freeflydrew

i don't want to judge one's competency, but i do agree that if there were more resignations, it would practically guarantee bush's re-election...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/03/tenet.resigns/index.html

http://www.zmag.org/ZMagSite/Jun2004/tucker0604.html

Ari, great idea, and we did that last week and it was just too easy! Seriously though, I like the idea of having the V more vertical than horizontal, and even reversing the V so the leader is behind the rest of the group, looking up and forwards at both sides of the formation... Still looking for ideas for formations (single point formations)

I'm trying to come up with some tracking formations for an event... I know the basic "V", but I'm having a tough time coming up with others... I imagine that there won't be more than 7-9 participants and included in that are only 2 people flying on their backs at a time... 7-10 jumps total... Camera fliers are not included in these numbers... Any ideas for additional formations? (pictures or drawings would be ideal)

3:9:2

Dave was my supervisor in Breckenridge CO 2 years before I started jumping... He had just started at the time. small world

Article http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/04/0510war.html Actual Document http://www.pol.uiuc.edu/news/largio.htm Bush administration has used 27 rationales for war in Iraq, study says Andrea Lynn, Humanities Editor 217-333-2177; andreal@uiuc.edu 5/10/04 CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — If it seems that there have been quite a few rationales for going to war in Iraq, that’s because there have been quite a few – 27, in fact, all floated between Sept. 12, 2001, and Oct. 11, 2002, according to a new study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. All but four of the rationales originated with the administration of President George W. Bush. The study also finds that the Bush administration switched its focus from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein early on – only five months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States. In addition to what it says about the shifting sands of rationales and the unsteady path to war in Iraq, what is remarkable about the 212-page study is that its author is a student. The study, “Uncovering the Rationales for the War on Iraq: The Words of the Bush Administration, Congress and the Media from September 12, 2001, to October 11, 2002,” is the senior honors thesis of Devon Largio. She and her professor, Scott Althaus, believe the study is the first of its kind. For her analysis of all available public statements the Bush administration and selected members of Congress made pertaining to war with Iraq, Largio not only identified the rationales offered for going to war, but also established when they emerged and who promoted them. She also charted the appearance of critical keywords such as Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Iraq to trace the administration’s shift in interest from the al Qaeda leader to the Iraqi despot, and the news media’s response to that shift. “The rationales that were used to justify the war with Iraq have been a major issue in the news since last year, and Devon’s study provides an especially thorough and wide-ranging analysis of it,” Althaus, a professor of political science, said. “It is not the last word on the subject, but I believe it is the first to document systematically the case that the administration made for going to war during critical periods of the public debate. “It is first-rate research,” Althaus said, “the best senior thesis I have ever seen – thoroughly documented and elaborately detailed. Her methodology is first-rate.” Largio mapped the road to war over three phases: Sept. 12, 2001, to December 2001; January 2002, from Bush’s State of the Union address, to April 2002; and Sept. 12, 2002, to Oct. 11, 2002, the period from Bush’s address to the United Nations to Congress’s approval of the resolution to use force in Iraq. She drew from statements by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Policy Board member and long-time adviser Richard Perle; by U.S. senators Tom Daschle, Joe Lieberman, Trent Lott and John McCain; and from stories in the Congressional Record, the New York Times and The Associated Press. She logged 1,500 statements and stories. The rationales Largio identified include everything from the five front-runners – war on terror, prevention of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, lack of weapons inspections, removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime, Saddam Hussein is evil, to the also-rans – Sen. Joe Lieberman’s “because Saddam Hussein hates us,” Colin Powell’s “because it’s a violation of international law,” and Richard Perle’s “because we can make Iraq an example and gain favor within the Middle East.” With regard to the administration’s shift from bin Laden to Saddam, Largio found that Iraq was “part of the plan for the war on terror early in the game.” For example, in his State of the Union speech on Jan. 29, 2002, President Bush declared that Iraq was part of the war against terrorism because it supported terrorists and continued to “flaunt its hostility toward America.” He also claimed that Iraq allowed weapons inspectors into the country and then threw them out, “fueling the belief that the nation did in fact plan to develop weapons of mass destruction,” Largio wrote. In the same speech, the president called Iraq, Iran and North Korea an “axis of evil,” a phrase that would “ignite much criticism” and add “to the sense that the U.S. would embark on a war with the Hussein state,” Largio wrote. “So, from February of 2002 on,” Largio said, “Iraq gets more hits than Osama bin Laden. For President Bush the switch occurs there and the gap grows over time.” Largio also discovered that it was the media that initiated discussions about Iraq, introducing ideas before the administration and congressional leaders did about the intentions of that country and its leader. The media also “brought the idea that Iraq may be connected to the 9-11 incident to the forefront, asking questions of the officials on the topic and printing articles about the possibility.” The media “seemed to offer a lot of opinion and speculation, as there had been no formal indication that Iraq would be a target in the war on terror,” Largio wrote. Oddly, though, the media didn’t switch its focus to Iraq and Saddam until July of 2002. Yet, “Overall, the media was in tune with the major arguments of the administration and Congress, but not with every detail that emerged from the official sources.” “As always, hindsight is twenty-twenty,” Largio wrote in the conclusion to her thesis. “However, there are questions surrounding nearly every major rationale for the war. “People may wonder, why are our men and women over there? Why did we go to war? Were we misled? In this election year, these questions deserve answers. And though this paper cannot answer these questions definitively, it can provide some insight into the thinking of the powers-that-be during the earliest stages of war preparation and give the American people a chance to answer these questions for themselves.” Because Largio’s thesis addresses questions of “great public importance,” Althaus said, and “does so in such a detailed manner,” he arranged to have it posted on a public Web site. Largio will graduate on May 16, and will attend law school at Vanderbilt University.

Did my first weekend of load organizing at the Ranch...

That sounds so funny if you say it seriously and not scarcasticly (Seriously though, has it been 2 weeks already?)

I agree... those who support bush just have a character flaw... A Big character flaw! (joke)

http://dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1088079;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread This was just discussed last week

i second that...

boc = bottom of container

I think Bush must have made the speech because his approval rating is at an all time low... Why else would he go for a prime time speech? 6 or 7 more, get the public behind him... Look like the plan is solid... Hands wiped clean and he is more likely to be reelected

I'm not sure what it is that you're referring to... You know, being objective... researching things before you make what seem to be conclusions... Look at things from all angles. See attached. Then see THIS LINK Why didn't you just post additional sources in the first place?... Fox "news" isn't exactly the end all be all of news media. Like I said when I posted it... I just read something that made me laugh... Humor is rarely objective! objectivity n : judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices [syn: objectiveness] Thanks for an interesting discussion

Maybe, or maybe it isn't occurring at the highest levels of the organization... I quoted the UN News Center, and paraphrased what my GF was told... I don't see any problem with that... Are there other "News" sites that mention the letters? New Yorkers are something else... I just said that you should look at more news sites to remain objective... Let's not get too personal with this discussion, ok I'm not going to start labeling/insulting people from Alabama. On a side note, I read a couple of hours ago that Fox News is the Conservative equivelant of Al-Jazeera... it made me laugh http://congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=5907501&content_dir=ua_congressorg

I've seen this before and the links worked then, but they don't appear to work today... I think that this is where it was trying to point to. http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/bills/?billnum=S.89&congress=108 http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/bills/?billnum=H.R.163&congress=108

"My Crystal Ball" is my girlfriend who worked directly under Sevan... Sounded scarcistic though... Oh yeah, also the UN News Center, which I clearly quoted above! If I read Fox "news" I guess i would have seen that article. I would definitely look into more news sites than just Fox if you want to be objective about what you're reading...

that's pretty funny...

Yeah, thought so?... How about some quotes and a source, so this discussion stays along the right path... And just so it's clear, the corruption in the OIP (Oil for food program) did not occur at the top level of the UN... It occurred within the lower levels of administration, and Benin Sevan (the Head of the OIP) and Kofi Annan (Head of the UN) knew nothing about it. That is why they support the independent investigation, and want to know where the corruption occurred. So let's see some quotes here OK?

WOW DUDE! WHo knows what news sites you read, but you are clearly confused as to the current state of the independant investigation! Let's all research a little before we post things that are probably figments of our imagination... From the UN News site: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=10811&Cr=iraq&Cr1=oil Independent panel has begun inquiry into UN's Oil-for-Food, chairman says Paul Volcker briefs press on panel's work 20 May 2004 – Work has begun by an independent panel investigating the United Nations Oil-for-Food programme for Iraq, and its focus is to "get after" allegations of corruption and misconduct within the UN itself and, more broadly, the question of possible maladministration of the humanitarian operation, its Chairman said today. In the event of maladministration, questions related to why that maladministration occurred, where responsibility for it lay, and what lessons learned could be drawn would also be addressed, Paul A. Volcker told a press briefing at UN Headquarters in New York. The longest and most difficult aspect of the investigation by the Independent Inquiry Committee (IIC) would relate to what went on in Iraq itself in terms of contractors, overcharging and undercharging, kickbacks and smuggling, "which is peripheral to our investigation but I don't think we can help but touch upon it," he added. Mr. Volcker, a former Chairman of the Board of Governors of the United States Federal Reserve System, stressed it was crucial for the panel to establish a degree of control over the very important records held in Iraq, if its investigation was to be satisfactory. A team had been sent to Baghdad to make contact with the Bureau of the Supreme Auditor, which had responsibility for collecting and consolidating those records. That team would explore ways of achieving and maintaining sufficient influence over and accessibility to those records. The Oil-for-Food programme began operating in 1996. Under its terms, sanctions-bound Iraq was allowed to use a portion of its oil revenues to purchase humanitarian relief. The effort was monitored by the Security Council "661" committee, which included representatives from all 15 countries on the Council. Until its termination in November 2003, the programme was the largest-ever, in financial terms, administrated by the UN. It oversaw the delivery of some $39 billion worth of humanitarian assistance to about 22 million people, many of whom were largely dependent on outside aid to survive since normal economic activity was severely constrained by sanctions imposed after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=10662&Cr=iraq&Cr1=oil Annan reaffirms UN's support for probe of Iraq Oil-for-Food allegations Paul A. Volcker 7 May 2004 – Secretary-General Kofi Annan has reaffirmed that the United Nations will fully support the work of an independent panel he commissioned to examine allegations of corruption surrounding the UN Oil-for-Food programme for Iraq. UN spokesman Fred Eckhard told reporters today in New York that the Secretary-General welcomed a statement issued by panel chairman Paul Volcker, former head of the United States Federal Reserve Board. Mr. Annan "fully accepts the arrangements set out in that statement," Mr. Eckhard said. In his statement yesterday, Mr. Volcker said that, at his request, the Secretary-General had taken the necessary steps to ensure that all UN staff cooperate fully with the investigation and that all relevant documents are secured solely for the committee's use, according to the spokesman. Mr. Volcker also said that as the investigation proceeds, and as the committee arrives at an understanding of the substance and scope of the relevant documentation, including material in Baghdad, it will consider appropriate disclosure. Mr. Eckhard said the Secretary-General assured the inquiry of the full cooperation of all UN staff. "He earnestly hopes that the inquiry will reveal the full truth about the management of the programme, and repeats his undertaking to waive the immunity of any official found by the inquiry to have broken the law," he said. The UN Oil-for-Food programme began operating in 1996 and allowed Iraq to use a portion of its oil revenues to purchase humanitarian relief. The effort was monitored by the Security Council "661" committee, which included representatives from all 15 countries on the Council. Until its termination in November 2003, the Programme oversaw the delivery of some $39 billion worth of humanitarian assistance to roughly 25 million people, many of whom were largely dependent on outside aid to survive since normal economic activity was severely constrained by sanctions imposed after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. It's really something when someone tries to knock a global organization responsible for many, many positive things, including feeding starving people around the world! Perhaps actually READING the news would be a good idea before you decide to post!

Wow, that's quite an assumption considering that they've just started an investigation in the oil for food program... Perhaps you know someone in the OIP? Cause my girlfriend worked in the Oil For Food Program and she's never mentioned France and Germany's obvious participation in the scandal! "Recent evidence of torture and ill-treatment by Coalition Forces in Iraqi prisons echo the frequent reports of human rights violations received by Amnesty International during the past year. Urge the US and UK authorities to support a thorough, independent and public investigation; to hold accountable all who have committed acts of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and also those who have contributed to a command culture that condones such abuses; and to ensure that all Coalition Forces know that such violations will not be tolerated" amnesty.org Doesn't sound like it was one day...

Me and Jed and Trent all starrted around the same time and used to make a bunch of jumps together... Great fliers.

Think wing, broh' wing