posted on February 16, 2001 10:54:21 PM
Actually he was at the ballast control and CLAIMS that he was closely supervised, even to the point of holding hands with a crewman.
He isn't a member of the invited group of USS Missouri members, he just got to go along on their last mission to kill the enemy.
Missouri-->Marke-->Bush--->Japan surrender--->characterize Japanese women as whores---->Bush---->coverup. Believe evrything they say, if you like.
posted on February 16, 2001 11:06:42 PM
Still do not get the connection between Hall and the crash.
Regardless he may have had his hands on the levers, it is clear he was being controlled by a crew member. Who gave the order to pop the levers? Who checked the surface prior to surfacing, John Hall?
"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."
posted on February 16, 2001 11:35:28 PM
Oh - Now I see.
You are saying that the members/Crew of the USS Missouri hijacked the Sub in order to sink a fishing boat filled with vocational students - To get even for The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Now which is it? Bush Fatcat lost and alone in the control room surfacing singlehandly, and ramming the ship?
Or a Group from the USS Missouri hijacking the sub in order to murder Japanese fishermen in cold blood to settle WWII once and for all.
(I do have to admit to loving the Alice in Wonderland special effects here at times)
posted on February 16, 2001 11:50:56 PM
LOL! You poor things!
No, they were playing a glorified in realtime submarine warfare game. The old war vets, and the new bush cronie was brought along so that the pres would tell the navy to give them whatever they wanted. He's in debt to Hall, big time. So they got the best possible treatment--an actual tracking of an 'enemy' ship complete with simulated sinking.
So they go out and spot a Japanese trawler, turn off the sonar tapes so that there wouldn't be a record, and conduct a simulated attack, during which they knew quite well their position. Instead of torpedoing the ship, they decided to scare the hell out of it by surfacing close aboard. But they blew the calculation and actually WENT aboard, sinking the thing.
That sub is completely capable of ddetecting the passing of a whale at five miles and anyone believes that they didn't know the trawler was there?
posted on February 17, 2001 07:30:46 AM
Physically I can understand how it happened.
The fishing boat was about 5 miles out and that was about the limit of visibility that day. It also was bow on to the sub which reduces it's visibility both to eyeball and to sonar. There were high winds and 5 to 6 foot waves. That means the air is full of haze from the mist blown off the wave tops. Looking around with a periscope is not as good a check as a lookaround with good glasses and bare eyeballs. You have to also raise the periscope much higher than the waves to get a good view.
Submarines are dangerously blind. I would like to see them do some work on an under water TV camera with a laser tuned to penatrate the water. Or a seperate robot submersible that would run ahead of the sub and send back readings and imaiges along a wire or optical fiber.
The idea that they were only closing at a rate of 25 miles an hour is a bunch of bull.
Part of the thrill of a breaching like that is that you use the forward momentum of the sub to take it out if the water. Those subs can actually go faster underwater than on the surface. Since they were probably going somewhere over 35 mph and the fishing boat was probably going 10 mph to maintain steerage and control in the waves and wind you can figure they were closing at 45 to 50 mph. Good question is should they have been doing that kind of operations under those weather conditions?
Regardless how valid and accurate your theory ends up being, you still have made a very good point.
Something prevented the Captain from being able to confirm that conditions safely allowed a (practice) emergency surface, and that he apparently allowed the practice to continue when he should not have.
The civilians, regardless of who they were, were onboard with the blessing of the federal government and the Navy.
President Bush, John Hall, nor any of the other civilians aboard are responsible to any degree. Not even the distraction claim.
No civilian would have been flipping switches or levers without being under direct command, supervision, and under physical control of a crew member.
There is no conspiracy, big money did not cause the crash, John Hall, although he is not a Bank One director, whatever that has to do with anything, was not a secret rider.
All procedures and processes would have been in place when the Captain gave the order to blow the ballasts. What possible distraction would have changed anything?
The claim that President Bush and any civilian onboard the sub holds a degree of blame, is ludicrous.
posted on February 17, 2001 10:50:18 AM
LOL! If this is Bush's first major cover up then I'd say the man needs "how to" lessons. I've heard that Clinton's got a lot of free time lately. What, with all the speaking engagement cancellations. Maybe he can spend some time giving Bush lessons on the art of the cover up. I can't think of anyone more qualified for the job.
posted on February 17, 2001 10:54:06 AM
Exactly Sgt. The captain is ultimatly responsible. He may have made a bad judgement as to the safety of going ahead. I can see where that might happen. Dragging in all this other garbage is silly. In school the teachers would use this sort of thing to drag out the "We are all ultimatly responsible." According to them I was responsible for every bad thing in the world because somewhere alonng the line I voted for the wrong person or did not protest and work to change conditions. It was never the jerks fault who decided to be careless or become a criminal.
They had a hard time understanding why I never took their world view very seriously.
Some people really buy into that guilt crap all the way and feel they have failed because they can't reform the world.
posted on February 17, 2001 12:55:32 PMBUSH Has Drunken Republican Party Aboard USS Greenville!! Crew Distracted by hoards of Hired Hawaiian Hula Whores!! Many DIE!!!
posted on February 17, 2001 01:41:22 PM
Well, we know who should be in control of the ship but we don't know
who was in control of the ship. How do you know that, Sgtmike?
The fact that civilians were on the ship is RELEVANT.
The identification of these civilians is RELEVANT. The significance of their ride is RELEVANT.
The possible use of drugs and alcohol is always RELEVANT in any
accident investigation.
When the navy hits a 151-foot, 499-ton fishing trawler and kills
9 people including children we need to consider every possibility.
posted on February 17, 2001 01:46:03 PM
Grenada, Panama, Dominican Republic, Iraq,
Civil War, Spanish American War, Phillipine Insurrection, Mexico, Nicaragua,...
"Sens. John McCain, Richard Lugar, and Chuck Hagel-three of the GOP's leading foreign- policy voices-have urged Clinton to use more force, not less, in Kosovo. And for the most
part, even the Republicans who oppose intervention in Kosovo want a tougher policy toward Iraq and North Korea".
posted on February 17, 2001 01:54:48 PM
Good start, Mr. bush... Sink innocent Japanese people, blast Iraq just to show your tinytiny bit of muscle (not your brain...) Oy! Save US!!!!!!Somebody, please make him an offer he can't refuse, from Cuba or ANYWHERE... so he can just MOVE VERY FAR AWAY!!!!!!!
******** Gosh Shosh!
posted on February 17, 2001 02:02:17 PM
But who would have him ? shosh, the whole world was astounded at his appointment. Maybe if we took up a collection.....
