I don't claim to be a naval expert, but I'm glad the real naval expert seems to agree with me.

I'm glad that you can discern who is and who is not "a real naval expert" strictly via postings on an internet board.

Could it be that you have concluded this person is "a real naval expert" simply because they agree with you?

Of all the candidates, in both parties, only Rep. Ron Paul, a 10-term Republican congressman from Texas, has warned about the dangers of another Gulf of Tonkin-style incident."

Expect a deafening silence here also about Ron Paul's stance on this subject.

That whooshing sound you hear is the point of Glenn's post and the subsequent discussion on this forum going right over your head.

I'm dismayed but not surprised at how many lack basic reading comprehension skills.

The column and this discussion are about the misleading way in which the White House and Pentagon are presenting the details of the incident.

From Glenn's update II:

The U.S. warships were not concerned about the possibility that the Iranian boats were armed with heavier weapons capable of doing serious damage. Asked by a reporter whether any of the vessels had anti-ship missiles or torpedoes, Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, Commander of the 5th Fleet, answered that none of them had either of those two weapons.

"I didn't get the sense from the reports I was receiving that there was a sense of being afraid of these five boats," said Cosgriff.

The edited Navy video shows a crewman issuing an initial warning to approaching boats, but the footage of the boats maneuvering provides no visual evidence of Iranian boats "making a run on U.S. ships" as claimed by CBS news Wednesday in its report based on the new video. . . .

Cosgriff's answers to reporters' questions indicated that the story promoted earlier by Pentagon officials that one of the U.S. ships came very close to firing at the Iranian boats seriously distorted what actually happened.

Kucinich, who drew about 1.4% of the New Hampshire Democratic primary vote, wrote, “This is not about my candidacy or any other individual candidacy. It is about the integrity of the election process.” No other Democratic candidate, he noted, has stepped forward to question or pursue the claims being made.

It will be interesting to read the spin on this, eh?

Again, the point whizzes over your head..

Glenn's post once again:

UPDATE II: There are (at least) two issues raised by this incident:

(1) Did the American ships reasonably perceive that the boats posed a threat?

(2) Did the U.S. military make factually dubious claims about what occurred?

Questions (1) and (2) are separate and distinct. The topic of this post is question (2), not question (1). Therefore, making arguments about question (1) as though it addresses question (2) is incoherent. You can think that the answer to question (1) is clearly "yes," but that doesn't change in any way the answer to question (2). Even if the perception of a threat was reasonable, that doesn't justify -- obviously -- issuing false or dubious claims about what happened.

If suicide bombers will blow themselves up, why not let themselves get blow into paradise for a propaganda coup provided by another international incident like the shootdown of the Iranian passenger liner?

I seriously doubt that the Iranians on board that airliner set out to create a "propaganda coup".

For you to conflate that with suicide bombers is quite a stretch, even for you.

I would add Colin Powell's shameful UN speech prior to the invasion of Iraq. A tissue of lies, the disgraceful action of a corrupt political actor. Or the repetition of lies by a useful fool.

Colin Powell is no fool.

Amazing how quickly even he forgot "the Powell Doctrine", eh?

How honorable people can continue to associate themselves with such a duplicitous organization is a puzzle.

Everybody has an agenda..

Including you.

And me.

What do you think of what Mrs Bill had to say about MLK?

Anyway, The Bedford Incident was just about the most claustrophobic film I'd ever seen, until Alien came along.

Das Boot?

Kucinich and Paul are, as LWM and his quavering ilk clearly see, like, you know, "nutjobs."

I kind of enjoy our little conversations, we can say pretty much anything we please without worrying about being interrupted by the "serious" commentators.

Obviously we are beneath their notice since we are not "serious".

Seems like time to post this again..

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

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

Many, if not most, people seem to think that ad hominem means to insult someone, as we can see from the above, that is not so.

It's interesting that the only two candidates (with the possible exception of Gravel and Huckabee) who are saying anything other than focus group tested platitudes are considered to be "nutjobs" by the "serious" commentators here.

If I didn't know better I would swear that the "serious" commentators are terrified of a truly fundamental change in the way things are done in the USA.

Ever read Frank Herbert?

_The Dragon in the Sea_ aka _Under Pressure_ is similar to _Bedford_..

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

Typically for Herbert, psychology and religion (the title comes from a quote from the Book of Revelation) play a large role in the narrative

It was written in 1955..