaniment" was arranged by a former commander of the U.S. military forces in the Pacific, retired Adm. Richard Macke. He was a volunteer on the USS Missouri Restoration fund and all these civilians had been huge contributors to that fund.
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 21, 2001.
Nipper, were the civilians who were on board that submarine partially to blame for the mistakes that were made, because of their behavior while on board?Yes the civies were to blame but not because of *their* behavior but because the captain allowed it to happen. The captain should never have allowed any civie to take over the controls. It's his boat; he says what can and can't be done. Same way I blame the parents for unruly kids, not the kids.
will I ever know the true answer to that question, or will the Navy cover up No of course I'll never know the true answer; I'm not part of the investigation; I wasn't on board. But I do have my suspicions just as everyone else. And of course the navy will cover up and do damage control as best they can. I'll wait to see if the captain receives any punishment.
This is not really a partisan issue Absofuckinlutely. That's what Tar and Cherri don't get. They say that the visitors' background is "important" but can't tell me why. Tar only states that they have "been in the wrong place at the wrong time" Now that to me says their background doesn't matter, just a matter of pure dumb luck.
Guess what Linda Tripp's job was at the Pentagon during the Clinton admin? Arranging such "tours" for civies. So this has been going on for some time.
Flint, I'm not so sure it was a "prank" but could be. I think it was more "let me show you what this puppy can do". Pure PR for the navy and as I mentioned above all the departments do it.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 22, 2001.
Cherri, you are blowing farts out your typing fingers. Nowhere has it even been remotely implied that Bush ever knew that these people even wanted to go on a sub, much less even knowing them personally. But obviously you are implying that EVERYONE connected with the energy industry in America is part of a global conspiracy cabal to support George W. Bush and push big evil tax cuts. Gimme a break.You other incredible generalization is that all rich people ("...Spring, Texas is a wealthy northern suburb of Houston, not far from the very tony suburb of The Woodlands (more on that later)...") are Republicans, and no middle class or poor are conservatives. Wow, I guess that's news to Bill and Hillary Clinton.
-- Cherri pulls a gasser (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), February 22, 2001.
One of the biggest of the BIG OIL evil ones is one of Bill's favorites, Cherri, and I'm sure one of yours - Marc Rich of the RICH PARDON. Guess you thought big oil only came in Bush flavors, huh?
-- big oil comes in all flavors (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), February 22, 2001.
Absofuckinlutely.The starry heights of Maria's rhetorical skills.
-- Absofuckinlutely Stupid (maria's@limit.com), February 22, 2001.
I didn't "say" anything. I posted an article. So many assumptions of what was in my mind. Seems so many people think they know more about what I am thinking then I know myself.
-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), February 22, 2001.