Erik wrote-
Really? I have heard many people claim that everybody talks when
tortured. In the movies, the tortures that are applied seem so tame
and unimaginative. Perhaps I have an unusually sadistic imagination,
but I can imagine tortures that I don't think anyone could possibly
endure without
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So it really depends on who the left is. If you
are talking about moderate democrats and liberals,
their plan would have been much the same as Bush's
sans the alienation of the rest of the world and the
war on Iraq this year (maybe not; Some in Clinton's
white
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We would then be at war for at least a decade. Does
that mean we can't criticize bush or the gop for
that long? Golly
Which, of course, no one is saying, except those
making indefensible criticisms and they trying to hide
their partisan motivations behind a
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 03:14 PM 7/27/2003 -0600 Michael Harney wrote:
The war on Iraq wasn't about liberating Iraq, it wasn't about weapons of
mass destruction or terrorism. It was entirely politically motivated.
The
republicans saw their approval failing after Osama
--- John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm glad you brought this up, Michael, because the
answer is between
100,000 and 200,000.Meanwhile, according to
UNICEF, Saddam Hussein was
kiilling around 5,000 people a day. Of course,
the Left only cares
about people killed by
At 06:24 PM 7/27/2003 -0700 Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm glad you brought this up, Michael, because the
answer is between
100,000 and 200,000.Meanwhile, according to
UNICEF, Saddam Hussein was
kiilling around 5,000 people a day. Of course,
Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
No. We are dealing with a pathological minority, backed
up by a large sector of public opinion in the Middle East. If
we clean up our act, public opinion there will change.
I'm in the middle and
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of John D. Giorgis
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 7:31 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Justifying the War Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
big snip
Your suggestion that the left's inability to form an effective war
plan
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of John D. Giorgis
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 10:50 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Justifying the War Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 06:24 PM 7/27/2003 -0700 Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- John D. Giorgis [EMAIL
Michael,
The NY Times reports that the US was considering Iraq as early as 9/13/01.
You seem to somehow imagine that Bush including Iraq in the axis of evil
in January somehow was not a clear signal that the US intended to effect
regime change in Iraq. Yet, by Presidents Day 2002, again while
At 11:26 PM 7/27/2003 -0400 Jon Gabriel wrote:
Didn't the Iraqi Information Minister say that the total number of
casualties was 100,000?
Hilarious!
Should we expect your next 'unimpeachable' source to be the Jon Lovitz'
Tommy the Liar character from SNL?
If nothing else, I figured that
- Original Message -
From: David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 9:55 PM
Subject: America in the Middle East, was: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: David Hobby
Worse in what way in 21st Century USA? Had them beaten? Had them lead
from the Capitol in chains and sent to Quantanamo with the rest of
the enemies of the US? The 19th century was, well the 19th century.
Has anything remotely like this happened in the 20th or 21st century
except in Texas
Dan Minette wrote:
But, we facilitated the change of government when the Shah was deposed,
about 25 years ago.
???
By supplying hostages?
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
At 02:18 PM 7/25/2003 -0400 Jon Gabriel wrote:
Actually, its called the House-Senate Conference Committe, and its
been around for a very, very long time.
I didn't mention this because it was in the MSNBC article. Frankly, I'm not
sure why you bring it up, so it seems like a non sequiter to me.
At 11:48 AM 7/25/2003 -0500 Julia Thompson wrote:
JDG - Will you guys ever let it go?
Probably not. (I'm just guessing.)
Will you ever stop pointing out the EC stuff every time they mention
it? :)
Eh, probably not. I have an almost reflexive need to point out the
truth - and ultimately
At 11:42 AM 7/21/2003 -0500 Julia Thompson wrote:
What kind of blanket did you bring in? And is there some sort of
mattress or padding that they can provide for you, or will you be on the
floor? (That could get very uncomfortable if you were trying to sleep
for more than, say, 45 minutes.)
Eh,
At 07:52 AM 7/24/2003 -0700 Nick Arnett wrote:
Setting aside sarcasm now... I think that you may be mistake in *expecting*
the left to come up with a coherent war plan against terrorism.
I think that's Gautam's point. If, as you seem to agree, the Left is
simply incapable of coming up with a
At 08:25 PM 7/24/2003 -0400 Robert J. Chassell wrote:
I don't get this. Soldiers do not go on suicide missions because they
think they are evil. They go on such missions because they think they
are virtuous and that their actions will help their compatriots.
Can you name a real life example of
At 08:09 AM 7/21/2003 -0700 Nick Arnett wrote:
Perhaps we are at war, but under that definition, I'm having a very hard
time imagining that we will ever NOT be at war. We are not going to remove
evil from the world, I'm quite sure.
Some likely conditions;
1) The establishment of a secure, viable
At 01:02 PM 7/25/2003 + Robert J. Chassell wrote:
If that is the case, why didn't the Administration say so? Why did
the Pentagon say at the end of May that it was still intending to
investigate 700 sites? Why, throughout May, did the US government say
it was increasing the size of its
Ritu and Nick make similar points which I will respond to here.
At 12:29 PM 7/25/2003 + Robert J. Chassell wrote:
Robert J. Chassell wrote:
The phrase The British have learned suggests to a listening
public that the US President had US intelligence agencies
Nick Arnett wrote:
If this is not the future we want to create, then shouldn't
we return to normal political discourse, in which one is
not branded a traitor for questioning the leadership. If we
can't question and criticize our leaders today, what is
going to change to allow us to
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do think that without serious citizen oversight,
the
Ashcroft Justice Dept. would (or will) make a
mockery
of the Constitution. If people don't make noise
about
it, we will lose some of our civil rights and
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do you think that Osama bin Laden objects to
the
same things about American foreign policy that you
do?
That's not a fair tactic in an
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Really? I have heard many people claim that everybody talks when
tortured. In the movies, the tortures that are applied seem so tame
and unimaginative.
How about Dustin Hoffman getting holes drilled in his teeth in
Marathon Man?
At 11:08 PM 7/24/2003 -0700 Nick Arnett wrote:
I would contend that had Gore won the
post 911 stuff would have gone the same. We would have gone into
Afghanastan with the same outcome. I would argue that Gore would
have been much better at using the good will towards the US that
exists after
Robert J. Chassell wrote:
The phrase The British have learned suggests to a listening
public that the US President had US intelligence agencies
investigate the matter.
John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] responded
It does not suggest this to me. Indeed the mere fact
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 11:08 PM 7/24/2003 -0700 Nick Arnett wrote:
I would contend that had Gore won the
post 911 stuff would have gone the same. We would have gone into
Afghanastan with the same outcome. I would argue that Gore would
have been much better at using
Robert J. Chassell wrote:
John, rather admirably, says that the lack of search was because the
Administration judged it more important in the latter part of April
and May to protect Iraqis from looters and such than to protect
Americans in Washington, DC, where he lives, or in
At 07:46 AM 7/25/2003 -0500 The Fool wrote:
Had not the partisan supreme court members unconstitutionally appointed
bush as dictator, and allowed the full Florida vote recount to proceed,
gore would have won the recount and the electoral college.
Wrong. It was Al Gore who prevented a full
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 01:02:00PM +, Robert J. Chassell wrote:
From what I have heard, US interrogators are contemptuous of old
fashioned torture since almost everyone who knows anything will die
first.
Really? I have heard many people claim that everybody talks when
tortured. In the
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 05:53 PM 7/24/2003 -0500 The Fool wrote:
http://msnbc.com/news/940963.asp?0sl=-44cp1=1
Didn't they used to duel on the floors of Congress?
Sounds like classic ingomious political chicanery to me.
When the majority party in congress feels it has
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 23:43:18 -0400
At 05:53 PM 7/24/2003 -0500 The Fool wrote:
http://msnbc.com/news/940963.asp?0sl
John D. Giorgis wrote:
At 11:08 PM 7/24/2003 -0700 Nick Arnett wrote:
Uh, didja forget? Gore *did* win -- the vote, anyway. Just not the office
that usually goes with it.
Yawn! Gore didn't win the only vote that counts - in the Electoral
College.
JDG - Will you guys ever let it
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uh huh. If the Democrats had done this while they were in the
majority
would we be hearing from you about how they were abusing their
power in the
worst possible way? I suspect so.
By denying *elected political
From: iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 17:49:17 -
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uh huh. If the Democrats had
From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED]
bush as dictator, and allowed the full Florida vote recount to proceed,
gore would have won the recount and the electoral college. This was the
I'm honestly curious: why do you think Gore would have won the re-recount?
IIRC, Gore lost the 1-2 recounts they did
John D. Giorgis wrote:
At 08:07 PM 7/24/2003 -0400 Robert J. Chassell wrote:
The phrase The British have learned suggests to a listening
public that the US President had US intelligence agencies investigate
the matter.
It does not suggest this to me. Indeed the mere fact that
--- David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do you think that Osama bin Laden objects to
the
same things about American foreign policy that you
do?
That's not a fair tactic in an argument.
But that seems to be
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Ritu
Umm, and since when have the Presidents of the USA been in the habit of
basing their policy statements on intelligence reports from other
countries without having their own agencies verify the
Guatam wrote:
If John Ashcroft were anyone _but_ an evangelical
Christian (speaking as a non-evangelical
non-Christian) the way he is treated by the Left would
be recognized by everyone for what it is - sheer
religious bigotry of the most unvarnished sort.
I know plenty of evangelical Christians
At 12:42 AM 7/24/2003 -0400, you wrote:
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
...
A lot of it probably has to do with collapse of an
ideology. September 11th was the deathknell of the
modern American left. It simply had no meaningful
response to the attack other than to suggest - either
openly or by
From: Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:15:17 -0400
At 12:42 AM 7/24/2003 -0400, you wrote:
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
...
A lot of it probably
Gautam Mukunda
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But of course this statement was carefully crafted.
The CIA could not confirm the allegation so the
speech writers found language that the CIA could
live with. So this was not simply a statement of
fact. The speech writer came up with a phrase
At 12:52 AM 7/24/2003 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote:
For a statement that you think was so carefully crafted to shield the
administration from accusations of lies,
What's carefully crafted about The British have learned
JDG
___
John
At 12:42 AM 7/24/2003 -0400 David Hobby wrote:
Like it or not, if your policies make some people
angry enough to kill themselves to show their displeasure,
you need to rethink your policies.
I totally disagree. If your policies make evil men angry enough to kill
themselves, you are
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Gautam Mukunda
...
Taken advantage of by people more interested in
political power than the national interest.
This sounds to me about as rational as characterizing the right as people
more interested
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Kevin Tarr
...
You, sir, are an idiot.
I'm having a hard time seeing that sentence as anything other than a
personal attack. Please refrain from that sort of generalization.
Nick
--- David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, it did do a lot to cause the attack. And not
by harmlessly distributing Britney Spears videos,
either.
Some of being targeted was because America was
walking point
for the West in general. But the US has done a lot
of
selfish things
From: David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 00:42:47 -0400
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
...
A lot of it probably has to do with collapse of an
ideology
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Taken advantage of by people more interested in
political power than the national interest.
This sounds to me about as rational as
characterizing the right as people
more interested in economic power than the national
interest.
Which is, of
From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 07:38:18 -0700 (PDT)
snip
What George Bush understands - but what all the
so-called intellectuals who
From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Gautam Mukunda
What's it's really about, though, is hate. Well, hate
and envy. A large portion of the world's left just
goes batshit crazy at the idea of George Bush. So
much so that no one, nothing, is more important
From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The left is defunct only if we remain forever in a
state of total war. And
that's precisely why a vaguely defined, open-ended
war on terrorism that
suspends normal checks and balances for civil rights
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda
...
The Joint Chiefs could probably do a pretty good job
of it. They could do no worse than the people running
them now, certainly. But, Nick, the war against
terrorism is more
--- The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
like the mythical ostrich, I guess. As long as
the
Ignorance is strength huh? Ostriches are __NOT__
mythical.
True, but they don't stick their head in the sands.
It is the mythical ostrich that does that. Not the
real one.
=
Gautam Mukunda
From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
like the mythical ostrich, I guess. As long as
the
Ignorance is strength huh? Ostriches are __NOT__
mythical.
True, but they don't stick their head in the sands.
It is the mythical ostrich that does
From: Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But by your logic, shouldn't we therefore expect that the administration's
next target will be the Saudis? There's plenty of evidence that they have
harbored, supported and trained terrorists whose sole goal is American
genocide.
Why do you think we
From: Nick Arnett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
How does this end? Can anyone offer a definition of the conditions
necessary for us to return to peacetime, or whatever one
might properly call 'normal' conditions?
It ends when the US has dominated all the other countries in the world, I
--- The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Friday browncoat republicans in the house of
representatives called the
police to arrest and remove democratic
representatives from a library in
the house of representatives. The future is here
and now. Never before
has something so shocking
--- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do think that without serious citizen oversight,
the
Ashcroft Justice Dept. would (or will) make a
mockery
of the Constitution. If people don't make noise
about
it, we will lose some of our civil rights and
freedom
(some will say that we
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Friday browncoat republicans in the house of
representatives called the
police to arrest and remove democratic
representatives from a library in
the house of representatives. The future is here
From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do think that without serious citizen oversight,
the
Ashcroft Justice Dept. would (or will) make a
mockery
of the Constitution. If people don't make noise
about
it, we will lose some of our
--- Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do think that without serious citizen oversight,
the Ashcroft Justice Dept. would (or will) make a
mockery
of the Constitution. If people don't make noise
about it, we will lose some of our
What's carefully crafted about The British have learned
Suppose I say that `James has learned to drive'. If I then say, `he
drove into the ditch' you understand that I was being ironic about the
phrase `learned to drive'. This is because learning, in everyday use,
is not supposed
Like it or not, if your policies make some people angry enough
to kill themselves to show their displeasure, you need to rethink
your policies.
I totally disagree. If your policies make evil men angry enough
to kill themselves, you are very likely doing the right thing.
I
Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Seriously, if the admin actually was trying to craft a believable
lie that would not blow up in their faces, don't you think they'd
do a better job of it, and have all their ducks lined up, i's
dotted, t's crossed, etc.?
Please tell me why the
I think statements indicating that the
administration is obviously telling the truth and
that anyone not agreeing this is either what?
stupid? venal? totally naive? totally cynical?
Taken advantage of by people more interested in
political power than the national interest.
Sol in
In a message dated 7/24/2003 8:34:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
What's carefully crafted about The British have
learned
The White House wanted a stronger statement but the CIA experts would not appove it.
They tried several iterations before this was chosen
At 11:35 AM 7/24/2003 -0400 Jon Gabriel wrote:
But by your logic, shouldn't we therefore expect that the administration's
next target will be the Saudis? There's plenty of evidence that they have
harbored, supported and trained terrorists whose sole goal is American
genocide.
Why do you think
At 11:21 AM 7/24/2003 -0500 The Fool wrote:
It is merely a myth about ostriches. Your claim was that ostriches were
mythical, you did not mention any behavior of ostriches.
On the scale of being pedantic from 0 to 10, I rate this as a 7.5 .Your
post about I already posted that article a week
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Deborah Harrell wrote:
--- The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Friday browncoat republicans in the house of
representatives called the
police to arrest and remove democratic
representatives from a library in
the house of representatives. The future is here
In a message dated 7/24/2003 5:26:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
If John Ashcroft were anyone _but_ an evangelical
Christian (speaking as a non-evangelical
non-Christian) the way he is treated by the Left would
be recognized by everyone for what it is - sheer
At 08:07 PM 7/24/2003 -0400 Robert J. Chassell wrote:
The phrase The British have learned suggests to a listening
public that the US President had US intelligence agencies investigate
the matter.
It does not suggest this to me. Indeed the mere fact that British
intelligence is being
At 05:53 PM 7/24/2003 -0500 The Fool wrote:
http://msnbc.com/news/940963.asp?0sl=-44cp1=1
Didn't they used to duel on the floors of Congress?
Sounds like classic ingomious political chicanery to me.
JDG
___
John D. Giorgis -
At 12:44 AM 7/25/2003 + Robert J. Chassell wrote:
John, rather admirably, says that the lack of search was because the
Administration judged it more important in the latter part of April
and May to protect Iraqis from looters and such than to protect
Americans in Washington, DC, where he
apologies if this is a double-post - hotmail went wonky when I first tried
to send it
From: Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Seriously, if the admin actually was trying to craft a believable
lie that would not blow up in their faces, don't you think
Jon Gabriel wrote:
...
Like it or not, if your policies make some people
angry enough to kill themselves to show their displeasure,
you need to rethink your policies. But this is not a very
popular thing to say, and the Left does have some political
sense.
How about killing
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I would contend that had Gore won the
post 911 stuff would have gone the same. We would have gone into
Afghanastan with the same outcome. I would argue that Gore would
have been much
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, it did do a lot to cause the attack. And not
by harmlessly distributing Britney Spears videos,
either.
Some of being targeted was because America was
walking point
for the West in general. But the US has
Like it or not, if your policies make some people
angry enough to kill themselves to show their displeasure,
you need to rethink your policies. But this is not a very
popular thing to say, and the Left does have some political
sense.
---David
In a message dated 7/21/2003 12:06:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
This, of course, was a totally unreasonable presumpion regarding
intelligence from our British allies, which they had
strongly vouched for
in response to US questions.
But of course this statement was
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But of course this statement was carefully crafted.
The CIA could not confirm the allegation so the
speech writers found language that the CIA could
live with. So this was not simply a statement of
fact. The speech writer came up with a phrase that
would shield
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think statements indicating that the
administration is obviously telling the truth and
that anyone not agreeing this is either what?
stupid? venal? totally naive? totally cynical?
Taken advantage of by people more interested in
political power than the national
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
...
A lot of it probably has to do with collapse of an
ideology. September 11th was the deathknell of the
modern American left. It simply had no meaningful
response to the attack other than to suggest - either
openly or by implication - that the United States had
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But of course this statement was carefully crafted. The CIA could not
confirm the allegation so the speech writers found language that the CIA
could live with. So this was not simply a statement of fact. The speech
writer came up with a phrase that would shield the
Doug Pensinger wrote:
What's rotten is the Bush administration, from the
$500B deficit and the unashamed favoritism
towards the well to do, to the secret military
tribunals and prisoners held without being
charged, to severely mismanaged foreign policy and
an unnecessary war stirred up
Actually, a large part of the justification for te war was based on the
fact that Iraq was continuing to pursue the acquisition of WMD's -
particularly nuclear weapons - and not that it necessarily already had
nuclear weapons. Moreover, I also recall Colin Powell mentioning mobile
At 05:37 PM 7/17/2003 -0700 Gautam Mukunda wrote:
Furthermore, Bob, you're much too smart to believe
something as dumb as that the world of intelligence is
quite as clear as whether Bill Clinton had sex with
Monica Lewinsky.
Since I never got around to answering Gautam on this issue
At 08:33 AM 7/22/2003 -0700 Matt Grimaldi wrote:
Don't forget the high turnaround in the top posts of
various agencies (e.g. SEC, FBI, etc.)
U. every report I have seen has shown that Bush has had near-record
stability among the top posts of the various agencies.So, but what
standard
David wrote-
THERE IS NO WAR ON TERROR. The United States has fewer than
1 casualities, civilian and military, since September 2001
or whenever. Sorry, but we have not been hurt enough to
justify treating this as a war. Having Bush call it a war
does not make it one.
John wrote-
Feel
At 11:30 PM 7/21/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am arguing that Bush and his cronies are trying to make it so that they
will be in
control of the country.
But how?
We cannot spend 400 billion dollars a year without paying for it.
Actually, we can and have. The current deficit is
At 11:59 PM 7/21/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So accept my apology; I was pissed at Gautam and should not have dragged
your
name into this.
Thank you. Apology accepted.
JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
At 08:17 AM 7/21/2003 -0700 Nick Arnett wrote:
Sorry Nick, but if you can find me someone who thought that the British
reports of Iraqi atempts to acquire uranium in Africa was the lynchpin of
the war argument, then maybe this hulabaloo would all be justified.
As it was, this claim was merely
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The notion that the response to terrorism is a war is at best a weak
analogy sort of the war on cancer.
Or, more aptly IMO, the war on drugs. And every bit as fruitless the
way we are fighting it.
Doug
___
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
John D. Giorgis
...
No, we are at war because September 11th caused this President to
recognize
that we had long since been at war in a way that we had not previously
recognized.Moreover, 9/11
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of John D. Giorgis
...
Sorry Nick, but if you can find me someone who thought that the British
reports of Iraqi atempts to acquire uranium in Africa was the lynchpin of
the war argument, then maybe this
John D. Giorgis wrote:
At 11:40 PM 7/18/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cut the war time crap! We are not under active attack.
Which is why the US government instructed me to to stock a change of
clothes, toiletries, a pillow, and a blanket in my office in case of an
attack?
What
- Original Message -
From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 10:09 AM
Subject: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
101 - 200 of 291 matches
Mail list logo
