Q&A with Gov. Jeb Bush(Jeb becomes RINO overnight!)

The Florida Times-Union ^ | July 27, 2006 | J. Taylor Rushing

[eartotheground]

What made you want to step out in favor of Sen. King? You do this very rarely. "I've done a few but it's not the norm, I guess that's probably right. ... Tom Lee and Jim King this year did significant work in building and passing an aggressive agenda, and I'm a grateful governor. I believe when people work hard to create a shared agenda and then work hard to pass it, it's appropriate to show your appreciation."

Does this represent a distancing from a conservative segment of voters? "There is no distancing from my perspective. People know where I stand on these issues. On end-of-life issues, life issues in general, issues surrounding people of faith - nothing changes in that regard. The notion somehow, though, that Jim's opponent is representative of some group of people, I reject. I reject that. In fact, having gone through the [Terri] Schiavo matter, having stood on principles, having worked within the law as best I could under enormous pressure, I can tell you that the president of the Senate [King] saved Terri Schiavo's life for more than a year. Randall Terry, during that period of time and afterward, made no positive contribution. In fact, he was a hindrance."

What were his actions that you considered a hindrance? "Let me rephrase that: There was no help. No help. Not a single thing that was done to help. He managed to take people who maybe were open to supporting the efforts we were making, and turn them off. I guess you could say that's no help, or a hindrance. You pick which one it is."

How much of that factored into this decision? "None. The broader issue is governance. The issues over the next four years for a state senator relate to emergency preparedness, tax policy, property insurance issues, education. ... Those are the bigger issues that will come up for a state senator from the Jacksonville area."

Mr. Terry's criticism of you over the Terri Schiavo issue didn't play a role? "No. Look, when you're in a situation like the one that we had to live through for several years, I can understand people acting on their heart, acting on their beliefs and passionate about those beliefs. I totally understand that and I'm totally respectful of people disagreeing with the actions I took - ironically, in this case, on both sides. I got ripped both ways. All I can tell you is, I didn't do it for politics. I didn't act from a political perspective. And I don't lose any sleep worrying about whether people oppose me or not. I sleep well at night."

[Paul Ross]

There is this amazing little bit of technology called a . . . wait a minute, it's coming to me . . . ah, a "gravity bomb." We've got a LOT of those lying around all over the world. And it's not uncommon to get miss distances on the order of five feet with those.

LOL! You expect BOMBERS to be a first strike weapon???????

That tells us all...i.e., anyone on this thread who knows anything about strategic warfare how little knowledge you bring to the table. Your tea-spoon opinion should be taken...with a mountain of salt.

And I see you continue to slough the FACTS of the Trident dismantlement push by this administration. The only potential viable candidate remaining for a first-strike weapon in the U.S. inventory. One W apparently wishes to eliminate since he opposed the D-5, but Congress insisted on uprating still more of them over his objections. He is currently getting around Congress by just outright dismantling their SLBM capability...converting them to mere conventional cruise missile carriers as fast as he can slip it past Congress.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

LOL! You expect BOMBERS to be a first strike weapon???????

Yes. It has the virtue of being unexpected.

That tells us all...i.e., anyone on this thread who knows anything about strategic warfare

How many nuclear wars have you fought? I reckon it's about as many as I have.

And I see you continue to slough the FACTS of the Trident dismantlement push by this administration.

You stated that the US is dismantling an additional four Trident submarines over and above the four being converted to SSGNs.

Kindly post the proof.

And please provide a copy of that secret Strategic Framework Agreement you keep babbling about while you're at it. It's not that I don't believe you. It's just that I don't believe you.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

It's already proved. The conduct confirms it.

You know, I once arrested a child molestor who was a staunch "nuke 'em 'til they glow" Cold Warrior.

Based on that experience and your methodology, you have just "proven," by your conduct and your logic, that you are guilty of something that you probably don't want associated with you and that I'm almost certain you don't engage in.

But, if you insist on arguing as if your assertion of guilt is absolute proof of guilt, then I'll apply your logic.

You game?

[Paul Ross]

[From my post ] And we have already forcibly dismantled four Trident submarines from SLBM carriers, converting them to mere tactical cruise missile carriers...and W is promoting eliminating another 4.
[From your post ]
Source, please. This is in fact, common knowledge. But you need a source, again proving you don't know very much about defense.

For some odd reason, I do not believe every bit of pontification that comes out of your mouth (see the note on the double-top-secret "Strategic Framework Agreement" you bandy about).

Ditto right back at you.

[My post] Guess you don't know much about strategic targetting in nuclear planning either.
[Your post]
I know enough to understand that most "nuclear war" plans make good fodder for a technothriller, but lack any connection to reality.

Then you know less-than-nothing. These have to have enough credibility...connection to reality...to be effective for deterrence...and that is what is being allowed to be eroded.

[My post] You probably think we can get by with a couple hundred warheads and a mere launch-on-warning strategy (which, btw, we are not actually following...we are publically and officially in a "take it on the chin" policy.
[Your post]
Interestingly enough, we "publicly and officially" followed such a policy during the entire Cold War--all while secretly following a far different policy in private.

Source please? LOL! Hoist by your own petard!

We had a launch on warning capability, accentuated by a whole slew of systems making it feasible...principally Operation Looking Glass which was flying 24/7 to keep us from being caught off-guard. Guess where it is stationed now. On the ground. De-alerting is trumpeted as 'stabilizing.'

So what's actually changed?

Precisely. Precious few improvements over Xlinton, and none in that particular.

[My post]
And as far as retaliatory capability, he is ignoring serious risks to the policy of stationing so many of SLBMs at home port, rather than constant deployment as we used to with Blue and Gold teams.

[Your post ]
Which, incidentally, just happens to match the Russian policy re: SLBM patrols and mobile missile deployments (they tend to park them in their garrisons as opposed to moving them around). Makes a US first strike much easier.

Source Please? Again hoist by your own petard! As a matter of fact, the Russians did deploy along our coasts well after the collapse of the Soviet Union...up to 1995 deploying their subs from such bases as Cienfuegos, Cuba have been deploying them along our East and Gulf Coast. And they are not limited to their bastions. Which they only went to in general due to a fear of our ASW. But in fact, they can roam at will. And our ASW was seriously crippled under Xlinton. And there has been virtually no restoration to date, despite China's massive improvements in SLBM technology and clear signs of ramping up for major deployments. A missile sub can go on patrol a hell of a lot faster than we can restore ASW capability.

The B-1B went out of the nuclear delivery business about a decade ago.

Source please? Anyways, the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review makes it clear this was W's conversion, to be completed by 2006.

And the Russian strategic bomber force is similarly parked at one base as well.

Source please? And of what relevance. These are all easily changed situations. They just have to go on manuevers and presto, surprise is achieved.

How will the command and control network (which, being necessarily of high bandwidth, will be extremely vulnerable to nuclear weapons effects) fare in a real, no-kidding engagement?

Who knows. But I know one thing. I wouldn't trust appeasers and unilateral disarmers in making a decision as to what and whether its a credible CI4 capability or not. Deterrence requires real top-to-bottom confidence.

Let me guess: someone in the Texas Air National Guard gave you some memos, and Dan Rather and Jayson Blair vouched for them.

Nope. Not even close. Would you reveal a friend? What's the Frequency, Dan? Still have lumps in your noggin? No, you need to actually prove a single contention.

Already proved, the cancellation of TMD, THEL, the slow-walk testing program for Aegis NMD, refusal to develop and fix the SM-3 with the 21-inch diameter upper stage that Xlinton lamed-up "to prevent an ABM treaty violation". You haven't posted any thing other than questions. No proofs. No links. No credibility on your side.

The burden is on you to disprove it.

Prove it. I have carried the burden, and you've sloughed. Typical of liberals and RINOs.

Again, the burden is on you to prove your assertion.

Again, Prove it.

You're the guy who claims to know the content of the Strategic Framework Agreement; please produce a certified true copy of same.

Let's see, you want me to produce something that is secret. H'mmm. Can't say I can. But I can know about it. And so could you if you are serious about national security.

It's a valid question.

No it isn't. It was pure liberal malice.

I always ask liberal moonbats if they get their money from the money-down-the-rathole programs they support.

Oh really? You're the liberal moon-bat anti-defense proponent here. Calling Duncan Hunter and other pro-defense hawks beholden to defense contract work. That may be the case with Duke Cunningham, but it isn't for most hawks.

They respond pretty much as you do--they get all huffy, and never answer the question.

B.S. I am not conflicted. You, on the other hand...

One must always ask "who gains?" when the question is how to disburse public funds, and it's always a good idea to disclose one's pecuniary interest if one exists. (For the record: I would actually make a fair chunk of change if your recommendations were made national policy.)

I Doubt it. I am somehow unable to believe your "pontifications" and disavowals. I really hit a nerve with the Bots to have provoked this level of response by the RINOs. Punctured your comfortable delusions that the "moderates" are still really okay on defense...when they aren't. Almost as sadly deluded as the liberals...whose positions they often buy into. They are "Bipartisan" As Rush always says, that is where Republicans buy into Democrat policy.

There are a lot of liberals who prattle about "public" and "civic" duty.

Sources please. I don't think I can recall seeing any liberals pushing for a real NMD, and naval and air preparedness. And Scoop Jackson is long dead.

It boils down to "give me lots of money and I'll spend it for you."

Welcome to W's Big Government "conservatism". [ The non-sequitur]

I don't pretend that conservatives, whether genuine or narcissistic Internet trolls, are immune to that disease.

So maybe you are admitting you're conflicted by your position after all?

Guess that tells me the answer.

Nope. As I told Sinkspur, it tells you nothing, except that I am a citizen who actually cares about the defense of the country...unlike you two.

Already did. I don't work in the defense biz any more

I frankly doubt you ever did.

(I am retired,

Obviously.

so I don't have to deal with either trying to deal with Air Force SSEBs [frequently peopled by colonels and above looking for nice jobs in their retirement] or the abortion of an acquisition system we have, THANK GOD!), but I do own shares of LockMart, Boeing/Mickey-D, Northrop Grumman, GE, and other defense contractors.

We can be forgiven if we doubt this assertion. Interesting how you claim to be self-less and public spirited all of a sudden, [which you castigated as a liberal ploy up above] but dispute anyone who is to the Right of you on defense as venal. You are just not a serious measure of credibility.

Going back to the grand old days of large-scale defense acquisition would do my finances a world of good, but I don't pretend that my financial interest is automatically the national interest.

Good, but again your credibility is shot, and in fact, if we apply your own venality standard as against the positions you take, isn't it really more than likley that really don't own defense stocks, and more likely you are in fact one of the members of the Honeywell Project or some similar group...out to stop defense of the country...

[Paul Ross]

You expect BOMBERS to be a first strike weapon???????
Yes. It has the virtue of being unexpected.

And the non-virtue of being infeasible.

With passive radar systems capable of alerting to stealth aircraft passage now becoming increasingly available [likely first tested in the Balkans] , once the Russians detected the incursion by B-2s, they would know who to blame, and the SS-18s would fly.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Let's see, you want me to produce something that is secret. H'mmm. Can't say I can. But I can know about it. And so could you if you are serious about national security.

In other words, you have exactly zero evidence.

Source please?

Look up "Midnight Express."

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

And the non-virtue of being infeasible.

Just because you are unable to figure a way to execute a first strike with bombers doesn't mean that others aren't. The USSR ran an exercise in 1984 that led off with a US first strike carried out with B-52s, followed by an ICBM strike. The defenders got their asses kicked--had it been a real war, the USSR would not have gotten a shot off.

The USSR changed . . . nothing. No significant policy changes, no changes in procurement, no changes in doctrine or training . . . the military wished the exercise into the memory hole. Really major embarrassments tend to do that in peacetime.

Also, the Russian air defense system is much hyped, but its actual history points to its combat performance not matching the hype. When one off-course Korean airliner can cause a comedy of errors that would've been laughable if it hadn't killed 269 people, there is little reason to assume that it would work under anything but the most trivial attack.

[Paul Ross]

The USSR ran an exercise in 1984 that led off with a US first strike carried out with B-52s, followed by an ICBM strike. The defenders got their asses kicked--had it been a real war, the USSR would not have gotten a shot off.

Source please?

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

It got mentioned in passing in Adelphi Paper 226, Land Attack Cruise Missiles (it's in one of the footnotes), and Bruce Blair gave it a detailed discussion in The Logic of Accidental Nuclear War. When you read between the lines, it's apparent that the Soviet general staff modified the exercise on the fly to bring it to a "successful" conclusion, and that they tweaked their 1988 exercise to ensure that things went more "normally" and smoothly--i.e., that it didn't result in very visible debacle--and they still had some serious problems.

[Paul Ross]

It got mentioned in passing in Adelphi Paper 226, Land Attack Cruise Missiles (it's in one of the footnotes), and Bruce Blair gave it a detailed discussion in The Logic of Accidental Nuclear War.

There are several points that need to be made with respect to that illustration, if lent credence:

(a) Strategic Deception: assuming it wasn't disinformation, which it may or may not. I tend to accept the story, as it is after all the same bunch whose economy was collapsing under the stress of their enormous non-stop war-footing. Reagan's credible deployments of counterforce capable armaments, across the Triad, forced the Soviets to revisit their own assumptions, and they realized that he had successfully created a situation of strategic ambiguity. They could no longer count on winning under almost any scenario. And it forced the soviets to spend even more on defensive preparations than on their offensive. zMaking the financial stresses greater still.
(b) Dated: assuming that their old Soviet-era deficiencies have not long since been cured. Evidence of likely curing...the increased state of readiness for their missiles to be launched on warning in the 90's when the Norwegian satellite launch was misidentified as a missile attack and Boris Yeltsin was minutes away from turning the key. A near-miss for accidental nuclear war. While certainly alarming to the degree we dodged a bullet, as it showed the hazard of the Russians decrepit surveillance...and communications... but, it also bespoke a much higher state of readiness than we had thought.
(c) Its irrelevant. The primary issue was always the Soviet First Strike Plan. It was well understood by the Soviet Military... they were the most likely to commence a first strike...look at how e can't muster up the resolve to deal with Iran today. They knew that then that the U.S. would not do so. Hence, their official public policy to the contrary notwithstanding...they intended to punch first. They never seriously expected anything other than a lame second-strike. Their military manuals overwhelmingly preached a doctrine of surprise. And as far as their being capable of that...well, it had us justifiably concerned in our own right. We had no ABM, they did. We had no air defense. They certainly had deployed enough (however effective it was judged) to say that they had one. And finally,
(d)Deterrent Non-Credibility increases Nuclear Preemption Risks. Our non-survivable retaliatory arsenal becomes (for a tyranny such as the Soviets) a powerful temptation in any clash with the U.S. To the extent we followed the Jimmy Carter/Paul Warnke/Harold Brown view of the feebleness of the Soviets, and deployed minimally, in accordance thereto...the more likely the Soviets would assume the worst...that the U.S. in desperation intended the first strike, since our deterrent in reality would not be as credible to them, as it was in our liberal's eyes. This suspicion thus would place the Soviets on more of a hair-trigger posture than otherwise. Maintaining a credible triad, ended these kinds of speculations on their part...while convincing them of the futility of their own arms race. Donald Rumsfeld's old strategic response approach to the Soviet deployments was vindicated....by Reagan and Caspar Weinberger's Administration.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Dated: assuming that their old Soviet-era deficiencies have not long since been cured.

If anything, they've gotten worse. They don't have early-warning coverage for several key axes of approach (the radars that covered those approaches suddenly ended up in other sovereign nations, who proceeded to shut them donw when Russia didn't pay the rent and electricity bills). Meanwhile, the money for building new radars kept getting raided to pay for the bleeding ulcer of Chechnya.

Evidence of likely curing...the increased state of readiness for their missiles to be launched on warning in the 90's when the Norwegian satellite launch was misidentified as a missile attack and Boris Yeltsin was minutes away from turning the key.

However, this incident also points up just how bad their early warning is: any radar worth a damn can tell you the point of launch to within a very small circle, and the "zone of uncertainty" for that launch took in the entire Norwegian Sea. and then some.

While certainly alarming to the degree we dodged a bullet, as it showed the hazard of the Russians decrepit surveillance...and communications... but, it also bespoke a much higher state of readiness than we had thought.

All it showed is that they could get a message to the President quickly under ideal peacetime conditions--i.e., no cyber attacks against the Russian national infrastructure, etc. It did not show whether it would work under a wartime scenario--nor did it show how ready their strategic forces are.

The primary issue was always the Soviet First Strike Plan.

How many first strikes have the Soviets executed against the United States?

This is why I tend to disregard the "conventional wisdom" of "nuclear strategy experts," because (a) nobody's actually fought a nuclear war (therefore, we are all equally amateurs, "expert" status or not--we are about as knowledgeable about what would happen in a real nuclear exchange as the generals in Europe were about how a full-blown industrial war would proceed in August, 1914), and (b) the alleged logic of nuclear strategy and each sides' allleged national security goals would have resulted in a final Gotterdammerung between the US and the USSR in August, 1991--and that didn't happen.

[GOP_1900AD]

Hey, he's a Bush. RINOism is in his DNA. Everyone knows that W is the black sheep of the family and even he has his own slight RINO tendencies. This is simply the reality if Jeb. What a loser.

[GOP_1900AD]

Check it out. PRC's not a signatory to INF. So, they have all the goodies that we never got because we canceled Pershing-2. Even if the Ruskies really did get rid of all their own IRBMs, it does not matter. Why pray tell? The answer is: DF-21 + TEL + Bout's planes = DF-21s at the edge of NATO within one working day. Berlin/Vienna/Warsaw/Coppenhagen/Paris/London/Rome/Stockholm up the freaking creek with no oar. Any questions?

[stm]

JEB is not, nor will he ever be a RINO, as any Republican in this state will attest.

[stm]

If you want to see a RINO, look at YOUR GOVERNOR, not mine. The Governator is a RINO to the core.

[lugsoul]

Since reality left the building, during the Schiavo events.

[GOP_1900AD]

He's the mother of all RINOs, I guess that would make him .... a girlie man .... LOL!