....Let's not also quibble about the word 'bunker', as one of his chosen focuses of his desired debate, actually, as a 'right-wrong' match. The word is not the point-the point is a safe shelter for govt purposes for y2k disruptions. I will continue to use the word 'bunker' for convenience purposes.
No Ken... I, and I'm sure, JOHN KOSKINEN, would choose to "quibble" with you over the term "bunker".
If we used your definition, everytime a group of leaders (private or public) get together to monitor a situation, they are "bunkered".
If I have a house with independent power, water, and communications, does my house then become a "bunker"?? It is sheltered from Y2K disruptions...
Are you sure that this "defense contractor" wasn't merely referring the "bunker" off the 16th hole at some gold course where Clinton would prefer to "run the country"?
The verbage is important Ken... It can not be dismissed or permitted to made into one of your practical jokes.
People understand the need for command and control and monitoring centers. They understand the language and the activity involved.
But when you or the friggin' media decide to "spice up" the issue by using a word that suggest a totally different context or a seige mentality, it borders on the criminal, if not just incredibly irresponsible.
One final example.... Almost every police dept in every town of the US has some means to continue operations during ANY disruption, not just a Y2K related one. Does that mean they operate from a "bunker" when dealing with natural disasters??
The answer is clearly no. And your choice of verbage is absolutely wrong and irresponsible.
But then you already know that, or you wouldn't have pursued this "practical joke" upon the thread.
|
