Air Force Fires Top 2 Leaders - Will We Needlessly Attack Iran?

I'm scared about this firing for ostensibly being careless with nuclear stuff in 2 instances. One would be the last year flying of nuclear bombs (unarmed) across country to Barksdale AFB Louisiana. The other was the sending of nuclear fuses instead of helicopter batteries to Taiwan in 2006. This firing stinks to high heaven. Let me explain why from my perspective as a non-combat, non-flying veteran of the Air Force.



There are all kinds of things wrong with this firing. There is the way it was done. Out of nowhere without warning. Normally, there would be bickering back and forth and adequate time for excuses, transfers, etc.



Then there is the fact that the supposed infractions are old ones. That is, the plane that flew loaded with Nukes to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana did this some time ago. There was actually quite a bit of fuss, and to all outward appearances, things were tightened up. Any mistakes would be by a computer clerk or a crew chief. No commander would be at fault and that would be that. This story had legs and kept popping up, making me think at the time that it maybe wasn't that it happened, but that they got caught or it went public. No way to tell, but these kinds of things happen quite often and usually don't make the evening news. Rumors were even found that moving these atomic weapons was part of a plan to be prepared for a nuclear response to Syria or Iran, entirely plausible possibilities. Again, I have no way of knowing the truth; I only note that this didn't play out as usual.

The second infraction was again a years' old problem about sending nuclear fuses rather than helicopter batteries to Free China (Taiwan). This one is also odd. Helicopter batteries and nuclear fuses are not even in the same division. Nuclear stuff has all kinds of security that batteries don't. They are different commands. And China continues to threaten to nuke Taiwan if they ever declare Independence as well as nuke LA for whatever reason. It might be entirely possible that we were sending nuclear fuses to Taiwan. It would make perfect sense in some ways. I would hope that Taiwan would bear the brunt of its own defense in a post-Olympic blitzkrieg that many think is inevitable. This would be done semi-secretly for a variety of reasons. One is, China can break us anytime it wants by selling off our dollars and debts that it holds. That's the reason we hardly uttered a peep when they shot down our spy plane, imprisoned its crew and stole all our advance secret electronics a few years ago. So we wouldn't do it openly so they wouldn't feel publicly insulted and have to show a response like destroying our economy. (This would also destroy their economy shortly thereafter since our exports would stop.) Another is to not provoke the international sissies like the UN. And not to anger the real power in the US - Big Business with their billions of investments in Commie China.

There is always the problem that giving the Taiwanese weapons would be just like giving the commies weapons when they take over China - just like Vietnam etc. where our aid was quickly turned against us by a new regime. But that kind of thinking would be too advanced for the average political general who could always cry "Who could have known?" As badly as our military and political structure is infiltrated by the Chicoms, such a general would probably get an extra star, making it all the more likely that it wasn't a mistake, but just that they got caught again.

So if both "mistakes" weren't mistakes, or even if they were mistakes like happen all the time without fanfare, then why were the 2 top Air Force people fired?

And this is where it gets scary. The press got these releases about these guys instantly and everywhere. Rather than the usual announcement about age, fine service, time to move on, etc., we get this nasty notice of incompetence of these two political appointees. Every single general has to pass approval by Congress and expecially an upper general. And the Secretary of the Air Force is a direct political appointee. Criticizing these 2 guys would be like the Bush regime accepting the blame themselves, which is not something that will ever happen. So there must be another reason.

And that reason (sorry to take so long to get here) is that these guys may well have opposed some new plan of the neo-cons like bombing Iran, and these guys may have had the guts to oppose it. And that would get them fired. Can't have the top 2 guys in charge of the service that would bear the brunt of the initial attack along with the Navy (which is why there are not one but 2 carrier groups in the area even as the casualty rate falls in Iraq) dragging their feet.

Now, some might ask, why wouldn't these guys go public then? First, because they seem to be intelligent. Intelligent enough to get fired by the Bush regime, when so many run-of-the mill idiots don't get fired. They would recognize that all kinds of things from demotion and loss of pension to even imprisonment and random suicide (like the DC madam) could happen. Remember poor Secretary Forrestal who, when he found out the government was run by neo-con one-world thugs was thrown out a hospital window?

Second, if we are going to attack, loyalty would demand you not say anything because it would harm the mission, the men of the military, and the country. Much like those who knew Roosevelt withheld information from the Pearl Harbor commanders Short and Kimmel that would have avoided Pearl Harbor. What would be gained? We were already at war.

And third, what would it matter? If we're going to attack (like so many source seem to say we are), then what good would it do? They would get the blame for the fiasco because someone could always say, "If those last 2 traitorous idiots would have done their job, this disaster might not have occurred."

Again, I have no special knowledge, no contacts, no reason to think this. But it worries me. I don't think these kinds of high-level things happen without a good reason, and a few "accidents" are not enough, in my opinion.

So my advice? Watch out for war with Iran before Bush leaves office. Hope I'm wrong, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Conservative Loser, and proud of it.

The Democrats have kicked Republican butt. No doubt about it. They've taken the House back by pretty much the same margin that the Republicans previously held. It appears that they've taken the Senate or at least tied. That makes GWB a lame duck for the next two years. I don't see any other way to spin it. What does that mean to a conservative?

First of all, conservatism is not the same as republicanism. These two have diverged more widely with each passing year, especially since GWB was elected. Conservatism is for smaller government. Republicanism is not.

How can I say that? Well, actually it's pretty easy to show. Look at the budget for one. It is ballooning worse under Bush than Clinton - even if you subtract out war expenses. Bush removed the conservative plank from the Republican platform about removing the Department of Education first thing. The conservative position on that department, part of the platform since Reagan, was that this kind of fuzzy socialism was wrong, was wasteful, and was not authorized by the Constitution and therefore was un-constitutional

That one action of Bush, accepted by the Republican party hacks, should have forced every conservative to head for the lifeboats and abandon ship (or the Republican party). Because this was a major shift in philosophy. Bush led the Republicans to abandon their strict constitutional constructionism for the vague liberal idea usually described by the politically correct term "living constitution". Living meaning that anyone could interpret the Constitution any way they wanted - basically a moral relativism idea. And once you accept that idea, the floodgates of relativism are opened, the argument of limited government is lost, and the only thing to be settled is how quickly to allow the government to become completely socialized. (Kind of like the old conversation attributed to Churchill or Shaw or others. Churchill asks socialite, "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars" Socialite: "I rather think I would" Churchill "Well here's 10 dollars then" Socialite: What kind of woman do you think I am. Churchill: "We've already established that - now, we're just haggling over price.")

And so, as a conservative, I view the loss of the Republicans with mixed emotions. They haven't really represented me for years. But where else does a conservative go?

Well, I threw my vote away this election on the Constitutional Party. Not that it makes a difference in Republican haven Utah. But at least I voted for candidates whose ideas are conservative. I also enjoyed voting no for the retention of every judge - especially the judge caught on a rant against deer hunters here in Utah. (She actually was turned out of office. You can find a video of her on Youtube.) But third parties stand the proverbial snowball-in-hell chance of winning at present.

The only other thing of interest in the election was a state school board race between a give-more-money-to-the-same-people-who-screwed-up-education candidate, and a candidate who at least gave lip service to "new ideas" - which I assume is code for tuition vouchers. He lost.

But, even though I can't bring myself to shed many tears about Republicans losing, the only argument I could see to voting Republican in a race that mattered was the leadership of the Democratic party that would now be in charge of the House as a whole, and the committees. Intelligence will be headed by Alcee Hastings - yes that Alcee Hastings. The impeached former judge who took bribes. Woo hoo! That-a-way Americans who voted Democratic! I have no words to express my disgust for this guy, and worse for the Americans who put him in this position. I can only comment that anything that happens is exactly what we deserve.

And isn't it fascinating that one of the Democrat election tactics was to point out corruption of Republicans? And then you put a convicted criminal in charge of Intelligence. There are two lessons here. 1. Americans are really, really, really stupid. 2. The Republicans hardly uttered a peep against corruption in the Democrats showing that they were morally bankrupt and worn out.

And then there is John Conyers of Michigan. Read some of his trash. If this is a guy that most Americans want in charge then we deserve the coming disasters.

Henry Waxman of California is another Marxist in liberal clothing.

Ditto Charles Rangel of New York. These guys who will head important committees are so ultra-liberal that even if I'm not heartbroken over the loss of the Republicans, I have this sinking pit in my stomach regarding America and its future.

The list goes on and on. And then there is new speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi - uber-liberal and head of the socialists in the Congress. She doesn't even hide her socialism as she is head of one of the socialist caucus groups. Who would have thought that a socialist would be third in line for the Presidency of the USA? (Of course, VP Henry Wallace was a socialist under Roosevelt, but that is out of the memory of most Americans.)

And so, just as the Republicans aren't conservatives, the Democrats really aren't Democrats - they're socialists. And for that reason, I have chosen the title "Conservative Loser" because conservatives have lost in such a way that I doubt they will ever, in my lifetime, control all the branches of government (if they ever did in a party with Jeffords, Snow, Collins, and Chafee).

Vincet Veritas (Truth will conquer) MEB