OT The left loonies continue to be...ah...LOONEY....LOL

From the Wall Street Journal

Angry Left Fantasyland

"In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats
took a trip to the land of make-believe," reports the Washington
Post's Dana Milbank. They held a pretend "impeachment inquiry over the
Iraq war," with Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, playing "chairman," in
which role he "spouted . . . chairmanly phrases, such as 'unanimous
consent' and 'without objection so ordered.' " Conyers & Co. called
several "witnesses," among them Ray McGovern, who "said that Israel
should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding
of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon":

"Israel is not allowed to be brought up in polite conversation,"
McGovern said. "The last time I did this, the previous director of
Central Intelligence called me anti-Semitic."

Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), who prompted the question by
wondering whether the true war motive was Iraq's threat to Israel,
thanked McGovern for his "candid answer."

At Democratic headquarters, where an overflow crowd watched the
hearing on television, activists handed out documents repeating two
accusations--that an Israeli company had warning of the Sept. 11,
2001, attacks and that there was an "insider trading scam" on
9/11--that previously has been used to suggest Israel was behind the
attacks.

There's been a spate of stories lately about President Bush's poor
poll numbers--the importance of which is a mystery to us, given that
the next presidential election is almost 3 1/2 years away, and Bush
won't be a candidate in any case. At the same time, the Angry Left
seems to be getting less inhibited: witness Howard Dean's various
bouts of logorrhea, Charlie Rangel's and Dick Durbin's outrageous
Americans-are-Nazis claims, and now this.

We suspect there's a connection here: The liberal media are persuading
liberal pols that President Bush is in trouble with the public. The
pols therefore conclude that the public is on their side, and this
emboldens them to . . . well, in our opinion, to behave like total
jackasses. Although we find this all somewhat vexing, we're guessing
that in the end it will not pay off politically for the Dems.

--

Scott in Florida

Scott in Florida wrote:[color=blue]
> From the Wall Street Journal
>
> Angry Left Fantasyland
>
> "In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats
> took a trip to the land of make-believe," reports the Washington
> Post's Dana Milbank. They held a pretend "impeachment inquiry over the
> Iraq war," with Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, playing "chairman," in
> which role he "spouted . . . chairmanly phrases, such as 'unanimous
> consent' and 'without objection so ordered.' " Conyers & Co. called
> several "witnesses," among them Ray McGovern, who "said that Israel
> should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding
> of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon":
>
> "Israel is not allowed to be brought up in polite conversation,"
> McGovern said. "The last time I did this, the previous director of
> Central Intelligence called me anti-Semitic."
>
> Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), who prompted the question by
> wondering whether the true war motive was Iraq's threat to Israel,
> thanked McGovern for his "candid answer."
>
> At Democratic headquarters, where an overflow crowd watched the
> hearing on television, activists handed out documents repeating two
> accusations--that an Israeli company had warning of the Sept. 11,
> 2001, attacks and that there was an "insider trading scam" on
> 9/11--that previously has been used to suggest Israel was behind the
> attacks.
>
> There's been a spate of stories lately about President Bush's poor
> poll numbers--the importance of which is a mystery to us, given that
> the next presidential election is almost 3 1/2 years away, and Bush
> won't be a candidate in any case. At the same time, the Angry Left
> seems to be getting less inhibited: witness Howard Dean's various
> bouts of logorrhea, Charlie Rangel's and Dick Durbin's outrageous
> Americans-are-Nazis claims, and now this.
>
> We suspect there's a connection here: The liberal media are persuading
> liberal pols that President Bush is in trouble with the public. The
> pols therefore conclude that the public is on their side, and this
> emboldens them to . . . well, in our opinion, to behave like total
> jackasses. Although we find this all somewhat vexing, we're guessing
> that in the end it will not pay off politically for the Dems.[/color]

Ah, mocking the Downing Street Memo, looks like the Rights on another run.
Now, which way does that media tilt again?

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20050619/cm_thenation/13617/nc:742[/url]

Sorry Scott, as much as you want the DSM to go away, it's not going to
happen.
There is painful irony in the fact that, during the same month that the
confirmation of "Deep Throat's" identity has allowed the Washington Post to
relive its Watergate-era glory days, that newspaper is blowing the
dramatically more significant story of the "fixed" intelligence the Bush
administration used to scam Congress and U.S. allies into supporting the
disasterous invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Last week, when the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee,
Michigan Democrat John Conyers, chaired an extraordinary hearing on what has
come to be known as the "Downing Street Memo" -- details of pre-war meetings
where aides to British Prime Minister Tony Blair discussed the fact that,
while the case for war was "thin," the Bush administration was busy making
sure that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" --
the Post ridiculed Conyers and the dozens of other members of Congress who
are trying to get to the bottom of a scandal that former White House counsel
John Dean has correctly identified as "worse than Watergate."

Post writer Dana Milbank penned a snarky little piece that, like similar
articles in the New York Times and other "newspapers of record," displayed
all the skepticism regarding Bush administration misdeeds that one might
expect to find in a White House press release.

To his credit, Conyers hit back.

In a letter addressed to the Post's national editor, the newspaper's
ombudsman and Milbank, the veteran House member was blunt.

"Dear Sirs," Conyers began, "I write to express my profound disappointment
with Dana Milbank's June 17 report, 'Democrats Play House to Rally Against
the War,' which purports to describe a Democratic hearing I chaired in the
Capitol yesterday. In sum, the piece cherry-picks some facts, manufactures
others out of whole cloth, and does a disservice to some 30 members of
Congress who persevered under difficult circumstances, not of our own
making, to examine a very serious subject: whether the American people were
deliberately misled in the lead up to war. The fact that this was the Post's
only coverage of this event makes the journalistic shortcomings in this
piece even more egregious.

"In an inaccurate piece of reporting that typifies the article, Milbank
implies that one of the obstacles the Members in the meeting have is that
'only one' member has mentioned the Downing Street Minutes on the floor of
either the House or Senate. This is not only incorrect but misleading. In
fact, just yesterday, the Senate Democratic Leader, Harry Reid, mentioned it
on the Senate floor. Senator Boxer talked at some length about it at the
recent confirmation hearing for the Ambassador to Iraq. The House Democratic
Leader, Nancy Pelosi, recently signed on to my letter, along with 121 other
Democrats asking for answers about the memo. This information is not
difficult to find either. For example, the Reid speech was the subject of an
AP wire service report posted on the Washington Post website with the
headline 'Democrats Cite Downing Street Memo in Bolton Fight.' Other similar
mistakes, mischaracterizations and cheap shots are littered throughout the
article.

"The article begins with an especially mean and nasty tone, claiming that
House Democrats 'pretended' a small conference room was the Judiciary
Committee hearing room and deriding the decor of the room. Milbank fails to
share with his readers one essential fact: the reason the hearing was held
in that room, an important piece of context. Despite the fact that a number
of other suitable rooms were available in the Capitol and House office
buildings, Republicans declined my request for each and every one of them.
Milbank could have written about the perseverance of many of my colleagues
in the face of such adverse circumstances, but declined to do so. Milbank
also ignores the critical fact picked up by the AP, CNN and other
newsletters that at the very moment the hearing was scheduled to begin, the
Republican Leadership scheduled an almost unprecedented number of 11
consecutive floor votes, making it next to impossible for most Members to
participate in the first hour and one half of the hearing.

"In what can only be described as a deliberate effort to discredit the
entire hearing, Milbank quotes one of the witnesses as making an
anti-semitic assertion and further describes anti-semitic literature that
was being handed out in the overflow room for the event. First, let me be
clear: I consider myself to be friend and supporter of Israel and there were
a number of other staunchly pro-Israel members who were in attendance at the
hearing. I do not agree with, support, or condone any comments asserting
Israeli control over U.S. policy, and I find any allegation that Israel is
trying to dominate the world or had anything to do with the September 11
tragedy disgusting and offensive.

"That said, to give such emphasis to 100 seconds of a 3 hour and five minute
hearing that included the powerful and sad testimony (hardly mentioned by
Milbank) of a woman who lost her son in the Iraq war and now feels lied to
as a result of the Downing Street Minutes, is incredibly misleading. Many,
many different pamphlets were being passed out at the overflow room,
including pamphlets about getting out of the Iraq war and anti-Central
American Free Trade Agreement, and it is puzzling why Milbank saw fit to
only mention the one he did.

"In a typically derisive and uninformed passage, Milbank makes much of other
lawmakers calling me 'Mr. Chairman' and says I liked it so much that I used
'chairmanly phrases.' Milbank may not know that I was the Chairman of the
House Government Operations Committee from 1988 to 1994. By protocol and
tradition in the House, once you have been a Chairman you are always
referred to as such. Thus, there was nothing unusual about my being referred
to as Mr. Chairman.

"To administer his coup-de-grace, Milbank literally makes up another cheap
shot that I 'was having so much fun that [I] ignored aides' entreaties to
end the session.' This did not occur. None of my aides offered entreaties to
end the session and I have no idea where Milbank gets that information. The
hearing certainly ran longer than expected, but that was because so many
Members of Congress persevered under very difficult circumstances to attend,
and I thought - given that - the least I could do was allow them to say
their piece. That is called courtesy, not 'fun.'

"By the way, the 'Downing Street Memo' is actually the minutes of a British
cabinet meeting. In the meeting, British officials - having just met with
their American counterparts - describe their discussions with such
counterparts. I mention this because that basic piece of context, a simple
description of the memo, is found nowhere in Milbank's article.

"The fact that I and my fellow Democrats had to stuff a hearing into a room
the size of a large closet to hold a hearing on an important issue shouldn't
make us the object of ridicule. In my opinion, the ridicule should be placed
in two places: first, at the feet of Republicans who are so afraid to
discuss ideas and facts that they try to sabotage our efforts to do so; and
second, on Dana Milbank and the Washington Post, who do not feel the need to
give serious coverage on a serious hearing about a serious matter-whether
more than 1700 Americans have died because of a deliberate lie. Milbank may
disagree, but the Post certainly owed its readers some coverage of that
viewpoint.

"Sincerely, John Conyers, Jr"

The years of the Bush presidency will be remembered as a time when American
media, for the most part, practiced stenography to power -- and when
once-great newspapers became little more than what the reformers of another
time referred to as "the kept press."

The Conyers letter, like the thousands of communications from grassroots
activists to media outlets across this country pressing for serious coverage
of the "Downing Street Memo" and the broader debate about the Bush
administration's doctoring of intelligence prior to the launch of the Iraq
war, is an essential response to our contemporary media crisis. That it had
to be written provides evidence of just how serious that crisis has grown.

Scott in Florida wrote:[color=blue]
> From the Wall Street Journal
>[/color]

Scott's only source of news
[color=blue]
>
> Angry Left Fantasyland
>[/color]

<edit baseless and out-of-context insults />
[color=blue]
>
> At Democratic headquarters, where an overflow crowd watched the
> hearing on television, activists handed out documents repeating two
> accusations--that an Israeli company had warning of the Sept. 11,
> 2001, attacks and that there was an "insider trading scam" on
> 9/11--that previously has been used to suggest Israel was behind the
> attacks.
>[/color]

That anti-semitic trash was already denounced publicly by Howard Dean.
Did you read about that part? Need I post his official statement?
Seeing as how the RNC is right around the corner from the DNC, I
wouldn't be surprised if that was a set up -- one of their moronic
polo-shirt wearing, chevy blazer-driving interns passing that garbage
out. Quietly too, lest he get his ass kicked.

It certainly had nothing to do with the hearings, and did not need to
be mentioned, unless this article is truly written simply to inspire
the rabid, drooling hatred of all the dittoheads who read this garbage.

The overflow room was used because the Republicans, in their respect
for procedure, tried to bury the hearings in a small basement room of a
House Office Building. Turns out a lot of folks wanted to hear them.
[color=blue]
>
> There's been a spate of stories lately about President Bush's poor
> poll numbers--the importance of which is a mystery to us, given that
> the next presidential election is almost 3 1/2 years away, and Bush
> won't be a candidate in any case.
>[/color]

lefty loonies? how about Righty Morons? Here's a clue. If you
support a President that the majority of Americans think is an overall
dismal failure (and he is), what does that do to your poll numbers?

Bush used his Republican peers, then kicked them to the curb, and now
they don't know _where_ to turn.

The pendulum swings both ways.
[color=blue]
>
> At the same time, the Angry Left
> seems to be getting less inhibited: witness Howard Dean's various
> bouts of logorrhea, Charlie Rangel's and Dick Durbin's outrageous
> Americans-are-Nazis claims, and now this.
>[/color]

Lies. I can tell you first hand that Charlie Rangel is a good man and
would never say Americans are Nazis. Dick Durbin... well I read the
transcript. He never said that either.
[color=blue]
>
> We suspect there's a connection here: The liberal media are persuading
> liberal pols that President Bush is in trouble with the public. The
>[/color]

Lets get this straight. The WSJ is a newspaper with one of the largest
readerships in the world. It is obviously not "Liberal".

How does that jive with the "Liberal Media"?

Oh yeah, don't make me bring up Sean Hannity and Brit Hume... talk
about two talking heads that should resign -- they lie every time
they're on the air. I could fill your newsreader with proof from a
huge array of sources... probably even your esteemed WSJ.
[color=blue]
>
> pols therefore conclude that the public is on their side, and this
> emboldens them to . . . well, in our opinion, to behave like total
> jackasses. Although we find this all somewhat vexing, we're guessing
> that in the end it will not pay off politically for the Dems.
>[/color]

Ahh, for the days when the "wannabe conservatives" (as Eisenhower said,
these jackasses have no right calling themselves either conservative or
Republican) are relegated back to their static AM radio homes. Its
coming.

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 11:51:07 GMT, Scott in Florida
<JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>There's been a spate of stories lately about President Bush's poor
>poll numbers--the importance of which is a mystery to us, given that
>the next presidential election is almost 3 1/2 years away, and Bush
>won't be a candidate in any case. At the same time, the Angry Left
>seems to be getting less inhibited: witness Howard Dean's various
>bouts of logorrhea, Charlie Rangel's and Dick Durbin's outrageous
>Americans-are-Nazis claims, and now this.
>
>We suspect there's a connection here: The liberal media are persuading
>liberal pols that President Bush is in trouble with the public. The
>pols therefore conclude that the public is on their side, and this
>emboldens them to . . . well, in our opinion, to behave like total
>jackasses. Although we find this all somewhat vexing, we're guessing
>that in the end it will not pay off politically for the Dems.[/color]

This sums up exactly what I've been saying for years. The
DemLemming's conduct comes down to desperation. They yearn
painfully for something, anything, that will stick. And due
to their obvious impotence, all they can do is cite questionable
polls which utilize structured questions so as to obtain desired
results.

Impeachment has become their mantra, humiliatingly so. Their chairman
redefines the word "extremist" with his bizarre psychopathic conduct,
thankfully to the DNC's detriment. Those relegated to the cheap seats
in their self-destructive auditorium are bit players merely adding
acid-laced icing to their cupcake chairman. Sour stomachs galore.

To draw an analogy, they've been reduced to the responses given to the
classroom coward whining to the teacher, "Billy kicked me. Shouldn't
he be sent to the principal's office?" The other children laugh at
the coward, and taunt him to stop crying and act like a man.

Not likely with modern DemLemmings.


------------------------------------------------
The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century.

Eric Dreher wrote:[color=blue]
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 11:51:07 GMT, Scott in Florida
> <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >There's been a spate of stories lately about President Bush's poor
> >poll numbers--the importance of which is a mystery to us, given that
> >the next presidential election is almost 3 1/2 years away, and Bush
> >won't be a candidate in any case. At the same time, the Angry Left
> >seems to be getting less inhibited: witness Howard Dean's various
> >bouts of logorrhea, Charlie Rangel's and Dick Durbin's outrageous
> >Americans-are-Nazis claims, and now this.
> >
> >We suspect there's a connection here: The liberal media are persuading
> >liberal pols that President Bush is in trouble with the public. The
> >pols therefore conclude that the public is on their side, and this
> >emboldens them to . . . well, in our opinion, to behave like total
> >jackasses. Although we find this all somewhat vexing, we're guessing
> >that in the end it will not pay off politically for the Dems.[/color]
>
> This sums up exactly what I've been saying for years. The
> DemLemming's conduct comes down to desperation. They yearn
> painfully for something, anything, that will stick. And due
> to their obvious impotence, all they can do is cite questionable
> polls which utilize structured questions so as to obtain desired
> results.
>
> Impeachment has become their mantra, humiliatingly so. Their chairman
> redefines the word "extremist" with his bizarre psychopathic conduct,
> thankfully to the DNC's detriment. Those relegated to the cheap seats
> in their self-destructive auditorium are bit players merely adding
> acid-laced icing to their cupcake chairman. Sour stomachs galore.
>
> To draw an analogy, they've been reduced to the responses given to the
> classroom coward whining to the teacher, "Billy kicked me. Shouldn't
> he be sent to the principal's office?" The other children laugh at
> the coward, and taunt him to stop crying and act like a man.
>
> Not likely with modern DemLemmings.
>[/color]

Hey moron. See my reply. One thing's for sure, you're no Republican.

Scott in Florida wrote:[color=blue]
> From the Wall Street Journal
>[/color]
You forgot to mention that this was a Dana Milbank presentation. Belongs on
Comedy Central.

<snip>

In article <7euab1t1qmv0jc1n7rqgosas1b2a1hhlb6@4ax.com>,
Eric Dreher <ericd@cox.n?t> wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 11:51:07 GMT, Scott in Florida
> <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >There's been a spate of stories lately about President Bush's poor
> >poll numbers--the importance of which is a mystery to us, given that
> >the next presidential election is almost 3 1/2 years away, and Bush
> >won't be a candidate in any case. At the same time, the Angry Left
> >seems to be getting less inhibited: witness Howard Dean's various
> >bouts of logorrhea, Charlie Rangel's and Dick Durbin's outrageous
> >Americans-are-Nazis claims, and now this.
> >
> >We suspect there's a connection here: The liberal media are persuading
> >liberal pols that President Bush is in trouble with the public. The
> >pols therefore conclude that the public is on their side, and this
> >emboldens them to . . . well, in our opinion, to behave like total
> >jackasses. Although we find this all somewhat vexing, we're guessing
> >that in the end it will not pay off politically for the Dems.[/color]
>
> This sums up exactly what I've been saying for years. The
> DemLemming's conduct comes down to desperation. They yearn
> painfully for something, anything, that will stick. And due
> to their obvious impotence, all they can do is cite questionable
> polls which utilize structured questions so as to obtain desired
> results.
>
> Impeachment has become their mantra, humiliatingly so. Their chairman
> redefines the word "extremist" with his bizarre psychopathic conduct,
> thankfully to the DNC's detriment. Those relegated to the cheap seats
> in their self-destructive auditorium are bit players merely adding
> acid-laced icing to their cupcake chairman. Sour stomachs galore.
>
> To draw an analogy, they've been reduced to the responses given to the
> classroom coward whining to the teacher, "Billy kicked me. Shouldn't
> he be sent to the principal's office?" The other children laugh at
> the coward, and taunt him to stop crying and act like a man.
>
> Not likely with modern DemLemmings.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century.[/color]



Porter Goss answers a question:

COULD THE U.S. GO TO WAR AGAIN BASED ON FALSE INTELLIGENCE? I would not
agree to surmise that America has gone to war based on false
intelligence. I would say that the right question is: Should America be
checking out threats to America? The answer is yes. And will we find
some threats were more talk than real? Yes, we will.
--

In article <ntspam-A92DC9.10444819062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
Dbu+^ <ntspam@spc.om> wrote:

[color=blue]
> Porter Goss answers a question:
>
> COULD THE U.S. GO TO WAR AGAIN BASED ON FALSE INTELLIGENCE? I would not
> agree to surmise that America has gone to war based on false
> intelligence. I would say that the right question is: Should America be
> checking out threats to America? The answer is yes. And will we find
> some threats were more talk than real? Yes, we will.[/color]

And another:

OU HAVE BEEN A BIG CRITIC OF CIA HUMAN INTELLIGENCE. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE
TO FIX IT? We're fixing it with quantity and quality. We're changing
methods. We're changing systems. We're changing it from the beginning to
the end, from the recruitment‹the types of people we are trying to
attract‹to the way we bring them in, to the experience we give them in
training, to the ways we get them on station or in places where they are
of use to us.
We are focused very much on finding ways to get our eyes and ears out
and about on a global basis. And we are doing it in ways that you can't
even imagine and I'm not even going to slightly discuss.
--

Dbu+^ wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <ntspam-A92DC9.10444819062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
> Dbu+^ <ntspam@spc.om> wrote:
>
>[color=green]
> > Porter Goss answers a question:
> >
> > COULD THE U.S. GO TO WAR AGAIN BASED ON FALSE INTELLIGENCE? I would not
> > agree to surmise that America has gone to war based on false
> > intelligence. I would say that the right question is: Should America be
> > checking out threats to America? The answer is yes. And will we find
> > some threats were more talk than real? Yes, we will.[/color]
>
> And another:
>
> OU HAVE BEEN A BIG CRITIC OF CIA HUMAN INTELLIGENCE. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE
> TO FIX IT? We're fixing it with quantity and quality. We're changing
> methods. We're changing systems. We're changing it from the beginning to
> the end, from the recruitment‹the types of people we are trying to
> attract‹to the way we bring them in, to the experience we give them in
> training, to the ways we get them on station or in places where they are
> of use to us.
> We are focused very much on finding ways to get our eyes and ears out
> and about on a global basis. And we are doing it in ways that you can't
> even imagine and I'm not even going to slightly discuss.
> [/color]

And your point?

In article <1119196713.379600.264910@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Dbu+^ wrote:[color=green]
> > In article <ntspam-A92DC9.10444819062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
> > Dbu+^ <ntspam@spc.om> wrote:
> >
> >[color=darkred]
> > > Porter Goss answers a question:
> > >
> > > COULD THE U.S. GO TO WAR AGAIN BASED ON FALSE INTELLIGENCE? I would not
> > > agree to surmise that America has gone to war based on false
> > > intelligence. I would say that the right question is: Should America be
> > > checking out threats to America? The answer is yes. And will we find
> > > some threats were more talk than real? Yes, we will.[/color]
> >
> > And another:
> >
> > OU HAVE BEEN A BIG CRITIC OF CIA HUMAN INTELLIGENCE. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE
> > TO FIX IT? We're fixing it with quantity and quality. We're changing
> > methods. We're changing systems. We're changing it from the beginning to
> > the end, from the recruitment‹the types of people we are trying to
> > attract‹to the way we bring them in, to the experience we give them in
> > training, to the ways we get them on station or in places where they are
> > of use to us.
> > We are focused very much on finding ways to get our eyes and ears out
> > and about on a global basis. And we are doing it in ways that you can't
> > even imagine and I'm not even going to slightly discuss.
> >[/color]
>
> And your point?[/color]

If you need to have it explained to you then you wouldn't be smart
enough to understand the explanation. So I go water the lawn, good-by
again.
--

Dbu+^ wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <1119196713.379600.264910@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> "Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Dbu+^ wrote:[color=darkred]
> > > In article <ntspam-A92DC9.10444819062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
> > > Dbu+^ <ntspam@spc.om> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Porter Goss answers a question:
> > > >
> > > > COULD THE U.S. GO TO WAR AGAIN BASED ON FALSE INTELLIGENCE? I wouldnot
> > > > agree to surmise that America has gone to war based on false
> > > > intelligence. I would say that the right question is: Should America be
> > > > checking out threats to America? The answer is yes. And will we find
> > > > some threats were more talk than real? Yes, we will.
> > >
> > > And another:
> > >
> > > OU HAVE BEEN A BIG CRITIC OF CIA HUMAN INTELLIGENCE. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE
> > > TO FIX IT? We're fixing it with quantity and quality. We're changing
> > > methods. We're changing systems. We're changing it from the beginningto
> > > the end, from the recruitment‹the types of people we are trying to
> > > attract‹to the way we bring them in, to the experience we give themin
> > > training, to the ways we get them on station or in places where they are
> > > of use to us.
> > > We are focused very much on finding ways to get our eyes and ears out
> > > and about on a global basis. And we are doing it in ways that you can't
> > > even imagine and I'm not even going to slightly discuss.
> > >[/color]
> >
> > And your point?[/color]
>
> If you need to have it explained to you then you wouldn't be smart
> enough to understand the explanation. So I go water the lawn, good-by
> again.
>[/color]

Ahhh, more pointless propaganda from Dbu, as he goes to hide and suck
his thumb ;-)

How does Mike Hunt put it? LOL

Learning Richard wrote:[color=blue]
> Dbu+^ wrote:[color=green]
>> In article <1119196713.379600.264910@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Dbu+^ wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <ntspam-A92DC9.10444819062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>, Dbu+^
>>>> <ntspam@spc.om> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Porter Goss answers a question:
>>>>>
>>>>> COULD THE U.S. GO TO WAR AGAIN BASED ON FALSE INTELLIGENCE? I
>>>>> would not agree to surmise that America has gone to war based on
>>>>> false intelligence. I would say that the right question is:
>>>>> Should America be checking out threats to America? The answer is
>>>>> yes. And will we find some threats were more talk than real? Yes,
>>>>> we will.
>>>>
>>>> And another:
>>>>
>>>> OU HAVE BEEN A BIG CRITIC OF CIA HUMAN INTELLIGENCE. WHAT HAVE YOU
>>>> DONE
>>>> TO FIX IT? We're fixing it with quantity and quality. We're
>>>> changing
>>>> methods. We're changing systems. We're changing it from the
>>>> beginning to
>>>> the end, from the recruitment > > > attract > > > training, to the
>>>> ways we get them on station or in places where they are of use to
>>>> us.
>>>> We are focused very much on finding ways to get our eyes and ears
>>>> out
>>>> and about on a global basis. And we are doing it in ways that you
>>>> can't
>>>> even imagine and I'm not even going to slightly discuss.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And your point?[/color]
>>
>> If you need to have it explained to you then you wouldn't be smart
>> enough to understand the explanation. So I go water the lawn,
>> good-by again.
>>[/color]
>
> Ahhh, more pointless propaganda from Dbu, as he goes to hide and suck
> his thumb ;-)[/color]

If he didn't have a point on his head, he wouldn't have a point at all.

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 15:44:47 GMT, Dbu+^ <ntspam@spc.om> wrote:
[color=blue]
>In article <7euab1t1qmv0jc1n7rqgosas1b2a1hhlb6@4ax.com>,
> Eric Dreher <ericd@cox.n?t> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 11:51:07 GMT, Scott in Florida
>> <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> >There's been a spate of stories lately about President Bush's poor
>> >poll numbers--the importance of which is a mystery to us, given that
>> >the next presidential election is almost 3 1/2 years away, and Bush
>> >won't be a candidate in any case. At the same time, the Angry Left
>> >seems to be getting less inhibited: witness Howard Dean's various
>> >bouts of logorrhea, Charlie Rangel's and Dick Durbin's outrageous
>> >Americans-are-Nazis claims, and now this.
>> >
>> >We suspect there's a connection here: The liberal media are persuading
>> >liberal pols that President Bush is in trouble with the public. The
>> >pols therefore conclude that the public is on their side, and this
>> >emboldens them to . . . well, in our opinion, to behave like total
>> >jackasses. Although we find this all somewhat vexing, we're guessing
>> >that in the end it will not pay off politically for the Dems.[/color]
>>
>> This sums up exactly what I've been saying for years. The
>> DemLemming's conduct comes down to desperation. They yearn
>> painfully for something, anything, that will stick. And due
>> to their obvious impotence, all they can do is cite questionable
>> polls which utilize structured questions so as to obtain desired
>> results.
>>
>> Impeachment has become their mantra, humiliatingly so. Their chairman
>> redefines the word "extremist" with his bizarre psychopathic conduct,
>> thankfully to the DNC's detriment. Those relegated to the cheap seats
>> in their self-destructive auditorium are bit players merely adding
>> acid-laced icing to their cupcake chairman. Sour stomachs galore.
>>
>> To draw an analogy, they've been reduced to the responses given to the
>> classroom coward whining to the teacher, "Billy kicked me. Shouldn't
>> he be sent to the principal's office?" The other children laugh at
>> the coward, and taunt him to stop crying and act like a man.
>>
>> Not likely with modern DemLemmings.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century.[/color]
>
>
>
>Porter Goss answers a question:
>
>COULD THE U.S. GO TO WAR AGAIN BASED ON FALSE INTELLIGENCE? I would not
>agree to surmise that America has gone to war based on false
>intelligence. I would say that the right question is: Should America be
>checking out threats to America? The answer is yes. And will we find
>some threats were more talk than real? Yes, we will.[/color]

It is obvious that George W. Bush is not afraid to back up his words
with action.

What is the result?

Two countries liberated....

One terrorist nation threw up the white flag.

A NUMBER of terrorists have assumed ambient temperature.

The ONLY thing these animals understand is force.

Good thing we got rid of Clintoon....he had no policy and waved in any
breeze that blew (including Monica...).


--

Scott in Florida

Scott in Florida wrote:[color=blue]
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 15:44:47 GMT, Dbu+^ <ntspam@spc.om> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> In article <7euab1t1qmv0jc1n7rqgosas1b2a1hhlb6@4ax.com>,
>> Eric Dreher <ericd@cox.n?t> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 11:51:07 GMT, Scott in Florida
>>> <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's been a spate of stories lately about President Bush's poor
>>>> poll numbers--the importance of which is a mystery to us, given
>>>> that the next presidential election is almost 3 1/2 years away,
>>>> and Bush won't be a candidate in any case. At the same time, the
>>>> Angry Left seems to be getting less inhibited: witness Howard
>>>> Dean's various bouts of logorrhea, Charlie Rangel's and Dick
>>>> Durbin's outrageous Americans-are-Nazis claims, and now this.
>>>>
>>>> We suspect there's a connection here: The liberal media are
>>>> persuading liberal pols that President Bush is in trouble with the
>>>> public. The pols therefore conclude that the public is on their
>>>> side, and this emboldens them to . . . well, in our opinion, to
>>>> behave like total jackasses. Although we find this all somewhat
>>>> vexing, we're guessing that in the end it will not pay off
>>>> politically for the Dems.
>>>
>>> This sums up exactly what I've been saying for years. The
>>> DemLemming's conduct comes down to desperation. They yearn
>>> painfully for something, anything, that will stick. And due
>>> to their obvious impotence, all they can do is cite questionable
>>> polls which utilize structured questions so as to obtain desired
>>> results.
>>>
>>> Impeachment has become their mantra, humiliatingly so. Their
>>> chairman redefines the word "extremist" with his bizarre
>>> psychopathic conduct, thankfully to the DNC's detriment. Those
>>> relegated to the cheap seats in their self-destructive auditorium
>>> are bit players merely adding acid-laced icing to their cupcake
>>> chairman. Sour stomachs galore.
>>>
>>> To draw an analogy, they've been reduced to the responses given to
>>> the classroom coward whining to the teacher, "Billy kicked me.
>>> Shouldn't he be sent to the principal's office?" The other
>>> children laugh at the coward, and taunt him to stop crying and act
>>> like a man.
>>>
>>> Not likely with modern DemLemmings.
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>> The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century.[/color]
>>
>>
>>
>> Porter Goss answers a question:
>>
>> COULD THE U.S. GO TO WAR AGAIN BASED ON FALSE INTELLIGENCE? I would
>> not agree to surmise that America has gone to war based on false
>> intelligence. I would say that the right question is: Should America
>> be checking out threats to America? The answer is yes. And will we
>> find some threats were more talk than real? Yes, we will.[/color]
>
> It is obvious that George W. Bush is not afraid to back up his words
> with action.[/color]

Yes, his scrambled words with scrambled action.
[color=blue]
> What is the result?
>
> Two countries liberated....
>
> One terrorist nation threw up the white flag.[/color]

Which would that be?
[color=blue]
> A NUMBER of terrorists have assumed ambient temperature.[/color]

That's soooo snazzy Scott, try not to wear it out K?
[color=blue]
> The ONLY thing these animals understand is force.[/color]

Animals huh, funny that our Soldiers have said they understand why they are
fighting, to defend their country...
[color=blue]
> Good thing we got rid of Clintoon....he had no policy and waved in any
> breeze that blew (including Monica...).[/color]

No, you tried to get rid of Clinton and failed, wasting everyone's time and
money.