29
   

Rising fascism in the US

 
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Sun 1 Jan, 2023 09:01 am
In the epic war between good and evil, whose side are you on.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Sun 1 Jan, 2023 09:02 am
What surprises me most about this thread is that Lash has yet to repost loads of tweets claiming Andrew Tate is innocent.

There's still time I suppose.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Sun 1 Jan, 2023 09:03 am
@Lash,
You sound like Saruman.
Lash
 
  -2  
Sun 1 Jan, 2023 09:29 am
Russia spent 8 years trying to negotiate and avoid this war, and the United States spent 8 years doing everything they could to provoke it

The United States won and both Russia and Ukraine lost, but Ukraine will be the biggest loser
_________
@blackintheempire
Twitter
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Sun 1 Jan, 2023 09:49 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

You sound like Saruman.


Lash is the ultimate troll, Izzy.

She will do almost anything to damage progressivism, the Democratic Party, and the United States of America.

And she does it while pretending to be a stable genius, always truthful, and a champion for our Republic.

She definitely is not worth your efforts.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Sun 1 Jan, 2023 09:59 am
@Frank Apisa,
As Lash is using e treme examples, Good vs Evil I thought Lord of the Rings terminology appropriate because in the battle of Good v Evil Lash is Saruman.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Sun 1 Jan, 2023 10:20 am
It's easy for left-wingers to point and laugh at Maddow for how epically wrong she was on Trump/Russia. It's much harder to analyze why even Online Progressive™ media like @TheYoungTurks @majorityfm @davidpakmanshow not only fell for the scam, but gave it "progressive" cover
_____________

Michael Tracey, Twitter
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  4  
Sun 1 Jan, 2023 12:54 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
She definitely is not worth your efforts.


The OP has stated that she's not trying to convince other people of anything; she's simply posting statements, tweets, and articles that she agrees with. So engaging with her here is really unnecessary. Her mind is more than made up – she's a true believer. So it might be better to just think of this thread as her blog and not bother trying to reason with her – or even interact at all. Zardoz has a blog-thread and the thread I hijacked on the fate of the planet is pretty much in the same class. Drop in, read what she's posted, add or subtract a thumb if you wish, and leave her to herself, a disturbed lonely voice crying in the wilderness.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -2  
Sun 1 Jan, 2023 01:05 pm
https://thegrayzone.com/2022/12/30/declassified-intelligence-files-bosnian-war/

Filed under: Things you knew but had no proof (until now)

Big excerpt:

A trove of intelligence files sent by Canadian peacekeepers expose CIA black ops, illegal weapon shipments, imported jihadist fighters, potential false flags, and stage-managed atrocities.

The established mythos of the Bosnian War is that Serb separatists, encouraged and directed by Slobodan Milošević and his acolytes in Belgrade, sought to forcibly seize Croat and Bosniak territory in service of creating an irredentist “Greater Serbia.” Every step of the way, they purged indigenous Muslims in a concerted, deliberate genocide, while refusing to engage in constructive peace talks.

This narrative was aggressively perpetuated by the mainstream media at the time, and further legitimized by the UN-created International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) once the conflict ended. It has become axiomatic and unquestionable in Western consciousness ever since, enforcing the sense that negotiation invariably amounts to appeasement, a mentality that has enabled NATO war hawks to justify multiple military interventions over subsequent years.

However, a vast trove of intelligence cables sent by Canadian peacekeeping troops in Bosnia to Ottawa’s National Defence Headquarters, first published by Canada Declassified at the start of 2022, exposes this narrative as cynical farce.

The documents offer an unparalleled, first-hand, real-time view of the war as it developed, with the prospect of peace rapidly degrading into grinding bloodshed that ultimately caused the painful death of the multi-faith, multi-ethnic Yugoslavia.

The Canadian soldiers were part of a wider UN Protection Force (UNPROFOR) dispatched to former Yugoslavia in 1992, in the vain hope tensions wouldn’t escalate to all-out-war, and an amicable settlement could be reached by all sides. They stayed until the bitter end, long past the point their mission was reduced to miserable, life-threatening failure.

The peacekeepers’ increasingly bleak analysis of the reality on the ground provides a candid perspective of the war’s history that has been largely concealed from the public. It is a story of CIA black ops, literally explosive provocations, illegal weapon shipments, imported jihadist fighters, potential false flags, and stage-managed atrocities.

Read the complete Canadian UNPROFOR cables here.

See key excerpts of the files referred to in this article here.

“Outside interference in the peace process”

It is a little-known but openly acknowledged fact that the US laid the foundations for war in Bosnia, sabotaging a peace deal negotiated by the European Community in early 1992. Under its auspices, the country would be a confederation, divided into three semi-autonomous regions along ethnic lines. While far from perfect, each side generally got what it wanted – in particular, self-governance – and at the least, enjoyed an outcome preferable to all-out conflict.

However, on March 28th, 1992, US Ambassador to Yugoslavia Warren Zimmerman met with Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic, a Bosniak Muslim, to reportedly offer Washington’s recognition of the country as an independent state. He further promised unconditional support in the inevitable subsequent war, if rejected the Community proposal. Hours later, Izetbegovic went on the warpath, and fighting erupted almost immediately.

Received wisdom dictates the Americans were concerned that Brussels’ leading role in negotiations would weaken Washington’s international prestige, and assist in the soon-to-be European Union emerging as an independent power bloc following the collapse of Communism.

While such concerns were no doubt held by US officials, the UNPROFOR cables expose a much darker agenda at work. Washington wanted Yugoslavia reduced to rubble, and planned to bring the Serbs violently to heel by prolonging the war as long as possible. To the US, the Serbs were the ethnic group most determined to preserve the troublesome independent republic’s existence.

These aims were very effectively served by Washington’s absolutist assistance to the Bosniaks. It was an article of faith in the Western mainstream at the time, and remains so today, that Serb intransigence in negotiations blocked the path to peace in Bosnia. Yet, the UNPROFOR cables make repeatedly clear this was not the case.

In cables sent July – September 1993, the time of a ceasefire and renewed attempt to amicably partition the country, the Canadian peacekeepers repeatedly attribute an obstinate character to Bosniaks, not Serbs. As one representative excerpt states, the “insurmountable” goal of “satisfying Muslim demands will be the primary obstacle in any peace talks.”

Various passages also refer to how “outside interference in the peace process” did “not help the situation,” and “no peace” could be achieved “if outside parties continue to encourage the Muslims to be demanding and inflexible in negotiations.”

By “outside” assistance, UNPROFOR of course meant Washington. Its unconditional support for the Bosniaks motivated them to “[negotiate] as if they had won the war,” which they had to date “lost”.

“Encouraging Izetbegovic to hold out for further concessions,” and “clear US desires to lift the arms embargo on the Muslims and to bomb the Serbs are serious obstacles to ending the fighting in the former Yugoslavia,” the peacekeepers recorded on September 7th 1993.

The next day, they reported to headquarters that “Serbs have been the most compliant with the terms of the ceasefire.” Meanwhile, Izetbegovic was basing his negotiating position on “the popular image of the Bosnian Serbs as the bad guys.” Validating this illusion had a concomitant benefit – namely, precipitating NATO airstrikes on Serb areas. This was not lost on the peacekeepers:

“Serious talks in Geneva will not occur as long as Izetbegovic believes that airstrikes will be flown against the Serbs. These airstrikes will greatly strengthen his position and likely make him less cooperative in negotiations.”

Simultaneously, Muslim fighters were “not giving peace talks a chance, just going hell for leather,” and very much willing and able to assist in Izetbegovic’s objective. Throughout the final months of 1993, they launched countless broadsides on Serb territory throughout Bosnia, in breach of the ceasefire.

In December, when Serb forces launched a “major attack” of their own, a cable that month asserted that since early Summer, “most of the Serb activity has been defensive or in response to Muslim provocation.”

A September 13th UNPROFOR cable noted that in Sarajevo, “Muslim forces continue to infiltrate the Mount Igman area and shell BSA [Bosnian Serb Army] positions around the city daily,” the “assessed aim” being to “increase Western sympathy by provoking an incident and blaming the Serbs.”

Two days later, “provocation” of the Bosnian Serb Army (BSA) was continuing, although “the BSA is reported to be exercising restraint.” This area remained a key Bosniak target for some time afterwards. The July – September volume concludes with an ominous cable:

“BSA occupation of Mount Igman is not adversely affecting the situation in Sarajevo. It is simply an excuse for Izetbegovic to delay negotiations. His own troops have been the worst violators [emphasis added] of the [July 30th] ceasefire agreement.”

Enter the Mujahideen: “The Muslims are not above firing on their own people or UN areas”

Throughout the conflict, the Bosnian mujahideen worked ceaselessly to escalate the violence. Muslims from all over the world flooded into the country beginning in the latter half of 1992, waging jihad against the Croats and Serbs. Many had already gained experience on the Afghan battlefield through the 1980’s and early 90’s after arriving from CIA and MI6-infiltrated fundamentalist groups in Britain and the US. For them, Yugoslavia was the next recruitment ground.

The Mujahideen frequently arrived on “black flights”, along with an endless flow of weapons in breach of the UN embargo. This started off as a joint Iranian and Turkish operation, with the financial backing of Saudi Arabia, although as the volume of weapons increased the US took over, flying the deadly cargo to an airport in Tuzla using fleets of C-130 Hercules aircraft.

Estimates of the Bosnian mujahideen’s size vary vastly, but their pivotal contribution to the civil war seems clear. US Balkans negotiator Richard Holbrooke in 2001 declared that Bosniaks “wouldn’t have survived” without their help, and branded their role in the conflict a “pact with the devil” from which Sarajevo was yet to recover.

Mujahideen fighters are never explicitly mentioned in the UNPROFOR cables, and neither are Bosniaks – the term “the Muslims” is used liberally. Still, oblique references to the former are plentiful.

A Winter 1993 intelligence report observed that “the weak and decentralized command and control systems” of the three opposing sides produced “widespread proliferation of weapons and the existence of various official and unofficial paramilitary groups, who often have individual and local agendas.” Among those “unofficial” groups was the Mujahideen, of course.

More clearly, in December that year, the peacekeepers recorded how David Owen, a former British politician who served as the European Community’s lead negotiator in the former Yugoslavia, “had been condemned to death for being responsible for the deaths 0f 130,000 Muslims in Bosnia,” his sentence “passed by the ‘Honour Court of Muslims’.” It was understood that “45 people were in place all over Europe to carry out the sentence.”



Owen certainly wasn’t responsible for the deaths of 130,000 Muslims, as nowhere near that many Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs were killed over the course of the war in total. Nor were the Bosniaks religious extremists with a network of operatives across the continent, on standby to carry out fatwas passed down by an “Honour Court.”

Subsequent to this incident, which has never previously been publicly revealed, there are reports of “the Muslims” preparing false flag provocations. In January 1994, one cable observed:

“The Muslims are not above firing on their own people or UN areas and then claiming the Serbs are the guilty party in order to gain further Western sympathy. The Muslims often site their artillery extremely close to UN buildings and sensitive areas such as hospitals in the hope that Serb counter-bombardment fire will hit these sites under the gaze of the international media.”



Another cable records how “Muslim troops masquerading as UN forces” had been spotted wearing UNPROFOR’s blue helmets and “a combination of Norwegian and British combat clothing,” driving vehicles painted white and marked UN. The peacekeepers’ Director General feared that if such connivance was to become “widespread” or “be used for infiltration of Croat lines,” it would “greatly increase the prospects for legitimate UN forces to be targeted by the Croats.”

“This may be exactly what the Muslims intend, possibly to provoke further pressure for airstrikes on the Croats,” the cable adds.

That same month, UNPROFOR cables speculated “the Muslims” would target Sarajevo airport, the destination for humanitarian aid to the Bosniaks, with a false flag attack. As “the Serbs would be the obvious culprits” in such a scenario, “the Muslims would gain a great deal of propaganda value from such Serb activity,” and it was “thus very tempting for the Muslims to conduct the shelling and blame the Serbs.”



US proxy wars, then and now

Against this backdrop, cables related to the Markale Massacre take on a particularly striking character. On February 5th 1994, an explosion tore through a civilian market, causing 68 deaths and 144 casualties.

Responsibility for the attack – and the means by which it was executed – has been hotly contested ever since, with separate official investigations yielding inconclusive results. The UN at the time was unable to make an attribution, although UNPROFOR troops have since testified they suspected the Bosniak side may have been responsible.

Accordingly, cables from this time refer to “disturbing aspects” of the event, including journalists being “directed to the scene so quickly,” and “a very visible Muslim Army presence in the area.”

“We know that the Muslims have fired on their own civilians and the airfield in the past in order to gain media attention,” one concluded. A later memo observes, “Muslim forces outside of Sarajevo have, in the past, planted high explosives in their own positions and then detonated them under the gaze of the media, claiming Serb bombardment. This has then been used as a pretext for Muslim ‘counter-fire’ and attacks on the Serbs.”



Nonetheless, in its 2003 conviction of Serb general Stanislav Galić for his role in the siege of Sarajevo, the ICTY concluded the Massacre was deliberately perpetrated by Serb forces, a ruling held up on appeal.

The authors of this article make no judgment on what did or did not happen at Markale that fateful day. However, the murkiness surrounding the event foreshadowed pivotal events that justified escalations in every subsequent Western proxy war, from Iraq to Libya to Syria to Ukraine.

Since the onset of the Ukraine proxy war this February 24th, deliberate war crimes, real incidents misleadingly framed as war crimes, and potentially staged events are virtually daily occurrences, along with accompanying volleys of claims and counterclaims of culpability. In some cases, officials on one side have even gone from celebrating and claiming credit for an attack to blaming the other within days, or simply hours. Substance and spin have become inseparable, if not symbiotic.
__________

More at link (frowny face) Is there any disgusting crisis not planned and executed by the US?

Lash
 
  -1  
Sun 1 Jan, 2023 05:44 pm
@Lash,
Let’s just remember how many thousands have been killed and ruined due to the lies of Joe Biden.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  -2  
Sun 1 Jan, 2023 05:55 pm
@Lash,
Quote:
Is there any disgusting crisis not planned and executed by the US?

When underdeveloped humans like those in power acquire all the physical wealth they desire, there is nothing left for them to acquire except for authority over their brothers and sisters, and the stuff that other countries own. They just can't help themselves.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Sun 1 Jan, 2023 06:19 pm
Lula has been sworn in, hopefully ending US designs on Brazil for now.
Glennn
 
  -3  
Sun 1 Jan, 2023 06:26 pm
@Lash,
The world seems like a giant Monopoly board game.
Lash
 
  -2  
Sun 1 Jan, 2023 06:46 pm
@Glennn,
Have you ever played ‘Risk’?
Lash
 
  -2  
Sun 1 Jan, 2023 09:40 pm
https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2023-01-01/fbi-dhs-pentagon-capitol-riot-8609065.html?twclid=2-lrgwjyz2nfq14tmhqiyet6bv#.Y7INevE-Kjc.twitter

Pentagon, FBI, DHS failed on Jan. 6, former Capitol Police chief says

By CAROL D. LEONNIG
THE WASHINGTON POST • January 1, 2023

WASHINGTON — In a new firsthand account of the frantic efforts of Capitol Police officers to protect Congress and themselves from an armed mob on Jan. 6, 2021, the department’s former chief blames cascading government failures for allowing the brutal melee.

The federal government’s multibillion-dollar security network, built after 9/11 to gather intelligence that could warn of a looming attack, provided no such shield on Jan. 6, former Capitol Police chief Steven A. Sund writes in a new book. The FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and even his own agency’s intelligence unit had been alerted weeks earlier to reams of chilling chatter about right-wing extremists arming for an attack on the Capitol that day, Sund says, but didn’t take the basic steps to assess those plots or sound an alarm. Senior military leaders, citing political or tactical worries, delayed sending help.

And, Sund warns in “Courage Under Fire,” it could easily happen again. Many of the factors that left the Capitol vulnerable remain unfixed, he said.

The Washington Post obtained an advance copy of the book, which will be published Tuesday.

In his account, Sund describes his shock at the battle that unfolded as an estimated 10,000 protesters inflamed by President Donald Trump’s rally earlier in the day broke through police lines and punched, stabbed and pepper-sprayed officers, outnumbering them “58 to 1.”

Sund said his shock shifted to agony as he unsuccessfully begged military generals for National Guard reinforcements. Though they delayed sending help until it was too late for Sund’s overrun corps, he says that he later discovered that the Pentagon had rushed to send security teams to protect military officials’ homes in Washington, none of which were under attack.

Sund reserves his greatest outrage for those Pentagon leaders, recounting a conference call he had with two generals about 2:35 p.m., 20 minutes after rioters had broken into the Capitol and as Vice President Mike Pence and other lawmakers scurried to hiding places.

Sund writes that Lt. Gen. Walter Piatt told him he didn’t like the optics of sending uniformed Guard troops to the Capitol but could allow them to replace police officers at roadside checkpoints. Listening incredulously and trying to explain that he needed help to save officers’ lives, Sund said, he felt both “nauseated” and “mad as hell.”

“It’s a response I will never forget for the rest of my life,” Sund writes. While on the call, Sund recalls hearing the frantic voice of an officer being broadcast into the command center: “Shots fired in the Capitol, shots fired in the Capitol.”

Sund’s anger boiled over and he shouted the report of gunfire into the conference call: “Is that urgent enough for you now?” Then Sund hung up to deal with this new crisis.

A Pentagon spokesman, asked to respond to some of Sund’s claims, did not answer a question about his assertions that the military had beefed up security for top military officials’ homes on Jan. 6. The spokesman referred to a timeline released by the Department of Defense spelling out leaders’ “planning and execution” related to the attack on the Capitol.

Piatt had initially denied saying anything about optics but later acknowledged that he had conferred with others on the call, and it was possible he made comments to that effect. He testified he didn’t think he was rejecting using the Guard but just that the military needed to create a plan for its use.

On Jan. 6, Sund had been chief of the Capitol Police for about 18 months after a 25-year career with the D.C. police in which he had received plaudits for his security planning for Washington’s many inaugurations and protests. He writes that he holds himself and many others responsible for what happened during the attack on the Capitol but that the ultimate purpose of the book is to answer a key question about the insurrection:

The answers form the broader message Sund delivers, calling out systemic failures that left his agency and the country flatfooted despite clear signs intelligence agencies had received of a gathering storm.

“The security and information-sharing policies and mandates put in place after September 11 failed miserably on January 6,” Sund writes. “We failed miserably to see the apparent warning signs and the danger, like a ‘gray rhino,’ charging right at us.”

Sund said he was never warned about those red flags the FBI, DHS and his own intelligence unit had received: plots for protesters to come armed, attack Capitol tunnels and be willing to shoot police.

Sund resigned a day after the riot when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) publicly called for him to step down over the department’s inability to secure the Capitol.

“No one holds themselves more accountable than I do” for the officers’ gruesome experience that day, he writes, “and I wish I could have done more.” Still, Sund said he regrets resigning before the full picture emerged about intelligence he never received — which would have spurred a much different security plan.

He warns that many flaws in his agency’s power structure — where congressional leaders’ political concerns can overrule the chief’s security judgments — remain.

Three days before Jan. 6, in anticipation of large crowds, Sund had asked that the National Guard be placed on standby. But his request was batted down by the two sergeants-at-arms hired by Senate and House leaders; Sund says he later learned the two believed that Pelosi would never allow it.

“Almost two years after the events of Jan. 6, the department is not in a better place or on a readier footing,” he writes. “Few people in the department feel there is a viable plan to move the agency into a better position. Hundreds of officers have left the department since Jan. 6 and many feel it is only going to get worse. “

Sund writes that senior leaders in his department failed, too.

“Many of our Capitol Police just acted so bravely and with such concern for the staff, the members, for the Capitol ... and they deserve our gratitude. But there was a failure at the top of the Capitol Police.”

He added: The “biggest intelligence failure was within my department.”

Starting on Dec. 21 and continuing to Jan. 5, the Capitol Police intelligence division had received emails and tips that carried frightening warnings about plots for Jan. 6. Intelligence collected on Dec. 21 revealed that prospective rallygoers were discussing how to coordinate an attack using the Capitol’s underground tunnel system, and attaching a map of the complex. They urged burning down the homes of Pelosi and Senate leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

The assistant chief overseeing the intelligence division at the time, Yogananda Pittman, told Congress this intelligence should have been circulated to top leaders in the agency. Sund said he and other commanders never received it. An internal review found no evidence that the warnings were ever shared outside Pittman’s division. Sund said the Capitol Police head of protection for congressional leaders was also not alerted to the threats against Pelosi and McConnell.

The department’s intelligence division did widely share an updated internal threat report on Jan. 3 — three days before the attack — that carried a worrisome warning about the potential for violence at the Capitol. The memo cited the desperation of Trump supporters who saw Jan. 6 “as the last opportunity to overturn the results of the presidential election” and would target “Congress itself.”

Sund said he didn’t remember being struck by the report’s language, as it was loaded with qualifiers about the possibility of violence and never referenced specific plots to target Capitol tunnels, congressional leaders and police.

After Sund resigned, Pittman briefly served as acting chief. Pittman has announced that she plans to retire in February. Capitol Police leaders said they have made vast changes to improve intelligence sharing and readiness since the attack.

Sund also warns in his book that the department’s command structure — with political leaders dictating decisions for security officials — “is a recipe for disaster,” and had grave consequences on Jan. 6.

He recommends that congressional leaders empower future Capitol Police chiefs to execute their own security plans alone, rather than having to report to a three-member Capitol Police Board made up of the House and Senate sergeants-at-arms and the architect of the Capitol, a cumbersome structure that he says makes it impossible for the chief to act independently.

“The security apparatus that exists on Capitol Hill creates a no-win situation for whoever is chief. You have the Capitol Police Board, four oversight committees, and 535 bosses plus their staffs telling you what to do,” Sund writes.

In the aftermath of the Jan. 6 attack, Sund struggled to make sense of the military’s inaction that day, something he considered a dereliction of duty. Sund urges in his book that the Pentagon follow its established policies that call on the military to provide immediate support for state and local governments and police departments facing a life-or-death situation.

The rapid dispatch of security teams to guard the homes of military leaders in the D.C. area confirmed for Sund that on the afternoon of Jan. 6, “the Pentagon fully understands the urgency and danger of the situation even as it does nothing to support us on the Hill.”

Sund writes he also later learned that, during the riot that afternoon, a large phalanx of National Guard troops returned to their command center to clock out at the end of their shift. One crew went off duty as scheduled, to be replaced by a new one, as if it were a normal day, all while Capitol Police and assisting D.C. police battled for their lives just 22 blocks away.

At 4:30 p.m. that day, two hours after Sund’s urgent request for help, Pentagon leaders reported they had completed their planning for reinforcements and could now send the National Guard.

“For the past several hours, we have been battling a mob at the Capitol and the fight has been televised around the world,” Sund writes. “We have multiple fatalities including a shooting inside the Capitol. We have had to secure members of Congress, the vice president and his family and the next three levels of succession to the president of the United States. And the military has made no effort whatsoever to help end this.”

The first National Guard troops arrived at 5:40 p.m., when the violent attack was over and Capitol Police along with D.C. police and FBI SWAT teams had cleared the Capitol and campus of rioters. The D.C. National Guard’s leader at the time, Gen. William Walker, later confided to Sund his shame, Sund writes. The local Guard’s headquarters is two miles from the Capitol, yet Pentagon officials did not authorize Walker to deploy for more than three hours as they crafted a plan for actions the Guard would take. New Jersey State Police beat the troops to the scene.

“Steve, I felt so bad. I wanted to help you immediately ... but they wouldn’t let me come,” Sund recounts Walker saying. “Imagine how I felt. New Jersey got here before we did?”
———————
The FBI and other government agencies intended for the breach to happen and wouldn’t authorize assistance until the damage was done. Pelosi blaming Capital Police was the cherry on top.


vikorr
 
  3  
Mon 2 Jan, 2023 12:17 am
@Lash,
I wonder if the Capitol Police Chief is trying to rewrite history. I recall reading multiple reports that help was offered, but declined by him. Found same with a quick look:


Or the alternate story:

At the very least, quick response to an emergency request wasn't possible by the military departments at the time, and it seems disingenous of the former Capitol Police Chief to even attempt to imply that this was the case. Police of course, should have integrity.




Of course once authorised, there is still the
- time needed to set up interoperability communications with the Capitol Police and the DC Police
- time needed for Negotiations with & Instructions from Capitol Police
- Assembly of team (whether this is two minutes, 10mintues, or thirty minutes)
- time needed for briefings
- Distance to Staging Point influences time (any big city, 20min in clear traffic would not be unexpected)
- logistics (loading, unloading, vehicles needed), transport time
- traffic congestion, road blocks etc to navigate that influence time

52min from the green light to arrival, given the above, would actually be a very good response time.

So, given the article in the previous post - to me, it seems like the ex Chief is trying to rewrite history.
vikorr
 
  2  
Mon 2 Jan, 2023 12:45 am
@vikorr,
By the way, the membership of the Capitol Police Board consists of:
roger
 
  3  
Mon 2 Jan, 2023 01:08 am
@vikorr,
That's kind of interesting.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -3  
Mon 2 Jan, 2023 08:41 am
Glenn Greenwald, Twitter

1) Tucker here demands the release of Mitch McConnell's tax returns, asking how he got so rich while in "public service." Imagine CNN or NBC attacking a leading Dem this way.

2) Maddow and friends for years insisted Trump's tax returns would show Russian payments. Moving on...🤷‍♂️


Ethan Harsell, Twitter

Tucker: Trumps tax returns show he got poorer in office while Mitch McConnell & Nancy Pelosi got filthy rich

_____________

Signaling the GOP should take out their own trash, along with the Democrats’. Approved.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  0  
Mon 2 Jan, 2023 03:17 pm
@Lash,
Quote:
Have you ever played ‘Risk’?

Yup. Teaches kids how the world really works.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.43 seconds on 11/13/2024 at 10:34:07