| Author | Message | ||
     cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 614 Registered: 8-2003 |
Well....if Dean makes those and his records as governor available, I'm sure there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for all of this. And we'll get it.....after the election. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 419 Registered: 8-2003  |
after Bush makes his records from Texas available. | ||
| Reflective Citizen Username: Reflective Post Number: 218 Registered: 3-2003 |
Bobk - I think the so-called partisan faction would have said Hooah! if Clinton had gone into Afgahnistan. The sad truth is that our forces weren't capable at that time. If you know anything about the 1992 - 1999 time period in the military, you know we were reduced in numbers, stretched thin, training cut back, pc indoctrination, major armament inventory such as cruise missiles was almost nonexistent and morale was not good. One major thing was overlooked by the peace dividenders. That was the 4th Infantry Division at Fort Hood. Texas, that is, near Waco where ol' Wes first made public notice. Forget Wes. Task Force 21 was the mission of the 4th ID. Ever heard of it? It was busily working out the kinks in first generation equipment now being used so effectively by the 4th ID and other forces in Iraq, except that it's now 3rd and 4th genersation equipment. Some examples are the body armor, the communications and video (by reconnaisance soldiers), gps, and vitual electronic command and control of the battle field by senior officers. (Note: the 4th ID din't initially go into northern Iraq as planned, due to Turkey acting like a turkey. So they rerouted over a month to Kawait and motored up to the north. Does all this stop individual attacks, such as IED's? No, but it and humint (human intelliigence) are certainly picking up and stopping the bad guys. Humint, during the 90's became almost nonexistent. And made any military adventure into Afgan or Iraq, well, a real adventure with heavy casualties. Maybe, we used plans conceived during the Clinton era, but the two years leading up to the Afgan invasion were very spent in retooling our readiness. As a Vietnam vet, active 3 1/2 years, and in the reserves until 1978, what our military has done is breathtaking. I salute them. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 616 Registered: 8-2003 |
Hey Doc....Bush's records are available. Just go to the Texas State House and ask for them. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 423 Registered: 8-2003 |
Why are we even going to bother with an election? The pundits are right - THE GOVERNOR CAN'T WIN! | ||
| United Strawberry of America Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 1699 Registered: 10-2001  |
 Howard Dean decides lax security at Nuke power plants is acceptable while Governor of Vermont Presidential hopeful Howard Dean who accuses President Bush (news - web sites) of being weak on homeland security, was warned repeatedly as Vermont governor about security lapses at his state's nuclear power plant and was told the state was ill-prepared for a disaster at its most attractive terrorist target. The warnings, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press, began in 1991 when a group of students were brought into a secure area of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant without proper screening. On at least two occasions, a gun or mock terrorists passed undetected into the plant during security tests. During Dean's final year in office in 2002, an audit concluded that despite a decade of repeated warnings of poor safety at Vermont Yankee, Dean's administration was poorly prepared for a nuclear disaster. "The lack of funding and overarching coordination at the state level directly impacts the ability of the state, local and power plant planners to be adequately prepared for a real emergency at Vermont Yankee," state Auditor Elizabeth M. Ready wrote in a study issued five months after the Sept. 11 attacks. Security was so lax at Vermont Yankee that in August 2001, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staged a drill in which three mock terrorists gained access to the plant. The agency gave Vermont Yankee the worst security rating among the nation's 103 reactors. The NRC has primary responsibility for safety at Vermont Yankee. But Vermont laws required an active state role by creating a panel to review security and performance and requiring plant operators to set aside money for the state to use in the event of a nuclear disaster. Dean's campaign said Saturday it ultimately was the federal government's responsibility to ensure security at the plant, but that he badgered Vermont Yankee's operators and the NRC to make improvements during the 1990s. "After September 11, Governor Dean decided the buck stops here in terms of security and personally ran this effort, creating a Cabinet-level agency," spokesman Jay Carson said. Carson acknowledged there were weaknesses before 2002 in Vermont's nuclear preparedness, and Dean moved quickly afterward to place state troopers and National Guardsman at the plant, distribute radiation pills to civilians, demand a federal no-fly zone over the plant to prevent an aerial attack, and increase emergency preparedness funding. "As many have said before, hindsight is 20-20 and no one could have predicted what could have happened on a terrible day in September 2001," Carson said. "In retrospect, every state in the entire country could have been safer. The important thing is after Governor Dean recognized these vulnerabilities, he took swift, bold steps to make things better," Carson said. State Auditor Ready, a Democrat and Dean backer, agreed things improved after her critical 2002 report and that security tests this year showed Vermont Yankee was safer. "Once Governor Dean got that report there was swift and thorough action," she said. But even after Ready's report recommended the state's nuclear preparedness spending triple from $400,000 to $1.2 million, Dean budgeted only half the increase. That led Dean's state emergency management director, Ed von Turkovich, to tell the Legislature in 2002 that the increase to $800,000 "does not cover the expenses related to the program" and that Vermont's nuclear preparedness was "in trouble, grossly underfunded, under-resourced and has been for years." The lack of preparedness was blamed in the 2002 audit on inadequate funds. "Vermont receives the least amount of funding for its Radiological Emergency Response Plan, in total dollars, of any New England state that hosts a nuclear power plant," the audit disclosed. The audit was not the first warning to Dean, documents show. On Feb. 14, 2000, von Turkovich wrote Dean's top deputy, Administration Secretary Kathleen Hoyt, expressing concern the state was not forcing Vermont Yankee, which was up for sale, to set aside more money for preparedness. "We are sympathetic to the utility's concern for controlling costs with respect to the pending sale of the plant and have committed to expend additional state and federal resources to subsidize this program in the coming year," von Turkovich wrote. "However, I believe in the near future, the present or new owners will need to broaden their level of support for preparedness activities that need to be accomplished on behalf of the communities that reside in the Emergency Planning Zone," he wrote. The documents contrast with Dean's position as a presidential candidate who has portrayed himself as more concerned about nuclear security than Bush. "Our most important challenge will be to address the most dangerous threat of all: catastrophic terrorism using weapons of mass destruction," Dean said in his speech in Los Angeles last month. "Here, where the stakes are highest, the current administration has, remarkably, done the least." Dean also has suggested Bush was unprepared before and after Sept. 11 to fight terrorism. "We are in danger of losing the war on terror, because we are fighting it with the strategies of the past," the Democratic candidate said. The Vermont documents show Dean and his top aides received numerous warnings about Vermont Yankee. In August 1991, an aide sent a handwritten memo to Dean saying there was a "security error" at Vermont Yankee that was "not public." A group of students "on a tour were taken into a secure area without checking through security first," the aide wrote, saying the matter was minor but would be disclosed to federal regulators. Dean initialed the memo, indicating he read it. In 1992, the NRC provided information to Dean about "declining performances at Vermont Yankee in three important areas: plant security, engineering/technical support and safety assessment/quality verification," documents show. Dean responded by writing the head of the plant that the problems could "have an impact on the health and safety of the people of Vermont" and "it is my expectation that you will do all in your power to correct this declining trend." It was one of several such letters he wrote. Just months later, the Vermont Nuclear Advisory Panel, a state panel, reported that it was concerned about two nuclear fuel mishandling incidents at the plant. "The panel finds it unacceptable that the fuel handling incidents occurred as a result of complacent operator and management actions," the panel reported. Environmental groups sent Dean repeated letters about the plant's security and safety. During a 1998 federal security test, mock terrorists sneaked a fake gun past security and six times scaled, undetected, the plant's security perimeter fence. The 1998 test was alarming because seven years earlier, protesters had managed to breach the same security by scaling the fence or rafting down an adjacent river. The 2001 security test again penetrated Vermont Yankee's security. Ready's audit in 2002 questioned why, with so many warnings about safety, Dean's administration had significantly fewer people committed to nuclear emergency planning than neighboring states. "Unlike its nearest counterparts, Vermont's Division of Emergency Management has only one full-time and two part-time staff to support" its emergency response program, she wrote. "New Hampshire has nearly 20 full- and part-time staff as well as consultants, while Massachusetts has more than 20 full-time staff to carry out" its program. "and I'm p*ssed that I'm on the list, just so some p*ssant can say that he gave me a lower score than the last time (whenever that was)" The above post was the last of many unpunished personal attacks committed by Nohero. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2634 Registered: 10-1999  |
Well, the article reprinted above is a classic example of how a writer can take nothing, and make it sound like something. | ||
| Greatest Straw of all time! Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 1704 Registered: 10-2001 |
security breaches at a nuclear plant is a non-story?????? BUSH/CHENEY IN 2004.. | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 6042 Registered: 4-1998  |
It will sink an already unelectable candidate even further. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4194 Registered: 5-2001 |
Straw, what publication is your article from? Written in a different voice the article could just as easily been an indictment of the NRC, since they are primarily responsible for security at nuclear plants. I can't find a link, but mock attacks on nuclear generating facilities are overwhelmingly sucessful, inspite of the plant management being told of the date of the "attack". Why wasn't Bush (or Clinton) castigated in the article? I guess the school kids who were admitted to a secure area should probably be sent to Gitmo for interogation. One of them, I have on good authority from my friends in Burlington, was named Ali. Reflective, Afghanistan didn't involve massive force. The lionshare of the work was done by Special Forces and one of the adminstration people let slip that there were less than 500 troops involved. The MEF and the 10th Mountain troops that were used for base security have been on go status for years. I think the makeover of the 4th ID started under Clinton. Unfortunately, they are now being used as anti-insurgency troops, a task they probably aren't all that well trained for. The actual inteligence work that led to the caputre of SH was done by a mustang 2ndLT. and a former school teacher who enlisted in a burst of patriotism after 911. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2638 Registered: 10-1999 |
Straw, you missed the point. State government does not have authority over nuclear plant licensing. All the state can do is badger the feds. Vermont Yankee is a privately-owned entity, licensed by the NRC. The author of the article is trying to blame the state (and its chief executive), for the failings of a private entity regulated by the FERC and the NRC. In case you haven't noticed, New York State is having similar problems with the operator of the Indian Point Reactor. You could write the same article aboout Pataki; but again, the state is not where the authority for this lies. | ||
| Duncan Citizen Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 1390 Registered: 12-2001  |
not to mention the fact that Pataki is a Republican "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" Wayne Gretzky | ||
| Greatest Straw of all time! Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 1705 Registered: 10-2001 |
This is not about Pataki who is not running for President. This is about a Prez candidate who continues attacking the Bush administration for lax homeland security in an attempt to sway voters. What this article, authored by Reuters Journalists by the way, demonstrates is that once again we see a real hypocrite in Dean. "But even after Ready's report recommended the state's nuclear preparedness spending triple from $400,000 to $1.2 million, Dean budgeted only half the increase." The article demonstrates that Dean is not prepared to make the next step as the Democratic Candidate for President. He will be eaten alive on the national stage. This is not as Duncan writes, a Republican vs Democrat issue. This is about one man who refuses to lead by example. What Bush should do according to Dean is something he never did while Governor of Vermont. I guess if somehow or another this man gets elected this little "non-story" as Nohero puts it, gives us an idea as to how Dean will operate. In Dean's world, words are words. It would be nice if he actually put his money where his mouth is instead. SO DON'T FORGET...VOTE BUSH/CHENEY IN 2004.. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2027 Registered: 12-2001  |
Straw, I can't tell from your posts who you will be voting for in November. Can you spell it out for us. | ||
| Greatest Straw of all time! Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 1706 Registered: 10-2001 |
Tjohn, If I were a Democrat I would be raging mad that Lieberman isn't the frontrunner. I'd also hate Al Gore's guts for supporting Dean. I'd also be looking to 2008 and a Clinton/Edwards tix. BUSH/CHENEY IN 2004.. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2028 Registered: 12-2001 |
This isn't a confessional, but a nice confession nonetheless. Here's my take on things. I think Bush needs to win in 2004. If things work out well in the subsequent four years, then the Republicans deserve to remain in office. If, as I fear, we harvest the bitter fruits of the policies of Bush's first four years, then the Republicans will be in the wilderness for quite some time to come. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 160 Registered: 1-2003 |
You are all missing he real problem with a Dean Candidacy... He will lose, lose so big that it will be ridiculous. Any of the dem candidates will lose, but some may make a show of it. if Dean is the nominee, it will be a massacre. He may win 5 states at most, and I'm being generous. Here is the problem, there are 6 Dem senatorial seats in serious jeopardy in Nov. Bush is going to run on the "Give me a fillibusterproof majority in the senate" platform. If he wins in such a landlside against Dean, he could get just that. Many people will just vote the party line, and Dean will virtually assure a GOP romp. There could be 61 republican senators, a house majority, and Bush in the whitehouse. Even as an ardent Bush supporter, I think that is too much power for any one party to have. But if thats what the Dems want by nominating a loonie like Dean, so be it. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2029 Registered: 12-2001 |
Is it the case that success will destroy the Republican Party? They will be allowed to enact the voodoo economic positions they have been prescribing for years. The social conservatives will run amok with laws regulating personal behavior. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2639 Registered: 10-1999 |
I only responded to Straw's reprinting of the article, because I thought it was an example of a phony accusation. Whether or not Vermont has enough money in its department to deal with evacuations, in the event of a nuclear incident, is different from jurisdiction over actual plant safety. The fact that the two issues are mixed together in the article, does not mean that Dean (or any other governor) has authority over nuclear plant safety. The story is "nothing", not because nuclear safety isn't important, but because it is talking about agencies which actually have nothing to do with nuclear plant safety. Oh, yeah, how's nuclear plant safety under the Bush Administration's NRC these days? Look for more attempts at "phony" stories like the one reprinted above, whether the Democratic nominee is Dean, or Clark, or Kerry, or whomever. | ||
| Duncan Citizen Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 1391 Registered: 12-2001 |
Wish to God Bush did the same thing. His words are more often than not pseudorepresentation of what might have, at one time (though not necessarily right now) been a truth as seen through the eyes of my appointees. "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" Wayne Gretzky |
