I was misled

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 05:01:12 GMT, "Pete" <[email hidden]> from Road Runner High

Speed Online url='http://www.rr.com/'http://www.rr.com/url said:

"Kevan Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

The Iraqi Prime Minister was chosen by occupation
authorities and has no legitimate democratic basis for
holding power. I would hope he would step

down

Quoted message said:

rather than inflame civil war and/or becoming
another Iraqi tyrant by stubornly holding on to
illegitimate power.

Not quite...he is merely an interim guy. There only to help
stabilize things, and hopefully see through the process of
holding valid elections.

Or so the Bush administration claims. I don't particularly
trust them, given their track record.

Quoted message said:

But whomever it might be, whether supported by Bush/Blair
or not, would be a target. Now that the overall
controlling figure, Saddam, is gone, that country is ripe
for an all out civil war. The only thing holding it back
(partially) is the presence of foreign troops. Even that
may not be enough.

How do you conduct a 'fair' election when police
stations are being blown up? Or the government offices
in Bagdad? How safe do you think a polling place would
be? Would you go vote?

Quoted message said:

They won't blow it up if it belongs to the Iraqi people
instead of profiteering foreigners.

Bull. A lot of those people doing the blowing up are there
*only* to blow stuff up. They are not Iraqi, nor do they
care about 'the Iraqi people'.

Or so the Bush administration claims. I don't particularly
trust them, given their track record.

Quoted message said:

They are looking to shame us into leaving (see Spain), and
carving out a piece of what is left. To the detriment of
'the Iraqi people'.

We _should_ be shamed into leaving after all the lies that
led to the invasion and how we've actually made the country
_worse_ than it was under a tyrant. As I've said, the Iraq
War is a national disgrace.

--
Kevan Smith
[email hidden]

On 25 Jun 2004 22:53:35 -0700, [email hidden] (James

Annan) said:

Here in mild-mannered conservative Japan...

Quoted message said:

but they should at least be aware that this really is how
the rest of the world views him (and by extension, those
who elect him).

Or since he wasn't actually elected, "those who erect him."

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

Quoted message said:

This like other topics we might choose not to read is each
reader's prerogative to skip or not. Off topic trouble
arises when within a thread someone takes advantage of
folks who are following the subject by introducing another
agenda such as helmets under tire problems. That is not
what is happening here.

Please feel free to post your ride-logs (over 30 paragraphs
and 3,000 words to surmount) to the political newsgroup of
your choosing.

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

Quoted message said:

(JP) said:

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.

Heh... I can always count on you to brew up new and
increasingly fanciful conspiracy theories...

I would like to hear *your* theory about why the Bush
administration hasn't said a single word about Putin's
claim. Really. I find the whole thing pretty puzzling. And,
as I said, I did read about someone in the Executive Branch
dismissing it. So what is your theory?

Quoted message said:

So you're saying the St. Pete Times and the SF Chronical
maintain the "daily.misleader.org" website. LOL.

No. I'm saying that the article that came up on their site
references articles in the St. Petersburg Times and San
Francisco Chronicles that completely support their article.
You have absolutely no basis to discredit anything on
daily.misleader.org, so you just pull accusations out of the
air and refuse to address the fact that there are solid
references in the story, so solid that they are essentially
irrefuatable.

Quoted message said:

Thing is, you get the whole story - both sides. For some
reason, that approach seems to be total anathema to many
liberals. I suppose it's easier to go through life not
hearing anything that contradicts your preconceived
notions - but personally I would hate to appear that naive
when discussing the issues in public.

How ironic then that you seem so naive, if not ignorant,
when discussing these issues in public. I can't recall you
ever being able to quote a single fact or present any kind
of logical analysis on anything not bicycle related.

Let's just examine the post I'm responding to:

1. You make derogatory comments about daily.misleader.org
implying that it is an untrustworthy source. This
argument is in its essence nothing more than name
calling. You cite no evidence to contradict any part of
any story on the site. You cite no evidence to contradict
the sources for any of those stories. You refuse to
address the fact that the story I cited is based on
articles from two major newspapers and instead try to
confuse the issue by setting up a strawman claim to
knockdown despite it having no connection whatever to my
actual comments. Not a single fact or logical conclusion,
though, in your entire response.

2. No evidence that Drudge presents both sides of the story.
No evidence that he is reliable. No evidence that Drudge
backs up his reports with references.

You're right, though, I'm not interested in both sides of
the story. Reality only has one side, with different
perspectives, and unfortunately, your perspective requires
mostly closing your eyes so you can ignore the reality of
the Bush administration's huge negative accomplishments:
failure to defend against 9/11; exploding national deficits;
a mostly jobless economic recovery with falling real wages;
over 800 of our troops dead in Iraq for a lie.

These are the facts. There is no other side to it,
only excuses.

JP

Luigi:

Actually, if you go to rbt, you'll find losts of discussions
about various cycling topics. This is merely one of them.
Nobody is forcing anybody to participate in this particular
one. If you have a specific questions about bikes, nobody is
stopping nobody else from asking and many of us are actually
responding to some of those questions. At this pont,
probably everyone knows that the "i've been misslead" thread
is about politics. If anyone clicks on the subheading, it is
purely by choice.

Andres

Luigi de Guzman <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

You're right, though, I'm not interested in both sides of
the story.

Obviously.

Quoted message said:

Reality only has one side, with different perspectives,
and unfortunately, your perspective requires mostly
closing your eyes so you can ignore the reality of the
Bush administration's huge negative accomplishments:
failure to defend against 9/11;

Let's see. Terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11=0. Only
a blinded liberal would call that a failure to defend
against 9/11.

exploding national

Quoted message said:

deficits;

Yes, and that's why Bush loses my vote.

a mostly jobless economic recovery with falling real wages;

Simply not true. This is propaganda, not fact. If you'd like
to cite some credible source for this information, I'll cite
some that will show this is misinformation.

Quoted message said:

over 800 of our troops dead in Iraq for a lie.

No lie detected, at least by me. If you detected one, then I
think it is interpretation. I don't support the invasion of
Iraq and didn't support it prior to the invasion. I wouldn't
have supported it if there WMD's (and I believe there were
at the time) and I wouldn't have supported it to unseat a
bad dictator (that isn't the role of our government.) But I
don't support statements like this about the President or
anybody else when it's simply not true or at least subject
to interpretation. We need to support the effort now that it
is fait accompli, not do what we can to destroy the effort
for partisanship. Destroying it just wastes the lives and
money for no reason.

Quoted message said:

These are the facts. There is no other side to it, only
excuses.

These are the facts as you interpret them and yes there is
another side. Politics is truly humanity at its worst.
Sadly, you are a shining example of that. There is no
problem with differences of opinion but partisanship simply
doesn't belong in in any discussion of national security.

I have no comment or knowledge about the media cited above
because I haven't read them. I don't read politically
charged media during election years. It is fruitless. But I
suspect that each has its agenda and will interpret "facts"
as they see fit. Doesn't make them necessarily right or
wrong, just right or left.

Fred

"Pete" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

There seems to be two major factions in Iraq. One that
only wants peace,

and

Quoted message said:

to be left alone to rebuild and maybe start a democracy of
some sort. The other apparently wants to incite a civil
war, hoping they come out on top.

Two? You are probably off by an order of magnitude.

Even if we limit ourselves to identifiable factions, we have
to count a couple of Shiite factions, a Kurdish faction,
Baathists hoping to return to power (with or without Saddam
Hussein), etc. A news story this morning suggests the Turks
are worried about instability in northern Iraq, and are
starting to get involved in creating "stability" there.

Plus, it seems likely that NOW there actually IS substantial
involvement by external terrorists in Iraq, which Bush
encouraged with his "Bring it on" bluster -- not that they
needed encouragement.

Civil war seems like a reasonably likely prospect. Will the
Iraqis be better off under a messy civil war than they were
under the repressive regime of Saddam Hussein? What a set of
alternatives! What a fiasco.

"Kevan Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:43:11 GMT, "Pete" <[email hidden]>
from Road Runner

High

Quoted message said:

Kevan: > >> 3) The suspension of all activities of non-Iraqi
corporations in Iraq,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

with

Quoted message said:

special attention paid to energy companies. The goal
here is to return

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the

Quoted message said:

Iraqi people what rightfully belongs to them -- their
treasure.

Pete: > >They can't have their rightful treasure if the
insurgents are left alone to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

blow it up.

Kevan: > They won't blow it up if it belongs to the Iraqi
people instead of

Quoted message said:

profiteering foreigners.

Sure they will, under a civil war scenario or a "warlord"
scenario. If faction A controls a resource, factions B, C,
and D will be anxious to either gain control of that
resource or at least deprive faction A of it.

"Pat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

it is just as misleading to suggest that one should get
ALL of his "facts" and news from Drudge as it is from any
other source. We should all be reading everything we can
so that tunnel vision doesn't ensue. For

example,

Quoted message said:

you might want to add this site to your reading:

www.factcheck.org

Looks interesting. Sort of like "snopes" for politics.

(Snopes is a site that investigates internet Urban Legends.
snopes.comsnopes.comOpen ↗ )

---
Mike Kruger Blog:
journals.aol.comZbicyclistsZlogOpen ↗

Fred said:

Quoted message said:

a mostly jobless economic recovery with falling real
wages;

Simply not true. This is propaganda, not fact. If you'd
like to cite some credible source for this information,
I'll cite some that will show this is misinformation.

j-bradford-j-bradford-Open ↗
delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/000995.html

| Real wage and salary income per capita has, so far, fallen
| by 3.5% over the Bush administration.

Granted, Brad is only a Professor of Economics at Berkeley.

--
Keith Willoughby flat222.orgkeithOpen ↗ "Suspected
murderer of Tupac murder suspect murdered"

Mike Kruger' email hidden from said:

"Kevan Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:43:11 GMT, "Pete" <[email hidden]>
from Road Runner

High

Quoted message said:

Kevan: > >> 3) The suspension of all activities of non-
Iraqi corporations in Iraq,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

with
> special attention paid to energy companies. The goal
> here is to return

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the
> Iraqi people what rightfully belongs to them -- their
> treasure.

Pete: > >They can't have their rightful treasure if the
insurgents are left alone to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

blow it up.

Kevan: > They won't blow it up if it belongs to the Iraqi
people instead of

Quoted message said:

profiteering foreigners.

Sure they will, under a civil war scenario or a "warlord"
scenario. If faction A controls a resource, factions B, C,
and D will be anxious to either gain control of that
resource or at least deprive faction A of it.

It's too late to prevent that, and keeping occupation forces
there only channels the violence wider. Besides, I seem to
recall _our_ country was founded under less than peaceful
circumstances.

preserving peace there now is really hard for me to believe.
Where were you last year?

--
Kevan Smith
[email hidden]

<[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

This is NOT off topic. The topic is "Misled" and is more
pertinent to our well being than to acquiesce in an
organized dismantling of our democratic government and our
nation's standing in world affairs. Talking about bicycles
is appropriate, but it loses significance in the shadow of
the deep moral depression into which our country is
sinking to dictatorship in spite of the guise of
representative government.

I have to agree. I think we are very much at a major fork in
the road in the post cold war era, actions taken today will
set the climate for decades to come, just as the post WWII
policy did. I think the administration is blowing it, so do
many (better qualified) others:

washingtonpost.comA46538Open ↗
2004Jun16.html

Peter Cole said:

<[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

This is NOT off topic. The topic is "Misled" and is more
pertinent to our well being than to acquiesce in an
organized dismantling of our democratic government and our
nation's standing in world affairs. Talking about bicycles
is appropriate, but it loses significance in the shadow of
the deep moral depression into which our country is
sinking to dictatorship in spite of the guise of
representative government.

I have to agree. I think we are very much at a major fork
in the road in the post cold war era, actions taken today
will set the climate for decades to come, just as the post
WWII policy did. I think the administration is blowing it,
so do many (better qualified) others:

washingtonpost.comA46538Open ↗
2004Jun16.html

I agree as well. I'll contribute the following which is the
full text of a speech by former Vice President Al Gore to
the American Constitution Society at Georgetown University
on June 24.

alternet.org19047Open ↗

Bret

"Kevan Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 14:00:14 GMT, "Mike Kruger" <MikeKr@mouse-
potato.com>

from

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Kevan Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Kevan: > They won't blow it up if it belongs to the Iraqi
people instead

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

profiteering foreigners.

Mike: > >Sure they will, under a civil war scenario or a
"warlord" scenario. If

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

faction A controls a resource, factions B, C, and D will
be anxious to either gain control of that resource or at
least deprive faction A of it.

It's too late to prevent that, and keeping occupation
forces there only channels the violence wider. Besides, I
seem to recall _our_ country was founded under less than
peaceful circumstances.

interested in

Quoted message said:

preserving peace there now is really hard for me to
believe. Where were

you

Quoted message said:

last year?

I was opposing the war not just last year, but in 2002. I
opposed it, in part, because I thought it was possible we'd
get stuck in a quagmire and be unable to find a decent way
out. We are now there. I admit I don't really know exactly
what we should do now in order to extricate ourselves and
have some decent chance at a stable country. I think you are
too optimistic in thinking that there's some single, stable
entity that represents the Iraqi people that we could turn
anything over to. We may have precipitated the chaos, but
getting rid of us doesn't undo the chaos. I wish you were
right, though.

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

Quoted message said:

This is NOT off topic. The topic is "Misled" and is more
pertinent to our

well being than to acquiesce in an organized dismantling of
our democratic government and our nation's standing in
world affairs.

Quoted message said:

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Sorry, Jobst. I have to disagree.

Although I am a great admirer of your bicycling work (and
you have worked with other members of my family as well --
"you da man" as they say. My father's custom Paramount was
patterned after your Cinelli), this is off-topic.

The topic is not "misled". "I was misled" is the thread. The
topic is "rec.bicycles.misc" (or "rec.bicycles.tech" which
is cross-posted).

The issue of GW policies is of passionate interest -- but
not in a bicycling forum. In the bicycling forum, it becomes
garden-variety trolling or SPAM.

Quoted message said:

Talking about bicycles is appropriate, but it loses
significance in the

shadow of the deep moral depression into which our country
is sinking to dictatorship in spite of the guise of
representative government.

This is your tacit admission of inappropriateness to this
forum. You are claiming that "greater good" supercedes the
organized interest in bicycling topics. Please move to
"rec.politics" or whatever forum exists for political
discussion.

- Skip La Fetra (the reply-to account at hotmail is active
but refuses mail. Post here or add my initials ('fel'😉 to
the account name and it will get to me.)

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

Quoted message said:

This is NOT off topic. The topic is "Misled" and is more
pertinent to our

well being than to acquiesce in an organized dismantling of
our democratic government and our nation's standing in
world affairs.

Quoted message said:

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Sorry, Jobst. I have to disagree.

Although I am a great admirer of your bicycling work (and
you have worked with other members of my family as well --
"you da man" as they say. My father's custom Paramount was
patterned after your Cinelli), this is off-topic.

The topic is not "misled". "I was misled" is the thread. The
topic is "rec.bicycles.misc" (or "rec.bicycles.tech" which
is cross-posted).

The issue of GW policies is of passionate interest -- but
not in a bicycling forum. In the bicycling forum, it becomes
garden-variety trolling or SPAM.

Quoted message said:

Talking about bicycles is appropriate, but it loses
significance in the

shadow of the deep moral depression into which our country
is sinking to dictatorship in spite of the guise of
representative government.

This is your tacit admission of inappropriateness to this
forum. You are claiming that "greater good" supercedes the
organized interest in bicycling topics. Please move to
"rec.politics" or whatever forum exists for political
discussion.

- Skip La Fetra (the reply-to account at hotmail is active
but refuses mail. Post here or add my initials ('fel'😉 to
the account name and it will get to me.)

Bret Wade said:

I agree as well. I'll contribute the following which is
the full text of a speech by former Vice President Al Gore
to the American Constitution Society at Georgetown
University on June 24.

Well done. Such analysis points out- by sheer contrast- the
dismal failings of John Ashcroft's legal education, which
seemed to forget to teach him about the Bill of Rights,
balance of powers and limits of authority. And such analysis
also points out the remarkable contradictions in the current
Republican world view: that the role of government should be
limited, and yet government should have nearly unchecked
powers to interfere in the lives of individuals and deny
them their Constitutional rights.

That *any* American, Democrat or Republican, can close their
eyes or otherwise fail to see the horrendous dangers posed
to the future of this nation by the Bush Administration and
its cadre of whackos is nothing short of frightening.

Bret Wade said:

I agree as well. I'll contribute the following which is
the full text of a speech by former Vice President Al Gore
to the American Constitution Society at Georgetown
University on June 24.

alternet.org19047Open ↗

I saw a wonderful tape of Gore giving a speech advocating
the overthrown of Saddam, juxtaposed with his recent rants.
Maybe someone should make a "documentary" about it.

news.bbc.co.uk809168.stmOpen ↗ (too
lazy to actually find speech, but this references it or
something similar).

Bill "hypocrisy abounds" S.

And once again:

daily.misleader.orgctt.aspOpen ↗

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Mark Hickey said:

Thing is, you get the whole story - both sides. For some
reason, that approach seems to be total anathema to many
liberals. I suppose it's easier to go through life not
hearing anything that contradicts your preconceived
notions - but personally I would hate to appear that
naive when discussing the issues in public.

Wait a minute! You are describing GWB who does not listen
to any advisor who conflicts with his perception of what is
going on.

Not true.

Quoted message said:

That's how he got us into the war and can't and won't
get out even though the rest of civilized nations urge
that course.

Funny, he's doing precisely what he said he'd do all along.
He never said it would be quick or easy.

Quoted message said:

This is the main thread of the current administration, to
not accept information that goes against their vision...
Iraqis will welcome us with open arms, etc.

The rank and file Iraqis (and Afghanis) are very glad that
we took out their despotic leadership. And it's no surprise
they'd like us to leave as soon as things are "stable"
(that's a relative term in the middle east). I'm sure the
folks in Japan and Germany felt the same way, though it took
much, much, much longer to get them sorted out.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles habcycles.comhabcycles.comOpen ↗ Home of
the $695 ti frame