Dozens of Claims??? In other words 12, 24, 36 etc... Care to list, at
minimum, the first 12?
ca

Koz wrote:

Yea, Ashcroft said they weren't interested in Librarys. If this was
truly so, then why was it so clearly written into the act?
Cheney just said this weekend that there were clear ties of the
terrorists to Iraq. This is contrary to what our own intelligence has
said. He also implied that there WAS evidence of Iraq trying to
purchase nuclear materials in Africa. Again, this was discounted along
with dozens of other claims.

The point is, there seems to be a general notion in politics that if you
call the sky polka-dot enough times, people will eventually believe it's
the sky is polka-dot, even if they go outside and can see it's not. And
it works...recent polls have shown that people believe there is a clear
link between Iraq and the terrorists of 9/11.

Koz

Mr. Fix-It wrote:

No library searches, Ashcroft says
http://www.msnbc.com/news/968169.asp?pne=msntv&cp1=1
=========
Hi guys,
-
Since 3 Mile Island I do not trust the USA government from telling us
the truth. And what I saw the US Navy do to our own guys in 1974 in
Delta Company in the Navy brig there as to guys that didn't want to play
the game in basic training, I've seen 1st hand what our own guys do to
our own.
-
I know of three separate unrelated incidents (except qualified under
Patriot Act provisions) where info was sought against library patrons
and this in the Hudson Valley region of NY State. So, so much for
Ashcroft telling the truth in stated article above. And he, under the
guise of being a goody two-shoes Christian. I've always felt the
people going to church are those that feel guilt for being pricks the
other 6 days and 23 hours of the week!
-
Sounds like Communist Russia and Stalin tactics to me and the McCarthy
era is going to be revisited again, except this time they throw you out
of the country and take away your citizenship in the process even for
the born here in the good 'ol USA citizens. GITMO is one hot SOB in
summertime!
-
Who dreams this stuff up?
-
I guess Rhoades book on building the A-Bomb will be banned in Boston,
now!
-
Alan

well, I'll throw out a few but I work for a living so don't have time to
cross reference em the way you would like.

1) Jessica's whatzhername's rescue that wasn't a rescue...staged for
cameras
2)-about 20) the number of times they claimed to have "taken"
particular cities when it wasn't true
21) Saddam "threw" out the inspectors
22-about 400) Various claims of evidence that there WERE WMD and that
they knew exactly where they were stashed but wouldn't pass that info
along to inspectors for reasons of "national security"
401).the denial that special flights wre arranged for the Bin laden
family and other prominant Arabs while all other air traffic was
grounded..etc. etc. etc.
402) The claim that this war wasn't to gain control of oil rescources


If you want specifics of claim for claim, go to one of the various
websites that references it all. Of course, those who want so badly to
believe tend to discount any sources (even when references are included)
except Fox news.

koz

clay wrote:

Dozens of Claims??? In other words 12, 24, 36 etc... Care to list, at
minimum, the first 12?
ca

Koz wrote:

Yea, Ashcroft said they weren't interested in Librarys. If this was
truly so, then why was it so clearly written into the act?
Cheney just said this weekend that there were clear ties of the
terrorists to Iraq. This is contrary to what our own intelligence has
said. He also implied that there WAS evidence of Iraq trying to
purchase nuclear materials in Africa. Again, this was discounted along
with dozens of other claims.

The point is, there seems to be a general notion in politics that if you
call the sky polka-dot enough times, people will eventually believe it's
the sky is polka-dot, even if they go outside and can see it's not. And
it works...recent polls have shown that people believe there is a clear
link between Iraq and the terrorists of 9/11.

Koz

Mr. Fix-It wrote:

No library searches, Ashcroft says
http://www.msnbc.com/news/968169.asp?pne=msntv&cp1=1
http://www.msnbc.com/news/968169.asp?pne=msntv&cp1=1
=========
Hi guys,
-
Since 3 Mile Island I do not trust the USA government from telling us
the truth. And what I saw the US Navy do to our own guys in 1974 in
Delta Company in the Navy brig there as to guys that didn't want to
play
the game in basic training, I've seen 1st hand what our own guys do to
our own.
-
I know of three separate unrelated incidents (except qualified under
Patriot Act provisions) where info was sought against library patrons
and this in the Hudson Valley region of NY State. So, so much for
Ashcroft telling the truth in stated article above. And he, under the
guise of being a goody two-shoes Christian. I've always felt the
people going to church are those that feel guilt for being pricks the
other 6 days and 23 hours of the week!
-
Sounds like Communist Russia and Stalin tactics to me and the McCarthy
era is going to be revisited again, except this time they throw you out
of the country and take away your citizenship in the process even for
the born here in the good 'ol USA citizens. GITMO is one hot SOB in
summertime!
-
Who dreams this stuff up?
-
I guess Rhoades book on building the A-Bomb will be banned in Boston,
now!
-
Alan

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:03:33 -0700, Koz
wrote:

Yea, Ashcroft said they weren't interested in Librarys. If this was
truly so, then why was it so clearly written into the act?

Perhaps because internet access is anonymous at the library?

Cheney just said this weekend that there were clear ties of the
terrorists to Iraq. This is contrary to what our own intelligence has
said.

Actually..not so. Bush said there was no evidence that Saddam was
involved in 9/11. Period. There is plenty of evidence that Iraq has ties
to Al Quida etc.

He also implied that there WAS evidence of Iraq trying to
purchase nuclear materials in Africa. Again, this was discounted along
with dozens of other claims.

Actually it was never discounted. It was never proven one way or
another, and the British intelligence services still claim that its
true. Bush in his speech...said quite clearly that he had received
information of such from the British. Clearly it was not a lie on his
part. Even if the information was later proven to be false, he acted on
it in good faith at the time.

The point is, there seems to be a general notion in politics that if you
call the sky polka-dot enough times, people will eventually believe it's
the sky is polka-dot, even if they go outside and can see it's not. And
it works...recent polls have shown that people believe there is a clear
link between Iraq and the terrorists of 9/11.

Yup. Sorta like group think, or Politically Correctness, or Hate Speech
or the fact that 10% of the population still thinks Elvis is still
alive. Or " I did not have sex, with that woman, Monica Lewinsky" or A
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy...

Chuckle


Koz

Mr. Fix-It wrote:

No library searches, Ashcroft says
http://www.msnbc.com/news/968169.asp?pne=msntv&cp1=1
=========
Hi guys,
-
Since 3 Mile Island I do not trust the USA government from telling us
the truth. And what I saw the US Navy do to our own guys in 1974 in
Delta Company in the Navy brig there as to guys that didn't want to play
the game in basic training, I've seen 1st hand what our own guys do to
our own.

Humm so if you decide to not get with the program in boot..you are
surprised that there will be consequences? Odd how that happens. Ill bet
220+ years of US military training has all been a violation of ones
civil rights.
-
I know of three separate unrelated incidents (except qualified under
Patriot Act provisions) where info was sought against library patrons
and this in the Hudson Valley region of NY State. So, so much for
Ashcroft telling the truth in stated article above. And he, under the
guise of being a goody two-shoes Christian. I've always felt the
people going to church are those that feel guilt for being pricks the
other 6 days and 23 hours of the week!

So give me a few details of those 3 incidents. Please. Feel free to
leave off the names.
-
Sounds like Communist Russia and Stalin tactics to me and the McCarthy
era is going to be revisited again, except this time they throw you out
of the country and take away your citizenship in the process even for
the born here in the good 'ol USA citizens. GITMO is one hot SOB in
summertime!

So...which US citizen has been incarcerated in GITMO? Names please.
Details man..details....
-
Who dreams this stuff up?

I was about to ask the same question....
-
I guess Rhoades book on building the A-Bomb will be banned in Boston,
now!
-
Alan

Give the pure amount of information available on the internet, and the
ease of which people looking into it, can be traced...how many hundreds
of people have had the Midnight Knock on the door and then were hustled
off to the Gulog?

Cites man..cites!!

Gunner



"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 12:52:33 -0700, Koz
wrote:

well, I'll throw out a few but I work for a living so don't have time to
cross reference em the way you would like.

1) Jessica's whatzhername's rescue that wasn't a rescue...staged for
cameras
2)-about 20) the number of times they claimed to have "taken"
particular cities when it wasn't true
21) Saddam "threw" out the inspectors
22-about 400) Various claims of evidence that there WERE WMD and that
they knew exactly where they were stashed but wouldn't pass that info
along to inspectors for reasons of "national security"
401).the denial that special flights wre arranged for the Bin laden
family and other prominant Arabs while all other air traffic was
grounded..etc. etc. etc.
402) The claim that this war wasn't to gain control of oil rescources


If you want specifics of claim for claim, go to one of the various
websites that references it all. Of course, those who want so badly to
believe tend to discount any sources (even when references are included)
except Fox news.

koz

Ah Koz..thats not how it works. When asked for cites..broad sweeping
generalities are not considered valid, and telling others to look them
up themselves indicates you are either terminally lazy, unable to
furnish cites, or simply clueless. Which are you?

Gunner



"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001

In article , Gunner says...

Actually..not so. Bush said there was no evidence that Saddam was
involved in 9/11. Period. There is plenty of evidence that Iraq has ties
to Al Quida etc.

But nowhere do you ever hear anything much about the
Saudis. Now *there*'s a conspiracy.

;;; Clearly it was not a lie on his
part. Even if the information was later proven to be false, he acted on
it in good faith at the time.

So, hhm. Either he's a liar (not) or a dummy.

Either way it bodes ill.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

You are correct Mr. Gunner. I personally hate it when people do just
what I did and post without cites. Unfortunately I am bizzy as hell for
the next week or so and don't have time for searching.

I have to stop getting taken in by these kinds of threads. I tend to
throw stuff out in response exactly when I don't have the time to do it
right. I'm going to make an effort not to jump on these things any
more. This is a metalworking newsgroup and I'll try to stay on topic.
I throw this out because we all seem to get sucked into this VERY off
topic stuff (because it's more fun). Maybe if all of us kept the
majority of the off topic political stuff elsewhere, there wouldn't be
so much back biting here.

With regards to comments, I find it interesting that people want all or
nothing cites to comments. If there is evidence that bush lied, they
seem to want irrefutable evidence rather than a preponderence of
evidence pointing to the fact. This goes for both sides of the
arguements. The problem with politics is that lies are based on truth.
This always gives an out. Whether one accepts that "out" seems to
depend on their politics. (remember people saying Clinton didn't lie
because oral sex didn't count as real sex?).

I must also say, Mr Gunner, that I have begun to like you even though
our politics differ greatly. you have always answered me in a civil
manner with proper defense of your viewpoint (and I am guilty of doing
the opposite). There are the Rush Limbaugh's of the world who spout
unsupported crap and have arguementative fallacies littered throughout
their statements. There are also the G Gordon Liddy's of the world that
at least use proper arguementation with supporting evidence. I may
disagree with the view, but I have to respect the ones that argue their
point properly.

Wish I could take the time to cite news reports on the statements I said
but I aint even got the time to type this right now.

Koz

Gunner wrote:






Ah Koz..thats not how it works. When asked for cites..broad sweeping
generalities are not considered valid, and telling others to look them
up themselves indicates you are either terminally lazy, unable to
furnish cites, or simply clueless. Which are you?

Gunner



"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001

On 19 Sep 2003 08:17:39 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Actually..not so. Bush said there was no evidence that Saddam was
involved in 9/11. Period. There is plenty of evidence that Iraq has ties
to Al Quida etc.

But nowhere do you ever hear anything much about the
Saudis. Now *there*'s a conspiracy.

Yes indeed. and you are aware that the 3 uppermost princelings tied to
Al Quida seemed to have passed on to Mohammed, all nice and neatly.

;;; Clearly it was not a lie on his
part. Even if the information was later proven to be false, he acted on
it in good faith at the time.

So, hhm. Either he's a liar (not) or a dummy.

So Jim, if the probably best intelligence agency in the world tells you
that something is so.. and you believe it, then you are stupid?

Either way it bodes ill.

It means, either someone in "MI-6 screwed the pooch, or that it really
did happen and the media/Left is screwing the pooch.

Jim

Gunner

================================================= =
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
================================================= =



"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001

In article , Gunner says...

So Jim, if the probably best intelligence agency in the world tells you
that something is so.. and you believe it, then you are stupid?

Proof's in the pudding. It wasn't true, that makes him
look either

a) sneaky or
b) stupid.

Take your pick.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Koz wrote:


.

I must also say, Mr Gunner, that I have begun to like you even though
our politics differ greatly. you have always answered me in a civil
manner with proper defense of your viewpoint (and I am guilty of doing
the opposite). There are the Rush Limbaugh's of the world who spout
unsupported crap and have arguementative fallacies littered throughout
their statements. There are also the G Gordon Liddy's of the world
that at least use proper arguementation with supporting evidence. I
may disagree with the view, but I have to respect the ones that argue
their point properly.




Koz



That last statement made me think about my personal feelings toward the
oil companies. Presently, I have less than zero respect where they are
concerned. I *could* perhaps have a small amount if they would quit
using any contrived or convenient excuse to raise prices, and just say
"we're screwin ya, because we can".

michael

We need to send Gunner a copy of AL Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liers
that Tell Them." We will be able to hear his blood pressure nonitor all
over the country. :-)

jim rozen wrote:
In article , Gunner says...


So Jim, if the probably best intelligence agency in the world tells you
that something is so.. and you believe it, then you are stupid?


Proof's in the pudding. It wasn't true, that makes him
look either

a) sneaky or
b) stupid.

Take your pick.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================



--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

In article , michael says...

.. I *could* perhaps have a small amount if they would quit
using any contrived or convenient excuse to raise prices, and just say
"we're screwin ya, because we can".

Instead of the endless litany of:

"The gas prices don't come down when oil gets cheaper, because
we have all that expensive oil in the tankers, on the way to you."

and

"Gas prices go up as soon as oil becomes expensive, because
it takes much less time for the expensive oil to get to you."

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 19 Sep 2003 12:21:04 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

So Jim, if the probably best intelligence agency in the world tells you
that something is so.. and you believe it, then you are stupid?

Proof's in the pudding. It wasn't true, that makes him
look either

a) sneaky or
b) stupid.

Take your pick.

Jim

Ah..Jimbo..it hasnt been Disproven. It hasnt been Proven either. Big
difference.

Gunner


================================================= =
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
================================================= =

" ......The world has gone crazy. Guess I'm showing my
age...
I think it dates from when we started looking at virtues
as funny. It's embarrassing to speak of honor, integrity,
bravery, patriotism, 'doing the right thing', charity,
fairness. You have Seinfeld making cowardice an acceptable
choice; our politicians changing positions of honor with
every poll; we laugh at servicemen and patriotic fervor; we
accept corruption in our police and bias in our judges; we
kill our children, and wonder why they have no respect for
Life. We deny children their childhood and innocence- and
then we denigrate being a Man, as opposed to a 'person'. We
*assume* that anyone with a weapon will use it against his
fellowman- if only he has the chance. Nah; in our agitation
to keep the State out of the church business, we've
destroyed our value system and replaced it with *nothing*.
Turns my stomach- "

Chas , rec.knives

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 18:24:21 -0400, Glenn Ashmore
wrote:

We need to send Gunner a copy of AL Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liers
that Tell Them." We will be able to hear his blood pressure nonitor all
over the country. :-)

Franken? Isnt he that flaming asshole with the brain capacity of an
amoebic dysentary bacteria? Sure, send it. I can always use more
asswipe.

Gunner


jim rozen wrote:
In article , Gunner says...


So Jim, if the probably best intelligence agency in the world tells you
that something is so.. and you believe it, then you are stupid?


Proof's in the pudding. It wasn't true, that makes him
look either

a) sneaky or
b) stupid.

Take your pick.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================


" ......The world has gone crazy. Guess I'm showing my
age...
I think it dates from when we started looking at virtues
as funny. It's embarrassing to speak of honor, integrity,
bravery, patriotism, 'doing the right thing', charity,
fairness. You have Seinfeld making cowardice an acceptable
choice; our politicians changing positions of honor with
every poll; we laugh at servicemen and patriotic fervor; we
accept corruption in our police and bias in our judges; we
kill our children, and wonder why they have no respect for
Life. We deny children their childhood and innocence- and
then we denigrate being a Man, as opposed to a 'person'. We
*assume* that anyone with a weapon will use it against his
fellowman- if only he has the chance. Nah; in our agitation
to keep the State out of the church business, we've
destroyed our value system and replaced it with *nothing*.
Turns my stomach- "

Chas , rec.knives

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:12:14 -0700, michael
wrote:

Koz wrote:


.

I must also say, Mr Gunner, that I have begun to like you even though
our politics differ greatly. you have always answered me in a civil
manner with proper defense of your viewpoint (and I am guilty of doing
the opposite). There are the Rush Limbaugh's of the world who spout
unsupported crap and have arguementative fallacies littered throughout
their statements. There are also the G Gordon Liddy's of the world
that at least use proper arguementation with supporting evidence. I
may disagree with the view, but I have to respect the ones that argue
their point properly.




Koz



That last statement made me think about my personal feelings toward the
oil companies. Presently, I have less than zero respect where they are
concerned. I *could* perhaps have a small amount if they would quit
using any contrived or convenient excuse to raise prices, and just say
"we're screwin ya, because we can".

michael



On this I think we can all agree. But I cast blame where and when
appropriate.

Gunner

" ......The world has gone crazy. Guess I'm showing my
age...
I think it dates from when we started looking at virtues
as funny. It's embarrassing to speak of honor, integrity,
bravery, patriotism, 'doing the right thing', charity,
fairness. You have Seinfeld making cowardice an acceptable
choice; our politicians changing positions of honor with
every poll; we laugh at servicemen and patriotic fervor; we
accept corruption in our police and bias in our judges; we
kill our children, and wonder why they have no respect for
Life. We deny children their childhood and innocence- and
then we denigrate being a Man, as opposed to a 'person'. We
*assume* that anyone with a weapon will use it against his
fellowman- if only he has the chance. Nah; in our agitation
to keep the State out of the church business, we've
destroyed our value system and replaced it with *nothing*.
Turns my stomach- "

Chas , rec.knives

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 19:07:06 GMT, Gunner wrote:
On 19 Sep 2003 08:17:39 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:
;;; Clearly it was not a lie on his
part. Even if the information was later proven to be false, he acted on
it in good faith at the time.

So, hhm. Either he's a liar (not) or a dummy.

So Jim, if the probably best intelligence agency in the world tells you
that something is so.. and you believe it, then you are stupid?

At least four of the best intelligence agencies in the world were saying
it was *not* so (and they were right on all counts).

The Niger uranium buy was known to the CIA to be a fabrication,
the supposed meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent
in Vienna was *known* by State's intelligence group to be false (the
FBI had proof Atta was in Florida at the time of the supposed "Iraqi
connection"), DIA experts (and British experts) had both correctly
stated that the "mobile biological warfare labs" were no such thing.
Etc, etc, etc.

But Bush was only listening to the cherry picked and spun material
fed to him by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and
their hand picked New American Century ideologues on the Defense
Policy Board.

That group had been advocating invasion of Iraq on any convenient
pretext since the end of Gulf War I, for the neocon fantasy reasons
given by Ed in another post (as well as the less savory reason that
they were all heavily connected to the defense and energy industries).

Bush *could* have known the truth, the real experts were saying
it. But he either chose not to listen, or was hoodwinked into not
listening. (The Cheney-CIA connection, for which Tenet took
the bullet, is a case in point for the latter.)

Not one single claim Bush made in his speeches leading up to
the invasion has turned out to be true, and almost every one of
them was *known* not to be true before he made them.

Donald Kay has been spinning like a dervish trying to cook up
*any* evidence of Iraqi WMD (deliverable on 45 minutes notice
according to Tony Blair) since the invasion. He, and his 1400
man team have still come up empty for any work done later than
1991(when the cease fire required Iraq to give up pursuit or
possession of NBC weapons).

None of this is secret. Blix was saying it before the invasion.
France, Germany, Russia, and pretty much all of the rest of
the world were saying it too. But Bush didn't want to listen.
The call of 225 billion barrels of oil, and a geopolitical fantasy,
were too loud to let him hear the truth.

Gary

Gary Coffman wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 19:07:06 GMT, Gunner
wrote:
On 19 Sep 2003 08:17:39 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:
;;; Clearly it was not a lie on his
part. Even if the information was later proven to be false, he
acted on it in good faith at the time.

So, hhm. Either he's a liar (not) or a dummy.

So Jim, if the probably best intelligence agency in the world tells
you that something is so.. and you believe it, then you are stupid?

At least four of the best intelligence agencies in the world were
saying it was *not* so (and they were right on all counts).

The Niger uranium buy was known to the CIA to be a fabrication,
the supposed meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent
in Vienna was *known* by State's intelligence group to be false (the
FBI had proof Atta was in Florida at the time of the supposed "Iraqi
connection"), DIA experts (and British experts) had both correctly
stated that the "mobile biological warfare labs" were no such thing.
Etc, etc, etc.

But Bush was only listening to the cherry picked and spun material
fed to him by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and
their hand picked New American Century ideologues on the Defense
Policy Board.

That group had been advocating invasion of Iraq on any convenient
pretext since the end of Gulf War I, for the neocon fantasy reasons
given by Ed in another post (as well as the less savory reason that
they were all heavily connected to the defense and energy industries).

Bush *could* have known the truth, the real experts were saying
it. But he either chose not to listen, or was hoodwinked into not
listening. (The Cheney-CIA connection, for which Tenet took
the bullet, is a case in point for the latter.)

Not one single claim Bush made in his speeches leading up to
the invasion has turned out to be true, and almost every one of
them was *known* not to be true before he made them.

Donald Kay has been spinning like a dervish trying to cook up
*any* evidence of Iraqi WMD (deliverable on 45 minutes notice
according to Tony Blair) since the invasion. He, and his 1400
man team have still come up empty for any work done later than
1991(when the cease fire required Iraq to give up pursuit or
possession of NBC weapons).

None of this is secret. Blix was saying it before the invasion.
France, Germany, Russia, and pretty much all of the rest of
the world were saying it too. But Bush didn't want to listen.
The call of 225 billion barrels of oil, and a geopolitical fantasy,
were too loud to let him hear the truth.

Gary

Word. Wesley Clark appears to be a man of intelligence, bravery and
integrity. Pretty much the opposite of George W. Bush.

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 03:34:38 GMT, "ATP"
wrote:


None of this is secret. Blix was saying it before the invasion.
France, Germany, Russia, and pretty much all of the rest of
the world were saying it too. But Bush didn't want to listen.
The call of 225 billion barrels of oil, and a geopolitical fantasy,
were too loud to let him hear the truth.

Gary

Word. Wesley Clark appears to be a man of intelligence, bravery and
integrity. Pretty much the opposite of George W. Bush.

Too bad he has Hillary Clintons hand up his ass, making his mouth
move.

Now as to your spew about Bush II..that looks largely like an opinion
and one not shared by most folks. And of course we all know what they
say about opinions..Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one, and
they all stink...

Sore/Looserman 2000

Gunner


"Anyone who cannot cope with firearms is not fully human. At best he
is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not
make messes in the house."
With appologies to RAH..

Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 03:34:38 GMT, "ATP"
wrote:


None of this is secret. Blix was saying it before the invasion.
France, Germany, Russia, and pretty much all of the rest of
the world were saying it too. But Bush didn't want to listen.
The call of 225 billion barrels of oil, and a geopolitical fantasy,
were too loud to let him hear the truth.

Gary

Word. Wesley Clark appears to be a man of intelligence, bravery and
integrity. Pretty much the opposite of George W. Bush.

Too bad he has Hillary Clintons hand up his ass, making his mouth
move.


How do you figure that?

Now as to your spew about Bush II..that looks largely like an opinion
and one not shared by most folks. And of course we all know what they
say about opinions..Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one, and
they all stink...

Sore/Looserman 2000

Gunner

It's taking a little while, but people are catching on. Dubya is going to
regret strutting around in that flight suit.

Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:21:21 GMT, "ATP"
wrote:

Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 03:34:38 GMT, "ATP"
wrote:


None of this is secret. Blix was saying it before the invasion.
France, Germany, Russia, and pretty much all of the rest of
the world were saying it too. But Bush didn't want to listen.
The call of 225 billion barrels of oil, and a geopolitical
fantasy, were too loud to let him hear the truth.

Gary

Word. Wesley Clark appears to be a man of intelligence, bravery and
integrity. Pretty much the opposite of George W. Bush.

Too bad he has Hillary Clintons hand up his ass, making his mouth
move.


How do you figure that?

Whom has been pushing him ? Follow the money and the supporters.

Obviously there are going to be key Democrats involved, but since Clinton
effectively ended his military career, I doubt there's much love there.


It's taking a little while, but people are catching on. Dubya is
going to regret strutting around in that flight suit.

If you tell a lie long enough, people will start believing you.
Witness the Big Three Media. Look at the LA Times.

Think for yourself. Use reason, rational and common sense when
evaluating an issue. Look at both sides of an issue, and whom is
pushing, why they are pushing, and what they stand to gain from it.

Gunner

That's exactly what I do. I look at Richard Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Elliot
Abrams, and the rest of that wacky chickenhawk neocon fraternity and their
buddies like William Bennett. They are all doing pretty well for themselves
putting their agenda ahead of what's right for America. Turn off Rush and
Faux news and wake up! Although I may not agree with your political views,
you seem like a decent guy with a backyard somewhat similar to mine (except
my palletized containers are wooden) so I have no inclination to get into a
flame war with you.

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 01:34:09 GMT, "ATP"
wrote:


Gunner

That's exactly what I do. I look at Richard Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Elliot
Abrams, and the rest of that wacky chickenhawk neocon fraternity and their
buddies like William Bennett. They are all doing pretty well for themselves
putting their agenda ahead of what's right for America. Turn off Rush and
Faux news and wake up! Although I may not agree with your political views,
you seem like a decent guy with a backyard somewhat similar to mine (except
my palletized containers are wooden) so I have no inclination to get into a
flame war with you.

Chuckle...I dont watch TV or listen to Rush. I would strongly suggest
you turn off the Big Three Media outlets yourself, as there is nothing
there except spin and a big case of Sore/Loserman hatred.

And as you were nice..Ill not flame you in return. G

Gunner



"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 06:15:24 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

Chuckle...I dont watch TV or listen to Rush. I would strongly suggest
you turn off the Big Three Media outlets yourself, as there is nothing
there except spin and a big case of Sore/Loserman hatred.

How would you know, if you don't watch them? g

Talk radio of course!

Gunner



"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 06:15:24 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

Chuckle...I dont watch TV or listen to Rush. I would strongly suggest
you turn off the Big Three Media outlets yourself, as there is nothing
there except spin and a big case of Sore/Loserman hatred.

How would you know, if you don't watch them? g

Talk radio of course!

HAHA! Of COURSE! g

Ed Huntress

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 19:07:06 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

It means, either someone in "MI-6 screwed the pooch, or that it really
did happen and the media/Left is screwing the pooch.

Personally I'd probably trust the CIA before I trusted the media, even
Fox :^). It's literally laughable how often they just get it
completely wrong, accidentally or intentionally. I have a friend,
who's a staunch Marxist. She made a good point that if you read
"enough" media from "enough" different sources with a good dose of
discernment, you can "probably" be assured of knowing accurately
what's going on. The difference between the media and the CIA is that
the media is "trusted", which makes it all the more dangerous.

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

On 19 Sep 2003 12:21:04 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

So Jim, if the probably best intelligence agency in the world tells you
that something is so.. and you believe it, then you are stupid?

Proof's in the pudding. It wasn't true, that makes him
look either

a) sneaky or
b) stupid.

Take your pick.

You're right Jim, it does make him look stupid. But I can't imagine
"anyone" making a different decision than he did given the information
that he had. It would have been the same imformation you or I would
have had. Intelligence is that way, it's a best educated guess.
You're trusting third persons, using evidence that may not be hard at
all. But you need to make a decision. It's the same for war,
mistakes based on faulty intelligence are made all the time. And
"time" is usually the limiting factor in making those decisions. You
can't nor shouldn't always wait until you have the "proof".

Plus seeking uranium was such a minor piece in the pile of reasons to
oust Sodamn Insane :^). I know it wasn't even a factor in my decision
to agree with Bush. In fact I thought the amount of time he took to
try and get Europe and the other nations on board was insane. Dog
gone, why not give ol' Saddam a full year instead of just six months
to prepare to be attacked, thereby costing more American lives?

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 18:24:21 -0400, Glenn Ashmore
wrote:

We need to send Gunner a copy of AL Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liers
that Tell Them." We will be able to hear his blood pressure nonitor all
over the country. :-)

I'll take it Glenn. I'll even send it back to you after I'm done
reading it. It's always good to know the oppositions argument.
Preferably better than they do :^).

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 19:13:38 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Hans Blix said repeatedly that the Iraqis had WMD unaccounted for as
late as days before the war started. The man has more sides then a
drendel.

This is what I find amazing. I don't recall anyone doubting before
the war that Saddam had the weapons, or at least, hadn't accounted for
their destruction.

Given the information we had on hand at the time it was the best
decision. And I still believe we will find weapons, eventually. My
Iranian roommate and I have a bet (nice dinner) that they will, or
won't, be found within a year.

Why does the world hate Bush (and love Clinton)? Because the US is
one of the last conservative (yes, we can really say that) countries
in the world, developed countries at least. It's just a world-wide
political contest no different than the one we have now for 2004. So
you can expect the world to jump on Bush and in the same unfair manner
any democratic wannbe would too.

It's good to question, but it is bad to be unfair and to call each
other names, like fraud and traitor, such as Ted Kennedy did. Can you
imagine what the polital climate would be like if Bush returned fire
using similar terms??? It'd be like a third world country in no time,
politically speaking, and probably economically before too long.

John



Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 20:34:14 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:21:21 GMT, "ATP"
wrote:

Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 03:34:38 GMT, "ATP"
wrote:

Word. Wesley Clark appears to be a man of intelligence, bravery and
integrity. Pretty much the opposite of George W. Bush.

Too bad he has Hillary Clintons hand up his ass, making his mouth
move.


How do you figure that?

Whom has been pushing him ? Follow the money and the supporters.

Good golly it's so obvious even the major media says so. And they're
not known for always having the best insight either. But just like
intelligence it's based on third party information and so could be
wrong :^).

What really amazes me is that I can't believe Hillary wants him to
win. I think she's thinking of him as a VP for 2008, or possibly but
doubtfully for 2004.

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

"John Flanagan" wrote in message
...

The difference between the media and the CIA is that
the media is "trusted", which makes it all the more dangerous.

John


The difference between the media and the CIA is that the media, on the
average and in the main, is in the business of uncovering and telling the
facts -- something they do with mixed success.

The CIA, on the other hand, is in the business of uncovering the facts and
then telling you whatever furthers their purpose of uncovering more facts.
Telling you the truth about them is not on their agenda, and, to the degree
they *do* tell you things, their purpose is not to inform you but rather to
produce an environment that's favorable to their purpose -- which is
gathering more facts. The truth is a tool they wield as it suits their
purposes.

That is, when they're not helping to overthrow some distasteful regime. g

Ed Huntress

"Joel Corwith" wrote in message
...

The difference between the media and the CIA is that the media, on the
average and in the main, is in the business of uncovering and telling
the
facts -- something they do with mixed success.

Wow, is that what you really believe? The general media does nothing to
seek out 'facts' that I have seen. They only report what they're told,
wheter right or wrong. Even those in depth shows conjure up situations to
enhance ratings.

No, it has nothing to do with what I believe. It's what I *know*, having
worked in the business for most of my 30+ working years. I've known a lot of
the people doing it, how they work, where the limitations and problems are,
and why most people *don't* know where the limitations and problems are.

What makes you think you know more than they do?

Remember the GM truck gas tank exploding, because of model
rocket motors strapped under there?

And how did you find out about that? It was the media, wasn't it? Or were
you there at the time?

Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
t...
"John Flanagan" wrote in message
...

The difference between the media and the CIA is that
the media is "trusted", which makes it all the more dangerous.

John


The difference between the media and the CIA is that the media, on the
average and in the main, is in the business of uncovering and telling the
facts -- something they do with mixed success.

Wow, is that what you really believe? The general media does nothing to
seek out 'facts' that I have seen. They only report what they're told,
wheter right or wrong. Even those in depth shows conjure up situations to
enhance ratings. Remember the GM truck gas tank exploding, because of model
rocket motors strapped under there?

Joel. phx


The CIA, on the other hand, is in the business of uncovering the facts and
then telling you whatever furthers their purpose of uncovering more facts.
Telling you the truth about them is not on their agenda, and, to the
degree
they *do* tell you things, their purpose is not to inform you but rather
to
produce an environment that's favorable to their purpose -- which is
gathering more facts. The truth is a tool they wield as it suits their
purposes.

That is, when they're not helping to overthrow some distasteful regime.
g

Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
t...
"Joel Corwith" wrote in message
...

The difference between the media and the CIA is that the media, on the
average and in the main, is in the business of uncovering and telling
the
facts -- something they do with mixed success.

Wow, is that what you really believe? The general media does nothing to
seek out 'facts' that I have seen. They only report what they're told,
wheter right or wrong. Even those in depth shows conjure up situations
to
enhance ratings.

No, it has nothing to do with what I believe. It's what I *know*, having
worked in the business for most of my 30+ working years. I've known a lot
of
the people doing it, how they work, where the limitations and problems
are,
and why most people *don't* know where the limitations and problems are.

What makes you think you know more than they do?

Cute, nice troll.
The real question is why din't YOU bother to check facts?


Remember the GM truck gas tank exploding, because of model
rocket motors strapped under there?

And how did you find out about that? It was the media, wasn't it? Or were
you there at the time?

It wasn't the media that reported it in the first place. The so called
'media' that presented it in the first place didn't bother to point out this
LIE, er FACT. None of the media at the time asked the question when
reporting the story "how did you conduct this experiment?". All they
reported was what was presented from their "affiliate" so they could get
their ratings. The local paper published a story about an "arms cache"
which turned out to be a bunch of trophies arms (hang on the wall). So now
this guy is an "arms dealer" in the people's eyes. A day or so later they
ran a correction further back in the paper because people had written in and
complained that the pictures in the paper clearly showed the arms were
'inert'. They just repeated the ATF lies. So much for "fact finding".

Joel. phx

(Front page)
"Senator Bob was seen hitting his wife"

(2 days later in section L)
"Bob's wife released from the hospital having received multiple bee
stings,...."

Oh, but they're both factual.....



Ed Huntress

In article , Joel Corwith says...

It wasn't the media that reported it in the first place. The so called
'media' that presented it in the first place didn't bother to point out this
LIE, er FACT. None of the media at the time asked the question when
reporting the story "how did you conduct this experiment?".

Well duh. Of course the TV, papers, etc. are all going to
try to put whatever spin on the news, to sell their wares
and get circulation and advertising.

It's up to the reader/watcher to ask the tough questions,
'just what the heck is going on here.' Anyone who
believes that crap as the gospel truth is getting what
they deserve.

This is what a guy like Ed does for a living. He asks
the questions like 'what do these people really have,
and what does it mean?'

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Joel Corwith" wrote in message
...

Wow, is that what you really believe? The general media does nothing
to
seek out 'facts' that I have seen. They only report what they're
told,
wheter right or wrong. Even those in depth shows conjure up
situations
to
enhance ratings.

No, it has nothing to do with what I believe. It's what I *know*, having
worked in the business for most of my 30+ working years. I've known a
lot
of
the people doing it, how they work, where the limitations and problems
are,
and why most people *don't* know where the limitations and problems are.

What makes you think you know more than they do?

Cute, nice troll.
The real question is why din't YOU bother to check facts?

Which facts did you have in mind, Joel?




Remember the GM truck gas tank exploding, because of model
rocket motors strapped under there?

And how did you find out about that? It was the media, wasn't it? Or
were
you there at the time?

It wasn't the media that reported it in the first place. The so called
'media' that presented it in the first place didn't bother to point out
this
LIE, er FACT. None of the media at the time asked the question when
reporting the story "how did you conduct this experiment?".

So, let's ask that question again and see if you can answer it this time:
How did you find out about it, if it wasn't from the media? Do you have a
friend on the "60 Minutes" film crew or something?


All they
reported was what was presented from their "affiliate" so they could get
their ratings. The local paper published a story about an "arms cache"
which turned out to be a bunch of trophies arms (hang on the wall). So
now
this guy is an "arms dealer" in the people's eyes. A day or so later they
ran a correction further back in the paper because people had written in
and
complained that the pictures in the paper clearly showed the arms were
'inert'. They just repeated the ATF lies. So much for "fact finding".

So, they made a mistake and ran a correction. Isn't that what they're
supposed to do?

What we've heard from you so far is that (1) you don't think that the media
digs up facts, because you haven't seen any evidence of it...which presumes
you must know one hell of a lot of facts that they don't report, (2) that a
CBS news crew phonied up a story and got caught -- which was reported by the
media itself, and (3) that you don't like the term "arms cache" applied to a
bunch of wall-hangers.

Well, I don't much like those things, either. But the fact is that (1), you
probably don't really know that many facts, and you're just a grumbler; (2),
you seem to have missed the fact that it was the media itself that reported
the story about the phony "60 Minutes" piece, which is how you found out
about it; and (3) you're unhappy that the reporter who wrote the story in
your local paper doesn't know a wall-hanger from a gang-banger.

Not many of them do. That's why we have a free press, one that's under such
competitive pressure that they'll report their mistakes and corrections AT
ALL. As I said, on the average and in the main, the media eventually get the
story out. Which is about all one has any right to expect.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

On 2 Oct 2003 11:55:43 -0700, jim rozen
pixelated:

In article , Joel Corwith says...

It wasn't the media that reported it in the first place. The so called
'media' that presented it in the first place didn't bother to point out this
LIE, er FACT. None of the media at the time asked the question when
reporting the story "how did you conduct this experiment?".

Well duh. Of course the TV, papers, etc. are all going to
try to put whatever spin on the news, to sell their wares
and get circulation and advertising.

It's up to the reader/watcher to ask the tough questions,
'just what the heck is going on here.' Anyone who
believes that crap as the gospel truth is getting what
they deserve.

This is what a guy like Ed does for a living. He asks
the questions like 'what do these people really have,
and what does it mean?'

'Nother tough question: Is this real?

http://www.whatever.net.au/pipermail/velcro/2003-January/000164.html

In article , Larry Jaques says...

'Nother tough question: Is this real?

http://www.whatever.net.au/pipermail/velcro/2003-January/000164.html



:^)

LOL.

Heh.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

The difference between the media and the CIA is that the media, on the
average and in the main, is in the business of uncovering and telling the
facts -- something they do with mixed success.

Sorry, but the media is in the business of selling their product.
No point me quoting examples as I'm in UK, but our best selling news(?)paper
is the worst at getting things right. It does however sell lots of papers
and is very profitable.

John

On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 18:59:52 GMT, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Joel Corwith" wrote in message
...
Remember the GM truck gas tank exploding, because of model
rocket motors strapped under there?

And how did you find out about that? It was the media, wasn't it? Or
were
you there at the time?

It wasn't the media that reported it in the first place. The so called
'media' that presented it in the first place didn't bother to point out
this
LIE, er FACT. None of the media at the time asked the question when
reporting the story "how did you conduct this experiment?".

So, let's ask that question again and see if you can answer it this time:
How did you find out about it, if it wasn't from the media? Do you have a
friend on the "60 Minutes" film crew or something?

NBC's Dateline did the phony exploding Chevy PU story. GM rolled out the
lawyers and made NBC fess up on the air (in order to avoid a $100 million
lawsuit) that they'd rigged the tanks to explode using pyrotechnic charges
for dramatic effect.

Gary

"John Manders" wrote in message
...
The difference between the media and the CIA is that the media, on the
average and in the main, is in the business of uncovering and telling
the
facts -- something they do with mixed success.

Sorry, but the media is in the business of selling their product.
No point me quoting examples as I'm in UK, but our best selling
news(?)paper
is the worst at getting things right. It does however sell lots of papers
and is very profitable.

Of course everybody in an enterprise economy is in the business of selling
their product, John. That doesn't tell you anything in itself. The real
question is what it is they have to sell.

In the UK, you have the curious distinction of having a few of the most
respected journalistic media anywhere, floating on top of an ocean full of
sensationalist crap -- some of the *least* respected journalisitic media
anywhere. As far back as the late '60s, when I was a student over there, the
best way to promote the sale of a tabloid newspaper in Britain was to lace
it with frequent double-truck spreads of siliconed breasts.

And the question here was not how well journalistic enterprises meet their
goals, but, rather, how those goals compare with the motivations behind the
speeches and statements of the CIA. The CIA isn't even nominally in the
business of broadcasting the facts as they know them. Their primary job is
to gather facts and then to keep them secret. If they speak, it's for
effect -- the effect being the furtherance of their objective, which is to
enable them to gather more facts...and then to keep them secret.

Which leads to the conclusion that one should never believe a single word
that comes from the CIA, nor should you even bother to judge their
statements on the basis of how well they fulfill an obligation to tell the
truth. That's simply not their obligation. And it most certainly is not
their motivation.

Ed Huntress

"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
...


NBC's Dateline did the phony exploding Chevy PU story. GM rolled out the
lawyers and made NBC fess up on the air (in order to avoid a $100 million
lawsuit) that they'd rigged the tanks to explode using pyrotechnic charges
for dramatic effect.

You missed the important step, Gary. It wasn't GM that uncovered the phony
exploding gas tanks. It was the Editor of Popular Hot Rodding, Pete
Pesterre. He's the one who brought it to GM's attention and who used their
resources to dig out the facts. Then the Washington Times and a number of
other publications started skewering NBC over the episode.

The point is, it was the media itself that uncovered it and that spread the
word. Without the media, you never would have heard about it.

That's how it works. That's why we have competitive media.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

NBC's Dateline did the phony exploding Chevy PU story. GM rolled out the
lawyers and made NBC fess up on the air (in order to avoid a $100 million

Remember it well. Seems it was another network (surprise ) who picked up on
it first g. Probably not that they (media) don't dig up "facts" to report,
but rather that they selectively report (and embellish) the "facts" that
support their editorial position or sensationalize the story to gain audience.
Of course, either is clearly "yellow journalism" and rampant in the media all
over the world. "60 Minutes" is probably the most notorious for deliberate
distortion of "facts" IMO.
Greg Sefton