on Bush and his crashes

[Mark Hickey]

"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Jim Smith wrote:
>> Ronsonic <> writes:
>>
>>> And that explains why Kerry proposes to continue it and do so more
>>> ably?
>>
>> Paraphrasing someone: The baby has been born. It may be illegitimate,
>> but now we have to feed it and send it to school.
>
>Especially when you encouraged the parents to go on a date to the drive-in.
>
>Bill "won't say voted to withhold the condom money though" S.

One of the candidates voted FOR the condom before they voted against
it.

And one of the candidates voted AGAINST the '91 Iraq war (ya' know,
the one WITH France on board, and WITH Iraq running roughshod over
Kuwait and all).

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

 

[Mark Hickey]

Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

>Here's an interesting video. Ignore the (IMHO) bizarre "explanation"
>offered on the page and just watch the film- the differences in Bush's
>debating skills, from the days when he was an odious firebrand in
>Texas to the current times when he seems to struggle to make a
>sensible point, are quit striking. Now, to be sure the clips from
>2004 are cherry picked to make Bush look bad, but IME from watching
>him on TV he has nothing near the sharpness and incisiveness he had in
>the earlier segments of the clip. I was, in fact, amazed to see him
>so sharp and focused (never having seen anything of him in 1993).
>
>He seemed in much better command of his philosophy and of language in
>1993 than he has in the past few years. Stress, perhaps? Not enough
>sleep? Having to track too many problems at the same time? The
>"explanation" of presenile dementia is far-fetched (and I'm speaking
>here as a psychologist specializing in geriatrics and dementia).

By all accounts I've ever read about modern presidential runs, it's a
non-stop meat grinder for months on end. Add to that the duties that
the President still has to deal with, and it's a wonder any of the
incumbents can even manage to get through a speech without drooling
(much). I can remember times when I was working 80 hours, going to
school, and trying to train for races (plus several other commitments
that took another 10-12 hours out of my week). I would feel fairly
normal most of the time, but my vocabulary shrank considerably when I
got really tired. There were times when I looked like Bush at the
first debate - lights are on, but nobody's home.

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

 

[[email protected]]

Tom McMedara writes:

>> You can't play both sides of the fence if you want to be credible.
>> On the one side GWB is so ill informed that he went ahead with
>> going to war on a 50-50 chance that it might be right. Meanwhile,
>> so many leading experts on the subject testified that they gave
>> opposing advice and were either fired or silenced.

> "So many leading experts"? What planet are you on? The
> overwhelming consensus before the invasion, to include the French,
> Russians, and Germans, was that there was a credible WMD threat.
> The question wasn't whether the weapons were there, but what to do
> about it. The debate was about policy, not the situation in Iraq.
> That it later turned out to be wrong is prima facia evidence of an
> intelligence failure, but one that extends back a number of years
> and across a number of nations. To pin it on GWB and his
> administration is just silly. To assert otherwise is just
> revisionist BS, but that wouldn't be the first time you've done that
> is it?

I'm talking about people in our government and academics skilled in
these matters quite aside from foreign experts who were aware that out
government was capable of disinformation on the scale that it was put
forth. Others were doubtful and had already lost confidence in the
assessment. "Freedom Fries" no less, used as a means of ridicule and
intimidation. It didn't work other than to increase the credibility
gap. I'm surprised that that concept hasn't surfaced again in the
presidential campaign.

>> I think you are either avoiding information to the contrary or you
>> are forwarding the party line. There is a strong international
>> consensus but it is being ridiculed by the administration.
>> Meanwhile the rest of the world wonders what sort of controlled
>> press the USA has.

> And where do you get such great insight into international consensus
> and what the rest of the world wonders? Gonna start posting links
> to the "alternative" press again? If only the world were such a
> simple place.

From our own experts who understand these matters and can explain them
with a chronology of deceptions from the administration as they flip
flop to a different tack with every change in the political breeze.
Just follow the justification for the war. It's come down to "we're
better off with Saddam Hussein in detention" as justification for the
thousands of war dead and wounded US soldiers and Iraqi citizens.

>> The USA is so committed that no response is possible to much more
>> threatening regimes and public critique of this situation is attacked
>> by the watchful of GWB's staff and propagandists.

> That sounds like outright paranoia to me.

Oh? What response do you see to Iran and N. Korea, where they really
are building WMD. The Bushmen have used up their welcome with the use
of intervention in foreign lands so these nations are rolling along in
the assurance that the USA won't field another adventure in their
interest.

> Is the Bush administration "attacking" you for your public critique?

I'm sure Mr. Ashcroft would like to make that a terrorist offense but
unless the second Bush term materializes, I think we are still safe
from the midnight knock on the door.

> Better get the foil helmet out. And just what constitutes an
> "attack"? If you really think it's that bad in the US, why are you
> still here? If I truly thought the state of the country was as you
> describe, I sure as **** wouldn't spend hours in bicycle newsgroups
> lamenting the situation. It's either a bunch of hyperbole, or
> you're just another one of the mindless critics who mistake volume
> for action.

Your comic scenario is not funny and putting it forth is just more of
the indirect and direct ridicule of contributors to their subject
rather than discussion of the merits of what was said.

>> I see you don't travel in Europe or read their papers but they have
>> a different perspective.

> Which Europe would that be? Last I checked, the UK, Italy, and
> Poland were all part of Europe. Opinion is pretty split in those
> countries, just as it is here in the US. I guess your
> Franco-centric world view is biting you again. Are you proposing we
> should submit our foreign policy decisions to referendum in Europe?
> What's your point? Why do European views on national and
> international security count more than those of the United States?

I recently traveled there and found no such support of US actions in
Iraq or Afghanistan.

>> Our administration is alone in supporting your perspective while
>> expenses, loss and injury of troops give witness to that, as do our
>> taxes.

> Add to the above -- South Korea, Australian, and a few dozen others I can't
> think of right away. So what does "alone" mean to you Jobst, no French?

South Korea has good reason to play up to Washington but they won't be
getting much more than lip service for now. The USA is overly
committed elsewhere. I'm not up on what the Aussies are about except
that in interviews on public radio, those who spoke were not favorable
to US actions.

>> Meanwhile we are asked to give up our civil liberties to fight
>> terror. In that respect the terrorists have in part achieved their
>> goal, to take away our civil liberties. From what you say, I can
>> see you think the armed camp of Israel is a reasonable way to live.

> And which of your vaunted civil liberties has been taken from you?
> As a documented picker of nits on things technical, you seem awfully
> willing to spew generalities on topics political. For all the hand
> wringing I see about the Patriot Act and the demonification of John
> Ashcroft, I've yet to see a specific instance where normal,
> law-abiding individuals have been impacted in any way shape or form.
> Obviously there is sufficient enough protection that you still feel
> comfortable enough to express your views in this forum. How about
> you cut they propaganda and the anarchist talking points and speak
> in specifics? Of course that might force you to confront facts
> rather than articles of faith.

The intrusiveness of government interrogation and monitoring of
personal activities has take a large jump since the invasion of Iraq.
If you have traveled by air lately and partially disrobed and got
patted down because you left your reading glasses in your pocket or
had a brass zipper in your pants you should realize that arriving at
the airport for these activities an hour or more early was not the
norm recently.

We are not safer now than we were before 9/11 although Mr Bush keeps
saying so.

Jobst Brandt
[email protected]

 

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 21:52:23 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Posting the URL would have helped....
>
>http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1019.htm

Dear Tim,

Don't worry--I'm pretty sure it was just the stress of the
election, not presenile dementia.

Reassuringly,

Carl Fogel

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] wrote:

>Tom McMedara writes:
>
>>> You can't play both sides of the fence if you want to be credible.
>>> On the one side GWB is so ill informed that he went ahead with
>>> going to war on a 50-50 chance that it might be right. Meanwhile,
>>> so many leading experts on the subject testified that they gave
>>> opposing advice and were either fired or silenced.
>
>> "So many leading experts"? What planet are you on? The
>> overwhelming consensus before the invasion, to include the French,
>> Russians, and Germans, was that there was a credible WMD threat.
>> The question wasn't whether the weapons were there, but what to do
>> about it. The debate was about policy, not the situation in Iraq.
>> That it later turned out to be wrong is prima facia evidence of an
>> intelligence failure, but one that extends back a number of years
>> and across a number of nations. To pin it on GWB and his
>> administration is just silly. To assert otherwise is just
>> revisionist BS, but that wouldn't be the first time you've done that
>> is it?
>
>I'm talking about people in our government and academics skilled in
>these matters quite aside from foreign experts who were aware that out
>government was capable of disinformation on the scale that it was put
>forth.

Why is it that to you, "capable of" equals "guilty of"? There has
been plenty of independent analysis done on the handling of the prewar
intelligence, and no one found any collusion or any of the
"disinformation" you claim as fact. If you were claiming steel frames
go soft, you'd be on more solid ground.

> Others were doubtful and had already lost confidence in the
>assessment. "Freedom Fries" no less, used as a means of ridicule and
>intimidation. It didn't work other than to increase the credibility
>gap. I'm surprised that that concept hasn't surfaced again in the
>presidential campaign.

What does "freedom fries" have to do with the administration's stance?
That was a grass-roots reaction to what was largely seen as French
obstructionism. Now that's been downgraded to plain old graft and
bribery - does it make you feel better about the French? The fact the
French and Germans (and others) sold their responsibilities on the UN
for oil money is the only thing that kept the action in Iraq from
being what it SHOULD have been (backed 100% by the UN, long, long
before 12 years and 17 resolutions). Had they not given Saddam the
impression that he was safe from any action, chances are he would have
complied with the resolutions at best, and at worst faced the entire
world rather than "just" the coalition (not that the makeup of the
armed forces would be much different).

>>> I think you are either avoiding information to the contrary or you
>>> are forwarding the party line. There is a strong international
>>> consensus but it is being ridiculed by the administration.
>>> Meanwhile the rest of the world wonders what sort of controlled
>>> press the USA has.
>
>> And where do you get such great insight into international consensus
>> and what the rest of the world wonders? Gonna start posting links
>> to the "alternative" press again? If only the world were such a
>> simple place.
>
>From our own experts who understand these matters and can explain them
>with a chronology of deceptions from the administration as they flip
>flop to a different tack with every change in the political breeze.
>Just follow the justification for the war. It's come down to "we're
>better off with Saddam Hussein in detention" as justification for the
>thousands of war dead and wounded US soldiers and Iraqi citizens.

Here's a question for you... why did they call the operation "Iraqi
Freedom" if it was strictly a WMD effort? And you really don't
remember "regime change" as a primary driver for the action?

>>> The USA is so committed that no response is possible to much more
>>> threatening regimes and public critique of this situation is attacked
>>> by the watchful of GWB's staff and propagandists.
>
>> That sounds like outright paranoia to me.
>
>Oh? What response do you see to Iran and N. Korea, where they really
>are building WMD. The Bushmen have used up their welcome with the use
>of intervention in foreign lands so these nations are rolling along in
>the assurance that the USA won't field another adventure in their
>interest.

To the contrary - before 2003 they may have thought so. The US had
done plenty of sabre rattling, but no one had seen the steel for many
years.

>> Is the Bush administration "attacking" you for your public critique?
>
>I'm sure Mr. Ashcroft would like to make that a terrorist offense but
>unless the second Bush term materializes, I think we are still safe
>from the midnight knock on the door.

You're "sure"? Really? I have to agree with Tom - that does indeed
sound like outright paranoia.

>> Better get the foil helmet out. And just what constitutes an
>> "attack"? If you really think it's that bad in the US, why are you
>> still here? If I truly thought the state of the country was as you
>> describe, I sure as **** wouldn't spend hours in bicycle newsgroups
>> lamenting the situation. It's either a bunch of hyperbole, or
>> you're just another one of the mindless critics who mistake volume
>> for action.
>
>Your comic scenario is not funny and putting it forth is just more of
>the indirect and direct ridicule of contributors to their subject
>rather than discussion of the merits of what was said.

I think your statement that Ashcroft is just waiting to make
discussing politics on a bicycling newsgroup a "terrorist offense" is
so over the top that the "tin foil hat" was somewhat reserved in
comparison.

>>> I see you don't travel in Europe or read their papers but they have
>>> a different perspective.
>
>> Which Europe would that be? Last I checked, the UK, Italy, and
>> Poland were all part of Europe. Opinion is pretty split in those
>> countries, just as it is here in the US. I guess your
>> Franco-centric world view is biting you again. Are you proposing we
>> should submit our foreign policy decisions to referendum in Europe?
>> What's your point? Why do European views on national and
>> international security count more than those of the United States?
>
>I recently traveled there and found no such support of US actions in
>Iraq or Afghanistan.

So? They read the same kind of reportage you do - and come to the
same (incorrect) conclusions. Anyone who doesn't support the action
in Afghanistan is simply not worth worrying about (since they're
either so vehemently anti-US or uninformed there's not much chance of
reasoning with them).

>>> Our administration is alone in supporting your perspective while
>>> expenses, loss and injury of troops give witness to that, as do our
>>> taxes.
>
>> Add to the above -- South Korea, Australian, and a few dozen others I can't
>> think of right away. So what does "alone" mean to you Jobst, no French?
>
>South Korea has good reason to play up to Washington but they won't be
>getting much more than lip service for now. The USA is overly
>committed elsewhere. I'm not up on what the Aussies are about except
>that in interviews on public radio, those who spoke were not favorable
>to US actions..

So? Tune into mainstream media in the US and you'll be hard-pressed
to find anyone not against the war, even though about half the US
isn't. Public radio in Oz is about the same as NPR here a few years
ago... hardly mainstream (at least when I lived there).

>>> Meanwhile we are asked to give up our civil liberties to fight
>>> terror. In that respect the terrorists have in part achieved their
>>> goal, to take away our civil liberties. From what you say, I can
>>> see you think the armed camp of Israel is a reasonable way to live.
>
>> And which of your vaunted civil liberties has been taken from you?
>> As a documented picker of nits on things technical, you seem awfully
>> willing to spew generalities on topics political. For all the hand
>> wringing I see about the Patriot Act and the demonification of John
>> Ashcroft, I've yet to see a specific instance where normal,
>> law-abiding individuals have been impacted in any way shape or form.
>> Obviously there is sufficient enough protection that you still feel
>> comfortable enough to express your views in this forum. How about
>> you cut they propaganda and the anarchist talking points and speak
>> in specifics? Of course that might force you to confront facts
>> rather than articles of faith.
>
>The intrusiveness of government interrogation and monitoring of
>personal activities has take a large jump since the invasion of Iraq.

How so? How, precisely, has your life been directly impacted by these
changes?

>If you have traveled by air lately and partially disrobed and got
>patted down because you left your reading glasses in your pocket or
>had a brass zipper in your pants you should realize that arriving at
>the airport for these activities an hour or more early was not the
>norm recently.

You'd rather we return to pre-9/11 procedures at airport security
statsions? You're in a very, very small minority if you do.

>We are not safer now than we were before 9/11 although Mr Bush keeps
>saying so.

You're wrong.

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

>Jobst Brandt
>[email protected]

 

[George Herbert Walker]

[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> >>The Bush supporters may be busy cleaning up the
> >>messes after the attacks on their campaign offices in
> >>Miami, Tampa, Kansas City, Dearborn, St. Paul,
> >>Independence, West Allis.
> >>
> >>A letter follows, signed by around fifty members of
> >>Congress, asking what will be done about the attacks.


Rove's newest scheme?

Not long ago, Karl Rove told Sean Hannity "We've got a couple of
surprises that we intend to spring." Perhaps we can glimpse the
outlines of one of those surprises.

Across the country, Bush campaign headquarters have been shot at,
attacked, and burgled. None of these attacks have prospered the Kerry
campaign in any way. Each incident has admirably served Karl Rove's
propaganda purposes. In a previous election, he once staged a
"bugging" of his own candidate.

One of the most recent office assaults took place in Knoxville,
Tennessee, where a drive-by shooter put two rounds into a Bush/Cheney
headquarters. As we have noted in one of yesterday's post, this same
office played a key role in an apparent hoax connected to the "mystery
bulge" controversy. The purpose of the hoax remains unclear. I suspect
that the intention was to sidetrack any investigators looking into the
issue, just as legitimate concerns over Bush's National Guard service
were sidetracked by the CBS debacle.

Another senseless attack took place at the Charlestown, South Carolina
G.O.P. office. News reporters covering that story dealt with the
mysterious Phil Parlock, previously linked to a number of
obviously-faked "attacks" by alleged Democrats. In one of these
attacks, Parlock's son played the role of a violently enraged
unionist.


"Enraged unionists" from the AFL-CIO allegedly spearheaded mob action
against various Bush offices on October 5. While these apparently
began as legitimate protests, everyone old enough to recall the
protests of the '60s will know the danger of the agent provocateur. #
posted by Joseph : 1:33 AM


www.cannonfire.blogspot.com/
for the active links (sorry, to lazy to paste them in)

Also see www.isbushwired.com for a similar analysis of another Rove
scheme to discredit the "Bush is Wired" story.

--
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Please excuse the inconvenience allegedly caused by our son.
Send
us the bill for all the damages, and we can settle this to your
satisfaction, without any need for a public record of the incident.

Most Sincerely, George and Bar

 

[B.B.]

In article <hXHad.42431$R43.23865@fed1read01>,
"tcmedara" <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>> You can't play both sides of the fence if you want to be credible. On
>> the one side GWB is so ill informed that he went ahead with going to
>> war on a 50-50 chance that it might be right. Meanwhile, so many
>> leading experts on the subject testified that they gave opposing
>> advice and were either fired or silenced.
>
>"So many leading experts"? What planet are you on? The overwhelming
>consensus before the invasion, to include the French, Russians, and Germans,
>was that there was a credible WMD threat.

No, according to France, Germany, and Russia he was a _possible_
threat. Possible simply because they couldn't prove conclusively that
he had fully disarmed, but in no way a likely threat or even a very big
one if he did decide to use his WMD.
That's a big difference.

>The question wasn't whether the
>weapons were there, but what to do about it. The debate was about policy,
>not the situation in Iraq. That it later turned out to be wrong is prima
>facia evidence of an intelligence failure, but one that extends back a
>number of years and across a number of nations. To pin it on GWB and his
>administration is just silly. To assert otherwise is just revisionist BS,
>but that wouldn't be the first time you've done that is it?

Bush and his cabinet weren't 100% responsible for this, but they were
the primary party. Bush received intelligence with lots of
conditionals, but by the time that information made it into his speeches
it was assertive.

>> I think you are either
>> avoiding information to the contrary or you are forwarding the party
>> line. There is a strong international consensus but it is being
>> ridiculed by the administration. Meanwhile the rest of the world
>> wonders what sort of controlled press the USA has.
>
>And where do you get such great insight into international consensus and
>what the rest of the world wonders? Gonna start posting links to the
>"alternative" press again? If only the world were such a simple place.
>>
>> The USA is so committed that no response is possible to much more
>> threatening regimes and public critique of this situation is attacked
>> by the watchful of GWB's staff and propagandists.
>
>That sounds like outright paranoia to me. Is the Bush administration
>"attacking" you for your public critique? Better get the foil helmet out.
>And just what constitutes an "attack"? If you really think it's that bad
>in the US, why are you still here? If I truly thought the state of the
>country was as you describe, I sure as **** wouldn't spend hours in bicycly
>newsgroups lamenting the situation. It's either a bunch of hyperbole, or
>you're just another one of the mindless critics who mistake volume for
>action.

Would it have been possible for Saddam to actually comply with the
prewar demands laid out by the US? Bush demanded that Saddam show us
his weapons and destroy them, Saddam claimed they were destroyed, and
now we know for a fact that they were destroyed.
Looks like the US government decided from the beginning it would
ultimately invade and all the talk before hand was just a show so Bush
could point back and say he tried to negotiate.
Naturally, that leaves us in a bad position for two reasons: nearly
the entire military is stuck in Iraq needlessly so we can't deploy them
elsewhere even if we have a good reason. And we burned up every scrap
of credibility we had before the war, so even if we really do want to
negotiate our way out of another war that's an unlikely option.
Anyone who points this out publicly gets accused of providing "aid
and comfort to the terrorists." Or we're lumped into the "blame america
first" crowd.

>>I see you don't
>> travel in Europe or read their papers but they have a different
>> perspective.
>
>Which Europe would that be? Last I checked, the UK, Italy, and Poland were
>all part of Europe. Opinion is pretty split in those countries, just as it
>is here in the US. I guess your Franco-centric world view is biting you
>again. Are you proposing we should submit our foreign policy decisions to
>referendum in Europe? What's your point? Why do European views on national
>and international security count more than those of the United States?

But France is part of Europe--why do you value Poland's position as a
European country, but freely ignore France's position as a European
country? Looks like you're picking and choosing your sources based on
who you like to listen to.
As a whole, Europe is opposed to the war. Individually, most of the
UK people are opposed to the war, most of Poland's (who's planning to
leave) people are opposed to the war, and most of Italy's people are
opposed to the war.

>> Our administration is alone in supporting your
>> perspective while expenses, loss and injury of troops give witness to
>> that, as do our taxes.
>
>Add to the above -- South Korea, Australian, and a few dozen others I can't
>think of right away. So what does "alone" mean to you Jobst, no French?

Their contributions are pathetically small and near worthless.

>> Meanwhile we are asked to give up our civil liberties to fight terror.
>> In that respect the terrorists have in part achieved their goal, to
>> take away our civil liberties. From what you say, I can see you think
>> the armed camp of Israel is a reasonable way to live.
>
>And which of your vaunted civil liberties has been taken from you? As a
>documented picker of nits on things technical, you seem awfully willing to
>spew generalities on topics political. For all the hand wringing I see
>about the Patriot Act and the demonification of John Ashcroft, I've yet to
>see a specific instance where normal, law-abiding individuals have been
>impacted in any way shape or form. Obviously there is sufficient enough
>protection that you still feel comfortable enough to express your views in
>this forum. How about you cut they propaganda and the anarchist talking
>points and speak in specifics? Of course that might force you to confront
>facts rather than articles of faith.

Look up some of Ashcroft's cases--he recently had a rather famous
conviction overturned because of prosecutorial misconduct/ IOW, taking
someone's rights from him.
Lots of names on the do not fly lists are known to be on there
erroneously. Again, some people are being denied their rights.
I don't think there are any big examples (there's the whole
Grantanamo Bay thing, but that started before the Patriot act, so I
don't count it as a patriot act flaw) but there are many small examples
floating around.
Death by a thousand cuts.

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail.net

 

[B.B.]

In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:

>>You can't play both sides of the fence if you want to be credible. On
>>the one side GWB is so ill informed that he went ahead with going to
>>war on a 50-50 chance that it might be right.
>
>Again, please explain the overwhelming support for the war, given the
>information at hand at the time of the decision to go. This included,
>BTW, Senator Kerry, who happens to be on the intelligence
>subcommittee, and got to see the same info the administration did.

No, he didn't.

>A
>majority of US citizens was behind the action as well, based on the
>information that was available at the time.

I thought Bush was supposed to be the candidate who listened to
"right and wrong" not polls. Are you arguing that he went to war
because it was popular?

>And don't do the old, entirely disproven song about how the
>administration "influenced" the data - that's simply not true based on
>all the independent analysis.

Remember Colin's UN speech? Perhaps you have a novel definition of
"independent."

[...]

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail.net

 

[George Herbert Walker]

Ronsonic <> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> > A
> >teeneaged boy was told that he was a security risk because
> >he had a Kerry sticker on his wallet when searched by the
> >Secret Service. If you have any Kerry-Edwards material in
> >your possession, you are deemed to be a security risk and
> >are threatened with arrest.
> >
> ><http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4076497>
>
> After the rampages from Kerry's goons this last week that isn't a stretch.

Rove's newest scheme?

Not long ago, Karl Rove told Sean Hannity "We've got a couple of
surprises that we intend to spring." Perhaps we can glimpse the
outlines of one of those surprises.

Across the country, Bush campaign headquarters have been shot at,
attacked, and burgled. None of these attacks have prospered the Kerry
campaign in any way. Each incident has admirably served Karl Rove's
propaganda purposes. In a previous election, he once staged a
"bugging" of his own candidate.

One of the most recent office assaults took place in Knoxville,
Tennessee, where a drive-by shooter put two rounds into a Bush/Cheney
headquarters. As we have noted in one of yesterday's post, this same
office played a key role in an apparent hoax connected to the "mystery
bulge" controversy. The purpose of the hoax remains unclear. I suspect
that the intention was to sidetrack any investigators looking into the
issue, just as legitimate concerns over Bush's National Guard service
were sidetracked by the CBS debacle.

Another senseless attack took place at the Charlestown, South Carolina
G.O.P. office. News reporters covering that story dealt with the
mysterious Phil Parlock, previously linked to a number of
obviously-faked "attacks" by alleged Democrats. In one of these
attacks, Parlock's son played the role of a violently enraged
unionist.


"Enraged unionists" from the AFL-CIO allegedly spearheaded mob action
against various Bush offices on October 5. While these apparently
began as legitimate protests, everyone old enough to recall the
protests of the '60s will know the danger of the agent provocateur. #
posted by Joseph : 1:33 AM


www.cannonfire.blogspot.com/
for the active links (sorry, to lazy to paste them in)

Also see www.isbushwired.com for a similar analysis of another Rove
scheme to discredit the "Bush is Wired" story.

 

[Mark Hickey]

"B.B." <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <hXHad.42431$R43.23865@fed1read01>,
> "tcmedara" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>> You can't play both sides of the fence if you want to be credible. On
>>> the one side GWB is so ill informed that he went ahead with going to
>>> war on a 50-50 chance that it might be right. Meanwhile, so many
>>> leading experts on the subject testified that they gave opposing
>>> advice and were either fired or silenced.
>>
>>"So many leading experts"? What planet are you on? The overwhelming
>>consensus before the invasion, to include the French, Russians, and Germans,
>>was that there was a credible WMD threat.
>
> No, according to France, Germany, and Russia he was a _possible_
>threat. Possible simply because they couldn't prove conclusively that
>he had fully disarmed, but in no way a likely threat or even a very big
>one if he did decide to use his WMD.
> That's a big difference.

What is your source for that? Even the UN weapons inspection report
stated that Iraq probably had 10,000 liters (!) of viable anthrax.
Maybe that doesn't constitute a "very big" threat to you - but it's
off the scale to me (think of what a few grams of the stuff did to our
postal system and Washington DC).

>>That sounds like outright paranoia to me. Is the Bush administration
>>"attacking" you for your public critique? Better get the foil helmet out.
>>And just what constitutes an "attack"? If you really think it's that bad
>>in the US, why are you still here? If I truly thought the state of the
>>country was as you describe, I sure as **** wouldn't spend hours in bicycly
>>newsgroups lamenting the situation. It's either a bunch of hyperbole, or
>>you're just another one of the mindless critics who mistake volume for
>>action.
>
> Would it have been possible for Saddam to actually comply with the
>prewar demands laid out by the US? Bush demanded that Saddam show us
>his weapons and destroy them, Saddam claimed they were destroyed, and
>now we know for a fact that they were destroyed.

It remains a mystery WHERE the stores of WMD that Saddam admits having
went to - did he destroy them and simply forget to document the fact
(and then forget to provide the details to the UN???)?

> Looks like the US government decided from the beginning it would
>ultimately invade and all the talk before hand was just a show so Bush
>could point back and say he tried to negotiate.

Looks like that's not the case at all. Look back over history, and
the fact that it wasn't the US who kept the sanctions on Iraq for
non-compliance, but the UN.

> Naturally, that leaves us in a bad position for two reasons: nearly
>the entire military is stuck in Iraq needlessly so we can't deploy them
>elsewhere even if we have a good reason. And we burned up every scrap
>of credibility we had before the war, so even if we really do want to
>negotiate our way out of another war that's an unlikely option.

I see it differently. Before Afghanistan, US retribution for attacks
had waned to the point where those who would attack us or aid those
attacking us was a non-issue. That's not the case any longer (witness
the crackdown of terrorists in countries like Pakistan and Saudi
Arabia - obviously working based on the terrorist activity they
produced).

> Anyone who points this out publicly gets accused of providing "aid
>and comfort to the terrorists." Or we're lumped into the "blame america
>first" crowd.

There are those who fall into that category, but I don't think you'll
make the cut. ;-)

>>>I see you don't
>>> travel in Europe or read their papers but they have a different
>>> perspective.
>>
>>Which Europe would that be? Last I checked, the UK, Italy, and Poland were
>>all part of Europe. Opinion is pretty split in those countries, just as it
>>is here in the US. I guess your Franco-centric world view is biting you
>>again. Are you proposing we should submit our foreign policy decisions to
>>referendum in Europe? What's your point? Why do European views on national
>>and international security count more than those of the United States?
>
> But France is part of Europe--why do you value Poland's position as a
>European country, but freely ignore France's position as a European
>country? Looks like you're picking and choosing your sources based on
>who you like to listen to.

You missed his point - his reply said what yours above does (but with
the countries reversed).

> As a whole, Europe is opposed to the war. Individually, most of the
>UK people are opposed to the war, most of Poland's (who's planning to
>leave) people are opposed to the war, and most of Italy's people are
>opposed to the war.

They've been told they should be opposed to the war by a vehemently
anti-US press... most of them don't dig into the details.

>>> Our administration is alone in supporting your
>>> perspective while expenses, loss and injury of troops give witness to
>>> that, as do our taxes.
>>
>>Add to the above -- South Korea, Australian, and a few dozen others I can't
>>think of right away. So what does "alone" mean to you Jobst, no French?
>
> Their contributions are pathetically small and near worthless.

I'm sure they'd be surprised to hear that.

>>> Meanwhile we are asked to give up our civil liberties to fight terror.
>>> In that respect the terrorists have in part achieved their goal, to
>>> take away our civil liberties. From what you say, I can see you think
>>> the armed camp of Israel is a reasonable way to live.
>>
>>And which of your vaunted civil liberties has been taken from you? As a
>>documented picker of nits on things technical, you seem awfully willing to
>>spew generalities on topics political. For all the hand wringing I see
>>about the Patriot Act and the demonification of John Ashcroft, I've yet to
>>see a specific instance where normal, law-abiding individuals have been
>>impacted in any way shape or form. Obviously there is sufficient enough
>>protection that you still feel comfortable enough to express your views in
>>this forum. How about you cut they propaganda and the anarchist talking
>>points and speak in specifics? Of course that might force you to confront
>>facts rather than articles of faith.
>
> Look up some of Ashcroft's cases--he recently had a rather famous
>conviction overturned because of prosecutorial misconduct/ IOW, taking
>someone's rights from him.

So?

> Lots of names on the do not fly lists are known to be on there
>erroneously. Again, some people are being denied their rights.

It's an inconvenience, but any mistakes on the list can be fixed. An
airplane that's been slammed into a building can't.

> I don't think there are any big examples (there's the whole
>Grantanamo Bay thing, but that started before the Patriot act, so I
>don't count it as a patriot act flaw) but there are many small examples
>floating around.
> Death by a thousand cuts.

You need to be specific - I've yet to hear from anyone who's actually
had anything change in any way in their life (other than their level
of paranoia perhaps).

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

 

[Mark Hickey]

"B.B." <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>You can't play both sides of the fence if you want to be credible. On
>>>the one side GWB is so ill informed that he went ahead with going to
>>>war on a 50-50 chance that it might be right.
>>
>>Again, please explain the overwhelming support for the war, given the
>>information at hand at the time of the decision to go. This included,
>>BTW, Senator Kerry, who happens to be on the intelligence
>>subcommittee, and got to see the same info the administration did.
>
> No, he didn't.

Yes, he did. Read the results of the independent commission.

>>A
>>majority of US citizens was behind the action as well, based on the
>>information that was available at the time.
>
> I thought Bush was supposed to be the candidate who listened to
>"right and wrong" not polls. Are you arguing that he went to war
>because it was popular?

You're trying to set up a strawman. I'm saying that most of us came
to the same conclusions Bush did when we saw the same threat he did.

>>And don't do the old, entirely disproven song about how the
>>administration "influenced" the data - that's simply not true based on
>>all the independent analysis.
>
> Remember Colin's UN speech? Perhaps you have a novel definition of
>"independent."

Bipartisan commissions during an election year. If you don't think
you'd hear about mishandling of intelligence under THAT scenario,
you're fooling yourself. It would have been splashed across every
front page in America. As it was, since no fault was found, it was
buried inside section C...

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

 

[Mark Hickey]

"B.B." <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>You can't play both sides of the fence if you want to be credible. On
>>>the one side GWB is so ill informed that he went ahead with going to
>>>war on a 50-50 chance that it might be right.
>>
>>Again, please explain the overwhelming support for the war, given the
>>information at hand at the time of the decision to go. This included,
>>BTW, Senator Kerry, who happens to be on the intelligence
>>subcommittee, and got to see the same info the administration did.
>
> No, he didn't.

Yes, he did. Read the results of the independent commission.

>>A
>>majority of US citizens was behind the action as well, based on the
>>information that was available at the time.
>
> I thought Bush was supposed to be the candidate who listened to
>"right and wrong" not polls. Are you arguing that he went to war
>because it was popular?

You're trying to set up a strawman. I'm saying that most of us came
to the same conclusions Bush did when we saw the same threat he did.

>>And don't do the old, entirely disproven song about how the
>>administration "influenced" the data - that's simply not true based on
>>all the independent analysis.
>
> Remember Colin's UN speech? Perhaps you have a novel definition of
>"independent."

Bipartisan commissions during an election year. If you don't think
you'd hear about mishandling of intelligence under THAT scenario,
you're fooling yourself. It would have been splashed across every
front page in America. As it was, since no fault was found, it was
buried inside section C...

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

 

[Mark Hickey]

"B.B." <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>You can't play both sides of the fence if you want to be credible. On
>>>the one side GWB is so ill informed that he went ahead with going to
>>>war on a 50-50 chance that it might be right.
>>
>>Again, please explain the overwhelming support for the war, given the
>>information at hand at the time of the decision to go. This included,
>>BTW, Senator Kerry, who happens to be on the intelligence
>>subcommittee, and got to see the same info the administration did.
>
> No, he didn't.

Yes, he did. Read the results of the independent commission.

>>A
>>majority of US citizens was behind the action as well, based on the
>>information that was available at the time.
>
> I thought Bush was supposed to be the candidate who listened to
>"right and wrong" not polls. Are you arguing that he went to war
>because it was popular?

You're trying to set up a strawman. I'm saying that most of us came
to the same conclusions Bush did when we saw the same threat he did.

>>And don't do the old, entirely disproven song about how the
>>administration "influenced" the data - that's simply not true based on
>>all the independent analysis.
>
> Remember Colin's UN speech? Perhaps you have a novel definition of
>"independent."

Bipartisan commissions during an election year. If you don't think
you'd hear about mishandling of intelligence under THAT scenario,
you're fooling yourself. It would have been splashed across every
front page in America. As it was, since no fault was found, it was
buried inside section C...

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

 

[Tim McNamara]

[email protected] writes:

> Mark Hickey writes:
>
>>>>> "They didn't start a war. They did renew hostilities..." What a
>>>>> load of tripe. It's exactly this type of wooly headed thinking
>>>>> that landed the Bush Administration in the up-to-the-neck pile
>>>>> of **** it is in.
>
>>>> Yeah - that explains the overwhelming support it got in Congress
>>>> and from the American public.
>
>>> The war doesn't seem to enjoy that support any longer.
>
>> Which is of course an ENTIRELY different issue than an impartial
>> examination of the facts on the table at the time of the decision
>> whether or not to prosecute the war.
>
>> And FWIW, the support for the war has wavered back and forth over
>> 50%, so it's not like there's any consensus even now. Ten years
>> from now, we'll say it was either a huge waste of lives and money,
>> or the best thing that could have possibly happened.
>
>> To ignore that EITHER is a possibility is naive, IMHO.
>
> You can't play both sides of the fence if you want to be credible.
> On the one side GWB is so ill informed that he went ahead with going
> to war on a 50-50 chance that it might be right. Meanwhile, so many
> leading experts on the subject testified that they gave opposing
> advice and were either fired or silenced.

Including ignoring the assessments of Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice
that Iraq was not a threat to the United States, prior to Rumsfeld and
Wolfowitz co-opting foreign policy in the wake of 9/11.

 

[Tim McNamara]

[email protected] writes:

> Mark Hickey writes:
>
>>>>> "They didn't start a war. They did renew hostilities..." What a
>>>>> load of tripe. It's exactly this type of wooly headed thinking
>>>>> that landed the Bush Administration in the up-to-the-neck pile
>>>>> of **** it is in.
>
>>>> Yeah - that explains the overwhelming support it got in Congress
>>>> and from the American public.
>
>>> The war doesn't seem to enjoy that support any longer.
>
>> Which is of course an ENTIRELY different issue than an impartial
>> examination of the facts on the table at the time of the decision
>> whether or not to prosecute the war.
>
>> And FWIW, the support for the war has wavered back and forth over
>> 50%, so it's not like there's any consensus even now. Ten years
>> from now, we'll say it was either a huge waste of lives and money,
>> or the best thing that could have possibly happened.
>
>> To ignore that EITHER is a possibility is naive, IMHO.
>
> You can't play both sides of the fence if you want to be credible.
> On the one side GWB is so ill informed that he went ahead with going
> to war on a 50-50 chance that it might be right. Meanwhile, so many
> leading experts on the subject testified that they gave opposing
> advice and were either fired or silenced.

Including ignoring the assessments of Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice
that Iraq was not a threat to the United States, prior to Rumsfeld and
Wolfowitz co-opting foreign policy in the wake of 9/11.

 

[Tim McNamara]

[email protected] writes:

> Mark Hickey writes:
>
>>>>> "They didn't start a war. They did renew hostilities..." What a
>>>>> load of tripe. It's exactly this type of wooly headed thinking
>>>>> that landed the Bush Administration in the up-to-the-neck pile
>>>>> of **** it is in.
>
>>>> Yeah - that explains the overwhelming support it got in Congress
>>>> and from the American public.
>
>>> The war doesn't seem to enjoy that support any longer.
>
>> Which is of course an ENTIRELY different issue than an impartial
>> examination of the facts on the table at the time of the decision
>> whether or not to prosecute the war.
>
>> And FWIW, the support for the war has wavered back and forth over
>> 50%, so it's not like there's any consensus even now. Ten years
>> from now, we'll say it was either a huge waste of lives and money,
>> or the best thing that could have possibly happened.
>
>> To ignore that EITHER is a possibility is naive, IMHO.
>
> You can't play both sides of the fence if you want to be credible.
> On the one side GWB is so ill informed that he went ahead with going
> to war on a 50-50 chance that it might be right. Meanwhile, so many
> leading experts on the subject testified that they gave opposing
> advice and were either fired or silenced.

Including ignoring the assessments of Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice
that Iraq was not a threat to the United States, prior to Rumsfeld and
Wolfowitz co-opting foreign policy in the wake of 9/11.

 

[Tim McNamara]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> writes:

> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Here's an interesting video. Ignore the (IMHO) bizarre
>>"explanation" offered on the page and just watch the film- the
>>differences in Bush's debating skills, from the days when he was an
>>odious firebrand in Texas to the current times when he seems to
>>struggle to make a sensible point, are quit striking. Now, to be
>>sure the clips from 2004 are cherry picked to make Bush look bad,
>>but IME from watching him on TV he has nothing near the sharpness
>>and incisiveness he had in the earlier segments of the clip. I was,
>>in fact, amazed to see him so sharp and focused (never having seen
>>anything of him in 1993).
>>
>>He seemed in much better command of his philosophy and of language
>>in 1993 than he has in the past few years. Stress, perhaps? Not
>>enough sleep? Having to track too many problems at the same time?
>>The "explanation" of presenile dementia is far-fetched (and I'm
>>speaking here as a psychologist specializing in geriatrics and
>>dementia).
>
> By all accounts I've ever read about modern presidential runs, it's
> a non-stop meat grinder for months on end. Add to that the duties
> that the President still has to deal with, and it's a wonder any of
> the incumbents can even manage to get through a speech without
> drooling (much).

It's always striking how much Presidents age visibly in their time in
office. Bush looks a decade older than he did in 2000; his
predecessors showed similar effects.

 

[Tim McNamara]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> writes:

> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Here's an interesting video. Ignore the (IMHO) bizarre
>>"explanation" offered on the page and just watch the film- the
>>differences in Bush's debating skills, from the days when he was an
>>odious firebrand in Texas to the current times when he seems to
>>struggle to make a sensible point, are quit striking. Now, to be
>>sure the clips from 2004 are cherry picked to make Bush look bad,
>>but IME from watching him on TV he has nothing near the sharpness
>>and incisiveness he had in the earlier segments of the clip. I was,
>>in fact, amazed to see him so sharp and focused (never having seen
>>anything of him in 1993).
>>
>>He seemed in much better command of his philosophy and of language
>>in 1993 than he has in the past few years. Stress, perhaps? Not
>>enough sleep? Having to track too many problems at the same time?
>>The "explanation" of presenile dementia is far-fetched (and I'm
>>speaking here as a psychologist specializing in geriatrics and
>>dementia).
>
> By all accounts I've ever read about modern presidential runs, it's
> a non-stop meat grinder for months on end. Add to that the duties
> that the President still has to deal with, and it's a wonder any of
> the incumbents can even manage to get through a speech without
> drooling (much).

It's always striking how much Presidents age visibly in their time in
office. Bush looks a decade older than he did in 2000; his
predecessors showed similar effects.

 

[Tim McNamara]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> writes:

> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Here's an interesting video. Ignore the (IMHO) bizarre
>>"explanation" offered on the page and just watch the film- the
>>differences in Bush's debating skills, from the days when he was an
>>odious firebrand in Texas to the current times when he seems to
>>struggle to make a sensible point, are quit striking. Now, to be
>>sure the clips from 2004 are cherry picked to make Bush look bad,
>>but IME from watching him on TV he has nothing near the sharpness
>>and incisiveness he had in the earlier segments of the clip. I was,
>>in fact, amazed to see him so sharp and focused (never having seen
>>anything of him in 1993).
>>
>>He seemed in much better command of his philosophy and of language
>>in 1993 than he has in the past few years. Stress, perhaps? Not
>>enough sleep? Having to track too many problems at the same time?
>>The "explanation" of presenile dementia is far-fetched (and I'm
>>speaking here as a psychologist specializing in geriatrics and
>>dementia).
>
> By all accounts I've ever read about modern presidential runs, it's
> a non-stop meat grinder for months on end. Add to that the duties
> that the President still has to deal with, and it's a wonder any of
> the incumbents can even manage to get through a speech without
> drooling (much).

It's always striking how much Presidents age visibly in their time in
office. Bush looks a decade older than he did in 2000; his
predecessors showed similar effects.

 

[Tim McNamara]

[email protected] writes:

> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 21:52:23 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Posting the URL would have helped....
>>
>>http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1019.htm
>
> Dear Tim,
>
> Don't worry--I'm pretty sure it was just the stress of the election,
> not presenile dementia.

Indeed, as I mentioned in my other post, I think the "explanation" of
presenile dementia is hokum. I am a psychologist, I specialize in
geriatrics and therefore dementia. I don't see indications of dementia
in his public performances. However, the difference in his
presentation between 1993 and 2004 are quite striking. I would tend
to put that down to stress (is there a more stressful job on the
planet?) and the difference between being a challenger and an
incumbent.