Raye - Possibly relevant to the Chinese Embassy Bombing??? - Philip
"Q: So if they're looking at video to help them decide which targets to strike, that's not sped up as well? For example, the mistake that was made on the Chinese embassy -- were they looking at video that was run three times faster than normal and deciding that that wasn't the Chinese embassy, that it was a real target?
Mr. Crowley: Let's not stray too far afield here"
"FROM PHOENIX, ARIZONA
The Truth in Media Global Watch Bulletin, such as the one enclosed below, can be accessed at our Web site: www.truthinmedia.org , the "TiM GW Bulletins" section.
You can also check out Djurdjevic's weekly columns on New World Order at "beograd.com" in English - http://news.beograd.com/english/articles_and_opinion/djurdjevic/index.html , or in Serbian - http://news.beograd.com/srpski/clanci_i_misljenja/djurdjevic/index.html .
------------------------------------------------------------------- Truth in Media's GLOBAL WATCH Bulletin 2000/1-3 8-Jan-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Topic: BALKAN AFFAIRS -----------------------------------
Frankfurt 1. NATO Commander, Gen. Clark, Misled the World about
Grdelica Train Bombing?
Brussels 2. NATO Has No Intention of Honoring Kosovo Agreement
Washington 3. The Pentagon Press Briefing Transcript
-------------
1. NATO's Gen. Clark Misled the World about Grdelica Train Bombing?
FRANKFURT, Jan. 6 A videotape shown by NATO to explain the killing of at least 14 civilians aboard a train on a bridge in Serbia last April was shown at triple its real speed, the German daily Frankfurter Rundschau reports in its Thursday, Jan. 6 edition.
The alliance had sought to excuse the killing of the civilians by saying the train had been traveling too fast for the trajectory of the missiles to have been changed in time.
NATO warplanes fired two missiles at the 50 metre (yard)-long bridge over the Juzna Morava River at Grdelica Klisura, some 300 kilometers (180 miles) south of Belgrade on April 12 during its campaign to force Belgrade's troops to leave Kosovo.
NATO's supreme commander in Europe, US General Wesley Clark shortly afterwards showed two videotapes of the train appearing to be traveling fast on the bridge, and said it had then been impossible to alter the missiles' trajectories.
The Frankfurt newspaper said the two videotapes were both shown at three times normal speed.
A spokesman for NATO'S military command in Mons, Belgium, acknowledged in a telephone interview with the Agence France Presse that those images had been altered by "a technical problem." --- TiM Ed. A "technical problem?" In plain English, such a technicality is called - LYING. And DENYING the truth. Which is why we contemporaneously (!) called the NATO/Pentagon spokespeople the "lie and deny" PR news spinners (see http://www.truthinmedia.org/Kosovo/war-peace.html ). We knew that the filth would ultimately ooze out. Sooner, rather than later, thanks to the Internet. Just as in the case of Clark's boss and sponsor Bill Clinton who once said "I did not have sex with that woman" (Lewinsky).
Yeah, right. And the sun will rise in the west. ---
The Grdelica bridge train footage, recorded by a camera installed in the warhead of one of the missiles that destroyed the bridge and train, were altered during the process of being copied for screening, said the NATO spokesman.
He said NATO was aware of the problem since last October but did not consider it "useful" to disclose it. "We did not deem it useful to go public with this information after we noticed it," the Frankfurt newspaper quoted a US air force spokesman in Europe as saying. --- TiM Ed. "Useful?" Of course, not. Not if you're in the "lie and deny" business. Since when is telling the truth "useful" to war criminals? (also check out the "Clinton General" (see S99-119, "Peace" 13, Item 1 - http://www.truthinmedia.org/Kosovo/Peace/ps13.html , among some other TiM pieces about Gen. Clark's rise and fall from power). ---
The Frankfurt newspaper also said the US Air Force, which carried out the bombardment, had not noticed for some months that the tape had been speeded up, and also attributed it to a technological error. --- TiM Ed.: Yeah, right. Judge this NATO/Pentagon "BS" for yourself, from a Jan. 6 Pentagon press conference excerpt, which we enclose at the end of this Bulletin.
Whoever the USAF pilots were that carried out this heinous strike against Serb and other civilians deserve the same fate as that of the German war criminals who were hanged also for "only following orders."
But not before those who gave the orders to bomb Serbia, such as "Adolf Clinton," "Madam Halfbright," William Cohen, Wesley Kanne Clark, Sam Berger, or others now engaged in a cover-up of their mass murder, get to have God's justice served to them first.
For additional personal gut-wrenching stories concerning this particular NATO strike, check out the TiM editor's lectures, such as - http://www.truthinmedia.org/Tour-de-Canada/tor-12-99.html . ---
------------
2. NATO Has No Intention of Honoring Its Kosovo Agreement
PHOENIX, Jan. 7 - Russia and Yugoslavia will pose new challenges to NATO's authority in Kosovo by mid-summer if the Western military alliance doesn't permit Yugoslav soldiers back into the enclave as mandated by U.N. terms that ended the conflict there last summer, the WorldNetDaily's Jon E. Dougherty reported on Jan. 7, the Orthodox Christian Christmas Day..
"At issue is whether NATO is prepared to honor Annex 2 of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1244, signed June 15, 1999, which states Yugoslavia was to be permitted to send a small, lightly armed contingent of soldiers to Kosovo to guard cultural sites, the country's territorial borders, and to help clear landmines by June 2000," the WND report said.
However, U.S. Gen. Wesley Clark, supreme commander of NATO forces in Europe, says that the alliance is not prepared to honor the agreement. --- TiM Ed.: Let's freeze this frame for a moment* The "Clinton General," NATO's "Supreme Being," as some of his subordinates have derisively referred to Clark, said it's okay to go back on one's word of honor. No surprise there, given that men like Clinton or Clark have no honor*(especially in light of the preceding Grdelica train/bridge story). ---
"The Yugoslav Army will not be authorized to return to Kosovo," Clark told the Montenegrin daily newspaper Monitor. "If by chance it tries, it will be prevented."
Ominously, Clark's statement came on the heels of statements made by a number of Yugoslav and Russian officials indicating they intend to hold NATO and the U.N. to their word.
In mid-December, Gen. Nebojsa Pavkovic, commander of Yugoslavia's Third Army, restated an earlier prediction, made shortly after NATO forces ended its 1999 bombing campaign, that he intended to lead Serb troops back to Kosovo by June 2000 (S99-142, KFOR "Peacefarce" 36 - http://www.truthinmedia.org/Kosovo/Peace/ps36.html ).
In addition, Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, said in an interview with ( http://www.smip.sv.gov.yu/Bilteni/Engleski/si311299_e.html ) Politika Magazine last month that NATO's current occupation of Kosovo was "temporary," and that "nobody can take [Kosovo] away from us."
Complicating the situation is Russia's renewed involvement in Yugoslavia, which began to shift Dec. 22, four days after elections in the Russian Duma. Those elections saw significant victories for nationalists who support new hard line policies directed against the West and enjoined by interim president Vladimir Putin.
The official Russian news agency, ITAR-Tass, reported Dec. 22 that the head of the Defense Ministry's Main Directorate for International Military Cooperation, Col. Gen. Leonid Ivashov, said that Russia "will revise the forms and degree of its participation" if NATO refuses to honor the U.N. agreement with Belgrade.
Ivashov added, "Russia is not considering any ways of its withdrawal and exit from Kosovo," signaling Moscow's intent not to withdraw Russian troops from Kosovo as planned, but would "stop cooperating" with NATO.
The next day, Tass reported, Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev, leading a delegation of high ranking military officers, traveled to Belgrade for talks with Milosevic to discuss, among other things, bilateral relations with Belgrade and the situation in Kosovo. Following those talks, Milosevic honored the visiting Russian officers and praised renewed Moscow-Belgrade military cooperation.
3. The Pentagon Press Briefing Transcript
WASHINGTON, Jan. 6 Here are some excerpts from the barbed-wire exchanges which took place between the media and the Pentagon spokesmen on Jan. 6, about the three-fold speeded up video of the strike on the Grdelica bridge on April 12:
N E W S B R I E F I N G OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (PUBLIC AFFAIRS) WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301
DoD News Briefing P.J. Crowley, PDASD PA and Craig Quigley, RADM, USN, DASD PA Thursday, January 06, 2000 - 2:00 p.m. EST
Q: There was a German newspaper report that some of the video from -- gun camera video of a misguided -- of a mishap during the Kosovo conflict was played for the public at something like three times normal speed. Is that report correct? And if so, why did that happen, and what was the impact?
Admiral Quigley: I have been largely away from the office this morning. Thankfully, P.J. Crowley has not, and he has had time to look into that in detail. So I will punt to my compatriot here on that issue.
Mr. Crowley: The short answer is, it is the normal way that the intelligence system processes gun camera footage that starts as 8mm gun camera footage, and that gets translated, through something called the Common Intelligence System, or CIS, which is a Unix-based computer software system, and then ultimately down to a PC, where analysts can study the video. As that happens, there is an acceleration and a compression of the video, so in this particular case, the video started at the 8mm format at roughly 15 seconds in length. When it went through first iteration to the CIS, it was compressed to 6.5 seconds. When it was further compressed to the PC, it got down to about the four-second clip that everyone saw on television on April 12th. This is the way that the system works for all gun camera footage, so there was no manipulation by the authorities in Europe, and in fact I would say that there's nothing new here. Media that have already gone through this, with the air forces in Europe -- for example, Der Spiegel sent some experts down to Ramstein. We walked them through how the system works -- worked, and showed them, in essence, what happens as you go through these iterations. The computer itself starts to drop off frames to deal with the compression
And so this is -- what was unusual about this video clip was you had the single point of reference being the train, and as you saw in the clip, the train at various points jumped slightly That's because the computer itself dropped frames out in order to deal with this requirement for compression. So this is the way that our intelligence system operates in terms of translating gun camera footage and getting it to the PCs where intelligence analysts can make quick assessments of the gun camera footage, you know, to benefit the operation.
Q: P.J., when this footage was first shown and briefed at NATO headquarters the next day, on the 13th, General Clark made the point that the weapon systems officer on the F-15 had only a second or so to see the train and possibly react, not enough time to have a reaction. If it turns out that there was actually more time, does that change that?
Mr. Crowley: No. Jamie, good question. It doesn't change the basic facts of what happened on April 12th. The pilot and the weapon system officer -- in fact, the weapon system officer is looking through a screen that is five inches by five inches. He's focused on the bridge, which is his target for that mission. And this in no way changes the basic facts that they were not able to divert the missile before the train came into their field of vision
Q: Maybe you could clear up one other thing. On the clip that was released by NATO the next day, we saw the train on the screen crossing the bridge. And on the clip there were also white brackets and a cross-hairs in the middle. Which -- does the weapon systems officer on the plane see everything that was released in that video, or only what's in that bracketed area, the smaller area in the middle?
Mr. Crowley: Not being a pilot, I don't know that I'm particularly qualified. We can take that question and try to find out. My presumption is he's only seeing what's in the brackets, which is a miniaturized version of what we happened to see on television. But I would probably ask an expert before making that comment
Q: Admiral Quigley, do you by any chance -- do you know if that is the case, or do you have to take that?
Admiral Quigley: The weapons systems officer or the pilot?
Q: Did they see everything that was in the field of vision on the video that was released, or only what was in the smaller area in the brackets?
Admiral Quigley: My understanding is the five-by-five area. We'll double-check
Mr. Crowley: Yeah. Tim just handed me something. The weapon system officer does not see the entire panorama presented by the video file available on the Internet. The WSO, or "Wizzo," sees only the image presented inside the four corner markers. So that's a five inch by five inch monochrome cockpit monitor
Q: P.J., are you saying that this was not -- this video was not speeded up -- because the SHAPE folks say it was -- at least twice as fast as it actually happened?
Mr. Crowley: Well, Jack, in the -- you know, there is a compression and acceleration that goes through the normal process as this goes from 8 millimeters, through the CIS, to the intelligence analyst's PC. So, yeah, it roughly ends up being something like 2.7 times as fast
Q: Now, they also said that other video, which we saw, was not speeded up the way this was: 2.7 this was; other video, not 2.7. So there was a difference in this presentation than in the other presentations
Mr. Crowley: I can only attribute that to the speed with which we tried to get the video from the intelligence community so that we would all have the benefit of seeing it
Q: (Inaudible) -- I don't know that anyone -- well, some -- never mind. I won't ask it that way
So the issue is why didn't NATO, if in fact this was different, at different speed than was presented on other days, and this was one of those three big critical mistakes that NATO made; why didn't NATO tell us that this one was speeded up, whether by accident or not, where the other ones were not?
Mr. Crowley: Well, first of all, let me correct the premise in your question. This was not speeded up on purpose. There is a normal acceleration that goes in through this process of converting the gun-camera footage, you know, for the benefit of the intel analyst. You know, I --
Q: The other video that they showed was not. So this was at a different speed than the other video, which is commonly shown at these briefings. So it had the effect, whether it was intended or not, of speeding up the video by 2.7 times
Mr. Crowley: It did speed up the video. But it didn't change the basic facts of the incident, which is that the pilot and weapon systems officer did not see the train come into their field of view and were not able to divert the missile
Q: But back to the point of why didn't NATO tell us this? They knew it in October when they had a query from Der Spiegel and acknowledged to Der Spiegel, but to no one else, that, "Whoops! We showed you something that was nearly three times faster than we thought"?
Mr. Crowley: I would say, Jack, you know, the folks at Ramstein Air Base are standing by to walk any news media, who are interested in this story, as they did with Der Spiegel, through the entire process of how this transpired* It happens that, for example, Frankfurter Rundschau was not interested in going through the same careful study that Der Spiegel was*
Q: Well wait a minute, P.J., can I just follow up on that? You're saying you're waiting for news media to show up. If you knew you had a mistake, honest though it was, you wouldn't come out on your own initiative and --
Mr. Crowley: I'm not saying -- Barb, I would say there was a mistake. Again, there was no manipulation of this video. This is the way that when start with what -- 8mm gun-camera footage and go through two -- material that goes to the desk of an intel analyst, this is what you have. I can't speak to the difference between this video and other video that was shown during the Kosovo conflict.
Q: The question is why would neither NATO nor USAFE or the Department of Defense, once they knew that this situation was not what it was represented to be in public back in April, do you not think it's a problem with credibility to not overtly come out and say, and simply wait for people to come and ask you, even after you know?
Mr. Crowley: I would say, first of all, this has not been a major subject of media interest since the end of the Kosovo conflict. Secondly --
Q: Well --
Mr. Crowley: Well excuse me. Let me finish. Now, to the first news organization that looked at this, Der Spiegel, they went to Ramstein, we carefully walked them through this. We're not hiding anything. But by the same token, this is not an area that has been of significant news media interest up until now
Q: P.J., I'm confused about some of the terminology you've used here today. You described the process by which the train video was used as the "normal" process. Is that -- Mr. Crowley: Remember what gun-camera footage is to allow the pilots, the weapon system officers, the intel analysts to have a quick review of a mission in a campaign. And so you take the 8mm gun-camera footage off the weapon system, you plug it into something called the Common Intelligence System, which is a UNIX-based system. That basically -- you first now take the video, load it into the computer, and then you ship that to the PC of the intel analysts. During the course of those two translations -- to use my word -- you've got this compression and acceleration
Q: No, I understand that; I understood the technology of it, which seems fairly straightforward. My question is, you have characterized this as the "normal process" for the treatment of gun camera video. My question to you --
Mr. Crowley: Within the intelligence community; yes.
Q: Right. And -- I mean -- all right Is it the normal process for the distribution of gun-camera video, which is done all the time, which was done at the Gulf War, which was done in Kosovo, which is done out of training, it's done in a number of different contexts -- is the process you just described, this two-step production which results in a 2.7 percent acceleration of the video -- is that the normal process for the handling of gun camera video that is distributed to the public?
Mr. Crowley: Well, I can't speak to that, Roberto. I --
Q: Excuse me. Then let me ask you to take the query.
Mr. Crowley: I understand the premise of your question, which I really can't answer, which is, at the point that you took gun camera footage from the intelligence analyst and prepared it to put it on and distribute it to -- and show it to the news media, if in fact in other cases we have then adapted that video to normal speed and did not do so in this case. I'm not equipped to answer that question.
Q: Can I just ask you -- this is a straightforward public affairs question.
Mr. Crowley: Sure
Q: It is strictly within your department as to what your policy is on the distribution of gun camera video and in what format it's given to the public. Your explanation of these events is incomplete without telling us whether this gun camera video and the process you describe as normal for intelligence purposes is the normal process for distribution to the public, so that, like, every bomb we've seen going down a stack and into a building for all these years is actually three times faster than it really happened.
Mr. Crowley: We will take the question whether in this particular case, we failed to do something we have done in other instances
Q: Can you get the answer to that within this news cycle?
Mr. Crowley: Yes
Q: Thank you
Q: Can I follow up on that? If SHAPE knew about this in October, can you also tell us when the Department of Defense found out about this?
Mr. Crowley: We'll take the question.
Q: Is it the contention, P.J., by both NATO and the U.S. that regardless of how fast this gun camera video was replayed, that the weapons officer still only had one second in which to make that decision; that he saw the train only one second before impact, regardless of how fast this tape was replayed?
Mr. Crowley: It does not change the basic facts of the incident, which is that the pilot and weapon systems officer did not have time to divert the missile that had already been fired before the train came into their field of view.
Q: You're talking about the first AGM-130 shot. There was a second AGM-130 shot after the first
Mr. Crowley: I think the clip that we're talking about, my recollection is that it's the first one
Q: The first. But then, in the second, the train is now stopped on the bridge. It is obscured by smoke, perhaps, but it is on the bridge, and there's a second shot. And what are you saying about the weapons officer on that one?
Mr. Crowley: I'm -- we're dealing with the issue. I'm not here to do a mission debrief, I'm just here to say based on the Frankfurter Rundschau report there was no manipulation to this video, as we've talked about
Q: But I guess one of the questions is, there were two pieces of video released that day, the next day. Are they both -- were they both subject to the same acceleration effect?
Mr. Crowley: I will presume yes. I don't know. You know, I didn't ask a question about the second piece of --
Q: And also, will you -- as long as you're taking questions and queries, we'd like to be, if possible, provided with a tape of this event that occurs in -- that's slowed down to what is real time and shows precisely what the pilot actually saw so that we can make an intelligent evaluation --
Mr. Crowley: Again, I would think that you basically saw what the pilot saw. You know, the speed doesn't alter the basic facts that the --
Q: You told me that they only saw what was in the brackets, and what the video that was released showed a much wider field. We'd like to be able to show the public what it is the pilots or the weapons systems officer saw in the actual time that he saw it so the people can make their own judgment about whether the statements that you've said are reasonable
Mr. Crowley: I understand what you're looking to do. I'm not sure whether we have the ability to do that or not, but we'll look into it
Q: On both -- on both tries
Q: Have you asked SHAPE whether or not this situation occurred in any other released video?
Mr. Crowley: I think that's related to what you've already asked. We'll --
Q: You've shown other AGM-130s
Mr. Crowley: We will see whether there was something that has been done to other video that, because of the speed of getting this out, was not done in this particular case. We've already taken that question. Yes.
Q: Has anyone done a frame by frame analysis that you can tell us exactly how much time the pilot had from the time the train entered the view and the time that the bomb was launched?
Mr. Crowley: Again, I don't think that we're here to get into a mission debrief of exactly what the pilot did and did not do, see and did not see
Q: Whether they --
Mr. Crowley: The heart of this is simply whether this video was manipulated, and our answer is no, it was not, definitively not
Q: Right. I understand that. But what you're standing on is saying that the basic facts haven't changed. But we feel misled. And so now we kind of want to have something concrete --
Mr. Crowley: Well, again, I think probably the best people to go through review of this particular episode, for example, would be General Leaf, who is the commander at Aviano, or one of the senior leaders at USAFE
And they are prepared to go through this whole incident with you, if that's what you want to do
Q: Well, General Clark used this video as evidence to support his contention that, look, the weapons officer did not have the ability to keep this from happening and the train from being hit --
Mr. Crowley: Let's stay -- let's --
Q: No, no, no, but that's -- he used --
Mr. Crowley: I understand, but let's stay where, you know, we here at this podium today can deal with. I cannot give you a mission debrief pertaining to the pilot's actions --
Q: But that's what General Clark did at the time --
Mr. Crowley: I understand that. You know, the report today is suggesting that we manipulated this video. We did not
Jim?
Q: P.J., if I'm understanding right, you're telling us that intel officers are routinely looking on their computer screens at video that's been sped up and compressed. Frames, as I understand what you said, have been dropped out. Does it give anybody in this building concern that people are making judgments, whether in Kosovo or anywhere else, based on their examination of video that's going almost three times faster than real time, that has had frames cut out? I mean, as a layman, that gives me a lot of concern
Mr. Crowley: Well, no. But the primary purpose of this is to judge the success of a particular mission. You know, where you aiming at the right target? Did you hit the target? Does that target need to be re-struck? So an analyst is going through to evaluate -- or based on the video, did you see any threats that you have to advise your crew members to be careful about if you're operating in the same area? So first and foremost, this is about helping analysts with -- who are making recommendations on missions as part of the conflict
Q: So if they're looking at video to help them decide which targets to strike, that's not sped up as well? For example, the mistake that was made on the Chinese embassy -- were they looking at video that was run three times faster than normal and deciding that that wasn't the Chinese embassy, that it was a real target?
Mr. Crowley: Let's not stray too far afield here
Jack?
Q: P.J., I'm concerned about some of the use of words here, P.J., and I just want to tell you how your statement appears to conflict with what they are saying in Europe. And maybe we can clear this up easily
They are saying that the video was not intentionally manipulated, that they accidentally put out video that was 2.7 times faster than what they normally showed to the press briefing. They didn't intentionally do it. They did manipulate the video by accidentally putting this out. It wasn't intentional, they claim; there was no malice, there was no manipulation intended. But they did accidentally put it out at a different speed. That's a different story than what you are maintaining here
Mr. Crowley: We have taken the question as to whether there is something that we have done in other instances, that we failed to do in this instance, which would get at whether, you know, this video is in some way different in its presentation than other examples that we showed during the various briefings during the Kosovo conflict. I would argue with you that if it is a normal process of working through compression and acceleration of intelligence data that is reviewed by analysts, that's not manipulation. That is how, you know, you go through these various computer iterations and get to a product. The product was presented as the intelligence analyst normally would see it, and that is not a manipulation
Now, whether we should have backed that down to a slower speed so it's seen in real time -- a fair question, and which we've already taken. But I, again, challenge the assumption that we have in some way manipulated this in a way of trying to mislead people. We have not
Q: You said that this product is -- its primary purpose in the way it's -- not "manipulated" but -- excuse me -- the way it's formatted, is for strictly sort of war-fighting purposes, accessing damage, et cetera. In that instance, and in several other instances, both in Kosovo and in other conflicts, gun camera footage has been used by military leaders to make policy points about collateral damage, about the intent of the pilots and weapons officers in a certain incident, it's been used to clarify and explain rules of engagement. Is there some other formatting that is developed for that purpose? I mean, is this stuff really dual use, or is it inadequate for --
Mr. Crowley: Roberto, let me presume something here; that depending on the time it takes in order to make a presentation, I suppose a question is whether we were able to get our hands on the original 8mm footage, in which case you can make a dub from 8mm to VHS or to Beta so that it can be presented to you all, versus in this particular case where we acquired it once it had gone through this process that is normal for intelligence analysts. It may well be that because of the short circuit that we took, that meant that we, in essence, got a different product that we didn't realize. It's quite possible that in the normal routine of getting gun camera footage, as General Wald presented to you here many times, we were working off of the original 8mm gun footage where the compression had not taken place
Q: You are indicating knowledge of this question that you've taken. I mean, is that --
Mr. Crowley: I am just offering a possible explanation before you will allow me to get off the podium so I can go research the answers to --
Q: (Inaudible.)
Mr. Crowley: -- the many technical -- the many questions that we have already taken
Q: But you can go and --
Mr. Crowley: (Inaudible.)
Q: All right. (Inaudible) -- I just might point out one thing; it's not really a question
But you may recall, when this tape was briefed the next day by General Clark, when he began his briefing, he didn't have the tape. And he said that he hoped to have it before the end of the briefing. And at some point before the end of the briefing, the tape arrived.
Q: He said it was hung in his computer assistant. So --
Mr. Crowley: I think it's important to make one final point here* In the intervening time, since the Kosovo conflict, I have heard no one suggest that this crew operated in error. I think everyone has understood that they launched a missile based on the field of view that they had at the time and that there was not sufficient time, once that missile was launched, to divert it once they saw the train. So, under the circumstances and the fog of war, I have heard no one blame this crew for making an error, based on the information that was available to them in the cockpit when they made the decision to launch the missile
Q: That goes to the second missile also?
Mr. Crowley: Again, I have heard no -- you know, I think people understood, based on the information that this crew had in the cockpit at the time that they launched the missile -- and it was only after they launched the missile, that they saw the train come into view
Q: A new subject?
Admiral Quigley: Other topics? Jamie?
Q: Regarding the Middle East peace talks* ------------- NOTE: To cancel the e-mail editions of our reports, just reply REMOVE or UNSUBSCRIBE, followed by your e-mail address."
