NHNE Fast-Breaking News:
Update on Jim Lord's Navy Report
Sunday, August 22, 1999
"News,
Inspiration,
& Consumer Protection
for Spiritual Seekers"
------------
NHNE Fast-Breaking News Update:
Update on Jim Lord's Navy Report
Sunday, August 22, 1999
------------
Total NHNE Mailing List:
Last Mailing: 2137
This Mailing: 2141
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
CONTENTS:
Quotables
Introduction
By David Sunfellow
The Navy Utility Assessment
By Steve Davis
Recapping All the Information
By Steve Davis
Koskinen Responds to the Lord Report
By John Koskinen
Navy Denies It Expects Y2K Failures
Excerpts from an Associated Press Story
The Disguise
By Gary North
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
QUOTABLES:
"Understand this: Because of the way that this issue was handled
by Jim [Lord] (and everyone who took it as a serious analysis of infrastructure
readiness) Y2K activism has been seriously damaged. Jim and the others
have greatly embarrassed themselves and that embarrassment may ultimately
hurt our preparedness efforts. I do not want to be associated with the
extremism, nor the opportunism that is so evident in the efforts to
hype the Navy report.
"As has been described in great detail by both Peter [de Jager]
and me, there is no reason to think that the Navy report was a true
assessment of the current or potential condition of the infrastructure.
More and more reports are coming out indicating that the Navy never
even contacted many of the utilities in question."
--- Steve Davis, 8/22/99, from a post to the Civic Preparedness Discussion
List entitled, "Re: This list, the Navy, and our future direction"
http://4hlists.org/scripts/lyris.pl?visit=civicprep&id=93824208
------------
"I know Mr. Lord personally and cannot imagine he would deliberately
and maliciously misrepresent the purpose of this document and can only
suggest that his 'source' failed to explain to him that the document
is a contingency planning tool. It's even possible, I hope likely, that
the 'source' who leaked the document was also ignorant of its intent
and just incorrectly assumed it was indeed a secret assessment report."
--- Peter de Jager, "The Y2K Pentagon Papers - A Clarification"
http://www.year2000.com/y2kpentagon.html
------------
"Maybe the document really was posted on some obscure Navy site:
'buried in plain site.' It then got pulled. No one will say why. There
is no doubt why: it was too explosive, as we have seen in the last 48
hours. The Y2K happy-face brigade is now in full defensive mode. This
document the equivalent of the semen-stained dress or the secret White
House tapes. This is the big one. Lord's posting of it is the equivalent
of Matt Drudge's exposure of the spiked Newsweek article on Monica.
This is like Alexander Butterfield's casual remark to the Watergate
Senate panel about the secret White House tape recorders. This is what
blows the cover off the cover-up...
"The main issue is not this document, any more than the main issue
was Miss Lewinsky's dress or the DNA test results. The main issue is
what lies behind the Navy report. The urban public utilities that keep
millions of people alive are not compliant. Let us not forget this.
The vast majority of the world's public utilities are not compliant,
even in their 'mission-critical' systems. Do not be sidetracked by the
Koskinen side show. The problem we face is the problem the Navy evaluated
and ranked: the non compliant status of the cities' public utilities."
---Gary North, 8/21/99, "The Disguise"
http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/5847
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
INTRODUCTION
By David Sunfellow
Three days ago, I sent out a fast-breaking news update concerning "The
Pentagon Papers of Y2K" website that Jim Lord created (http://www.jimlord.to/).
Many other grassroot organizers/activists around the country also alerted
their networks to Lord's website and it wasn't long before an ASSOCIATED
PRESS story on the Navy report was picked up by many mainstream newspapers:
"Navy Y2K Report Predicts 'Likely' Utility Outages in Several Cities"
(WASHINGTON POST, 8/20/1999)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-08/20/074l-082099-idx.html
"Navy Predicts Widespread Y2K Failure"
(YAHOO! NEWS, 8/20/1999)
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/19990820/tc/y2k_failures_2.html
"Navy Study Predicts Y2K Utility Failures"
(BERGEN RECORD, 8/20/1999)
http://www.bergen.com/news/y2k199908207.htm
"Navy Foresees Widespread Y2K Utilities Problems"
(FLORIDA SUN-SENTINEL, 8/20/1999)
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/daily/detail/0,1136,23000000000105091,00.html
"Navy Report Predicts Widespread Y2K Failures for Many Cities"
(SILICON VALLEY NEWS, 8/20/1999)
http://www.sjmercury.com/svtech/news/breaking/merc/docs/056886.htm
"Navy Says Y2K Problems 'Likely'"
(EVANSVILLE COURIER & PRESS, 8/20/1999)
http://www.courierpress.com/cgi-bin/view.cgi?/199908/20/+y2k1_news.html+19990820+news
At the same time, an intense behind-the-scenes effort began to find
out just how accurate Lord's claims were. John Koskinen, the U.S. Y2K
Czar, was immediately contacted about the report by Steve Davis of COALITION
2000 (http://www.coalition2000.org/). Davis posted Koskinen's reply
to the Civic Preparedness Discussion List (http://4hlists.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=civicprep&text_mode=0),
which is monitored by many of the nation's most active, knowledgeable
and well-connected Y2K leaders. Davis followed up Koskinen's post with
two posts of his own which described the whole situation. The Navy also
jumped into fray backing up Koskinen's claims that the report Lord published
was outdated and that current Navy predictions weren't as grim as those
contained in the report Lord published. Lord, as far as I know, has
yet to comment publicly on what Koskinen and the Navy has said about
the report he published.
So where is everything now?
Since Steve Davis does a good job outlining the evolution of this fast-moving
story, I will let him provide the blow-by-blow account of what happened.
I would, however, encourage you to withhold judgement concerning what
Davis and Koskinen have to say until we hear from Lord. As far as I
can see, there are grains or truth in everyone's position and all of
the facts that shaped this story are probably not yet out on the table
for everyone to see.
What are my thoughts on this story? Here are a few things I've been
pondering:
1. Many people do not believe the government and others in positions
of power and responsibility are being honest. This is creating a profound
sense of suspicion and setting the stage for people to react with great
fervor when anything comes along that seems to confirm these suspicions.
As far as I can see, these suspicions are based on truth -- important
information IS being withheld, spin-doctored, and altered. But you and
I are probably guilty of the same antics: our beliefs, personal agendas
and dysfunctions often doctor the information we encounter and pass
on to others. I don't know what can be done about this except to keep
a close eye on both fronts: while we are trying to sort out truth from
fiction when it comes to others, we also have to keep an eye on our
own tendencies to view and spin the information we come across. I think
we also need to cultivate a generous sense of compassion for those of
us who may, on occasion, fail to be as level-headed and objective as
possible or who may be trapped in sensitive situations that make full
disclosure difficult.
2. The Internet has emerged as a wild card of extraordinary power. Spreading
news of all kinds can take place very quickly and have far-reaching
effects in record-breaking time. I've said many times that I think the
Internet is playing a profound role in our evolution as a species. Walls,
of all kinds, are being torn down. It is becoming increasingly impossible
to keep secrets. And perhaps most interesting of all, influence on the
Net does not depend primarily on external credentials or positions of
power in the real world. Instead, it depends on knowing how to use the
Net, on being connected to networks that can spread your message, and,
most important of all, having something to say that others find compelling
enough to read and share with others. Bottom line: I don't think the
powers that be are going to be able to control the flow of information
online as effectively as they control the flow of information offline
which, in turn, may lead to a lot of sleepless nights for those who
are used to managing public perceptions and actions.
3. After all is said and done, we still don't know how serious Y2K is
going to be -- and probably won't until all the Y2K trigger dates have
come and gone and done whatever mischief they are going to do. What
we do know is that deadlines continue to be missed, more money continues
to be spent than originally budgeted, those that are most aware of this
problem are making increasingly serious attempts to protect themselves
and their particular areas of influence from harm, and a great many
things -- both good and bad -- are happening behind the scenes that
we know very little about. Since bad things "could happen",
the wisest course of action still seems to be to be prepared. (As a
footnote, Koskinen and troops are planning to revise their current preparedness
recommendation from a 3-day winter storm scenario to a 3 to 7 day hurricane
scenario. While many grassroots activists believe this is still too
little too late, raising the level of concern is, nevertheless, another
indication that government circles are, indeed, taking Y2K very seriously
-- and we should, too.)
4. Like it or not, we live in profoundly uncertain times. Along with
making physical preparations for potential disturbances, it seems clear
we need to sharpen our sense of discernment, learn how embrace different
viewpoints at the same time, cultivate the ability to ride roller coaster
events without losing our heads, and find ways to get along with people
who see things very differently than we do. Similarly, as the immovable
Y2K deadlines come closer and an increasing number of people realize
the seriousness of the situation, I think we can expect more episodes
like this in the future. Using the birth process as an analogy, the
labor pains have now begun and we can expect them to increase in both
frequency and intensity as Y2K moves from theory and speculation to
the real world.
That's my two cents. Now let's hear from Steve Davis, John Koskinen,
the Navy, and never-at-a-loss-for-words, Gary North. Much of this information
is redundant, but I wanted to be sure everyone in our network was fully
informed about this unfolding drama...
With Love & Best Wishes,
David Sunfellow
P.S. Several of you wrote in asking why you couldn't access Jim Lord's
website. Here's a little information from Y2K analyst Michael Hyatt
(http://www.michaelhyatt.com/) that explains what happened:
"Jim's website is located on a secure server in Tonga. He did not
want someone in the U.S. to shut him down because they didn't like the
message. If you get an error message when you try to access the site,
keep trying. Jim had over 400,000 hits to his home page yesterday [August
20], and the server has gone down several times since then."
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
THE NAVY UTILITY ASSESSMENT
By Steve Davis
http://www.DavisLogic.com/NavyAssessment.htm
BACKGROUND
On August 19th, 1999 the world was rocked (not really) by Jim Lord's
report "Secret Government Study Reveals Massive Y2K Problems in
American Cities". According to Jim, the U.S. Navy was keeping horrible
secrets from us. Here was the confirmation of our worst fears! But hey,
there is always more to the story...
THE REPORT
Jim Lord's report alarmingly suggests that:
-- This information is vital to the well being of tens of millions of
American citizens.
-- The federal government is withholding it from the public.
-- One need not be even a mild "doom and gloomer" to realize
that failures of the magnitude indicated in this Navy Department study
are potentially catastrophic.
-- The lives and health of millions of people are at stake.
-- The national economy is threatened.
-- Our way of life is jeopardized.
-- The national security is at risk.
The report got a lot of attention on the Internet and the story was
picked up the same day by the Associated Press. This all moved me to
look into this story -- what I found has prompted me to spend some time
getting to the bottom of it. Now, in an effort to put this in perspective,
here is the rest of the story....
Seems Jim had been given a copy of an official Navy report dated June
1999 and titled, "Master Utility List." While he claims to
have gotten the report he says he does not have the detailed information
and he is launching a Freedom of Information Act campaign to get it.
The report he wrote started with these scary questions:
How many days could New York City survive without water and sewer services?
How long would it take to evacuate eight million people in the dead
of winter? Would thousands die in the process? Tens of thousands? More?
When would the rioting and looting begin? How many National Guard troops
would it take to control the largest city in the nation? What unthinkable
devastation would be wrought on the global financial system? How might
our enemies seize on the ensuing panic and confusion?
Are these the crazed speculations of a Y2K alarmist? Not if you know
what the US Navy and Marine Corps know. According to a they believe
"total failure is likely" for New York City's water and sewer
systems because of Y2K problems. Interesting questions but is there
a reason to be so concerned? How accurate is this information? How long
would a disruption be if it were to occur? Is this really the big deal
that it is made out to be?
THE SKINNY
I was amazed to hear about this grim report and quickly contacted John
Koskinen at the President's Council. John already knew about the Navy
assessment as he had been contacted by a concerned citizen the week
before. According to John, the Navy report referenced by Mr. Lord was
not a "Secret Government Study" but was prepared by the Navy
as part of its risk assessment for bases and installation. It was publicly
available on a web site until a few weeks ago. He has provided me with
a copy of the last public version of it dated August 1999. He has given
me permission to share it and I am doing so. But first, understand what
the background is and please be careful to note the headings and the
legend that appears at the end. According to John, the report reflects
an attempt by the armed services to begin to collect assessment information
about local infrastructures. Like everyone else, the armed services
were having a lot of trouble earlier this year getting people to tell
them anything.
The ratings for both total and partial "Likelihood of Failure"
are on a scale of 0 to 3. These were based on anecdotal information
that was updated over time. These rating are intended to be used by
navy personnel in preparing contingency plans and do not reflect "the
official government assessment". Most significantly, which Jim
does not note and may not have known (although he made no inquiries
that John knows of ) the instructions were to put a "3" (risk
of failure) as the default if information was not available. Earlier
this year when base commanders and others were trying to determine the
status of local infrastructures here and around the world there wasn't
much information available, which is why there were so many "3"s.
So, to Jim's credit, the report did look grim.
Jim apparently did not research this information before going public.
Had he done so he may have discovered the scoring methodology and the
fact that the report has been updated. The latest report does not look
so bad - there are a lot of blanks however. Here is the latest version
of the Navy Assessment as html:
http://www.DavisLogic.com/navy.htm
WHERE I AM COMING FROM
Let me first say that I take Y2K as seriously as the next person --
I would not be donating so much of my time on Y2K preparedness if I
was not concerned. I am equally concerned about the quality of information
used to make our risk assessments. The Internet is a powerful tool to
share information and it can be easily used and abused. Case in point,
Jim's story.
I feel an overwhelming responsibility to make sure that only the best
and most credible information gets wide distribution. I know all the
arguments about share it all and let people figure it out for themselves
-- I don't buy them. Few people will take the time to ponder and understand
these weighty issues. We "commentators" owe the public nothing
but our best understanding of these issues.
I have nothing against Jim Lord. I met him a year ago in Boulder and
found him to be a rather nice chap. I am also a commentator and on that
account we are on equal footing -- but with clearly different opinions
and modes of operation. We actually were on a radio show together and
had very similar messages but I am not quite as pessimistic as Jim.
Now about John Koskinen. I have had far more interaction and disagreement
with John than with Jim. We have not always agreed on things -- I would
have liked to see the government take a much more proactive approach
on preparedness. However, I have grown to trust John and know him to
be a credible and trustworthy source of information. While recent and
past Washington embarrassments make it hard to think that you can count
on the government to give you the truth, I trust John as a source of
information and I know that he has far better information than any of
us do.
Having worked with many governments and contingency planners over the
past several years I see this as a very plausible explanation and a
logical part of the Navy contingency planning process. I am surprised
that such a potentially volatile and poorly prepared document was on
a web site and I agree with the decision to take it down.
We have often seen contingency plans taken as an admission of "really
serious problems are going to occur" when we know that it is only
good business to prepare. I am going around the country encouraging
such preparations because I understand the fact that there is increased
risk. I am also encourage us to prepare. But... let's not assume that
the Navy has decided that the world is going to hell in an hand basket!
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
RECAPPING ALL THE INFORMATION
By Steve Davis
Saturday, August 21, 1999
From the Civic Preparedness Discussion List
This has been an interesting topic to be sure. I thought that I would
take the time to recap all of the information that I have received to
date:
1. This utility assessment information was originally "discovered"
on the web by an IT professional doing research. He did not make it
public but brought it to the attention of Koskinen/Bennett/Dodd back
on August 5 (see http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001HGi).
2. Koskinen was not aware of it before this but quickly checked into
it and informed him that the DoD was taking down the site and reviewing
it and others to be sure they were appropriate for public access.
3. Mr. Lord got a hold of it, apparently did not try to check into it,
and proceeded to use it to create a public furor. The TEOTWAWNI crowd
saw it as validation of there worst fears. The administration saw it
as a public info crisis. The press reported it without mush fanfare
or investigation. They all quickly dealt with it in their own way.
4. The Navy has had a press conference to explain this and now put the
latest info back on-line (with more explanation) at http://www.nfesc.navy.mil/y2k/utilinfo/MatrixHeader.html
5. This story is ending as quickly as it started
CONCLUSION: This was an amazing opportunity to get an early view of
the kind of crisis communication, public information, and rumor control
issues that we will all face in the coming months. (See the Public Information
Chapter of the Millennium Management Workbook at http://www.nfesc.navy.mil/y2k/utilinfo/MatrixHeader.html
for some good guidance on public info)
SUMMARY: Consider this an exercise. We got to see how rapidly, in the
Internet age, good and bad information can be disseminated and how it
can be effectively "spun" in any direction. We saw how the
media continues to lack in providing in-depth coverage of these issues.
And, we saw how important it is to carefully explain and display data
so that people who see it can understand it.
We also saw how people will believe whatever they want to regardless
of the source.
Those interested in reading more on this can visit my web site at http://www.DavisLogic.com/
Now lets get back to our risk assessments, contingency planning, and
preparedness.
Good luck!
Steve Davis, President, DavisLogic
PO Box 394, Simpsonville, MD 21150
(410) 730-5677
http://www.DavisLogic.com/
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
KOSKINEN RESPONDS TO THE LORD REPORT
Posted in the Civic Preparedness Discussion List by Steve Davis
Friday, August 20, 1999
http://4hlists.org/scripts/lyris.pl?visit=civicprep&id=93760371
From John Koskinen:
Good to have a dialogue going here.
The source for my information was the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
I was comfortable with the validity of the information because, as I
noted in one of my responses, the site had been brought to my attention
in early August by a member of the public who couldn't figure out what
all the numbers meant. I don't have the specific site for you but the
material was taken down to update it and make clearer the distinction
between assessments of real risks as opposed to presumptions based on
the difficulty of obtaining information. The material will be back in
the public domain in the near future. In the meantime, it's significant
that between the time of the alleged June report and the material on
the site in August, many of the "3's" had been downgraded.
My basic problem with all of this is that people should at least check
with someone in reasonable authority before claiming to the world that
there's a deep and secret conspiracy to mislead not only the public
but troops of the United States armed services. In this case, I think
that Mr. Lord has been misled by his sources.
I appreciate your pursuing the matter. For your information, here's
the text of a message I sent to one of my friends who had taken Mr.
Lord's advice and was sending his article to everyone they knew. (This
was not Steve Davis who had the courtesy, as usual, to ask me for my
side of the story.)
------------
Before you send information to everyone you know, you should check to
see what you can determine about the validity of the report. Unfortunately,
Mr. Lord did not do that either.
The short of the story is that the information Jim Lord has released
today with great fanfare was on a web site accessible by the public
until August 10. (It was actually brought to my attention by a member
of the public who had some questions about it.) So there hasn't been
any suppression of disturbing evidence. Throughout the earlier months,
updates were regularly sent throughout the Navy which was probably what
Mr. Lord's "June report" was. The report went up on the web
at the request of a Navy workshop since many fleet users wanted to facilitate
access to the most current data. (The document was taken down so that
it could be updated and the information more clearly explained since
people found it hard to understand.)
Second, the ratings were based on anecdotal information that was updated
over time. Most significantly, which Mr. Lord does not note and may
not have known (although he made no inquiries that I know of ) the instructions
were to put a "3" (risk of failure) as the default if information
was not available. Earlier this year when base commanders and others
were trying to determine the status of local infrastructures here and
around the world there wasn't much information available, which is why
there were so many "3"s.
The lack of local information was one of the reasons we launched our
"Community Conversations" initiative in May and why DoD has
a related initiative they have asked all their base commanders to lead
in their local communities, either by supporting the community's own
conversation or helping to organize one in the absence of any other
facilitators.
Third, the people the leadership at DoD and the services care most about
are their troops. The advice, which Mr. Lord finds inconsistent, which
was sent to the troops by the Secretary of the Navy -- which is anything
but alarmist -- reflects the low level of risks from Y2K as seen by
the department leadership. (But they did recommend personal preparedness
and continue to do so.)
Finally, in response to requests, here is the report as it was last
available to the public on August 10. While it is much less exciting
than the "June report" cited by Mr. Lord, it should still
be borne in mind that the scoring was:
0 = not likely to occur
1 = occurrence improbable
2 = occurrence probable
3 = occurrence is likely to occur OR no information
As we move through the fall, we have enough interesting and important
matters to pursue that we don't have to also be making mountains out
of public molehills. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you would send
this memo along to all those you sent your earlier message.
Many thanks. I look forward to seeing you again soon.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
NAVY DENIES IT EXPECTS Y2K FAILURES
By Robert Burns
AP Military Writer
Friday, August 20, 1999
Excerpts:
Although the Navy has not verified that all cities and communities near
its installations are fully prepared for the Y2K problem, its survey
of local utilities is showing a steady improvement, said Rear Adm. Louis
M. Smith.
"I don't think we have a problem with utilities," Smith, commander
of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, told reporters at a hastily
called Pentagon news conference.
The Navy also issued a statement saying, "There are no indications
of likely widespread failures of water, electricity, gas or sewer."
The Navy is compiling a database to track the probability of Y2K problems
with electric power, water, natural gas and sewer services in communities
near Navy and Marine Corps installations. A recent version of the report
showed that partial failures in electric utilities were probable or
likely in communities that serve nearly 60 Navy and Marine Corps installations.
Smith said that reflected a "worst-case scenario" in which
those utilities whose Y2K preparedness was unknown to the Navy were
assumed to be likely problems. The most recent version of the database,
dated Aug. 19 and including more complete data, showed about 20 likely
problem utilities, he said.
In its own assessment of Y2K readiness, the White House recently concluded
that national electrical failures are "highly unlikely." It
also called disruptions in water service "increasingly unlikely."
Smith said the Navy's assessment is "right in sync" with the
White House's.
The Navy had posted its database on the Internet but took it down because
of what it considered inaccurate and misleading reports of what the
data means. Rear Adm. Thomas Jurkowsky said the database would be put
back on the Internet with accompanying text explaining the data.
Complete story:
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WAPO/19990820/V000890-082099-idx
.html
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
THE DISGUISE
By Gary North
http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/5847
One of the strategies used by every bureaucracy at one time or another
is to consider making a major but unpopular change in policy, or to
consider the effects of some trend that threatens the survival of the
bureaucracy. This proposed policy change or study of impending doom
poses major risks to the developers. Somebody outside the inner circle
may find out about it. So, these incriminating documents are disguised.
They are put in a form that can be dismissed later as "tentative,"
or "theoretical," or "tools for discussion." The
disguise is crucial. If an incriminating document is discovered by the
press or the shareholders or the voters, it can be shrugged off. "Nothing
to it."
The Navy document that was posted by Jim Lord did not wear any disguise.
That is why the PR flaks are in panic mode. The document posted by Lord
makes rational assessments. It does not say "everything is going
to fail," contrary to Mr. de Jager's description of a phantom first
draft of the document. On the contrary, it sets forth three categories
of cities at risk. Then it calmly breaks down the risks into four failure
categories: electricity, water, gas, sewers. Then it makes estimates
of each of these for every city. Each city is different. This is cold,
careful, rational planning for disaster.
Where is the evidence that this is a "worst-case scenario"
document? If it were, there would be only one category of failure: total.
The document is the opposite of a worst-case scenario document. It has
multiple risk factors and multiple causation. This is a calm, carefully
organized planning document by military experts who are trained to make
life-and-death judgments.
This disaster assessment has a reason for its existence: to see what
may be facing Navy units in 2000. It does not assess all cities. It
assesses those with Navy facilities in them.
The PR brigade is now frantically trying to stitch together a retroactive
disguise for the version of the report posted by Lord. They are trying
to say that it was just a kind of academic exercise. Koskinen/Davis/de
Jager say that the Navy was saying: "Let's play contingency planning,"
as if contingency planning were some kind of game. They think we will
not notice the obvious: Contingency planning in the final year before
a looming disaster strikes is deadly serious. There is no time for play-pretend
scenarios.
To the White House's PR flak, I say: I trust the U.S. Navy more than
I trust a "fix-it" lawyer. To the Canadian ex-programmer,
I say: I trust the U.S. Navy to assess its risks more than I trust you
assess mine.
Maybe the document really was posted on some obscure Navy site: "buried
in plain site." It then got pulled. No one will say why. There
is no doubt why: it was too explosive, as we have seen in the last 48
hours. The Y2K happy-face brigade is now in full defensive mode. This
document the equivalent of the semen-stained dress or the secret White
House tapes. This is the big one. Lord's posting of it is the equivalent
of Matt Drudge's exposure of the spiked Newsweek article on Monica.
This is like Alexander Butterfield's casual remark to the Watergate
Senate panel about the secret White House tape recorders. This is what
blows the cover off the cover-up...
The main issue is not this document, any more than the main issue was
Miss Lewinsky's dress or the DNA test results. The main issue is what
lies behind the Navy report. The urban public utilities that keep millions
of people alive are not compliant. Let us not forget this. The vast
majority of the world's public utilities are not compliant, even in
their "mission-critical" systems. Do not be sidetracked by
the Koskinen side show. The problem we face is the problem the Navy
evaluated and ranked: the non compliant status of the cities' public
utilities.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
David Sunfellow
Founder & Publisher
NewHeavenNewEarth (NHNE)
NHNE:
eMail: nhne@nhne.com
Web: http://www.nhne.com/
Phone: (928) 282-6120
Fax: (815) 346-1492
Subscribe:
send a blank message to nhnelist-on@mail-list.com
Current NHNE Posts:
http://dispatch.mail-list.com/archives/nhnelist/
Want to support NHNE?
http://www.nhne.com/main/donations.html
wild2k:
eMail: wild2k@wild2k.com
Web: http://www.wild2k.com/
Regular Mail:
P.O. Box 2242
Sedona, AZ USA 86339
