Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

A US Marine friend of mine posted this to his blog in August, after flying into Baghdad:

"So, I'm flying into Baghdad last night, strapped securely into a CH-46E, an airframe that is doing yeoman service over here, and I look out the window as approach our destination. What do I see? Is there, at 2:00 a.m. evidence of the brutal near-civil war that I read so much about? Are there the flash of rockets and smattering of tracer fire that one would expect in a war-ravaged town? Is it blacked-out, burned-out shell of a city, desperate for a few amps of electricity to keep the essential services tottering along?

Nope.

I've flown into a lot of cities in the last 42 years (starting when I was just a few months old, but I don't really remember those first few). Other than the fact I was sitting sideways, wearing about fifty pounds of armor and gear and experiencing a distinct lack of air conditioning I would have been hard pressed to differentiate the view out the window from any other city I've flown into at night. Anywhere. There were streetlights on, for goodness sake! Back in Ramadi there are house lights on all night, too, but that's because there are private generators to fill the gaps between rolling black-outs. But street lights, that requires grid power. No small amount of grid power. All night long. That requires a functioning infrastructure to keep that power flowing smoothly around the city. I saw no sectors out, which would indicate a rolling blackout as various 33 and 11KVa substations shunted power back and forth. There were no flashes of gunfire, there were no missiles streaking up to swat us down, there were no arcs of tracer fire (which, by the way, is an oddly beautiful sight).

"So what?" you ask.

So, I often hear trotted out as a brick in the wall of denial about progress in Iraq that "BAGHDAD HAS LESS ELECTRICITY NOW THAN BEFORE THE WAR!!" Maybe they do. But I wouldn't exactly describe it as an emergency until there's not enough juice to run the street lights. I know, I k now, there is less air conditioning burden at night, less industry running, less demand in general. Fine. The point is: continue to take sound bites about Iraq with a grain of salt, both pro and con. I expected, based on the news I see, to see something like Beirut last month. Nothing even close, baby, nothing even close. Doesn't mean there's not trouble, but perspective is important.

Oh, and while I wouldn't count on it should you be taking a CH-46 flight across Iraq, but one of the aircrew was a very cute little female that filled out a flight suit quite nicely. In that regard, the view was BETTER than my last couple of civilian flights!"

Posted by Cecil Trotter at October 25, 2006 07:53 AM

Yes, the security situation has gotten so bad in Baghdad that journalists don't want to venture out of the Green Zone--and this is a sign that the journalists are chicken? Couldn't it also be a sign that the security situation is a mess, three and a half years after the invasion, and is not getting better?

Posted by Kevin Randall at October 25, 2006 09:03 AM

Perhaps you should go and read the linked article. Michael Fumento is pointing out the sad state of journalism when reporters whose idea of reporting is to phone it in from a Baghdad hotel are given more credibility that those actually serving in harm's way. As he points out in the beginning of the article, would you look to a reporter in Detroit for details of Hurricane Katrina or a reporter in Chicago for a first-hand account of the attack on the World Trade Center?

Credibility. Some people have it and some don't. Those who simply phone it in have and deserve no credibility.

Posted by Larry J at October 25, 2006 09:23 AM

Larry J,

Good summary.

Posted by Wickedpinto at October 25, 2006 11:23 AM

The word Chickenhawk is ambiguous. Are we talking about Foley or Bush here?

Posted by Chris Mann at October 25, 2006 11:25 AM

If the word were idiot there would be no ambiguity, everyone would know we were talking about Chris Mann.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at October 25, 2006 12:15 PM

Change idiot to Chickenshit and you will be spot on there Cecil.

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 25, 2006 01:04 PM

Actually, if we're going to suggest that Bush (who did serve, and did learn to fly F-102s) is a "chickenhawk," then surely we need an even more derogatory term for Bill Clinton, who did neither?

But then, it was Clinton's assistant, Sid Blumenthal, who happily peddled the claim that George HW Bush (you know, Greatest Generation, World War II hero, all that) was actually a coward and poseur, who left his men to die.

Apparently, for some folks, courage is reserved for "not being a Republican."

Posted by Lurking Observer at October 25, 2006 01:07 PM

"Actually, if we're going to suggest that Bush (who did serve, and did learn to fly F-102s) is a "chickenhawk," then surely we need an even more derogatory term for Bill Clinton, who did neither?"

Clinton's been out of office for six years. What does he have to do with Iraq?

Posted by Kevin Randall at October 25, 2006 01:36 PM

I would think that landing in Aspen, or on any other one-way runway with mountains (or water) on three sides, would be much "scarier" and more harrowing than landing in Baghdad, given the description.

There are plenty of airports in the US that require banked approaches just prior to landing... Hopefully these reporters doen't ever have to land or take off from Reagan National. The curved approach and takeoff might cause them to soil themselves, especially knowing that Bushitler's evil flying monkeys are probably following them, just waiting to yank the plane out of the sky...

Posted by John Breen III at October 25, 2006 01:53 PM

Kevin:

Well, the same folks who refer to current (GOP) officials as chickenhawks were awfully quick on the draw to claim that not having gone to Vietnam at all was hardly a disqualifier for Presidential aspirations.

And raising the term "chickenhawk" with those who did serve (but did not go to Vietnam) is even more mind-numbingly stupid.

But fair enough, Kevin.

So, the next Democratic Presidential candidate had better be someone who volunteered not only for the military, but to serve in a combat zone, and actually saw combat, or else s/he's a "chickenhawk," is that right?

Tom Harkin, ferrying jets,
James McDermott, stateside medical support

They're really chickenhawks (or some other such nonsense).

Shoot, even Al Gore, despite being in Vietnam, having not seen combat, would qualify as a "chickenhawk," nu?

(This does leave John Kerry and Max Cleland as possible candidates, though, to be fair.)

And that really makes a hash out of Hilary's candidacy, doesn't it? I mean, women her age did serve in Vietnam (there's a nice monument to military nurses in Washington). So she could have served but didn't---chickenhawks away!

Or, we could recognize that this is utter nonsense, just as it would have been to question whether FDR had the right credentials for serving as President despite never serving in uniform (remember: he got polio in the 1920s, but was of age to have served in World War I).

Posted by Lurking Observer at October 25, 2006 03:04 PM

Jeff Stein, the National Security Editor of Congressional Quarterly, has an Op-Ed in this morning's New York Times pointing out that a large percentage of the policymakers and Congressmen he interviews -- including those who make policy with regard to the Middle East -- lack the most basic understanding of the region, including basic facts such as the difference between Sunnis and Shiites. That gaping lack of knowledge does not, however, prevent them from forming extremely didactic views of that region and even advocating all sorts of policies up to and including wars.

Sounds like that chair pisser Puckett belongs in Congress.

Posted by Independent at October 25, 2006 04:08 PM

Imagine...no this isn't about John Lennon...

Imagine if you would that Clinton had launched the war against Iraq. Most of you would have been screaming about how stupid this was even before the first bomb fell on Baghdad. Would you not? Tell me truly...

This is just pure and simple tribalism. It has nothing to do with the issues or the particular war. You think it is a great idea because it was launched by a Republcian. If a Democrat had done the very same thing you would have been screaming about it.

There really isn't much hope for this country.

It is however quite remarkable that 3 years plus into this thing with 91 dead Americans already this month that people aren't screaming more about the idiocy of it's authors, whether chickenhawks or not.

On that front I have to give it to the Republicans, they can swallow a lie much better. Like Foley they have an oral side they don't even know recognize they had.

Posted by Anon at October 25, 2006 04:25 PM

I suppose it would depend on WHEN Clinton would have launched the war... If he had launched it the FIRST time that Iraq had failed to comply with UN Security Council resolutions, then it would probably all be over by now, and there would still be two large towers standing in NYC.

I find it rather convenient that WTC '01 was all supposedly GW's fault, but WTC '93 was somehow NOT Clinton's fault?

But, yes, if Clinton had actually done something of substance in Iraq, instead of coddling their dictator, and that action was STILL going on now, 8-10 years later, I might be bitchin' just as much. That's assuming, of course, that there was any semblance of intelligent action happening over there as a result. There's no evidence to suggest that Clinton could have done any better then or now than the current administration is doing (and, based on the Clinton administration's handling of their other "conflicts", plenty of evidence to show that they would have done even WORSE than we've done so far, if that's even possible.)

Of course, if that were the case, W probably wouldn't have ever been elected in 2000, either. Would I still be accused of disagreeing with a failing decade-long action because it was started by a Democrat, rather than because it had been going on for too long?

The whole argument is moot, though, since a) Clinton DIDN'T launch an offensive, and b) there's no evidence to show that he ever WOULD have launched one. You can set up false historical assumptions all you want, Anon, but it still leaves you as an Anonymous Coward in the end...

Posted by John Breen III at October 25, 2006 05:44 PM

Hmmm. I think Clinton did come close to ordering an assault on Iraq. Unfortunately this was in the 1st quarter of '98. Some other people thought Monica Lewinsky was more important.

Would I have opposed it? Almost certainly. But 9/11 knocked the scales off my eyes once and for all. Time to drain the swamp.

90 dead in a month? Wow, that's three guys a day. We'd better give up before we run out of troops. Yep, Anon, we're screwed. Better emigrate or kill ourselves.

You go first.

Posted by Jay Manifold at October 25, 2006 06:33 PM

Invade Iraq in the 90s?

I would have supported it. Heck, I wanted us to go back in after he turned around and started butchering the Kurds and Shia. But it was pretty clear at the time that the American Public wasn't interested in that, and neither were any of the regimes whose support we had to have in order to stage an invasion.

After 9/11, the stakes changed. Not all the way, but far enough.

Posted by Big D at October 25, 2006 06:56 PM

I never understood the decision to pull out of Somalia. As previously stated by John Breen, if Clinton went after Saddam at the first violation of UN sanctions, then I'm all for it. In fact, I supported every instance when Clinton allowed the USAF to target and destroy radar sites that locked up US aircraft. The problem was Clinton changed this policy regularly.

Back to the reporters, I saw a documentary about the filming of the final mission of the Memphis Belle. The reporter actually flew with the crew on the final mission. There is a famous scene where a B-17 is falling and the Memphis Belle crew is counting chutes, that plane actually carried one of the cameramen for the reporter.

Posted by Leland at October 25, 2006 08:47 PM

"Well, the same folks who refer to current (GOP) officials as chickenhawks were awfully quick on the draw to claim that not having gone to Vietnam at all was hardly a disqualifier for Presidential aspirations."

Once again, Clinton has been out of office for _six years._ Why are you so obsessed with him that you bring him up in a post that has nothing at all to do with him? You're weird.

Posted by Kevin Randall at October 26, 2006 06:32 AM

Are you really unaware of how many people kvetched at Bush 41 for not "finishing the job" in 1991?

I tell you truly, anonymous moron, that I was one of them. Now crawl back under your rock.

Posted by McGehee at October 26, 2006 07:10 AM

Trying to provide adequate coverage of the Iraq conflicts from inside a secured hotel room is pretty sad.

Sometimes trying to provide coverage from on the unsecured streets is even sadder.

Posted by Roy S at October 26, 2006 07:44 AM

"Sounds like that chair pisser Puckett belongs in Congress."

And my first bill would be to earmark 10 tons of preparation H to be delivered to and applied to you.

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 26, 2006 09:58 AM

Anon:

Consider how few Republicans condemned Clinton over Operation Desert Fox. Consider how few Republicans condemned Clinton over his cruise missile firings into Sudan (just how much nerve gas did they find there, anyway?) and Afghanistan.

The condemnations were far more over his failure to hit harder, than over his decision to use force.

For myself, not only did I support the President over his strikes at Saddam (Desert Fox, enforcing the no-fly zone), but I also advocated a much stronger response whenever Saddam's minions interfered with the UNSCOM inspections (which were far more stringent than those undertaken by IAEA).

For that matter, I was also a strong supporter of Perry when he (as SecDef) was preparing to go to war in 1994 with North Korea, and felt then (as now) that the '94 Agreed Framework was a bad deal.

Monica or no, Clinton or Bush, Republican or Democrat, there were and are times when going to war is the right decision.

Posted by Lurking Observer at October 26, 2006 10:14 AM

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/844nigml.asp

Censoring Iraq
Why are there so few reporters with American troops in combat? Don't blame the media.
by Michael Yon

In a counterinsurgency, the media battlespace is critical. When it comes to mustering public opinion, rallying support, and forcing opponents to shift tactics and timetables to better suit the home team, our terrorist enemies are destroying us. Al Qaeda's media arm is called al Sahab: the cloud. It feels more like a hurricane. While our enemies have "journalists" crawling all over battlefields to chronicle their successes and our failures, we have an "embed" media system that is so ineptly managed that earlier this fall there were only 9 reporters embedded with 150,000 American troops in Iraq. There were about 770 during the initial invasion.

Many blame the media for the estrangement, but part of the blame rests squarely on the chip-laden shoulders of key military officers and on the often clueless Combined Press Information Center in Baghdad, which doesn't manage the media so much as manhandle them. Most military public affairs officers are professionals dedicated to their jobs, but it takes only a few well-placed incompetents to cripple our ability to match and trump al Sahab. By enabling incompetence, the Pentagon has allowed the problem to fester to the point of censorship.

My experiences with the U.S. military as a soldier and then as a writer and photographer covering soldiers have been overwhelmingly positive, and I feel no shame in saying I am biased in favor of our troops. Even worse, I feel no shame in calling a terrorist a terrorist. I've seen their deeds and tasted air filled
with burning human flesh from their bombs. I've seen terrorists kill children while our people risk their lives to save civilians again, and again, and again. I feel no shame in saying I hope that Afghanistan and Iraq "succeed," whatever that means. For that very reason, it would be a dereliction to remain silent about our military's ineptitude in handling the press. The subject is worthy of a book, but can't wait that long, lest we grow accustomed to a subtle but all too real censorship of the U.S. war effort.

I don't use the word lightly. Censorship is a hand grenade of an accusation, and a writer should be serious before pulling the pin. Indeed, some war-zone censorship for reasons of operational security is obviously desirable and important. No one can complain when Delta Force will not permit an embed. In fact, I have turned down offers to embed with some Special Operations forces because the limitations on what I could write would not be worth the danger and expense. But we can and should complain when authorities willfully limit war reporting. We should do so whether it happens as a matter of policy, or through incompetence or bureaucratic sloth. The result is the same in any case. And once the matter has been brought to the attention of the military and the Pentagon--which I have quietly done--and still the situation is not rectified, it is time for a public accounting.

Posted by Kevin Randall at October 26, 2006 11:30 AM

The Weekly Standard

Censoring Iraq
Why are there so few reporters with American troops in combat? Don't blame the media.
by Michael Yon
10/30/2006, Volume 012, Issue 07

Posted by Kevin Randall at October 26, 2006 11:31 AM

Three things:
* "chickenhawk" specifically refers to those who grimly adovate glorious war as the solution to every problem, but would never dream of actually serving in combat. Clinton most definitely did not fall into that category. The fool VPOTUS who's idea of hairy palmed fun is shooting crowds of overfed tame birds, declaring war on random nations, and (during Vietnam) seeking every deferment going does.

*Jay - the U.S. is losing more like 10-15 frontline soldiers a day - not a lot of amputees return to combat.

*Fumanto gets it exactly backwards in his embed vs. "hotel" debate - the key area of combat at this stage of the war is not where U. S troops are (they inevitably win the battles), but where they are not. Arguably the reporters patiently working with Iraqi stringers are getting a better picture of that side of the conflict.

Posted by Duncan Young at October 26, 2006 07:59 PM

It's interesting that Simberg, the ultimate economist and
free-market libertarian seems to completely miss the
significance of the cost of air fare from Baghdad to Amman.

Simberg's little stooge Fumento seems to imply that flying an F-28
for almost a grand per seat is for Rich, fat, lazy reporters
on a junket.

Simberg the economist, would if he were a real economist
realize this reflects one of two situations: 1)
Phenomenal risk which demands high rewards, 2) excess profit.

Now a Real economist would understand risk:reward,
and a real Economist would recognize excess profit.
I think Simberg by his words must be planning to
open an airline into baghdad, to capture those profits,
Rand-Air could charge $800/seat and still make a phenomenal profit.

After all, Baghdad is so safe, even Simberg could make a
profit there.

Posted by anonymous at October 27, 2006 09:34 PM

A person to embarassed to actually use a name wrote: Simberg's little stooge Fumento seems to imply that flying an F-28 for almost a grand per seat is for Rich, fat, lazy reporters
on a junket.

If you completely miss the point, then I guess you can find that implication. The point is that a civilian transport seems to be able to safely transit from Amman, Jordan to Baghdad, Iraq without being shot down in a war zone. Moreover, this wasn't a one time occurence of pure luck, but apparently this is a routine flight. If you want to get matter of fact, you can download the time tables from Royal Jordanian Airlines website and learn for yourself that this dangerous flight occurs twice a day Wednesday through Saturday with an extra flight on Thursday.

I think Simberg by his words must be planning to open an airline into baghdad

Really? What words might those be?

Posted by Leland at October 27, 2006 11:30 PM

What words might those be?

Obviously, the ones that he hears from the voices in his head.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 28, 2006 05:39 AM

May I quote Simberg's stooge Fumento:

"But Ghosh is describing a descent in a civilian Fokker F-28 jet, on which admittedly I have never flown. (It’s $900 one-way for the short hop from Amman to Baghdad, and therefore the transportation of well-heeled media people.)"

Generally the phrase Well-Heeled refers to Rich.
And it is amusing Simberg, the GOP stooge appears to love
Class Warfare when it's the Media.

Really, if you think it's so safe, and you think it's so easy,
why arent you opening an airline?

Posted by anonymous at October 28, 2006 09:11 AM

Really, if you think it's so safe, and you think it's so easy, why arent [sic] you opening an airline?

Because (among many other reasons), I'm not in the airline business, you moron? How many times are you going to demonstrate your stupidity by asking this question?

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 28, 2006 09:33 AM

"Really, if you think it's so safe, and you think it's so easy,
why arent you opening an airline?"

Since you enjoy riding the Short Bus, why don't you open your own Short Bus line? You, Independent and Mr. Mann are a ready made clinetelle. Think of the money that will be saved by owning your own line. Surely it is a safe and easy enought task for such a distinguished e-tard as yourself to sucessfully undertake?

I swear, you e-tards can't figure anything out without having your betters spell it out for you.

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 28, 2006 10:31 AM

Eat some of that Preparation H that seems to creep into most of your missives Puckett...

Posted by at October 28, 2006 12:35 PM

Sorry, I am honor bound to save it for all the weeping moonbat assholes like you. You obviously have a genuine need for it.

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 28, 2006 05:49 PM

ah interesting, Simberg isn't in the Airline Business,
but he seems completely confident in quoting
his stooge Fumento on how safe it is to fly into
baghdad, how, easy the trip is, and how rich the
clientele is.

So, Simberg who knows nothing about airline ops, feels
utterly qualified to comment and write on airline
operations in a war zone.

It appears once again Simberg the ignorant spouting
about the Unknown.

Posted by anonymous at October 28, 2006 09:25 PM

It appears once again Simberg the ignorant spouting about the Unknown.

Physician, heal thy idiotic self.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 29, 2006 04:00 AM

Wow, even after pointing out the rational implication of the story; some people still are unable to catch a clue.

Let's try another tactic for those who seem to understand economics...

You have two options: fly military transport or fly civilian transport.

The military transport is cheap with an option simply to take space available, which is rather common as flight occur several times a day. Accommodations include a cloth seath which folds out from the bulkhead of the aircraft. You ride sideways to direction of motion. The military transport comes with counter-measures to fend off surface to air missiles, and the crew is trained to fly their aircraft into heavy fighting and survive.

The civilian transport costs $900 and is available Wednesday through Saturday. You get a flight attendant to serve you drinks and a reclining seat with heavy cushions facing the direction of travel. The pilots are trained to make standard turns to prevent drinks from sloshing about, and the aircraft is completely incapable of protecting itself from any projectile sent its way.

You are a journalist writing a story about how dangerous the war is for civilians in Iraq. Which mode of transportation do you use?

Posted by Leland at October 29, 2006 07:14 AM

So, Anonyous Coward who knows nothing about military ops, feels utterly qualified to comment and write on military operations in a war zone while riding on the very back of the Short Bus.

There, the moronic and anonomous hypocrite hoisted by his own pitard.

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 29, 2006 08:48 AM

Leland,

All the moonbat contingent is proving is they are incapable of engaging in any argument without comitting a multitude of strawman and chickenhawk fallacies.

Some are so deeply trapped in the throes of severe mental retardation they keep making the slightly differing varations of same poorly crafted one over and over and over and over and thinks it makes them appear clever. They have no desire for a serious discussion, all they are looking for is a place to take an Elishitz in someone elses thread.

The e-tards are the electronic analogue to the barbarians in the first centuries. They are incapabile of contributing anything constructive to society, only seeking to Vandalize the works of their mental and moral betters.

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 29, 2006 08:55 AM

Puckett

While my DD214 isn't the most heroic, I have one.

So, while i'm not an expert on Military operations,
in the way of a combat general or a CSM,
or an academic in the field, i do know a bit.

And depsite your best attempt to change the debate,
i'm not commenting on military operations.
I'm commenting on airline operations, a field
I know a fair bit about, and more particularly,
I'm commenting on Simberg's utter lack of knowledge
in this field.

A lack of knowledge which has never stopped
simberg from Commenting on Iraq.

I'm waiting for Simberg to develope his exit strategy
from a War he cheerled, although the way.
I don't know what his exit strategy will be, But, I
do know the day it will begin.

Posted by anonymous at October 29, 2006 10:42 AM

All I have seen is your critique of his qualification to comment, I have seen no meaningful critique of his arguments. Regardless of your appeal to self-authority on tthe airline operations issue. A resonable person can only conclude that you have no valid counter arguments to the points raised.

More specifically, what is wrong with Leleand's assesment a few posts up? The one comparing Space-A to commuter options?

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 29, 2006 11:43 AM

I'm going to put this into small words so that Puckett and
Leland can understand it. My critique of Leland's
assertion is : "Journalists can't fly Space-A Military
transport".
Mike, Is that a sufficiently narrow and precise critique
for you to understand this?

Posted by john doe at October 29, 2006 02:15 PM

The landing into St. Maarten island is pretty fun. You can feel the pilot trounce on the brakes immediately and pour on those reversers hard.

Posted by Josh Reiter at October 29, 2006 09:50 PM

John Doe: Do you want some sort of medal for noting that a journalist doesn't fill out a Space-A request form. If you believe that means the US military doesn't offer transportation to journalist, then I can't help you.

Mr. Fumento states he flew into Baghdad 3 times aboard a US C-130 military transport. His bio says nothing about a DD-214. I suppose I could believe he is lying and then except as truth that a flight that occurs 10 times a week and costs $900 a trip is dangerous. I just find that tough to accept.

Posted by Leland at October 30, 2006 08:50 AM

Leland

Maybe Fumento flew into Baghdad as part of a PAO trip,
Maybe he flew in as an Embed, but, you rarely just
jump onto military flights.

Now Puckett claimed Journalists were Flying Space-A,
and I pointed out that wasnt' possible. If you can find
out how there were flying into baghdad on C-130's
you may add some value here.

Posted by Anonymous at October 30, 2006 01:07 PM

Leland

Actually, i read Fumento's Bio. He's a veteran, he
was an E-5 in the army, which may make him
eligible to fly Space-A.

I'm not surprised you don't know a E-5 has a
DD-214.

Posted by anonymous at October 30, 2006 01:12 PM

"Now Puckett claimed Journalists were Flying Space-A,
and I pointed out that wasnt' possible."

Really? Where exactly did I claim that? Please quote it for me.

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 30, 2006 02:49 PM

Puckett:

You were supporting Leland.

"More specifically, what is wrong with Leleand's assesment a few posts up? The one comparing Space-A to commuter options?"

So Back to words with few sylabbles: Journalists don't fly
Space-A.

I'm really not surprised how ignorant, you and leland are
on Military Operations.

Posted by anonymous at October 30, 2006 08:19 PM

Puckett:

You were supporting Leland.

"More specifically, what is wrong with Leleand's assesment a few posts up? The one comparing Space-A to commuter options?"

So Back to words with few sylabbles: Journalists don't fly
Space-A.

I suyppose they did not teach you the difference between a question and an assertion in third grade?

"I'm really not surprised how ignorant, you and leland are
on Military Operations."

Considering your poor grasp of the english language, I am not suprised you are ignorant of everything you chose to pontificate upon.

Must have been all of those 'blanket parties' you were the apparent recipient of.

I guess your MOS was 71 Soap Catcher.

Not to mention that Leland effectively refuted your assertion that journalists don't fly space-A.

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 31, 2006 06:58 AM

Leland:

Fumento flys into Baghdad on C-130's, that doesn't
mean every journalist is able to fly Space-A.

Can you find any DoD regulations on allowing
Journalists on Military Aircraft? Rather then
attacking me, why not do some research?

I found the AMC140 form, why don't you do some work.

Posted by anonymous at October 31, 2006 10:58 AM

Leland:

It appears you haven't done any research.

I'm surprised you didn't write Fumento, and
ask him "Mr Fumento, How did you ride
a c-130 into baghdad? Were you on a PAO trip?
Were you an embed? Did you use your retiree card?"

It must be easier to call people Moonbat then to
bother doing any source investigation.

Posted by anonymous at November 1, 2006 08:29 PM

Post a comment