<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>gdp's Comments</title>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<link>https://www.intensedebate.com/users/675946</link>
		<description>Comments by Dodbuzz1</description>
<item>
<title>DoD Buzz : Psst, Congress! KC-X Award Thursday?</title>
<link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/02/22/psst-congress-kc-x-award-thursday/#IDComment129967824</link>
<description>William,  I have yet to encounter a human being who is well informed about Air Force matters who does not predict EADS as the winner, including a number of Boeing folks. Now Boeing may be gaming expectations but it is the conventional wisdom. It may be wrong, but... </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2011 01:07:52 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/02/22/psst-congress-kc-x-award-thursday/#IDComment129967824</guid>
</item><item>
<title>DoD Buzz : Senate Bows To Obama on Earmarks</title>
<link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/02/02/senate-bows-to-obama-on-earmarks/#IDComment125700431</link>
<description>Bronco46,  Tactically, the Senate gave way to Obama. Who started this all depends how far back you want to go. Disgraced former Rep. Tom DeLay, a powerful Republican, did more to embed the practice of accepting money in return for earmarks than anyone in recent memory. Then, after the GOP was tossed out from control of Congress, the electorate made clear its disgust with this approach. The Tea Party folks came along and certainly put pressure on the GOP to back away from earmarks and on the Democrats to do something. But I don&amp;#039;t think Sen. Inouye would have acted without Obama&amp;#039;s veto threat. </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 3 Feb 2011 14:50:54 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/02/02/senate-bows-to-obama-on-earmarks/#IDComment125700431</guid>
</item><item>
<title>OP FOR : WE HAVE RETURNED</title>
<link>http://op-for.com/2011/02/we-have-returned.html#IDComment125439873</link>
<description>Welcome back! </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 2 Feb 2011 14:55:07 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://op-for.com/2011/02/we-have-returned.html#IDComment125439873</guid>
</item><item>
<title>DoD Buzz : Bipartisan Senate Letter Urges KC-X Investigation </title>
<link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/01/27/bipartisan-senate-letter-urges-kc-x-investigation/#IDComment124341104</link>
<description>JIm C.  We&amp;#039;ve covered the actions of EADS (and Boeing) when they received the disk before. Very little new information surfaced in yesterday&amp;#039;s hearings beyond the Pentagon confirming that the information provided by the two companies appeared to be accurate. In sum: neither company looked at the information for very long (a few minutes -- tops) and both companies know what the other company knows it knows. </description>
<pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2011 14:32:29 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/01/27/bipartisan-senate-letter-urges-kc-x-investigation/#IDComment124341104</guid>
</item><item>
<title>DoD Buzz : Top Press Pub Nods to Buzz</title>
<link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/01/18/top-press-pub-nods-to-buzz/#IDComment122300326</link>
<description>Kind words, all! Thank you. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2011 14:35:23 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/01/18/top-press-pub-nods-to-buzz/#IDComment122300326</guid>
</item><item>
<title>DoD Buzz : Top Staffer Leaves HASC; New Subcommittee Chairs In</title>
<link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/01/14/old-staffers-leave-hasc-new-subcommittee-chairs-in/#IDComment122154809</link>
<description>Joe and LTTG,  Thanks for noticing. Fixed. </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2011 22:15:17 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/01/14/old-staffers-leave-hasc-new-subcommittee-chairs-in/#IDComment122154809</guid>
</item><item>
<title>DoD Buzz : Where&#039;s the Money? What to Expect in 2011</title>
<link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/12/29/wheres-the-money-what-to-expect-in-2011/#IDComment118808633</link>
<description>LTCJimbo, One of the hard truths of covering the USmilitary is that few sources provide much of the information.Service folks leak very specific info about their bailiwicks. OSDfolks fight policy battles through leaks, though thi s has dwindledunder the fearsome gaze of Gates. Loren and a few others like himpossess access to a wide array of folks in industry, in the services and in OSD. And for their own reasons, Loren and his colleagues are willing to speak on the record and in some detail. It&#039;s just the way it is. If service folks and OSD spoke more often and with more consistency on background everyone in the defense world would be better served.Happy New Year!Colin</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 31 Dec 2010 00:38:01 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/12/29/wheres-the-money-what-to-expect-in-2011/#IDComment118808633</guid>
</item><item>
<title>DoD Buzz : Coasties May Lose Cutters to OMB </title>
<link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/12/07/coasties-may-lose-cutters-to-omb/#IDComment114409142</link>
<description>Smitty, the image is a representation of a possible model -- not a picture of a real ship.  </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 8 Dec 2010 03:06:05 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/12/07/coasties-may-lose-cutters-to-omb/#IDComment114409142</guid>
</item><item>
<title>DoD Buzz : Coasties May Lose Cutters to OMB </title>
<link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/12/07/coasties-may-lose-cutters-to-omb/#IDComment114408950</link>
<description>John,  This source has excellent access within the service and within the White House. Credibility lies in the quality of a source -- not whether you have one, two, three or more sources. In the national security world, if you can find two sources willing to be cited you are likely well behind the curve. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 8 Dec 2010 03:04:44 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/12/07/coasties-may-lose-cutters-to-omb/#IDComment114408950</guid>
</item><item>
<title>DoD Buzz : What Could X-37B Do?</title>
<link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/12/03/what-could-x-37b-do/#IDComment113604476</link>
<description>Jim,    Coming from you this is high praise! Thanks. Funny how the best ideas sound like those we happen to have, isn&amp;#039;t it! Cheers, Colin  </description>
<pubDate>Fri, 3 Dec 2010 21:51:18 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/12/03/what-could-x-37b-do/#IDComment113604476</guid>
</item><item>
<title>DoD Buzz : Carter Shoves Hard on JSF Costs</title>
<link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/12/02/carter-shoves-hard-on-jsf-costs/#IDComment113423167</link>
<description>If Carter knew press was there, then folks are trying to soften the blow. </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 2 Dec 2010 21:46:47 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/12/02/carter-shoves-hard-on-jsf-costs/#IDComment113423167</guid>
</item><item>
<title>DoD Buzz : Skelton Warns Against &#039;Extreme&#039; Views</title>
<link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/12/01/skelton-warns-against-extreme-views/#IDComment113346575</link>
<description>Drake1,  You must read a different newspaper than the one I get...   </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 2 Dec 2010 14:06:48 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/12/01/skelton-warns-against-extreme-views/#IDComment113346575</guid>
</item><item>
<title>DoD Buzz : Prez Panel Wants $100B DoD Cut; Freeze Pay, Kill F-35B, EFV</title>
<link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/11/10/prez-panel-wants-100b-dod-cut/#IDComment109109334</link>
<description>Other departments are being asked to cut. Given that our website only focuses on defense (except when discussing strategy and national power overall) I left out the rest. If you click on the link in the story you can see details for the rest of government </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Nov 2010 00:25:58 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/11/10/prez-panel-wants-100b-dod-cut/#IDComment109109334</guid>
</item><item>
<title>DoD Buzz : Tea Partier: DoD Cuts On Table </title>
<link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/11/08/tea-partier-dod-cuts-on-table/#IDComment108638715</link>
<description>pfcem,  If Rand Paul is not an examplar of the Tea Party then perhaps no one is. He was one of the first to embrace the movement. He ran against the GOP&amp;#039;s favored candidate when he got started and he has appeared at many Tea Party events and exhorted people to embrace the movement. Just because he holds libertarian views does not remove him from the Tea Party fold. In fact, it may well place him more solidly inside. </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 8 Nov 2010 22:44:14 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/11/08/tea-partier-dod-cuts-on-table/#IDComment108638715</guid>
</item><item>
<title>DoD Buzz : PRC, Please Build Carriers</title>
<link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/11/05/prc-please-build-carriers/#IDComment108578559</link>
<description>Byron, He does indeed possess a fine, dry sense of humor but his argument was cogent and balanced. and fairly detailed. There was no evidence he was having his audience on, though he clearly knew some of his naval brethren would squirm uncomfortably. </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 8 Nov 2010 17:35:43 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/11/05/prc-please-build-carriers/#IDComment108578559</guid>
</item><item>
<title>DoD Buzz : New Commandant Hints at Future</title>
<link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/10/22/new-commandant-hints-at-future/#IDComment105554444</link>
<description>AA Cunningham,  Tue enough. I changed it. Cheers,  Colin </description>
<pubDate>Sat, 23 Oct 2010 04:03:57 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/10/22/new-commandant-hints-at-future/#IDComment105554444</guid>
</item><item>
<title>DoD Buzz : UK To Scrap F-35Bs, Cut 16K Troops</title>
<link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/10/18/uk-to-scrap-f-35bs-cut-16k-troops/#IDComment104879429</link>
<description>William C. and seesthrubs,    You&amp;#039;ll see I&amp;#039;ve edited your comments a bit. Feel free to bash each other&amp;#039;s ideas but not each other per the standing rules of the house. Thank you, the management.  </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 00:34:20 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/10/18/uk-to-scrap-f-35bs-cut-16k-troops/#IDComment104879429</guid>
</item><item>
<title>DoD Buzz : UK To Scrap F-35Bs, Cut 16K Troops</title>
<link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/10/18/uk-to-scrap-f-35bs-cut-16k-troops/#IDComment104834813</link>
<description>William C. Most of the cuts have been confirmed today. I was pretty confident in the information reported by the Telegraph as they are the Conservative&amp;#039;s lead paper in Britain and the UK convention is that such stories are leaked to your man on the basis of no attribution. Add to that the fact it was their political correspondent who did the story and I was almost certain it was spot on info from the prime minister&amp;#039;s people, if not the man himself. </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Oct 2010 18:55:08 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/10/18/uk-to-scrap-f-35bs-cut-16k-troops/#IDComment104834813</guid>
</item><item>
<title>DoD Buzz : UK To Scrap F-35Bs, Cut 16K Troops</title>
<link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/10/18/uk-to-scrap-f-35bs-cut-16k-troops/#IDComment104796114</link>
<description>Charles,  I&amp;#039;m checking on this part of it. Any info concerning size and composition of SAS is always hard to get. Any Buzz readers with insight on this issue are encouraged to let us know. No fingerprints of any kind.Also, given the expense of the SAS (live fire training, Belize, etc etc) you will get far fewer special operators than you will Army or Navy types. </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:21:12 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/10/18/uk-to-scrap-f-35bs-cut-16k-troops/#IDComment104796114</guid>
</item><item>
<title>DoD Buzz : GOP To Tea Party: Don&#039;t Cut Defense</title>
<link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/10/14/gop-to-tea-party-dont-cut-defense/#IDComment104067906</link>
<description>Justin,    Many in the Tea Party and some in the Democratic Party don&amp;#039;t just argue that we should save money by getting smarter about what we buy and how we buy it, they also argue we should make those savings by focussing on the homeland and pulling back from our global engagements. Combine that with their laser focus on reducing spending -- including defense -- and you could get a fundamental reshaping of U.S. forces. That is why I say they are potentially isolationist. That&amp;#039;s just descriptive -- it&amp;#039;s not a value judgement. </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 23:23:45 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/10/14/gop-to-tea-party-dont-cut-defense/#IDComment104067906</guid>
</item>	</channel>
</rss>