Guest post by David Middleton
Senate confirms Ryan Zinke as interior secretary
By Darryl Fears March 1
The Senate on Wednesday confirmed Ryan Zinke’s nomination to lead the Interior Department by a 68 to 31 vote.
Zinke will head a department that manages a fifth of the land in the United States, about 500 million surface acres, a total that doesn’t include millions more acres and natural resources underground. Interior has an enormous environmental footprint, with agencies that decide how resources such as coal are managed and which animals are eligible for listing under the Endangered Species Act.
Republicans called the former Montana congressman and Navy SEAL a strong choice for Interior, as an avid hunter with Western roots who understands how federal regulations on the cultivation of coal, natural gas and minerals on public lands can hurt corporate revenue and reduce jobs.
[…]
Lie #1 (a lie of omission)
The vote was 68-31… At least 16 Democrats voted for Zinke… One might think that an honest newspaper would call this “bipartisan.”
Lie #2
Democrats were wary of Zinke despite his declaration that he believes humans contribute to climate change. “Man has had an influence,” he said under questioning by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Zinke’s assertion that the level of human contribution is unknown, despite the near unanimous opinions of climate scientists who say it’s overwhelming, didn’t help.
There are no “near unanimous opinions of climate scientists who say it’s overwhelming.” The 97% lie doesn’t even assert that the human influence is overwhelming. It asserts that humans are responsible for more than 50% of the warming since 1950. An actual survey of the American Meteorological Society only found that 67% believed that humans were responsible for more than 50% of the warming. So, “near unanimous” and “overwhelming” are bald-faced lies.
Lie #3
Zinke’s confirmation came more than a month after the committee’s approval partly because of politics, and Murkowski and Cantwell’s speeches on the Senate floor reflected the broad partisan divide. Zinke was approved by a 16-6 committee vote largely along party lines. All of the committee’s 12 Republicans voted in Zinke’s favor.
Four our of ten Democrats on the committee voted for Zinke. This is nearly 50% of the Democrats on the committee. An honest newspaper would have called this a bipartisan vote. “Largely along party lines” is a bald-faced lie.
I thought about counting this as a lie; but I think it’s just plain ignorance. So I’ll give it the Tim Allen Grunt Award.
Tim Allen Grunt Award for Journalistic Ignorance
Zinke will head a department that manages a fifth of the land in the United States, about 500 million surface acres, a total that doesn’t include millions more acres and natural resources underground.
.
The subsurface “acres” are included in the surface “acres”… A standard OCS lease in the Central Gulf of Mexico is 5,000 acres. An acre is a unit of area. The mineral lease includes the mineral rights. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a mineral lease. It would be a five to ten year lease on the seafloor. While some of this acreage could become oceanfront property during the next glacial maximum… 
The Department of the Interior’s logo is very appropriate for the Washington Post’s Buffalo-schist-filled article.
Classic liberal media bias.
Meh. We’ve seen bias as a standard within press reports so frequently, that we forget that not reporting it as bipartisan is in fact a report without opinion. I consider that to be truly objective reporting rather than a bias via omission. Just saying.
On the other hand, when a single Republican votes with the Democrat majority, it’s always portrayed as being bi-partisan.
I would have agreed that the reporter was reporting without an opinion if the subsequent paragraph hadn’t included “16-6 committee vote largely along party lines.” As David noted, 16-6 means nearly half of the Democrats voted for Zinke.
a 16-6 committee vote largely along party lines
===================
Fake News
The is huge pressure on all Democrats to obstruct Trump by automatically voting against all his appointees. The simple fact that both Democrats and Republicans voted for Zinke clearly reflects that he is a popular choice in both parties.
The Democrats that voted for Zinke have shown they are willing to put country before party.
Bipartisan is factual, not opinion. ( providing the actual numbers to such a label is required of course)
ferd, either that or they are Democrats in states that voted heavily for Trump and they are worried about the 2018 election.
THINK for a second about just who owns the Wash Po. Uh-huh! Same guy who’s covered the SC landscape with taxpayer-subsidized wind turbines that exist NOT to power the townspeople’s grid, but exclusively power the local Amazon.com data center! Oh whoopee, we’re all paying for Amazon’s greenie virtue-signalling while chopping birds! Big victory for “the environment!”
This is Davos Man’s Agenda 21 on steroids, but local farmers were hoodwinked into it by a $6K per turbine land lease. And, I’m sure, plenty of cheerleading by the Wash Po. (Ref: WSJ, Monday, Feb. 27 2017).
This is the despicable tactic of calling people liars because they have a different political view to your own.
Its as if the Church times was calling Richard Dawkins a liar for being an atheist.
“Griff March 2, 2017 at 12:53 am
This is the despicable tactic of calling people liars because they have a different political view to your own.”
Is this not what you did to a certain polar bear expert?
Lies #2 and #3 are flat-out lies, irrespective of any opinions. They are totally counter-factual assertions.
Lie #1 is somewhat subjective.
The Tim Allen Award winning comment was utterly moronic.
They are liars because they make claims that are clearly not true.
The reason why they are liars is because of the political affiliations.
What about people that prop up, and then try to exploit and profit off of lies, Grift?
PLEASE do not attempt any sort of moral high ground. It’s really quite despicable.
I agree. And if that’s what had happened here you’d have a point. It wasn’t, so you don’t.
“Lies by omission” are the worst, mainly because it shows that they think they can get away with it, and they know they can because people are lazy and won’t go beyond a cursory reading.
If I told you my brother has been known to pull screaming women and children from their homes in the middle of the night, it would be 100% true.
Its also true, and somewhat relevant, that he is a firefighter…
Caligula Jones: That’s a good example. I’m going to use that one.
I’ll match your nebulous arm waving on human contribution and raise you two more meaningless win-the-day arm waves.
My point was that they can’t even arm wave honestly… 😉
Extended arms with extended finger?
Actually, that report is not bad for the WaPo. Of course, that is judging by the standards of the Post.
I agree. I’ve subscribed for over a year.
Also agreeing. My immediate thought was, doesn’t the whole “reported very dishonestly” thing go without saying?
Doing more of what they do best……losing
As a rural westerner and Interior employee. I have high hopes that the influence of the environmental community will be significantly diminished. And that he will fight lawsuits rather than agree to settle.
I also agree as a DOI employee and rural westerner.
WaPo is apparently incapable of unbiased reporting. Not on climate, and not on the Trump administration. I have been doing mentally what DM did here in writing. At least one or two obvious spins in every article from them.
What as this to do with climate?
Do you see anything that requires us to only talk about climate?
As the About page says:
“News and commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news”
If you want to control the content, you are free to start your own blog.
The article had an entire paragraph on climate…
It may have been a pack of lies… But it was a paragraph about climate… 😉
Spartacus,
Check out the current Department of the Interior’s website on
“climate change”:
https://www.doi.gov/climate
THEY (especially some employees of the National Park Service think
“climate change” is what they’re currently all about.
I love that they mention the Glaciers in Glacier National Park and leave out the inconvenient fact that those Glaciers are only 3000 years old. Thus, it was warmer than now in the past without human influence. The fact is we are still on our slow long decline back to the next ice age.
I wonder how long before that whole lying page is removed. (worse floods, stronger hurricanes, etc)
site currently under maintenance. Looks like the climatey-changey stuff is bye bye.
Site Under Maintenance? That is what I see. Maybe they are going to FIX this page?!
IIRC the DOI can use designation of endangered species to effectively stop all development on land areas they may/have occupied. In essence such designations would tie up all lands affected while WOTUS controlled all waters. Combined, the two agencies could literally freeze huge chunks of the USA. Find a species that occupies huge areas and -bingo- you have total federal control. CFACT followed the greater sage grouse saga, and recently the rusty bumblebee was being promoted as endangered. That takes care of the USA. It would have happened if Clinton was elected as your POTUS. Barely dodged that bullet!
Why does it have to be about climate Spartacus?
Since “climate” is shorthand for every sort of political manifestation including the obvious blather of the Bernie Sanders most things involved with environmental management might involve the code word climate.
Think of what has been done to the words “Paris” or “Denier”. The climate movement needs secret decoder rings and thesaurus at this point.
“Climate” causes toenail fungus. And restless legs. Fortunately it also recently caused Progressive “electile dysfunction!” 😉 For which we can all be grateful! Next stop: Get rid of ethanol regs. MAGA.
It shouldn’t have anything to do with climate. Except that the last eight years under Obummer’s control has seen Dept. Of Interior infiltrated by climate zealots and polar bear huggers. Well, there’s a new sheriff in town, and he hails from Big Sky Country and rides with a Winchester repeater in a leather scabbard. Enjoy!
This has always been, and will always be, primarily a Conservative political blog on science. It is in it’s nature. You will never see any positive comment on centre ground or left wing politics or anything that potentially interferes with a capitalist approach to the environment. That’s how it it is. Don’t expect balanced political reports, it does not pretend ever to do that. But it does give an excellent insight into how the hard right views environmental issues.
Expecting it to refrain from being overwhelmingly partisan is a bit like asking Jeremy Corbyn to be even handed in his view of whining Farage or the great Orange one. You have to accept what it is.
To a Leftist anything they don’t agree with is hard right, and anyone having their own opinion is being partisan.
Remember that they have redefined both Slavery and Fascism as right wing, despite that both were historical promoted by Socialists and Democrats. Hell, the Wikipedia page for the Ku Klux Klan declares them to be Right Wing extremists in it’s first paragraph and mentions in it’s second that it was founded by former Confederates to overthrow the Republican state governments in the South during the Reconstruction Era.
To be a Leftist is to be in a permanent state of Cognitive Dissonance.
Gareth,
Given that the meaning of bipartisan is: “of, relating to, or involving members of two parties”, according to Merriam Webster, what do you call it if 40% of the opposing party votes with the majority? Saying it was “largely along party lines” is clearly not accurate (to be kind), and in fact is very misleading. Some might even characterize that as a lie. Certainly the “reporter” was showing their bias. An what is your reaction? You attack the people here as being “conservative” (as if that was some sort of indictment) because they demand accurate and unbiased reporting from journalists. So, spin as much as you wish, but you are the one being dishonest here.
Like most leftists, Gareth defines centrist as whatever he believes, and truth as whatever supports what he believes.
Yeah, I got tagged with the ‘conservative’ label by the ‘open-minded’ ‘no-label crowd’ – people like you – that force everything through the prism of their ideology, complete with all the appropriate character traits that they are allowed to hate. You’re a good fascist, Gareth.
‘Center ground’.
Please.
“What does this have to do with climate?”
“Zinke’s assertion that the level of human contribution is unknown, despite the near unanimous opinions of climate scientists who say it’s overwhelming,”
——-”””’
Is a completely false reference to CAGW, the lie having been pointed out hundreds of times. Of course you have a valid criticism as CAGW has a lot to do with computers and alarmists, and zero to do with real climate.
I propose a new drug for climate alarmists. Call it … Climaset, … specifically formulated to ease fears of catastrophic, human-caused climate change.
WARNING: Possible side effects include, but are not limited to … lapses into clear thinking, risk of seeking facts, occasional headaches from mind-blowing insights, dizziness due to realizations of former deceptions, abdominal discomfort resulting from loss of cherished fantasies, depression and suicidal thoughts subsequent to waking up from former thinking.
Do not operate heavy machinery, until determining how Climaset effects you [as if you would ever be anywhere near heavy machinery that actually requires knowledge and skill to use].
This website could feature ads for it. There’s a gold mine to be made here!
Perhaps we could add it to the water supply.
That would be Climaide though they have probably already been drinking that
Climareset?
i prefer Nouminex.
it eliminates all supernatural entities from ghosts in the sky to monsters under the bed.
Good one!
I propose we name the illness they are suffering, ‘climytia’. It is caused by an STD – shoddy temperature data. It will be cured naturally over time.
Come to expect today’s yellow journalism from deceptive media outlets such as the Post. It’s a fact of life and shouldn’t surprise anyone.
There are segments of the news media that are not simply liars, they are the enemy of the people. Not ALL media. (That is for the liars in the media who would love to make that categorical quote)
Darryl Fears is an enemy of the American people and an affront to the 1st amendment because he uses the precious platform granted to him by the constitution to promote objective lies.
There needs to be a new class of crime. The crime of knowingly propagating a lie, that causes damage to the public, while using the 1st amendment as cover. This crime will be confined to members of the protected class, journalists, who abuse their status to promote lies.
The crime is worse than 1st degree murder.
The crime should be used to put liars who are in the media class in jail.
I can’t wait for the day that those S.O.B.s get rounded up and sent to a work camp in south central LA.
Media liars have shamelessly led the public to believe that “97% of all scientists” have concluded that “climate change” is man-made and dangerous. Where and how did this blatant lie originate? Regular readers here will know, but for recent arrivals, here are the facts.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/
In 2008, Peter T. Doran, Earth and Environmental Sciences prof at the University of Illinois, Chicago, and his grad student, Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, sent an intentionally brief two-minute, two-question online survey to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3146 responded.
This unscientific survey asked two questions:
1) “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”, and
2) “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
Since “significant” was not defined, it’s perhaps no surprise that 82% of respondents answered “Yes” to the second question. And note that there was no third question as to potential harm or benefit from a world allegedly made warmer by human activity, or directly from more CO2 (plant food) in the air.
So whence comes the fabled 97% of urban myth and legend?
The DZ Duo cherry-picked 79 individuals who got their good housekeeping seal of consensus approval, and whose careers depend upon “climate science” orthodoxy. They wrote, “In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.”
But Dave Burton has shown this statement false.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/10/an-oopsie-in-the-doranzimmerman-97-consensus-claim/
The other 3067 respondents naturally answered “Yes” to the second question in lower numbers.
A similar survey today would probably return lower percentages.
I would have answered #1 with “risen” and I might have answered “yes” to #2… It all hangs on the definition of “significant contributing factor.”
It’s also worth noting that Doran & Kendall-Zimmerman sample started out as cherry-picking…
Only government and academic scientists were contacted. This pretty well excluded groups like the American Association of Petroleum Geologists and Society of Exploration Geophysicists (member societies of the AGI), primarily composed of private sector geoscientists, while including groups like the American Geophysical Union and Geological Society of America, primarily composed of government and academic geoscientists and English majors (Chris Mooney). So, they cherry-picked the initial 10,200 scientists; from which they cherry-picked 79, to get a 97% consensus.
And no mention of CO2. Could have been land use change, natural variation…
What you say has elements of the truth. I would also add that in my subjective opinion, after speaking to many many environmental researchers employed across Europe, I have yet to meet one who disagree with the idea that humans are contributing to climate change. That is not to say there are none, it’s just that I have never met them. This would suggest that believers in the consensus may not be at the 97% level, but they are certainly in the majority by a long way.
Gareth, I think you’d find that most Skeptics right here on WUWT would agree that humans are ‘contributing’ to climate change. How much, in what way, to what effect, and if it can be stopped however are all very much still in doubt.
Personally, I believe we are causing a small amount of warming (from CO2, but also to a lesser extent from land use and urban heat islands) that is adding to a natural warming that was already going on for about 200 years. I think that warming has been largely beneficial and will continue to be so. I think all the plans to ‘decarbonise’ are a disaster waiting to happen (or already happening in some cases) and would fail to reduce CO2 even if they could be affordable. I think many of the Climate Faithful are suffering from bias if not outright corruption. And I think (ironically enough) that we will probably largely stop burning fossil fuels in the next 25 to 50 years anyway, as improving technology makes Nuclear Fission and Fusion safer and more economical.
I also think Climatism is almost dead, just as the Population Bomb, the Ozone Hole, Peak Oil, and many other scares have already died. Once the Troughers and other Climate Faithful realize that the money is gone they will move on to a new scare. Oh, a few will hang on for life, like Gore or Mann, just as Ehrlich still pushes the Pop Bomb decades after his predictions failed. But the rest will make like rats on a sinking ship. Some are already jumping.
Gareth, yes there is wide agreement that man is having some impact on the climate.
Unfortunately certain idiots want to take this as proof that we are harming the environment and something, anything, must be done to stop it.
Mark,
It actually appears to have gone well beyond that even. It appears to have been decided that not only has Man been the driver of Global Warming since 1850 but has becone the Sole Driver for ALL temperature increase since 1950. I have yet to see any paper that has determined mans portion beyond 100% man made and 0% natural.
Bryan, I’ve had several warmunists who readily admit that in the past the temperature variations were completely natural, but over the last 70 years it’s been 100% man.
How do they know you might ask.
It’s because the models prove it.
whoa there.
if i tell you to jump in the lake and you get wet, don’t blame me for your actions.
if you can’t take responsibility for the workings of your own mind, you’re fucked anyway.
Huh ? So Democrats are SUDDENLY worried about getting re-elected ? Hence their support for Zinke’s nomination. President Trump has taught our career politicians a very HARSH lesson … stop screwing THE PEOPLE … because our VOTES still count. Pay attention Dems ! Or not … at your own peril
and pay attention Republicans as well, as conservatives will just a easily vote out either side of the aisle, distinctly different than progressives/democrats.
Job One:
Reduce the 500 million federal acres to 50 million, sell 200 million and hand back the other 250 million to the states.
And pardon the Hammonds, Oregon ranchers railroaded by BLM goons.
Same with the acres mismanaged by the Ag Dept, ie US National Forests.
Gloteous Max says,
“Job One:Reduce the 500 million federal acres to 50 million, sell 200 million and hand back the other 250 million to the states.”
Actually, Ryan Zinke opposes the sale of public lands, and this statement from his website goes a long way in explaining why. And I find the half of his argument about selling the land to be convincing. There are just too many billionaires and NGOs running about with nothing but time and money on their hands.
Zinke does it again: Bucks party leaders and votes NO on transferring ownership of public lands
Agree
+10000
At first I couldn’t figure out what Black Lives Matter had to do with that case.
>¿<
Careful not step on WaPoo…
Here’s a variation: WaaPoo.
One of the most important books for the environmental movement is A Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold. Leopold is the antithesis of the kind of environmentalist who thinks the environment is sacred and should be preserved from any contact with humans. He believed it was important that people get out into nature. It’s good for the people and it’s good for nature. Hunting and fishing are good for the environment.
Maybe the worst thing for the environment is the tribe of Gaia worshipping cat ladies who never spend any time in nature.
This might be called “virtual” environmentalism. Urbanites who have never slept in a tent in a High Sierra meadow at -22F and listened to the trees crack from frost expansion. Romantics who have never felt the sting of horizontal wind driven snow, when there is no option but to continue.
The lesson of getting out is that nature can be mean.
Heavily biased and misleading news supported by Hollywood and Progressive elites have become the staple of the MSM. And it’s catching up with them. “Reporting” has lost its’ meaning.
Lie #1 (a lie of omission)
“The vote was 68-31… At least 16 Democrats voted for Zinke… One might think that an honest newspaper would call this “bipartisan.”
If 16 out of 68 votes were democrats. That means 52 of the votes were Republican, which means over three times the votes were Republican than democrats. That warrants being called ‘bipartisan’? What am I missing?
I think the point was that over 1/3 of the Democrats voted to support the nominee more than a mere couple and well away from a Party Line split
Assuming all 52 Republicans voted for Zinke, 16 Democrats (1/3) also voted for him. 52 Republicans and 16 Democrats is bipartisan. 31 Democrats and 0 Republicans is very partisan.
Furthermore, 68 yes votes is more than a 2/3 majority… Sufficient to ratify a treaty or pass a constitutional amendment. In an evenly divided Senate (52R-48D), a 2/3 majority is mathematically bipartisan.
‘bipartisan’? What am I missing?
=================
There is HUGE pressure on all Democrats to automatically vote against Trump on everything. The fact that even 1, let alone 16 Democrats voted for Zinke is HUGE.
The definition of bipartisan is: “of, relating to, or involving members of two parties”, that’s what you are missing. In a highly polarized environment like we have today, where the DNC has declared war on President Trump and vowed to oppose all of his appointments, having *any* Democrat vote in favor could be considered bipartisan. When a third of them (yes 33%) vote along with the Republicans, it is clearly a bipartisan vote. By a landslide.
This is far more important for the direction of NOAA and government approach to climate change.
U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross, Jr. Addresses Department of Commerce Employees today
One of his bullet points: “improving the timeliness, accuracy, breadth and depth of our data output;”
Was he thinking about NOAA and their dodgy temperature records among other things? I hope he was.
He seems to be a “to the point” man as he will say today “Second, material in preparation for meetings must be concise. A few pages that are substantive will get you much farther with me than thick binders with lots of repetition, pretty blue pages, and fluff.” Interesting.
Why the hell is NOAA in the Dept of Commerce (yea, I’ve read the “political” reason)?
And where should it be (in the perfect world)/
Confirmations are slow, but President Donald J Trump just revoked EPA Clean Water rule, and it did not take him four years to do it!
This was the rule that brought every single mud puddle and ditch under navigable waters regulations.
MAGA 3 Hour Version
Wrong video but close enough.
It’s like a huge weight off of everyone’s shoulders.
Where to start on the biased Leftwing News Media. What a subject!
I have been condemning the leftwing bias of the news media for many years. It was hell when there were only three national tv channels and all were Leftwing. Thank God for the Fox News Channel that came along in 1996! I don’t grind my teeth nearly as much now when watching the news.
I used to think the members of the MSM were all deliberate liars using their positions as journalists to forward their own personal political agenda. My thinking has evolved since then. I do think there are deliberate liars on the Left, in and out of the news media, but I also think there are many people who are true believers on the Left who hear the latest leftist narrative and automatically adopt it as their own, and believe it wholeheartedly, and then pass it on as the truth because they believe it is the truth. So you can’t call people like that deliberate liars, they are just ignorant, easily influenced people who will believe anything the leftwing MSM says, and this includes members of the MSM itself. It also includes too many Republicans. They just want to be loved. They just want to fit in. Sad.
The Left lives in a great delusion that they have created for themselves. They definitely don’t live in the same world we on the Right live in. One of our worldviews is wrong. I think it is you guys over there on the Left. No, I *know* it’s you guys over on the left.
The Left is very prone to herd mentality, stereotyping of their opponents, automatic acceptance of any leftwing cons-piracy theory, and most of all, the Left needs someone or something to focus their hate and anger on. Which in our case is the Republican Party and any and all conservatives, who are the source of all evil in the world, according to the way they look at things.
Whether they are deliberate liars or sheep going with the flow, they are dangerous to our free society because they control a majority of our news media, and they have shown themselves incapable of properly understanding reality. They live in a false reality which is filled with imaginary villains. They always have to have a demon to oppose, so they automatically demonize their political opponents, whether it is deserved or not.
I think back to how the MSM used to claim that Karl Rove was secretly telling George W. Bush how to run the presidency, implying that Bush wasn’t up to the job, and calling Rove “Bush’s Brain”.
That demon went away, so now they are creating a new demon in Steve Bannon, claiming Bannon is really running the show at the White House. Pretty soon they will be calling Bannon “Trump’s Brain”.
The Loony Left is so predictable. They are also very dangerous to your personal freedoms because they distort reality, for whatever reason, and you should keep that in mind when your read their opinions.
Trump is right to say the Fake News is a danger to the United States. The MSM want to make it out like Trump is saying the entire news media is dangerous to the U.S., and say Trump is being unAmerican, but Trump isn’t saying any such thing, he is just calling out the lying portion of the MSM. If you are not telling lies, then Trump’s criticism is not meant for you, it is only meant for the liars in the MSM, who are very definitely a danger to the U.S. and its freedom.
We need to call the MSM out every time they lie. I know that’s a lot of work, but what’s the alternative?
Since I’m calling out the MSM, let me get this off my chest.
About the death of Navy SEAL Ryan Owens, the first American combat death since Trump took Office.
The MSM is trying to make it look like Trump was incompetent on this mission and is at fault for getting Owen’s killed.
The truth is this mission had already been planned before Trump took Office, and Trump’s only input would have been to sign off on the plan after being briefed by the U.S. military. His responsiblity ends there. If there was bad planning involved, which I doubt seriously, then any blame would fall on the military planners who executed this plan.
John McCain said the mission Owens was killed on was not a success because Owens was lost.
If a military mission is judged by whether military members are killed or not, then just about every military combat mission the U.S. has ever carried out should be considered a failure then because American troops are usually killed in military operations. It’s a very lucky mission where someone isn’t killed when the bullets are flying.
It is ridiculous to declare a mission a failure because members of the mission were killed. The members know what they are getting into. They go voluntarily because they are defending our country, sometimes with their lives, so don’t trash their efforts because everything didn’t go perfectly.
Nothing ever goes perfectly in a military operation. Plan all you want, and the plan can go to hell in a heartbeat because your enemies won’t cooperate with your plan and will actively try to thwart your plan.
McCain flew jets high above the battlefields of Vietnam. Give the groundpounders their due, John. Requiring perfection in war isn’t possible. Stop letting your grudge against Trump color your thinking.
TA
I’m no fan of John McCain’s politics, but your snarky “McCain flew jets high above the battlefields of Vietnam. Give the groundpounders their due” is entirely out of line. McCain paid a huge price for his military service and arm-chair bloggers would do well to realize that.
In case you were unaware of this fact: Hanoi POW camps were built solidly on the ground during the Oct 1967 to Mar 1973 period he was held prisoner. You may also be unaware he was offered early release by the Vietnamese, but refused because his father was a USN admiral.
Criticize his politics all you want (it’s a big, fat target), but unless you know something the rest of us don’t, you’d do well to respect his courage & sacrifice to save your liberty.
Concerning the partisan press there is something this former SF soldier has to get off his chest.
Some partisan hacks are declaring that the widow of Ryan Owens was used as nothing more than a political “prop”. I find this charge to be heartless, most hurtful, and disgusting. Those saying this kind of thing are lower than the lowest in my book.
I spent 8 1/2 years as a special operator on the sharp end on SF “A” teams. During that time the support of my spouse was critical to my being able to do the job. In that 8 1/2 year I averaged about 8 months of every year away from my family. Believe me when I tell you that the spouses of the special operators are critical. They have to believe in what their spouse is doing every bit as much as the operator does. They can and do make or break a team. It takes a special person to deal with the whole thing. I thank my lucky stars that I had her and still do. I served on 4 different teams during those years and was lucky enough that 3 out of the 4 of them were excellent and the wives of those guys had a lot to do with making them excellent teams.
I found the tribute to that SEAL to be real and heart felt and understood it was not just a recognition of that man but of all who make the ultimate sacrifice in the service and all those they have left behind that lost their own world.
John McCain flew A-4 Skyhawks… Their missions tended to be close to where “the metal hits the meat.” I’m not a huge fan of John McCain, politically… But, his record as a naval aviator is unimpeachable.
Javert Chip, I served two tours in South Vietnam beginning in 1968, and I know all about John McCain. I have the upmost respect for what McCain did in Vietnam, but McCain is way out of line in criticizing this Special Forces operation. He is doing so solely as a means to diminish Trump, and he is harming the nation as a result. He was criticizing the mission solely because they lost a man in the process and blaming it on Trump.
Performing honorable service in Vietnam, does not excuse one from being criticized for doing something dumb at a later date. McCain does a lot of good things, and he is rock solid on national defense, but McCain also does stupid things, and when he does I’m going to say something about it.
TA
Correct: honorable service in Vietnam does not give anyone a lifetime pass. Including you.
Like I said, you interjected & demeaned McCain’s Vietnam service in your initial comment. McCain has in no way invoked his service or POW status in his current-day political attacks on Trump.
If you don’t like McCain’s politics (I sure don’t), go ahead and attack them. You should know better.
“Like I said, you interjected & demeaned McCain’s Vietnam service in your initial comment.”
No, I didn’t demean McCains Vietnam service. I assume you are referring to my “McCain flew jets high above the battlefields of Vietnam.” comment.
That wasn’t demeaning his service, that was alluding to how sometimes those who fly above the battlefield, think they are experts on ground combat and go so far as to give groundpounder’s advice on how they should carry out their mission. The Groundpounders don’t appreciate such interference.
I was reminded of previous squabbles on this subject when McCain started criticizing the Special Forces operation, an area out of his expertise, and a mission, the details of which, he was not familiar with.
So that’s the context of my “flying high” comment. It’s not a reflection on his courage in battle, it is a statement that he should stick to his area of expertise, flying, and leave the groundpounding to the groundpounders. Or at least get his fact straight before he opens his mouth.
The only reason McCain said anything about this was in an effort to harm Trump. I know a vindictive fellow when I see one.
Hmmmn.
Those of us familiar with McCain’s flying history wish he did not fly high either.
4 crashes and bailouts, another jet blown up on the flight deck, collisions with power lines, numerous discipline actions for “hot-shotting” reckless flying that did not result in actual loss of the aircraft.
Yes, he was captured, horribly treated as a POW. As were other men I do know and do respect. I do not respect McCain for using his POW history to be continually re-elected.
McCain’s jet wasn’t the one that blew up on the flight deck. He was in an armed A-4, waiting to take off as part of an alpha strike on the deck of USS Forrestal, when an F-4 Phantom accidently fired a Zuni rocket, hitting an A-4. The fire quickly spread to the other aircraft causing many secondary explosions, wrecking the Navy’s first supercarrier and killing 134 people.
RACookPE1978
Please cite one example of McCain “using his POW status to continually get re-elected”.
The Zinke appointment if very important to those who live in the west. Not only will it open up BLM property to gas development but his leadership will help delist wolves in Wyoming and hopefully the rest of the west as well as turn the management and recovery of sage grouse back to the states. I would hope that it leads to a delisting of the ever lovable polar bear, as well.
There is much to like about Ryan Zinke. I think he is a man who understands the horrible epidemics of beetles and fires we have in this country right now. He was involved in a bill reversing a court ruling which was affecting all forestry:
Ninth Circuit Court, naturally.
From what I’ve seen, I doubt any of those Ninth Circuit Court members would stand a chance camping in the forest. Shouldn’t they have to experience Nature before judging it?
Further vetting shows that Rep Ryan Zinke was working on getting two approved hydroelectric projects through the environmental delays:
Ryan Zinke Fixes the Dam Problem
“Both the Clark Canyon and Gibson dams were approved to be converted to hydro-electric dams years ago, and would generate clean and reliable electricity for residents across southwest Montana and Idaho, and central Montana, respectively. The Clark Canyon dam was permitted in 2009 and has had to extend their license twice in 2011 and 2013 due to delays at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The USFWS has essentially killed the project by putting it through unwarranted bureaucratic delays.”
Those D’s that voted for Zinke may have had other motives… perhaps to remove him as the most likely R opponent to D Jon Tester.
At WaPo they are so utterly deranged because of Trump that they’ve become unreadable. I mean they have become a pissed off bunch of jokes. It’s simply propaganda now.
When Bezos bought WaPo I wondered why.
Why would would anyone buy a money losing company in a dying, decaying, sunset industry?
The reason appears to be that Bezo values the propaganda value of this media outlet, because it aligns with his personal, political beliefs.
Left wing – Progressive media outlets are dying. Will Angel investors like Bezo step in to fund this nonsense?
Follow the money – $600 million – CIA contract – propaganda & influence & fake news to cover the CIA dirty deeds they get caught doing.
The p@ranoia is strong in this one.
Bezos isn’t a liberal. He has a history of making personal investments in oddball companies. He has a strong computer programming background. This is why he set up the very successful Amazon digital services division ten years ago, I think he saw an opportunity to apply digital technology to the newspaper business and make it a success with ads. (He may even have wanted to marginalize the NY Times thereby.)
Politically, he may have wanted to have “clout” in Washington to help make congressmen more pliable when they were writing laws on taxing interstate digital commerce.
A “Window Of Opportunity” to right the evils the Communists and Socialists among us, who brought this to us, without our asking and without our approval in even the simplest of up/down vote among us.
+1
Per the quote I would love to learn to cultivate Coal, should I plant cinders grow more or teach it bituminous Philosophy?
Edit: four out of ten…
“as Reported Very Dishonestly by the Washington Post”
=========
“Dishonest reporting by WaPo” is a tautology.
The Washington Post is a CIA/Globalist propaganda mouthpiece. Since the days of Operation Mockingbird to the >$600M Bezos/Amazon has received from the CIA for “cloud services” since 2013 (more currently in the FY 2017 budget).
Trump should defund Bezos and let the Washington Time die in it’s own waste.
Here’s some under-reporting for everyone to consider: President Trump delivered what even many liberals had to admit was a great speech Tuesday night.
And what did he say about global warming/climate change in that hour-long speech? Zip, nada, zilch.
So why wasn’t the lead of every liberal news outlet the following day something like: “President fails to protect the planet from certain destruction”?
Because the jig is up. They’ve lost both the argument and the game, and they know it. Massive defunding to follow shortly.
WaPo began endorsing presidential candidates in 1976. It has never, not once, endorsed a Republican to be president. It has always amazed me that newspapers endorse candidates then have the gall to pretend they are objective.
Washington is the home of the nation’s legal crime syndicate we call the federal government. A whopping 90% of the people who live in that cesspool of corruption voted for HRC. 4% for DJT.
WaPo is the crime syndicate’s hometown newspaper. It is a hyper-partisan Democrat rag. WaPo is selling what its audience wants to buy.
Republicans called the former Montana congressman and Navy SEAL a strong choice for Interior, as an avid hunter with Western roots who understands how federal regulations on the cultivation of coal, natural gas and minerals on public lands can hurt
corporate revenue and reduce jobs.
___________________________________________
Good news:
Washing Post conerned about “corporate revenue and jobs”.
He controls 1/5th of the entire land area of the USA? Land that was unconstitutionally seized from the states! Maybe his first act should be to return most of the land back to the states it was seized from.
Do you mean this one?
Yes… The one with the buffalo on it. The featured image of this post.
You are awesome! Loved your article. So, so true! And I especially like the Tim Allen reference! Luv the comments on that show! It should come back in prime time !! BTW, Ryan Zinke is a true American hero and perfect for this position. And, I know that on a personal level. I am a young senior, but I hope to b alive to see him President in my lifetime!
Zinke was approved by a 16-6 committee vote largely along party lines.
While this is quite misleading (to be generous), it could have been written …
Zinke was approved by a 16-6 committee vote with disapproval largely along party lines.
Update:
Ryan Zinke, before even taking his first full breath on the job, reversed the “parting shot” skullduggery of his predecessor by reversing Dan Ashe’s last minute Director’s Order that directed the phase-out of traditional lead-based ammunition and fishing tackle use on all 81 million acres of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lands and waters by 2022.
Anyone tired of winning yet? 😉