New York Times Forums
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Resource Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators  /

    Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (13104 previous messages)

rshow55 - 08:25pm Jul 22, 2003 EST (# 13105 of 17697)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

Gisterme , I'll respond tomorrow to your

"I think you should try to be a little more forward-looking, Robert. It might make your world a little bigger and a lot brighter."

Sometimes, to look forward clearly, you have to look backward, too. Especially when facts are clarifying.

White House Official Apologizes for Role in Uranium Claim By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/22/international/worldspecial/22CND-HADLEY.html

WASHINGTON -- Stephen Hadley, President Bush's deputy national security adviser, on Tuesday became the second administration official to apologize for allowing a tainted intelligence report on Iraq's nuclear ambitions into Bush's State of the Union address.

. . . Hadley, in a rare on-the-record session with reporters, said that he had received two memos from the CIA and a phone call from agency Director George Tenet last October raising objections to an allegation that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium ore from Africa to use in building nuclear weapons.

. . .

Hadley is the top aide to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

Gisterme , I didn't come to the conclusion that you were Bush quickly - and maybe I jumped to an incorrect conclusion. My early judgements were more guarded, and they were repeated. They were expressed as follows, in language that included deputy national security advisor Hadley.

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md7000s/md7009_7011.htm includes this:

I've suggested in MD6808 rshowalter 7/9/01 4:43pm. http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md6000s/md6808.htm

. . that gisterme , who has posted so extensively on this thread, could not have done so, without the knowledge and backing of the very highest levels of the Bush administration, including Rice , Rumsfeld , Armitage , Wolfowitz , Hadley , and their bosses.

In postings in this thread gisterme has often taken the position of an officer of state - with a treatening degree of power not far from reach.

For example. I asked a question -- and the issue involved was whether I was committing treason -- a serious issue. MD6024 rshowalter 6/25/01 4:52pm ... http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md6000s/md6020.htm It is a good question -- and short -- I asked: "What have I said that is not in the national interest? I still think that's a good question -- and I believe I've been serving the national interest to high standards.

gisterme replied to the question directly in these posting, and doing so conceded that issues of technical feasibility and probablility of projects, based on the open literature, can be discussed in the United States.

MD6028 gisterme 6/25/01 6:58pm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md6000s/md6028.htm ... MD6033 gisterme 6/25/01 7:45pm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md6000s/md6031.htm MD6060 gisterme 6/26/01 3:13pm http://www.mrshowalter.net/../a_md6000s/md6059.htm

That concession is important -- because the administration is advocating programs that are far fetched to the point where thoughts of fraud are hard to escape.

If gisterme does not have high government connections -- and is not speaking with authority --- gisterme has often written to convey a sense that those connections exist.

- - -

I thought then, and think now, that if Hadley knows anything important, and politically sensitive, Bush knows it, too in all the ways that ought to matter in terms of leadership responsibility.

Here are other links that cite deputy Hadley.

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md6000s/md6460.htm http://w/

More Messages Recent Messages (4592 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Resource Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators  / Missile Defense