OK, people, still like Bush now?

In article
cGhhdHBoaWw=.3bfa8a3aea0404b6901c4070f3c89870@105 9092705.cotse.net,
"CurtisLemay" wrote:

It's going to take a helluva lot more than some stupid
foreign liberal paper printed on orange paper

I hate to be disageeable but according to their web site, it's actually
"pink." I wouldn't necessarily read *too much* in that though.

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentSe...oryFT/SpecialW
ideFullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1035873263789&p=1035873 177895

Yeah yeah... my word wrap stinks....

Vern93 wrote:

In article
cGhhdHBoaWw=.3bfa8a3aea0404b6901c4070f3c89870@105 9092705.cotse.net,
"CurtisLemay" wrote:

It's going to take a helluva lot more than some stupid
foreign liberal paper printed on orange paper

I hate to be disageeable but according to their web site, it's actually
"pink." I wouldn't necessarily read *too much* in that though.

It really is pink. We got it free for a few weeks and is actually a good
paper. Too many letters, though, same as the WSJ.

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/SpecialWideFullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1035873263789&p =1035873177895

Yeah yeah... my word wrap stinks....

Auntie Bev's handy URL hint: enclose it in pointy brackets, which will
generally allow it to NOT wrap, at least the first time.

--
Cheers,
Bev
================================================== ===
It's 95% of the lawyers making the other 5% look bad.

Jay Pique wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:52:25 -0700, The Real Bev
wrote:

Vern93 wrote:

In article
cGhhdHBoaWw=.3bfa8a3aea0404b6901c4070f3c89870@105 9092705.cotse.net,
"CurtisLemay" wrote:

It's going to take a helluva lot more than some stupid
foreign liberal paper printed on orange paper

I hate to be disageeable but according to their web site, it's actually
"pink." I wouldn't necessarily read *too much* in that though.

It really is pink. We got it free for a few weeks and is actually a good
paper. Too many letters, though, same as the WSJ.

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/SpecialWideFullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1035873263789&p =1035873177895

Yeah yeah... my word wrap stinks....

Auntie Bev's handy URL hint: enclose it in pointy brackets, which will
generally allow it to NOT wrap, at least the first time.

Muchas gracias senorita - I just took makeashorterlink off of my
"favorites".

I've actually got case files on a bunch of you longer time RSAers,
just in case you **** me off. But not YOU of course - just on the
other guy.

Damn right, I wasn't even there!

--
Cheers,
Bev
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The way England treats her prisoners, she doesn't
deserve to have any." --Oscar Wilde

"CurtisLemay" wrote in message
news:cGhhdHBoaWw=.e427c88c35fcbaf1de87ddbf727b7cbe @1059141361.cotse.net.
...
Dave Stallard wrote:

snip

Ya know, I wuz thinking about this and your analysis ought to
mention that:

a.) the terrorist plot took place 8 months after Bush took office -
that
means that the planning and infrastructure construction occurred
under Wee Willie's watch. How do you explain that?

Exactly. And the lapses in intellegence can be tied to the gutting of
the services during the previous 8 years.
It's alot like the dems blaming the economy on GWB when it was obviously
headed down when he took office.

b.) Bob Graham? Now there's an independent and objective
observer. An honest man that tells the truth? Horse****, he's a
greasy politician that lies throught his teeth who just so happens
to be running for what office.

c.) Every American administration has tried to placate the Saudis.
Weren't there some bombings that occurred against Americans in
Saudi Arabia under Clinton. It just so happens that the current
Admin has been FAR more aggressive with them from pulling US
troops out, getting kidnapped women and children home to
publically pressuring them to expose their hypocrisy.

Notice that they're arresting terrorists now. We're on their doorstep
and they know that we have another source for the oil we need about to
come online.
Much of the responsibility for our dependence on Saudi oil lies with
those that keep us from exploiting our own reserves. I've heard that
there are more Caribou on the N. Slope than there were before the oil
production began.

d.) You neglected to mention that the report failed in any way to link
the Saudi Gov't to 9-11. The actions involved members of the
Royal Family. Royal family members can be kooks - look at King
Edward that abdicated - he liked and supported the Nazis.

e.) You ARE guilty of the very thing you accuse the Administration
of. Selectively hiding and presenting things out of context.

With all of this, I have come to one conclusion, You suck!

There is more than one terrorist group in the world. Personally I
believe that Saddam and Al Queda kept there links secret in order to
protect Saddam from the fate that eventually befell him anyway.

bdubya wrote:

Y'know, I don't like Bush and I don't have a lot of trust for him
either, but this kind of hysteria isn't any better than what the far
right dishes out. The fog of war is mighty thick all around, and this
story, damning as it sounds, could wind up looking about as solid as
the African uranium story was. If we're lucky, hindsight might be
20/20, but the current view most definitely is not. IMHO.

It's not just Democrats and "liberals" who say the report should be
declassified - it's Republicans as well. From the LA Times today:

"Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), the former ranking minority member of
the Senate intelligence committee, said in an interview that he has read
the entire report and feels the classified parts should be made public.

"This might be embarrassing information" to the Saudi government, Shelby
said on NBC's "Today" show, "but I don't believe it meets the test of
real classification.""

How do you feel about your government misusing the classification
process to protect Saudi Arabia politically? Doesn't the fact that 15
of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, tht their leader Bin Laden was Saudi,
and that the entire enterprise was funded by Saudi money, including it
would now appear, money from the Saudi government and royal family, make
you want to know more?

I'm not saying that the Saudi government knew about the attacks in
advance, but I am saying that they give money to extremists, knowing
that that it will likely be used to attack America and other foreign
targets, in exchange for not being targeted themselves. And I'm saying
that our government, which is supposed to protect us, is covering this
up and not investigating it, in order to protect the "special
relationship" we have with Saudi Arabia and its oil. This goes for
Democrats and Republicans both. That's the crux of the matter.

Dave

In article
cGhhdHBoaWw=.becd927f501018be351debce8c305c62@105 9153809.cotse.net,
"CurtisLemay" wrote:

Would salmon colored be more acceptable?

Actually, I was going to go with "salmon" as well, until I went to their
own web site and it described itself as "pink." Interestingly, the paper
itself is naturally white; it gets it's pink colour from a steady diet
of shrimp.

All I know is that I got
crossed-eyed and headaches from reading the paper.

I like it because it makes me look all smart and worldly when I read it
in public with a sorta concerned/ sorta constipated look on my face.

How's things in Music City USA?

I'm working this weekend so it could be better. But now I've got some
Costo "Jamacian Blue Mountain Coffee Blend" brewing. (Now with over 1%
real Jamacian Blue Mountain Coffee beans!) We're having a cool snap
which is a nice break from the 95F temp w/ 100% humidity.

I got a decent Dwight Yoakam record
the other day.

A local radiostation had a contest a couple of years ago called "guess
what Dwight is saying" I still think he's saying "I've got pickles in
my pocket" in that one song.

I know he's commercial but I like his stuff. I
developed a taste as well for Allison Krauss.

There's a girl out of Knoxville named "Robinella" (and CC Strings) who
just put a CD out early this summer. She's sort of a cross between
Allison and Norah Jones but fun. Check her out. She's on Kazaa, but if
you really like her and what you hear, buying her CD would be very good
karma indeed. Look for the tracks "Dress Me Up and Dress Me Down" and
"Man Over"

Dave

In message , BrritSki
writes

Do you work for the BBC now too ? This is typical of them, none of the
facts are wrong, but it doesn't tell the whole story does it ?

Correction, one fact is wrong: the family did say he was hounded, but
they didn't blame just the MoD - they said everyone involved should
reflect on their contribution.

Which is a weasel.
How much detail d'you want in an eight-line summary?
--
Sue ]|(

Sue wrote:

In message , BrritSki
writes

Do you work for the BBC now too ? This is typical of them, none of the
facts are wrong, but it doesn't tell the whole story does it ?

Correction, one fact is wrong: the family did say he was hounded, but
they didn't blame just the MoD - they said everyone involved should
reflect on their contribution.

Which is a weasel.

No idea what this means - please translate...

How much detail d'you want in an eight-line summary?

Will since you're moaning about being misled, surely it behoves you to
not mislead ?

Who set you am 8 line limit ? Not me, and to add the little bit extra
to make it accurate would have taken it to what - 9 lines ?

Dr. Kelly spoke to 3 BBC journalists. Only 1 was attacked by Alisatair
Campbell because he was personally accused of adding things to the
war-justifying report and "sexing it up". While I have no doubt that the
Gov't and Campbell did mislead us and emphasise things to their
advantage, I doubt if the specific charge that Gilligan made on air and
in his Daily Mail article will stand up when the Inquiry reports -
certainly not on the basis of what Kelly told him. The BBC have long
since rowed back from the "inserted" claim to "undue emphasis" and from
specific claims against Campbell. The other 2 reporters didn't include
these claims, only Gilligan - he did exactly what he was accusing
Campbell of and he let Kelly get cricified by the Select Committee when
if he'd have admitted he was the source, we would all have known that
the sexing up was done by Gilligan, not by Kelly saying things that he
could have no knowledge of and not because the MoD wanted to hound him.

The really sad thing about this, as pointed out by Matthew Parrish in
today's Times, is that like the cheap shyster he is, Campbell can go
into battle with all guns blazing on 1 small inaccuracy and ignore the
much bigger picture. Pity a guy felt the need to kill himself over it
too.

The other really sad thing is this: The BBC have been biased for years.
Every Tory knows it - part of the reason that the BBC can claim to be
the only opposition is that they have been doing down the Tories for
decades. The BBC sucked up to Blair and his Gov't for years until they
decided they weren't left-wing enough. Some of the reporting before the
war and during the early phases about how everything was going wrong
were simply disgraceful. Most of the time they don't even realise they
are doing it, but it's inevitable when the great majority of the
journalists, news staff and management are left-wing Guardianistas, just
as it would be in the opposite direction if everyone was of my political
leaning. They are entitled to their opinions and to broadcast them, but
they should have alternative opinions too - a balanced political staff
and management will lead to balanced reporting. As it is, they will get
their come-uppance and will be severely punished by this, probably to
the extent IMHO of losing their public funding and I for one will be
glad as I'm fed-up funding propaganda for the anti-war movement, but
it's sad that we'll lose some of the excellent programs that the BBC has
made over the years.

And finally, all these people quibbling about whether WMDs are found or
not and who said what are doing exactly what Alistair Campbell is doing
- they're attacking the detail and missing the bigger picture. I have no
doubt at all that it was right to go to war to depose an evil tyrant and
mass murderer who was a threat to us all in the future. Despite my
dislike of Blair and everything else he has done, I think he was right
not to take a gamble on this one and risk deployment of biological,
chemical and nuclear weapons by terrorists very close to home.

"Jay Pique" wrote in message
...

I've actually got case files on a bunch of you longer time RSAers,
just in case you **** me off. But not YOU of course - just on the
other guy.

Then you must know who was the first person to use the word "mayonnaise"
in RSA.

Hint: the second was me.

"Sue" wrote in message
...

nothing again so I snipped it

What's going on with that guy in the parliament that was against the war
and it turns out he had received millions from Saddam?