I was misled

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

Jobst Brandt

wrote:
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.

"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.

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.

"S o r n i" wrote:

wrote:
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" wrote in message


[...]

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?

In article ,
says...

....

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).

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..

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.

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.

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.

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

(JP) wrote:

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...

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Mark Hickey writes:

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. 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. 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.

Jobst Brandt

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(JP) wrote:

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?

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.

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