Final Parsing of Leaked Navy Report?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

All right, I'm temporarily thread-happy. Forgive me.

1. We can't know how deep the data went or how high the assembly of the report went or was reported but whoever gave to Lord considered it new-enough and important-enough news to take risks to "out it." And the info sure made Lord nervous. The idea that it was all really out there all along is specious.

2. Y2K reports have been totally debunked on some occasions ("we've moved beyond that." "That used to be the case but isn't today.") That this was merely described as "overly cautious contingency" planning suggests that it maps well enough to actual fears held at the Koskinen/White House level as well that they don't dare deny it flat-out.

3. The rapid publication of Koskinen's views and packaging of the factoid by the national media says that this info was viewed as requiring top-priority response and control by K. It is no big deal per se that he can place Y2K news ASAP in media (heck, he is PR, remember?) but the control factor is interesting.

It is not mutually exclusive that the data can't be flat-out denied AND that the control relates to panic issues (not so much the public as the markets). New York with water and sewer down?! London with electric, gas, water and sewer down?! That would get my attention if I were a market maker .....

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 20, 1999

Answers

It seems to me that the real question is, if this data was preliminary, where is the accurate data? Are we supposed to believe that in mid-August 1999 the Pentagon does not have a handle on whether or not its bases will fizzle out come 1/1/00? If so, that in itself is cause for alarm.

Then again, the accurate data may indeed already have been compiled by the Pentagon. And maybe it IS classified.

-- a (a@a.a), August 20, 1999.


I believe Senator Thompson (R-TN) stated that some of the Senate briefings on Y2K were closed because they covered classified information. Hmmm...

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), August 20, 1999.

The August version of the spreadsheet has appeared on Steve Davis' site:

www.davislogic.com

netscape doesn't like the download. use Internet explorer...

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), August 20, 1999.


Russ,

Steve Davis has HUGE conflicts of interest. Evidently he has a peice of the action on the Government's Communication Control Center. If this joker had any sense of intregitry, he would stay silent on this issue. OTOH, he is acting as a mouth piece of the "K" man.

If Kosskinen has an updated Navy report why does'nt he put it on a Government web page instead of giving it to Steve Davis?

-- WAtcher7 (anon@anon.com), August 20, 1999.


see a's post above for answer.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 20, 1999.


Can anyone verify that Steve Davis has government contracts to work on the Communication Control Center? I would ask him but his arrogant response about my ability to reach a conclusion left me cold.

Besides, he worked on the Montgomery County remediation and that turned out to be full of misinformation.

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), August 20, 1999.


BigDog,

You may want to take a look at...

Koskinen speaks again. Paging Jim Lord?

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001GxB

Mike,

Parse Steve's comments... down on this thread...

Trying to add all new thread links to this one...

Koskinen's "Take" On Jim Lord's Pentagon Papers (Steve Davis-- Coalition 2000))

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001GgI



-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 20, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ