A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Mountain Biking
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #181  
Old August 26th 05, 06:10 PM
Jason
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.

* BB :
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 18:00:01 -0300, Jason wrote:

The man is without a doubt the biggest threat to world peace and Marks
post described him perfectly.


"openly supports terrorists and has tried to assassinate a US President"
describes him perfectly?


Yep only they call them freedom/resistance fighters same thing though,
change US to country of your choice and the phrase works.

Jason
Ads
  #182  
Old August 26th 05, 06:13 PM
Jason
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.

* Mark Hickey :
Jason wrote:

* Bill Sornson :
Jason wrote:
* Mark Hickey :
To me, an aggressive dictator with known WMD stores, who openly
supports terrorists and has tried to assassinate a US President,
who's flaunting UN resolutions to describe where the WMD went IS to
dangerous to leave in place.

So you do agree Bush currently is the biggest threat to world peace
then.

Your smiley face doesn't make that any less innane.


The man is without a doubt the biggest threat to world peace and Marks
post described him perfectly.


Besides the many other points that don't fit - I'm wondering if you
could fill us in on which US President GWB tried to assassinate. If
that happened, I gotta check up on my news sources better...



Sure it fits mark, sustitute terrorist with resistance/freedom fighter
and the word US with a countrys name and it's perfectl Here let me
demonstrate.

who openly supports resistance fighters (one mans terrorist is anothers
resistance fighter after all) and has tried to
assassinate/have assassinated a countrys President.


Jason
  #183  
Old August 27th 05, 12:58 AM
Mark Hickey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.

Raptor wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:


To me, an aggressive dictator with known WMD stores, who openly
supports terrorists and has tried to assassinate a US President, who's
flaunting UN resolutions to describe where the WMD went IS to
dangerous to leave in place.


There's that. You're still wrong: it doesn't add up to a real war.


Like I said - we have to agree to disagree because I do believe that
Saddam more than "met the criteria" to be removed from power.

But that's just one thing.

How about the *way* of the war? You seem at least mildly reasonable.
Can't you join me in unreservedly condemning most of the means leading
to the hoped-for end? As wars go this one is a World-Class cluster****.


If you mean, will I agree that GWB fabricated evidence? No I won't,
since there's been absolutely NO proof of that. Do I condemn some of
the intelligence gathering (including the UNMOVIC weapons inspectors)?
You betcha. Do I believe ALL of the intel was wrong? No, but I truly
HOPE it was (which is lots better than the WMD still existing in
Syria, for example).

Do I think the UN and Security Council should have locked arms and
provided an unambiguous, unified front to Saddam's WMD gamesmanship?
Do I think the UN and Security Council should take a VERY hard-line
stance against ANY state-sponsored terrorism? Yep. They should have
then, and they should be doing that now.

Do I support every decision that the US has made in Iraq? Hardly.
But unfortunately those kind of discussions are nearly impossible to
have on these forums since most of the discourse is of the shrill Al
Goresque "He lied to us" rhetoric.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
  #184  
Old August 27th 05, 01:09 AM
BB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:10:13 -0300, Jason wrote:

Yep only they call them freedom/resistance fighters same thing though,


Well, it wasn't my argument that Saddam "openly supported terrorists", and
I've never seen anything more substantial than suspicion as such. But it
was your argument that the same allegation applies to Bush, and I don't
know of any evidence of that either. There is of course a difference
between "insurgents" and "terrorists": the guys who blew up the London
subways, Madrid trains & Bali Hotel, and flew airplanes into the twin
towers were terrorists. Who does Bush support that has done such things?

change US to country of your choice and the phrase works.


OK, my country of choice is Canada; tell me which president Bush tried to
assasinate.

I'm anything but a Bush advocate; I've been against this war from the
start and vocal about it. I believed and still believe he deserved to lose
his job for incompetence. But nonsense is nonsense, no matter which side
it comes from, and your post was nonsense.

--
-BB-
To e-mail me, unmunge my address
  #185  
Old August 27th 05, 03:00 AM
Neil Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.

Mark Hickey wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

If you mean, will I agree that GWB fabricated evidence? No I won't,
since there's been absolutely NO proof of that. Do I condemn some of
the intelligence gathering (including the UNMOVIC weapons inspectors)?
You betcha. Do I believe ALL of the intel was wrong? No, but I truly
HOPE it was (which is lots better than the WMD still existing in
Syria, for example).


Mark,

I'm wondering what your thoughts are on the Office of Special Plans.
Little is heard in the investigatory realm about this relatively
shadowy outfit, but the reporting has been exceptionally
consistent--from some reasonably credible sources [1].

The December, 2002 Joint Inquiry had three points to its charter[2]:

1) conduct a factual review of what the Intelligence Community knew or
should have known prior to September 11, 2001, regarding the
international terrorist threat to the United States, to include the
scope and nature of any possible international terrorist attacks
against the United States and its interests;

2) identify and examine any systemic problems that may have impeded
the Intelligence Community in learning of or preventing these attacks
in advance; and

3) make recommendations to improve the Intelligence Community’s
ability to identify and prevent future international terrorist
attacks.

I would argue that looking into the Bush administration's relationship
to intelligence (a funny concept on its face!) is /conspicuously/
absent from this one.

The 9/11 Commission's Report doesn't address the OSP, but then, it had
five stated things to look into[3]:

1) terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, occurring at
the World Trade Center in New York, New York, in Somerset
County, Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon in Virginia;

2) ascertain, evaluate, and report on the evidence developed
by all relevant governmental agencies regarding the facts
and circumstances surrounding the attacks;

3) build upon the investigations of other entities, and
avoid unnecessary duplication, by reviewing the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of—

(A) the Joint Inquiry of the Select Committee on Intelligence
of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence of the House of Representatives regarding
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, (hereinafter
in this title referred to as the ‘‘Joint Inquiry’’); and

(B) other executive branch, congressional, or independent
commission investigations into the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001, other terrorist attacks, and terrorism generally;

4) make a full and complete accounting of the circumstances
surrounding the attacks, and the extent of the United States’
preparedness for, and immediate response to, the attacks; and

5) investigate and report to the President and Congress
on its findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective
measures that can be taken to prevent acts of terrorism.

Again, missing from that list is any request to delve into whether or
not the GWB administration swayed the intel through its own action or
direction.

In the Roberts-Rockefeller "Report of the Select Committee on
Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence
Assessments on Iraq,"[4] you can find six cursory references to the
OSP.

In those references, the whole question of what the OSP was, who set
it up, what was its charter, and did it purposely ignore caveats from
the more conventional intelligence community about the INcredibility
of many cited sources for the purposes of the policy makers.

Other passages within that document, however, allude to the
machinations of Douglas Feith, et al. Read through Rockefeller (et
al)'s comments . [5]

It's a good read, and a blatantly damning indictment of a pretty
disgusting end run.

I haven't read the whole thing (sadly, I can't), but--from the
snippets--I'm left with no doubt that this was a fait accompli
orchestrated by Bush and the NeoCons. Read it and I think you'll
agree.

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...999737,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...999737,00.html
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...nate.pentagon/

[2] http://snipurl.com/gil7

[3] http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/107-306.pdf

[4] http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html

[5] http://snipurl.com/h90t
  #186  
Old August 27th 05, 03:29 AM
Bill Sornson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.

BB wrote:

Well, it wasn't my argument that Saddam "openly supported
terrorists", and I've never seen anything more substantial than
suspicion as such.


Well, for starters he made direct payments to the families of Palestinian
suic--- HOMICIDE bombers.


  #187  
Old August 27th 05, 02:56 PM
Mark Hickey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.

Neil Brooks wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

If you mean, will I agree that GWB fabricated evidence? No I won't,
since there's been absolutely NO proof of that. Do I condemn some of
the intelligence gathering (including the UNMOVIC weapons inspectors)?
You betcha. Do I believe ALL of the intel was wrong? No, but I truly
HOPE it was (which is lots better than the WMD still existing in
Syria, for example).


Mark,

I'm wondering what your thoughts are on the Office of Special Plans.
Little is heard in the investigatory realm about this relatively
shadowy outfit, but the reporting has been exceptionally
consistent--from some reasonably credible sources [1].


I hadn't heard of the OSP previously, but would from a general
perspective would make a few points about your conclusions...

1) the organization seems to be focused on 9/11, not the run-up to the
Iraq war (or actually, the continuation thereof).
2) as such, the issue of coersion simply isn't applicable. The
shortcomings that led to our inability to prevent the 9/11 attacks
weren't because of believing faulty intelligence, but the lack of
intelligence.
3) the major mistakes made that allowed 9/11 to happen undetected
happened during the Clinton presidency (including systemic problems
that the 9/11 commissioners glossed over in their report - which is
really quite troubling).

So on the surface, it sounds like you're expecting the OSP to do
things that don't appear to be related to its charter.

The thing that makes me absolutely certain that no evidence of
intelligence tampering by the Bush administration will come to light
is simply that it didn't. If there HAD been a "smoking gun", is there
any doubt at all that the Democrats on the 9/11 committee (or one of
the other bipartisan committees looking into related topics) would
have come forward? After all, this was all happening during the
run-up to a VERY close election, and could have clearly changed the
outcome of the election.

To surmise that the evidence was obvious enough for "civilians" like
you or me to uncover, but hidden from those on the Senate intelligence
subcommittee or those on the various commissions is a bit of a
(loooong) reach. To assume that the Democrat congresscritters knew of
wrongdoing by Bush but kept it to themselves is even further from the
neighborhood of reality.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

The December, 2002 Joint Inquiry had three points to its charter[2]:

1) conduct a factual review of what the Intelligence Community knew or
should have known prior to September 11, 2001, regarding the
international terrorist threat to the United States, to include the
scope and nature of any possible international terrorist attacks
against the United States and its interests;

2) identify and examine any systemic problems that may have impeded
the Intelligence Community in learning of or preventing these attacks
in advance; and

3) make recommendations to improve the Intelligence Community’s
ability to identify and prevent future international terrorist
attacks.

I would argue that looking into the Bush administration's relationship
to intelligence (a funny concept on its face!) is /conspicuously/
absent from this one.

The 9/11 Commission's Report doesn't address the OSP, but then, it had
five stated things to look into[3]:

1) terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, occurring at
the World Trade Center in New York, New York, in Somerset
County, Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon in Virginia;

2) ascertain, evaluate, and report on the evidence developed
by all relevant governmental agencies regarding the facts
and circumstances surrounding the attacks;

3) build upon the investigations of other entities, and
avoid unnecessary duplication, by reviewing the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of—

(A) the Joint Inquiry of the Select Committee on Intelligence
of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence of the House of Representatives regarding
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, (hereinafter
in this title referred to as the ‘‘Joint Inquiry’’); and

(B) other executive branch, congressional, or independent
commission investigations into the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001, other terrorist attacks, and terrorism generally;

4) make a full and complete accounting of the circumstances
surrounding the attacks, and the extent of the United States’
preparedness for, and immediate response to, the attacks; and

5) investigate and report to the President and Congress
on its findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective
measures that can be taken to prevent acts of terrorism.

Again, missing from that list is any request to delve into whether or
not the GWB administration swayed the intel through its own action or
direction.

In the Roberts-Rockefeller "Report of the Select Committee on
Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence
Assessments on Iraq,"[4] you can find six cursory references to the
OSP.

In those references, the whole question of what the OSP was, who set
it up, what was its charter, and did it purposely ignore caveats from
the more conventional intelligence community about the INcredibility
of many cited sources for the purposes of the policy makers.

Other passages within that document, however, allude to the
machinations of Douglas Feith, et al. Read through Rockefeller (et
al)'s comments . [5]

It's a good read, and a blatantly damning indictment of a pretty
disgusting end run.

I haven't read the whole thing (sadly, I can't), but--from the
snippets--I'm left with no doubt that this was a fait accompli
orchestrated by Bush and the NeoCons. Read it and I think you'll
agree.

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...999737,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...999737,00.html
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...nate.pentagon/

[2] http://snipurl.com/gil7

[3] http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/107-306.pdf

[4] http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html

[5] http://snipurl.com/h90t


  #188  
Old August 27th 05, 07:01 PM
BB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 02:29:25 GMT, Bill Sornson wrote:
BB wrote:

Well, it wasn't my argument that Saddam "openly supported
terrorists", and I've never seen anything more substantial than
suspicion as such.


Well, for starters he made direct payments to the families of Palestinian
suic--- HOMICIDE bombers.


Ah, I see. When people say "terrorists" in relation to a war to protect
America, I keep thinking of terrorists who endanger America.

Isn't support for the Palistinian situation pretty common in that region?

--
-BB-
To e-mail me, unmunge my address
  #189  
Old August 27th 05, 08:15 PM
Neil Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.

Mark Hickey wrote:

Neil Brooks wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:
If you mean, will I agree that GWB fabricated evidence? No I won't,
since there's been absolutely NO proof of that. Do I condemn some of
the intelligence gathering (including the UNMOVIC weapons inspectors)?
You betcha. Do I believe ALL of the intel was wrong? No, but I truly
HOPE it was (which is lots better than the WMD still existing in
Syria, for example).


Mark,

I'm wondering what your thoughts are on the Office of Special Plans.
Little is heard in the investigatory realm about this relatively
shadowy outfit, but the reporting has been exceptionally
consistent--from some reasonably credible sources [1].


I hadn't heard of the OSP previously, but would from a general
perspective would make a few points about your conclusions...

1) the organization seems to be focused on 9/11, not the run-up to the
Iraq war (or actually, the continuation thereof)


You should read more about this OSP bunch [1, 2, 3, 4, pick your own
sources]. These were the administration's go-to guys for the intel
they wanted to hear vis-a-vis 9/11-Iraq connections and justification
for war. In most cases, the actual intel community had no idea what
the OSP was feeding POTUS, their caveats regarding sources had been
stripped, etc., etc.

2) as such, the issue of coersion simply isn't applicable. The
shortcomings that led to our inability to prevent the 9/11 attacks
weren't because of believing faulty intelligence, but the lack of
intelligence.


Disagree. Many people claim "well, Congress voted for the war and
they had the exact same intelligence before them as the President
did." That's what scares me. Too many people had the intel derived
by the Bush administration, but not vetted (actually, discredited) by
the intelligence community.

3) the major mistakes made that allowed 9/11 to happen undetected
happened during the Clinton presidency (including systemic problems
that the 9/11 commissioners glossed over in their report - which is
really quite troubling).

So on the surface, it sounds like you're expecting the OSP to do
things that don't appear to be related to its charter.


From this comment, I'm not sure you understand what the OSP is alleged
to have been and done. I'd humbly suggest that--via your own choice
of sources--you learn a bit more about it.

The thing that makes me absolutely certain that no evidence of
intelligence tampering by the Bush administration will come to light
is simply that it didn't.


That's what's known as "argumentum ad ignorantiam--" the assertion
that--because something is inexplicable--it must not be true. It may
bolster a belief, but it doesn't prove a case.

If there HAD been a "smoking gun", is there
any doubt at all that the Democrats on the 9/11 committee (or one of
the other bipartisan committees looking into related topics) would
have come forward? After all, this was all happening during the
run-up to a VERY close election, and could have clearly changed the
outcome of the election.


OK, now this sounds dangerously close to contradicting Rumsfeld's
famous "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." :-)

The Democrats couldn't find a smoking gun if it were pointed at them
on national TV. Things that do, and things that don't, get picked up
by the national media often have no rhyme or reason (sometimes the
reason is that they're too controversial, or likely to upset corporate
sponsors . . . or media owners).

This story got enough legs that the administration should have had
much to answer for . . . but it didn't. I can't definitively explain
that . . . but that doesn't mean it's not all true (nor, of course,
does it mean that it all /is/ true).

To surmise that the evidence was obvious enough for "civilians" like
you or me to uncover, but hidden from those on the Senate intelligence
subcommittee or those on the various commissions is a bit of a
(loooong) reach.


I thought Watergate taught us all that this just isn't necessarily the
case. Sometimes it takes the public to unearth the darkest acts of
our government. Why didn't it go further? I dunno . . . but I'd like
to find out.

CNN just did a show ("Dead Wrong: Inside an Intelligence Meltdown")
[5] which--while not going into any detail--mentions the OSP as a
filter used by the administration to cherry pick intelligence in
support of a war. You should watch this show if you get a chance. If
I could figure out how to dump it from TiVo to a VCR, I might :-)

Here's a quote from the show:

"At the Pentagon, SECDEF Donald Rumsfeld sets up a special office to
provide him with alternative intelligence analysis, focusing on a
possible link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. The Pentagon unit is not
mentioned by the President's Commission."

Larry Johnson, Counterterrorism expert from the State Department, is
quoted as saying (about OSP), "They would brief their findings to the
[intelligence] Community and the Community would come back and say,
'Wait a second. You don't know what you're talking about. That's
garbage. That's misleading. That misrepresents, . . . ' and then
they would take the same brief--or even a more extreme version--and
brief it directly to people like the Vice President."

To assume that the Democrat congresscritters knew of
wrongdoing by Bush but kept it to themselves is even further from the
neighborhood of reality.


Here we just disagree, and for several reasons. First, I would say
that the current world of Democrats are anything but masterful
politicians. That, as much as anything, explains why they continue to
lose elections.

You may find (Senator John Kyl's and ) the Pentagon's non-denial
denial interesting as well. Very little in it directly contradicts
the direct accusations that the OSP was a filtering mechanism, asked
to find intelligence in support of a particular policy, which actively
ignored the intelligence community's admonitions [6]

And--though thoroughly trashed by certain groups who don't like her
position--you might be interested in reading about, and the
publications of, Air Force Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, formerly of
the Pentagon and the NSA [7]

Now I'm trying to muster up the grit to jump on my damned bike. I'm
not gonna' b*tch to you--a desert rat--about how hot it is here, but .
.. . for us . . . it's hot ;-)

[1] http://snipurl.com/h9fu

[2] http://snipurl.com/h9fv

[3] http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...nate.pentagon/

[4] http://snipurl.com/h9fw

[5] http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/

[6] http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/iraqpentagoncsisspeech.pdf

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Kwiatkowski
  #190  
Old August 28th 05, 12:47 AM
Mark Hickey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.

Neil Brooks wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:


The thing that makes me absolutely certain that no evidence of
intelligence tampering by the Bush administration will come to light
is simply that it didn't.


That's what's known as "argumentum ad ignorantiam--" the assertion
that--because something is inexplicable--it must not be true. It may
bolster a belief, but it doesn't prove a case.

If there HAD been a "smoking gun", is there
any doubt at all that the Democrats on the 9/11 committee (or one of
the other bipartisan committees looking into related topics) would
have come forward? After all, this was all happening during the
run-up to a VERY close election, and could have clearly changed the
outcome of the election.


OK, now this sounds dangerously close to contradicting Rumsfeld's
famous "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." :-)

The Democrats couldn't find a smoking gun if it were pointed at them
on national TV. Things that do, and things that don't, get picked up
by the national media often have no rhyme or reason (sometimes the
reason is that they're too controversial, or likely to upset corporate
sponsors . . . or media owners).


Oh, c'mon... can you really believe that if ANYONE came forward with
semi-provable evidence that GWB had influenced the evidence that was
presented to the intelligence subcommity(ies) that it wouldn't have
been splashed across every front page / cover story in the US? Look
at the treatment a forged document from a very shaky source about
Bush's behavior a few decades ago got.

This story got enough legs that the administration should have had
much to answer for . . . but it didn't. I can't definitively explain
that . . . but that doesn't mean it's not all true (nor, of course,
does it mean that it all /is/ true).


There were just too many people who sincerely wanted to find the
"smoking gun", who were intimately involved in the events, and who
didn't bring it up. I'd be absoutely dumbfounded to find out that the
"smoking gun" is actually just laying there on the ground where a
casual google search will bring it all to light.

To surmise that the evidence was obvious enough for "civilians" like
you or me to uncover, but hidden from those on the Senate intelligence
subcommittee or those on the various commissions is a bit of a
(loooong) reach.


I thought Watergate taught us all that this just isn't necessarily the
case. Sometimes it takes the public to unearth the darkest acts of
our government. Why didn't it go further? I dunno . . . but I'd like
to find out.


One of the beauties of our two-party system is that neither of 'em let
the other get away with major things.

CNN just did a show ("Dead Wrong: Inside an Intelligence Meltdown")
[5] which--while not going into any detail--mentions the OSP as a
filter used by the administration to cherry pick intelligence in
support of a war. You should watch this show if you get a chance. If
I could figure out how to dump it from TiVo to a VCR, I might :-)

Here's a quote from the show:

"At the Pentagon, SECDEF Donald Rumsfeld sets up a special office to
provide him with alternative intelligence analysis, focusing on a
possible link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. The Pentagon unit is not
mentioned by the President's Commission."

Larry Johnson, Counterterrorism expert from the State Department, is
quoted as saying (about OSP), "They would brief their findings to the
[intelligence] Community and the Community would come back and say,
'Wait a second. You don't know what you're talking about. That's
garbage. That's misleading. That misrepresents, . . . ' and then
they would take the same brief--or even a more extreme version--and
brief it directly to people like the Vice President."

To assume that the Democrat congresscritters knew of
wrongdoing by Bush but kept it to themselves is even further from the
neighborhood of reality.


Here we just disagree, and for several reasons. First, I would say
that the current world of Democrats are anything but masterful
politicians. That, as much as anything, explains why they continue to
lose elections.


They might not be masterful, but they're certainly vindictive (with
certain refreshing exceptions like Joe Lieberman). They would have
gone for the kill had they had the chance (does anyone really doubt
that?).

You may find (Senator John Kyl's and ) the Pentagon's non-denial
denial interesting as well. Very little in it directly contradicts
the direct accusations that the OSP was a filtering mechanism, asked
to find intelligence in support of a particular policy, which actively
ignored the intelligence community's admonitions [6]

And--though thoroughly trashed by certain groups who don't like her
position--you might be interested in reading about, and the
publications of, Air Force Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, formerly of
the Pentagon and the NSA [7]

Now I'm trying to muster up the grit to jump on my damned bike. I'm
not gonna' b*tch to you--a desert rat--about how hot it is here, but .
. . for us . . . it's hot ;-)


"Only" 111F here today (got my morning ride in VERY early). ;-)

I'll try to get through some of the links - no guarantees though. In
the meantime I'll be happy to admit that I'm basing my position only
on the logic presented above.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

[1] http://snipurl.com/h9fu

[2] http://snipurl.com/h9fv

[3] http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...nate.pentagon/

[4] http://snipurl.com/h9fw

[5] http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/

[6] http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/iraqpentagoncsisspeech.pdf

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Kwiatkowski


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Roadside Tour Funny Guys Michael Racing 18 July 7th 04 06:22 PM
Fat guys bike and bike seat. Walter General 95 November 15th 03 05:46 AM
Question for the anti-helmet guys Mike S. Techniques 3 September 29th 03 07:19 AM
Planning on getting my first Unicycle.... what do you guys think of this one?!? CETME Unicycling 6 August 18th 03 09:43 PM
I finally got my Rhoades Car fixed so I can tell you guys how it rides Russell Kanning Recumbent Biking 6 June 30th 03 07:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.