...White House "Rump Group" created the Vision...who were they???

On 17 Jan 2007 12:39:20 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:


Rand Simberg wrote:
On 15 Jan 2007 11:16:24 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:


Rand Simberg wrote:
On 15 Jan 2007 10:54:47 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Why the smiley face Thorn? Tommorrow Libby goes on trial and said GOP
and MIC cronies will be under the microscope. With the Dems in Congress
now don't expect any soft treatment. Just because his daddy's name is
on the CIA buidling doesn't mean his administration has full access to
the agency. Some heads are going to roll when Libby sings. I hope that
in the very least Cheney gives up the roll list of the Energy Task
Force he had secret meetings with when he was getting his instructions
to invade Iraq.

Eric, no one here is interested in your lunatic fantasies.

Rand, why not just admit that you didn't know the Libby trial starts
tomorrow and spare the ad hominem?

No one is disputing that the Libby trial starts tomorrow. you moron.
You managed to get five words right in your nutty rant. The rest of
it is fruit loops (hint: Libby is not going to "sing" because he has
nothing to "sing" about)..

So, he's innocent, right? Never lied. They are holding him for no
reason?

I've no idea, since I wasn't there, but the only thing that he's been
charged with is lying to a grand jury, so the rest of your insane
fantasies are just that.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 17 Jan 2007 12:39:20 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:


Rand Simberg wrote:
On 15 Jan 2007 11:16:24 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:


Rand Simberg wrote:
On 15 Jan 2007 10:54:47 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Why the smiley face Thorn? Tommorrow Libby goes on trial and said GOP
and MIC cronies will be under the microscope. With the Dems in Congress
now don't expect any soft treatment. Just because his daddy's name is
on the CIA buidling doesn't mean his administration has full access to
the agency. Some heads are going to roll when Libby sings. I hope that
in the very least Cheney gives up the roll list of the Energy Task
Force he had secret meetings with when he was getting his instructions
to invade Iraq.

Eric, no one here is interested in your lunatic fantasies.

Rand, why not just admit that you didn't know the Libby trial starts
tomorrow and spare the ad hominem?

No one is disputing that the Libby trial starts tomorrow. you moron.
You managed to get five words right in your nutty rant. The rest of
it is fruit loops (hint: Libby is not going to "sing" because he has
nothing to "sing" about)..

So, he's innocent, right? Never lied. They are holding him for no
reason?

I've no idea, since I wasn't there, but the only thing that he's been
charged with is lying to a grand jury, so the rest of your insane
fantasies are just that.

No Rand, it is more than that. If Libby lied about who knew what and
when about whether Iraq had WMD and that is a reason for the invasion,
then Bush and more likely, Cheney, may have to take the stand. Plame is
not the only CIA official involved in whether we knew if Iraq had WMD
or not. All it takes is proving that we knew there were no WMD and
acted anyway and this whole thing could be as big or bigger than
Watergate. The only saving grace would be term limits for the
administration and the Dems only using it to tar the GOP running in
2008.

You're insane to treat this like it were nothing.

Eric

On 17 Jan 2007 13:43:31 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

No one is disputing that the Libby trial starts tomorrow. you moron.
You managed to get five words right in your nutty rant. The rest of
it is fruit loops (hint: Libby is not going to "sing" because he has
nothing to "sing" about)..

So, he's innocent, right? Never lied. They are holding him for no
reason?

I've no idea, since I wasn't there, but the only thing that he's been
charged with is lying to a grand jury, so the rest of your insane
fantasies are just that.

No Rand, it is more than that. If Libby lied about who knew what and
when about whether Iraq had WMD and that is a reason for the invasion,

There's no evidence that anyone even asked him any questions about
that, you moron.

then Bush and more likely, Cheney, may have to take the stand.

Cheney is already planned to take the stand, you moron. There's no
reason for Bush to, since there's no evidence that he had any
knowledge of this.

You're insane to treat this like it were nothing.

It's not nothing. It's prosecutorial abuse.

"....and, eventually, NASA officials into the discussion."


Some background on the creation of
The Vision for Space Exploration


New Moon Rising: The Making Of America's New Space Vision
And The Remaking Of NASA
by Frank Sietzen Jr. and Keith Cowing

"Surprisingly, much of the early work on the new policy was
made by a group of anonymous junior White House staffers
who, by the book's account, had a genuine interest in space
exploration and sought to create a new vision that would
reinvigorate the space agency. This "Splinter Group" spent
months meeting informally, reviewing white papers and
proposals, before inviting more senior advisers and, eventually,
NASA officials into the discussion. This led to the creation
of two "Rump Groups" that narrowed down proposals for a new
exploration plan, keeping in mind fiscal limitations that ruled out
any plan that required significant additional funding for NASA.
The result of these deliberations, spread out over most of
2003, was a plan the President approved on December 19
and announced to the world at NASA Headquarters
on January 14."
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/198/1


How U.S. Civil Space Policy Is Made
Howard E. McCurdy
American University

"The Vision for Space Exploration began as
discussions among junior White House staff
(OMB, NSC, OSTP) & NASA"

"Rump group" (NSC, DOD, Domestic Policy Council, NASA)
analyzed cost and provided detail."

"Presidential approval (12/19/03): Bush, Cheney, Rove, O'Keefe, others..
Presidential announcement at NASA Headquarters (1/14/04)."
http://www.aaas.org/programs/science...ccurdy1106.pdf


Sean O'Keefe

"O'Keefe came from a background in accounting, and as such
was the first NASA Administrator to have no formal training
in science or engineering."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_O%27Keefe


National Security Council (NSC)

Membership of the National Security Council

The National Security Council is chaired by the President.
Its regular attendees (both statutory and non-statutory) are
the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary
of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, and the Assistant
to the President for National Security Affairs. The Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Director of National
Intelligence.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/


Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

"The Budget builds on last year's successful spending restraint
by again holding the growth of overall discretionary spending
below inflation, proposing to reduce non-security discretionary
spending below the previous year's level, and calling for the
elimination or reduction of programs not getting results
or not fulfilling essential priorities."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

Domestic Policy Council
http://www.whitehouse.gov/dpc/

Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)
http://www.ostp.gov/

Dr. John H. Marburger III (Director, OSTP)
Oct. 29, 2001 - Present confirmed in October 2001, serves
as Science Advisor to President Bush.

Dr. Marburger is perhaps best known as the source of the
ongoing criticism of the Bush administration politicizing
science.


Bush vs. the Laureates: How Science Became a Partisan Issue
NY TImes
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: October 19, 2004

"Dr. Marburger argues that when scientific information is
flowing through government agencies, the executive branch
has every right to sift for inconsistencies and adjust the tone
to suit its policies, as long as the result remains factual."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=4



The following, from a SpaceRef.com article, explains
how Nasa exploration will be pitted against economic
and defense priorities. Which Nasa is poorly suited
to compete against.

SpaceRef.com
Saturday, April 29, 2006

Some Thoughts Regarding Presidential Science Advisor
John Marburger's Speech on Space Exploration and Utilization

"The key to the entire success or ultimate failure of the
President's Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) is the
proper definition of "economic sphere".
Here is the definition that Dr. Marburger offered:

"Our national policy, declared by President [George W.] Bush
and endorsed by Congress last December in the NASA
authorization act, affirms that, "The fundamental goal of this
vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic
interests through a robust space exploration program."
So at least for now the question has been decided in
the affirmative "

Does the current VSE have the goal of executing on the
"advancing U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests"
aspect? This is a key question that Marburger seems to be
asking as the next paragraph in his talk explains:

"The wording of this policy phrase is significant. It subordinates
space exploration to the primary goals of scientific, security
and economic interests. Stated this way, the "fundamental goal"
identifies the benefits against which the costs of exploration can
be weighed. This is extremely important for policy-making
because science, security and economic dimensions are
shared by other federally funded activities. By linking costs
to these common benefits it becomes possible, at least in
principle, to weigh investments in space exploration against
competing opportunities to achieve benefits of the same type."

"I don't think that NASA as an agency - or the aerospace industry
has seriously thought about the restating of the space program
within the context that Marburger has laid out. This new policy
that is being implemented by the Bush administration is more
focused toward "ensuring future economic competitiveness"
and space is placed at a lower priority as it is not perceived
to contribute as strongly as other fields such as nanotechnology
infotechnology, and biotechnology. NASA is losing out in the
battle for funds when compared to other activities, as space
and space science is not considered to contribute as strongly
as the other fields to economic competitiveness.
This is the key implication of Marburger's speech."
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1116



Will the Space Exploration Vision Unravel?
Worst Case Scenario

.. Shuttle and station not retired soon enough.
.. Not enough money freed for the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV).
.. To reduce risk and save money, NASA falls back on Apollo
technology for CEV.
.. Which discourages innovation and basic research on the process
of reducing the cost and difficulty of getting humans to Mars.
.. Science projects suffer.
.. Which promotes a "Moon only" focus.
.. The result: movement back to incrementalism in which
the means becomes the end


"The increased complexity of a Shuttle designed to be all things
to all people created inherently greater risks than if more
realistic technical goals had been set at the start..
The greatest compromise NASA made was.with the premise
of the vehicle itself."

"Columbia Accident Investigation Board, 2003
http://www.aaas.org/programs/science...ccurdy1106.pdf


Whether in building a spacecraft, or designing a goal, if either
are meant to be 'all things to all people' ...poorly designed.
Then the intended accomplishments will end up being
lost to the struggle of just getting by.
Just like the ISS.

The means become the end.

I believe the Vision is doomed to the same fate.
This reality should make anyone that cares about Nasa
our future and space travel....thoroughly sad.

To reverse this tragedy in the making, all we need
to do is design our goals as scientifically as we
design our spacecrafts. But Nasa's goal has to be
.....'all things to all people' (that matter).

To the military, corrupt contractors and politicians
this vision is hereby dedicated.



Jonathan

s

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 22:08:34 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

No one is disputing that the Libby trial starts tomorrow. you moron.
You managed to get five words right in your nutty rant. The rest of
it is fruit loops (hint: Libby is not going to "sing" because he has
nothing to "sing" about)..


You really don't read the paper or keep up with politics
do you?

Much better than you, probably.

If Libby is lying, he's falling on his sword for
somebody, probably Cheney.

We don't know that Libby was lying. There's this little pesky thing
called "presumption of innocence."

Just like Poindexter
did for Reagan. He'll do a couple of years, if he's
guilty, and be rewarded for his loyalty with a big
fat job. Selling out your boss, when he's a really
big insider, is the professional kiss of death.

Dream on.

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news
Morons of a feather, and all that...

"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:
:Jonathan wrote:
:
: I'm astonished that anyone here actually believes that
: President Bush's motivation is to save the world from
: an asteroid or other calamity by building colonies.
:
: This is a huge program designed to maintain
: our aerospace capabilities for future military
: needs, as they arise. This is a gigantic make-work
: program for the military industrial contractors.
:
:Unfortunately, to a degree, so was Apollo.

Wee what I mean? Loon to loon communication.

:
: If you think Bush and Cheney are moved by
: visions of grandiose space colonies that
: usher in a trekkian utopia....you need to
: aquaint yourself with this concept
:
:
:Again, despite that Bush/Cheney making their claim, you are right,
:there is a military aspect to it.

Oh? What military aspect would that be?



This commision was the first step of the Bush administration to
revamp Nasa and the space industry. Which eventually
became the Vision. Notice the word 'defense' is used
270 times. But don't read it, God forbid you should
know what you're talking about and no longer be
able to mindlessly call everyone a loon.


Commission on the future of the United States Aerospace Industry
http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/aerospace/...inalReport.pdf





:Again, so was Apollo.

Oh? What military aspect would that be?

:
: We get nothing, at least they could've come
: up with a military industrial welfare program that
: also benefited society. But then they'd have
: to actually accomplish something, produce
: a product that mattered to us. With the Vision they
: don't have to create anything new or valuable
: for society, just repeat what's been done before.
: And watch society go ho-hum-been-there-done-that
: -who-cares. Which is just fine with them.
:
: As they don't care what we think about it.

That's because you're certifiable.

:
:Use their money and make it the way we want, like Apollo.
:

Whose money do you think you're getting to use, Eric?

Oh, and you calling yourself a 'scientist' is absolute
misrepresentation.

--
"I'll learn to work the saxophone.
I'll play just what I feel.
Drink Scotch whisky all night long
And die behind the wheel."
-- "Deacon Blues", Steely Dan

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 17 Jan 2007 13:43:31 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

No one is disputing that the Libby trial starts tomorrow. you moron.
You managed to get five words right in your nutty rant. The rest of
it is fruit loops (hint: Libby is not going to "sing" because he has
nothing to "sing" about)..

So, he's innocent, right? Never lied. They are holding him for no
reason?

I've no idea, since I wasn't there, but the only thing that he's been
charged with is lying to a grand jury, so the rest of your insane
fantasies are just that.

No Rand, it is more than that. If Libby lied about who knew what and
when about whether Iraq had WMD and that is a reason for the invasion,

There's no evidence that anyone even asked him any questions about
that, you moron.

Okay, then what did Libby lie about?


then Bush and more likely, Cheney, may have to take the stand.

Cheney is already planned to take the stand, you moron. There's no
reason for Bush to, since there's no evidence that he had any
knowledge of this.

Plausible deniability, right. Cheney would step down before implication
Bush. Standard procedure, you imbecile.

You're insane to treat this like it were nothing.

It's not nothing. It's prosecutorial abuse.

You're deluded to say the least. Someone dared to not tow the
administration BS line about WMD in Iraq and was made an example of.
They got caught. Abuse of power and we're going to see it unfold.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:28:41 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


We all know President Bush announced his Vision for
Space Exploration in early 2004. My question is who
came up with the idea? What was the pre-history of the
Vision that intends to guide our national space policy for
the next forty years or more?

All I have found so far follows...

"Surprisingly, much of the early work on the new policy was
made by a group of anonymous junior White House staffers
who, by the book's account, had a genuine interest in space
exploration and sought to create a new vision that would
reinvigorate the space agency. This "Splinter Group" spent
months meeting informally, reviewing white papers and
proposals, before inviting more senior advisers and, eventually,
NASA officials into the discussion. This led to the creation
of two "Rump Groups" that narrowed down proposals for a new
exploration plan, keeping in mind fiscal limitations that ruled out
any plan that required significant additional funding for NASA.
The result of these deliberations, spread out over most of
2003, was a plan the President approved on December 19
and announced to the world at NASA Headquarters
on January 14."
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/198/1


I would like to know who the ..."anonymous junior staffers"
of the 'Splinter Group' were. Who were the Nasa officials?
Who were the members of the 'Rump Group'?

Who put this idea into the head of our President?

I think we have a right to know, at the very least
we should know so we can gauge their competence
and independence of such entities as Lockheed etc.

There is nothing in the VSE that intrinsically benefits Lockheed.
You're a conspiratorial idiot.

That is well- known. Since Lockeed merely specializes
in stealing Department Of Transportation Crap.

On 17 Jan 2007 20:43:10 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

No Rand, it is more than that. If Libby lied about who knew what and
when about whether Iraq had WMD and that is a reason for the invasion,

There's no evidence that anyone even asked him any questions about
that, you moron.

Okay, then what did Libby lie about?

How would I know? I don't know if he lied about anything. What he's
accused of lying about is who he talked to and when about lying Joe
Wilson's wife.

You're insane to treat this like it were nothing.

It's not nothing. It's prosecutorial abuse.

You're deluded to say the least.

laughing

Someone dared to not tow the
administration BS line about WMD in Iraq and was made an example of.

If by "not tow [sic] the administration line about WMD," you mean lie
about what he found on his boondoggle to Africa, and by being "made an
example of," you mean having his lies exposed, and having the reason
for his foolish trip explained, then yes.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 17 Jan 2007 20:43:10 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

No Rand, it is more than that. If Libby lied about who knew what and
when about whether Iraq had WMD and that is a reason for the invasion,

There's no evidence that anyone even asked him any questions about
that, you moron.

Okay, then what did Libby lie about?

How would I know? I don't know if he lied about anything.

But there are grounds for him being in court for lying. So someone in a
legal capacity that has spoken to him has found instances where his
stories were not straight.

What he's
accused of lying about is who he talked to and when about lying Joe
Wilson's wife.

So Rand, is it Joe Wilson that you are calling a liar or his wife?

You're insane to treat this like it were nothing.

It's not nothing. It's prosecutorial abuse.

You're deluded to say the least.

laughing

Someone dared to not tow the
administration BS line about WMD in Iraq and was made an example of.

If by "not tow [sic] the administration line about WMD," you mean lie
about what he found on his boondoggle to Africa, and by being "made an
example of," you mean having his lies exposed, and having the reason
for his foolish trip explained, then yes.

Rand, Joe Wilson is not the only person on earth that has found that
there no WMD in Iraq when Bush and Co. said that there were.

If Wilson is such a liar then why did Bush's lackies bother with
outting his wife as a CIA agent as punishment?