My Photo

« Government and Labor | Main | In Which I Try To Raise A Point About Foley Before Everyone Else Does »

October 02, 2006


(It's as though their minds got stuck during the Dan Rather episode, and now they imagine that given any story, serious attention to typographical discrepancies will reveal something appalling.)


"As a Democrat, it's not my place to say that Hastert, Boehner, and anyone else who knew about this should resign from their leadership positions."

Nonsense. I'm not affiliated with any party, but I can say that Rep. Shimkus should step down for his failure to include the Page Board in his handling of Foley. The fact that Hastert can't figure that out means he should not be Speaker of the house. What does party affiliation have to do with it?

What does party affiliation have to do with it?

perhaps a large enough segment of Reps want to represented by scum that it would be rude deny them the chance.

What Jay S said. Speaker of the House isn't a position in the Republican Party.

OT: More trouble in paradise - right wing bloggers abandoning GOP?


I don't need the g*ddamned Republican Party in power to sign "peace" deals with terrorists. I can get that easily enough from the Democratic Party. I've supported these vacuous, cowardly, inept, corrupt idiots for one reason-- to fight terrorists.

if they want to sign peace deals with them, that's their decision. I and others can make another decision. The country may move in this direction, but we hardly have to endorse the decision by voting in favor of Quislings.

At least the Democrats talk tough about sending more troops to Afghanistan and killing Taliban fighters and capturing bin Ladin.

If that really is no longer a GOP prirority, then I am no longer a member of the GOP.

You stupid jagoffs. You've done just about everything possible to lose this election; it's only the base -- ever hopeful and ever self-deluding -- that's kept you from your goal.

Was governing too much a chore for you? Was it too distracting, taking you away from fundraisers and fucking Congressional pages?

The Democrats have complained for years the GOP wasn't serious enough about defeating Al Qaeda and the Taliban, that it was too focused on Iraq. Congratulations -- you just took a talking point and made it an established fact.

Well, enjoy your minority status. The rest of us will try to rebuild to the extent we can a party that actually sees ending the Taliban and Al Qaeda as somewhat more critical than ending internet poker.

(See this AP report to see what has Ace so riled up)

The Commissar, who now describes himself as 'another conservative who’s been mugged by reality', is voting for the Democratic Party this year:

Bush has not followed a conservative agenda (not that the Democrats would); he has increased the spending, size, and reach of government, mostly in the name of fighting terror. Historically, there has been a conservative philosophy. Today, most people & media use “conservative” as shorthand for “loyal Bush supporter.” But, as many have observed, Bush is no conservative. No need to remind me of Bush’s support for Intelligent Design, and other anti-science actions of the administration.

As a voter (twice for Bush) and as a blogger who supported this nonsense, I have a hard time at this point, saying, “Yes, this war has been horribly executed and there is no prospect for improvement, let me pull the lever for more of the same.”

Midterm elections are a referendum on the party in power; they are not just about the local races. I live in NY state, in a very blue district. No contests that I vote in are in doubt, but the sum of our votes do comprise a national referendum, and the news people will add up what happened and count the wins and losses. Who we vote for in ’06, especially for Congress, matters. As for ‘08, that’s two years from now. Who knows what will happen then? The GOP candidate will almost certainly run away from Bush so quickly and completely, so 2008 will be a different situation, most likely not a referendum on Bush.

I must hand it to Bush … I never would have thought there would be a Republican president that could ever persuade me to vote for the Democrats. When the choice is between a party that promises NOT to deliver what you want versus one that manifestly hasn’t, that is not easy.


In deciding how to vote, there is the over-arching question, “How important is the war on terror, Iraq, and the whole security threat represented by related issues?” If one says “Yes, really important, number one, that trumps all other issues,” and one also says, “Bush fouled up. Big time,” … then that is the justification for voting Democratic in 2006. I view this November’s election mainly as a vote for, or against, Bush, more than as a vote for a Republican or a Democrat

Hell, even Hot Air's Allahpundit may be straying from the reservation. Note that none of these new Dissatisfieds mentioned Predatorgate as contributing to their disillusionment.

Not exactly a banner week for the Grand Old Party, eh?

I am continually surprised at my ability to still be amazed at the lunacy of the gov't leaders. That AP link being yet another. Did Dr. Bill really think that people wouldn't mind him saying the Taliban had to be tolerated now?

"...if they want to sign peace deals with them, that's their decision. I and others can make another decision."

Indeed. Much more manly to have an overtly fascist party, and set aside all the shilly-shallyers, and men without chests.

Because I am sometimes weak, I threw in a link here to both this column by the despicable Mark Steyn (plagiarist), and the cheering section for the delights of "Club Gitmo."

Some of these folks would look so handsome in their fine new brown shirts.

And some handsomer still in black.

and the cheering section for the delights of "Club Gitmo."

But of course they get lay-z-boys and twinkies at Gitmo, nothing bad ever happens there, it's all kitten-like goodness and warmth.


The C.I.A. director briefed Condoleezza Rice on a looming threat from Al Qaeda two months before 9/11, a review of White House records found.

Bye Condi. May Denny and Boehner follow you out the door.

I am assuming that Frist has never expressed concern about Hezbollah's role in the Lebanese government.

Re both Rice and Hastert. Neither is saying that meetings or discussions did not take place.

They have followed the Libby line of defense, "I do not recall."

jakeb: I'm amazed that it's taken so many conservatives this long to throw up their hands at the collective ineptitude of the GOP leadership. Rove better have one hell of an October Surprise cooked up.

The wheels really are coming off this bus, aren't they?

Oh, and apologies to the Hive Mind for letting Ace's f-bomb slip through.

Rove better have one hell of an October Surprise cooked up.

Yep, attack on Iran has just been moved from next February to a couple weeks from now, he's just searching for the right Gulf of Tonkin' moment.

The wheels really are coming off this bus, aren't they?

Yep, this ship be sinkin'

I agree with hilzoy's analysis here. Foley is a creep, and will probably (hopefully) end up out of office. But, the real scandal here is Shimkus' hiding the issue from the other members of the Page board, and Hastert's inaction.

I have to say I find myself amused by conservative pundits who claim to be shocked -- shocked! -- that this is all emerging so close to an election, and that anyone would think of exploiting it for political advantage.

Conservatives have given us 20 and more years of the Roger Ailes, Lee Atwater, and Karl Rove school of political discourse, with all the wonderful things that that has brought us.

Pot, meet kettle. Enjoy the ride.

Thanks -

"But of course they get lay-z-boys and twinkies at Gitmo, nothing bad ever happens there, it's all kitten-like goodness and warmth."

The baklava is the best. I bet these fat ex-terrorists wouldn't want to leave even if we threw open the doors at Club Gitmo, it's such a wonderful place to live, with such great food, comforts, and medical care!

mattbastard: "Rove better have one hell of an October Surprise cooked up."

I do imagine that bombing Iran would provide excellent tv visuals.

But maybe GOTV and the 72-hour program, and gerrymandering, and passing laws to require photo IDS to vote, and the like, are still good enough. And who can say about the reliability of key voting systems, indeed?

It's hard to be over-cynical these days, I'm afraid, cliche as it might be.

Gary: "It's hard to be over-cynical these days, I'm afraid, cliche as it might be." Yeah, it's hard to talk about 'American democracy' without including scare quotes.

Freedom is on the march!

On the timing of the releases, I wonder if in fact any of this was politically motivated or if it was just coincidence. I don't think the Dems were involved in the releases, mind, but it's not unthinkable that some pages (for example) might have been hoping against hope that Foley would lose his election, and when it became clear he wasn't they decided to make sure he went down. On someone other than a page, that is.

The explanation of the timing and chain of events given by Ben Pershing in the discussion during tonight's PBS News Hour seemed entirely plausible, and unsuspicious, I thought, although there certainly could be more behind it.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right. So then the more explicit 2003 messages come out. Those were reported by ABC News last week. Do we know how ABC got hold of those?

BEN PERSHING: I haven't seen a definitive answer to that. I do believe I read on the ABC News Web site that, after they posted their original story on Thursday about the 2005 e-mails, that they were inundated with tips and messages from former pages, from other people with ideas, and, from my understanding, is that -- and that's how they got this second set of more explicit messages.

If there was behind the scenes manipulation, that sort of thing does seem to come out, although of course it's impossible to know, by definition, how often it doesn't.

The idea that anyone was sitting on this in order to spring it during the election season is the product of desperation.

Clearly, someone tried long and hard to get some attention to this story; the emails were sent last November not only to the St. Petersburg Times but also to the Miami Herald.

CREW received the emails on 21 July and passed them immediately to the FBI.

Foley's behavior has been an open secret for years, as noted by the page associated with the page alums who appeared on ABC yesterday.

Foley was part of the GOP leadership in the House, a deputy whip.

They had many, many opportunities over the last five years to stop the problem. But Foley was 1) very helpful in the 2000 shenanigans in Florida (he represents Palm Beach); 2) in a safe seat in a district that raises money for the rest of the country; 3) aware of the numerous closet cases throughout the party's Congressional offices.

Foley's campaign manager and chief of staff for ten years went over to the same position for Reynolds, the NRCC chairman, in October 2005. It's a mutual protection racket.

It occurs to me to also note that, say one assumes that some Democrat or Democrats somewhere were aware of the Foley situation, and did something-or-other to help leak the e-mails: so what?

The situation is what it is: a guy making a career out of Expressing Outrage at sexual exploitation of minors, who is into sexually exploiting minors, and the Republican leadership had some (as yet the extent of which is not fully clear) knowledge of this, and did nothing much.

As I recall, the fact that Jonah Goldberg's mom pushed Linda Tripp to manipulate Monica Lewinsky like crazy didn't cause any Republicans to sit up and say that there should be no inquiry into Bill Clinton's sex life and alleged veracity because of Lucianne Goldberg or Linda Tripp's partisanship, or their own partisanship.

And I'm reasonably sure I recall Tom DeLay's farewell speech to the house being a paen to the virtues of partisanship, and not to mention that such partisanship is the lifeblood of contemporary Congressional Republicanism.

bombing Iran would provide excellent tv visuals

The Eisenhower Strike Group sails tomorrow from Norfolk; ETA off the coast of Iran: 21 October. The strike group includes

the guided-missile cruiser USS Anzio CG-68), guided-missile destroyers Ramage (DDG-61) and Mason (DDG-87), and the fast-attack submarine Newport News (SSN-750).

Anchors aweigh, y'all.

Jay S: Rep. Shimkus should step down for his failure to include the Page Board in his handling of Foley.

And for lying about it:

The board currently is headed by Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., who said the board investigated the allegations late last year, but Foley "was not honest" when he denied any improper conduct with the teenager.

The Washington Times says "Resign, Mr. Speaker".

NPR (I think. Been reading a lot today) had an anonymous page on today, saying that one of the major reasons not to say anything is that taking down a congressman is a sure way to make sure you never get to do anything later on in life[my paraphrase].

So for many, a large concern seems to have been that his position really did mean they felt they couldn't reveal the situation. Talk about a textbook example of sexual harrassment and abuse of power.

For anyone interested, FOX news has been running the shootings in Pennsylvania all day. Their coverage of this topic is all apologetics. I cannot imagine why anyone would accuse them of being party hacks who pull right wing hitjobs on ex-Presidents.

Sorry, I wasn't implying that this was some sort of Democratic "October Surprise" or anything. Just idly wondering about the timing, is all.

The NYT: "The St. Petersburg Times and The Miami Herald received copies of an e-mail exchange between Mr. Foley, Republican of Florida, and a teenager, but neither paper gathered enough solid material to publish a story, according to statements by the papers’ editors."

Can someone explain this to me? My caution in the earlier thread was in part based on early reports of the above. Sounds though that there was enough evidence floating around to push hard and probably break the case long ago. Are these conservative papers? uninterested in breaking stories? just bad?

Are these conservative papers? uninterested in breaking stories? just bad?

Huh. So that's how you type in Valley Girl.

I'm kinda puzzled why you list the ships in the carrier group, Nell; the ships in a carrier group rarely change (that's what makes them a specific carrier group, after all -- and the make-up of a carrier group is bog-standard); sorry to be dense, but I'm not following what's your point there?

I blogged about the Eisenhower group's departure and scheduled arrival in the Gulf a few weeks ago, incidentally. Back when the ship movements as regards Iran was the cover story of Time magazine. As did the Nation, and zillions of other publications, so it's not exactly a secret revelation.

"conservative st petersburg times" - 0 Google hits
"liberal st petersburg times" - 69
"conversative miami herald" - 173
"liberal miami herald" - 151

"Can someone explain this to me?"

As I understand it -- and I could have it wrong; frankly, this story doesn't interest me all that much, and I'm not paying a great deal of attention to the literally sordid details -- the set of 2005 e-mails were the one that were interpretable as kinda odd, but not in themselves thoroughly incriminating -- mostly they featured the "send me a pic" request, but that was about the only stand-out oddity -- so it was enough to raise questions, but not base a reliable story upon, by itself. And my impression, which again may be wrong, is that the page wasn't interested in coming forward at that time.

Did I mention that I might have any of this wrong? But it's my impression at the moment, since you ask. I again point to the link to what Ben Pershing said that I gave above, but doubtless there are tons of other stories on the web, for those deeply interested.

Gary, I realize that you're not intentionally trying to goad Nell into an explosion of exasperation, but you're doing a very good impression of someone who is.

That WashTimes editorial also includes the Main Talking Point, of course:

Some Democrats are attempting to make this "a Republican scandal," and they shouldn't; Democrats have contributed more than their share of characters in the tawdry history of congressional sexual scandals.
You'll all recall how Republicans constantly emphasized during the Clinton impeachment period that sex scandals were a bipartisan affair, and how important it was to not consider this a Democratic scandal, right?

Sex scandals aren't about individuals, and they're not even about parties, they're just bipartisan. Politicians engaged in one huge bipartisan, non-partisan, orgy. Or kinda like the weather.

After all, as it goes on to say:

Sexual predators come in all shapes, sizes and partisan hues, in institutions within and without government.
Basically, they're throwing Hastert overboard as a desperate move to limit the damage in November, knowing there's no remotely better choice, and that the current leadership has just been politically, well, pick your metaphor: disembowled? Decapitated?

Whatever, they're now defenestrated, as well.

And I should have said that it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys.

"...I realize that you're not intentionally trying to goad Nell into an explosion of exasperation...."

Certainly not; just what I said: not getting the point she was making. What's a better way to phrase the question?

Oh, here is a great quote, though.

Mr. Snow was on several early morning news programs and seemed to struggle to find the right way to frame an issue that has the potential to tip at least an election in Florida.

In one interview with CNN, with the rising sun behind him, Mr. Snow said: "I hate to tell you, but it’s not always pretty up there on Capitol Hill. And there have been other scandals, as you know, that have been more than simply naughty e-mails.”

I suppose I should check if Crooks and Liars or YouTube, etc., have it, but I'm satisfied with the text.

Gary, I made much the same argument in the other thread and got a very skeptical reception - here I'm a Valley Girl. My question was intended to be read in that context.

Anyway it's raining shoes.

rf: I thought that would be mildly amusing; if not, I apologize.

"if not, I apologize."

No need, not a prob.

Gary, you brought up bombing Iran; I quoted a timely 'local' news story that supported your mention. Did I give the impression of making a secret revelation? That was not my intention. [If you're sincerely trying to determine how you might better have phrased your comment, leaving off "it's not exactly a secret revelation" would be one way.]

I quoted the paper's description of the vessels in the strike group because it impressed me as pretty clearly for offensive use. I didn't have any idea what was in a 'strike group', and had the idea some others here might not be familiar with it, either. (Maybe you should ask the Hampton Roads paper why they listed the vessels in the strike group. After all, a far higher proportion of their readers than ObWi's are likely to know what's involved, since so many are in the Navy or Air Force or associated with the base and shipyard.)

Having gone back to look at the link to your blogging of the Iran deployments, it's hard to avoid the suspicion that my sharply worded comment on that post has something to do with the tone of your question.

"I didn't have any idea what was in a 'strike group',"

The standard these days is a Ticonderoga-class (Aegis) cruiser (which has long-distance area anti-missile/air defense, as well as a large complement of Tomahawk cruise missiles), two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers (all-around useful, anti-air, anti-sub, and land-attack), also equipped with Aegis and the Vertical Launch system that can fire anti-ship and land Tomahawks, or anti-air missiles, as well as anti-sub missile/torpedos. A Los Angeles class sub is also always included, on anti-sub patrol as well; sometimes two (although the entire group functions as a group, sharing the same radar, sonar, and tactical information, including from the helicopters, the E-2C Hawkeye radar plane, sonobuoys dropped by the choppers, the Combat Air Patrol, and so on, all coordinated out of the carrier's combat center).

They're sometimes supplemented with another ship or two; maybe an older, less capable, Perry-class frigate (or two), or an ammunition ship, a fleet oiler, a supply ship, or somesuch.

A Carrier "Strike Group" is just the latest name for a "Battle Group," (they changed it a couple of years or so ago) which is to say, the group of ships necessary to protect the carrier, and perform the mission of the Group. It's not dissimilar to the way a platoon is made up of squads, a certain number of sergeants of specific ranks, and so on.

Although there's a certain amount of mix-and-match at times, depending on the tour and mission, generally these ships train together for their entire deployment.

A Carrier Strike Group, it should be noted, is a different beast from an Expeditionary Strike Group.

A "deployment" usually last 2-4 years, and the carrier groups rotate between deployment, training, and refitting.

The Eisenhower is just coming off training, after a several years refit. Although it's absolutely true that the deployment could be useful in striking Iran, it should also be pointed out that it's replacing the Lincoln as the standard Persian Gulf deployment. So while the timing seems sinister, it's actually quite meaningless, since the Lincoln Group was already there, and there's always a carrier group in the Persian Gulf.

Now, if we were sending 3 or 4 carrier groups, all of a sudden, that would be different, and notable.

Again, not to say that the Eisenhower Group couldn't be used to bomb Iran. But the fact of the timing really is kinda meaningless.

And as I've blogged on occasion -- including in comments on this blog, actually -- um, unlike years past, it turns out that we have air bases in countries surrounding Iran these days, very large and capable air bases, for an Air Force that's not really all that busy with combat missions, so in point of fact, having a carrier group in the Gulf is also pretty darn meaningless, unlike in, say, 2002.

Sorry; you've mentioned you came from a Marine family, so I assumed you knew this sort of thing.

"I quoted the paper's description of the vessels in the strike group because it impressed me as pretty clearly for offensive use"

In other words, this is flat wrong. But thanks for explaining; now I understand why we were talking past each other.

"Maybe you should ask the Hampton Roads paper why they listed the vessels in the strike group."

Well, because there are few things more public; the ships total thousands of sailors, and the deployments go on for years; it's not as if it's possible to keep the knowledge a secret.

"it's hard to avoid the suspicion that my sharply worded comment on that post has something to do with the tone of your question."

Believe it or not, I have no memory of you having commented. None whatever. Sorry. (I'll likely recall when I look, since you've pointed it out.)

I'm afraid my "tone" was only puzzlement -- that's me, being puzzled -- since, as I said, I assumed you knew the basics of what a carrier group was, and had some point I wasn't getting.

I do apologize that I came off any way otherwise; I'm just not good at that sort of thing.

Hmm, here is John Pike, so folks don't have to take my word:

In September 2006 it was reported that the Eisenhower Strike Group was under orders to depart the United States in early October 2006, slated to arrive in the Persian Gulf on or aabout 21 October 2006. Some observers were alarmed that this was part of the Bush Administration's plans to attack Iran's WMD facilities immediately prior to the November 7th Congressional election. This seems improbable. In recent years the Navy has normally stationed one carrier in the Persian Gulf to support Operation Iraqi Freedom. The IKE will replace the Abraham Lincoln in this role.
I should add that I have no expertise in Navy matters, and amn't greatly read in them, and wouldn't remotely claim anything beyond utterly casual knowledge from casual reading; pretty much the sort of thing any bright 12-year-old who has played a war game three times might know, give or take. I only mention this to stress that that's also where my puzzlement came from.

Anyway, sorry again; I wish I weren't so poor at phrasing things innocuously and lightly so often.

Oh, very last thought just occurred to me: if I'd had the faintest memory that you'd commented on my post about military developments re Iran, you know, I'd have mentioned that, and been really puzzled at why you were telling me something you'd already read on my blog.'

But given that I read a couple of thousand blog comments over the course of a few weeks, it's pretty darn rare that I'm going to remember specifics. Heck, I often don't even notice who I'm responding to, let alone remember later.

Were you responding to me, Gary?

No Richard, he was responding to me. But I can't for the life of me remember what my point was.

I didn't have any idea what was in a 'strike group', and had the idea some others here might not be familiar with it, either.

i didn't know. thanks, Nell, for providing the info.

Gary: no links handy (gotta run) but it's less cut-and-dried than you might think, since Strike Ike wasn't slated to finish repairs and return to the Gulf until February, IIRC. I haven't heard anything about the Abe Lincoln needing to head back to port (or, for that matter, about the Abe Lincoln actually heading back to port, John Pike's post linked above notwithstanding) and Raw Story is also reporting the Pentagon's moved into second-stage planning for an attack on Iran.

It could be nothing, I agree. Given the saber-rattling from the Administration, though, I'm not going to dismiss its significance out of hand.

"...haven't heard anything about the Abe Lincoln needing to head back to port"

Turns out Pike was wrong; the Lincoln SG has been in the Pacific:

8 Aug 2006 - returned to Everett 6-7 Aug 2006 - Eastern Pacific
4-5 Aug 2006 - San Diego
29 Jul - 3 Aug 2006 - "Tiger Cruise" in the Pacific
29 Jul 2006 - departed Pearl Harbor
28 Jul 2006 - Pearl Harbor
27 Jul 2006 - Pacific Ocean
Jul 2006 - RIMPAC
30 Jun - 5 Jul 2006 - Port visit @ Pearl Harbor
27 Jun 2006 - Enters 3rd Fleet's AOR
19-23 Jun 2006 - Valiant Shield 2006
10-14 Jun 2006 - Western Pacific
1 June 2006 - Pacific Ocean
25 May 2006 - Port Visit @ Sasebo, Japan
27 Apr-1 May 2006 - Port Visit @ Singapore

And is now under overhaul, in drydock.

Here is the run-down on the current Groups. (More on the Groups.)

The current deployments.

The Enterprise was in the gulf during the summer, but left for the Pacific in July:

23 Aug 2006 - Port visit @ Kuala Lumpur
20-22 Aug 2006 - Andaman Sea
15-19 Aug 2006 - Port Kelang, Malaysia
10-14 Aug 2006 - South China Sea
7-8 Aug 2006 - Sunda Sea
3-6 Aug 2006 - Changi Naval Base, Singapore
31 Jul - 2 Aug 2006 - South China Sea
27-30 Jul 2006 - Port visit @ Hong Kong
07 Jul 2006 - Concludes operations in the Persian Gulf
14 Jun 2006 - Persain Gulf
09 Jun 2006 - Persian Gulf
29 May 2006 - Entered 5th Fleet" rel="nofollow">
Running through the list of Groups, I honestly can't tell which one might have just been in the Persian Gulf; it almost looks as if none was; several possibilities haven't had their entries there updated since June, although only a few: the Reagan, which was last reported at that site in the China Sea:
13 Jun 2006 - South China Sea
7 June 2006 - Pacific Ocean
3 June 2006 - Port visit @ Port Kelang, Malaysia
29 May 2006 - Concluded operations in Persian Gulf
14-18 May 2006 - Port visit @ UAE
27 Apr 2006 - PASSEX with French navy
16-20 Apr 2006 - Port Visit @ UAE
10 Apr 2006 - Persian Gulf
15-19 Mar 2006 - Port Visit @ Jebel Ali, UAE
22 Feb 2006 - Persian Gulf
18 Feb 2006 - Arrived in 5th Fleet AOO
But the main page lists them as: "22 Aug 2006 - Western Atlantic Ocean"

Kitty Hawk is supposed to be in the Indian Ocean: "CV-63 Kitty Hawk 22 Aug 2006 - Indian Ocean"

The most interesting might be that the Stennis was last reported as being off British Columbia (not far from its home base at Bremerton, Washington) in early August: " 9-11 Aug 2006 - Esquimalt, Victoria, B.C., Canada"

The Stennis is in status "Surge Ready," which is precisely the status you'd take your carrier to wherever the most pressing need is.

The rest of the groups seem to be accounted for as in drydock or elsewhere.


The Stennis web page has a fair amount of detail on various recent and current (as of Sept. 22nd) exercises, but I'm still looking for a clue as to where this year's COMPTUEX exercise is. (That's "Composite Training Unit Exercise," which is a fancy way of saying the full carrier group training together.)

And on September 20th they were in San Diego.

After that: I have no idea.

The Nimitz is in San Diego.

Anyway, everyone else seems to be accounted for, though a couple could conceivably slip away; maybe. For a little while.

The Washington possibly could.

Yeah, I should've said that I didn't remember the carrier in the Gulf coming back for repairs (took Pike at his word that it was the Abe, silly me) and apparently for good reason. Apparently the Enterprise is back, which strikes me as... odd.

The comments to this entry are closed.