I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view…

Of course you’re not talking about it — there has never been any oversight to speak of — Haliburton was counting on it —- in there business plan.

Give a valid example of when a liberal blocked building or research of a new weapon system. It was Reagan and Bush 1 who started the cutback when the cold war ended — went from a planned fleet of 120 + B2’s to 25 You and Jimmy Mac are cut from the same cloth and if I remember corectly they scuttled a couple of planned submarines — but no one ever cut funds for stealth technology, laser technology — shoot what administration put us on the moon?

Small minded idiots …

Nathan how about answering my question — narrow minded dim wit

My parents are convinced he is worth it, and though I like him, I am not sure…

LATEST NEWS
On Wednesday, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) rejected effort’s by the Air Force and Northrop Grumman to have portions of Boeing’s Tanker protest bid thrown out. This means the GAO has agreed to look at all aspects of Boeing’s protest without pre-maturely dismissing any part of the protest. This is great news and a good step forward.

I will continue to aggressively fight this decision in Congress. I am currently finalizing legislation that will help create a level playing field for American workers and manufacturers.
nd

——————————————–

Now if we can just get him to aggressively fight for more oversight of DoD and War on Terror expenses — he may save his job

FYI
He has a blog —-

http://www.house.gov/tiahrt/tankerblog/

Billions, perhaps trillions, on a program that doesn’t work and makes us less safe.

Wow.

It’s like Bush in a bottle . . .

Very little could’ve been ascertained from an added tracking device that couldn’t be derived from other means, hence the superfluous.

Y’all are so quick to lambast people for conspiracy theories while doing everything to exacerbate the problem and nothing to alleviate it.

Having a tracking device could easily have been used to provide data on the test from all aspects, it doesn’t mean it was being used by the intercepting missile to hit the target.

If you have proof otherwise, please share.

Instead of providing any shred of proof to back up your claim, go ahead and run along now…

Good bye.

What’s the point, Price? Doug provided you with proof and you choose to believe that the technology wasn’t used, even though it was there.

The Pentagon used to provide details of the tests, including the tracking device information. As I posted above, they no longer release technical information. You can choose to ignore it if you want. You choose to believe that the tests were “real life.”

So what point is there in discussing it with you? This is just a waste of time, like trying to discuss evolution or science with you.

End of debate, thanks for playing. It has been a pleasure…………..

Asking a question doesn’t prove anything.

You claimed that the tracking device was being used in every hit to aid the interceptor missle.

Where is your proof?

Asking why it would be there otherwise is not proof.

Once again, your ability to grasp simple concepts in argument and logic is failing.

It’s like talking to a brick wall.

“It could have been there for any number of reasons.”

What? It was a free option thrown in by the military contractor, like sport wheels or an upgraded sound system?

Like a brick wall.

There is no point in trying to discuss this with you.

It could have been there for any number of reasons.

You still have not backed up your claim.

Oh, oh lemme answer! Could it possibly be something like, “A C-band transponder on the mock warhead gave off location information”

Sheesh, I quote and you still can’t read. There is no possible way to dumb myself down any further. I’m guessing you never did very well on those Iowa Basic Skills tests in school, especially the reading comprehension section. Oh well, you can’t cure stupid.

Tsk, tsk, Price, a good little boy like you calling names? I am shocked.

“had to use it or did use it”

So, explain to us, Price, all-knowing expert, what was the device THERE for if they didn’t use it?

The mere fact that a tracking device was on the simulated warhead doesn’t prove that the intereceptor had to use it or did use it to hit the simulated warhead as WS Clark claimed every test hit did.

Now what part of that don’t you get?

WS Clark,

Now what part of that don’t you get? Liar.

$ 9,445,093,447,157*

http://zfacts.com/p/461.html

Every penny counts!
Thanks I overestimated the latest change.

This was from the Oct 1999 test which successfully shot down a missile. What is so hard to understand? Once again I am astonished at being unable to explain things clearly enough.

Now WHO has the reading comprehension issue?

Then we will fire 300 nuclear warhead equipped ICBM’s at them.

Then they will all be dead.

Yep, good possibility of that playing out.

/sarcasm/

The claim was made that ALL missles that were shot down, were only because they had a tracking device in them that the interceptor used.

Neither of you have shown a shred of evidence for that.

Of course sitting in a wheat field in the heartland of America, it’s difficult for someone with half a brain to understand the potential threat of an ICBM, SLBM, Space Launched or terrorist nuke brought in via truck.
==============================================
I mean, ya, it’s not like there were ever any missile silos here or anything . . . just saying.

Ah, $9.3 TRILLION.

Ya’ slipped a decimal point.