The Rand Corporation, Ayn Rand and Rand Paul...

[MrScorpio]

If it wasn't for Ingersoll-Rand and Rand-McNally it would be complete suckage.

[jody]

1. What is your problem with the Rand Corporation? n/t

[MrScorpio]

2. Don't get me started on the Military - Congressional - Industrial - Complex

We spend waaaay too much money on it, those guys included

[jody]

3. What is your beef with the Rand Corporation? You made an allegation now defend it with facts. nt

[MrScorpio]

4. My problem with The Rand Corporation is that it's simply a functionary of a bloated military

In the same boat as all other military contractors

It also provides a justification for US military global deployment under the guise of "security" concerns, which is merely a fancy euphemism for the implementation of American imperialist military power.

It's no accident that the US is spending more money on its war machine than the rest of the world put together.

It's also quite clear that the Rand Corporation is a primary functionary of that war machine.

Is that a satisfactory explanation?

[jody]

6. I’ve collaborated with Rand Corporation, see links below, teams for several

decades on research and studies. I respect their professional methods and intellectual capabilities.

Please cite one Rand report with which you disagree and explain how Rand erred in that report.

http://www.rand.org/http://www.rand.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND_Corporation

[BrklynLiberal]

9. Macchiavelli was superb at logic as well.

[jody]

11. And your point is what? Have you ever read a Rand report? n/t

[Dr.Phool]

32. Like the Pentagon Papers?

[jody]

36. Or the RAND report by Olaf Helmer, Norman Dalkey, Nicholas Rescher that produced the Delphi method.

Or the RAND research that produced the SIMSCRIPT programming language and on and on.

[jody]

52. On reflection, I realize some people may naively believe that RAND produced the "Pentagon papers".

In fact the "Pentagon Papers" were produced by the "Vietnam History Task Force" headed by Leslie Gelb. The group consisted of 18 military officers, nine civilians from different parts of government, and nine professional scholars from think tanks and universities.

Ellsberg was a member of that group but I don't know if any other RAND employee was involved.

In any case RAND was not responsible for producing the "Pentagon Papers" but Ellsberg, a RAND employee, did make copies of RAND's copy of the paper and the rest is history.

I fail to see how RAND can be held accountable for anything associated with the "Pentagon Papers".

Harvard professor Henry Kissinger was a member of the task force and Harvard and RAND both had the same influence on Ellsberg and Kissinger -- zero.

[MrScorpio]

12. I'm sure that Rand does great work, but I ask, for what end?

Rand is only necessary, in my book, if only to give the Pentagon pretty targets to bomb.

[BrklynLiberal]

13. My earlier point...Macchiavelli.

[jody]

15. Obviously you are joking but I missed your punch line and don't know when to laugh. n/t

[jody]

14. Apparently you have zero knowledge of Rands work. Please read Rand's current list of reports

before you comment further because you are absolutely clueless.

[MrScorpio]

16. It's a research apparatus for the US Military, am I correct?

But what is the US Military, if not a tool to project American imperialism globally?

I can't make it any simpler for you than that.

[jody]

17. Not now and that's your problem. Below are the titles of new Rand reports.

Latest Publications from RAND http://www.rand.org/pubs/new/

The Air Force Should Continue to Use the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test for Officer

The Air Force Officer Qualifying Test: Validity, Fairness, and Bias - June 11, 2010

Developing an Army Strategy for Building Partner Capacity for Stability Operations - June 10, 2010

Assessing the impact of arts and humanities research at the University of Cambridge - June 9, 2010

Making Policy in the Shadow of the Future - June 4, 2010

Grandfathering in the Small Group Market Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Effects on Offer Rates, Premiums, and Coverage - June 4, 2010

Education, Training, Innovation: Evidence from Transition Economies - June 3, 2010

Building Security in the Persian Gulf - June 2, 2010

Reducing Pittsburgh Neighborhood Violence - June 1, 2010

Community-Based Violence Prevention: An Assessment of Pittsburgh's One Vision One Life Program - June 1, 2010

How Can Faith-Based Organizations Help Address the HIV/AIDS Epidemic in Central America? - June 1, 2010

How Can Faith-Based Organizations Help Address the HIV/AIDS Epidemic in Central America? (Spanish translation) - June 1, 2010

The Role of Faith-Based Organizations in HIV Prevention and Care in Central America - June 1, 2010

[MrScorpio]

19. I have no doubt that they know how to multi-task

And I'm sure that they do great work.

But when they're used to produce work like this, it's not easy for me to cheer them on:

Integrating Instruments of Power and Influence
Lessons Learned and Best Practices
Cover: Integrating Instruments of Power and Influence: Lessons Learned and Best Practices

Co-chairs: Robert E. Hunter (principal author), Edward Gnehm, and George Joulwan

This report reflects a joint effort of the American Academy of Diplomacy and the RAND Corporation, growing out of a decade's worth of experience, principally gained by the United States, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the European Union, in military interventions abroad and their aftermath. The project brought together senior practitioners from a wide variety of institutions and disciplines (including U.S., allied, coalition, and United Nations military leaders, U.S. and European diplomats, and representatives of private-sector and nongovernmental organizations) to determine what people who were actually involved in operations in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan have learned about “getting the job done.” This report is a compilation, a synthesis, and an analysis of lessons learned and best practices regarding the integration of civilian and military intervention across the full spectrum of activities from the time before military intervention takes place through to post-conflict nation-building. It provides guidance for the U.S. and international institutions regarding critical areas of foreign policy and national security in the 21st century.


http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF251/

There you go: Helping the Pentagon finds better ways to kill people and destroy things, basically. That's their job.

Look. I spent 22 years in uniform, including seven and half years of a stint in the Pentagon, working next door to an office that was responsible for helping foreign governments buy and operate our overly complex and very expensive weapon systems. I'm absolutely sure that much of that equipment was used internally against their own citizens, from time to time.

Our military contractors, I've seen first hand, are responsible for spreading death around the world at a lighting fast pace, and the do it strictly for the money.

So, if you want to cheer lead for whatever part of the beast, merely because they do nice things with one hand while dipping the other in blood and guts... have at it.

But, I'm sick of all of it.

[jody]

20. Please cite the particular conclusions of the report you cite that "finds better ways to kill people

and destroy things".

The report is 109 pages long and free to you in pdf format so you should be able to give me an answer after reading the report.

If that's too difficult for you, then study the 18 page summary and tell me what parts offend you.

[MrScorpio]

21. I say that because, from my limited experience, that is what the military does

It deploys weapons and personnel to kill people and destroy things.

Perhaps, we've made mistakes in the past and of course, there are always better ways to "get the job done" whenever we deem to do better. Lessons learned, best practices and all that rot, you know.

But, when it comes right down to it, it's always about killing people and destroying things.

I really don't need to slog through a 109 page report which exists merely to help the Pentagon do a better job of killing people and destroying things the next go 'round.

[jody]

22. Why do you make vague assertions about a report but then refuse to support them with facts from the

report?

Is it because there are no facts in the report to support your assertion?

Have a good evening. :hi:

[Dreamer Tatum]

23. Because he rolled the dice that Rand was a right-wing think tank, and he lost.

It's that simple.

[jody]

29. Really, "It's that simple"? I can't believe any DUer would post assertions unsupported by facts.

My oh my, what is the internet world coming to! :rofl:

[Nailzberg]

79. Interesting you chose this report, which I assume you haven't read.

Because the conclusion of the researchers in this report was that the US and its partners in the EU and NATO need to lessen the military component in fighting insurgents, using military forces to provide security while NGOs and non-military government agencies such as the State Department, Department of Agriculture, do the heavy lifting, help the host nation rebuild local government, infrastructure, and industry, so that the local government can stand on its own and thus crippling the anti-US sentiments that help insurgencies gain strength.

[lurky]

24. OK, a question:

2/3 of their research is military-related. I understand that. They are affiliated with the military. You can oppose it or support it. Whatever.

The other 1/3 of their research is in public policy. This is where I have questions. What is the goal of their research? How do they decide what programs to fund? Is all of their work in this area related to the goal of "national security" on some level, or do they just do it to be nice?

Take some of the papers in your list. There is the whole faith-based HIV project. It seems to be looking at ways to strengthen faith-based programs in Central America. Was this funded as a way to justify Bush era policies? Our government also has a long history of using fundamentalist missionaries in Latin America as an unofficial arm of the intelligence services during all the coups and dictatorships we sponsored. Finding ways to fund them and embed them into the communities down there could be really useful.

Or there is the violence-prevention thing in Pittsburgh. Sounds great, right? The way it works is to recruit a network of community members for "systematically collecting and utilizing street-level intelligence". Sounds a bit like TIPS in the hood.

So maybe these things are totally innocuous, but the fact that they are funded by a quasi-military public/private institute kind of gives everything a sinister edge.

[jody]

27. Please read Rand's answers to "Frequently Asked Questions", link below. If that doesn't allay your

fears then nothing I or anyone else might say or cite will change your mind.

http://www.rand.org/about/faq.html

ON EDIT ADD: I'm not a RAND employee nor do I have an agenda to defend RAND but I do have factual knowledge that leads me to conclusions opposite from the OP.

[Bluenorthwest]

35. Why are you not answering questions posed to you?

Please read a Corporate FAQ? Excuse me?
Why don't you, in your own words, tell us the reasons that you hold the opinion of Rand that you hold? Sending people to a Corporate Website to explain the Corp is dandy is stupid. Wanna read my autobio? It says i am dandy! And better than that. Bet Rand's website says: we're dandy!
What about your opinion, views, and the facts that support it?

[jody]

37. Please direct your concerns to the OP author asking for facts supporting the asserted linkage

between the Rand Corporation and Ayn Rand - Rand Paul.

[Bluenorthwest]

41. He's not asserting any linkage, he's making a joke

You are the one making assertions, and providing links to Rand as answers to questions about those assertions. Please note, I have not taken any form of stand on Rand Corp, I am speaking about your choice to advocate for Rand rather than discuss the facts at hand. You are framing yourself as having knowledge, but rather than share what you know and think, you are just being snitty and also, missing the chance to inform the uninformed.
It is just silly, if people doubt the ethics of a company, to tell them to read the company FAQ. Absurd. Can you provide any link to any company's website in which they declare their bad intentions? No. Which means looking at the company FAQ for any company will bring you a glowing view of the company. A waste of time, and in this context, it seems like an evasion on your part.
Again, note no opinion from me on Rand. One opinion from me on the OP, that it was a light humorous comment. The rest of my comments have been about your methods, and the reason for my comments is that I am sick of advocacy in the place of discussion on this discussion board. If you can not make a point in your own words, then you have no point to discuss. Discussion board. Give it a shot.
If I were Rand Corp, and you were my rep, I'd get a better one.

[jody]

42. It ceases to be a joke when the author says in #4 "functionary of a bloated military". n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

43. For you, it ceased to be a joke when you read it

And you keep extending the punch line. You are in fact, being the punchline.

[jody]

44. Sorry, the jokes on you and others who persist in supporting a mis-characterization of the Rand Corp...

[Bluenorthwest]

46. Wow, more personal comments in place of fact

Read my comments again. I have not characterized Rand Corp in anyway at all. I have characterized you a bit, which I'd rather not. I did that because you are being rude, and making hysterical assertions and refusing to answer direct questions, and all of this over a joke you failed to pick up on, because, as with many jokes, apparently there was a large nugget in there that rubbed you the wrong way.
But when you say I characterized Rand Corp, you are telling a lie. Find a quote. From me. To back up your assertion. You can not do so.

[Bluenorthwest]

50. Upthead you say Rand Corp is a frequent collaborator of yours

And here you claim not to have any agenda to defend them, but you know, many have no ties to Rand Corp whatsoever. You do. You are a collaborator with Rand, on work you do not describe in any way, not even a mention of the field involved.
Both of your assertions stand, that you are a collaborator with Rand and also that you have no reason to defend your collaborators. Let the reader decide.

[Rex]

72. So because you have had dealing with them, they must be sterling

examples of morality? You know everyone in the corporation and all the projects they have underway? This is like someone working 'with' the Carlyle Group and defending them based on this guy they once met.

[jody]

76. ROFL, have a good evening. n/t

[Dr.Phool]

28. I didn't see any allegations.

Just a good snark!

[jody]

30. Read the OP superficially and you will note it links Rand Corporation to Ayn Rand and Rand Paul.

Read the thread author's comments and you will find the author knows nothing about the Rand Corporation.

[Dr.Phool]

31. It's a fucking joke.

Anybody who knows anything about the Rand Corporation knows that it has nothing to do with Ayn Rand or Rand Paul.

They did give us Daniel Ellsberg after all. Just not on purpose.

[jody]

33. Then why did the OP author persist in his attack on the Rand Corp. as did others in the thread?

One conclusion is as you say they are not among the group "Anybody who knows anything about the Rand Corporation".

[Dr.Phool]

34. Somebody baited a hook, and somebody bit.

[jody]

38. No, the OP author asserted a link between two groups and then tried to defend that assertion. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

47. That is perhaps the most absurd thing I have ever read.

Like so: You claim that the chicken crossed the road to 'get to the other side' but you provide no proof of that assumption. Link please.

[Bluenorthwest]

39. What most Americans know about Rand Corp

Is 'The Pentagon Papers'. So you, on a discussion board, had the chance to elucidate everybody with facts and your own considered opinion, but all you have done is demand that people read material from Rand itself, and that is circular thinking. I am a genius, and it says so in my autobiography. See? Rand is good, and it says so on their website is not an argument, or a position.
Why not make the point you claim you can easily make? What was the nature, for example of your work with Rand? Tell us about it.
Rand is neither all good, nor all bad. Discuss. Try to stop advocating and discuss. If you see a lack of knowledge, fill it with your own. But it is laughable to send people to any Company's own faq if the ethics of the company are what is being questioned, you know. Think about it.

[jody]

40. The burden of proof is on the OP author and those who support the OP assertion. Posting opinions

is unproductive but citing links to credible sources would be helpful.

[Bluenorthwest]

45. A wise crack requires carries no 'burden of proof'

You are being asked direct questions, and you are not answering them. When you make statements it is you that needs to back them up. This is not an advocacy board, it is a discussion board. Shouting and demanding is not discussion. Do you know what the word 'discuss' means? It is pretty basic.

[LanternWaste]

73. Possibly because you came out swinging like a bloated ass

"Then why did the OP author persist in his attack on the Rand Corp...."

Possibly because you came out swinging like a bloated and rancid ass, yourself attacking rather than merely correcting in a civil manner in response to little more than (one more time...) a JOKE.

[jody]

77. ROFL, have a good evening. n/t

[TexasObserver]

54. Don't waste your time arguing with someone who defends Rand.

Isn't his/her signature enough to let you know this one cannot be reasoned with?

Like I said, don't waste your time arguing with a Rand asset.

[jody]

59. Good point, those who use fiction to oppose fact should as you say "Don't waste your time". nt

[TexasObserver]

60. You admit you are paid by Rand, right?

Thanks. We understand your defense of them.

[jody]

62. Did you not understand #27? Please read it again. I'll oppose ignorance every chance I get whether

Republican or Democratic.

[TexasObserver]

63. You: "I’ve collaborated with Rand Corporation" - you're a collaborator

We all know what a "collaborator" is. You've acted as one of their nefarious contractors.

If you want to quibble about how much you side with them because they have paid you, that's open for discussion.

How much do they own you?

[jody]

65. Sorry but you missed my point. In the military I collaborated with RAND on several studies. ROFL at

your attempt to disparage me.

Why don't you start a campaign to have our president sever all ties with RAND?

Better still, tell me with whom you as president would contract for independent, objective research and recommendations on the most pressing problems that face a president?

[TexasObserver]

66. You're quibbling.

[jody]

68. No, you've lost but like the Black Knight in Monty Python you talk on. n/t

[TexasObserver]

78. Are you one of those delusional board commandos who thinks he "wins" arguments?

Amateur

[Rex]

80. They have a record of 76 - 0 in their own minds.

The greatest of shadows.

[TexasObserver]

82. Remember the movie STRIPES? Remember "Francis"?

"All my friends call me Psycho. And if any of you guys call me Francis ... I'll kill ya!"

[Rex]

83. Wow that takes me back

:ROFL:

[JanMichael]

25. You are full of shit. Rand is an imperial war justifier.

http://www.alternet.org/world/83910/

[Dreamer Tatum]

26. Wrong, so wrong. Good lord, what passes for an argument to some people. nt

[marions ghost]

5. connect the dots

:thumbsup:

[MrScorpio]

7. Exactly

The picture ain't pretty

[conscious evolution]

48. Scary on many levels.

Some can't see the forest because of the trees.

[BrklynLiberal]

8. LOL....

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :thumbsup:

[Dreamer Tatum]

10. Boy are you full of shit on this one. Educate yourself on the Rand Corp - might help you someday. nt

[mix]

51. The Rand Corporation was an Air Force think tank first run by Douglas Aircraft Co.

It has since become an instrument of modern warfare and national security, to these ends the knowledge produced by its researchers is applied.

According to the RAND corporation, around half of its research is for national security purposes and remains classified. The RAND Corporation retains deep financial ties to the MIC.

This is a Cold War institution in transition, committed to spreading American democracy and capitalism (corporate/neoliberal) to the four corners of the universe.

That's a good thing?

[Nailzberg]

81. 5% of research is classified, not "nearly half".

95% of RAND research is publicly available online and unclassified.

As for them being an arm of the USAF, that was during Project RAND, from 1946-1948. They've been a non-partisan independant think tank ever since. Yes, the DoD is a client, one of hundreds of organizations across the globe that turn to RAND for in-depth policy research and number crunching.

[rucky]

18. I think this theory needs a little more "r and d"

[mix]

49. clever...a troika of suckage

k&r

[MrScorpio]

53. Is this really necessary?

First up, I was making a God damned joke. I've been warned before about the wrath of the humorless... It's just not the same unless one witnesses it first hand.

Second, if any of the parties mentioned in the OP have any connection with each other beyond the fact that they all have the name "Rand" mixed up somewhere in that melange of words, I hereby stipulate that it was never my intention to make such an assertion. I hope that that's clear.

Third, and this is the serious part; in regard to the Rand-Corporation itself: If I deemed to disregard Rand's past work for the Pentagon, or merely to regard it as just benign, I can't think of a more naive notion in my entire life. I think that all of us, unless we wish to pursue some kind of agenda, would admit that the Pentagon's budget is in fact bloated. Whether or not the excessive amount of money spent on "defense" is a good or bad thing, that is of course, a matter of opinion. Whatever things good or bad that the Pentagon does, that's also a matter of opinion, but again none of would either consider its work benign.

Yet, even while I was in uniform I had many a qualm about things that the military was tasked to do. From the invasion of Panama, through lies that were told by a warmongering George H.W. Bush which culminated in his Gulf War, and also the lies that were told by his son so that he could criminally invade Iraq, none of these things can be judged as benign. Because as we all know, the military quite skillfully killed people and destroyed things in all three instances. That's the Pentagon's job.

Most of all, and this is my opinion, what I object to is the reason behind the use of the Pentagon's war making function. I mentioned that in another post. Also, I object to the United States' policy of unnecessary warfare against the planet since the beginning of the Cold War until the present day. The Pentagon and the CIA were the primary tools for these crimes against humanity, and to me Rand, by extension at some level because of it's work for the Pentagon, must at least have some culpability in that regard.

So, I ask, why would the Rand Corporation's function as adjunct of the Pentagon? To help the Pentagon do its job, of course. Why this is in any dispute at all, I have no freaking idea. There's nothing controversial at all about this assertion.

So, in spite of the totality of Rand's work, I think that they and just about every other military contractor can be judged as having, at least, some guilt by association. Again, unless one's political POV is standing in the way, honest brokers would indeed stipulate to that assertion as well.

Whether Rand's OTHER work as a functionary of corporate America is in question, why the hell should I care? I'm not talking about that, for it's a question for another day. Let the nice Rand guys roll. More power to them. One thing may or may not have anything to do with the other. I really couldn't care less.

Now lastly, whether or not anyone's association around here has anything to do with their defense of that organization, it would be nice for them to admit what it is. I had none, I was just an enlisted Air Force puke for twenty two years. All I have are opinions, strongly held opinions. You can't fault me for having opinions, can you? That's why we're on this discussion board in the first place... To flesh all that shit out.

But really, in spite of the fact that I have these strongly have opinions, at least I'm willing to admit that I know what a JOKE is... And it would really help clarify matters around here if others are either willing to admit or not that they either can or cannot know the same.

[TexasObserver]

55. Anyone who defends Rand Corp, Rand Paul or Ayn Rand is not a progressive.

I don't know who these people are, but they're not progressives, and you should pay them no mind.

You merely flushed out some people whose opinions we can now label as suspect.

[jody]

61. If you meant the OP as a joke then why in #4 did you attack RAND? A plausible answer is you had no

idea what RAND does for the government or why every president since Truman has continued to contract for its services.

It's likely when I objected to your mis-characterization of RAND that you educated yourself and attempted to wiggle out of your mistake.

For that I am grateful that I was able to educate you and I recognize you were not expected to learn about RAND when "I was in uniform".

[MrScorpio]

64. You really are touchy when it comes to apparati of the National Security State

I didn't know that you cared so much.

[jody]

67. I care as would every citizen about the $708 billion DOD budget Obama submitted to Congress. That

has nothing to do with your attempt to link the RAND corporation with Ayn Rand and Rand Paul.

If there was any semblance of truth in your assertions, then every Democratic president since Truman should have made some effort to sever the RAND - DOD link.

The fact that no president made such an effort suggests that presidents then and now Obama find RAND a useful source of independent, objective information.

[MrScorpio]

69. Oh. C'mon.

You're the ONLY one around here who thinks that I said that the three are joined at the hip.

That's just silly.

But, I do have a serious question for you: If I do change my mind and decide to start kissing the Rand Corporation's ass, should I plant a wet smacker on the left cheek or the right one?

Gotta make sure that I do it just right.

[jody]

70. You had an opportunity in #4 to say I missed your joke and I would have acknowledged such a mistake

but you persisted in #4 and thereafter in ad hominem attacks on RAND in spite of your obvious lack of knowledge of RAND or any of its work.

Given your persistence in making unsupported assertions and given every opportunity to correct your mistake one can rationally assume you don't like RAND but you don't know why or you made a mistake in linking RAND with Ayn Rand and Rand Paul.

If you want to admit that your post #4 "My problem with The Rand Corporation is that it's simply a functionary of a bloated military" was at variance with the continued support of every president since Truman then I accept your admission.

[MrScorpio]

71. Dude, you really need to switch to decaf. Really.

Let me tell you, if I learned one thing about my time in the military, especially spending a gig in the Pentagon, it is this:

It's that the DoD is really a ONE massive bureaucracy. I know that that isn't really a profound revelation... But one thing that I began to understand about a massive bureaucracy like the Pentagon is that they operate under certain rules.

Rule One being that the primary function of any bureaucracy is that it must ALWAYS strive to both preserve and expand itself.

The War Department prior to 1947 always reduced it's scope and budget after a conflict. It was something that went against bureaucratic rules, so after WWII, it was decided that that behavior had to be changed.

Well, in 1947 when the Defense Department (and the USAF) were established under the National Security Act of that year, the first thing they did was make it clear to every president since Truman that they were a complete necessity in both times of war and in times of peace. I mean, Hell, back then the God Damned commie Russkies were ready to take over the world and that just could not be allowed. So the boys at Rand dreamed up Mutually Assured Destruction and all those other ideas to keep the Russians from beating up grandma. The preservation scheme worked quite well. The Rand guys kept their cushy jobs and the Pentagon kept chugging along.

You know all this shit, I don't have to tell you.

But really, have you bothered to ask why the DoD budget always goes up? Enemies come and go, troops levels are raised and lowered, yet the DoD budget is always raised year after year.

Why?

And just how in hell to they come up with the justification to always raise that budget to keep and expand that bureaucracy in place?

Is it not completely obvious?

Well again, they do it by making themselves appear as a necessity, no matter what the circumstances.

As old enemies are lost, new ones are found. If this means that Rand has to diversify, so be it. Yet, regardless of any of it... The Bureaucracy MUST BE PRESERVED.

The way I see it, your own vigorous defense of a massive think tank against the crime of it being implicated in a joke (an albeit a weak joke at that) on a progressive internet message board is quite enough evidence to me to know that the continued preservation and expansion of the Pentagon sacred cow is completely out of control.

Of course, I NOT going to retract ANYTHING I just said. Your stubbornness and need to win an argument at any cost proves to me that I must be right.

So go right ahead and continue to tout the necessity of Rand's work to every single Commander in Chief since Truman...

Because all you're really doing is setting an example of what a functionary of a massively bureaucratic National Security State apparatus would do in order to make sure that that bureaucracy is preserved at any cost.

It's as plain as the noses on all of our faces.

[jody]

75. It's useless to discuss this topic with someone like you who spent a "gig in the Pentagon" probably

at a very low rank in which she/he was privy to all the issues that confronted a Secretary of Defense and Commander in Chief.

With that I'll end our exchange and wish you a very pleasant evening.

Goodbye. :hi:

[LanternWaste]

74. Then it would appear you're the only one who missed it for what is was...

Then it would appear you're the only one who missed the OP for what is was... a joke.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. Rip-off artists, producer of bodice-ripoers, and just plain ridiculous.

[MrScorpio]

57. That was rip-roaringly clever

:hi:

[hootinholler]

58. There's still a Rand Corporation?

I thought it was eaten by Sperry long ago, before Sperry got eaten by, hell I can't remember...

-Hoot