From todays NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/03/politics/03intel.html?hp
WASHINGTON, Aug. 2 -Much of the information that led the authorities to raise the terror alert at several large financial institutions in the New York City and Washington areas was three or four years old, intelligence and law enforcement officials said on Monday. They reported that they had not yet found concrete evidence that a terrorist plot or preparatory surveillance operations were still under way.
The story does go on to state that Al-Qaeda has taken years on their projects.
My question comes down to two possible coincidences.
First. Two days after Kerry picked Edwards as his running mate Homeland Security director Tom Ridge holds a press conference to warn of undisclosed threats. Yet the FBI which meets with Ridge along with the CIA said they were not told of his press conference and no new info was discussed at that meeting. And that the FBI and CIA were not told he was doing a press conference that day. (btwThe CIA doesn't comment about anything). So a person could ask was this a way to capture news time away from Kerry-Edwards.
Second. Two days after the Democratice National Convention, Security director Tom Ridge holds a press conference to warn of possible attacks. The Times has a story saying there was little if any new information came in.
Regardless of what happened in these two cases what would be your reaction to find an admistration (Bush, Kerry, whoever) had attempted to use terror alerts for political gain?
Do you feel that it should be a crime?
Ya_know
August 3rd, 2004, 11:40 AM
Regardless of what happened in these two cases what would be your reaction to find an admistration (Bush, Kerry, whoever) had attempted to use terror alerts for political gain?
Do you feel that it should be a crime?
I don't believe that this was done intentionally, however if your theory proves to be correct, then yes, it should be a crime. something like this shouldn't be used as a dog and pony show just to control the media top stories.
I sincerely believe that the best interest of America was in consideration here, however I am basing that mostly on faith right now. Fact is, something like this didn’t need to be so widely publicized to the degree that it was. All police, and appropriate civic services should have been briefed to the specifics of the new threat, and a story run in all of the news stations, but to raise the alert, and emphasize that there was such a clear danger…without disclosing the age of the evidence does sound like a folly of noticeable proportion. You don’t have to be a liberal to notice that…
techs
August 3rd, 2004, 11:46 AM
Despite my admitted feelings I tried to word it so that the issue was what's important. I agree with Ya_know. We need to hold all politicians to the greater good on this one. If you use terrorist alerts for political purposes you will be out on your a**. We really need to know that when there is an alert its for real.
Ya_know
August 3rd, 2004, 12:01 PM
One thing to point out that's good about this alert, by showing the world, which we know is watching, that we are taking all threats seriously, this effectively helps slam shut windows of opportunity. If there was indeed a plan in progress for these specific targets, and an implementation was nearing, the entire job may have just gotten scratched. That my friend is just as much a success as finding the crew and making an arrest the day they wanted to plant the bomb. Additionally, the terrorists are going to learn now that we do take every piece of intel we discover very seriously...in the effect more windows are closing...that is still an overall victory, and that is what I sincerely believe the recent terror alert was geared towards.
My theory is mo'bett'a than yours!
amyb
August 3rd, 2004, 12:26 PM
I think you would also complain if the threat wasn't taken seriously. For god's sakes what do what? Better safe than sorry and have another 9/11.
techs
August 3rd, 2004, 02:56 PM
More news on the "Alert"
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040803/ts_nm/security_alert_dc_27
The decision to warn key U.S. financial centers they may be attacked by al Qaeda was based largely on three-year old information, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said on Tuesday, but he insisted the threat was still real.
But he insisted al Qaeda had updated its surveillance of financial buildings, "as recently as January this year."
So I guess it was 8 month old info, not 3-4 year old info.
It really smells bad.
imaeditedbysowulo
August 3rd, 2004, 03:04 PM
I would be extremely pissed if it is found that this last alert was even slightly politically motivated. Immediate removal from duties for any and all who are involved.
Cleetus
August 3rd, 2004, 03:05 PM
Even if it is, do you honestly think that anyone in the Bush party actually responisble will fess up?
imaeditedbysowulo
August 3rd, 2004, 03:13 PM
Even if it is, do you honestly think that anyone in the Bush party actually responisble will fess up?
No but it looks like someone is interested in gathering enough evidence to make it impossible for them to deny it. Reminds me of the WMD's and prisoner treatment subjects.
It's not happening, it's not happening! Ok, it has happened but it's just an isolated incident. Well we actually did that on purpose but he had a very good reason, besides it's still better than "XXXXXX" (insert horrible act of terror committed against the US).
Can't wait for November. I'm thinking about not even paying attention to the ballot card and instead voting against every single incumbent across the board.
Zil
August 3rd, 2004, 03:40 PM
We never know what raising the terror alert is actually doing, since there have been no attacks on our soil since Sept. 11. We could be foiling several plots to disrupt our economy or kill citizens, but we don't really see if we are successful or not. You could say that its working because there are no attacks, but that could be entirely false, since there may not be any attacks at all.
Of course, if there was a terrorist attack during any administration (Bush or Kerry), the other side would automatically blame that administration for not alerting us or doing something about it (9/11 commission).
So its basically damned if you do, damned if you dont.
Zil
August 3rd, 2004, 03:44 PM
More news on the "Alert"
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040803/ts_nm/security_alert_dc_27
So I guess it was 8 month old info, not 3-4 year old info.
It really smells bad.
@techs
Everything smells bad to someone who stinks.
Some of the surveillance files that triggered the nation's latest terrorism alert were reviewed and updated by Al Qaeda just months ago
by months ago do they mean January like every other paper is saying?
and dovetail with other, fresh intelligence that indicates the terrorism network remains intent on launching a major U.S. attack during the presidential election campaign, U.S. authorities said Monday.
so there was nothing indicating an attack on the day of the warning or even the week or month. But sometime in the next 3 months? Are we going to be at this state of alert til the election?
the point I have made is why two days after the Democratic convention and why two days after Kerry picked Edwards?
The first time with NO evidence of anything new. The second also with nothing newer than January. It stinks.
Zil
August 3rd, 2004, 05:57 PM
But several senior U.S. counterterrorism officials said that the surveillance, obtained in Pakistan and reviewed late last week by authorities in Washington, came amid a continuing stream of intelligence corroborating Al Qaeda's determination to launch strikes in the U.S.
On Monday, U.S. officials said that the Al Qaeda surveillance files were found in the possession of Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan, 25, an Al Qaeda computer expert who was arrested in Pakistan in mid-July.
But in a briefing, White House homeland security advisor Frances Townsend described the intelligence as coming not just from Khan but from "multiple reporting streams that came together in such a way to give us real grave concern."
Good intelligence. Mutliple sources. Would you sit on your @ss and let them plot and get prepared for an attack on us? No. Would it make a difference on the timing of the alerts? Yes, but what if they planned on attacking during or after the convention? If it was totally politically motivated, Bush would have raised the alert the day of Kerry's speech or shut the convention down or something like that, not these small terror alerts.
Again, Bush is screwed. He can't protect the country with terror alerts (for fear of people calling it fearmongering and politically motivated) and he can't sit by and let the terrorists attack us ("Its all Bush's fault we were attacked").
If we have to be on alert until the election, so be it. We already have intelligence that they will try to disrupt the election.
I wonder if Osama was captured in the next month or two, would it be politically motivated too? Probably, according to you.
Cleetus
August 3rd, 2004, 06:04 PM
Good intelligence. Mutliple sources. Would you sit on your @ss and let them plot and get prepared for an attack on us? No. Would it make a difference on the timing of the alerts? Yes, but what if they planned on attacking during or after the convention? If it was totally politically motivated, Bush would have raised the alert the day of Kerry's speech or shut the convention down or something like that, not these small terror alerts.
Again, Bush is screwed. He can't protect the country with terror alerts (for fear of people calling it fearmongering and politically motivated) and he can't sit by and let the terrorists attack us ("Its all Bush's fault we were attacked").
If we have to be on alert until the election, so be it. We already have intelligence that they will try to disrupt the election.
I wonder if Osama was captured in the next month or two, would it be politically motivated too? Probably, according to you.
So then to you, Bush can do no wrong then?
Ya_know
August 3rd, 2004, 06:16 PM
So then to you, Bush can do no wrong then?
Wad'up Lefty!?!
Zil
August 3rd, 2004, 07:03 PM
So then to you, Bush can do no wrong then?
I didn't say that and plus I don't agree on some policies that Bush has implememented such as the Medicare Drug Benefit, the New Space Initiative (this needs to be shelved until we can afford it), and the No-Child Left Behind act written by Ted Kennedy. I was looking at the way the anti-Bush crowd criticizes Bush for anything and everything.
Anyway,
I think that he is doing the best job that he can to protect the country, and alot of people agree with me. He isn't sitting on his butt like Clinton did for 8 years, lobbing a couple of missiles at an aspirin factory, hoping the terrorists would go away.
techs
August 3rd, 2004, 07:47 PM
Posted by Zil
But several senior U.S. counterterrorism officials said that the surveillance, obtained in Pakistan and reviewed late last week by authorities in Washington, came amid a continuing stream of intelligence corroborating Al Qaeda's determination to launch strikes in the U.S.
What this is saying is Al-Qaeda is determined to launch an attack on the US. Tell us something we don't know. Tell us why you launched the alert that particular day.
On Monday, U.S. officials said that the Al Qaeda surveillance files were found in the possession of Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan, 25, an Al Qaeda computer expert who was arrested in Pakistan in mid-July.
But in a briefing, White House homeland security advisor Frances Townsend described the intelligence as coming not just from Khan but from "multiple reporting streams that came together in such a way to give us real grave concern."
I honestly don't trust the White House homeland security advisor. Not after what's happened. Is he any more credible than Ridge? Oh, wait, he works for Ridge.
And I seem to remember this song. We have info, trust us.
I also seem to recall the original news stories saying something about trucks or vans carrying in explosives from Mexico. How come nobody is asking who made that report?
Cleetus
August 3rd, 2004, 07:58 PM
I didn't say that and plus I don't agree on some policies that Bush has implememented such as the Medicare Drug Benefit, the New Space Initiative (this needs to be shelved until we can afford it), and the No-Child Left Behind act written by Ted Kennedy. I was looking at the way the anti-Bush crowd criticizes Bush for anything and everything.
Anyway,
I think that he is doing the best job that he can to protect the country, and alot of people agree with me. He isn't sitting on his butt like Clinton did for 8 years, lobbing a couple of missiles at an aspirin factory, hoping the terrorists would go away.
Um, Clinton did more then any other US president as far as getting this country to attack terrorism
techs
August 3rd, 2004, 08:24 PM
didn't say that and plus I don't agree on some policies that Bush has implememented such as the Medicare Drug Benefit, the New Space Initiative (this needs to be shelved until we can afford it)
The new space initiative? You mean going to Mars? I don't think Bush has any intention of going to Mars. He has given very few dollars for some planning that is so long term the technology will be completely different by the time it is ready in say 20 years. It was cover for basically cancelling manned spaceflight. The shuttle is now to be used only to fulfill our minimum committment to the space station. There are no new manned vehicles on the boards. And the Hubble will be crashing down on our heads quite soon.
Zil
August 3rd, 2004, 09:58 PM
Um, Clinton did more then any other US president as far as getting this country to attack terrorism
:grin:
Zil
August 3rd, 2004, 10:19 PM
The new space initiative? You mean going to Mars? I don't think Bush has any intention of going to Mars.
Does it ever stop with you? It's impossible to argue with you when you have such a hatred and disdain for everything the man says, does, proposes, coughs or sneezes.
I think I'll just stick to the lounge for a bit, I don't need your constant lies and hatred for the President. Thank god they moved all your bull**** into one collective place where I don't have to visit and argue with someone who is so blinded by hate.
Cleetus
August 3rd, 2004, 10:24 PM
:grin:
Ok, unlike Bush he didn't take the longest vacations for any president
Unlike Bush he tripled the FBI's counterterrorism funds
Unlike Bush, he found the guys responsible for the first WTC bombing, and they are still in Jail
Unlike Bush the entire government counterterrorism funding doubled
Unlike under Bush he had UN support
Unlike under Bush he gave an Executive order for the assassination of Osama
Unlike Bush I he didn't inact some law outlawing it as Osama is not the head of a country
Shall I keep going
Cole was on his last days, an order was submitted for the removal of Al Queda in Afghanisstan that was shelved by the Bush administration until after 9/11. That proposal was used by the book up until we removed forces for Iraq.
Shall I keep going or do you want to throw out idiotic comments about aspirin factories when Clinton was trying to kill this man, they just missed. Hell, we missed Khadafi too.
Cleetus
August 3rd, 2004, 10:24 PM
Does it ever stop with you? It's impossible to argue with you when you have such a hatred and disdain for everything the man says, does, proposes, coughs or sneezes.
I think I'll just stick to the lounge for a bit, I don't need your constant lies and hatred for the President. Thank god they moved all your bull**** into one collective place where I don't have to visit and argue with someone who is so blinded by hate.
Oh yeah, and you haven't lied yourself :rolleyes:
Just run on away like the rest of the conservatives around here. You no longer have an audience so you know your bull**** won't stick. We are on to your crap over here and won't be bullied by your stupid worthless talking head points that aren't backed up with ****. So yeah, go run off now while acting like you are the bigger man or that we are the ones insane when all along you just can't even come up with good reasoning when put up against people who haven't been fooled by the last several decades worth of the right winged hatred bull****.
Ya_know
August 4th, 2004, 08:30 AM
Um, Clinton did more then any other US president as far as getting this country to attack terrorism:grin:
Ok wait
:grin:
:grin:
:grin:
Unlike Bush, he found the guys responsible for the first WTC bombing, and they are still in Jail
Clinton did no such thing. Again, you give credit to someone just because he's in office...Clinton didn't find, prosecute, or imprison anybody. Everything else you mentioned was all bullsh!t too!
Cleetus
August 4th, 2004, 09:56 AM
All right buttheads, prove to me that Clinton didn't do anything
Ya_know
August 4th, 2004, 10:06 AM
All right buttheads, prove to me that Clinton didn't do anything
He didn't do anything...remember his testimony... :p
techs
August 4th, 2004, 12:57 PM
Does it ever stop with you? It's impossible to argue with you when you have such a hatred and disdain for everything the man says, does, proposes, coughs or sneezes.
I think I'll just stick to the lounge for a bit, I don't need your constant lies and hatred for the President. Thank god they moved all your bull**** into one collective place where I don't have to visit and argue with someone who is so blinded by hate.
Ending manned spaceflight as a means to plan for going to Mars? Makes no sense. Cutting NASA's budget? Yes, Bush wants to go to Mars.
In your dreams.
Bye
Zil
August 4th, 2004, 03:48 PM
Oh yeah, and you haven't lied yourself :rolleyes:
Just run on away like the rest of the conservatives around here. You no longer have an audience so you know your bull**** won't stick. We are on to your crap over here and won't be bullied by your stupid worthless talking head points that aren't backed up with ****. So yeah, go run off now while acting like you are the bigger man or that we are the ones insane when all along you just can't even come up with good reasoning when put up against people who haven't been fooled by the last several decades worth of the right winged hatred bull****.
Haha bullied! What side leaves countless of posts on Bush's imcompetence/lying/scheming? A constant barage from the Anti-Bush crowd.
I have constantly posted links with non-partisan information, yet it is time and time again discounted because your side "chooses not to believe it" or "the media has such a right wing slant". Then I bring stuff that I disagree with Bush about and instead of having an intelligent dialog about it, your side continues to attack Bush. You can do nothing else besides this, constantly, day in day out.
And please point out to me where I have lied, I'd really like to see that.
Zil
August 4th, 2004, 03:48 PM
All right buttheads, prove to me that Clinton didn't do anything
You need to make your case for it, you posted his "accomplishments" now you need to back up your claims.
Zil
August 4th, 2004, 03:52 PM
Ending manned spaceflight as a means to plan for going to Mars? Makes no sense. Cutting NASA's budget? Yes, Bush wants to go to Mars.
In your dreams.
Bye
I'm gonna stay in this because you obviously have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
Can the Shuttle fly to Mars? No. Then getting rid of it is the first step to changing the way NASA operates. Again, it doesn't take 9 months to revamp the entire Space Program, it will be done over a period of years.
He proposed 15 BILLION EXTRA DOLLARS for NASA, how is that cutting the funding? You have no links again, you have no proof, just theories and "this is what I think".
Ya_know
August 4th, 2004, 03:55 PM
Oh yeah, and you haven't lied yourself :rolleyes:
Just run on away like the rest of the conservatives around here. You no longer have an audience so you know your bull**** won't stick. We are on to your crap over here and won't be bullied by your stupid worthless talking head points that aren't backed up with ****. So yeah, go run off now while acting like you are the bigger man or that we are the ones insane when all along you just can't even come up with good reasoning when put up against people who haven't been fooled by the last several decades worth of the right winged hatred bull****.
Yeah, that shows real intellectual superiority...the whole insult the entire right wing while singling out one dude shows your vigor, and your @$$. I told you before, it's all crap...both sides. There's a happy medium that houses the truth, but we are all so blinded by the bipartisanship that we don't even want to go there...
Ya_know for Politico! I will keep it real, Yo!
Cleetus
August 4th, 2004, 03:58 PM
I'm gonna stay in this because you obviously have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
Can the Shuttle fly to Mars? No. Then getting rid of it is the first step to changing the way NASA operates. Again, it doesn't take 9 months to revamp the entire Space Program, it will be done over a period of years.
He proposed 15 BILLION EXTRA DOLLARS for NASA, how is that cutting the funding? You have no links again, you have no proof, just theories and "this is what I think".
Funny, where are your links?
As far as mine, well, go pick up Al Franken, Robert Reich or many of the others that have come out lately, they did the research that I don't fell like doing now.
Cleetus
August 4th, 2004, 03:58 PM
Yeah, that shows real intellectual superiority...the whole insult the entire right wing while singling out one dude shows your vigor, and your @$$. I told you before, it's all crap...both sides. There's a happy medium that houses the truth, but we are all so blinded by the bipartisanship that we don't even want to go there...
Ya_know for Politico! I will keep it real, Yo!
OH yeah, and you are so middle of the road :rolleyes:
Ya_know
August 4th, 2004, 04:05 PM
OH yeah, and you are so middle of the road :rolleyes:
I am more rational than you are... :thumbs:
Vote for who Ya_know, for who Ya_trust...Vote Ya_know for Politicos!
Cleetus
August 4th, 2004, 04:07 PM
I am more rational than you are... :thumbs:
Vote for who Ya_know, for who Ya_trust...Vote Ya_know for Politicos!
You want to make gays second class citizens??????? That is rational
Ya_know
August 4th, 2004, 04:33 PM
You want to make gays second class citizens??????? That is rational
That's you twisting the story to your liberal views.
I am against gay marriages, gays in the military, and gay lifestyles being perceived as "normal" and accepted in our society. I don’t want to see gay pride stickers on cars, or flags in the wind because it professes ones sexual orientation publicly, and that’s just not a part of our culture. I don’t go around telling everyone I am hetero, I don’t have a flag for my orientation…sure, they speak out because they are “oppressed” and just want the same “equal” rights. As it stands, no one is telling them they can’t vote, can’t drink from a fountain, or sit in the front of the bus. They just can’t get married like a man and a woman…simple as that, so tone it down just a bit with those damn gay pride marches and gay day at Disney!
I still sincerely believe that homosexuality is a perverse behavior, and not an ingrained trait. Care to prove that wrong with undisputable scientific proof then I will bow out of my fight, and support that of equal rights for all including gay marriages.
Ya_know, he_knows what's right, and he's not afraid of the truth! Ya_know for Politico '05!!!
Cleetus
August 4th, 2004, 04:45 PM
If only everybody was as open and forgiving as you :rolleyes:
Zil
August 4th, 2004, 04:59 PM
Funny, where are your links?
As far as mine, well, go pick up Al Franken, Robert Reich or many of the others that have come out lately, they did the research that I don't fell like doing now.
Here you go. I thought I had posted this earlier, but I forgot to add the link. This outlines the entire proposal for the revamping of the Space Program.
Some of these are straight from the White House Site, so I guess I'll get the whole "right wing" news media garbage for posting it.
I am also surprised that techs or Cleetus haven't blamed the Columbia disaster on Bush for not funding NASA enough.
And we are still waiting for your justification of Clinton as the mighty warrior against terrorism.
Cleetus
August 4th, 2004, 05:28 PM
Here you go. I thought I had posted this earlier, but I forgot to add the link. This outlines the entire proposal for the revamping of the Space Program.
Some of these are straight from the White House Site, so I guess I'll get the whole "right wing" news media garbage for posting it.
I am also surprised that techs or Cleetus haven't blamed the Columbia disaster on Bush for not funding NASA enough.
And we are still waiting for your justification of Clinton as the mighty warrior against terrorism.
Um, actually I never said anything about the space stuff....
It was claimed he did absolutly nothing, I refuted that he indeed did a lot and set in motion many of the things and ideas that Bush ended up using. Remember, Homeland security was originally a democrat idea that was turned down by the Repubs.
Anyway, you won't believe it cause I don't have an exact website, and instead am paraphrasing from those little things with words, wait I remember now, BOOKS.
Zil
August 4th, 2004, 05:52 PM
Um, actually I never said anything about the space stuff....
You quoted my response to the space stuff.
It was claimed he did absolutly nothing, I refuted that he indeed did a lot and set in motion many of the things and ideas that Bush ended up using.
Remember, Homeland security was originally a democrat idea that was turned down by the Repubs.
For instance, what ideas?
Sorry, but I still won't give credit to a man that had Osama's head given to him on a platter from Sudan and video of his location from a Predator drone AND DID NOTHING ABOUT IT.
No matter what you say about Bush, he still looks stronger and more determined to catch/slay/destroy terrorists than Clinton.
Anyway, you won't believe it cause I don't have an exact website, and instead am paraphrasing from those little things with words, wait I remember now, BOOKS.
Making excuses for yourself now?
Cleetus
August 4th, 2004, 06:10 PM
Making excuses for yourself now?
Yeah, I'm so sorry yall, I actually read books and don't solely rely on the internet. There is no way possible that I can actually debate any of you internet genious minds :rolleyes:
Then again I do so love a president whose staff was repeatedly warned about attacks and they sat on the information. Wasn't that Bush's suppossed great quality, running a great stafff?
Cleetus
August 4th, 2004, 06:11 PM
OH yeah, and the quote about the space stuff, nah, I was just giving you a hard time with the whole stupid links argument(wanted to be first to say it :p ), I could care less about the space stuff.
techs
August 4th, 2004, 06:26 PM
I'm gonna stay in this because you obviously have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
Can the Shuttle fly to Mars? No. Then getting rid of it is the first step to changing the way NASA operates. Again, it doesn't take 9 months to revamp the entire Space Program, it will be done over a period of years.
He proposed 15 BILLION EXTRA DOLLARS for NASA, how is that cutting the funding? You have no links again, you have no proof, just theories and "this is what I think".
I don't think I need to post any links. I will just use the ones you posted earlier in this thread to support my position:
First off Bush proposed The funding added for exploration will total $12 billion over the next five years. Most of this added funding for new exploration will come from reallocation of $11 billion that is currently within the five-year total NASA budget of $86 billion.
So Bush proposed 2.5 billion a year more in funding. But its NOT NEW FUNDING. In fact he proposed 1 billion more in new funding over 5 years. THAT'S ONLY 200,000 A YEAR IN NEW FUNDING.
Under the plan, a robot would go to the Moon around 2008. The first manned flight would occur between 2015 and 2020
A robot is ging to the moon in 2008? In about three years? Are they building it now? When will man get there? Since first Bush proposed we set up a permanent manned station on the moon. At this rate we will go to Mars in say 2040? Or 2060? Or never?
Second, the United States will begin developing a new manned exploration vehicle to explore beyond our orbit to other worlds -- the first of its kind since the Apollo Command Module. The new spacecraft, the Crew Exploration Vehicle, will be developed and tested by 2008 and will conduct its first manned mission no later than 2014. The Crew Exploration Vehicle will also be capable of transporting astronauts and scientists to the International Space Station after the Shuttle is retired
So we will replace the Shuttle no later than 2014? NO. It will be tested, as in send it up on one mission 2014. Well that's ten years from now. Which is the reason "we will fulfill our minimum obligations" to the international space station?
And if its going to be developed and "tested" by 2008 shouldn't it be being built NOW? And NASA is supposed to design and build it with no added funds? Except for the 200 million a year?
So basically its stop what were doing now. And lets plan on our kids and grandkids exploring space. Cause we won't
Zil
August 5th, 2004, 12:12 PM
I don't think I need to post any links. I will just use the ones you posted earlier in this thread to support my position:
First off Bush proposed The funding added for exploration will total $12 billion over the next five years. Most of this added funding for new exploration will come from reallocation of $11 billion that is currently within the five-year total NASA budget of $86 billion.
So Bush proposed 2.5 billion a year more in funding. But its NOT NEW FUNDING. In fact he proposed 1 billion more in new funding over 5 years. THAT'S ONLY 200,000 A YEAR IN NEW FUNDING.
Under the plan, a robot would go to the Moon around 2008. The first manned flight would occur between 2015 and 2020
A robot is ging to the moon in 2008? In about three years? Are they building it now? When will man get there? Since first Bush proposed we set up a permanent manned station on the moon. At this rate we will go to Mars in say 2040? Or 2060? Or never?
Second, the United States will begin developing a new manned exploration vehicle to explore beyond our orbit to other worlds -- the first of its kind since the Apollo Command Module. The new spacecraft, the Crew Exploration Vehicle, will be developed and tested by 2008 and will conduct its first manned mission no later than 2014. The Crew Exploration Vehicle will also be capable of transporting astronauts and scientists to the International Space Station after the Shuttle is retired
So we will replace the Shuttle no later than 2014? NO. It will be tested, as in send it up on one mission 2014. Well that's ten years from now. Which is the reason "we will fulfill our minimum obligations" to the international space station?
And if its going to be developed and "tested" by 2008 shouldn't it be being built NOW? And NASA is supposed to design and build it with no added funds? Except for the 200 million a year?
So basically its stop what were doing now. And lets plan on our kids and grandkids exploring space. Cause we won't
So what happened to these points:
Ending manned spaceflight as a means to plan for going to Mars? Makes no sense. Cutting NASA's budget? Yes, Bush wants to go to Mars.
In your dreams.
Bye
You just shot down both of your own points.
Your point that Bush is cutting NASA's budget. There is additional funding (not as much as I thought, point conceded there). It is realocated from the Shuttle program to exploration, which means less Shuttle flights, more money for the development of the new vehicle.
Ending manned spaceflight? It gives a timetable for the retirement of the Shuttle and the development of the new launch vehicle (6-10 years is plenty of time to develop and test the new vehicle). Shuttle retirement = 2010 -2014.
New vehicle development and testing = 2008 - 20??.
As I said before, as much as I love space exploration and all the benefits, I don't think that exploring Mars and the Moon right now or in the next 20 years is as important as keeping the country safe.
windrivers.com
Copyright WebMediaBrands Inc., All Rights Reserved.