I was misled

(JP) said:

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?

Why do you think the administration didn't mention Putin's
claim? Didn't they cover that on ihategeorgebush.com??? ;-)

Quoted message said:

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.

Show me one reference other than a third hand suggestion
that "gee this order must have come from the White House".
Heh. This is old, old, old news - it came out three years
ago and was rightfully dismissed as a non-issue. But this IS
the political silly season I guess.

Quoted message said:

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.

The things I quote probably don't line up with your "news
sources". You do the math. You've never been able to
contradict the facts I quote, just complain about 'em.

Quoted message said:

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.

OK, so show me a direct link from that flight to the White
House. I dare you. Not a third hand supposition by a guy who
works for the Tampa Airport...

Quoted message said:

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.

Heh heh heh... have you even SEEN the the Drudge website? I
thought not... you couldn't doubt the balanced nature if you
had. It references from both ends of the spectrum and
everywhere in between.

Quoted message said:

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.

Ignoring of course the things you don't want to confront -
the recession that was handed to Bush upon taking office,
the ongoing terrorist war against the US, the death of
thousands of Americans to teorrists, the vast amount of
intelligence about the danger posed by Saddam Hussein. Oh
and you might wanna check up on that "jobless recovery"
claim... there have been 1.4 million jobs since August and
the economy is growing at a blistering 4.5% rate.

Just the facts, Jack...

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

Pat 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, you might want to
add this site to your reading:

www.factcheck.org

Just a quick perusal - I like it... seems to be concerned
about exposing the blatant fabrications (on both sides). I'm
saving a bookmark to that one! Thanks!

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

Steve-o said:

Mark Hickey said:

However, he would wait for the UN to take action (which as
we now know would NEVER happen since they were on Saddam's
payroll)

(You were speaking of conspiracy theories?)

Not really, just the huge amount of corruption and graft
that's been uncovered in the ongoing oil for food
investigation. The "leaks" of information, and hints from
the official investigators make it clear that we're going to
find out highly placed UN officials are involved.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

or you have a president who will do what needs to be done,
regardless of the political posturing of France and
Germany.

Interesting choice of words. It has yet to be demonstrated
that invading Iraq is what needed to be done. There is no
evidence before or since invasion that Iraq was responsible
or even connected to what happened on 9/11. Justification
for US actions has degenerated to the specious "Nip EVIL In
The Bud By Any Means Necessary" argument.

Ummmm, there was never a connection made by the White
House between
9/11 and Iraq, even if it's "common knowledge". Funny
thing though, no one's been able to dredge up a single
comment by Bush that supports their contention that he
tried to make it.

Quoted message said:

P.S. There is evidence by the bucketload that Saudi money
and power was behind 9/11, yet the occupant of the
white house believed what needed to be done was to
secretly evacuate rich and powerful Saudis from our
country.

I guess we should have announced to the world that we were
going to fly out members of the (large, BTW) Saudi royal
family??! Like it or not, they're about the closest thing we
have to allies in the region, and it would have been a huge
mistake to forcibly detain them - heck, the ACLU woulda gone
nuts over that option! ;-)

Quoted message said:

P.P.S. I like bikes.

Me too - they don't use oil - or at least not very much -
which helps make the world a simpler place in lots of
important ways.

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

Steve-o said:

On 25 Jun 2004 22:53:35 -0700,

(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."

Is that a Japanese pronunciation joke, or one about Monica?
Oops, wrong president... sorry. ;-)

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

Keith Willoughby said:

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.

Hmmmm, ya think maybe the recession Bush was handed and the
9/11 attack mighta had a little to do with that (not really
sure the drop was that large, but I'm too lazy to look it up
right now)?

And BTW, did you know that the per capita income grew at
3.3% in the last 12 months? And that's in an era with almost
no inflation to offset it.

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

What manner of off-point rubbish is this? Has Mike Vandeman
stolen your identity?

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

Quoted message said:

daily.misleader.orgctt.aspOpen ↗

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Mark Hickey said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Not true.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

What would be quick or easy? Why is our military in Iraq?
What is the purpose of this disaster to that country's,
national, financial, and human losses? I can see it takes
time but what is this time doing for any of the problems of
the USA or Iraq?

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Ohhh, lend me your rose colored glasses. From whom did you
hear that the rank and file (sounds military to me) people
of either country is glad for our military intervention.
Afghanistan is practically back where it was before our
adventure there except that different folks are in charge.
Opium market is in full swing and only a couple of principal
cities are even slightly under civilian control. Let's not
even talk about Iraq, where we have unleashed terror attacks
from all sides on people who used to go about their daily
lives in a far more secure and peaceful land, albeit under a
dictator who spent time going after opponents rather than
the entire population that is being terrorized now.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Ron Wallenfang said:

Quoted message said:

daily.misleader.orgctt.aspOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

What manner of off-point rubbish is this? Has Mike
Vandeman stolen your identity?

Is it that you have trouble reading the subject line or do
the quoted lies at that site irk your sensitivities as
they do mine? I see you have the interest and time to read
this thread.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Mark Hickey said:

Ummmm, there was never a connection made by the White
House between
9/11 and Iraq, even if it's "common knowledge". Funny
thing though, no one's been able to dredge up a single
comment by Bush that supports their contention that he
tried to make it.

I think you overlook "lies of the second kind" in which
everything in a statement can be true yet it conveys a false
concept to the observer. Why do you think there is so much
contention over the apparent link between 911 and Iraq. The
two were so often juxtaposed that the linkage was
established in the minds of the public and in the
legislature. Just look at the questioning and search of the
record that is being done on this.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

P.S. There is evidence by the bucketload that Saudi money
and power was behind 9/11, yet the occupant of the
white house believed what needed to be done was to
secretly evacuate rich and powerful Saudis from our
country.

Quoted message said:

I guess we should have announced to the world that we were
going to fly out members of the (large, BTW) Saudi royal
family??! Like it or not, they're about the closest thing
we have to allies in the region, and it would have been a
huge mistake to forcibly detain them - heck, the ACLU
woulda gone nuts over that option! ;-)

Why do you use the term "the closest thing we have to
allies"? Is it because, as others have stated, we have no
allies, only paid up shills.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Mark Hickey said:

Ummmm, there was never a connection made by the White
House between
9/11 and Iraq, even if it's "common knowledge". Funny
thing though, no one's been able to dredge up a single
comment by Bush that supports their contention that he
tried to make it.

I think you overlook "lies of the second kind" in which
everything in a statement can be true yet it conveys a false
concept to the observer. Why do you think there is so much
contention over the apparent link between 911 and Iraq. The
two were so often juxtaposed that the linkage was
established in the minds of the public and in the
legislature. Just look at the questioning and search of the
record that is being done on this.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

P.S. There is evidence by the bucketload that Saudi money
and power was behind 9/11, yet the occupant of the
white house believed what needed to be done was to
secretly evacuate rich and powerful Saudis from our
country.

Quoted message said:

I guess we should have announced to the world that we were
going to fly out members of the (large, BTW) Saudi royal
family??! Like it or not, they're about the closest thing
we have to allies in the region, and it would have been a
huge mistake to forcibly detain them - heck, the ACLU
woulda gone nuts over that option! ;-)

Why do you use the term "the closest thing we have to
allies"? Is it because, as others have stated, we have no
allies, only paid up shills.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Mike Kruger' email hidden from said:

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.

Actually, I think we should just get out, let the Iraqis
settle things their own way and provide legitimate
reparations payments and humanitarian aid administered by a
third party like the U.N.

--
Kevan Smith
[email hidden]

Sat, 26 Jun 2004 13:55:31 -0700,
<[email hidden]>, through brown lipstick,
Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> regurgitated:

Quoted message said:

Oh and you might wanna check up on that "jobless recovery"
claim... there have been 1.4 million jobs since August

eriposte.combushjobloss.htmOpen ↗
--
zk

Quoted message said:

Mark Hickey said:

Ummmm, there was never a connection made by the White
House between
9/11 and Iraq, even if it's "common knowledge". Funny
thing though, no one's been able to dredge up a single
comment by Bush that supports their contention that he
tried to make it.

I think you overlook "lies of the second kind" in which
everything in a statement can be true yet it conveys a
false concept to the observer. Why do you think there is
so much contention over the apparent link between 911 and
Iraq. The two were so often juxtaposed that the linkage
was established in the minds of the public and in the
legislature. Just look at the questioning and search of
the record that is being done on this.

There's a good article on this subject here:

alternet.org19025Open ↗

Bret

Mark Hickey said:

Steve-o <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Is that a Japanese pronunciation joke, or one about
Monica? Oops, wrong president... sorry. ;-)

I saw ol' Bill being interviewed (who hasn't?!?), and he was
asked about Monica.

At the end of his comments, he said he was pulling for her.

Still getting things backwards, I see.

Bill "ba da bing" S.

Quoted message said:

Ron Wallenfang said:

Quoted message said:

daily.misleader.orgctt.aspOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

What manner of off-point rubbish is this? Has Mike
Vandeman stolen your identity?

Is it that you have trouble reading the subject line or do
the quoted lies at that site irk your sensitivities as
they do mine?

You're right, Jobst! That sight DOES quote a lot of lies.

Bill "anyone see Lisa Myers' piece on 'F 9/11' facts?!?" S.

Let's try to make this at least remotely relevant to
rec.bicycles.

Do you think it should be easier or more difficult for
injured bikers to sue bike manufacturers and dealers? This
involves questions like joint and several liability,
admissibility of "junk science" opinions, standards for
punitive damages and the like. There are clear party
differences on these issues. Republicans favor "tort reform"
that will make these lawsuits more difficult. The trial
lawyers, who are one of the Democrats main constituent
interest groups want to make these lawsuits bigger and
easier, and the party dares not oppose them.

The noise about Iraq is inspired mainly by those who want to
promote the Democrats" agenda on other issues. It is not
much concerned with the hugely complicated question of how
to handle our encounter with Islam, a matter on which
differences between Bush and Kerry are hard to identify.

Example: today as on most Saturday's, I biked to an abortion
clinic to pray. The pro-abortion escorts there had buttons
saying "Just level with us, George", an obvious reference to
the Iraq contretemps. But I know those folks and that their
interest is in abortion, not Islam. The issues you cite are
just a political game, where they think they can make some
mileage to enhance their real agenda.

Admittedly, the GOP is also playing this game, on a field of
its choice. Thus the constant ads - at least here in Wis.,
maybe not in CA, which is not viewed as a closely contested
state - emphasizing Kerry's "flip-flops" on the issues. But
the underlying concern isn't with the substance of those
issues, but to discredit Kerry.

One other point: if you weren't practically the "patron" of
rec.bicycles, for your unparalleled on-point contributions
(and controversies) over the years, your present efforts
would not have gotten the attention that they have. A first
time poster with the same message wold have been dismissed
as a troll - end of subject.

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

Quoted message said:

Ron Wallenfang said:

Quoted message said:

daily.misleader.orgctt.aspOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

What manner of off-point rubbish is this? Has Mike
Vandeman stolen your identity?

Is it that you have trouble reading the subject line or do
the quoted lies at that site irk your sensitivities as
they do mine? I see you have the interest and time to read
this thread.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Mark Hickey said:

Ummmm, there was never a connection made by the White
House between
9/11 and Iraq, even if it's "common knowledge". Funny
thing though, no one's been able to dredge up a single
comment by Bush that supports their contention that he
tried to make it.

Er, how about here?

comedycentral.complay.phpOpen ↗
a/tds/headlines/8154.html

Tiny url:

tinyurl.com2xqo3Open ↗

--
R.

<> Richard Brockie "Categorical statements <> The tall
blond one. always cause trouble." <>
[email hidden]

Skip said:

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).

Well, to be persnickety, the topic is indeed "I was misled"
which is being discussed within two newsgroups within the
rec.bicycles.* hierarchy. A newsgroup is not a topic. Now,
my newsreader lists a "Subject:" line rather than a "Topic:"
line, but the two are useable synonymously.

Quoted message said:

Please move to "rec.politics" or whatever forum exists for
political discussion.

No one is forcing you or anyone else to read this thread. If
you have a half-competent newsreader, you can kill by thread
and never see it again. End of problem.

Mark Hickey said:

Ummmm, there was never a connection made by the White
House between
9/11 and Iraq, even if it's "common knowledge". Funny
thing though, no one's been able to dredge up a single
comment by Bush that supports their contention that he
tried to make it.

From a letter to the Speaker and the President Pro Tempore

~~~~~~~~

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President🙂

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law
107-243), and based on information available to me,
including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and
other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately
protect the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B)
likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United
Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law
107-243 is consistent with the United States and
other countries continuing to take the necessary
actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that
occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

~~~~~~~

--
Keith Willoughby flat222.orgkeithOpen ↗ "Well, we buried
our men, and the Turks buried theirs, Then we started all
over again."

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 16:31:01 -0500, Kevan Smith
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I think we should just get out, let the Iraqis settle
things their own way and provide legitimate reparations
payments and humanitarian aid administered by a third party
like the U.N.

I'm confident that is Shrub's masterplan - he can't afford
to have body bags coming home during the election campaign.
The result will almost certainly be a period of anarchy.

I believe there should be a plan to get blue berets in there
as soon as possible, but even that will take time, as the
level of violence is still too high. You need peace before
you can have peacekeepers.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University