Pol: FOX news doctors Bush-Kerry photo

"Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > The only consistent answer with many of these people is that whatever
Bush
> > did at any time on any issue was wrong, and the exact opposite is what
> > should have been done, and only a democrat can fix it.
>
> Bit of an exaggeration, don't you think?

Not necessarily. Kerry's campaign, for example, consists almost entirely of
saying he would do everything differently from Bush. In fact, he's even
used those exact words.

dwhite

"Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Two photos. The FOX news photo makes Bush 3 inches taller.
>
> AFP Photo on Yahoo:
> http://tinyurl.com/6mkeu
>
> Fudged Fox Photo:
> http://tinyurl.com/6tu5m

Easily explainable by camera angle and focal length. I won't bother
explaining since you would not listen.

On 1 Oct 2004 23:07:42 -0700, [email protected] (Florida
Patriot) wrote:

>Two photos. The FOX news photo makes Bush 3 inches taller.
>
>AFP Photo on Yahoo:
>http://tinyurl.com/6mkeu
>
>Fudged Fox Photo:
>http://tinyurl.com/6tu5m

Not that you will answer this, since you are just a spamming troll, but
why is it that the first photo is the "real" one and the second "fudged"?
Couldn't it be the other way around?

Or, <gasp> considering that there is not conspiracy here, just a couple
of different camera angles?

On 2 Oct 2004 15:52:35 -0700, [email protected] (Joey) wrote:

>Nobody takes Fox News seriously, they falsify everything.
>
>http://www.geocities.com/julieearmstrong/fox.htm


/begin clue #1
If this is the best you can come up with, you may as well pack up and go
home now. Frankly, it seems more believable that you are comparing two
different perspectives and camera angles -- did they also clone different
facial expressions on the two men?
/end clue #1

/begin clue #2
While I grant you that AP (Associated Press) is biased to the left and
can't write an objective story to save their lives, I wouldn't accuse them
of falsifying everything. Why is this important? Take a look at
foxnews.com, the bulk of their stories are taken from AP, thus, if Fox is
falisfying everything, by extension, AP must also be falsifying everything.
/end clue #2

On 5 Oct 2004 15:46:07 -0700, [email protected] (Nate Perkins) wrote:

>Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> On 4 Oct 2004 20:37:53 -0700, Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote:
... snip
>>
>> Yes, and? Are you proposing that he isn't working when he's
>> at these three locations? Can you back up that assertion?
>
>No, I'm sure he's working really hard there. Telecommuting and all.
>I mean he was out there when he got that Aug 6 PDB, and he sure jumped
>all over that one.

You're funny. First you jump all over Bush because drastic action did
not ensue from a briefing with vague rumblings of a potential threat about
possibly hijacking some airliners, somewhere with no real details. Then
you turn around and excoriate him for acting on intelligence information
that was much more specific and had a much higher level of confidence
associated with it when he went into Iraq. So, which is it? Should the
president use the intelligence information he has at hand, no matter how
vague, or should he not act on strong intelligence information?

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 19:07:46 -0700, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Easily explainable by camera angle and focal length. I won't bother
>> explaining since you would not listen.
>
>You won't bother because you can't. In both images the vertical camera angle
>is the same and any sublte difference in focal length doesn't matter.
>

It also depends upon where the subject(s) of the photo are as well. All
of which begs the question, why is this even an issue? There were other
photos presented as well. One may just as well excoriate UFPI for putting
up a photo that placed Bush in such an unfavorable light.

If this is the best you can come up with, then you strengthen my
confidence that Bush's re-election is assured.

Still no answer on all the voter fraud being perpetrated by the other
side, the registering of people dead for 25 years, the registration of
felons, the paying homeless to vote with cigarettes and/or McDonalds
lunches, the multiple voting attempts. Seems a whole lot more of a concern
than an allegedly modified picture that shows both candidates.

On 6 Oct 2004 15:09:04 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 19:40:02 -0700, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> You're funny. First you jump all over Bush because drastic action did
>> not ensue from a briefing with vague rumblings of a potential threat about
>> possibly hijacking some airliners, somewhere with no real details. Then
>> you turn around and excoriate him for acting on intelligence information
>> that was much more specific and had a much higher level of confidence
>> associated with it when he went into Iraq.
>
>Aw man, I was just working him into that corner and you showed him the
>cards. Oh well.

Sorry.

On 7 Oct 2004 12:40:23 -0700, [email protected] (Nate Perkins) wrote:

>Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> On 5 Oct 2004 15:46:07 -0700, Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> >>
>> >> Yes, and? Are you proposing that he isn't working when he's
>> >> at these three locations? Can you back up that assertion?
>> >
>> > No, I'm sure he's working really hard there. Telecommuting and all.
>> > I mean he was out there when he got that Aug 6 PDB, and he sure jumped
>> > all over that one.
>>
>> OK Nate, let's go there, shall we?
>>
>> What specifically in the August 6th PDB do you feel was actionable?
>> BinLadin doesn't like us, and they're scoping out _FEDERAL BUILDINGS_
>> in New York City?
>>
>> Last I checked, the WTC is not, and never was, a or the Federal Building.
>>
>> When justifying how you think the PDB was actionable, please be aware
>> that I will be comparing and contrasting your answer to the leftist
>> argument that we didn't have enough information to go into Iraq,
>> even though your boy Kerry voted for it (before he voted against it).
>>
>> Tell me what in the PDB could have been acted on to prevent 9/11, Nate.
>
>Yes, of course the Aug 6 PDB didn't spell out exactly where, when, and
>how the terrorists would attack. It was only one of many warnings,
>which were deprioritized, ignored, or overlooked.
>
>I assume that if it were that simple -- if the government knew exactly
>the where, when, why, and how and if that were spelled out in a memo
>and handed to the president, then it would have been foiled easily.
>Anything less would have been impeachable incompetence.
>


>It's much harder to have to connect the dots: to exercise judgement,
>assign priorities, and to be focused on signs of an impending attack.
>To take proactive steps that substantially make the country safer
>before an attack occurs. Unfortunately that is the standard of
>competence that most of us expect from our president (at least I do).
>I expect that the president of the US and his staff should be able to
>connect the dots. They didn't. For me (and several million other
>voters like me) it's part of a consistent pattern of bad judgment and
>wrong decisions that will cause me to vote against the incumbent.

The problem you are whining about above is a result of an
institutionalized reluctance to do anything that might even be remotely
construed as "racial profiling". The failure to connect the dots occured
because of this institutionalized fear (thus the failure of the FBI memo to
initiate any action -- nobody in the FBI wanted to be on the receiving end
of a discrimination lawsuit). Guess which administration and whose
attorney general helped enforce and re-inforce that behavior to where it
had become reflexive? [Hint, it wasn't the Bush admin].

> Two different photos from two perspectives. You're a trolling idiot.

Speaking of idiots, perhaps YOU should have another close look.

Indeed those are two different photos, but the vertical perspective between
the two images is virtually identical. The photographers were shooting from
the same vertical height but with some horizontal separation. The most
obvious clue is where the dark background meets the blue, at the level of
Kerry's eye. Note that it's the same in both photographs. Also look at the
bottom of Kerry's chin more or less even with the top of his shoulder, also
in both photographs. There's a lighter green section (visible with a levels
adjustment in photo editing software) that is at the level of Kerry's lips,
again, the same in both photographs. There are a few other visual clues as
well. All of them taken together proves without a doubt that the two images
were photographed from the same vertical height and the final crop shows a
virtually identical effective focal length between the two images.

A closer inspection of the Fox photo shows an irregularity on GW's torso
roughly from his jacket button extending down a couple of inches. This is
probably where GW's body was lengthened a few inches. If you look closely
you'll also see that his right forearm looks to be a couple of inches longer
than his left.

The angle of Kerry's arm is roughly the same in both images. Look at where
the hands meet, just below the "V" in Kerry's jacket. More or less the same
in both photos, but the angle of GW's arm is distinctly different in both
images. In the Fox image Kerry seems to be looking right at Bush. You would
expect eye contact, but Kerry's eyes are looking at Bush's upper lip. This
is exactly at the height of where Bush's eyes are in the undoctored photo.

Fair and Balanced? My ass. Fox is the most biased and misleading news
organization on the air and those who follow it are mindless sheep.

> There wasn't any doctoring done on the photo.

You're stating your uninformed opinion as if it were a fact. There's plenty
of evidence that suggests it was doctored.

> Go to the second link (the
> one for Fox) and go through the 6 or 7 photos of the debate. The 4th
> photo
> shows both candidates on the stage at their podiums. It is very easy to
> determine a height difference exists.

It's easy in a simplistic way. You're making some assumptions, such as the
horizon being level (its not). You're also assuming that the camera is
centered between the two podiums (it's not) and that the camera to podium
distance is exactly the same between each speaker (it's not). If anything,
the photo is skewed slightly towards exaggerating the height difference
between Kerry and Bush.

>Wouldn't Fox need to doctor all of
> the photographs?

So what. That's an hour's work for a rank beginner. I'm sure the
image-doctoring artists at Fox, with all their experience, are much faster
than that.

> Easily explainable by camera angle and focal length. I won't bother
> explaining since you would not listen.

You won't bother because you can't. In both images the vertical camera angle
is the same and any sublte difference in focal length doesn't matter.

> As you say, "you're making assumptions". Why are you spending so much
> time
> on a conspiracy theory about a photo?

The thing is, I haven't spent much time on it and I don't care much about
conspiracy theories.

I do care greatly when the media organizations attempt to manipulate the
truth to serve their own ideological agenda. And so should you.

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On 6 Oct 2004 09:35:24 -0700, Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The 9/11 commission showed an entire string of
> > events that could have been detected if the intel team and the
> > administration had been more on the ball.
>
> The 9/11 commission has the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, as do you. Working
> from the memo, nate, what specifically would you act on?
>
> > On the other hand, it's becoming increasingly clear that there were no
> > WMDs in Iraq, and that a lot of the intel community was saying so at
> > the time.
>
> Including your boy Kerry.
>
> > So Bush failed to act on the intel leading up to 9/11,
>
> What specifically are you seeing in that memo that nobody else did?
>

Dave,

Do you think that nate has actually read the 911 report and the August 8th PDB? Probably not.

One thing that is interesting, in relation to the President always being on vacation crap, is that the 911 report documents cases
where Tenet and others traveled to Crawford to deliver PDB's and to provide other briefings.

Al

>I figured if I hid a test post in this thread, nobody would notice.

I didn't notice anything.

>> You won't bother because you can't. In both images the vertical camera
>> angle is the same and any sublte difference in focal length doesn't
>> matter.
>>
>
> If you honestly think it is the same photo, you have more perception
> problems that can be solved in this newsgroup.

I'm pretty confident of my level of visual literacy. I'm trained as a visual
professional and I can easily see things in photos that elude most others.
It's not me that has visual perception problems rather it's you that has
reading comprehension issues.

I did not say that the two images are the same photo. What I did say is that
the two images were photographed from the same vertical angle. In another
message in this thread I presented several simple visual clues that even you
can use to confirm this. The two photographers were very likely shooting
from the press gallery platform at the back of the hall, perhaps 10 or 15
feet apart. I'd estimate the effective focal length to be about 400-450mm.

> Remember the cartoons and puzzles from grammar school that had you find
> the differences in the pictures? Perhaps you'd find them a challenge.

I'm tempted to respond to your childish comment by telling you to go f*ck
yourself but that would mean lowering myself to your level, and I wouldn't
want to hurt your feelings, even if you are an *sshole.

"Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > On 6 Oct 2004 12:01:30 -0700, Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > "Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > >> The only consistent answer with many of these people is that whatever Bush
> > >> did at any time on any issue was wrong, and the exact opposite is what
> > >> should have been done, and only a democrat can fix it.
> > >
> > > Bit of an exaggeration, don't you think?
> > > When Bush makes choices that later turn out to be wrong, he gets
> > > criticized for it. That's the burden you carry as an incumbent --
> > > people see where you made mistakes. They second guess you for them.
> > > Being an incumbent is "hard work."
> >
> > And being a Senator who agrees with the reasons and decisions
> > doesn't come with that same burden then, Nate?
>
> No, it doesn't come with the same burden. The Presidency is a far
> larger job than being a senator, and I think that most people would
> agree that it comes with much greater authority, responsibility, and
> accountability.
>
> I hope that you are not implying that Kerry has agreed with all of
> Bush's reasons and decisions. That would certainly be false.
>
> > > It's certainly not necessary to have a Democrat in office to fix it.
> > > Heck, I'd be glad to vote for a Republican ticket of McCain and
> > > Powell. Too bad that's not who the Republicans are running.
> >
> > Too bad you keep evading my direct question of what in the August
> > 6th memo is specific enough to be actionable, Nate.
>
> You mean the memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US,"
> discussing Al Qaeda plots to hijack planes, that was presented to the
> President less than four weeks prior to the 9/11 attacks?
>
> Yes, I agree it doesn't spell out the where, when, and how. Here are
> a number of other examples that don't spell out the where, when, and
> how:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30176-2002May16.html
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35744-2002May17.html
> http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/16/wcia16.xml
> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/wnt_missedsignals_1_020218.html
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30176-2002May16.html
> http://www.cjr.org/year/01/6/evans.asp


Here is the reference in the August 6 PDB about hijackings:

"We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reportings, such as that from a [redacted] service in 1998
saying that bin Laden wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain release of "Blind Shaykh" Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held
extremists."

So what exactly is actionable here. Looks to be historic info to me. This info was presented in detail to Clinton in a PDB on
December 4, 1998. At that time there WAS credible current intelligence of a threat provided to Clinton. He failed to act on the
intelligence and we all know the result.

You really need to stop guessing about what happened, stop reading reports of Clarke's altered story to sell a book and start
looking at the facts. A good place to start is the actual 911 report.

--
Al Reid

>>Well said!

I take it you too having reading comprehension issues.

>> I'm tempted to respond to your childish comment by telling you to go f*ck
>> yourself but that would mean lowering myself to your level, and I
>> wouldn't want to hurt your feelings, even if you are an *sshole.
>
> Seems like you just did

Rats. I was hoping you wouldn't notice.

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On 8 Oct 2004 15:58:10 -0700, Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >>
> >> I'm not attacking or obfuscating anything. But if you're claiming that
> >> the PDB had _anything_ in it that could have been acted on to prevent
> >> 9/11, it's obvious that you don't understand what's in said PDB.
> > (rest snipped)
> >
> > On the contrary, first you accuse me of having a slanted view and not
> > knowing what I'm talking about. Then about 20 lines down in this same
> > post, you accuse me of "vague bullshit" and tell me to "put up or shut
> > up."
>
> What specific aspect of said PDB is actionable, Nate? You keep evading
> the question.
>
> > Your opinion obviously differs from mine, and you are welcome to it --
> > as are we all.
>
> You have given NO evidence that you've even read said PDB, and your
> statements show you do not understand it. What about the PDB is
> actionable? What hints in it did he "miss", Nate?
>

... and while you are at it, Nate, do you think that the info in the December 4, 1998 PDB was more or less actionable than the
August 6, 2001 PDB?

"Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > On 8 Oct 2004 15:58:10 -0700, Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > >>
> > >> I'm not attacking or obfuscating anything. But if you're claiming that
> > >> the PDB had _anything_ in it that could have been acted on to prevent
> > >> 9/11, it's obvious that you don't understand what's in said PDB.
> > > (rest snipped)
> > >
> > > On the contrary, first you accuse me of having a slanted view and not
> > > knowing what I'm talking about. Then about 20 lines down in this same
> > > post, you accuse me of "vague bullshit" and tell me to "put up or shut
> > > up."
> >
> > What specific aspect of said PDB is actionable, Nate? You keep evading
> > the question.
> >
> > > Your opinion obviously differs from mine, and you are welcome to it --
> > > as are we all.
> >
> > You have given NO evidence that you've even read said PDB, and your
> > statements show you do not understand it. What about the PDB is
> > actionable? What hints in it did he "miss", Nate?
>
> Did you have a point to make here? Other than to be insulting?
>
> Your idea appears to be that since none of the intelligence literally
> specified a time, place, and method of attack that the administration
> bears no responsibility to connect the dots. As I said before, you
> are certainly welcome to that opinion but mine will continue to
> differ.

...as nate once again sidesteps the question...

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 02:25:40 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:

Go read the Bible son, you will be amaze what you can find in the Holy Book.
God spoke to me last night and asked me to VOTE REPUBLICAN!

>I plan on being very informed. I'm going to listen to those people that
>have accurate knowledge of the issues and will give me the unbiased data I
>need to make a good decision. So far, I'm checking out opinions from Rosie
>O'Donnell, Barbara Striesand, and Ben Affleck. I've been watching the
>people standing on street corners holding signs with the names of their
>candidates. They would not be out there if it was not a good thing. Lawn
>signs are another good indicator that weighs in my choice of candidate to
>vote for.
>

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 02:22:17 -0500, "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote:

Are you better off than 4 years under Clinton and Gore?
I bet you will say "YES" like me. Anyway, God is on our side and we will win.

>From what I can tell, Kerry has one core belief: getting elected. He will
>say whatever it takes on that particular day to that particular audience to
>do so. He's had so many positions on Iraq that I don't really have any idea
>what his current position is except that, of course, he would have done
>everything different.
>
>todd

Fri, Oct 1, 2004, 11:07pm (EDT-3) [email protected]
(Florida=A0Patriot) spouts:
Two photos. The FOX news photo makes Bush 3 inches taller.<snip>

So? Probably taken at different angles. And, even if not, they're
only politiciants, not people, so who cares? Why bother us with
political crap? Anyway, doesn't look like their lips are moving, so
they probably aren't lying.



JOAT
We will never have great leaders as long as we mistake education for
intelligence, ambition for ability, and lack of transgression for
integrity.
- Unknown

appears more likely that they were taken at different angles.

"Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Two photos. The FOX news photo makes Bush 3 inches taller.
>
> AFP Photo on Yahoo:
> http://tinyurl.com/6mkeu
>
> Fudged Fox Photo:
> http://tinyurl.com/6tu5m

On 1 Oct 2004 23:07:42 -0700, Florida Patriot <[email protected]> wrote:
> Two photos. The FOX news photo makes Bush 3 inches taller.

Yes, two photos. One has Bush's mouth tightly closed, the other has
him with it partly open. Different color balance too; from this one
could conclude that they were taken with different cameras, presumably
from different places, and definately at different times.

> http://tinyurl.com/6mkeu > http://tinyurl.com/6tu5m

That's nice. Why not explain why Kerry didn't attend 3/4ths of the
Senate Intelligence Committee meetings he was supposed to be at.

On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 09:08:24 -0400, tony1158 <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's Fox "news" what do you expect??

Yeah, there ya go Tony, don't bother looking at the evidence or
anything to see that it's clearly two different photos rather than
one that Fox modified; it's so much easier to disregard Fox as
someone you don't agree with and accept the troll's premise without
thinking.

"Larry Bud" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Florida Patriot) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> Two photos. The FOX news photo makes Bush 3 inches taller.
>>
>> AFP Photo on Yahoo:
>> http://tinyurl.com/6mkeu
>>
>> Fudged Fox Photo:
>> http://tinyurl.com/6tu5m
>
> Two DIFFERENT photos, taken at two different instances. Put them side
> by side and see the difference. In one photo Kerry is talking, Bush
> has his mouth closed, and in the the other Kerry has his mouth half
> way closed, and Bush is talking. They are also standing farther apart
> in the Fox photo. Looks like the AP photo was taken a second later,
> as Bush walked down a STEP, as you can see his right arm is bent more
> in the photo. He is also leaning down a bit to his right.
>
> So obviously you have no sense of what being objective is.

At best, FOX chose the photo most flattering to Bush, despite the fact that
it gave an unrealistic impression.

At worse, they used a doctored photo. (Yes, the two photos are different,
but how do you explain the fact that Bush is so tall in the FOX photo?)

On 4 Oct 2004 20:37:53 -0700, Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> ...
>> That's nice. Why not explain why Kerry didn't attend 3/4ths of the
>> Senate Intelligence Committee meetings he was supposed to be at.
>
> It's true that Kerry missed a lot of meetings, and he should have done
> better. It's also true that he left the Senate intel committee well
> before 9/11 (though you wouldn't know that from the Bush ads).

The Bush ads have nothing to do with him missing meetings.
During the time he was supposed to be there, he wasn't there 3/4ths
of the time. Hell, he even felt it was so unimportant that he
didn't stay on the committee, apparently. So, the commercials should
say "not only didn't he go to 3/4ths of the meetings he was supposed
to, he felt it was so unimportant a subject that he quit the
committee entirely in (year). And now he wants to run the country?".

> It's also true that Bush has spent 42% of his presidency on vacation
> at either his Texas ranch, Camp David, or Kennebunkport.

Yes, and? Are you proposing that he isn't working when he's
at these three locations? Can you back up that assertion?

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 01:02:48 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Larry Bud" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Two DIFFERENT photos, taken at two different instances. Put them side
>> by side and see the difference. In one photo Kerry is talking, Bush
>> has his mouth closed, and in the the other Kerry has his mouth half
>> way closed, and Bush is talking.
>
> At best, FOX chose the photo most flattering to Bush, despite the fact that
> it gave an unrealistic impression.

What's unrealistic about a camera angle? Why do you care who looks
taller? You know what? Until this came up, I had no clue how tall
either of them were, let alone in relation to the other. That's
because _it doesn't matter_ unless you're all about style over
content. I can see why Kerry supporters would worry about
something like this that doesn't matter (it's all you've got to
work with), but don't project your personal failings to care about
things that matter onto the rest of us. It's not a faked photo,

> At worse, they used a doctored photo.

It's not. Yet your type will say "Even though the documents are
forgeries, let's talk about what they said anyway".

> (Yes, the two photos are different,
> but how do you explain the fact that Bush is so tall in the FOX photo?)

Please to be googling for the word "parallax". Get back to us once
you understand it. You must have encountered it at some point in your
life.

On 5 Oct 2004 15:46:07 -0700, Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>> Yes, and? Are you proposing that he isn't working when he's
>> at these three locations? Can you back up that assertion?
>
> No, I'm sure he's working really hard there. Telecommuting and all.
> I mean he was out there when he got that Aug 6 PDB, and he sure jumped
> all over that one.

OK Nate, let's go there, shall we?

What specifically in the August 6th PDB do you feel was actionable?
BinLadin doesn't like us, and they're scoping out _FEDERAL BUILDINGS_
in New York City?

Last I checked, the WTC is not, and never was, a or the Federal Building.

When justifying how you think the PDB was actionable, please be aware
that I will be comparing and contrasting your answer to the leftist
argument that we didn't have enough information to go into Iraq,
even though your boy Kerry voted for it (before he voted against it).

Tell me what in the PDB could have been acted on to prevent 9/11, Nate.

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 19:40:02 -0700, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> You're funny. First you jump all over Bush because drastic action did
> not ensue from a briefing with vague rumblings of a potential threat about
> possibly hijacking some airliners, somewhere with no real details. Then
> you turn around and excoriate him for acting on intelligence information
> that was much more specific and had a much higher level of confidence
> associated with it when he went into Iraq.

Aw man, I was just working him into that corner and you showed him the
cards. Oh well.

On 6 Oct 2004 09:35:24 -0700, Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<1097030353.jEm7ENdsxlHWarqAWQraGg@teranews>...
> ...
>> You're funny. First you jump all over Bush because drastic action did
>> not ensue from a briefing with vague rumblings of a potential threat about
>> possibly hijacking some airliners, somewhere with no real details.

> When you get a briefing on Aug 6 that's titled "Bin Laden Determined
> to Attack in US," it seems like as president you ought to pay some
> attention to it.

Yes. What specifically in that memo is actionable, Nate?

> The 9/11 commission showed an entire string of
> events that could have been detected if the intel team and the
> administration had been more on the ball.

The 9/11 commission has the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, as do you. Working
from the memo, nate, what specifically would you act on?

> On the other hand, it's becoming increasingly clear that there were no
> WMDs in Iraq, and that a lot of the intel community was saying so at
> the time.

Including your boy Kerry.

> So Bush failed to act on the intel leading up to 9/11,

What specifically are you seeing in that memo that nobody else did?

> and then he
> acted incorrectly and misinterpreted the intel to go into Iraq.
> That's poor judgement. Am I engaging in Monday-morning
> quarterbacking? Yep. But that's the disadvantage you have when you
> are the incumbent running for reelection.

...or his challenger who didn't even care enough to go to the committee
meetings, and then quit entirely...

On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 13:52:13 -0400, Al Reid <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> On 6 Oct 2004 09:35:24 -0700, Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > The 9/11 commission showed an entire string of
>> > events that could have been detected if the intel team and the
>> > administration had been more on the ball.
>>
>> The 9/11 commission has the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, as do you. Working
>> from the memo, nate, what specifically would you act on?

> Do you think that nate has actually read the 911 report and the August 8th PDB? Probably not.

Oh, I agree, he either hasn't read them, or he's selective in his
comprehension. I'm trying to determine which it is so I can work
from there. If one had taken action on the suspicions in the
PDB in question, there would be guards around the federal buildings
in NYC who would have been watching the real target get attacked.

> One thing that is interesting, in relation to the President always
> being on vacation crap, is that the 911 report documents cases
> where Tenet and others traveled to Crawford to deliver PDB's and
> to provide other briefings.

Yeah, but why use the actual facts and stuff when they aren't convenient
for misproving your nonpoint, y'see? Nate and his type can't actually
acknowledge that, or it shoots their counter to Kerry not caring
about the Intelligence Committee meetings.

On 6 Oct 2004 12:01:30 -0700, Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

>> The only consistent answer with many of these people is that whatever Bush
>> did at any time on any issue was wrong, and the exact opposite is what
>> should have been done, and only a democrat can fix it.
>
> Bit of an exaggeration, don't you think?
> When Bush makes choices that later turn out to be wrong, he gets
> criticized for it. That's the burden you carry as an incumbent --
> people see where you made mistakes. They second guess you for them.
> Being an incumbent is "hard work."

And being a Senator who agrees with the reasons and decisions
doesn't come with that same burden then, Nate?

> It's certainly not necessary to have a Democrat in office to fix it.
> Heck, I'd be glad to vote for a Republican ticket of McCain and
> Powell. Too bad that's not who the Republicans are running.

Too bad you keep evading my direct question of what in the August
6th memo is specific enough to be actionable, Nate.

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 19:38:08 -0700, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6 Oct 2004 15:09:04 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Aw man, I was just working him into that corner and you showed him the
>>cards. Oh well.
>
> Sorry.

No problem, he'll weasel anyway.

On 6 Oct 2004 22:40:39 -0700, Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> On 6 Oct 2004 12:01:30 -0700, Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > That's the burden you carry as an incumbent --
>> > people see where you made mistakes.
>>
>> And being a Senator who agrees with the reasons and decisions
>> doesn't come with that same burden then, Nate?

> No, it doesn't come with the same burden. The Presidency is a far
> larger job than being a senator, and I think that most people would
> agree that it comes with much greater authority, responsibility, and
> accountability.

And yet, Kerry wants to _be_ President, but you don't feel that he should
be held to Presidential standards to decide if he's qualified?

> I hope that you are not implying that Kerry has agreed with all of
> Bush's reasons and decisions. That would certainly be false.

Kerry said SH was dangerous and needed to be stopped. Do I have
to break out the quotes yet again, Nate?

>> Too bad you keep evading my direct question of what in the August
>> 6th memo is specific enough to be actionable, Nate.
>
> You mean the memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US,"
> discussing Al Qaeda plots to hijack planes, that was presented to the
> President less than four weeks prior to the 9/11 attacks?

Yes, Nate, that memo. What specifically in that memo was actionable?
Meaning, show me a sentence from the memo, and tell me what Bush should
have done based on that sentence. Move to the next one. Lather, rinse,
repeat. Don't just re-parrot the title. We knew Bin Ladin wanted to
attack us, he had done so several times in the Clinton administration
after all. Which federal buildings in NYC were attacked, Nate?

> Yes, I agree it doesn't spell out the where, when, and how.

Wonderful. We're getting somewhere. If the memo doesn't give a where,
a when, or a how, what specifically should Bush have done based on
said memo that would have prevented the 9/11 attacks? (show your work).

> Here are
> a number of other examples that don't spell out the where, when, and
> how:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30176-2002May16.html
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35744-2002May17.html

...with the benefit of 8 months of hindsight...and a rehash of the same
vague unactionable memo...

> http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/16/wcia16.xml

"ISRAELI intelligence officials say that they warned their counterparts
in the United States last month that large-scale terrorist attacks on
highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent."

In other words "Something is gonna happen and it's gonna be big". What
specifically would YOU do, Nate, given that warning? Where would you
put the security forces, Nate, and what would they be watching for?

> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/wnt_missedsignals_1_020218.html

20/20 hindsight and unactionably vague. Keep trying, Nate.

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30176-2002May16.html

Same link as above. Still vague and unactionable.

> http://www.cjr.org/year/01/6/evans.asp

"Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers"

Yeah, Nate, that's certainly specific enough to blame Bush for not
acting on it. Sheesh.

"GaryH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:fUY8d.1822$Ua.258@trndny04...
>>
>> "mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >
>> > You won't bother because you can't. In both images the vertical camera
>> > angle is the same and any sublte difference in focal length doesn't
>> > matter.
>> >
>>
>> If you honestly think it is the same photo, you have more perception
>> problems that can be solved in this newsgroup.
>>
>> Remember the cartoons and puzzles from grammar school that had you find
> the differences in the pictures? Perhaps you'd find them a challenge.
>>

>Well said!

Pawlowski misread mp's post and so attacked him for something he didn't say.

Then he insulted him personally without provocation.

Yeah, "well said." Right.

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

> I do care greatly when the media organizations attempt to manipulate the
> truth to serve their own ideological agenda. And so should you.

Yes, we all should care about this a great deal. Informed voters being
essential to democracy.

Jeff Harper

>> At best, FOX chose the photo most flattering to Bush, despite the
>> fact that it gave an unrealistic impression.
>>
>> At worse, they used a doctored photo. (Yes, the two photos are
>> different,
>> but how do you explain the fact that Bush is so tall in the FOX photo?)

> Camera angle, STEPS (did you not hear that the first time?), leaning
> down in the first photo. Geez. Go drink your kool aide.


So you are going with the best case scenario? That FOX didn't doctor the
picture but chose the one out of hundreds that flattered Bush even though it
misrepresented his relative height.

Question for you: What's up with all the "kool aide" references I see
scattered about the newsgroups these days? What's the origin?

On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 15:05:58 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> I do care greatly when the media organizations attempt to manipulate the
>> truth to serve their own ideological agenda. And so should you.
>
> Yes, we all should care about this a great deal. Informed voters being
> essential to democracy.

That's great, Jeff. Are you suggesting that this photo you're going on
and on about has anything to do with "manipulated truth"? Two different
photos. Two different camera angles. Complete non-story over a non-issue.

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 15:05:58 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> "mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> I do care greatly when the media organizations attempt to manipulate the
>>> truth to serve their own ideological agenda. And so should you.
>>
>> Yes, we all should care about this a great deal. Informed voters being
>> essential to democracy.
>
> That's great, Jeff. Are you suggesting that this photo you're going on
> and on about has anything to do with "manipulated truth"? Two different
> photos. Two different camera angles. Complete non-story over a
> non-issue.

Absolutely. Doctored or not, it was chosen to "misrepresent" Bush's "true"
height favorably.

On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 15:31:04 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> That's great, Jeff. Are you suggesting that this photo you're going on
>> and on about has anything to do with "manipulated truth"? Two different
>> photos. Two different camera angles. Complete non-story over a
>> non-issue.
>
> Absolutely. Doctored or not, it was chosen to "misrepresent" Bush's "true"
> height favorably.

So let me get this straight. Instead of caring why, for instance, your
boy Kerry missed 3/4ths of the meetings he was supposed to go to (before
he quit altogether), you're upset at Bush because you feel Fox chose
this photograph rather than a different one?

On 7 Oct 2004 12:30:50 -0700, Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

>> Oh, I agree, he either hasn't read them, or he's selective in his
>> comprehension. I'm trying to determine which it is so I can work
>> from there. If one had taken action on the suspicions in the
>> PDB in question, there would be guards around the federal buildings
>> in NYC who would have been watching the real target get attacked.
>
> Heh, now you guys are pretending to know what I've read and what I
> haven't read.

I don't have to know if you've read it or not to know that you haven't
_understood_ it, Nate.

>> Yeah, but why use the actual facts and stuff when they aren't convenient
>> for misproving your nonpoint, y'see? Nate and his type can't actually
>> acknowledge that, or it shoots their counter to Kerry not caring
>> about the Intelligence Committee meetings.
>
> What actual facts do you dispute? That the government missed multiple
> warnings leading up to 9/11? Including the PDB as well as several
> others? That is in fact pretty well established.

What specific aspects of the PDB do you feel are actionable, Nate? Provide
the wording and the suggested logical action that was not taken. This
isn't the first time I've asked what specifically you think was "missed"
in the PDB.

> Recently, the Bush campaign and his supporters are repeating all over
> the stump that the US will be less safe under Kerry. That only Bush
> will be resolute in protecting them against the terrorists. That if
> Kerry is elected, that the terrorists will hit us again. Personally,
> I think that's pretty ironic -- considering that the ONLY major
> domestic terrorist attack actually occurred while BUSH was supposed to
> be protecting us.

Oh, so all of the other OBL attacks, which Clinton ignored and which made
OBL that much more bold didn't actually happen? <boggle>

On 7 Oct 2004 12:40:23 -0700, Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>> What specifically in the August 6th PDB do you feel was actionable?
>> BinLadin doesn't like us, and they're scoping out _FEDERAL BUILDINGS_
>> in New York City?
>> Last I checked, the WTC is not, and never was, a or the Federal Building.
>> Tell me what in the PDB could have been acted on to prevent 9/11, Nate.
>
> Yes, of course the Aug 6 PDB didn't spell out exactly where, when, and
> how the terrorists would attack. It was only one of many warnings,
> which were deprioritized, ignored, or overlooked.

Each of which was unactionably vague. "Something is going on", yes.
Obviously. "Something is going on and here's something specific to
act on to prevent it", no. Not even with 20/20 hindsight.

> It's much harder to have to connect the dots: to exercise judgement,
> assign priorities, and to be focused on signs of an impending attack.
> To take proactive steps that substantially make the country safer
> before an attack occurs.

And yet, when Bush (with Kerry's support, until he voted against it before
he voted for it) does that in Iraq, your type whines that the intel was
wrong and that he made the wrong decision.

Do you not see your own contradiction? Bush is wrong because he didn't
act on vague non-specific threats, while he's also wrong because he _did_
act on non-vague specific threats? Can't you see how those are contradictory?

> For me (and several million other
> voters like me) it's part of a consistent pattern of bad judgment and
> wrong decisions that will cause me to vote against the incumbent.

Too bad you're not aware that your boy Kerry agreed with Bush. Just ask
him.

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 15:31:04 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> That's great, Jeff. Are you suggesting that this photo you're going on
>>> and on about has anything to do with "manipulated truth"? Two different
>>> photos. Two different camera angles. Complete non-story over a
>>> non-issue.
>>
>> Absolutely. Doctored or not, it was chosen to "misrepresent" Bush's
>> "true"
>> height favorably.
>
> So let me get this straight. Instead of caring why, for instance, your
> boy Kerry missed 3/4ths of the meetings he was supposed to go to (before
> he quit altogether), you're upset at Bush because you feel Fox chose
> this photograph rather than a different one?

LOL.

You're reasoning is brilliant. I'll take that as a concession.

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> >> At best, FOX chose the photo most flattering to Bush, despite the
>> >> fact that it gave an unrealistic impression.
>> >>
>> >> At worse, they used a doctored photo. (Yes, the two photos are
>> >> different,
>> >> but how do you explain the fact that Bush is so tall in the FOX
>> >> photo?)
>>
>> > Camera angle, STEPS (did you not hear that the first time?), leaning
>> > down in the first photo. Geez. Go drink your kool aide.
>>
>>
>> So you are going with the best case scenario? That FOX didn't doctor the
>> picture but chose the one out of hundreds that flattered Bush even though
> it
>> misrepresented his relative height.
>>
>> Question for you: What's up with all the "kool aide" references I see
>> scattered about the newsgroups these days? What's the origin?
>
> It's a reference to Jim Jones, a cult leader in the seventies who, along
> with 900 or so followers established a community called Jonestown in
> Guyana.
> On November 18, 1978, Jones ordered a mass suicide by commanding his
> followers to drink a cyanide-laden punch. So, someone who is "drinking
> the
> Kool-Aid" is a blind follower willing to do anything at their leader's
> command.
>

I'm familiar with Jonestown but I didn't get it as applied to those who
oppose Bush's re-election. Thanks for the explanation.

I see lots of Bush supporters using it. Has it been put out by the
right-wing radio/TV talk shows?

On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 19:34:50 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

>> So let me get this straight. Instead of caring why, for instance, your
>> boy Kerry missed 3/4ths of the meetings he was supposed to go to (before
>> he quit altogether), you're upset at Bush because you feel Fox chose
>> this photograph rather than a different one?

> LOL. You're reasoning is brilliant. I'll take that as a concession.

You need help in reading comprehension then, Jeff. My point, which I'll
ask more clearly, is this: Why do you give a shit about something which
doesn't matter, when your boy Kerry doesn't bother doing the job he has,
and wants a promotion? Just because you think their relative height matters
doesn't mean anyone else does, and certainly doesn't mean that Fox should
bother to care about the height of one or the other. Do you really think
that after Dan Rather got caught lying that _anyone_ is going to pull
any crap for a while?

On 7 Oct 2004 21:04:53 -0700, Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> On 7 Oct 2004 12:30:50 -0700, Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote:

>> > Heh, now you guys are pretending to know what I've read and what I
>> > haven't read.

>> I don't have to know if you've read it or not to know that you haven't
>> _understood_ it, Nate.

> Come on, Dave. You can do better than just attacking me and then
> obfuscating.

I'm not attacking or obfuscating anything. But if you're claiming that
the PDB had _anything_ in it that could have been acted on to prevent
9/11, it's obvious that you don't understand what's in said PDB.

> Are you trying to deny that many cues were missed leading up to 9/11,
> including (among others) the PDB?

Please tell me specifically what in the PDB you would have acted on.

> Or are you just suggesting that because nobody spelled it out in big
> bold capital letters to the president, specifying the exact time and
> place, that he bears no responsibility for the colossal failure that
> happened under his watch? It appears to me that you hold a very low
> standard of performance for the president.

And yet, when we have obvious signs, a dictator threatening action,
and all the other stuff Iraq presented, we're wrong for acting. I see.
You're inconsistant; the only thing common is that you disagree with
Bush no matter what.

>> What specific aspects of the PDB do you feel are actionable, Nate? Provide
>> the wording and the suggested logical action that was not taken. This
>> isn't the first time I've asked what specifically you think was "missed"
>> in the PDB.
>
> I think I've already addressed this at least once previously, and
> again above.

No, you haven't. Show me the words, tell me what you would have done.
Vague bullshit doesn't cut it, Nate. Put up or shut up.

> I have already said that although the memo titled "Bin
> Laden Determined to Attack in US"

News flash: he already had, several times, when Clinton was president. This
was not news. A logical response was and is, "Yes? And?"

> did not specify an exact time and
> place. And I have already said that my opinion is that sufficient
> warning existed in the PDB and in multiple other sources that alarm
> bells should have been going off for this administration.

They were. What was he supposed to do, Nate? Even with 20/20 hindsight,
what in that memo was accurate at all, let alone accurate enough to
prevent 9/11, Nate?

> They
> weren't. Obviously, your opinion and expectation of the president
> differs from mine, but the observation that multiple intel and
> priority failures led up to 9/11 is not subjective ... it is a matter
> of fact to any reasonable person.

Details. What details do you mean? "He doesn't like us and something
big is gonna happen" is pretty much what all the intel showed. If you can
show anything actionable I'll listen, but right now it keeps being you saying
"He should have guessed based on vague intel" (while blaming him for Iraq
where he acted based on better intel).

>> > Personally,
>> > I think that's pretty ironic -- considering that the ONLY major
>> > domestic terrorist attack actually occurred while BUSH was supposed to
>> > be protecting us.

>> Oh, so all of the other OBL attacks, which Clinton ignored and which made
>> OBL that much more bold didn't actually happen? <boggle>

> I am not sure what your statement has to do with the section you're
> replying to. Perhaps you are trying to blame 9/11 on Clinton? No,
> that would be just too silly.

Let me be clear on this, then. Clinton had many opportunities to react
in a useful way to OBL's attacks. After every one of them, he completely
and utterly failed to do so. Each non-response from the US emboldened OBL
further - "all bark and no bite" is what he saw. Had the response to
the first OBL attack, or the second, or the third, been swift and
intense, I have no doubt that 9/11 would not have happened. Your boy Clinton
missed so many opportunities to do something about it, and failed to do so.

What in the PDB was specific enough to be actionable, Nate? Give me quotes.

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 07:07:31 -0500, Geroge Barns <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I bet you will say "YES" like me. Anyway, God is on our side and we will win.

Sheesh. This guy is like a sock-puppet parody of a religious nutjob.
Thanks, Geroge, but you're not contributing in a positive way to
changing anyone's mind. Bye, Geroge.

>> And the UN inspectors said they had found
>> nothing -- even when our government gave them a list of places to
>> look.
>
> Notably, UNMOVIC used helicopters and sometimes arived onsite
> within hours of receiving the latest intelligence from the US.

WHAT HANS BLIX HAD TO SAY ABOUT BUSH'S DECISIONS:

On Thursday, Hans Blix told BBC television: "We went to a great many sites
that were given to us by intelligence, and only in three cases did we find
anything -- and they did not relate to weapons of mass destruction.

"That shook me a bit, I must say ... We had been told that they would give
the best intelligence they had, so I thought: 'My God, if this is the best
intelligence they had and we find nothing, what about the rest?"'

U.N. inspectors were only allowed to search for 3½ months before the United
States and Britain launched their invasion, which Blix said was too short.

"A couple of months more would have further shown the weakness in evidence
for weapons of mass destruction, because there weren't any," Blix said. "The
evidence that was invoked by the U.S. and the U.K. would have fallen further
apart."

"President Bush implied that you must act in advance to prevent and to
preempt. However, there was not, at that time, the slightest sign of future
Iraqi terror attacks."


Blix: U.S. Certainty Was Suspect
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/iraq/main560384.shtml

Hans Blix: U.S. began a 'war chosen'
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2004/04/29/TopStories/Hans-Blix.U.Began.A.war.Chosen-674714.shtml

"Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> >> And the UN inspectors said they had found
>> >> nothing -- even when our government gave them a list of places to
>> >> look.
>> >
>> > Notably, UNMOVIC used helicopters and sometimes arived onsite
>> > within hours of receiving the latest intelligence from the US.
>>
>> WHAT HANS BLIX HAD TO SAY ABOUT BUSH'S DECISIONS:
>>
>
> Who cares? Blix was out of the loop and was but one piece of the puzzle
> anyway.

Are you crazy? Bush was on the scene and in charge.

On 8 Oct 2004 15:58:10 -0700, Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>> I'm not attacking or obfuscating anything. But if you're claiming that
>> the PDB had _anything_ in it that could have been acted on to prevent
>> 9/11, it's obvious that you don't understand what's in said PDB.
> (rest snipped)
>
> On the contrary, first you accuse me of having a slanted view and not
> knowing what I'm talking about. Then about 20 lines down in this same
> post, you accuse me of "vague bullshit" and tell me to "put up or shut
> up."

What specific aspect of said PDB is actionable, Nate? You keep evading
the question.

> Your opinion obviously differs from mine, and you are welcome to it --
> as are we all.

You have given NO evidence that you've even read said PDB, and your
statements show you do not understand it. What about the PDB is
actionable? What hints in it did he "miss", Nate?

"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> >> And the UN inspectors said they had found
>>> >> nothing -- even when our government gave them a list of places to
>>> >> look.
>>> >
>>> > Notably, UNMOVIC used helicopters and sometimes arived onsite
>>> > within hours of receiving the latest intelligence from the US.
>>>
>>> WHAT HANS BLIX HAD TO SAY ABOUT BUSH'S DECISIONS:
>>>
>>
>> Who cares? Blix was out of the loop and was but one piece of the puzzle
>> anyway.
>
> Are you crazy? Bush was on the scene and in charge.

Err, Blix was on the scene and in charge.

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:46:58 -0500, ray <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:00:21 +0000, Dave Hinz wrote:
>
>>> It's also true that Bush has spent 42% of his presidency on vacation
>>> at either his Texas ranch, Camp David, or Kennebunkport.
>>
>> Yes, and? Are you proposing that he isn't working when he's
>> at these three locations? Can you back up that assertion?
>
> "Now watch this drive."

How is that relevant, Ray? Guy's not allowed to go golfing now?
Why did Kerry miss 3/4ths of the Senate Intelligence Committee meetings
before he quit altogether, and now he pretends that he cares about
national security? How do you justify that to your own mind?

On 11 Oct 2004 23:37:51 -0700, Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

>> What specific aspect of said PDB is actionable, Nate? You keep evading
>> the question.
>> You have given NO evidence that you've even read said PDB, and your
>> statements show you do not understand it. What about the PDB is
>> actionable? What hints in it did he "miss", Nate?
>
> Did you have a point to make here? Other than to be insulting?

What about the PDB is specific and/or accurate enough for him to have
acted on, Nate?

> Your idea appears to be that since none of the intelligence literally
> specified a time, place, and method of attack that the administration
> bears no responsibility to connect the dots. As I said before, you
> are certainly welcome to that opinion but mine will continue to
> differ.

You keep saying he missed hints in that PDB. Which hints were in the PDB
and what actions should he have taken, Nate? You can keep pretending that
this isn't what I'm asking, and I'll keep asking it until you either give
some information or concede that there's nothing there that's actionable.

On 12 Oct 2004 05:49:28 -0700, Larry Bud <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It's certainly not necessary to have a Democrat in office to fix it.
>> Heck, I'd be glad to vote for a Republican ticket of McCain and
>> Powell. Too bad that's not who the Republicans are running.
>
> McCain's a Republican?
> In registration only.

Sure, he's the best Republican the Democrats have.

> > >> At best, FOX chose the photo most flattering to Bush, despite the
> > >> fact that it gave an unrealistic impression.
> > >>
> > >> At worse, they used a doctored photo. (Yes, the two photos are
> > >> different, but how do you explain the fact that Bush is so tall in
> > >> the FOX photo?)

> > > Camera angle, STEPS (did you not hear that the first time?), leaning
> > > down in the first photo. Geez. Go drink your kool aide.

> > So you are going with the best case scenario?

> No, I'm going with the fact that a photo is a photo, and unless you
> have proof that it's doctored, it's a very irresponsible assertion to
> make. Let's see your proof.

Ah, so you deny the possibility of the best case scenario, that FOX at a
minimum chose the photo over others because it flattered Bush, appeared to
make him look nearly as tall as Kerry.



> > Question for you: What's up with all the "kool aide" references I see
> > scattered about the newsgroups these days? What's the origin?
>
> I see someone else answered this. It an apt, albeit exaggerated
> comment when you guys sit there and blindly follow your leaders.

The irony! The irony of your crowd--the blind-faith Bush
apologists--calling others "followers." Liberals have *never* had a
reputation for being unquestioning followers. You concoct that in order to
make yourselves feel less like the carnivorous sheep that you are.

And by the way, you're also incorrect to make the assumption that those
posters here who are interested in journalistic integrity are all Kerry
supporters, and further still when you assume they are all liberals.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

"Larry Bud" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > It's certainly not necessary to have a Democrat in office to fix it.
> > Heck, I'd be glad to vote for a Republican ticket of McCain and
> > Powell. Too bad that's not who the Republicans are running.
>
> McCain's a Republican?
>
> In registration only.


He's much more of a traditional Republican than Bush, Cheney, etc.

Remember when Republican stood for fiscal responsibility and no-nonsense,
direct honesty?

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:46:58 -0500, ray <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:00:21 +0000, Dave Hinz wrote:
> >
> >>> It's also true that Bush has spent 42% of his presidency on vacation
> >>> at either his Texas ranch, Camp David, or Kennebunkport.
> >>
> >> Yes, and? Are you proposing that he isn't working when he's
> >> at these three locations? Can you back up that assertion?
> >
> > "Now watch this drive."
>
> How is that relevant, Ray? Guy's not allowed to go golfing now?
> Why did Kerry miss 3/4ths of the Senate Intelligence Committee meetings
> before he quit altogether, and now he pretends that he cares about
> national security? How do you justify that to your own mind?

Oh Bullshit. You and your ilk love quoting bullshit stats that are clearly
misrepresentative of the truth. (How do *you* justify that?)

Like Kerry and Edwards being the most liberal democrat senators, when the
publication you're citing said that when you actually look at the last four
years, Kerry wasn't even in the most liberal 20%, and Edwards wasn't even in
the most liberal 50%.

Your "3/4th" bullshit stat refers to attendance *while they were
campaigning*.

You ignore the same about Bush and Cheney.

Cheney saying he presided over the senate most Tuesdays and had never met
Edwards. What crap! *Cheney presided over the senate exactly two times in
his almost four years*. And, interestingly, Edwards took his place two of
the times he didn't show. (Oh, and it's documented that Cheney met Edwards
publicly on three occasions.)

You carnivorous sheep eagerly swallow and then just as eagerly regurgitate a
vile spew of unethical neo-conservative PR. You have no respect for truth
and reason.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:52:54 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Ah, so you deny the possibility of the best case scenario, that FOX at a
> minimum chose the photo over others because it flattered Bush, appeared to
> make him look nearly as tall as Kerry.

I think whoever you're quoting (you trimmed attributions completely)
is saying that you're accusing the press of doing something that only
someone grasping at straws would give a shit about.

> The irony! The irony of your crowd--the blind-faith Bush
> apologists--calling others "followers." Liberals have *never* had a
> reputation for being unquestioning followers. You concoct that in order to
> make yourselves feel less like the carnivorous sheep that you are.

There's irony involved here Jeff, but you're too blind to see it.
Why did your boy miss 3/4ths of the meetings he should have been at?

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:09:17 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:46:58 -0500, ray <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > "Now watch this drive."
>>
>> How is that relevant, Ray? Guy's not allowed to go golfing now?
>> Why did Kerry miss 3/4ths of the Senate Intelligence Committee meetings
>> before he quit altogether, and now he pretends that he cares about
>> national security? How do you justify that to your own mind?
>
> Oh Bullshit. You and your ilk love quoting bullshit stats that are clearly
> misrepresentative of the truth. (How do *you* justify that?)

Was he on the Senate Intelligence Committee? Did he miss 3/4ths of the
meetings? Pretty simple fact-check Jeff, yes or no? Which of these
statements are you saying is false, Jeff? Or, are you disagreeing that
he quit the committee?

> Like Kerry and Edwards being the most liberal democrat senators, when the
> publication you're citing said

What publication am I citing, Jeff? Do you have me confused with
someone else, mayhaps?

> that when you actually look at the last four
> years, Kerry wasn't even in the most liberal 20%, and Edwards wasn't even in
> the most liberal 50%.

> Your "3/4th" bullshit stat refers to attendance *while they were
> campaigning*.

No it doesn't, Jeff. Bloody fucking hell. Fine. Hold on while I spend 30
seconds googling _for you_.

Jeff. Click on this:
http://www.factcheck.org/article241.html
It says that if anything, Bush's commercial understates how bad
Kerry's attendance was. In part:
(begin quote)
As support for that statement, the Bush campaign states that Kerry is
listed as present at only 11 of the 49 public meetings of the committee
while he was a member, from 1993 through January, 2001, when Kerry left
the committee.
(end quote)

So, Jeff, what was that about "while they were campaigning"?

> You ignore the same about Bush and Cheney.

I do?

> Cheney saying he presided over the senate most Tuesdays and had never met
> Edwards. What crap! *Cheney presided over the senate exactly two times in
> his almost four years*. And, interestingly, Edwards took his place two of
> the times he didn't show. (Oh, and it's documented that Cheney met Edwards
> publicly on three occasions.)

"met" and "were at the same place" are two different things. And it's
_very_ different in scale from your boy claiming he gives a shit about
national security when he couldn't even bother to go to the meetings about
it before he quit the committee altogether.

> You carnivorous sheep eagerly swallow and then just as eagerly regurgitate a
> vile spew of unethical neo-conservative PR.

So fact-check.org is "neo-conservative PR" now, Jeff? Have you _looked
at_ the site?

> You have no respect for truth
> and reason.

And you'll deny it even though it's right in front of you, from a source
that even you can't credibly call biased but will anyway. It's called
_truth_; something you deny.

Dave Hinz

On 12 Oct 2004 21:39:57 -0700, Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>> You keep saying he missed hints in that PDB. Which hints were in the PDB
>> and what actions should he have taken, Nate? You can keep pretending that
>> this isn't what I'm asking, and I'll keep asking it until you either give
>> some information or concede that there's nothing there that's actionable.
>
> Well, you can certainly believe what you like. But for most people,
> receiving a Presidential Daily Briefing that is entitled "Bin Laden
> Determined to Attack in US" would probably lead them to think that
> their intelligence experts thought ... well, that Bin Laden was
> determined to attack in the US.

Yes, we knew he was determined to attack us, by that time he had done so
a half dozen times. You keep not telling me what in the PDB he "missed",
Nate.

> If you're the president, maybe you
> might think about having some guys check into it. Maybe request a
> followup. Maybe ask a few questions of your NSA adviser, or talk to
> your CIA director. You might want to do this especially if the
> outgoing administration said that this Bin Laden guy might be a
> problem.

...and yet the previous administration pussy-footed around him, failed to
take him into custody when he was offered, and blew up a tent.

> But no, for you guys a memo must presented that specifies exactly the
> time, place, method, and motive. It must be spelled out such that any
> fool cannot possibly miss it. Otherwise it's not "actionable." It's
> "historical."

WHAT ABOUT THE MEMO ARE YOU SEEING THAT NOBODY ELSE IS, NATE?

> God help us all if the rest of the voters really have such low
> expectations of our government.

Face it, Nate. You brought up the PDB, I told you it's useless and
vague, _then_ you went and read it and found out I'm right. Because
you can't admit you're wrong, you keep pretending that I'm not asking
you what Bush missed in the memo. Why can't you just admit the PDB
is useless and move on to your next wrong assumption?

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:52:54 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >
> > Ah, so you deny the possibility of the best case scenario, that FOX at a
> > minimum chose the photo over others because it flattered Bush, appeared
to
> > make him look nearly as tall as Kerry.
>
> I think whoever you're quoting (you trimmed attributions completely)
> is saying that you're accusing the press of doing something that only
> someone grasping at straws would give a shit about.

You need to work on your reading comprehension.


> > The irony! The irony of your crowd--the blind-faith Bush
> > apologists--calling others "followers." Liberals have *never* had a
> > reputation for being unquestioning followers. You concoct that in order
to
> > make yourselves feel less like the carnivorous sheep that you are.
>
> There's irony involved here Jeff, but you're too blind to see it.
> Why did your boy miss 3/4ths of the meetings he should have been at?

Uh huh. Sure. There's irony that I don't get but you do. But you're not
going to tell anyone. LOL

Regarding your question, what? Why are you changing the subject so entirely
and abruptly?

In answer, however, you disingenuous sophist, I'll point out that you are
just regurgitating misleading neo-conservative bullshit. And you didn't
even get that right--the question right. 3/4 of what meetings? 3/4 of what
meetings over what period of time? I know the answers to these questions;
you don't obviously. Look 'em up, check 'em out on a non-partisan site, and
if you still think there's legitimacy to them, c'mon back here and I'll
stomp a puddle in your chest with the facts and basic reasoning.

All "your boy" has is a campaign based on misleading the American people on
what actually happened in Iraq and domestically during the last four years,
and based on misrepresenting and mischaracterizing Kerry. Distortion and
lies are your friends.

Jeff Harper

> > Well, you can certainly believe what you like. But for most people,
> > receiving a Presidential Daily Briefing that is entitled "Bin Laden
> > Determined to Attack in US" would probably lead them to think that
> > their intelligence experts thought ... well, that Bin Laden was
> > determined to attack in the US.

> No shit, dumbass..

Why are so many of the Bush neo-conservatives nasty, petty assholes?

Nate said nothing personally insulting.

And he's above replying in kind. I'm not. Do I lower myself? Perhaps.

At least my description of you is categorically accurate, unlike yours of
Nate.

Jeff Harper

"Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the
presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in
session."
--Dick Cheney

It looks like Cheney actually presided over the Senate only twice in his
almost four years as Vice President. Ironically, Edwards took his place two
of the times Cheney was absent.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/6/11163/2940



"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:09:17 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >
> > "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:46:58 -0500, ray <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Now watch this drive."
> >>
> >> How is that relevant, Ray? Guy's not allowed to go golfing now?
> >> Why did Kerry miss 3/4ths of the Senate Intelligence Committee meetings
> >> before he quit altogether, and now he pretends that he cares about
> >> national security? How do you justify that to your own mind?
> >
> > Oh Bullshit. You and your ilk love quoting bullshit stats that are
clearly
> > misrepresentative of the truth. (How do *you* justify that?)
>
> Was he on the Senate Intelligence Committee? Did he miss 3/4ths of the
> meetings? Pretty simple fact-check Jeff, yes or no? Which of these
> statements are you saying is false, Jeff? Or, are you disagreeing that
> he quit the committee?
>
> > Like Kerry and Edwards being the most liberal democrat senators, when
the
> > publication you're citing said
>
> What publication am I citing, Jeff? Do you have me confused with
> someone else, mayhaps?
>
> > that when you actually look at the last four
> > years, Kerry wasn't even in the most liberal 20%, and Edwards wasn't
even in
> > the most liberal 50%.
>
> > Your "3/4th" bullshit stat refers to attendance *while they were
> > campaigning*.
>
> No it doesn't, Jeff. Bloody fucking hell. Fine. Hold on while I spend
30
> seconds googling _for you_.
>
> Jeff. Click on this:
> http://www.factcheck.org/article241.html
> It says that if anything, Bush's commercial understates how bad
> Kerry's attendance was. In part:
> (begin quote)
> As support for that statement, the Bush campaign states that Kerry is
> listed as present at only 11 of the 49 public meetings of the committee
> while he was a member, from 1993 through January, 2001, when Kerry left
> the committee.
> (end quote)
>
> So, Jeff, what was that about "while they were campaigning"?
>
> > You ignore the same about Bush and Cheney.
>
> I do?
>
> > Cheney saying he presided over the senate most Tuesdays and had never
met
> > Edwards. What crap! *Cheney presided over the senate exactly two times
in
> > his almost four years*. And, interestingly, Edwards took his place two
of
> > the times he didn't show. (Oh, and it's documented that Cheney met
Edwards
> > publicly on three occasions.)
>
> "met" and "were at the same place" are two different things. And it's
> _very_ different in scale from your boy claiming he gives a shit about
> national security when he couldn't even bother to go to the meetings about
> it before he quit the committee altogether.
>
> > You carnivorous sheep eagerly swallow and then just as eagerly
regurgitate a
> > vile spew of unethical neo-conservative PR.
>
> So fact-check.org is "neo-conservative PR" now, Jeff? Have you _looked
> at_ the site?
>
> > You have no respect for truth
> > and reason.
>
> And you'll deny it even though it's right in front of you, from a source
> that even you can't credibly call biased but will anyway. It's called
> _truth_; something you deny.
>
> Dave Hinz

It didn't take long after the ratings were published in February for
Republicans and talking heads to start using Kerry's rating as a weapon
against him. Sometimes, the people citing the ratings would note that Kerry
was ranked as the most liberal senator in 2003. More often, the sound bite
would be that National Journal had ranked Kerry as "the most liberal
senator," without any reference to 2003. Occasionally, Republicans would
assert that Kerry had been ranked the most liberal senator on the basis of
his entire Senate career.

But if the standard is votes over a lifetime, Kerry isn't the most liberal
senator. By that measure, Kerry is the 11th-most-liberal senator, coming in
below such Democrats as Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, Barbara Boxer of
California, and, yes, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, according to a
National Journal analysis published in March.

John Edwards, who was ranked the fourth-most-liberal senator in 2003 (and
who also missed many votes that year), is the 27th-most-liberal senator
based on votes over his career.

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2004/0830nj_liberalratings.htm



"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:09:17 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >
> > "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:46:58 -0500, ray <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Now watch this drive."
> >>
> >> How is that relevant, Ray? Guy's not allowed to go golfing now?
> >> Why did Kerry miss 3/4ths of the Senate Intelligence Committee meetings
> >> before he quit altogether, and now he pretends that he cares about
> >> national security? How do you justify that to your own mind?
> >
> > Oh Bullshit. You and your ilk love quoting bullshit stats that are
clearly
> > misrepresentative of the truth. (How do *you* justify that?)
>
> Was he on the Senate Intelligence Committee? Did he miss 3/4ths of the
> meetings? Pretty simple fact-check Jeff, yes or no? Which of these
> statements are you saying is false, Jeff? Or, are you disagreeing that
> he quit the committee?
>
> > Like Kerry and Edwards being the most liberal democrat senators, when
the
> > publication you're citing said
>
> What publication am I citing, Jeff? Do you have me confused with
> someone else, mayhaps?
>
> > that when you actually look at the last four
> > years, Kerry wasn't even in the most liberal 20%, and Edwards wasn't
even in
> > the most liberal 50%.
>
> > Your "3/4th" bullshit stat refers to attendance *while they were
> > campaigning*.
>
> No it doesn't, Jeff. Bloody fucking hell. Fine. Hold on while I spend
30
> seconds googling _for you_.
>
> Jeff. Click on this:
> http://www.factcheck.org/article241.html
> It says that if anything, Bush's commercial understates how bad
> Kerry's attendance was. In part:
> (begin quote)
> As support for that statement, the Bush campaign states that Kerry is
> listed as present at only 11 of the 49 public meetings of the committee
> while he was a member, from 1993 through January, 2001, when Kerry left
> the committee.
> (end quote)
>
> So, Jeff, what was that about "while they were campaigning"?
>
> > You ignore the same about Bush and Cheney.
>
> I do?
>
> > Cheney saying he presided over the senate most Tuesdays and had never
met
> > Edwards. What crap! *Cheney presided over the senate exactly two times
in
> > his almost four years*. And, interestingly, Edwards took his place two
of
> > the times he didn't show. (Oh, and it's documented that Cheney met
Edwards
> > publicly on three occasions.)
>
> "met" and "were at the same place" are two different things. And it's
> _very_ different in scale from your boy claiming he gives a shit about
> national security when he couldn't even bother to go to the meetings about
> it before he quit the committee altogether.
>
> > You carnivorous sheep eagerly swallow and then just as eagerly
regurgitate a
> > vile spew of unethical neo-conservative PR.
>
> So fact-check.org is "neo-conservative PR" now, Jeff? Have you _looked
> at_ the site?
>
> > You have no respect for truth
> > and reason.
>
> And you'll deny it even though it's right in front of you, from a source
> that even you can't credibly call biased but will anyway. It's called
> _truth_; something you deny.
>
> Dave Hinz

EXAMPLE OF NEO-CONSERVATIVE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AGGRESSIVE DECEPTION:

In the VP debate, Dick Cheney said the following:

"Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the
presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in
session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage
tonight."

Cheney's lie about never meeting Edwards has been exposed repeatedly and
by many sources, so we needn't even address that. However, the first part
is actually a much bigger lie.

As Senate attendance records show, in the 126 Tuesdays the Senate has been
in session during Cheney's tenure as Vice-President, he has actually only
presided over the Senate as President on TWO occasions. That's right kids,
TWO.

During the same stretch, to fill in for Cheney's repeated absence, Edwards
has served as acting President of the Senate on TWO occasions, making his
contributiuon EXACTLY EQUAL to Cheney's.

Here is a list of the acting presidents for each session. See how long it
takes you to find Uncle Dick.

Congressional Record. Misc :: Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 01:25:51 PM EST

2001

1/30 Enzi
2/6 Chafee
2/13 Chafee
2/27 Allen
3/6 Burns
3/13 Reid
3/20 DeWine
3/27 Chafee
4/3 Smith
4/24 Chafee
5/1 Chafee
5/8 Chafee
5/15 Frist
5/22 Chafee
5/29 Enzi
6/5 Byrd
6/19 Carper
6/26 Bayh
7/10 Nelson
7/17 Clinton
7/24 Byrd
7/31 Stabenaw
9/25 Wellstone
10/2 Clinton
10/9 Clinton
10/16 Edwards
10/23 Byrd
10/30 Bingaman
11/13 Murray
11/27 Jeffords
12/4 Stabenaw
12/11 Carnahan
12/18 Nelson

2002
1/29 Nelson
2/5 Kohl
2/12 Stabenow
2/26 Landrieu
3/5 Edwards
3/12 Landrieu
3/19 Miller
4/9 Cleland
4/16 Reed
4/23 Wellstone
4/30 Nelson
5/7 Miller
5/14 Cleland
5/21 Nelson
6/4 Durbin
6/11 Corzine
6/18 Dayton
6/25 Landrieu
7/9 Reed
7/16 Corzine
7/23 Reed
7/30 Clinton
9/3 Reed
9/10 Corzine
9/17 Reid
9/24 Stabenow
10/1 Miller
10/8 Miller
10/15 Reid
11/12 Cheney
11/19 Barkley (MN)

2003
Jan 7 Cheney
1/14 Stevens
1/22 Stevens
1/28 Stevens
2/4 Stevens
2/11 Stevens
2/25 Stevens
3/4 Stevens
3/11 Stevens
3/18 Stevens
3/25 Stevens
4/1 Stevens
4/8 Stevens
4/29 Stevens
5/6 Talent
5/13 Ensign
5/20 Alexander
6/3 Stevens
6/10 Stevens
6/18 Murkowski
6/24 Coleman
7/8 Stevens
7/15 Stevens
7/22 Chaffee
7/29 Stevens
9/2 Stevens
9/9 Stevens
9/16 Stevens
9/23 Stevens
9/30 Sununu
10/21 Stevens
10/28 Stevens
11/4 Stevens
11/11 Warner
11/18 Stevens
12/9 Stevens

2004
1/20 Stevens
1/27 Enzi
2/3 Stevens
2/10 Stevens
3/2 Stevens
3/9 Hagel
3/16 Sununu
3/23 Stevens
3/30 Ensign
4/6 Cornyn
4/20 Stevens
4/27 Chambliss
5/4 Stevens
5/11 Stevens
5/18 Stevens
6/1 Stevens
6/8 Hutchinson
6/15 Stevens
6/22 Allard
7/6 Burns
7/13 Stevens
7/20 Enzi
9/7 Stevens
9/14 Chafee
9/21 Enzi
9/28 Stevens
10/05 Stevens


"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:52:54 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ah, so you deny the possibility of the best case scenario, that FOX at
a
> > > minimum chose the photo over others because it flattered Bush,
appeared
> to
> > > make him look nearly as tall as Kerry.
> >
> > I think whoever you're quoting (you trimmed attributions completely)
> > is saying that you're accusing the press of doing something that only
> > someone grasping at straws would give a shit about.
>
> You need to work on your reading comprehension.
>
>
> > > The irony! The irony of your crowd--the blind-faith Bush
> > > apologists--calling others "followers." Liberals have *never* had a
> > > reputation for being unquestioning followers. You concoct that in
order
> to
> > > make yourselves feel less like the carnivorous sheep that you are.
> >
> > There's irony involved here Jeff, but you're too blind to see it.
> > Why did your boy miss 3/4ths of the meetings he should have been at?
>
> Uh huh. Sure. There's irony that I don't get but you do. But you're not
> going to tell anyone. LOL
>
> Regarding your question, what? Why are you changing the subject so
entirely
> and abruptly?
>
> In answer, however, you disingenuous sophist, I'll point out that you are
> just regurgitating misleading neo-conservative bullshit. And you didn't
> even get that right--the question right. 3/4 of what meetings? 3/4 of
what
> meetings over what period of time? I know the answers to these questions;
> you don't obviously. Look 'em up, check 'em out on a non-partisan site,
and
> if you still think there's legitimacy to them, c'mon back here and I'll
> stomp a puddle in your chest with the facts and basic reasoning.
>
> All "your boy" has is a campaign based on misleading the American people
on
> what actually happened in Iraq and domestically during the last four
years,
> and based on misrepresenting and mischaracterizing Kerry. Distortion and
> lies are your friends.
>
> Jeff Harper
>
>

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE BUSH CAMPAIGN'S MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS AND
TWISTIN OF STATISTICS. (FROM THE VERY SOURCE THEY CITED.)

It didn't take long after the ratings were published in February for
Republicans and talking heads to start using Kerry's rating as a weapon
against him. Sometimes, the people citing the ratings would note that Kerry
was ranked as the most liberal senator in 2003. More often, the sound bite
would be that National Journal had ranked Kerry as "the most liberal
senator," without any reference to 2003. Occasionally, Republicans would
assert that Kerry had been ranked the most liberal senator on the basis of
his entire Senate career.

But if the standard is votes over a lifetime, Kerry isn't the most liberal
senator. By that measure, Kerry is the 11th-most-liberal senator, coming in
below such Democrats as Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, Barbara Boxer of
California, and, yes, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, according to a
National Journal analysis published in March.

John Edwards, who was ranked the fourth-most-liberal senator in 2003 (and
who also missed many votes that year), is the 27th-most-liberal senator
based on votes over his career.

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2004/0830nj_liberalratings.htm


"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:52:54 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >
> > Ah, so you deny the possibility of the best case scenario, that FOX at a
> > minimum chose the photo over others because it flattered Bush, appeared
to
> > make him look nearly as tall as Kerry.
>
> I think whoever you're quoting (you trimmed attributions completely)
> is saying that you're accusing the press of doing something that only
> someone grasping at straws would give a shit about.
>
> > The irony! The irony of your crowd--the blind-faith Bush
> > apologists--calling others "followers." Liberals have *never* had a
> > reputation for being unquestioning followers. You concoct that in order
to
> > make yourselves feel less like the carnivorous sheep that you are.
>
> There's irony involved here Jeff, but you're too blind to see it.
> Why did your boy miss 3/4ths of the meetings he should have been at?
>

"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> EXAMPLE OF NEO-CONSERVATIVE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AGGRESSIVE DECEPTION:
>
> In the VP debate, Dick Cheney said the following:
>
> "Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the
> presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in
> session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage
> tonight."
>
> Cheney's lie about never meeting Edwards has been exposed repeatedly and
> by many sources, so we needn't even address that. However, the first part
> is actually a much bigger lie.
>
> As Senate attendance records show, in the 126 Tuesdays the Senate has been
> in session during Cheney's tenure as Vice-President, he has actually only
> presided over the Senate as President on TWO occasions. That's right kids,
> TWO.
>
> During the same stretch, to fill in for Cheney's repeated absence, Edwards
> has served as acting President of the Senate on TWO occasions, making his
> contributiuon EXACTLY EQUAL to Cheney's.
>
> Here is a list of the acting presidents for each session. See how long it
> takes you to find Uncle Dick.
>
> Congressional Record. Misc :: Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 01:25:51 PM EST
>
> 2001
>
> 1/30 Enzi
> 2/6 Chafee
> 2/13 Chafee
> 2/27 Allen
> 3/6 Burns
> 3/13 Reid
> 3/20 DeWine
> 3/27 Chafee
> 4/3 Smith
> 4/24 Chafee
> 5/1 Chafee
> 5/8 Chafee
> 5/15 Frist
> 5/22 Chafee
> 5/29 Enzi
> 6/5 Byrd
> 6/19 Carper
> 6/26 Bayh
> 7/10 Nelson
> 7/17 Clinton
> 7/24 Byrd
> 7/31 Stabenaw
> 9/25 Wellstone
> 10/2 Clinton
> 10/9 Clinton
> 10/16 Edwards
> 10/23 Byrd
> 10/30 Bingaman
> 11/13 Murray
> 11/27 Jeffords
> 12/4 Stabenaw
> 12/11 Carnahan
> 12/18 Nelson
>
> 2002
> 1/29 Nelson
> 2/5 Kohl
> 2/12 Stabenow
> 2/26 Landrieu
> 3/5 Edwards
> 3/12 Landrieu
> 3/19 Miller
> 4/9 Cleland
> 4/16 Reed
> 4/23 Wellstone
> 4/30 Nelson
> 5/7 Miller
> 5/14 Cleland
> 5/21 Nelson
> 6/4 Durbin
> 6/11 Corzine
> 6/18 Dayton
> 6/25 Landrieu
> 7/9 Reed
> 7/16 Corzine
> 7/23 Reed
> 7/30 Clinton
> 9/3 Reed
> 9/10 Corzine
> 9/17 Reid
> 9/24 Stabenow
> 10/1 Miller
> 10/8 Miller
> 10/15 Reid
> 11/12 Cheney
> 11/19 Barkley (MN)
>
> 2003
> Jan 7 Cheney
> 1/14 Stevens
> 1/22 Stevens
> 1/28 Stevens
> 2/4 Stevens
> 2/11 Stevens
> 2/25 Stevens
> 3/4 Stevens
> 3/11 Stevens
> 3/18 Stevens
> 3/25 Stevens
> 4/1 Stevens
> 4/8 Stevens
> 4/29 Stevens
> 5/6 Talent
> 5/13 Ensign
> 5/20 Alexander
> 6/3 Stevens
> 6/10 Stevens
> 6/18 Murkowski
> 6/24 Coleman
> 7/8 Stevens
> 7/15 Stevens
> 7/22 Chaffee
> 7/29 Stevens
> 9/2 Stevens
> 9/9 Stevens
> 9/16 Stevens
> 9/23 Stevens
> 9/30 Sununu
> 10/21 Stevens
> 10/28 Stevens
> 11/4 Stevens
> 11/11 Warner
> 11/18 Stevens
> 12/9 Stevens
>
> 2004
> 1/20 Stevens
> 1/27 Enzi
> 2/3 Stevens
> 2/10 Stevens
> 3/2 Stevens
> 3/9 Hagel
> 3/16 Sununu
> 3/23 Stevens
> 3/30 Ensign
> 4/6 Cornyn
> 4/20 Stevens
> 4/27 Chambliss
> 5/4 Stevens
> 5/11 Stevens
> 5/18 Stevens
> 6/1 Stevens
> 6/8 Hutchinson
> 6/15 Stevens
> 6/22 Allard
> 7/6 Burns
> 7/13 Stevens
> 7/20 Enzi
> 9/7 Stevens
> 9/14 Chafee
> 9/21 Enzi
> 9/28 Stevens
> 10/05 Stevens


SOURCE: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/index.html

The true picture of John Edwards's Senate attendance record (in contrast to
the Bush/Cheney spin):

EDWARDS TOPS MOST HOPEFULS IN SENATE ATTENDANCE RECORD
Conflicts often arise between campaigns, congressional duties

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Wednesday, September 3, 2003

So far this year, Edwards has missed 69 votes out of 321, or about 21
percent, spokesman Michael Briggs said.

'I try to look at the votes and see what looks like it's important not only
for North Carolina but also the country, and try to be there for those
votes,' Edwards said.

Before this year, Edwards missed just seven votes out of 1,307 in his first
four years in office, Briggs said. During his five years in the Senate,
Edwards voted 1,551 times out of 1,626 roll-call votes, Briggs said, or 95.4
percent.

There were occasions in which Edwards made a point of being in Washington
for a crucial vote.

In April, Edwards canceled several campaign appearances and flew from
Charleston, S.C., to Washington for an unexpected vote on the Senate budget
resolution, Briggs said. The GOP-backed budget passed 51-50, with Vice
President Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote. Edwards delayed a
campaign trip through New Hampshire in May so he could stay in Washington
for a close vote on a tax bill, Briggs said.

--JOURNALNOW.COM



"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> EXAMPLE OF NEO-CONSERVATIVE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AGGRESSIVE DECEPTION:
>
> In the VP debate, Dick Cheney said the following:
>
> "Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the
> presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in
> session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage
> tonight."
>
> Cheney's lie about never meeting Edwards has been exposed repeatedly and
> by many sources, so we needn't even address that. However, the first part
> is actually a much bigger lie.
>
> As Senate attendance records show, in the 126 Tuesdays the Senate has been
> in session during Cheney's tenure as Vice-President, he has actually only
> presided over the Senate as President on TWO occasions. That's right kids,
> TWO.
>
> During the same stretch, to fill in for Cheney's repeated absence, Edwards
> has served as acting President of the Senate on TWO occasions, making his
> contributiuon EXACTLY EQUAL to Cheney's.
>
> Here is a list of the acting presidents for each session. See how long it
> takes you to find Uncle Dick.
>
> Congressional Record. Misc :: Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 01:25:51 PM EST
>
> 2001
>
> 1/30 Enzi
> 2/6 Chafee
> 2/13 Chafee
> 2/27 Allen
> 3/6 Burns
> 3/13 Reid
> 3/20 DeWine
> 3/27 Chafee
> 4/3 Smith
> 4/24 Chafee
> 5/1 Chafee
> 5/8 Chafee
> 5/15 Frist
> 5/22 Chafee
> 5/29 Enzi
> 6/5 Byrd
> 6/19 Carper
> 6/26 Bayh
> 7/10 Nelson
> 7/17 Clinton
> 7/24 Byrd
> 7/31 Stabenaw
> 9/25 Wellstone
> 10/2 Clinton
> 10/9 Clinton
> 10/16 Edwards
> 10/23 Byrd
> 10/30 Bingaman
> 11/13 Murray
> 11/27 Jeffords
> 12/4 Stabenaw
> 12/11 Carnahan
> 12/18 Nelson
>
> 2002
> 1/29 Nelson
> 2/5 Kohl
> 2/12 Stabenow
> 2/26 Landrieu
> 3/5 Edwards
> 3/12 Landrieu
> 3/19 Miller
> 4/9 Cleland
> 4/16 Reed
> 4/23 Wellstone
> 4/30 Nelson
> 5/7 Miller
> 5/14 Cleland
> 5/21 Nelson
> 6/4 Durbin
> 6/11 Corzine
> 6/18 Dayton
> 6/25 Landrieu
> 7/9 Reed
> 7/16 Corzine
> 7/23 Reed
> 7/30 Clinton
> 9/3 Reed
> 9/10 Corzine
> 9/17 Reid
> 9/24 Stabenow
> 10/1 Miller
> 10/8 Miller
> 10/15 Reid
> 11/12 Cheney
> 11/19 Barkley (MN)
>
> 2003
> Jan 7 Cheney
> 1/14 Stevens
> 1/22 Stevens
> 1/28 Stevens
> 2/4 Stevens
> 2/11 Stevens
> 2/25 Stevens
> 3/4 Stevens
> 3/11 Stevens
> 3/18 Stevens
> 3/25 Stevens
> 4/1 Stevens
> 4/8 Stevens
> 4/29 Stevens
> 5/6 Talent
> 5/13 Ensign
> 5/20 Alexander
> 6/3 Stevens
> 6/10 Stevens
> 6/18 Murkowski
> 6/24 Coleman
> 7/8 Stevens
> 7/15 Stevens
> 7/22 Chaffee
> 7/29 Stevens
> 9/2 Stevens
> 9/9 Stevens
> 9/16 Stevens
> 9/23 Stevens
> 9/30 Sununu
> 10/21 Stevens
> 10/28 Stevens
> 11/4 Stevens
> 11/11 Warner
> 11/18 Stevens
> 12/9 Stevens
>
> 2004
> 1/20 Stevens
> 1/27 Enzi
> 2/3 Stevens
> 2/10 Stevens
> 3/2 Stevens
> 3/9 Hagel
> 3/16 Sununu
> 3/23 Stevens
> 3/30 Ensign
> 4/6 Cornyn
> 4/20 Stevens
> 4/27 Chambliss
> 5/4 Stevens
> 5/11 Stevens
> 5/18 Stevens
> 6/1 Stevens
> 6/8 Hutchinson
> 6/15 Stevens
> 6/22 Allard
> 7/6 Burns
> 7/13 Stevens
> 7/20 Enzi
> 9/7 Stevens
> 9/14 Chafee
> 9/21 Enzi
> 9/28 Stevens
> 10/05 Stevens
>
>
> "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:52:54 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ah, so you deny the possibility of the best case scenario, that FOX
at
> a
> > > > minimum chose the photo over others because it flattered Bush,
> appeared
> > to
> > > > make him look nearly as tall as Kerry.
> > >
> > > I think whoever you're quoting (you trimmed attributions completely)
> > > is saying that you're accusing the press of doing something that only
> > > someone grasping at straws would give a shit about.
> >
> > You need to work on your reading comprehension.
> >
> >
> > > > The irony! The irony of your crowd--the blind-faith Bush
> > > > apologists--calling others "followers." Liberals have *never* had a
> > > > reputation for being unquestioning followers. You concoct that in
> order
> > to
> > > > make yourselves feel less like the carnivorous sheep that you are.
> > >
> > > There's irony involved here Jeff, but you're too blind to see it.
> > > Why did your boy miss 3/4ths of the meetings he should have been at?
> >
> > Uh huh. Sure. There's irony that I don't get but you do. But you're
not
> > going to tell anyone. LOL
> >
> > Regarding your question, what? Why are you changing the subject so
> entirely
> > and abruptly?
> >
> > In answer, however, you disingenuous sophist, I'll point out that you
are
> > just regurgitating misleading neo-conservative bullshit. And you didn't
> > even get that right--the question right. 3/4 of what meetings? 3/4 of
> what
> > meetings over what period of time? I know the answers to these
questions;
> > you don't obviously. Look 'em up, check 'em out on a non-partisan site,
> and
> > if you still think there's legitimacy to them, c'mon back here and I'll
> > stomp a puddle in your chest with the facts and basic reasoning.
> >
> > All "your boy" has is a campaign based on misleading the American people
> on
> > what actually happened in Iraq and domestically during the last four
> years,
> > and based on misrepresenting and mischaracterizing Kerry. Distortion
and
> > lies are your friends.
> >
> > Jeff Harper
> >
> >
>
>

EDWARDS TOPS MOST HOPEFULS IN SENATE ATTENDANCE RECORD
Conflicts often arise between campaigns, congressional duties

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Wednesday, September 3, 2003

So far this year, Edwards has missed 69 votes out of 321, or about 21
percent, spokesman Michael Briggs said.

'I try to look at the votes and see what looks like it's important not only
for North Carolina but also the country, and try to be there for those
votes,' Edwards said.

Before this year, Edwards missed just seven votes out of 1,307 in his first
four years in office, Briggs said. During his five years in the Senate,
Edwards voted 1,551 times out of 1,626 roll-call votes, Briggs said, or 95.4
percent.

There were occasions in which Edwards made a point of being in Washington
for a crucial vote.

In April, Edwards canceled several campaign appearances and flew from
Charleston, S.C., to Washington for an unexpected vote on the Senate budget
resolution, Briggs said. The GOP-backed budget passed 51-50, with Vice
President Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote. Edwards delayed a
campaign trip through New Hampshire in May so he could stay in Washington
for a close vote on a tax bill, Briggs said.

--JOURNALNOW.COM



"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the
> presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in
> session."
> --Dick Cheney
>
> It looks like Cheney actually presided over the Senate only twice in his
> almost four years as Vice President. Ironically, Edwards took his place
two
> of the times Cheney was absent.
>
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/6/11163/2940
>
>
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:09:17 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > >> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:46:58 -0500, ray <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > "Now watch this drive."
> > >>
> > >> How is that relevant, Ray? Guy's not allowed to go golfing now?
> > >> Why did Kerry miss 3/4ths of the Senate Intelligence Committee
meetings
> > >> before he quit altogether, and now he pretends that he cares about
> > >> national security? How do you justify that to your own mind?
> > >
> > > Oh Bullshit. You and your ilk love quoting bullshit stats that are
> clearly
> > > misrepresentative of the truth. (How do *you* justify that?)
> >
> > Was he on the Senate Intelligence Committee? Did he miss 3/4ths of the
> > meetings? Pretty simple fact-check Jeff, yes or no? Which of these
> > statements are you saying is false, Jeff? Or, are you disagreeing that
> > he quit the committee?
> >
> > > Like Kerry and Edwards being the most liberal democrat senators, when
> the
> > > publication you're citing said
> >
> > What publication am I citing, Jeff? Do you have me confused with
> > someone else, mayhaps?
> >
> > > that when you actually look at the last four
> > > years, Kerry wasn't even in the most liberal 20%, and Edwards wasn't
> even in
> > > the most liberal 50%.
> >
> > > Your "3/4th" bullshit stat refers to attendance *while they were
> > > campaigning*.
> >
> > No it doesn't, Jeff. Bloody fucking hell. Fine. Hold on while I spend
> 30
> > seconds googling _for you_.
> >
> > Jeff. Click on this:
> > http://www.factcheck.org/article241.html
> > It says that if anything, Bush's commercial understates how bad
> > Kerry's attendance was. In part:
> > (begin quote)
> > As support for that statement, the Bush campaign states that Kerry is
> > listed as present at only 11 of the 49 public meetings of the committee
> > while he was a member, from 1993 through January, 2001, when Kerry left
> > the committee.
> > (end quote)
> >
> > So, Jeff, what was that about "while they were campaigning"?
> >
> > > You ignore the same about Bush and Cheney.
> >
> > I do?
> >
> > > Cheney saying he presided over the senate most Tuesdays and had never
> met
> > > Edwards. What crap! *Cheney presided over the senate exactly two
times
> in
> > > his almost four years*. And, interestingly, Edwards took his place
two
> of
> > > the times he didn't show. (Oh, and it's documented that Cheney met
> Edwards
> > > publicly on three occasions.)
> >
> > "met" and "were at the same place" are two different things. And it's
> > _very_ different in scale from your boy claiming he gives a shit about
> > national security when he couldn't even bother to go to the meetings
about
> > it before he quit the committee altogether.
> >
> > > You carnivorous sheep eagerly swallow and then just as eagerly
> regurgitate a
> > > vile spew of unethical neo-conservative PR.
> >
> > So fact-check.org is "neo-conservative PR" now, Jeff? Have you _looked
> > at_ the site?
> >
> > > You have no respect for truth
> > > and reason.
> >
> > And you'll deny it even though it's right in front of you, from a source
> > that even you can't credibly call biased but will anyway. It's called
> > _truth_; something you deny.
> >
> > Dave Hinz
>
>

FUZZY MATH AND BAD STATS MISLEAD ON KERRY'S RECORD

Ad Text: "As a member of the intelligence committee, Senator Kerry was
absent for 76% of the committee's hearings."

Selective math and sketchy methods:

The Bush-Cheney Campaign is using misleading numbers and cannot pretend to
have the facts. They rely only on whether Sen. Kerry made statements in one
of a small number of open hearings. For example from 1993-1998 the Select
Intelligence Committee held more than 329 meetings, hearings and markups.
Just 65 of these were open meetings. [Senate Report 104-1; Senate Report
105-1; Senate Report 106-3]


Ad Text: "In the year after the first terrorist attack on the World Trade
Center, Kerry was absent for every single one."

Fuzzy Math Again:

Again, the Bush-Cheney Campaign is using misleading numbers and cannot
pretend to have the facts. They rely only on whether Sen. Kerry made
statements in one of seven open hearings. All in all, during the 103rd
Congress, the Committee held a total of 103 on-the-record meetings and
hearings. There were seventy (70) oversight hearings and seven (7) business
meetings. Twelve (12) hearings were held on the budget including the
Conference sessions with the House. Hearings on specific legislation totaled
nine (9) and nomination hearings totaled one (1). [Senate Report 104-1:
Oversight Over Intelligence Activities in the 103rd Congress].

The following Republican members also failed to speak at a public hearing
that year: John Chaffee; Malcom Wallop, Ted Stevens, Slade Gorton, John
Danforth

Kerry was part of the "most significant counterintelligence legislation
ever." According to Republican Chair and Bush Campaign Co-Chair Arlen
Specter: "The Committee pioneered the most significant counterintelligence
legislation ever passed in the Congress." The legislation addressed
intelligence problems uncovered by the Committees investigation of the
Aldrich Ames case, including the failure of the FBI and CIA to coordinate on
counterintelligence. [Senate Report 104-1: Oversight Over Intelligence
Activities in the 103rd Congress].



"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:09:17 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >
> > "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:46:58 -0500, ray <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Now watch this drive."
> >>
> >> How is that relevant, Ray? Guy's not allowed to go golfing now?
> >> Why did Kerry miss 3/4ths of the Senate Intelligence Committee meetings
> >> before he quit altogether, and now he pretends that he cares about
> >> national security? How do you justify that to your own mind?
> >
> > Oh Bullshit. You and your ilk love quoting bullshit stats that are
clearly
> > misrepresentative of the truth. (How do *you* justify that?)
>
> Was he on the Senate Intelligence Committee? Did he miss 3/4ths of the
> meetings? Pretty simple fact-check Jeff, yes or no? Which of these
> statements are you saying is false, Jeff? Or, are you disagreeing that
> he quit the committee?
>
> > Like Kerry and Edwards being the most liberal democrat senators, when
the
> > publication you're citing said
>
> What publication am I citing, Jeff? Do you have me confused with
> someone else, mayhaps?
>
> > that when you actually look at the last four
> > years, Kerry wasn't even in the most liberal 20%, and Edwards wasn't
even in
> > the most liberal 50%.
>
> > Your "3/4th" bullshit stat refers to attendance *while they were
> > campaigning*.
>
> No it doesn't, Jeff. Bloody fucking hell. Fine. Hold on while I spend
30
> seconds googling _for you_.
>
> Jeff. Click on this:
> http://www.factcheck.org/article241.html
> It says that if anything, Bush's commercial understates how bad
> Kerry's attendance was. In part:
> (begin quote)
> As support for that statement, the Bush campaign states that Kerry is
> listed as present at only 11 of the 49 public meetings of the committee
> while he was a member, from 1993 through January, 2001, when Kerry left
> the committee.
> (end quote)
>
> So, Jeff, what was that about "while they were campaigning"?
>
> > You ignore the same about Bush and Cheney.
>
> I do?
>
> > Cheney saying he presided over the senate most Tuesdays and had never
met
> > Edwards. What crap! *Cheney presided over the senate exactly two times
in
> > his almost four years*. And, interestingly, Edwards took his place two
of
> > the times he didn't show. (Oh, and it's documented that Cheney met
Edwards
> > publicly on three occasions.)
>
> "met" and "were at the same place" are two different things. And it's
> _very_ different in scale from your boy claiming he gives a shit about
> national security when he couldn't even bother to go to the meetings about
> it before he quit the committee altogether.
>
> > You carnivorous sheep eagerly swallow and then just as eagerly
regurgitate a
> > vile spew of unethical neo-conservative PR.
>
> So fact-check.org is "neo-conservative PR" now, Jeff? Have you _looked
> at_ the site?
>
> > You have no respect for truth
> > and reason.
>
> And you'll deny it even though it's right in front of you, from a source
> that even you can't credibly call biased but will anyway. It's called
> _truth_; something you deny.
>
> Dave Hinz

FUZZY MATH AND BAD STATS MISLEAD ON KERRY'S RECORD

Ad Text: "As a member of the intelligence committee, Senator Kerry was
absent for 76% of the committee's hearings."

Selective math and sketchy methods:

The Bush-Cheney Campaign is using misleading numbers and cannot pretend to
have the facts. They rely only on whether Sen. Kerry made statements in one
of a small number of open hearings. For example from 1993-1998 the Select
Intelligence Committee held more than 329 meetings, hearings and markups.
Just 65 of these were open meetings. [Senate Report 104-1; Senate Report
105-1; Senate Report 106-3]


Ad Text: "In the year after the first terrorist attack on the World Trade
Center, Kerry was absent for every single one."

Fuzzy Math Again:

Again, the Bush-Cheney Campaign is using misleading numbers and cannot
pretend to have the facts. They rely only on whether Sen. Kerry made
statements in one of seven open hearings. All in all, during the 103rd
Congress, the Committee held a total of 103 on-the-record meetings and
hearings. There were seventy (70) oversight hearings and seven (7) business
meetings. Twelve (12) hearings were held on the budget including the
Conference sessions with the House. Hearings on specific legislation totaled
nine (9) and nomination hearings totaled one (1). [Senate Report 104-1:
Oversight Over Intelligence Activities in the 103rd Congress].

The following Republican members also failed to speak at a public hearing
that year: John Chaffee; Malcom Wallop, Ted Stevens, Slade Gorton, John
Danforth

Kerry was part of the "most significant counterintelligence legislation
ever." According to Republican Chair and Bush Campaign Co-Chair Arlen
Specter: "The Committee pioneered the most significant counterintelligence
legislation ever passed in the Congress." The legislation addressed
intelligence problems uncovered by the Committees investigation of the
Aldrich Ames case, including the failure of the FBI and CIA to coordinate on
counterintelligence. [Senate Report 104-1: Oversight Over Intelligence
Activities in the 103rd Congress].


"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:52:54 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >
> > Ah, so you deny the possibility of the best case scenario, that FOX at a
> > minimum chose the photo over others because it flattered Bush, appeared
to
> > make him look nearly as tall as Kerry.
>
> I think whoever you're quoting (you trimmed attributions completely)
> is saying that you're accusing the press of doing something that only
> someone grasping at straws would give a shit about.
>
> > The irony! The irony of your crowd--the blind-faith Bush
> > apologists--calling others "followers." Liberals have *never* had a
> > reputation for being unquestioning followers. You concoct that in order
to
> > make yourselves feel less like the carnivorous sheep that you are.
>
> There's irony involved here Jeff, but you're too blind to see it.
> Why did your boy miss 3/4ths of the meetings he should have been at?
>

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > FUZZY MATH AND BAD STATS MISLEAD ON KERRY'S RECORD
> >
> > Ad Text: "As a member of the intelligence committee, Senator Kerry was
> > absent for 76% of the committee's hearings."
> >
> > Selective math and sketchy methods:
> >
> > The Bush-Cheney Campaign is using misleading numbers and cannot pretend
to
> > have the facts. They rely only on whether Sen. Kerry made statements in
> one
> > of a small number of open hearings. For example from 1993-1998 the
Select
> > Intelligence Committee held more than 329 meetings, hearings and
markups.
> > Just 65 of these were open meetings. [Senate Report 104-1; Senate Report
> > 105-1; Senate Report 106-3]
>
> http://www.factcheck.org/article241.html
>
> >
> > Ad Text: "In the year after the first terrorist attack on the World
Trade
> > Center, Kerry was absent for every single one."
> >
> > Fuzzy Math Again:
>
> Also from factcheck.org:
>
> "The Bush ad also says Kerry was absent for every single Intelligence
> Committee meeting during the year "after the first terrorist attack on the
> World Trade Center." That's true. The official records list four public
> hearings in 1994 -- the year after terrorists set off a truck bomb in the
> Trade Center's underground garage -- and Kerry is listed as attending none
> of them. "

For every one of the public meetings, there were five or six closed-door
meetings. All the Bush campaign is able to say is that Kerry missed a few
meetings, the few least important meetings, the meetings that are largely PR
ops.

All in all, during the 103rd Congress, the Committee held a total of 103
on-the-record meetings and
hearings. There were seventy (70) oversight hearings and seven (7) business
meetings. Twelve (12) hearings were held on the budget including the
Conference sessions with the House. Hearings on specific legislation totaled
nine (9) and nomination hearings totaled one (1). [Senate Report 104-1:
Oversight Over Intelligence Activities in the 103rd Congress].

The following Republican members also failed to speak at a public hearing
that year: John Chaffee; Malcom Wallop, Ted Stevens, Slade Gorton, John
Danforth

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > For every one of the public meetings, there were five or six closed-door
> > meetings. All the Bush campaign is able to say is that Kerry missed a
few
> > meetings, the few least important meetings, the meetings that are
largely
> PR
> > ops.
>
> Well, Kerry could just clear up this whole thing and ask the committee
> chairs release the attendance records of the private meetings. Yet, he
> refuses to. So, yes, because of Kerry's stonewalling, we don't have all
the
> facts.

What bullshit. You say tht Kerry not going to great lengths to defend
himself against this instance, among many, of deliberate misuse of
statistics during an election where he is speaking sometimes two or three
times a day and preparing for national debates means he is "stonewalling."
You're so fair and objective!

By the way, there *may* be reasons the private meetings don't make
attendance public record.

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:48:06 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:52:54 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> >
>> > Ah, so you deny the possibility of the best case scenario, that FOX at a
>> > minimum chose the photo over others because it flattered Bush, appeared
> to
>> > make him look nearly as tall as Kerry.
>>
>> I think whoever you're quoting (you trimmed attributions completely)
>> is saying that you're accusing the press of doing something that only
>> someone grasping at straws would give a shit about.
>
> You need to work on your reading comprehension.

Evasion noted.

>> > The irony! The irony of your crowd--the blind-faith Bush
>> > apologists--calling others "followers." Liberals have *never* had a
>> > reputation for being unquestioning followers. You concoct that in order
> to
>> > make yourselves feel less like the carnivorous sheep that you are.
>>
>> There's irony involved here Jeff, but you're too blind to see it.
>> Why did your boy miss 3/4ths of the meetings he should have been at?

> Uh huh. Sure. There's irony that I don't get but you do. But you're not
> going to tell anyone. LOL

Why did your boy miss all those meetings before he quit altogether?

> Regarding your question, what? Why are you changing the subject so entirely
> and abruptly?

Because you keep not saying what Bush "missed" about the PDB. What
did Bush "miss" about the PDB?

> In answer, however, you disingenuous sophist, I'll point out that you are
> just regurgitating misleading neo-conservative bullshit. And you didn't
> even get that right--the question right. 3/4 of what meetings? 3/4 of what
> meetings over what period of time? I know the answers to these questions;
> you don't obviously.

I posted the link yesterday for the fact-check.org article. Do I need
to post it again? Hint: The specifics make my point rather than yours.

> Look 'em up, check 'em out on a non-partisan site, and
> if you still think there's legitimacy to them, c'mon back here and I'll
> stomp a puddle in your chest with the facts and basic reasoning.

Yes, lets. Bring it on, Jeff. Maybe you could even be _specific_ instead
of "It says right here Bin Ladin doesn't like us!!!".

> All "your boy" has is a campaign based on misleading the American people on
> what actually happened in Iraq and domestically during the last four years,
> and based on misrepresenting and mischaracterizing Kerry. Distortion and
> lies are your friends.

And Kerry last night said that the assault weapons ban not being renewed
helps terrorists make Americans less safe. How exactly does a flash
surpressor, bayonet lug, and/or pistol grip on a semi-automatic version of
a gun that _looks like_ a machine gun make me less safe from terrorists?
Why wouldn't the terrorist, you know, bring a _machine gun_ if they wanted
to be a problem? I mean, they don't care much for obeying our laws and
all that...

Your boy can't stop lying, distorting, and misstating. It's in his
nature. Just like the last Democrat that was in that office.

What's actionable about the PDB, Nate? And why did your boy miss all
those meetings, and quit in early 2001, but now pretends to give a shit?

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:14:35 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Also from factcheck.org:
>> "The Bush ad also says Kerry was absent for every single Intelligence
>> Committee meeting during the year "after the first terrorist attack on the
>> World Trade Center." That's true.
>
> For every one of the public meetings, there were five or six closed-door
> meetings. All the Bush campaign is able to say is that Kerry missed a few
> meetings, the few least important meetings, the meetings that are largely PR
> ops.

And yet, when pressed on his attendance at the closed-door meetings,
Kerry refused to talk about it. Hmmm. What does that tell _you_, Jeff?

Not only did you misinterpret what you read, you referred to me by the wrong
name and referred to posts I didn't write.

Keep working on that reading comprehension.


"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:48:06 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >
> > "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:52:54 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Ah, so you deny the possibility of the best case scenario, that FOX
at a
> >> > minimum chose the photo over others because it flattered Bush,
appeared
> > to
> >> > make him look nearly as tall as Kerry.
> >>
> >> I think whoever you're quoting (you trimmed attributions completely)
> >> is saying that you're accusing the press of doing something that only
> >> someone grasping at straws would give a shit about.
> >
> > You need to work on your reading comprehension.
>
> Evasion noted.
>
> >> > The irony! The irony of your crowd--the blind-faith Bush
> >> > apologists--calling others "followers." Liberals have *never* had a
> >> > reputation for being unquestioning followers. You concoct that in
order
> > to
> >> > make yourselves feel less like the carnivorous sheep that you are.
> >>
> >> There's irony involved here Jeff, but you're too blind to see it.
> >> Why did your boy miss 3/4ths of the meetings he should have been at?
>
> > Uh huh. Sure. There's irony that I don't get but you do. But you're
not
> > going to tell anyone. LOL
>
> Why did your boy miss all those meetings before he quit altogether?
>
> > Regarding your question, what? Why are you changing the subject so
entirely
> > and abruptly?
>
> Because you keep not saying what Bush "missed" about the PDB. What
> did Bush "miss" about the PDB?
>
> > In answer, however, you disingenuous sophist, I'll point out that you
are
> > just regurgitating misleading neo-conservative bullshit. And you didn't
> > even get that right--the question right. 3/4 of what meetings? 3/4 of
what
> > meetings over what period of time? I know the answers to these
questions;
> > you don't obviously.
>
> I posted the link yesterday for the fact-check.org article. Do I need
> to post it again? Hint: The specifics make my point rather than yours.
>
> > Look 'em up, check 'em out on a non-partisan site, and
> > if you still think there's legitimacy to them, c'mon back here and I'll
> > stomp a puddle in your chest with the facts and basic reasoning.
>
> Yes, lets. Bring it on, Jeff. Maybe you could even be _specific_ instead
> of "It says right here Bin Ladin doesn't like us!!!".
>
> > All "your boy" has is a campaign based on misleading the American people
on
> > what actually happened in Iraq and domestically during the last four
years,
> > and based on misrepresenting and mischaracterizing Kerry. Distortion
and
> > lies are your friends.
>
> And Kerry last night said that the assault weapons ban not being renewed
> helps terrorists make Americans less safe. How exactly does a flash
> surpressor, bayonet lug, and/or pistol grip on a semi-automatic version of
> a gun that _looks like_ a machine gun make me less safe from terrorists?
> Why wouldn't the terrorist, you know, bring a _machine gun_ if they wanted
> to be a problem? I mean, they don't care much for obeying our laws and
> all that...
>
> Your boy can't stop lying, distorting, and misstating. It's in his
> nature. Just like the last Democrat that was in that office.
>
> What's actionable about the PDB, Nate? And why did your boy miss all
> those meetings, and quit in early 2001, but now pretends to give a shit?
>

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:14:35 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >
> > "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> Also from factcheck.org:
> >> "The Bush ad also says Kerry was absent for every single Intelligence
> >> Committee meeting during the year "after the first terrorist attack on
the
> >> World Trade Center." That's true.
> >
> > For every one of the public meetings, there were five or six closed-door
> > meetings. All the Bush campaign is able to say is that Kerry missed a
few
> > meetings, the few least important meetings, the meetings that are
largely PR
> > ops.
>
> And yet, when pressed on his attendance at the closed-door meetings,
> Kerry refused to talk about it. Hmmm. What does that tell _you_, Jeff?
>

I can't believe you realize Bush/Cheney used a handful of meetings to
mislead Americans about all meetings. They said they were talking about all
the meetings but they weren't, as you know. And I can't believe you accept
that they did this, have no problem with it, and now continue to extrapolate
from baseless assumptions about meetings you have no data on.

You are unscrupulous and you insult our intelligence with your bullshit
reasoning.

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:21:47 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

>> And yet, when pressed on his attendance at the closed-door meetings,
>> Kerry refused to talk about it. Hmmm. What does that tell _you_, Jeff?

> I can't believe you realize Bush/Cheney used a handful of meetings to
> mislead Americans about all meetings.

Apparently they have now corrupted the Annenberg group, or do you not
acknowledge the fact-check.org accounting of said meetings?

> They said they were talking about all
> the meetings but they weren't, as you know.

Yes, I know. Why has Kerry hidden behind "those weren't open meetings so I
don't need to say how many I went to" instead of telling us how many of those
he went to?

> And I can't believe you accept
> that they did this, have no problem with it, and now continue to extrapolate
> from baseless assumptions about meetings you have no data on.

Perhaps you missed the link to fact-check.org. Please go to said URL and type in
"kerry senate intelligence attendance" to the search box and read it for yourself.
I've posted the link here twice now, but maybe if you go there on your own you'll
believe the information.

Or, are you saying that they're biased? What's your disagreement here?

> You are unscrupulous and you insult our intelligence with your bullshit
> reasoning.

Ah, namecalling. I post facts, you post insults. How typical.

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:21:47 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >
> > "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
>
> >> And yet, when pressed on his attendance at the closed-door meetings,
> >> Kerry refused to talk about it. Hmmm. What does that tell _you_,
Jeff?
>
> > I can't believe you realize Bush/Cheney used a handful of meetings to
> > mislead Americans about all meetings.
>
> Apparently they have now corrupted the Annenberg group, or do you not
> acknowledge the fact-check.org accounting of said meetings?
>
> > They said they were talking about all
> > the meetings but they weren't, as you know.
>
> Yes, I know. Why has Kerry hidden behind "those weren't open meetings so
I
> don't need to say how many I went to" instead of telling us how many of
those
> he went to?
>
> > And I can't believe you accept
> > that they did this, have no problem with it, and now continue to
extrapolate
> > from baseless assumptions about meetings you have no data on.
>
> Perhaps you missed the link to fact-check.org. Please go to said URL and
type in
> "kerry senate intelligence attendance" to the search box and read it for
yourself.
> I've posted the link here twice now, but maybe if you go there on your own
you'll
> believe the information.
>
> Or, are you saying that they're biased? What's your disagreement here?
>
> > You are unscrupulous and you insult our intelligence with your bullshit
> > reasoning.
>
> Ah, namecalling. I post facts, you post insults. How typical.
>

Wrong. You post whatever you can find to spin things in your favor and you
ignore fact & reason.

Bush/Cheney pretended a handfull of meetings were a hundred meetings.
That's dishonest.

They are very dishonest.

They lied to the American people, the UN, and the world about the "proof"
that Hussein was an imminent and major threat to the U.S.

They've lied about a lot of things. And continue to lie. Telling us that
Iraq and Afghanistan are about to be stable democracies. Telling us that
the economy is good and getting better rapidly. Telling us that students in
public schools are better off now than before. Etc. Etc. All bullshit.

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:46:11 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

>> Yes, I know. Why has Kerry hidden behind "those weren't open meetings so
> I
>> don't need to say how many I went to" instead of telling us how many of
> those
>> he went to?

Absence of response noted.

>> Perhaps you missed the link to fact-check.org. Please go to said URL and
> type in
>> "kerry senate intelligence attendance" to the search box and read it for
> yourself.
>> I've posted the link here twice now, but maybe if you go there on your own
> you'll
>> believe the information.
>>
>> Or, are you saying that they're biased? What's your disagreement here?

Absence of response noted. Most people, when the facts are against them,
trim out the inconvenient parts of a message they're replying to. At least
you left 'em in to highlight that you have no response to them.

>> Ah, namecalling. I post facts, you post insults. How typical.
>
> Wrong. You post whatever you can find to spin things in your favor and you
> ignore fact & reason.

My favor? No, I just call liars on their lies.

> Bush/Cheney pretended a handfull of meetings were a hundred meetings.
> That's dishonest.

Show me where Bush or Cheney characterized these as "a hundred meetings". You
say they did, now back that up. I saw a percentage, and a rounded-down,
on-the-safe-side percentage at that.

> They are very dishonest.

Says some guy on Usenet called Jeff, who continues to evade direct questions.

> They lied to the American people, the UN, and the world about the "proof"
> that Hussein was an imminent and major threat to the U.S.

Oddly enough, your boy Kerry felt he also was. Do I need to pull out the
quotes _again_, Jeff? Him, Edwards, Clinton, Kennedy - they all agreed
that Hussein was a threat.

It's also interesting to note that your type whines that the vague, un-actionable
PDB _wasn't_ acted on, but specific information that even your boys agreed with
_was_ acted on.

> They've lied about a lot of things. And continue to lie. Telling us that
> Iraq and Afghanistan are about to be stable democracies. Telling us that
> the economy is good and getting better rapidly.

Funny, I hear that coming from, you know, economists. And the fact that
headhunters are calling my phone a lot more than, say, 3 years ago.

> Telling us that students in
> public schools are better off now than before. Etc. Etc. All bullshit.

Right. Again, more rhetoric, no facts. How surprising.

"tm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Todd Fatheree <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > :>
> > > :> : Source?
> > > :>
> > > :>
> > > :> http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/
> > > :> http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2421595&nav=168XRvNe
> > > :>
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_10.php#003663
> > > :>
> > > :
> >
http://nonprofit.careerbuilder.com/JobSeeker/Jobs/JobDetails.aspx?Job_DID=JQ
5W
> >
L605V900TFY6WG&cbRecursionCnt=1&cbsid=54b133d6a7ba4a0aad3aa2d05f284e57-15093
43
> > 57-xo-2
> > > :> http://arizona.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/19886.php
> > > :> Also of interest:
> > > :>
> > > :> http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2004410130378
> > > :>
> > > : http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/2/183158.shtml
> > >
> > >
> > > Do you have any mainstream source for this story? newsmax is a pretty
> > > third-rate, partisan source.
> > >
> > > -- Andy Barss
> >
> > As opposed to salon.com?
> >
> > http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041015-121325-3896r.htm
>
> Much better. A third rate Moonie source.


Yeah. And Rev. Moon gave lots of money to the Bush Jr. campaign, and
actually said he is the one who got Bush Jr. elected the first time.

That's the problem with neo-conservative followers.. They choose the media
that reflects their prejudice.