JUNE 27, 2004

Fan Mail For Mike

Well....I guess with this weekend's shows out the window, we won't get to listen "one last time" to you and Emil. Try as we might, we cannot receive KJLL on any of the house radios. Still working on some sort of antenna arrangement in hopes of listening to Hidden Valley radio, but no luck yet. Any chance you guys might get some streaming arrangement up and running? That would certainly help us out here, and maybe let more long range listeners pick up the show.  (Just think...in the old days of KAIR and KOPO, we'd be doing good to get a signal across the street!)

Mike's comment:  John and I have known each other for a couple of decades, which explains his reference to the "old days."  Ann's brother Charlie was in my graduating class at Salpointe many, many years ago.

Fan Mail Definitely NOT For Mike

First, you'll be listening on 1330 - The Jolt. We moved the program to another station.

Mike and Tom are both old and dear friends. While I would find it difficult to be personally close to someone like Mr. Moore whom I despise beyond his politics, I have many liberal and even leftist friends. Tom and Mike are two of the more articulate ones and each has something rare from their side - a real sense of humor.

Neither one are far out pinkos. I've met the real ones. And they each represent a different strain in left of center thought. Sometimes they don't agree with each other. Tom is pro-life, Mike concedes that Reagan was the right man on handling the Soviet Union.

The fourth contributor to the Insidetrackaz.com website is another dear friend, Joyce Downey, who sometimes is able to be with us on the air. Her views tend to reflect mine, although we sometimes differ.

My favorite quote of George Patton is "When everybody's thinking alike, nobody's thinking." We have a ton of conservative/libertarian radio hosts now. I find it both more interesting and entertaining to present issues with alternative views. Unlike weasels like Michael Moore and much of the balance of the left, I don't mind open and honest debate. Tom and Mike do it well - they keep me sharp and I hope I do the same for them.

Mike also does a superb job of keeping up the website. We both believe in posting all decent material whether we agree with it or not. Much from the more than two sides sucks big time.

So please take that into account and stand by for me to slap Mike and Tom around some more the next time either belches that left wing crap, OK?

EF

Mike adds:

Two things, Stuart:  first, you should sign up for Ashcroft's war on civil liberties.  Your incredible analytical skills should be used in the service of our country; second, you know what it spells when we get a letter like yours?

R-A-T-I-N-G-S

Tom's Turn:  An Anti-Danehy Piece

Searching for Republicans

JUNE 13, 2004:

GANGING WITH GERALDO

Relative of mine to Jerry River's right.

Dave Hanley

Dave,

Was this before or after Geraldo personally captured Saddam Hussein?  - Mike Tully

RESPONSE TO AN OPINION PIECE

Emil, Below is a letter I submitted to the star in response to an opinion piece that appeared on June 6.  You can read the edited version of the same letter in (a former edition) edition of the paper.  I’ve often believed that the Star editors do not like to have the accepted political orthodoxy challenged too forcefully.

 Semper Fi,

Dave Erchull

Major, USMC (Ret)

Mr. Endy turns history on its head in an effort to use the D-Day commemoration to advocate for a multilateralist approach to U.S. foreign policy ( US need to remember it’s not alone; June 6).  Rather than Americans having lost sight of the fact that the U.S. could prevail only with substantial help from its allies in World War II, Mr. Endy has lost sight of the fact that our European allies could not have prevailed without the intervention of the United States.  After all, on June 6, 1944 the allies were landing on beaches in northern France, not North Carolina.  Moreover, this was the second time in 25 years the U.S. had to come to the aid of Europe.  Multilateralism indeed!

The proper lesson to be drawn from this event is that our country should never subordinate our security to those who would rather talk and appease than act.  It will always be of greater long-term benefit to this country to do the right thing, even if doing so is off-putting to our allies.  From my point of view, we did not alienate most of the rest of the world; they alienated us.

Dave Erchull

MAY 14, 2004:

Inspired By "No More Mr. Nice Guy"

My, My Emil. You are being intemperate again.  And I thought you were such a good little moderate! More seriously; The treasonous left smells

And one more. I don't think Dave included either of you in the "treasonous left", but please admit that there is one. I don't include you either. Wackos who are wrong maybe, but not treasonous.

And Mike - Friedman is a liberal. Not far out and pretty rational, but hardly the guy you'd find at a Federalist Society banquet, OK? Quit trying to win the argument by redefining the evidence.

As to REAL traitorous scum, Try "Moore, Michael" and work back from there.

EF

WELCOME TO TOTAL WAR

MAY 12, 2004:

BOY IN THE BUBBLE?

A year ago the International Committee of the Red Cross, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Human Rights First all reported the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers to L. Paul Bremer III, head of the occupation authority in Iraq. As early as August 2003 Bremmer made the issue a regular talking point in discussions with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

Nine months later we are told that President Bush is shocked to learn of these abuses. Those who believe that the Commander in Chief was left out-of-the-loop on possible war crimes are the probably the same perceptive souls who swallowed the bait of weapons of mass destruction, imminent threat to the USA and collusion with terrorists! 

James P. Needham

Computer Consultant

MAY 3, 2004:

ORO VALLEY ELECTION

APRIL 30, 2004:

APRIL 20, 2004:  Time for Spirited and Robust Discussion!

STOP THE SECOND-GUESSING

Could Franklin D. Roosevelt have prevented Pearl Harbor?   He sure could have.  Was it reasonable to expect him to do so?   No way.

If you draw up a list of human actions that were necessary to make Pearl Harbor prevention a reasonable expectation, you will have a very large, even multi-volume, book.  Just the part on the development, procurement and deployment of the P-38 Lightning (an ESSENTIAL aircraft) would make a decently-sized chapter.  Add in the myriad of other items and it becomes clear that while FDR did not connect the dots, most of those dots were not visible until ex post facto.

Does the same thing apply to George W Bush and even to Bill Clinton?  Does an Ursurus Horriblis move his bowels within the confines of the timbered regions?

Let us stop the juvenile posturing.  The fault now as then lies with evil men who are not and were not Americans.  If you cannot grasp that fact, get the hell out of the way of people with an adequate IQ.

Dave Hanley, San Bruno CA

DAVE, Franklin D. Roosevelt is not up for re-election this year.  George W. Bush is, and his lame dismissal of the August 6 memo is fair game.  Your denunciation of those with whom you disagree as not having "an adequate IQ" is unworthy of an adult.  - Mike Tully

HANLEY REPLIES

Franklin Roosevelt had the THEORETICAL capability to prevent Pearl Harbor.  He did not have the ACHIEVED capability.

Bill Clinton had the THEORETICAL capability to prevent 9-11 by eliminating Al Qaeda ahead of time.  He did not have the ACHIEVED capability.  (Even if he had knocked off Bin Laden.)

George W. Bush had the THEORETICAL capability to prevent 9-11.  He did not have the ACHIEVED capability.  The information contained in the 6 Aug memo imparted no capability to make a timely preemption or intercept.

I put aside my distaste for that snooty Hyde Park wannabe socialist and gave him an objective analysis over Pearl Harbor.  I put aside my disgust at that whorehopping hillbilly with the exaggerated case of pre-traumatic stress disorder and gave him an objective analysis over 9-11.  I put aside my admiration for George Dubya and gave him an objective analysis over 9-11.

In all three cases, the fundamentals were the same.  There were no substantive differences.  The fundamental lack of capability was the same in all three.  If Mike Tully insists on my being wrong about Dubya, then in the absence of externalities, he must conclude that I am also wrong about the other two.   That would indicate that both events were actually orchestrated by a massive conspiracy whose inside circles would be several hundred or even thousand strong and who had managed to conceal themselves from disclosure of almost 70 years.   Not only do these worthies control the actions of The Man in the White House, but they also tell Al Qaeda what to and successfully micro-managed Japanese affairs from about 1923 through 1941. Since mere human beings cannot do all this, the conspiracy would have to be preternatural which in turn means we are all doomed anyway so why argue about all this.

For any and all practical purposes, 9-11 was not preventable.  People who let their political tastes and desires blind them to this, lack, not literal IQ, but some essential elements of the kind of self-discipline needed to successfully prosecute a war.

Dave Hanley

DAVE, I am not as sure as you are that 9/11 was not preventable, given the revelations about the lack of communication among intelligence agencies and a bureaucratic culture that appeared to place team playing ahead of national security.  Your intemperate language impeaches your objectivity and undermines whatever point you are trying to make -- and it's not clear what that is, except to blindly forgive our asleep-at-the-wheel president from any culpability whatsoever.  I am not suggesting that President Bush could have avoided the tragedy of 9/11, but I am not willing to stipulate that there was nothing he could have done to avoid it.  I am seriously troubled by his blithe dismissal of the August 6 memo as inconsequential.  I have read and re-read the memo, and I don't understand why there was no urgent follow-up.  A presidential directive could have galvanized intelligence agencies to explore whether al-Qaeda operatives were engaged in activities indicating that the kind of attack suggested by the memo might occur.  Perhaps the Williams and Rowley information might have seen the light of day on time had such urgency been articulated at the top of the chain of command.  The fact is that the Commander In Chief asked no questions, gave no orders, and seemed more concerned with his vacation than pursuing the urgency dictated by the August 6 memo.  President Bush's response -- or lack thereof -- is a fair and reasonable issue in his campaign to keep his job.  As voters evaluate whether he deserves to be retained the August 6 memo and his lackadaisical response to it can and should be considered.  I submit that his reaction to the memo is relevant and I disagree with your implied assertion that it is not worthy of consideration.  It is highly worthy of consideration.  

- Mike Tully

DAVE GETS THE LAST WORD

Intemperate?  Moi?  Hey, I taught Franzi everything he knows about being a moderate.

Following is a professional opinion.  The 6 Aug memo along with some other documents give a very general out line of enemy intentions.  There was some discussion of tactics thought to be considered by Al Qaeda, but there was nothing concrete as to enemy capabilities.  Without that, it is next to impossible for the President to issue any meaningful orders.   Actionable intelligence consists of refined information that is complete, timely and accurate.  The reports given were accurate as far as they went, but were nowhere close to being complete or timely.  

The major problem was the nature of the enemy.  They do not have any kind of coherent strategy ,settling for self-gratifying nastiness that is supposed to bring about their version of millennium.   The Japanese were the same way.   (See Paul Johnston for complete discussion.)  In both cases, the very incoherence of what the bad guys were up to effectively camouflaged what was in the works.  Rational men find it next to impossible to anticipate irrational strategy.

I do find it unfortunate that the word "hijack" was used in reference to civilian airliners. While there is nothing wrong with the Annotation, the connotation of that word implied taking over a plane, flying it somewhere and then making demands.  The concept of seizing aircraft and using them as guided bombs did not register with anybody reading the reports.

Yes, the Fumbling, Bumbling and Incompetent should talk to the Completely Inept and Asinine.  However, at the time neither organization had any meaningful data to relate.  FBI was following rules of evidence and CIA was trying to cope with lack of HUMINT.

In short, we got blindsided because of risks inherent in maintaining a free society.  End of discussion.

Next topic:  How do we reduce enemy capabilities and render them harmless?

Regards

Dave Hanley

DAVE, you get the last word.  I promised.  - JMT

APRIL 9, 2004:

Our old friend, listener and contributor Larry Welborn wrote us about his adventure with Y2K preparation that somehow went terribly awry in 2004.  We decided to run Larry's submission as a guest column.  Check it out here.

LETTER ADDED MARCH 30, 2004:

President Bush’s war on terrorism: Excellent strategy, Good Execution….    

 Failing Marks?

 The Presidents war on terrorism can be summarized in four basic thrust:

Destruction of the enemy's human and physical resources in the field,

Harden security and awareness at home, Significantly improve and expand intelligence gathering, analysis, and coordination, and Implement a long term strategy to disenfranchise radical Muslim teachings and diminish their economic support.

    While the first three tasks are understood, have been reasonably well executed, and are generally supported by the majority of voters step four has the growing potential to cost the President a second term in office. If this occurs it will not be the result of bad planning but in an almost incomprehensible inability of Republicans to articulate the underlying strategy.

   A successful long term strategy must serve to close down the state sponsored radical teachings of the extremist Muslim clerics in Iran and Saudi Arabia as these are the breeding grounds for future terrorist. It should concurrently deprive the terrorist movement of their major funding sources, also provided by Iran and Saudi.

   This begs the basic question; why didn't we attack Iran and Saudi rather than Iraq ? The answers should be obvious to the most casual observer. First it would immediately deprive the U.S. of the petroleum resources necessary to sustain both the war effort and our national economy. Second it would have resulted in the creation of a united Arabic front, probably expanding military conflict into Syria , Libya , Iraq , and other Muslim nations. Finally it was not a politically viable option at home or abroad.

   Conversely the military action against Iraq offered an opportunity to achieve our long term goal in a more politically defendable, more humane, less costly way, while minimizing the potential of an expanded war.

  This should not be interpreted to suggest that our military action against Iraq was not justified on its own merit; it clearly was absent any consideration of the collateral benefits. What is not understood is the broader strategy for our being there. A successful, free, and democratic Iraq , our access to Iraq ’s petroleum reserves, and our military presence on the borders of Saudi, and Iran will put extreme pressures on their governments to reform or fall.

  This represents a bold and brilliant strategy which threatens the very lifeblood of the terrorist movement.  The terrorist understand this clearly, that’s why they are resisting our success in Iraq so vigorously. Unfortunately the American people fail to grasp the significance of our presence there. Our presence in Iraq does not represent a dilution of our efforts to defeat Al Qaeda  but perhaps our best chance to do so. It’s an investment in the long term safety and stability of the free world and deserves our support.                                                                             

                                                        George McKinney, Tucson  

Thank you - the GOP has always had a mumbling problem - comes from years of a self-imposed inferiority complex. The same in the state and locally. When they win, it's often in spite of themselves.

Tully somewhat grasps the problem, Danehy keeps trying to fight an anti-gang war one gang at a time, waiting for the Crips to move after the Bloods already have, etc. He sees the problem in fragments, not a one big enchilada of primitive hate and payback . Basically all of these Wahaabists and other bastards are trying for is payback on Richard the Lion Hearted.

What Tully and others don't grasp you point out splendidly - LOOK AT THE DAMN MAP! When I was using the Pearl Harbor analogy today about invading French North Africa a year later and why, he tried to compare Iraq to Mexico in strategic relevance.

Not hardly.

Thanks again.

EF

LETTER ADDED MARCH 26, 2004:

-Rex Scott

The Dean campaign lost some of it's "Mo" when it started acting like any other campaign and stifled the peasants at the bottom.

But that wasn't enough - I personally think he was sandbagged by a fickle media and much of what he was hit with was BS.

Only goes to show ya if you go to Yale, try to make Skull and Bones.

EF

PS.  Read the poem Rex sent us in the "Buffooneries" page.

LETTERS ADDED MARCH 23, 2004:

OCCUPIED TERRITORIES

It was interesting to read Councilman Dick Johnson's comments concerning (the March 9) election ("Runoff needed in OV council races," March 10). Johnson finished third behind two neophytes. Third, despite the fact that he was the incumbent and used every council meeting to get his message out.

Johnson said it felt like a "slap in the face".

Perhaps Johnson now understands how those of us who live outside Oro Valley feel about the General Plan Johnson approved. Thousands of us were affected by that plan but none of us were consulted.

That was a real "slap in the face."

Despite frequent letters, we're still being ignored by Oro Valley. Since the defeat of the GP at the polls in November, no one has contacted me or anyone I know of who lives outside the town but remains affected by Oro Valley's plan.

Councilman Johnson, if the Kurds can achieve representation in Iraq, why not the Occupied Territories formerly known as Tortolita?

Barry DiSimone, Tortolita

TPD VERSUS THE FIRST AMENDMENT

LETTERS ADDED MARCH 19, 2004:

CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND A SHOT AT BUSH; FRANZI RESPONDS

Five members of the Supreme (?) Court approved McCain's Incumbent Protection Act (a.k.a the BCRA), a blatant violation of the First Amendment.   What is it about "Congress shall make no law..." that they (and McCain) are unable to understand??

Now that Bush and Cheney have lined the pockets of their contractor buddies, maybe they'll get back to locating Osama bin Laden.

Herbert C. Johnson
 
Part one: McCain was wrong. Bush was wrong in not having the guts to veto it. I do not  consider myself aligned with McCain, other than being in the same party. In 1988 you and I were both "aligned" with Ron Paul who happens to be "pro-life". I'm not.

Part two: Jesus, Herb, you're down to Tery McAuliffe talking points with an anti-capitalist spin. I thought better of you.

EF

McCain and Bush were not just "wrong":  McCain, the Rs and Ds who voted for the abomination, Bush, and the 5 Supremes ALL VIOLATED THEIR OATHS OF OFFICE to "uphold and support the Constitution".

Herb

FEDERAL PRISON IS NOT "A GOOD THING"

Very few people working in corporate American have had contact with someone who has gone to prison.  In the past, prison has been an unfamiliar experience to middle and upper class society.  Audiences are curious about the prison experience and how someone with a white collar background copes. Media portrayal of white collar prisons in the past has created a perception among Americans that white collar criminals go to “resort” prisons and after a short while go back to their lives.  The media’s glamorization  of “white collar prisons” has fueled the current upward trend in white collar crimes as a result of public perception that it may be worth the risk of a soft prison sentence to gain a substantial amount of money.  Two convicted white collar felons talk about the dire repercussions of  unethical and criminal white collar conduct.

The ex-convict team of Walter “Walt” Pavlo and Karen Bond are available for guest appearances and to provide quotes for print coverage.  Pavlo, who pled guilty to defrauding MCI of $6 million, holds an MBA from Stetson.  Bond, who pled guilty to one count of Interstate Securities Fraud, graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Marietta College and holds a law degree from Ohio State University College of Law.  This team of  ex-convict white collar crime experts can address:

-         Ethics in the white collar arena and how the pressures of corporate performance lead to white collar crimes

-         Criminal results of misguided performance measures

-         Mentoring as a prophylactic to white collar crime

-         Whether prison serves as a deterrent of future criminal conduct

-         Diversionary alternatives to incarceration that emphasize financial restitution for victims of white collar crime

As a team, their lively, interactive style as trained media experts will have your audience wanting to hear more. Would you be interested in speaking with Walt and Karen?

Regards,

Walt Pavlo

Director of Business Development

Young Entrepreneurs Alliance

Karen S. Bond, J.D.

Director of Government Affairs

Federal Prison Policy Project

Columbus , Ohio 43068

http://www.fppr.us

614.501.6897 Phone

614.573.6388 Fax

614.595.6400 Mobile

director@fppr.us