New book: "Family of Secrets"" by Russ Baker
Peter Fokes
<quote on>
Learn:
Why George H.W. Bush can’t remember where he was on November 22, 1963
Why oilman George H.W. Bush shows up in early CIA documents A new, more
troubling explanation of the Watergate scandal The real story behind
George W. Bush’s missing military service The inside scoop on the Bushes
and Saudi influence in America The strange saga of Harvard University and
its endowment The untold real story behind George W. Bush’s religious
awakening Never before told anecdotes from George W. Bush’s wild past
How the CIA monitors the White House and its occupants Why Barack Obama
and his supporters should read this book
<quote off>
http://www.bloomsburypress.com/books/catalog/family_of_secrets
And at Amazon (a few reviews)
Excerpt in The Huffington Post (Dec 22, 2008)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russ-baker/the-skeleton-in-ws-closet_b_152869.html
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
John McAdams
wrote:
>http://www.familyofsecrets.com/revelations/
>
><quote on>
>
>Learn:
>
>Why George H.W. Bush can’t remember where he was on November 22, 1963
Kook alert!
>Why oilman George H.W. Bush shows up in early CIA documents
But it's not oilman George H.W. Bush.
>A new, more
>troubling explanation of the Watergate scandal The real story behind
>George W. Bush’s missing military service The inside scoop on the Bushes
>and Saudi influence in America The strange saga of Harvard University and
>its endowment The untold real story behind George W. Bush’s religious
>awakening Never before told anecdotes from George W. Bush’s wild past
>How the CIA monitors the White House and its occupants Why Barack Obama
>and his supporters should read this book
>
><quote off>
>
>http://www.bloomsburypress.com/books/catalog/family_of_secrets
>
>And at Amazon (a few reviews)
>
>http://www.amazon.com/Family-Secrets-Dynasty-Powerful-Influence/dp/1596915579/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230005295&sr=1-1
>
>
>Excerpt in The Huffington Post (Dec 22, 2008)
>
>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russ-baker/the-skeleton-in-ws-closet_b_152869.html
>
Leftist web sites like the Daily Kooks really would be well-advised to
avoid all this conspiracy stuff.
Democratic Underground has published some real moonbat stuff.
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2006/06/britney-spears-on-grassy-knoll.html
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Peter Fokes
> On 22 Dec 2008 23:19:36 -0500, Peter Fokes <boreal4...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.familyofsecrets.com/revelations/
>
> ><quote on>
>
> >Learn:
>
> >Why George H.W. Bush can’t remember where he was on November 22, 1963
>
> Kook alert!
Kinda of tough on the guy, aren't you John?
Baker has been published by the New Yorker, Vanity Fair, The Nation,
the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Village Voice and
Esquire.
Perhaps he is simply "in error" rather than being a "kook."
Then again, Bugliosi was called a paragon of sanity when he published
Reclaiming History, but a kook when he published The Prosecution of
George Bush For Murder.
Perhaps the labels are more revealing of the partisan slant of the
labeller than the author!
Although you are correct about the "two" George Bushes.
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
>
> >Why oilman George H.W. Bush shows up in early CIA documents
>
> But it's not oilman George H.W. Bush.
>
>
>
> >A new, more
> >troubling explanation of the Watergate scandal The real story behind
> >George W. Bush’s missing military service The inside scoop on the Bushes
> >and Saudi influence in America The strange saga of Harvard University and
> >its endowment The untold real story behind George W. Bush’s religious
> >awakening Never before told anecdotes from George W. Bush’s wild past
> >How the CIA monitors the White House and its occupants Why Barack Obama
> >and his supporters should read this book
>
> ><quote off>
>
> >http://www.bloomsburypress.com/books/catalog/family_of_secrets
>
> >And at Amazon (a few reviews)
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/Family-Secrets-Dynasty-Powerful-Influence/dp/15...
>
> >Excerpt in The Huffington Post (Dec 22, 2008)
>
> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russ-baker/the-skeleton-in-ws-closet_b_...
>
> Leftist web sites like the Daily Kooks really would be well-advised to
> avoid all this conspiracy stuff.
>
> Democratic Underground has published some real moonbat stuff.
>
> http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2006/06/britney-spears-on-grassy-knoll...
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
black...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
FYI: This isn't "the " Russell Baker, it's another with the same name.
He contacted me a while back for info on the Civil Air Patrol(?!?),
for what sounded like an anti-Bush book.
Peter Fokes
<black...@aol.com> wrote:
I know. And this "other" Russ Baker has been published by the New
Yorker, Vanity Fair, The Nation, the New York Times, the Washington
Post, the Village Voice and Esquire.
Here is his home page:
Russell Baker is also a well-known author. He's 83, and is known
satirical commentary and self-critical prose.
>[The journalist Russ Baker] contacted me a while back for info on the Civil Air Patrol(?!?),
>for what sounded like an anti-Bush book.
I guess you can call any book that is critical of Bush an "anti-Bush"
book, eh?
For example, McCain might publish an anti-Bush book in the future.
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Dec 22, 11:31=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 22 Dec 2008 23:19:36 -0500, Peter Fokes <boreal4...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.familyofsecrets.com/revelations/
>>
>> ><quote on>
>>
>> >Learn:
>>
>> >Why George H.W. Bush can=92t remember where he was on November 22, 1963
>>
>> Kook alert!
>
>Kinda of tough on the guy, aren't you John?
>
>Baker has been published by the New Yorker, Vanity Fair, The Nation,
>the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Village Voice and
>Esquire.
>
So what?
>Perhaps he is simply "in error" rather than being a "kook."
>
>Then again, Bugliosi was called a paragon of sanity when he published
>Reclaiming History, but a kook when he published The Prosecution of
>George Bush For Murder.
>
But people are often generally sane about some things, while being
complete kooks about other things.
I consider Reclaiming History quite sane, BUT THAT'S NOT BECAUSE OF
ANY PERSONAL OPINIONS I HAVE ABOUT BUGLIOSI.
It's because I read the book.
>Perhaps the labels are more revealing of the partisan slant of the
>labeller than the author!
>
But you admit below that he's wrong about "George Bush of the CIA."
And he's talking nonsense about Bush "not knowing where he was on the
day of the assassination."
>Although you are correct about the "two" George Bushes.
>
If you endorse enough kooky notions, you get labelled a kook.
And that's Baker.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
You would call any book critical of Obama "anti-Obama," would you not?
It's one thing to be a liberal who diapproves of Bush's policies.
It's quite another to think that Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks, or
that he actually *knew* that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction
(assuming he didn't have them and spirit them away to Syria).
Those are kook notions.
But of course, the more anti-Bush leftists push kook notions, the less
credibility they will have.
Papa Andy
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.familyofsecrets.com/revelations/
>
> ><quote on>
>
> >Learn:
>
> >Why George H.W. Bush can’t remember where he was on November 22, 1963
>
> Kook alert!
>
> >Why oilman George H.W. Bush shows up in early CIA documents
>
> But it's not oilman George H.W. Bush.
>
>
>
> >A new, more
> >troubling explanation of the Watergate scandal The real story behind
> >George W. Bush’s missing military service The inside scoop on the Bushes
> >and Saudi influence in America The strange saga of Harvard University and
> >its endowment The untold real story behind George W. Bush’s religious
> >awakening Never before told anecdotes from George W. Bush’s wild past
> >How the CIA monitors the White House and its occupants Why Barack Obama
> >and his supporters should read this book
>
> ><quote off>
>
> >http://www.bloomsburypress.com/books/catalog/family_of_secrets
>
> >And at Amazon (a few reviews)
>
>
> >Excerpt in The Huffington Post (Dec 22, 2008)
>
>
> Leftist web sites like the Daily Kooks really would be well-advised to
> avoid all this conspiracy stuff.
>
> Democratic Underground has published some real moonbat stuff.
>
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
I recall seeing the 'other' George Bush of the CIA on TV saying that
those CIA documents couldn't possible refer to him
A
Anthony Marsh
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:05:50 -0500, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm>
> wrote:
>
>> On 23 Dec 2008 10:58:04 -0500, "black...@aol.com"
>> <black...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> FYI: This isn't "the " Russell Baker, it's another with the same name.
>> I know. And this "other" Russ Baker has been published by the New
>> Yorker, Vanity Fair, The Nation, the New York Times, the Washington
>> Post, the Village Voice and Esquire.
>>
>> Here is his home page:
>>
>> http://russbaker.com/
>>
>>
>> Russell Baker is also a well-known author. He's 83, and is known
>> satirical commentary and self-critical prose.
>>
>>
>>> [The journalist Russ Baker] contacted me a while back for info on the Civil Air Patrol(?!?),
>>> for what sounded like an anti-Bush book.
>> I guess you can call any book that is critical of Bush an "anti-Bush"
>> book, eh?
>>
>> For example, McCain might publish an anti-Bush book in the future.
>>
>
> You would call any book critical of Obama "anti-Obama," would you not?
>
> It's one thing to be a liberal who diapproves of Bush's policies.
> It's quite another to think that Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks, or
> that he actually *knew* that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction
> (assuming he didn't have them and spirit them away to Syria).
>
Can you explain the logic of your comment in parentheses? It reads that
Saddam did not have WMD and that he spirited them away to Syria. How can
he NOT have them and then spirited them away to Syria. It is not Liberals
who proposed that he HAD the WMD and then spirited them away to Syria. It
began with the Israelis.
> Those are kook notions.
The idea that Bush knew that Saddam no longer had WMD is not a kook
notion. It is born out by the documents, that the CIA had informed him
that Iraq no longer had any WMD. It was right-wing kooks who spread the
misinformation that Iraq still had WMD.
>
> But of course, the more anti-Bush leftists push kook notions, the less
> credibility they will have.
>
The more the Bush sycophants make up false claims about what dissenters
believe, the less credibility they will have. In case you didn't happen to
notice at the time, your side lost the election. You are a fringe group.
Anthony Marsh
> On 23 Dec 2008 09:23:39 -0500, Peter Fokes <borea...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 22, 11:31=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>>> On 22 Dec 2008 23:19:36 -0500, Peter Fokes <boreal4...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.familyofsecrets.com/revelations/
>>>> <quote on>
>>>> Learn:
>>>> Why George H.W. Bush can=92t remember where he was on November 22, 1963
>>> Kook alert!
>> Kinda of tough on the guy, aren't you John?
>>
>> Baker has been published by the New Yorker, Vanity Fair, The Nation,
>> the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Village Voice and
>> Esquire.
>>
>
> So what?
>
It means it is not so easy for you to marginalize him the way you
usually try to do.
>> Perhaps he is simply "in error" rather than being a "kook."
>>
>> Then again, Bugliosi was called a paragon of sanity when he published
>> Reclaiming History, but a kook when he published The Prosecution of
>> George Bush For Murder.
>>
>
> But people are often generally sane about some things, while being
> complete kooks about other things.
>
We notice that you only call people kooks when they disagree with your
positions. You don't call President Bush a kook. Not even Reagan for
believing in astrology. Never any of the neocons. Never any of the kooks
who claim the Earth is flat and only 5,000 years old. Never Sarah Palin.
Never Gus Russo for claiming that Castro was behind the assassination.
> I consider Reclaiming History quite sane, BUT THAT'S NOT BECAUSE OF
> ANY PERSONAL OPINIONS I HAVE ABOUT BUGLIOSI.
>
But full of errors and lies, of which you approve.
Peter Fokes
> On 23 Dec 2008 09:23:39 -0500, Peter Fokes <boreal4...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Dec 22, 11:31=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >> On 22 Dec 2008 23:19:36 -0500, Peter Fokes <boreal4...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >http://www.familyofsecrets.com/revelations/
>
> >> ><quote on>
>
> >> >Learn:
>
> >> >Why George H.W. Bush can=92t remember where he was on November 22, 1963
>
> >> Kook alert!
>
> >Kinda of tough on the guy, aren't you John?
>
> >Baker has been published by the New Yorker, Vanity Fair, The Nation,
> >the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Village Voice and
> >Esquire.
>
> So what?
Do they generally publish kooks?
>
> >Perhaps he is simply "in error" rather than being a "kook."
>
> >Then again, Bugliosi was called a paragon of sanity when he published
> >Reclaiming History, but a kook when he published The Prosecution of
> >George Bush For Murder.
>
> But people are often generally sane about some things, while being
> complete kooks about other things.
Agree. Look at Bush!
> I consider Reclaiming History quite sane, BUT THAT'S NOT BECAUSE OF
> ANY PERSONAL OPINIONS I HAVE ABOUT BUGLIOSI.
What are Baker's personal opinions about Bush? Do you know?
> It's because I read the book.
And did you read The Prosecution of George Bush by Bugliosi too?
Or Russ Baker's book?
> >Perhaps the labels are more revealing of the partisan slant of the
> >labeller than the author!
>
> But you admit below that he's wrong about "George Bush of the CIA."
Very few authors write a book without a single error. Even Bugliosi
makes errors yet you still think he is sane.
> And he's talking nonsense about Bush "not knowing where he was on the
> day of the assassination."
Is that what he says? I haven't read the book.
>
> >Although you are correct about the "two" George Bushes.
>
> If you endorse enough kooky notions, you get labelled a kook.
True enough.
>
> And that's Baker.
Judyth?
> .John
>
> --
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Regards
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Dec 23, 2:10 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On 23 Dec 2008 09:23:39 -0500, Peter Fokes <boreal4...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 22, 11:31=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> >> On 22 Dec 2008 23:19:36 -0500, Peter Fokes <boreal4...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >http://www.familyofsecrets.com/revelations/
>>
>> >> ><quote on>
>>
>> >> >Learn:
>>
>> >> >Why George H.W. Bush can=92t remember where he was on November 22, 1963
>>
>> >> Kook alert!
>>
>> >Kinda of tough on the guy, aren't you John?
>>
>> >Baker has been published by the New Yorker, Vanity Fair, The Nation,
>> >the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Village Voice and
>> >Esquire.
>>
>> So what?
>
>Do they generally publish kooks?
>
Actually, yes!
Although, if you will check below, Baker doesn't have to be a kook on
everything. Just stuff involving the Bush family.
>>
>> >Perhaps he is simply "in error" rather than being a "kook."
>>
>> >Then again, Bugliosi was called a paragon of sanity when he published
>> >Reclaiming History, but a kook when he published The Prosecution of
>> >George Bush For Murder.
>>
>> But people are often generally sane about some things, while being
>> complete kooks about other things.
>
>Agree. Look at Bush!
>
>
I'm really looking forward for Obama to be inaugurated, because when
he is, I'm going to start posting stuff attacking him! :-)
>> I consider Reclaiming History quite sane, BUT THAT'S NOT BECAUSE OF
>> ANY PERSONAL OPINIONS I HAVE ABOUT BUGLIOSI.
>
>What are Baker's personal opinions about Bush? Do you know?
>
Sure. When somebody will by any kooky notion that reflects badly on
somebody, we can reasonably infer they don't like them.
>> It's because I read the book.
>
>And did you read The Prosecution of George Bush by Bugliosi too?
>Or Russ Baker's book?
>
No. And I haven't read Fetzer's book where he claims that Sen.
Wellstone was killed by an EMP pulse directed at him by Karl Rove in
the White House.
Some stuff is silly on its face.
>> >Perhaps the labels are more revealing of the partisan slant of the
>> >labeller than the author!
>>
>> But you admit below that he's wrong about "George Bush of the CIA."
>
>Very few authors write a book without a single error. Even Bugliosi
>makes errors yet you still think he is sane.
>
>> And he's talking nonsense about Bush "not knowing where he was on the
>> day of the assassination."
>
>Is that what he says? I haven't read the book.
>
It was in an article by him that you liked to.
>>
>> >Although you are correct about the "two" George Bushes.
>>
>> If you endorse enough kooky notions, you get labelled a kook.
>
>True enough.
>
>>
>> And that's Baker.
>
>Judyth?
>
Her too.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
black...@aol.com
> On 23 Dec 2008 10:58:04 -0500, "blackbu...@aol.com"
> >FYI: This isn't "the " Russell Baker, it's another with the same name.
>
> I know. And this "other" Russ Baker has been published by the New
> Yorker, Vanity Fair, The Nation, the New York Times, the Washington
> Post, the Village Voice and Esquire.
>
> Here is his home page:
>
> http://russbaker.com/
>
> Russell Baker is also a well-known author. He's 83, and is known
> satirical commentary and self-critical prose.
Yeah, when he called, I got all excited that it was the more famous
Russell Baker. But alas...
>
> >[The journalist Russ Baker] contacted me a while back for info on the Civil Air Patrol(?!?),
> >for what sounded like an anti-Bush book.
>
> I guess you can call any book that is critical of Bush an "anti-Bush"
> book, eh?
I based that on what he said during the calls, which I didn't write
down.
He inquired about some name I never heard, who had been in the CAP at one
time, who was tied to Bush in some way. I couldn't follow it. I referred
him to an expert on CAP. The expert called me up and said he didn't want
to deal with Baker, because he was doing a Bush-basher book. Doesn't
matter to me: I'm an independent, and I help all who inquire.
>
> For example, McCain might publish an anti-Bush book in the future.
>
> Regards,
> Peter Fokes,
> Toronto- Hide quoted text -
Peter Fokes
> On Dec 23, 11:05 am, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm> wrote:
>
> > On 23 Dec 2008 10:58:04 -0500, "blackbu...@aol.com"
> > >FYI: This isn't "the " Russell Baker, it's another with the same name.
>
> > I know. And this "other" Russ Baker has been published by the New
> > Yorker, Vanity Fair, The Nation, the New York Times, the Washington
> > Post, the Village Voice and Esquire.
>
> > Here is his home page:
>
> >http://russbaker.com/
>
> > Russell Baker is also a well-known author. He's 83, and is known
> > satirical commentary and self-critical prose.
>
> Yeah, when he called, I got all excited that it was the more famous
> Russell Baker. But alas...
>
>
>
> > >[The journalist Russ Baker] contacted me a while back for info on the Civil Air Patrol(?!?),
> > >for what sounded like an anti-Bush book.
>
> > I guess you can call any book that is critical of Bush an "anti-Bush"
> > book, eh?
>
> I based that on what he said during the calls, which I didn't write
> down.
>
> He inquired about some name I never heard, who had been in the CAP at one
> time, who was tied to Bush in some way. I couldn't follow it. I referred
> him to an expert on CAP. The expert called me up and said he didn't want
> to deal with Baker, because he was doing a Bush-basher book. Doesn't
> matter to me: I'm an independent, and I help all who inquire.
A popular genre no doubt. Have you read The Bush Tragedy yet?
Publisher claims it is not a Bush-basher book though:
<quote on>
Unstintingly yet compassionately, and with no political ax to grind,
Slate editor in chief Jacob Weisberg methodically and objectively
examines the family and circle of advisers who played crucial parts in
George W. Bush’s historic downfall.
<quote off>
http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl/9781400066780.html
Perhaps The Bush Tragedy, unlike Baker's book, is not a Bush-basher
book, just a non-partisan history book.
Surely Weisberg is not a kook.
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
paul seaton
Now to 'Blackburst' , of temperate effusions
Who calls final opinions ' illusions !'
For the left may be true
But the right may be too
So it's hard to reach any conclusions...
hic !
Anthony Marsh
No surprise there. But of course that is against the rules as you told
me that I am not allowed to criticize the current President.
black...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Let me opine a bit on media and politics, as a true independent middle-
roader: There is a very fine line between anti-Bush writings and those
which profess to be non-partisan reporting. (I'm not a Bush supporter - I
voted for Obama.) At my PT job at a TV news network, there was a tendency
to look for anything negative on Bush and Co., and to present it as
straight news. When questioned, the producers and reporters insisted that
they were just being fair journalists, reporting legit news. But any
critical reporting was always focused on Bush. At least at my network, I
came away feeling that some of the staff had a bias, but had convinced
themselves that they did not. They thought that Bush deserved it. That's
why I say there's a fine line.
Contemporaneously, presidents like Truman and Eisenhower received much
critical press at the end of their terms, but the long view of history
regards them more warmly.
I have no fondness for Bush. I thought that the slide into war was a big
mistake. But many friends on the left can't understand why I don't have
the intense dislike of him that they have.
black...@aol.com
wrote:
Very nice! (I half-expected you to sneak "gargoyle ring" in there...)
I have this battle ALL the time with friends on both left and right. They
think a moderate must have no conclusions, no actual philosophy. But no, I
have strong feelings about everything! On a few things, I agree with the
left. On a few more, I agree with the right. The only thing I lack is a
knee-jerk negative feeling about people on the "other side." In the
process, I manage to annoy friends on the fringes of both sides!
There once was a man, name of Seaton
Who noticed my feelings not heatin'
The left or the right,
But they aren't so trite
That I'd come to be known as a cretin
OK, not a very good rhyme, but I plead to having WAY too much eggnog last
night. Also, that IS the way we pronounce cretin in the NE USA!
black...@aol.com
There was a young lady named Judy
Who thought she was doing her duty
By foiling the plot
But it all was for naught
So she offered young Oswald her booty...
pf
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:05:50 -0500, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> ><blackbu...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>FYI: This isn't "the " Russell Baker, it's another with the same name.
>
> >I know. And this "other" Russ Baker has been published by the New
> >Yorker, Vanity Fair, The Nation, the New York Times, the Washington
> >Post, the Village Voice and Esquire.
>
> >Here is his home page:
>
> >http://russbaker.com/
>
> >Russell Baker is also a well-known author. He's 83, and is known
> >satirical commentary and self-critical prose.
>
> >>[The journalist Russ Baker] contacted me a while back for info on the Civil Air Patrol(?!?),
> >>for what sounded like an anti-Bush book.
>
> >I guess you can call any book that is critical of Bush an "anti-Bush"
> >book, eh?
>
> >For example, McCain might publish an anti-Bush book in the future.
>
> You would call any book critical of Obama "anti-Obama," would you not?
No. Why would I do that? I don't understand this kooky right wing
notion that you must support every action of your leader.
That's just blind partisanship. Surely valid criticism of a
politician's actions does not equate to being "anti-that-politician."
>
> It's one thing to be a liberal who diapproves of Bush's policies.
Or a right winger who disapproves of a Bush policy. Colin Powell for
example.
> It's quite another to think that Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks, or
> that he actually *knew* that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction
> (assuming he didn't have them and spirit them away to Syria).
Is that what Baker believes? His book is not on my reading list.
>
> Those are kook notions.
Well, we are accustomed to such notions here, are we not?
>
> But of course, the more anti-Bush leftists push kook notions, the less
> credibility they will have.
And, of course, the more pro-Bush rightists push kook notions, the
less credibility they will have too.
Of course most of their credibility is shot already, eh? Search
"Palin".
>
> .John
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
John McAdams
>On Dec 23, 2:14 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:05:50 -0500, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 23 Dec 2008 10:58:04 -0500, "blackbu...@aol.com"
>> ><blackbu...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>FYI: This isn't "the " Russell Baker, it's another with the same name.
>>
>> >I know. And this "other" Russ Baker has been published by the New
>> >Yorker, Vanity Fair, The Nation, the New York Times, the Washington
>> >Post, the Village Voice and Esquire.
>>
>> >Here is his home page:
>>
>> >http://russbaker.com/
>>
>> >Russell Baker is also a well-known author. He's 83, and is known
>> >satirical commentary and self-critical prose.
>>
>> >>[The journalist Russ Baker] contacted me a while back for info on the Civil Air Patrol(?!?),
>> >>for what sounded like an anti-Bush book.
>>
>> >I guess you can call any book that is critical of Bush an "anti-Bush"
>> >book, eh?
>>
>> >For example, McCain might publish an anti-Bush book in the future.
>>
>> You would call any book critical of Obama "anti-Obama," would you not?
>
>No. Why would I do that?
If a book dedicated to attacking Obama is not "anti-Obama," what would
be?
>I don't understand this kooky right wing
>notion that you must support every action of your leader.
You don't know anything about people on the right, Peter, since all
your information sources are on the left, and everything you think you
know about the right is through a distorted lens.
>That's just blind partisanship. Surely valid criticism of a
>politician's actions does not equate to being "anti-that-politician."
>
But claiming that Bush, Sr. "didn't know where he was when Kennedy was
assassinated" is not a valid criticism. It's a wacky factoid.
>>
>> It's one thing to be a liberal who diapproves of Bush's policies.
>
>Or a right winger who disapproves of a Bush policy. Colin Powell for
>example.
>
LOL!!
You actually think Colin Powell is a "right winger?"
In what alternative universe is that true?
>
>> It's quite another to think that Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks, or
>> that he actually *knew* that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction
>> (assuming he didn't have them and spirit them away to Syria).
>
>Is that what Baker believes? His book is not on my reading list.
>
Nor on mine.
I was just giving you an example of things the hate-Bush yahoos
believe.
>>
>> Those are kook notions.
>
>Well, we are accustomed to such notions here, are we not?
>
Indeed!
And we are also accustomed to kook notions being labelled "kook
notions."
>>
>> But of course, the more anti-Bush leftists push kook notions, the less
>> credibility they will have.
>
>And, of course, the more pro-Bush rightists push kook notions, the
>less credibility they will have too.
>
The majority of kooks, where Bush is concerned, are on the left.
Bush has gotten plenty of criticism from the right. But there is a
culturally-based hatred on the left, that has produced a lot of actual
derangement.
>Of course most of their credibility is shot already, eh? Search
>"Palin".
>
Speaking of "kook notions:" check out the following,
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html
How many of the distorted statements -- and downright lies -- about
Palin did you believe, Peter.
It's true confessions time.
Hatred toward Palin has the same basis at hatred of Bush: secular
liberals don't like conservatives to begin with, and *Christian*
conservatives drive them up the wall.
Those from Texas (Bush) *especially* drive them up the wall.
It's a culturally based hatred.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 23, 2:14 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:05:50 -0500, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 23 Dec 2008 10:58:04 -0500, "blackbu...@aol.com"
>>> <blackbu...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> FYI: This isn't "the " Russell Baker, it's another with the same name.
>>> I know. And this "other" Russ Baker has been published by the New
>>> Yorker, Vanity Fair, The Nation, the New York Times, the Washington
>>> Post, the Village Voice and Esquire.
>>> Here is his home page:
>>> http://russbaker.com/
>>> Russell Baker is also a well-known author. He's 83, and is known
>>> satirical commentary and self-critical prose.
>>>> [The journalist Russ Baker] contacted me a while back for info on the Civil Air Patrol(?!?),
>>>> for what sounded like an anti-Bush book.
>>> I guess you can call any book that is critical of Bush an "anti-Bush"
>>> book, eh?
>>> For example, McCain might publish an anti-Bush book in the future.
>> You would call any book critical of Obama "anti-Obama," would you not?
>
> No. Why would I do that? I don't understand this kooky right wing
> notion that you must support every action of your leader.
It's called Fascism.
> That's just blind partisanship. Surely valid criticism of a
> politician's actions does not equate to being "anti-that-politician."
>
>> It's one thing to be a liberal who diapproves of Bush's policies.
>
> Or a right winger who disapproves of a Bush policy. Colin Powell for
> example.
>
Colin Powell is not a right winger.
paul seaton
<black...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a5ed371c-47de-4bf6...@33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
## " CREATIN' " ???? That's just wierd :-) Actually, Dave, I usually
find myself in 85% agreement with whoever I happen to be reading. So I
have real trouble finding my deepest convictions too ... It;'s a fine
thing, the ability to see both sides of an argument.
paul s
paul seaton
<black...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:196929d9-2802-4254...@r34g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
##Hmmm... maybe she should write a book....?