Thant Tessman

http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/patriot/index.asp

kevin zollinger

Thant Tessman <thant@acm.org> wrote in
news:bf1gvg$cpo$1@terabinaries.xmission.com:

> http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/patriot/index.asp

Talk about a lot of work for a laugh!

I wonder how many people have been fooled ito submitting all their personal
data....

I heard today that Phil Gramm was asked if he thought that President W had
lied when he said that we had intelligence about Iraq's efforts to secure
nuclear fuel. Phil said:

"I wouldn't use the three letter word. I think that I would use the 5
letter word; deceit."

Maybe that's how the dems plan to fix the economy, new math!

I, of course, have nothing other than hearsay to validate the quote. If it
had been Danny Quayle (or any other Repub) you know that it would lead off
the 5:00 news. Of course, even if it was witnessed by 200 reporters we'll
never hear about it from traditional news sources.

--
~ kevin zollinger
kevin@mailsoap.com

pigo

"kevin zollinger" <kevin@mailsoap.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93B99AF22D4B9kevinmailsoapcom@206.127.4.25 ...
> Thant Tessman <thant@acm.org> wrote in
> news:bf1gvg$cpo$1@terabinaries.xmission.com:
>
> > http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/patriot/index.asp
>
> Talk about a lot of work for a laugh!
>
> I wonder how many people have been fooled ito submitting all their
personal
> data....
>
> I heard today that Phil Gramm was asked if he thought that President W
had
> lied when he said that we had intelligence about Iraq's efforts to
secure
> nuclear fuel. Phil said:
>
> "I wouldn't use the three letter word. I think that I would use the 5
> letter word; deceit."
>
> Maybe that's how the dems plan to fix the economy, new math!

Sorry to say, though, that the new math is closer to a legitimate gripe.
Trying to turn "we have information from the UK that Iraq has attempted
to buy nuclear material from africa" into any kind of "deceit" just
shows the level of desparation they have reached.
Telling someone that you have received information has no bearing on the
truthfulness of that information. The British still stand by that
information btw.

> I, of course, have nothing other than hearsay to validate the quote.
If it
> had been Danny Quayle (or any other Repub) you know that it would lead
off
> the 5:00 news. Of course, even if it was witnessed by 200 reporters
we'll
> never hear about it from traditional news sources.

Fox and Rush will report it. They're so upset that they don't control
that one news network. Why aren't they happy with ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC,
MSNBC, PBS, NPR, BBC.
Did I miss any?

pigo

"Pam" <dontmailhere@invalid.com> wrote in message
news8_Qa.89$s01.96906@news.uswest.net...
> OH, now that's good.
> LOL
> Pam

Ya think?
I was bored in the first couple of sentences.
Did it ever lead to anything clever?

Raptor

kevin zollinger wrote:
> I heard today that Phil Gramm was asked if he thought that President W had
> lied when he said that we had intelligence about Iraq's efforts to secure
> nuclear fuel. Phil said:
>
> "I wouldn't use the three letter word. I think that I would use the 5
> letter word; deceit."
>
> Maybe that's how the dems plan to fix the economy, new math!
>
> I, of course, have nothing other than hearsay to validate the quote. If it
> had been Danny Quayle (or any other Repub) you know that it would lead off
> the 5:00 news. Of course, even if it was witnessed by 200 reporters we'll
> never hear about it from traditional news sources.
>

Phil Gramm, the former senator from Texas? The Republican?

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we could to protect
our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security."
--Microsoft VP in charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

Raptor

pigo wrote:
> Sorry to say, though, that the new math is closer to a legitimate gripe.
> Trying to turn "we have information from the UK that Iraq has attempted
> to buy nuclear material from africa" into any kind of "deceit" just
> shows the level of desparation they have reached.
> Telling someone that you have received information has no bearing on the
> truthfulness of that information. The British still stand by that
> information btw.

Yes, we all know it depends on the what the definition of "is" is.

Congratulations, W. You've just matched Bill Clinton in something.

(The British will NOT stand by that information, AFAIK.)

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we could to protect
our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security."
--Microsoft VP in charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

pigo

"Raptor" <me@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3F151020.6060602@attbi.com...
> pigo wrote:
> > Sorry to say, though, that the new math is closer to a legitimate
gripe.
> > Trying to turn "we have information from the UK that Iraq has
attempted
> > to buy nuclear material from africa" into any kind of "deceit" just
> > shows the level of desparation they have reached.
> > Telling someone that you have received information has no bearing on
the
> > truthfulness of that information. The British still stand by that
> > information btw.
>
> Yes, we all know it depends on the what the definition of "is" is.

> Congratulations, W. You've just matched Bill Clinton in something.


Can you explain that for me? "we have information from" is quite clear
in it's meaning. IF that information turns out to be wrong that doesn't
turn his statement into a lie.

> (The British will NOT stand by that information, AFAIK.)

Last I heard, they were.

Thant Tessman

Raptor wrote:
> kevin zollinger wrote:
>
>> I heard today that Phil Gramm was asked if he thought that President W
>> had lied when he said that we had intelligence about Iraq's efforts to
>> secure nuclear fuel. Phil said:
>>
>> "I wouldn't use the three letter word. I think that I would use the 5
>> letter word; deceit."
>>
>> Maybe that's how the dems plan to fix the economy, new math!
>> I, of course, have nothing other than hearsay to validate the quote.
>> If it had been Danny Quayle (or any other Repub) you know that it
>> would lead off the 5:00 news. Of course, even if it was witnessed by
>> 200 reporters we'll never hear about it from traditional news sources.
>>
>
> Phil Gramm, the former senator from Texas? The Republican?
>

Representative Charles Rangel, a Democrat (and one of the shallowest
thinkers on the planet) wants to bring back the draft. The labels
Democrat and Republican really do mean nothing.

But speaking of hippies, don't forget that that particular cultural
hiccup was in large part induced by the fact that kids were being
drafted for the Vietnam war. It's just that there is always somebody
ready to jump in front of the mob and shout that the alternative to
Nationalism is Socialism. Of course I use the terms loosely.
"Nationalism" means people who have power, and "Socialism" means people
who want power. When the people who want power get it, they switch to
being Nationalists, although they'll keep whatever label they think will
keep them in power.

-thant

kevin zollinger

Raptor <me@attbi.com> wrote in news:3F150FA8.5060502@attbi.com:

> kevin zollinger wrote:
>> I heard today that Phil Gramm was asked if he thought that President
>
> Phil Gramm, the former senator from Texas? The Republican?
>

Sorry, my bad. Bob Graham, (D) from Floridia, where every (D) vote counts
twice!

The exact quote:

"I would not use the three-letter word," the Florida senator told
reporters. "I would use the five-letter word: deceit."

The AP wire story about the quote, sent to 1000's of AP Customers was
picked up by exactly twice (according to Google):

The St. Petersburg Times
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/07/15/Wo...tique_mis.shtm
le
and

The Bradenton Herald
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/6303152.htm

You'll not that both papers are local to Florida (er, Floridia) and the the
quote in question came out of a meeting in Miami, Florida. It never ceases
to amaze me how the mainstream press can 1) continue to jump all over (R)
candidates for each and every error while ignoring the same type of thing
from (D) candidates while at the same time 2) proclaiming far and wide that
"there is no liberal bias in the media." Remember Rather & Co reporting
that George W. Bush's campaign had been damaged because he didn't know who
the leader of east timbukto was?


Finally, http://www.rightwingnews.com/ had perhaps the best (most likely to
be funny) account of the meeting:

Bob Graham, Dumb Republicans, Impeachment, & The Boy Who Cried Wolf: Dan
Quayle was relentlessly lampooned and treated as the dumbest man alive for
misspelling the word potato despite the fact that he was given a card with
the word spelled incorrectly on it. So will Bob Graham get the same
treatment for saying this?

"I would not use the three-letter word," the Florida senator told
reporters. "I would use the five-letter word: deceit. That (Bush) deceived
the American people by allowing into a State of the Union speech at a
critical point when he was making the case for war with Iraq, a statement
that he either knew was wrong or should have known was wrong."

I'll answer my own question; no he won't because he's a Democrat. Reagan,
Quayle, or W, they might be called stupid, but a Democrat? No way, the
press doesn't tar people on their side as 'stupid.'

But Graham had more to say...

"If Democrats were in control of the House, Graham was asked if he would
support impeachment.

"If the standard of impeachment that the Republicans set for Bill Clinton a
personal, consensual relationship was the basis for impeachment, would not
a president who knowingly deceived the American people about something as
important as whether to go to war meet the standard of impeachment?" Graham
asked."

So Graham's implying that Bush should be impeached for what he said in his
State of the Union speech huh? Well, that does make perfect sense. After
all, Bush did say that...

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

....and as it turned out, the British government had learned that Saddam
Hussein had recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
It's outrageous! It's worse than the Enron "scandal" where Democrats
ceaselessly repeated the words "Bush", "scandal", & "Enron" over and over!
They even have a better sounding slogan than "no war for oil"; this time
it's "Bush lied, people died!" See? It rhymes! Why don't all the "sheeple"
get this?

Just keep repeating "Bush lied" over and over again fellas -- 72% of the
American public has already tuned you out to the point where they don't
even know this "scandal" is happening. You can only cry "wolf"...ehr
"scandal" so many times without a payoff before much of the public starts
to ignore you. Happily, the Democrats seem to have already reached that
point...

PS: In case Bob Graham is reading, the word "scandal" has 7 letters in
it...

--
~ kevin zollinger
kevin@mailsoap.com

pigo

"kevin zollinger" <kevin@mailsoap.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93BA73D1E6D4Bkevinmailsoapcom@206.127.4.25 ...

(snipped)

Well looky there. We totally agree on something!

pigo

Thant Tessman

kevin zollinger wrote:

[...]

> So Graham's implying that Bush should be impeached for what he said in his
> State of the Union speech huh? Well, that does make perfect sense. After
> all, Bush did say that...
>
> "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
> significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
>
> ...and as it turned out, the British government had learned that Saddam
> Hussein had recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

[...]

Bush is either a liar, or a fool surrounded by liars. What's significant
is not that the CIA didn't insist forcefully enough that that part of
the speech removed (as they had for a previous speech), but that Bush's
handlers were so desperate to justify the war that they were willing to
use this story despite the fact that the CIA couldn't confirm it. And
what's surprising is not how much attention this particular lie is
getting, but how little attention all the other lies are getting. There
never was a link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. There never was an
imminent threat of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. The
Ministry of Newspeak is already rewriting history. Saddam may not have
been an imminent threat, but supposedly that never was the real reason
we went to war:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...5648-7579r.htm

I don't know how all this can be explained by liberal bias except to say
that many of the intellectuals who have placed themselves in positions
of influence in the Republican party, and who are driving foreign policy
at this point, are ex-socialists (hence the term "neoconservative.") The
media bias can be better described as favoring elitists--whether
Republican or Democrat.

-thant

kevin zollinger

"pigo" <pigopowderNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:012dne4Dyc1YEYiiXTWJiA@comcast.com:

>
> "kevin zollinger" <kevin@mailsoap.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns93BA73D1E6D4Bkevinmailsoapcom@206.127.4.25 ...
>
> (snipped)
>
> Well looky there. We totally agree on something!
>
> pigo
>
>
>

Crap. That's twice now. One of us had better change something quickly....

--
~ kevin zollinger
kevin@mailsoap.com

kevin zollinger

Thant Tessman <thant@acm.org> wrote in
news:bf468t$eom$1@terabinaries.xmission.com:

> kevin zollinger wrote:
>
>
> Bush is either a liar, or a fool surrounded by liars. What's
> significant is not that the CIA didn't insist forcefully enough that
> that part of the speech removed (as they had for a previous speech),

It was reported yesterday (Don't remember where) that the director of the
CIA (A slick willie appointee, IIRC) failed to read the speach. It was sent
to him, <sarcasm> but he apparently had something more important to do.
</sarcasm>

> but that Bush's handlers were so desperate to justify the war that
> they were willing to use this story despite the fact that the CIA
> couldn't confirm it. And what's surprising is not how much attention
> this particular lie is getting, but how little attention all the other
> lies are getting. There never was a link between Saddam Hussein and
> Al-Qaeda. There never was an imminent threat of chemical, biological,
> or nuclear weapons. The Ministry of Newspeak is already rewriting
> history. Saddam may not have been an imminent threat, but supposedly
> that never was the real reason we went to war:
>
> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...5648-7579r.htm
>

OK, I'll admit to having a sometimes spotty memory, but IIRC the only time
that nukes were mentioned by GWB was in the SOTU speech that we've been
talking about. The WashTimes covers only that aspect of it, so I don't know
what I was supposed to get here. I did enjoy the quote from Condoleeza
Rice:

"The British stand by their statement," Miss Rice said Sunday. "They have
told us that despite the fact that we had apparently some concerns about
that report, that they had other sources, and that they stand by the
statement."

I remember talking about all of the things that you've mentioned. I too had
hoped that we would find much more evidence of WMD development, but I also
remember that Saddam had a decade to get good at hiding his tracks. Do I
still think that the war was good? Yes. I am sure that you think me
deluded, but I still think that the fight was just.

> I don't know how all this can be explained by liberal bias except to
> say that many of the intellectuals who have placed themselves in

My reference to liberal bias had only to do with the way that the liberal
media works so hard to expose and spelling or reasoning error on the part
of conservatives while declaring similiar incidents by fellow liberals to
be non-issues.


> positions of influence in the Republican party, and who are driving
> foreign policy at this point, are ex-socialists (hence the term
> "neoconservative.") The media bias can be better described as favoring
> elitists--whether Republican or Democrat.
>

http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...eoconservative
An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and
social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of
the 1960s: “The neo-conservatism of the 1980s is a replay of the New
Conservatism of the 1950s, which was itself a replay of the New Era
philosophy of the 1920s” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).

To quote the Andre the Giant in the Princess Bride: "I don't think that
word means what you think that it means."

Regardless, your point about it being more of a bias to elitists is pretty
good. Of course they would deny that charge equally vehemently. I would
suspect that they really think that they are ANTI-elites. They just can't
admit that most national liberals are in the same financial class as the
conservatives that they so love to bash. (Did you hear about the Clintons
buying a $12,000,000 condo in Ireland? 12 million for a condo?!?!?!?) I
don't think that the bias is anything overt, it just that they all live,
work and play together. A good treatment of the issue can be found on a
book called "Bias: a CBS insider exposes how the media distorts the news"
by Bernard Goldberg. It is a fascinating read.

--
~ kevin zollinger
kevin@mailsoap.com

Thant Tessman

kevin zollinger wrote:
> Thant Tessman <thant@acm.org> wrote in
> news:bf468t$eom$1@terabinaries.xmission.com:
>
>
>>kevin zollinger wrote:
>>
>>
>>Bush is either a liar, or a fool surrounded by liars. What's
>>significant is not that the CIA didn't insist forcefully enough that
>>that part of the speech removed (as they had for a previous speech),
>
>
> It was reported yesterday (Don't remember where) that the director of the
> CIA (A slick willie appointee, IIRC) failed to read the speach. It was sent
> to him, <sarcasm> but he apparently had something more important to do.
> </sarcasm>

It's no secret who insisted on including the Niger (excuse me, Africa)
claim:

http://www.majority.com/news/spyring.html

[...]

>
> I remember talking about all of the things that you've mentioned. I too had
> hoped that we would find much more evidence of WMD development, but I also
> remember that Saddam had a decade to get good at hiding his tracks. Do I
> still think that the war was good? Yes. I am sure that you think me
> deluded, but I still think that the fight was just.

To hope that they find more evidence of WMDs presumes that this is what
the war was about. And if you presume that this is what the war was
about, you can always find excuses for the failure to find evidence of
WMDs. Remember, the claim was that Iraq was an imminent threat. This was
why the U.S. was supposedly justified in a pre-emptive attack. It's
embarrasingly obvious to everyone except the most prejudiced nut cases
that Iraq was *not* an imminent threat, but the propaganda machine has
plenty of time to crank out ex post facto justifications for the war.

As I've documented in this forum, the Iraq war was in the works
practically since the gulf war ended, and is considered by its advocates
in the PNMAC and the AEI merely a first step in their mission to impose
a western empire (excuse me, a "benevolent hegemony") on the entire
middle east. None of this is secret, but it does require going beyond
Fox and Newsweek for your information.


> http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...eoconservative
> An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and
> social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of
> the 1960s: “The neo-conservatism of the 1980s is a replay of the New
> Conservatism of the 1950s, which was itself a replay of the New Era
> philosophy of the 1920s” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).
>
> To quote the Andre the Giant in the Princess Bride: "I don't think that
> word means what you think that it means."


Here's a response:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j052303.html

to the article you're referencing:

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldbe...berg052103.asp




> Regardless, your point about it being more of a bias to elitists is pretty
> good. Of course they would deny that charge equally vehemently. I would
> suspect that they really think that they are ANTI-elites. [...]

I don't think so. See Thomas Sowell's book "Vision of the Anointed." His
illustrating examples are conspicuously chosen to flatter conservatives,
but the typical libertarian would be sympathetic to the points being
made. (His books are much better than his newspaper editorials.)

To use old-fashioned terminology, communists consider themselves more
than mere member of the proletariat: They consider themselves uniquely
qualified to represent and articulate the interests of the proletariat.

-thant

Pete Ashdown

kevin zollinger <kevin@mailsoap.com> writes:

>I'll answer my own question; no he won't because he's a Democrat. Reagan,
>Quayle, or W, they might be called stupid, but a Democrat? No way, the
>press doesn't tar people on their side as 'stupid.'

No, the conservative press uses words like, "treasonous", "slanderous", and
"anti USA" (hi Pigo!) to describe anyone who criticizes the right.

"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship,
or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people
can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you
have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists
for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."

- Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II
--
Pneumatic tubes are killing the Internet.

Pete Ashdown pashdown@xmission.com ICQ:5717723 Salt Lake City, Utah
XMission Internet Access - http://www.xmission.com - Voice: 801 539 0852

pigo

"Thant Tessman" <thant@acm.org> wrote in message
news:bf6fth$e57$1@terabinaries.xmission.com...


> To hope that they find more evidence of WMDs presumes that this is
what
> the war was about. And if you presume that this is what the war was
> about, you can always find excuses for the failure to find evidence of
> WMDs. Remember, the claim was that Iraq was an imminent threat. This
was
> why the U.S. was supposedly justified in a pre-emptive attack. It's
> embarrasingly obvious to everyone except the most prejudiced nut cases
> that Iraq was *not* an imminent threat, but the propaganda machine has
> plenty of time to crank out ex post facto justifications for the war.

Iraq is *still* a threat. Though it has now been driven further
underground. Hopefully it's more difficult for them to communicate and
plan and transport. Maybe now they'll disperse 1 pound instead of 1000.
This isn't easy, like building a house, where you can see the end,
everything is foreseeable, wham bam, done. This is the equivilant of
showing up to work everyday and having the foundation moved and the
floorplan changed.
The nutcase is the one that, after 10 weeks, thinks that it's done. That
doesn't know that we're 1/5 of the way into the first, of 4-5, years of
a very difficult time. It might not work. That doesn't make it worth
trying. I think it will work. And *nothing* is happening that I wasn't
informed about or didn't expect. For those that are surprised, it either
fits their political agenda or they are naive and ruled by emotion.

> As I've documented in this forum, the Iraq war was in the works
> practically since the gulf war ended, and is considered by its
advocates
> in the PNMAC and the AEI merely a first step in their mission to
impose
> a western empire (excuse me, a "benevolent hegemony") on the entire
> middle east. None of this is secret, but it does require going beyond
> Fox and Newsweek for your information.

You haven't documented crap.
When Saddam _unconditionally surrendered_ at the end of the Gulf war
it's assumed by everyone but the really retarded that if he doesn't live
up to his responsibilities, the war is back on.
You guys really hate not controlling the televised media anymore, don't
you?

> > http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...eoconservative
> > An intellectual and political movement in favor of political,
economic, and
> > social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived
liberalism of
> > the 1960s: “The neo-conservatism of the 1980s is a replay of the New
> > Conservatism of the 1950s, which was itself a replay of the New Era
> > philosophy of the 1920s” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).
> >
> > To quote the Andre the Giant in the Princess Bride: "I don't think
that
> > word means what you think that it means."
>
>
> Here's a response:
>
> http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j052303.html
>
> to the article you're referencing:
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/goldbe...berg052103.asp
>
>
>
>
> > Regardless, your point about it being more of a bias to elitists is
pretty
> > good. Of course they would deny that charge equally vehemently. I
would
> > suspect that they really think that they are ANTI-elites. [...]
>
> I don't think so. See Thomas Sowell's book "Vision of the Anointed."
His
> illustrating examples are conspicuously chosen to flatter
conservatives,
> but the typical libertarian would be sympathetic to the points being
> made. (His books are much better than his newspaper editorials.)
>
> To use old-fashioned terminology, communists consider themselves more
> than mere member of the proletariat: They consider themselves uniquely
> qualified to represent and articulate the interests of the
proletariat.
>
> -thant
>

pigo

"Pete Ashdown" <pashdown@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:bf6lb7$fap$1@terabinaries.xmission.com...
> kevin zollinger <kevin@mailsoap.com> writes:
>
> >I'll answer my own question; no he won't because he's a Democrat.
Reagan,
> >Quayle, or W, they might be called stupid, but a Democrat? No way,
the
> >press doesn't tar people on their side as 'stupid.'
>
> No, the conservative press uses words like, "treasonous",
"slanderous", and
> "anti USA" (hi Pigo!) to describe anyone who criticizes the right.

To me, there is a difference between disagreeing and hoping for
"disaster" to suit the political agenda.

There are some who are misled and or naive and think that you can make a
treaty with N. Korea or Saddam (as happened) and that they will abide by
them and all will be well. They argue against fighting back while
wearing those rose colored glasses. That would be great if they were
right, but they're not. People like my mom, who's lived too long to be
rational, or those rainbow people who haven't lived long enough to know
the difference.

Then there are those that want the economy to stay weak. Some even blame
it on Bush even though it clearly started during clinton's term. Nothing
will make these people happier than to have hardship of any kind befall
America so that they can blame Bush and further their political agenda
to elect a democrat as President in '04. *That* is anti-USA, treasonous,
and often slanderous.

To say that Bush *lied* when he said that he "had information from the
UK....." is slanderous. Separate from whether or not the information was
reliable, or even whether or not the clinton appointed CIA chief read
it, he was told that there was information from the UK and he believed
it when he said it.
To investigate it with the intention of improving the system is legit.
To twist and manipulate it to try to make something out of it that it's
not is "slanderous".

Pete Ashdown

"pigo" <pigopowderNOSPAM@yahoo.com> writes:


>> No, the conservative press uses words like, "treasonous",
>"slanderous", and
>> "anti USA" (hi Pigo!) to describe anyone who criticizes the right.

>To me, there is a difference between disagreeing and hoping for
>"disaster" to suit the political agenda.

Yes, I agree. That is why I used the word "criticize" and not "hopes for
disaster."

>There are some who are misled and or naive and think that you can make a
>treaty with N. Korea or Saddam (as happened) and that they will abide by
>them and all will be well. They argue against fighting back while
>wearing those rose colored glasses. That would be great if they were
>right, but they're not. People like my mom, who's lived too long to be
>rational, or those rainbow people who haven't lived long enough to know
>the difference.

And the reason we needed to rush in without UN Cooperation was? And the
reason we need UN Cooperation now is?

>Then there are those that want the economy to stay weak. Some even blame
>it on Bush even though it clearly started during clinton's term. Nothing
>will make these people happier than to have hardship of any kind befall
>America so that they can blame Bush and further their political agenda
>to elect a democrat as President in '04. *That* is anti-USA, treasonous,
>and often slanderous.

Quotes please? See my first paragraph. Public criticism of the President
does not equal treason, slander or anti-USA sentiment.

>To say that Bush *lied* when he said that he "had information from the
>UK....." is slanderous. Separate from whether or not the information was
>reliable, or even whether or not the clinton appointed CIA chief read
>it, he was told that there was information from the UK and he believed
>it when he said it.

Ah, so its Clinton's fault that they repeated information that they knew was
suspect in order to beat the drums of war? I see... Everything good the
adminstration does (ie: Pulling out of Saudi Arabia) can be credited to the
administration. Everything bad they do is a result of Clinton. If the right
is blaming Tenent for this, and therefore Clinton, why did the administration
not have the wisdom to fire him and put in someone else at the beginning? Why
did Bush trust anything that was handed to him by this obvious Clinton lackey?

>To investigate it with the intention of improving the system is legit.
>To twist and manipulate it to try to make something out of it that it's
>not is "slanderous".

So Bush was slandering the facts?
--
Pneumatic tubes are killing the Internet.

Pete Ashdown pashdown@xmission.com ICQ:5717723 Salt Lake City, Utah
XMission Internet Access - http://www.xmission.com - Voice: 801 539 0852

asterellis

______________________SNIP_______________________
>As I've documented in this forum, the Iraq war was in the works
>practically since the gulf war ended, and is considered by its advocates
>in the PNMAC and the AEI merely a first step in their mission to impose
>a western empire (excuse me, a "benevolent hegemony") on the entire
>middle east. None of this is secret, but it does require going beyond
>Fox and Newsweek for your information.
>
>

You mean there are sources other than Fox and Newsweek?......oh yeah,
I forgot about BBCnews.





Seems to me that the powers that be have just been counting on the
general disinterest of the American people. As though they have been
lulled into the belief that you can blow any amount of smoke of the
peoples ass, so long as you are willing to blow long and hard enough.
When it becomes annoying enough, the people will accept it as truth
(or as close as we're gonna get) just to get the process to end, and
then forget about the whole affair the next time there is a Simpson
murder to watch on CNN. But this time they just went too far. We've
been poised to finish off the Iraqi affair since the first incident
and just looking for an excuse. I remember being astounded at how
fast W. started pointing to Iraq right after 911. I couldn't believe
that we would try to use 911 as an excuse to become the aggressor
there, but here we are. I have to say I followed the process pretty
closely, and the ONLY real justification proffered was that of
"imminent threat". We had to do it immediately, before Saddam built
up even more weapons, and dug in even deeper. And now those same
people are testing our memory of the whole affair by saying that they
never based the decision on that. What a load! I'm still expecting
Bush, or Rice or someone, to break down while being grilled in a
conference and scream "LOOK, IT'S ELVIS!!!!!", then sneak out the
back door while everyones head is turned, simply because they have run
out of other ruses.

So now I think they are just counting on outwaiting the public on the
whole affair of actually turning up any WMD. Eventually we'll get
bored and give up on demanding that we find evidence. I understand
that it's difficult to find what has been (probably) very skillfully
hidden for years, but if the military/govt. is really convinced that
it all exists then why not offer a bounty/reward for that information?
That country has to be overflowing with officials who were not
particularly loyal to Saddam, but rather to their paychecks and to
keeping their head attached. So why can't we just speed things up by
offering them cash in exchange for pointing us in the right direction?
If the WMD exist, then there have to be alot of people that know
where, so why not just pay them off? They keep complaining that Iraq
is a "big country" but it just isn't that big, is it?

pigo

"Pete Ashdown" <pashdown@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:bf6rl3$gf0$1@terabinaries.xmission.com...


> And the reason we needed to rush in without UN Cooperation was? And
the
> reason we need UN Cooperation now is?

12 years and 17 toothless (until we added them) resolutions was a rush?

> >Then there are those that want the economy to stay weak. Some even
blame
> >it on Bush even though it clearly started during clinton's term.
Nothing
> >will make these people happier than to have hardship of any kind
befall
> >America so that they can blame Bush and further their political
agenda
> >to elect a democrat as President in '04. *That* is anti-USA,
treasonous,
> >and often slanderous.
>
> Quotes please? See my first paragraph. Public criticism of the
President
> does not equal treason, slander or anti-USA sentiment.
>
> >To say that Bush *lied* when he said that he "had information from
the
> >UK....." is slanderous. Separate from whether or not the information
was
> >reliable, or even whether or not the clinton appointed CIA chief read
> >it, he was told that there was information from the UK and he
believed
> >it when he said it.
>
> Ah, so its Clinton's fault that they repeated information that they
knew was
> suspect in order to beat the drums of war?

"They"? "Knew"? Bush said it. It was he that had recieved the
information from someone. Unless you can prove that *he* knew, it's not
a lie and slanderous to say that it is. All he stated was the *he*
received information.

> I see... Everything good the
> adminstration does (ie: Pulling out of Saudi Arabia) can be credited
to the
> administration. Everything bad they do is a result of Clinton. If
the right
> is blaming Tenent for this, and therefore Clinton, why did the
administration
> not have the wisdom to fire him and put in someone else at the
beginning? Why
> did Bush trust anything that was handed to him by this obvious Clinton
lackey?

I only mentioned it to point out the mixture of parties involved. I
don't find fault with anyone involved with enforcing the cease fire of
1991, FINALLY.

> >To investigate it with the intention of improving the system is
legit.
> >To twist and manipulate it to try to make something out of it that
it's
> >not is "slanderous".
>
> So Bush was slandering the facts?

How could he have been? Given that he _said_ that he "had information
from the UK". You have information that he didn't have information from
the UK?

Thant Tessman

asterellis wrote:

> [...] Criminy, the USSR pulled the wool over our eyes
> for years as they were rotting internally - what does that say about
> the effectiveness of our CIA? [...]

An interesting quote from the article I referenced in an earlier post:

"The current tension over intelligence is simply the resumption of a
battle fought during the Cold War when conservatives such as Rumsfeld,
Wolfowitz and Feith accused the CIA of underestimating the military
dangers posed by the Soviet Union. (Following the Soviet Union's
collapse, it became clear the CIA had been more accurate in its
estimates than the hawks had been.) Since the Sept. 11 terrorism attacks
and the onset of the war on terrorism, the ideological battle has simply
shifted to the Middle East."

-thant

pigo

"Myke Place" <mp@xmission.com> wrote in message
newsan.2003.07.17.21.17.53.778154@xmission.com.. .
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:02:54 -0600, pigo did opine:
>
> > Iraq is *still* a threat. Though it has now been driven further
> > underground. Hopefully it's more difficult for them to communicate
and
> > plan and transport. Maybe now they'll disperse 1 pound instead of
1000.
>
> Disperse one pound of what? Magic pixie dust?

Anthrax, ricin. He was know to have those. There is alot of stuff
missing from the inspectors inventory and the claims in his "report" to
the UN.

> Come on pigo, this quasi-fairyland you're living in is getting
tiresome
> (though mildly entertaining.)

Unfortunately we can't divide ourselves up into those that trust Saddam
and those that fight back. We did have that nice treaty with N. Korea so
at least we don't have to worry about them.

> Are you really going to argue that the Bush administration has
produced
> quality evidence of WMDs in Iraq that pose a threat?

To launch a conventional military attack on the US mainland? No. To
support a terrorist type attack that would kill a minimum of hundreds
and cause unknown economic damage? Yes.
Did you ever see "The Godfather"? He passed orders down the line so that
by the time they were carried out no one could connect the dots back to
him. Is it so hard to see Saddam doing that?

kevin zollinger

Thant Tessman <thant@acm.org> wrote in
news:bf6fth$e57$1@terabinaries.xmission.com:

> kevin zollinger wrote:

[...]

>>
>> To quote the Andre the Giant in the Princess Bride: "I don't think
>> that word means what you think that it means."
>
>
> Here's a response:
>
> http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j052303.html
>
> to the article you're referencing:
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/goldbe...berg052103.asp
>

Wow. I should get a job working for the paper, but now that I think about
it he got the quote closer than I did. Great movie. I didn't know about
either story until now. It is kinda fun how they represent the extreme left
and right of the political spectrum in America. It also seems to me that
we're spending a lot o time arguing about the meaning of a word that
appears to have context sensitive meaning to many people. I'll be happy to
stipulate to any meaning you want for the purposes of this discussion.


>
>
>
>> Regardless, your point about it being more of a bias to elitists is
>> pretty good. Of course they would deny that charge equally
>> vehemently. I would suspect that they really think that they are
>> ANTI-elites. [...]
>
> I don't think so. See Thomas Sowell's book "Vision of the Anointed."
> His illustrating examples are conspicuously chosen to flatter
> conservatives, but the typical libertarian would be sympathetic to the
> points being made. (His books are much better than his newspaper
> editorials.)
>

I've reserved a copy from the public library. I'll start it after I finish
Genome by Matt Ridley, which I'll start after reading E.Godz. (I gotta have
some fun somehow, and Robert Asprin works for me.)

> To use old-fashioned terminology, communists consider themselves more
> than mere member of the proletariat: They consider themselves uniquely
> qualified to represent and articulate the interests of the
> proletariat.
>

Sounds pretty much like the description that I would use for many of our
nation's leading liberals. None of which really changes my belief that many
of our nations reporters are liberal, went to school with liberals, work
with liberals, play with liberals and are married to liberals. Their kids
play with liberal kids and they send them to liberal schools when they are
old enough. There is a decidedly liberal bias in much of american news. Its
changing, but it'll take time.

I don't remember how I got sucked into this thread, but I've had enough fun
for now. The last word is yours if you so desire.

--
~ kevin zollinger
kevin@mailsoap.com

kevin zollinger

Pete Ashdown <pashdown@xmission.com> wrote in
news:bf6lb7$fap$1@terabinaries.xmission.com:

> kevin zollinger <kevin@mailsoap.com> writes:
>
>>I'll answer my own question; no he won't because he's a Democrat.
>>Reagan, Quayle, or W, they might be called stupid, but a Democrat? No
>>way, the press doesn't tar people on their side as 'stupid.'
>
> No, the conservative press uses words like, "treasonous",
> "slanderous", and "anti USA" (hi Pigo!) to describe anyone who
> criticizes the right.
>

Dang. In this case I am forced to admit that you've got a very valid point.
Its really sad that there really are so few sources of balanced reporting.
Of course the hyper-(I was going to say neo-; see the other post)-
conservative voices tend to be less instatutional than the far left.

> "Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the
> leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a
> simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or
> a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship
> ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding
> of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they
> are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism
> and exposing the country to danger."
>
> - Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, at the Nuremberg Trials after World
> War II

What's that old internet law about every thread devolving to a Nazi
reference? Of course by mentioning Goodwin's Law I hope to avoid talking
about the whole war thing.

OK, fine. I thought that the attack was justified. I'm not as certain now
as I was then that we were in danger, but I think that the long term
benefit will justify the short term cost. Perhaps that makes me a little
Machevellian, I'll have to re-read The Prince to see how I fit in. The
other aspect is that there is some possibility that the short term cost
will involve a much tougher election in 2004 for GWB. Of course, I am
always open to the chance that I could be wrong. I'm sure that its happened
before, I just can't remember when.

The last word is yours. I'm out.

--
~ kevin zollinger
kevin@mailsoap.com

Myke Place

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 22:21:51 -0600, pigo wrote:


> "Myke Place" <mp@xmission.com> wrote in message
> newsan.2003.07.17.21.17.53.778154@xmission.com.. .
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:02:54 -0600, pigo did opine:
>>
>> > Iraq is *still* a threat. Though it has now been driven further
>> > underground. Hopefully it's more difficult for them to communicate
> and
>> > plan and transport. Maybe now they'll disperse 1 pound instead of
> 1000.
>>
>> Disperse one pound of what? Magic pixie dust?
>
> Anthrax, ricin. He was know to have those. There is alot of stuff
> missing from the inspectors inventory and the claims in his "report" to
> the UN.

He also claimed to destroy them. According to Scott Ritter, the U.S.
dismissed the report less than 24 hours after it was submitted to the U.N.
and continued with plans to launch an attack.

As Mr. Ritter points out, either W is either so smart that he can read
10,000 pages in a day, or the administration wasn't interested in what the
report contained to begin with. So let's forget the "report," after all,
the Bush administration did.

The hawks have want they want, virtually unfettered access for U.S.
weapons inspectors. Yet, still no WMDs. Now that we're in this mess, how
do you suggest that we explain this to the rest of the world? (Since we
don't have to explain it to the %60 of U.S. citizens who believe that the
war was justified even if WMDs aren't located.)

>> Come on pigo, this quasi-fairyland you're living in is getting
> tiresome
>> (though mildly entertaining.)
>
> Unfortunately we can't divide ourselves up into those that trust Saddam
> and those that fight back. We did have that nice treaty with N. Korea so
> at least we don't have to worry about them.

You're right, but we can divide ourselves into groups wisely skeptical of
the Bush warmongering agenda and those following Bush down the
metaphorical toilet. United we certainly do not stand, and for good
reason.

'fight back'? Against what exactly? You do recall that this was a
pre-emptive strike by the United States don't you?

>> Are you really going to argue that the Bush administration has
> produced
>> quality evidence of WMDs in Iraq that pose a threat?
>
> To launch a conventional military attack on the US mainland? No. To
> support a terrorist type attack that would kill a minimum of hundreds
> and cause unknown economic damage? Yes.

Economic damage? I'll give you a dollar if you tell an Iraqi who lost a
family member in the campaign that we needed to shoot them to prevent the
almighty dollar from loosing power. That's not just absurdly capitalistic,
it's totally disgusting.

We obviously have differing opinions, but I believe that U.S. foreign
policy will only encourage those who might consider funding such attacks.

> Did you ever see "The Godfather"? He passed orders down the line so that
> by the time they were carried out no one could connect the dots back to
> him. Is it so hard to see Saddam doing that?

It's a lot easier for me to see new terror groups forming right now in
occupied Iraq (not to mention the rest of the Middle East,) made up of
citizens who lost their homes to 'coalition' bombs and U.S. aggression in
the region.

Thant Tessman

kevin zollinger wrote:

> [...] It also seems to me that
> we're spending a lot o time arguing about the meaning of a word that
> appears to have context sensitive meaning to many people. I'll be happy to
> stipulate to any meaning you want for the purp