House of Cards
Rick
"C.I.A. Aides Feel Pressure in Preparing Iraqi Reports"
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/international/worldspecial/23CIA.html
Rick
jps
news:3E7DF12C...@dearthlink.nyet...
Thank God personal integrity still has some value. It has to come from each
of us since the majority of our leaders have sold theirs for political or
personal gain.
Sad state of affairs.
jps
jps
news:kvtr7vsbutqd7l242...@4ax.com...
>
> Hey Rick, thanks for supporting America when she needs it.
>
> You're quite the man.
> --
> WaIIy --> reply to: eIvez<!>mindspring<!>com
Wilbur, it's embarassing that you're drinking so soon after attending
church. You should give it at least a few hours before your next bender.
jps
Rick
>"... Gore lost."
It is daylight at noon. So what?
What the heck has Gore got to do with a few people in the CIA recovering
a higher ethic?
>"... thanks for supporting America when she needs it."
Don't thank me, I only posted the link to an article. Thank the CIA
analysts who care enough about America to speak up for truth. Thank
those who risk their income and their family's welfare to speak out
against those who threaten America and all it used to stand for.
>"You're quite the man."
You are not clever enough to use sarcasm successfully. All you say with
that comment is that you are not patriotic enough to defend America and
its principles against those in office who would pervert its agencies to
illegal ends through deceit and treachery and fear those who will.
Rick
Mark Browne
"WaIIy" <eI...@ChangeThisPart.com> wrote in message
news:kvtr7vsbutqd7l242...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:38:50 GMT, Rick <woo...@dearthlink.nyet> wrote:
>
>
> Hey Rick, thanks for supporting America when she needs it.
>
> You're quite the man.
> WaIIy --> reply to: eIvez<!>mindspring<!>com
Wally,
Since we are in an open-ended "war on terrorism" does that mean (in your
personal opinion) that the American right of free speech is suspended from
now on? If we move on to other little conflicts does that mean that all
speech against those policies are to stop until the American flag flies over
every country on earth?
What would it take for you to say something bad about government actions? Is
there anything that would happen where you might say - Not so fast?
Where are your values about what is right and what is wrong - Perhaps a blow
job in the white house? Some of your posts seemed to view that as an
earthshaking event. How does that compare in the grand scheme of things to
Americans killing people on their own soil - lots of people? Is it only OK
if they are not American people? Is it OK if they are *just* collateral
damage - We really did not mean it?
Do these words look familiar to you: "We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that *all* men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain inaliable Rights, that among these are *Life*,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I don't see where it says that Iraqi
life is worth less then yours. Some people are raising their voices to say
that our government is straying from the path that we call "The American
Way". It would seem that a majority of the American people have forgotten
what that is. A few people are starting to remember (the CIA and State
department employees mentioned above) but at this time it is a "still small
voice".
Mark Browne
PS Have we won the open-ended "war on drugs" yet?
Dennis Compton
"Mark Browne" <mbr...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:M4ofa.214735$S_4.121075@rwcrnsc53...
*You* have just proved the case for us going into Iraq and liberating the people being
murdered (in the millions), tortured, raped and terrorized by their own government.
*All* people are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among
these are *Life*, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" , including the Iraqis. That
is exactly why we are there.
Even some of those who originally went to Iraq as human shields have come back shaking
their heads and wondering why they did such a stupid thing...that is of course after
they talked to the people there and found out how long they have been waiting for this
liberation.
Spin it anyway you want Mark but the talk is over. Your side of the argument lost.
The Congress agreed, the UN agreed and 79% of the Country agrees with this War and its
purpose. Either stand with the Troops or get out of the way and keep your pie hole
shut for now. When this war is over, you have my blessing to resume with your idiocy.
jps
news:gjofa.192602$L1.31209@sccrnsc02...
> *You* have just proved the case for us going into Iraq and liberating the
people being
> murdered (in the millions), tortured, raped and terrorized by their own
government.
> *All* people are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights,
that among
> these are *Life*, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" , including the
Iraqis. That
> is exactly why we are there.
What a complete buffoon. If that were our aim, we'd have acted when we knew
Saddam was gassing thousands of his citizens (who we encouraged to revolt)
after the conclusion of the Gulf War.
We're there to "stabilize" the region and wrest control of OPEC away from
the Saudis.
> Even some of those who originally went to Iraq as human shields have come
back shaking
> their heads and wondering why they did such a stupid thing...that is of
course after
> they talked to the people there and found out how long they have been
waiting for this
> liberation.
No one argues Saddam is a bad man but that's not why we're there. We don't
give a shit about Iraqis or Afghanis or anyone else in the region. We want
a military presence and a bigger say in how oil is priced.
> Spin it anyway you want Mark but the talk is over. Your side of the
argument lost.
> The Congress agreed, the UN agreed and 79% of the Country agrees with this
War and its
> purpose. Either stand with the Troops or get out of the way and keep your
pie hole
> shut for now. When this war is over, you have my blessing to resume with
your idiocy.
There was no discussion. The UN didn't agree. 80% of the American public
want this situation to be taken care of. Ask how many of them would've
preferred Bush to continue using the diplomatic approach to bring Saddam
under control and you'd hear a different story.
We're all in favor of our men and women in the field. They just shouldn't
be there on a unilateral mission.
jps
Mark Browne
Does that mean that the new American doctrine is to liberate every country
where the government is killing the citizens under it's control?
Some of the current candidates: China, Mexico, Israel, Indonesian, Much of
Africa, Several countries in South America, most of the kingdoms in the
middle east. Did I miss anybody?
So what's it going to be - A convenient excuse to cover our current
aggression or the first step in a nearly global war?
Mark Browne
Dennis Compton
You sir do not and most likely will never get it. You offered an excuse against the
war that was actually the reasoning for it but did not know so when doing it.
Let me try one more time with you. Take a look at the pictures broadcast by Iraqi TV
of the American troops that were captured. Black eyes. Swollen lips. They are being
beat up. All this against the Geneva Convention (as was their broadcast of their
pictures).
Now take a look at the number of American, British and Australian soldiers killed and
injured....while trying to free an oppressed nation.
Now take a look of the Iraqis who have been freed....you know the ones shouting "Thank
You!"
You will probably say that war has not done anything in the past...unless of course you
forget that it freed the slaves, stopped fascism, nazism and communism and gave freedom
back to millions. The same freedom guaranteed to us by our Creator (or did you forget
that already?).
You probably cried on 9-11 and swore United We Stand. Where is that soul now Mark?
You can no longer stand united with a country in time of war?
As I said, the time for talk and debate is over. Either stand with us or get the hell
out of the way....you serve no useful or constructive purpose for our Troops or Country
if you continue with this anti war crap.
John(nospin)H
I find it astonishing that someone actually trusts anything in the
NYTimes enough to post a link to it.
John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:38:50 GMT, Rick <woo...@dearthlink.nyet>
wrote:
>Even the creeps in the CIA are fed up with lying for Bush and his handlers.
jps
jps
"John(nospin)H" <nospi...@rec.boats> wrote in message
news:oe7s7voc1fgr4kd6o...@4ax.com...
Harry Krause
You prefer the Moonie Times, eh?
John(nospin)H
being pregnant with Mike's baby are usually pretty accurate, I've
heard.
John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
John(nospin)H
Anti-war protests
Diana West
The Washington Times
Published March 21, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the tense hours before military action, as the countdown clock
was ticking, eyes turned to the Persian Gulf and all the world held
its breath. Too bad some people kept on talking.
There was Sen. Tom Daschle, standing by this week's "saddened,
saddened" soliloquy in which he declared President Bush had "failed so
miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war." And to think, he
might as well have added, after all that Iraq and France have done for
us.
This "saddened, saddened" speech, by the way, is not to be
confused with last fall's "outrageous, outrageous" address in which
Mr. Daschle accused President Bush of politicizing the debate over
Iraq. (Which, of course, was — give it a whispery sibilance —
"outrageous, outrageous.") By now, it seems, the Senate minority
leader has passed the point of outrage, outrage. And he is
additionally, but singly "saddened," as he said, that "we have to give
up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of
diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country."
What hateful, shameful words. Mr. Daschle articulated neither
strategic disagreement, nor respectable political dissent. Instead, he
baselessly accused an American president of compromising the lives of
American military men and women on the very brink — then — of battle.
Mr. Daschle also made no sense. The diplomacy that "failed" was
designed to swell the ranks, via the U.N. Security Council, of the
international coalition arrayed against Saddam Hussein. France will be
France, of course, and U.N. solidarity against the Iraqi despot
crumbled like some of the cheeses I'm not buying these days. Which
leaves us with a measly 35 nations supporting our "unilateral" war
effort against Iraq. If it gets any more unilateral than that, Mr.
Daschle will probably say we're piling on.
Then there was Bill Clinton, arguing last week that weapons
inspections never had a chance. I would agree, only not for the same
reasons. These latest inspections were doomed from the start, the
ex-president said, not because of Saddam Hussein's obstructionism and
deception — or France's, for that matter — but because of the United
States. Sending troops to the Gulf after the U.N. Security Council
passed the 17th resolution in 12 years requiring Iraq to disarm
"convinced everybody we weren't serious about U.N. inspections," Mr.
Clinton concluded. "That's how we got into this political mess."
Right. Too bad we didn't follow Mr. Clinton's strategy — and see
the weapons inspectors ejected from the country again, just as they
were in 1998. Meanwhile, wasn't it Hans Blix himself who credited this
same troop presence with pumping a little iron into recent inspection
efforts?
Not that you want to place much stock in Hans' hunches. After
all, here's a man who told MTV he was "more worried about global
warming" than war. Just this week, he declared that Saddam Hussein
would never actually use weapons of mass destruction because that
might damage his — Saddam Hussein's — reputation. According to Mr.
Blix's reasoning, Saddam Hussein would lose the public relations war
if he threw chemical or biological weapons into battle against
U.S.-led troops in Iraq. Even if facing certain death, he went on to
say, Saddam Hussein would never resort to such weapons. "Some people,"
Mr. Blix said, "care about their reputations even after death."
But, why wait? I'm wondering about the reputations of the
anti-war protesters. With the terror threat level back up to Code
Orange, the government has beefed- up security at federal buildings,
military compounds, power plants, reservoirs, oil companies, stock
exchanges — all likely targets of terrorist sympathizers with Iraq, al
Qaeda and other jihadist groups. Funny thing, or, maybe, not-so-funny
thing: These are the same targets of the anti-war left.
As the anti-war strategy shifts "from protest to resistance," as
one protester put it, Fox News reported on a list of "70 economic and
other targets in [San Francisco] alone, including power plants, water
systems, the Federal Reserve, oil companies, the Pacific Exchange and
the Transamerica Building." The plan, organizers said, is to "shut
down the financial district of San Francisco."
This couldn't please America's enemies more. And why not? Many
antiwar groups are funded by foes of the U.S. government. Not in Our
Name is financed by a group that not only supports Cuban dictator
Fidel Castro, but, as Fox News also reported, once sponsored a group
headed by Sami Al-Arian, the Florida professor recently charged with
terrorist activities. A.N.S.W.E.R., another prominent coordinating
anti-war organization, is a front group for the Workers World Party, a
Marxist booster of North Korea's mad dictatorship. Suddenly, reports
of protesters' plans to disrupt U.S. military installations, for
example, fall into sinister, political place.
At Camp Vandenburg Air Force Base in California, authorities have
already said they would use deadly force, if necessary, to protect the
base. Deadly force, if necessary, in deadly times.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
Harry Krause
> Since you brought it up, Harry.....
>
> Anti-war protests
> Diana West
> The Washington Times
>
>
> Published March 21, 2003
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In the tense hours before military action, as the countdown clock
>
Yeah, I kinda guessed you were a believer in the Moonie paper.
John(nospin)H
John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
Harry Krause
There's nothing in the Moonie paper worth reading. It is a GOP house organ.
Mark Browne
now Mark?
> You can no longer stand united with a country in time of war?
>
> As I said, the time for talk and debate is over. Either stand with us or
get the hell
> out of the way....you serve no useful or constructive purpose for our
Troops or Country
> if you continue with this anti war crap.
>
not know what or when it would be, but I know it would be something.
I knew that our poor policy in the middle east had finally come home to
roost - my friends in New York were paying the price for poor American
leadership. Notice that this is not a liberal-conservative thing. Several
administration have had a hand in this train wreck. The ineptness of the
current administration has brought this to a boil. Now before you throw your
hands up and snort in disgust let me lay out the background.
When visit the middle east and listen to the depth of despair from the
people ruled by the local despots I know they would be moved to action.
When they described how they blame the United States leadership for
supporting the governments that oppress them I knew who the target of this
action would be. You can pooh-pooh this all you want - you might get some
high fives from the right wingers in this newsgroup but you are not changing
a single mind in the middle east.
I have no truck with the peace marchers - they are trying to solve the wrong
problem. As I see it, is already too late.I don't think that the
administration will turn on the TV, see the marcher, and say - Oh! lets stop
the war. I know that we will take the Iraq. The might of the America was
never in question. Implicit in my protest is that we are shooting ourselves
in the foot.
I am very concerned about what will come next. In America we have a very
distorted sense of history and continuity. After a lifetime of watching
movies we have come to expect that the end of the movie is the end of the
story. If all come out good in the final reel than it was a good story. In
the middle east they know that each story is just a single thread in a
tapestry.
What sort of story is told in the middle east? Starting with the overthrow
of a fairly well loved government (not by the US, it had leanings to
socialism - not our cup of tea at the time) leading to the rise of Sadam. In
the supporting role you have America in bed with the young Saddam. The
people in the area are aware of our former support of this thug. They have
not forgotten this; our meddling to bring him into power is a widely
discussed fact in the region. The encouragement of Saddam to war with Iran
is widely discussed. Our tactical support in common knowledge. The
rebuilding of Iraq after this war leads to the dispute over slant drilling
from Kuwait into Iraqi oil fields - Need I say where American oil companies
were in all this? Perhaps Dick Cheney can explain who sold all the slant
drilling equipment to Kuwait. Iraq thought they should get money for the oil
taken from beneath their lands. When push came to shove Saddam turned to
arms. As you are no doubt aware, Saddam got some mixed signals as to the
United States position on this adventure. This takes us to the gulf war. The
massive loss of life during the bombing campaign is widely known. Many in
the region accept this because they feel that Saddam had stepped over the
line in taking Kuwait city. (but strangely enough - not the oil wells - had
he stopped there we never would have gotten Arab support for the gulf war)
Our ensuing brutal embargo has indirectly killed many helpless Iraqis.
Again, this is the stuff of common knowledge throughout the region. The oil
for food program is widely seen as a cruel blackmail to get the oil we so
badly need. Nothing more.
In most of this story the American involvement was indirect and the killing
was Arab on Arab. Before we were hated for our support of people doing the
killing - now we have escalated that to being the people actually doing the
killing. This is an important distinction. Now we are actually invading a
middle east country. The memory of the crusaders runs very deep over there.
My knowledge of the area tell me that we doing the wrong thing. We have now
crossed a line, and we can't go back. We are going to be a western power
occupying Arab land. Even if things go very well this is not in our best
interests. The parallel with the west bank occupation will not be lost on
the Arab street.
Little Bush seems to think that we can teach a pig to whistle. It's not
going to happen. You can't force peace and democracy from the barrel of a
gun. If you could there would not be any problems in the west bank. If we
can't install democracy then what *are* we going to put in? I suspect that
we will be left holding a very smelly bag. At this point we will be blamed
for every Bad Thing that happens to Iraq for at least two generations.
The worst possible outcome could be the same sort of mess that is the west
bank - with America filling the role that Israel now holds in the west bank.
Civil unrest seem like a given. How long will it be until we are watching
pictures of American gunships firing on an apartment full of innocent
civilians to get a single bad guy? This is not a wild pipe dream - this is a
realistic projection starting from where we are actually standing today. I
am sure that the Israelis never planned to run their own version of the
Warsaw ghetto. But there they are.
If this is a realistic possibility (it is) then not raising my voice against
it is the most un-patriotic thing I could do.
Mark Browne
Mark Browne
I *rally* should check this stuff after I type it!
> You probably cried on 9-11 and swore United We Stand. Where is that soul
now Mark?
> You can no longer stand united with a country in time of war?
>
> As I said, the time for talk and debate is over. Either stand with us or
get the hell
> out of the way....you serve no useful or constructive purpose for our
Troops or Country
> if you continue with this anti war crap.
>
Actually, I was fairly certain that something like that would happen. I did
not know what or when it would be, but I know it would be something.
I knew that our poor policy in the middle east had finally come home to
roost - my friends in New York were paying the price for poor American
leadership. Notice that this is not a liberal-conservative thing. Several
administration have had a hand in this train wreck. The ineptness of the
current administration has brought this to a boil. Now before you throw your
hands up and snort in disgust let me lay out the background.
When visit the middle east and listen to the depth of despair from the
people ruled by the local despots I know they would be moved to action.
When they described how they blame the United States leadership for
supporting the governments that oppress them I knew who the target of this
action would be. You can pooh-pooh this all you want - you might get some
high fives from the right wingers in this newsgroup but you are not changing
a single mind in the middle east.
I have no truck with the peace marchers - they are trying to solve the wrong
problem. As I see it, is already too late. I don't think that the
administration will turn on the TV, see the marcher, and say - Oh! lets stop
the war. I know that we will take Iraq. The might of the America was
never in question. Implicit in my protest is that we are shooting ourselves
in the foot.
I am very concerned about what will come next. In America we have a very
distorted sense of history and continuity. After a lifetime of watching
movies we have come to expect that the end of the movie is the end of the
story. If all comes out good in the final reel than it was a good story. In
the middle east they know that each story is just a single thread in a
tapestry.
What sort of story is told in the middle east? Starting with the overthrow
of a fairly well loved government (not loved by the US, it had leanings to
socialism - not our cup of tea at the time) leading to the rise of Sadam. In
the supporting role you have America in bed with the young Saddam. The
people in the area are aware of our former support of this thug. They have
not forgotten this; our meddling to bring him to power is a widely
discussed fact in the region. The encouragement of Saddam to war with Iran
is widely discussed. Our tactical support in common knowledge. The
rebuilding of Iraq after this war leads to the dispute over slant drilling
from Kuwait into Iraqi oil fields - Need I say where American oil companies
were in all this? Perhaps Dick Cheney can explain who sold all the slant
drilling equipment to Kuwait. Iraq thought they should get money for the oil
taken from beneath their lands. When push came to shove Saddam turned to
arms. As you are no doubt aware, Saddam got some mixed signals as to the
United States position on this adventure. This takes us to the gulf war. The
massive loss of life during the bombing campaign is widely known. Many in
the region accept this because they feel that Saddam had stepped over the
line in taking Kuwait city. (but strangely enough - not the oil wells - had
he stopped there we never would have gotten Arab support for the gulf war)
Our ensuing brutal embargo has indirectly killed many helpless Iraqis.
Again, this is the stuff of common knowledge throughout the region. The oil
for food program is widely seen as a cruel blackmail to get the oil we so
badly need. Nothing more. The failure to support the attempted uprising
against Saddam has caused many questions about our motives.
RD
wrote:
>Little Bush seems to think that we can teach a pig to whistle. It's not
>going to happen.
Mark, thanks for a very thoughtful post.
So what do you see as the end game? And how to get there?
Rick
Doug Kanter
>
> >"... Gore lost."
>
> It is daylight at noon. So what?
>
> What the heck has Gore got to do with a few people in the CIA recovering
> a higher ethic?
>
It means everything to some people - the ones who can only deal with one
issue per decade. They're still busy working out the last presidential
election.
Doug Kanter
> Does that mean that the new American doctrine is to liberate every country
> where the government is killing the citizens under it's control?
> Some of the current candidates: China, Mexico, Israel, Indonesian, Much of
> Africa, Several countries in South America, most of the kingdoms in the
> middle east. Did I miss anybody?
Actually, what you've described is at the link below. People like Cheney &
Wolfowitz support this philosophy.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Doug Kanter
news:oe7s7voc1fgr4kd6o...@4ax.com...
>
> I find it astonishing that someone actually trusts anything in the
> NYTimes enough to post a link to it.
Which news sources do YOU trust?
Doug Kanter
Once again, the emphasis is on finger pointing. This relieves you of
personal responsibility, one of the cornerstones of democracy. Forget
Clinton, Daschle, and whomever else helps you feel morally superior.
Since there has never been an instance of successful Western meddling in the
Middle East, what will YOU say if our current adventure turns out to be a
complete failure, regardless of how it's measured?
i.e.:
1) Whatever leader we install turns out to be just as bad as Saddam and any
of the other leaders we've sponsored. But, a number of oil limited
partnerships do very well for the next ten years....
2) We find maybe one or two munitions factories that seem illegal, but it
turns out they were next on the U.N. inspectors' list.
3) A dozen more 9/11-type incidents occur here on our soil, and we never
catch the perpetrators because they include themselves in the barbeque. In
other words, we become another Israel.
Complete failure. How will you justify it? Perhaps by using the
broken-record nonsense some still repeat about Vietnam? "If we'd supported
the troops, we would've won that war!"
Hmmm?????
John(nospin)H
factual, ask the question again. I'll try to respond to each point.
I don't understand something. If Daschle, Clinton, you, etc. put down
the president with innappropriate garbage, all is well. If someone
refutes it, then it is finger pointing which relieves one of personal
responsibility which is a cornerstone of democracy but which was not
exercised in the initial finger pointing (whew). It is hard to keep up
with it all.
John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
Doug Kanter
wrong about their reasons and that the president cannot even lie to us in a
convincing way, people like you point to Clinton/Gore/Daschle and say that
their deeds make it OK for the bombing committee to be wrong.
You'd better get used to conjecture, because you may find out that this war
is based on nothing BUT.
--
My hotmail account is NEVER monitored. Messages sent there will not be seen.
To email me, turn the following words into a valid email address:
dougkanter at earth link dot net
"John(nospin)H" <nospi...@rec.boats> wrote in message
news:3idu7v41q6gp8c6qs...@4ax.com...
John(nospin)H
on "unnamed sources". Do you actually trust them? Except for C-span
(which seems pretty trustworthy) their role in life is to make money.
The more sensational the "reporting", the more papers or commercial
time is sold.
Again, do you actually trust any of them?
John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
John(nospin)H
another country? That seems to be your general attitude.
John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
Doug Kanter
> Should the United States do nothing to protect or aid people of
> another country? That seems to be your general attitude.
If the words "protect or aid" are what you gleaned from the web site link I
provided, it means you didn't read much of what was there. Try again and
come back later.
Doug Kanter
news:ihfu7vks7bcipcogu...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:03:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
<Ancien...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >You'd better get used to conjecture, because you may find out that this
war
> >is based on nothing BUT.
>
Precisely.
Doug Kanter
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:31:53 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
<Ancien...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Since there has never been an instance of successful Western meddling in
the
> >Middle East, what will YOU say if our current adventure turns out to be a
> >complete failure, regardless of how it's measured?
>
You're kidding, right? Please say you're kidding.
Doug Kanter
> I especially distrust those whose stories depend
> on "unnamed sources". Do you actually trust them? Except for C-span
> (which seems pretty trustworthy) their role in life is to make money.
> The more sensational the "reporting", the more papers or commercial
> time is sold.
>
> Again, do you actually trust any of them?
One of my current concerns is the right of gun ownership, so I have a
healthy distrust of the press. But, if you trust nobody, your information
can only come from dreams and visions, right? So, I have RELATIVE levels of
trust in various sources, roughly in this order:
1) NY Times, because at least it's aimed at people who can read. And, their
editorials represent both sides, which I feel trashes the accusations
simpletons make about "the press" being incurably liberal. At the same time,
they reported that an army helicopter crashed in Northwestern NY a couple of
weeks ago. Somebody buy these people a map.
2) National Public Radio, because if you don't see that they're trying to
present all angles, it's because you have a chip on your shoulder and are
choosing not to see.
3) BBC/CBC, just to get an outside opinion. Easy to get the broadcasts from
right across Lake Ontario.
4) Any Gannett newspaper, as a last resort. "It was a dark and stormy
night..." is NOT how newspaper articles should begin. But hey....5th graders
need a newspaper, too.
Joe
> One of my current concerns is the right of gun ownership-
Join the NRA. They will help protect your positional right to bear arms ;-)
Doug Kanter
news:QDIfa.17296$tO3....@nwrddc04.gnilink.net...
>
> > One of my current concerns is the right of gun ownership-
>
> Join the NRA. They will help protect your positional right to bear arms
;-)
>
>
Oh. Thanks for the tip. Are they a gun organization? :-)
Doug Kanter
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 18:01:09 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
<Ancien...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >2) National Public Radio, because if you don't see that they're trying to
> >present all angles, it's because you have a chip on your shoulder and are
> >choosing not to see.
>
Really? Why do you say that?
Robert Hutton
<Ancien...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >2) National Public Radio, because if you don't see that they're trying to
> >present all angles, it's because you have a chip on your shoulder and are
> >choosing not to see.
>
Doug Kanter
news:HpNfa.1604$U5....@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com...
> Roger that. NPR leans way, way left.
That's silly. This morning, for instance, they interviewed Iraqis living
here. They described how they had to censor their phone conversations with
relatives still living at home, avoiding anything even remotely critical of
their government. Otherwise, those relatives were likely to either get a
visit from a political "re-groover", or vanish mysteriously. These are the
things the left doesn't want to hear about.
Seriously, what are your electronic news options?
1) ABC/NBC/CBS: Right. There's not enough time between commercials to treat
most stories thoroughly.
2) BBC/CBC: Good to get another point of view, but not everyone can get
these broadcasts.
3) Fox/CNN/MSNBC: They compete to cover things happening right at the
moment, but they do few, if any in depth stories that require an attention
span of more than 2 minutes.
4) NPR: Spends 5% of its time covering breaking headlines, and 95% providing
stories with angles you won't hear anywhere else.
None of them are perfect. The intelligent citizen averages them all. The
idiot thinks his favorite has a direct line to God.
Enter name here
--
Boating sucks, lets talk politics
"Wally" <wil...@burnam.com> wrote in message
news:vj518v4fe4ald0ll9...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:56:59 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
<Ancien...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Wally" <wil...@burnam.com> wrote in message
> >news:agru7vo68dfo053pi...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 18:01:09 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
> ><Ancien...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >2) National Public Radio, because if you don't see that they're trying
to
> >> >present all angles, it's because you have a chip on your shoulder and
are
> >> >choosing not to see.
> >>
> >> Man , are you misinformed.
> >
> >Really? Why do you say that?
> >
>
> I listen to NPR a lot and there is no doubt they are leftist.
>
> This isn't even a debatable issue.
Doug Kanter
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:56:59 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
<Ancien...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Wally" <wil...@burnam.com> wrote in message
> >news:agru7vo68dfo053pi...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 18:01:09 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
> ><Ancien...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >2) National Public Radio, because if you don't see that they're trying
to
> >> >present all angles, it's because you have a chip on your shoulder and
are
> >> >choosing not to see.
> >>
> >> Man , are you misinformed.
> >
> >Really? Why do you say that?
> >
>
>
> This isn't even a debatable issue.
1) If you don't like them, why do you listen?
2) Can you provide 3-5 examples of NPR stories from the past couple of
weeks, which in your opinion represented biased reporting? Explain why you
thought they were biased.
Doug Kanter
> >weeks, which in your opinion represented biased reporting? Explain why
you
> >thought they were biased.
>
>
> I'll make it easy for you, gog to Google and type in "national public
radio
> bias".
You're the one flapping your tongue here. I want YOUR take on particular
stories, not something you read and regurgitate from the web.
DS King
> I listen to NPR a lot and there is no doubt they are leftist.
Really? What programs did you listen to that were "leftist?"
NPR often has programs that are produced by representatives of either side of the
political fence. I've heard some real right-wing screamers on NPR but that
doesn't make the network right wing. If anything, they seem to be making an
honest effort to present both sides equally.
>
>
> This isn't even a debatable issue.
Why, because you don't want to be confronted with facts?
DSK
Harry Krause
If you are way, way to the right, as so many of posters in this
newsgroup are, anything at or near the center looks "left wing" to you.
So, if NPR presents a well-balanced story, the righties get furious and
accuse NPR of being a left-wing organization.
It's absurd, but when you are on the right and way over the edge, your
perspective is warped.
There's nothing more to it.
Harry Krause
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:43:57 -0500, DS King <dou...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Wally wrote:
>>
>>> I listen to NPR a lot and there is no doubt they are leftist.
>>
>>Really? What programs did you listen to that were "leftist?"
>
>
> Diane Rehm
Diane Rehm is a social conservative, but a thinking one, with an open
mind. She tries not to inject herself into her interviews. I've known
her for 20 years.
>
> April Bahr (sp)
>
> Daniel Schorr
Schorr is a commentator and a liberal. Doesn't mean NPR is liberal or
conservative. He presents opinions, and they are clearly opinions.
Joe
> Diane Rehm is a social conservative, but a thinking one, with an open
> mind. She tries not to inject herself into her interviews. I've known
> her for 20 years.
Has she been out on you're lobsta boat?
Harry Krause
Nope. I don't know her that well. I met her years and years ago, and
have chatted with her a few times over the years. I disagree with some
of her positions, but agree with others, and I like the way she works
hard to present balance on her more controversial shows, and present
with respect those whose opinions are opposite of hers. She's a tough
interviewer. And she gets the best guests.
Joe
Well then she can't be all bad.
RD
<Ancien...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>That's silly. This morning, for instance, they interviewed Iraqis living
>here. They described how they had to censor their phone conversations with
>relatives still living at home, avoiding anything even remotely critical of
>their government. Otherwise, those relatives were likely to either get a
>visit from a political "re-groover", or vanish mysteriously. These are the
>things the left doesn't want to hear about.
Quite the contrary. Don't confuse the left with these simple minded,
partisan pretenders.
Rick
Mark Browne
I have thought long and hard about this. With all the grace of a bull in a
china shop little Bush has charged into a poorly thought out war. We don't
have any sort of viable exit strategy. From a large pallet of possibilities
for Iraq we are reduced the most ugly outcome possible: occupying a country
full of very pissed off people. Whether we like it or not the Iraq and USA
economies are now joined at the hip until Iraq is either able to stand on
its own feet or we pawn it off on someone else. The cost will be enormous.
Best estimates are over $4000 for every family in America.
Our "tame" press has shown some pictures of soldiers being greeted by waving
Shepard's and happy children. If you look around at some of the world news
you will see that the mood of the Iraqi people is considerably less
enthusiastic. In one way the people see the USA a worse villain then Saddam.
With Saddam you had to keep a low profile but it *was* possible to keep
safe. Many people worked the system and were OK. The torture victims were
protesters used as examples; the brutality was deliberately inflated to keep
the population in check.
This is not a new thing:
"There's something happenin' here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
Step outta line, the man come and take you away
We better stop, hey, what's that sound,
Everybody look what's goin' down."
-- Buffalo Springfield
Now there is no escaping the mighty wrath of the USA war machine. The
number of war dead is climbing daily. At this rate we will end up killing
someone in every family in the country - either as a soldier or as civilian.
This will leave a massive pool of resentment. The best ways to reduce this
resentment is work with our Arab allies to spin the mood in the Arab lands.
This would involve superior statesmanship and skill in propaganda. I have my
doubts that our current administration will use these powerful tools. I have
my doubts that they *could* use them even if they tried. Outright lying is
distinctly different from skillful interpretation of the truth. Little Bush
does not seem to grasp this fact. Worse yet, he does not seem to understand
that the world sees the shallow lies for what they are. But they do.
We are left with only four options for the end game.
To start with: A non-option is that peace and democracy will spring into
full flower throughout the country. The region is rife with clan rivalries.
There are three major factions (Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites) that will have to
have things their way or they will go to war to make things right. The only
reason that they are not at each other's throat right now is the powerful
hand of Saddam. (See torture and Baath party goon squads above) Remove that
control and you are unleashing a full-fledged civil war. Whatever solution
put in place will have to deal with this problem. It will take at least two
generation of nation building to get a functional democracy running
properly.
So - what can work?
1) America assumes the role of a foreign occupier. This *is* the stated goal
of the white house. Dress it up any way you want - call it a civilian panel
if it makes you feel any better. At the end of the day, the steel in the
velvet glove is the American military. The administration figures that they
will throw around a bunch of money and sprinkle the pixie dust of free
elections and everything will come out OK. Did I mention that this will take
a *lot* of money? Even then, this will not work for very long. Internal
friction between the different populations will prevent a successful
government. Look to Ireland to see some of the problems. Iraq will be much
worse. From the day the war ends the question will start to rise - when are
you leaving? I fear that we will not be a good guest; you will see that we
greatly overstay our welcome. Soon we will see nightly stories of Iraqi
protest. These will be side by side with reports of deaths among the
peacekeeping forces. Expect gruesome terrorist attacks both at home and
abroad. In the process the conservative party will pay a heavy price for
starting this ill-fated adventure. We will be forced to look for other
solution both at home and abroad. Liberals will smirk and say, "I told you
so!"
2) America passes the control of the country to the United Nations. I
personally think that this is the best option. This whole affair will be a
massive undertaking with many clashes between the population and the
peacekeeping forces. Spreading the blame over many countries dilutes the
focus of the occupied. Furthermore, the occupiers will not be the conquering
army. This will go a long way in reducing the resentment among the Iraqi
people. The biggest problem with all this is that America would have to
loosen its grip on the oil resources. This alone will make this a very hard
choice for the current administration. They are expecting to control the
sale of the oil. Yes, yes - I understand that the oil will be held "for the
good of the Iraqi people" but sales *will* be firmly under control of
companies located inside the United States of America.
3) America passes control of the country to the Arab league. Politically
this sounds like a good move. It would go over well on the Arab street. In
reality this is a non-starter. We have a major case of letting the foxes run
the hens house. This would eventually lead to destabilization of the entire
area. We also have the little issue that control of the oil leaves American
hands. Not gonna happen.
4) America installs another strongman to run the county. Of course this will
only work if we keep a large standing force in the country. This is the
worst of both worlds; we are left entangled in the affairs of the country
and it does *not* solve the democracy issue. I don't like it one little bit.
We have seen how this turns out in several countries in the Middle East.
(Iran and Iraq are two notable examples) Considering the lack of imagination
in the current administration this will seem like a good choice. We have
done it before and it is a time-tested solution! In my heart of hearts I see
this as the eventually outcome. Yuck!
Mark Browne
PS - Just watch. When we finally take Baghdad some fool will fly Old Glory
over the city. It will be widely televised. We will clap and cheer. Bile
will rise in every Arab throat in the Middle East. The memory of the
Crusades runs *very* deep in that part of the world. That one act will cost
the USA an untold amount of grief in the long run. You heard it here first.
"RD" <rda...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:FE4F8F45DB9235E0.ECF7B9C9...@lp.airnews.net...
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:17:13 GMT, "Mark Browne" <mbr...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Little Bush seems to think that we can teach a pig to whistle. It's not
> >going to happen.
>
> Mark, thanks for a very thoughtful post.
> So what do you see as the end game? And how to get there?
>
> Rick
Harry Krause
> A social conservative hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
What are you laughing at, feces-for-brains? Did you see your shadow?
Doug Kanter
> This is not a new thing:
>
> "There's something happenin' here
> What it is ain't exactly clear
> There's a man with a gun over there
> Telling me I got to beware
>
> Paranoia strikes deep
> Into your life it will creep
> It starts when you're always afraid
> Step outta line, the man come and take you away
>
> We better stop, hey, what's that sound,
> Everybody look what's goin' down."
>
> -- Buffalo Springfield
>
Perhaps even more appropriate:
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name
But what's confusin' you
Is the nature of my game
-George W Bush
Doug Kanter
news:tX2dnRrcHsq...@comcast.com...
> > None of them are perfect. The intelligent citizen averages them all. The
> > idiot thinks his favorite has a direct line to God.
> >
> >
>
>
> If you are way, way to the right, as so many of posters in this
> newsgroup are, anything at or near the center looks "left wing" to you.
> So, if NPR presents a well-balanced story, the righties get furious and
> accuse NPR of being a left-wing organization.
>
> It's absurd, but when you are on the right and way over the edge, your
> perspective is warped.
>
> There's nothing more to it.
>
It would shock some of the neo-conservatives here to find that I won't deny
hearing Rush Limbaugh say a few things which I agreed with. I still wouldn't
have him on my boat, though, unless I could take him far from witnesses and
use him for chum.
Doug Kanter
news:YW5vbmFub24=.24f369e75f6985a2852ab0ba9fed07b5@1048689804.cotse.net...
> Mark Browne wrote:
>
> > Rick,
> > I have thought long and hard about this. With all the grace of a bull in
a
> > china shop little Bush has charged into a poorly thought out war. We
don't
> > have any sort of viable exit strategy. From a large pallet of
> possibilities
> > for Iraq we are reduced the most ugly outcome possible: occupying a
> country
> > full of very pissed off people. Whether we like it or not the Iraq and
USA
> > economies are now joined at the hip until Iraq is either able to stand
on
> > its own feet or we pawn it off on someone else. The cost will be
enormous.
> > Best estimates are over $4000 for every family in America.
>
>
> bucket, and his staff knows it, even if he later claims he didn't. And
> the business about holding off telling us his estimate until after the
> Senate voted last week on his payoff for the rich tax cut was the height
> of dishonesty.
>
> The Bush Administration is lying to the American people about matters of
> great importance.
>
What's even more annoying is that he can't even lie well.
jps
news:Gbcga.218630$F1.12627@sccrnsc04...
Great analysis Mark.
Thanks.
jps
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:26:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
<Ancien...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Harry Krause" <harry...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:tX2dnRrcHsq...@comcast.com...
> >> > None of them are perfect. The intelligent citizen averages them all.
The
> >> > idiot thinks his favorite has a direct line to God.
>
> >> If you are way, way to the right, as so many of posters in this
> >> newsgroup are, anything at or near the center looks "left wing" to you.
> >> So, if NPR presents a well-balanced story, the righties get furious and
> >> accuse NPR of being a left-wing organization.
> >>
> >> It's absurd, but when you are on the right and way over the edge, your
> >> perspective is warped.
> >>
> >> There's nothing more to it.
>
>
> You are a known demo shill
>
> Your words are empty, disingenuous and pimped out by your handlers.
How much line have you let out for this troll? Looks like a couple thousand
feet.
jps