I was misled

Quoted message said:

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1310344&l=42227

"So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to
guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot be
permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of
amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter
about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council,
or, certainly, in this Nation."

John Kerry on Senate floor, 11/9/97.

Bill "fix your user name, Jobst" S.

Quoted message said:

"So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to
guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot

be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of
amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter
about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council,
or, certainly, in this Nation."

Quoted message said:

John Kerry on Senate floor, 11/9/97.

Bill "fix your user name, Jobst" S.

It has occurred to me, as it should to you, that the intelligence reports
which John Kerry was receiving were not of the same quality that George Bush
was receiving. Indeed, many if not all of his reports were filtered down
through the present administration. Therefore, how can you believe that the
remarks of the two men should be considered equally when one is the sitting
president and the other is not privy to all of the same information?

Pat in TX.

Quoted message said:

Pat' from said:

It has occurred to me, as it should to you, that the intelligence reports
which John Kerry was receiving were not of the same quality that George Bush
was receiving. Indeed, many if not all of his reports were filtered down
through the present administration. Therefore, how can you believe that the
remarks of the two men should be considered equally when one is the sitting
president and the other is not privy to all of the same information?

It's not like it matters. Both men are comitted to continuing the illegal
occupation of Iraq, heaping more misery on a country which should by rights be
getting reparations payments instead. Bush shouldn't be President; he should
be in the dock for war crimes. This Iraq War is a great national shame.

--
Kevan Smith
[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1310344&l=42227

Wow, maybe I should start posting press releases
from the RNC.

Welcome to my killfile.

--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

S o r n i said:

Quoted message said:

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1310344&l=42227

"So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to
guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot be
permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of
amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter
about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council,
or, certainly, in this Nation."

John Kerry on Senate floor, 11/9/97.

Jobst is just gullible because he would rather get his news from
biased sources so he doesn't have to confront the truth.

For example, when Russian President Vladimir Putin recently told the
press how Russia warned us repeatedly that they had solid evidence
that Iraq was planning to attack the US and US interests abroad after
the 9/11 attacks...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3819057.stm

Guess how the major networks in the US handled it? NOT A FRIGGIN'
WORD. The NY Times and other liberal papers buried the story at the
bottom of an inside page.

If you'd rather form an opinion unencumbered by the facts, by all
means follow the links to the propaganda that Jobst posted.

If you'd rather actually know what's going on, I'd suggest starting
with an unbiased compilation like the Drudge Report (recently
determined to be by far less biased than any other news source that
was analyzed). That becomes pretty obvious when you see it...

www.drudgereport.com

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

"Mark Hickey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

[...]

Quoted message said:

For example, when Russian President Vladimir Putin recently told the
press how Russia warned us repeatedly that they had solid evidence
that Iraq was planning to attack the US and US interests abroad after
the 9/11 attacks...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3819057.stm

Hmmm, it seems Putin is finally repaying Dubbya for his redefining the
Chechyns from freedom fighters to terrorists. How very convenient it all
is.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 05:50:54 GMT, [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1310344&l=42227

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

I was misled once too.

I went into a shop and bought a wheel that the shopguys assured me
would fit my rear dropout spacing.

It didn't. I was peeved.

This thread will now live forever.

-Luigi

I was misled into thinking that I was browsing rec.bicycles.misc....oh
wait I am browsing the right forum. Shouldn't you be posting to
misc.activism.progressive or talk.politics.misc????

--

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

....

Quoted message said:

Guess how the major networks in the US handled it? NOT A FRIGGIN'
WORD. The NY Times and other liberal papers buried the story at the
bottom of an inside page.

CNN's online service carried it as a headline article. Not the same
exposure as a broadcast item on the evening news to be sure, but it's
still a major network.

.....

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

"Kevan Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

It's not like it matters. Both men are comitted to continuing the illegal
occupation of Iraq, heaping more misery on a country which should by

rights be

Quoted message said:

getting reparations payments instead. Bush shouldn't be President; he

should

Quoted message said:

be in the dock for war crimes. This Iraq War is a great national shame.

You mean the UN sanctioned "illegal occupation" put in place after GW I?

Pete

Bill Sorni said:

Quoted message said:

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1310344&l=42227

Quoted message said:

"So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to
guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He
cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his
horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass
destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any
debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this
Nation."

Quoted message said:

John Kerry on Senate floor, 11/9/97.

Yes??? And this was in respect to what? This was not a call to
invade Iraq as you can see from the text. It was a call for the UN
intervention and inspections.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Kevan Smith said:

Quoted message said:

It has occurred to me, as it should to you, that the intelligence
reports which John Kerry was receiving were not of the same quality
that George Bush was receiving. Indeed, many if not all of his
reports were filtered down through the present administration.
Therefore, how can you believe that the remarks of the two men
should be considered equally when one is the sitting president and
the other is not privy to all of the same information?

Quoted message said:

It's not like it matters. Both men are committed to continuing the
illegal occupation of Iraq, heaping more misery on a country which
should by rights be getting reparations payments instead. Bush
shouldn't be President; he should be in the dock for war
crimes. This Iraq War is a great national shame.

A recent political cartoon made that clear showing a burned out auto
wreck, labeled Iraq, with a US soldier giving the keys to an Iraqi
saying "OK, you can drive now." The USA cannot easily extricate
itself from the debacle and there are no easy solutions to the matter
of solving the enormous problems the willful destruction of that
nation has caused.

Well known military documents state that policing a nation after it
capitulates in battle is a task nearly as great as winning the battle.
Under commanders who knew what lay before them our forces sat idly by
as looting and destruction, as great as that caused by our weapons,
went on for weeks, pretending that this was a great surprise. This
occurred under Donald Rumsfeld who, as I, learned about this the role
of military policing and combat in officer's training and subsequent
service:

http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/rumsfeld.html

Iraqis did not come running out to welcome their liberators as our
nation was told would occur. Those who predicted the actual outcome
were put down as enemy sympathizers and the like... the whole mess is
such a sordid story as we lost the support of all the nations who came
to our cause after 9/11... freedom fries and the like.

Fortunately the American people still have friends in the world even
though our administration is universally hated. However we could
change that too in the upcoming election.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Scott Johnson said:

Quoted message said:

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1310344&l=42227

Quoted message said:

Wow, maybe I should start posting press releases from the RNC.

What is it that irritates you so about factual reporting. Maybe you
could point out where there are errors in this report. Facts contrary
to ones beliefs are often so disconcerting that they are suppressed.

Quoted message said:

Welcome to my killfile.

That is so you won't see what others are saying, I take it. You need
to kill the subject and follow-ups.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Bill Sorni said:

Quoted message said:

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1310344&l=42227

Quoted message said:

"So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to
guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He
cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his
horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass
destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any
debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this
Nation."

Quoted message said:

John Kerry on Senate floor, 11/9/97.

Yes??? And this was in respect to what? This was not a call to
invade Iraq as you can see from the text. It was a call for the UN
intervention and inspections.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Scott Johnson said:

Quoted message said:

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1310344&l=42227

Quoted message said:

Wow, maybe I should start posting press releases from the RNC.

What is it that irritates you so about factual reporting. Maybe you
could point out where there are errors in this report. Facts contrary
to ones beliefs are often so disconcerting that they are suppressed.

Quoted message said:

Welcome to my killfile.

That is so you won't see what others are saying, I take it. You need
to kill the subject and follow-ups.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:18:34 GMT, [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

What is it that irritates you so about factual reporting.

I'm not irritated about factual reporting.

I am mildly irritated that rbm is going to be turned into yet another
front for the US Presidential election.

You've been around on the rec.bicycles.* hierarchy much longer than I
have, so I know you won't take kindly to a n00b like me reproaching
you for posting something so blatantly off-topic as this. But perhaps
there are regular NG readers who want to talk about bicycles and wish
not to have the ugliness of the present electoral campaign intrude
upon that discussion?

-Luigi

www.livejournal.com/users/ouij
photos, rants, raves.

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:37:23 GMT, "Pete" <[email hidden]> from Road Runner High

Speed Online urlhttp://www.rr.com/url said:

"Kevan Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

It's not like it matters. Both men are comitted to continuing the illegal
occupation of Iraq, heaping more misery on a country which should by

rights be

Quoted message said:

getting reparations payments instead. Bush shouldn't be President; he

should

Quoted message said:

be in the dock for war crimes. This Iraq War is a great national shame.

You mean the UN sanctioned "illegal occupation" put in place after GW I?

Do not mislead people. The war was never "UN Sanctioned," and there wasn't an
occupation until after the war. Pete, I'm ashamed for you. I know you know
better than to lie like that to cover for Bush.

--
Kevan Smith
[email hidden]

from said:

Kevan Smith said:

Quoted message said:

It has occurred to me, as it should to you, that the intelligence
reports which John Kerry was receiving were not of the same quality
that George Bush was receiving. Indeed, many if not all of his
reports were filtered down through the present administration.
Therefore, how can you believe that the remarks of the two men
should be considered equally when one is the sitting president and
the other is not privy to all of the same information?

Quoted message said:

It's not like it matters. Both men are committed to continuing the
illegal occupation of Iraq, heaping more misery on a country which
should by rights be getting reparations payments instead. Bush
shouldn't be President; he should be in the dock for war
crimes. This Iraq War is a great national shame.

A recent political cartoon made that clear showing a burned out auto
wreck, labeled Iraq, with a US soldier giving the keys to an Iraqi
saying "OK, you can drive now." The USA cannot easily extricate
itself from the debacle and there are no easy solutions to the matter
of solving the enormous problems the willful destruction of that
nation has caused.

Easy solutions? No, you are right. There are none. Hard, but moral and fair
solutions? Well, the following steps would be a good start:

1) The immediate withdrawal of all occupation troops from Iraq and from a
buffer zone around its borders.

2) The immediate resignation of Bush and his top administration officials,
particularly Cheney Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell and Wolfowitz. They should turn
themselves in to the Hague for eventual trial as war criminals. (Blair and
other top Brits shoudl join them.) The constitutional crisis this would cause
is no greater than the current one of a sitting President waging an illegal
war based on cooked evidence. In some ways, it is less, because we have
procedures for replacing office holders.

3) The suspension of all activities of non-Iraqi corporations in Iraq, with
special attention paid to energy companies. The goal here is to return to the
Iraqi people what rightfully belongs to them -- their treasure.

4) The immediate start of unconditional reparations payments. Iraq starts
fixing things themselves, they give us a bill, we pay it. No questions.

--
Kevan Smith
[email hidden]

Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

For example, when Russian President Vladimir Putin recently told the
press how Russia warned us repeatedly that they had solid evidence
that Iraq was planning to attack the US and US interests abroad after
the 9/11 attacks...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3819057.stm

Yes, I'm going to take the word of an ex-KGB officer who is trying to
help Bush get re-elected lest someone else get in there who
disapproves of the Russian death squads in Chechnya.

Quoted message said:

Guess how the major networks in the US handled it? NOT A FRIGGIN'
WORD. The NY Times and other liberal papers buried the story at the
bottom of an inside page.

The thing that I'm surprised about is that various Bush admin hacks
didn't get all over the Sunday morning news shows with this. On the
contrary, someone, CIA official I believe, said they didn't know what
Putin was referring to. My guess is that if Putin did tell Bush
something, the *whole* story is actually embarassing so Bush can't use
it- maybe something like, Putin told Bush that Iraq was making plans
to attack the US with terrorists if we invaded Iraq.

Quoted message said:

If you'd rather form an opinion unencumbered by the facts, by all
means follow the links to the propaganda that Jobst posted.

You wouldn't know a fact if it smacked you in the face. Jobst's post
references the St. Petersburg Times and San Francisco Chronicle, and
they reference a response by Tampa International Airport to the 9/11
Commission. Jobst's article is thoroughly footnoted. There are no
holes in it. The flight happened.

So stop lying and trying to say it didn't.

Quoted message said:

If you'd rather actually know what's going on, I'd suggest starting
with an unbiased compilation like the Drudge Report (recently
determined to be by far less biased than any other news source that
was analyzed). That becomes pretty obvious when you see it...

www.drudgereport.com

Amazing. Drudge is a rumor-monger. Some times he is right, often he is
wrong.

JP