In response to Marine Artillery Does Oakland and my plan for an amphibious assault on San Francisco, Arthur Kimes writes:

Oh sure you can conquer it. But holding it against the insurgents? What counter-measures do you have against the obvious threat of Road Side Mimes? What happens when the Starbucks barrista slips DECAF in a Marines cappucino? (I should have 4 or 5 more funny lines but my brain isn’t working now. Too early…)

In response to Warriors and the Oakland Airport: The Final Story, Daniel Jimenez sends a link, to which I responded:

Bull. The airport authorities know that weapons being on board the plane is no reason to bar the plane from entry. The weapons have their bolt removed and have no ammunition. This is done before they ever leave the theater. The airport authorities know this. I have covered this in my most recent post (followup to the one backtracked to Michelle’s site). Further, not having been screened by TSA is quite irrelevant, and the airport authorities know it. Customs does a more thorough job with them.

This story is crap. Sorry.

To which Mr. Jimenez then responded as follows:

So, the contractor who said he personally drove the troops waiting to meet family to the terminal? Also a liar? The Staff Sgt. who talks about the great reception he received at the airport? Also a liar? And the commanding officer who told the airport officials they didn’t need any other attention? Also a liar? The airport spokeswoman? Also a liar? (I’m CERTAIN you think she’s a liar, because, after all, she’s the one covering for the nefarious America- and troop-hating directors of the Oakland Airport.)

Never let the facts get in the way of a good “The Bay Area hates the troops” story, I suppose.

To which I responded:

I don’t mean to be rude, but you need to learn to stay on point and not get sidetracked by irrelevant things.  I never said anything about contractors trucking people around and such as that.  I stuck to a single point in both of my posts: weapons being on board causing a security concern, and this being the reason for stopping the aircraft.

Again, bull.  Period.  They have more muzzle discipline that an air marshal who also has a weapon, and besides, unlike air marshals, they have no ammunition.  There was and is no security concern.  Do they honestly believe that anyone would be stupid enough to allow the Marines to board the aircraft in the theater WITH ammunition?  No, they do not honestly believe that.  And that’s the point.

To which Mr. Jimenez responded:

I’ll go ahead and sidestep your faux courtesy and be rude.

Hey. A**hole. Spare me the smarm. The point about the contractor driving the 3 troops to see their loved ones, and the part about the commanding officer saying they didn’t need anything else, means that the entire incident was completely overblown. If the commanding officer says, (sic) we don’t need to go to the terminal, that’s fine. Then that’s it. End of story. But people like you and Ledeen and Malkin can’t resist the urge to bash the bay, even when the facts get in your way (go look up Tight Films’ statement on the Marine commercial in SF, schmuck).

The point about the Staff Sgt.’s comment about the 2005 arrival was that your assumptions about the Bay Area are, of course, wrong.

Your entire argument about weapons seems to come down to one crucial assumption: That the people who run the Oakland Airport openly hate the troops and, in fact, took this opportunity to stick it to them the only way the could. You understand why that’s ludicrous, right? Have you ever been to the Bay Area? Oh, wait, you would never come to the “Socialist Republic of San Francisco” without that amphibious assault squad, right? Read this:

“I have never had so many people in my 17 years of service stop and thank me for my service,” said Maj. Sean Pascoli, the officer in charge of recruiting for the Marine Corps in the Bay Area. Pascoli says he has exceeded his quota for Marine recruits in the Bay Area this year.

…and tell me the Bay still hates the Marines.

Well, frankly I had not considered the actual size of the assault team.  Mr. Jimenez recommends a squad (this is three fire teams and a squad leader, usually a Sergeant).  I think a fire team of four Marines might be sufficient, but based on Mr. Kimes’ concerns, the post-assault occupation might take a larger force size.  Or maybe not.

But while the first letter from Mr. Kimes brought a smile to my face, this last one brought a tear to my eye.  He favorably compared me to Ledeen and Malkin.  I am undeserving of such a compliment.  I expect a dinner invitation from Michael and Michelle soon.  I am in the club – I am one of you now. Thank you, Mr. Jimenez.