On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 09:52:27 -0700, "jps" wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...
I thought it was especially good given the fact that it was written by a
Democratic representative in the Washington Post...which makes the story
harder for liberals to attack.

According to Marshall:
"I went to Iraq a couple of weeks ago to resolve for myself the recent
contrast between gloomy news coverage and optimistic Pentagon reports of
our
progress. My trip left no doubt that the Pentagon's version is far closer
to
reality."

He went to Iraq for a visit. I don't expect Marshall was in the streets in
the same way a reporter can blend in. He was likely with an entourage
wearing western clothes and being whisked around by Americans.

Most of the people reporting on Iraq LIVE THERE. They're in the news
business which begs another question. Why is the news coming out of Iraq
mostly negative? Does bad news sell better than good news? Perhaps so, if
you listen to Michael Moore who concludes that the media feeds on situations
that create fear.

Fear is the thing that sells best. Just like Bush pumping us with fear
about what might happen unless we go bomb the **** out of a fifth rate
military that doesn't have any WMDs.

You see, it cuts both ways. Bush sells fear, so does the media.


Answered your own question, didn't you?

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 18:52:42 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

NOYB wrote:

I thought it was especially good given the fact that it was written by a
Democratic representative in the Washington Post...which makes the story
harder for liberals to attack.

The only reason we are in Iraq is because the Bush-shippers thought it
would prop their boy up in the polls. Politics.

I thought y'all were saying it was, "Oil, oil, oil."


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 18:52:42 -0400, Harry Krause

wrote:

NOYB wrote:

I thought it was especially good given the fact that it was written by
a
Democratic representative in the Washington Post...which makes the
story
harder for liberals to attack.

The only reason we are in Iraq is because the Bush-shippers thought it
would prop their boy up in the polls. Politics.

I thought y'all were saying it was, "Oil, oil, oil."

Harry always said it was to prop up the Chickenhawkinchief.

I was the one screaming about oil.

Operation
Iraqi
Liberation

Now that the world community is watching, the chickenhawks are having a hard
time explaining why we should make them pay for repairs we caused.

Another major miscalculation by the neocons.

jps wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 18:52:42 -0400, Harry Krause

wrote:

NOYB wrote:

I thought it was especially good given the fact that it was written by
a
Democratic representative in the Washington Post...which makes the
story
harder for liberals to attack.

The only reason we are in Iraq is because the Bush-shippers thought it
would prop their boy up in the polls. Politics.

I thought y'all were saying it was, "Oil, oil, oil."

Harry always said it was to prop up the Chickenhawkinchief.

I was the one screaming about oil.

Operation
Iraqi
Liberation

Now that the world community is watching, the chickenhawks are having a hard
time explaining why we should make them pay for repairs we caused.

Another major miscalculation by the neocons.



Indeed, we bombed Iraq to smithereens and have to date found no
significant amounts of evidence to back up our "justification" for the
invasion. Why should the Iraqis pay for the stupidity and deceit of
George W. Bush?

--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 21:24:35 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Indeed, we bombed Iraq to smithereens and have to date found no
significant amounts of evidence to back up our "justification" for the
invasion. Why should the Iraqis pay for the stupidity and deceit of
George W. Bush?

Because Rush said so?

bb

"JohnH" wrote in message
...

Answered your own question, didn't you?

If that's our system, then don't bitch when Bush's fear mongering slaps the
Republicans in the face.

Double edged sword.

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:32:44 -0700, "jps" wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 18:52:42 -0400, Harry Krause

wrote:

NOYB wrote:

I thought it was especially good given the fact that it was written by
a
Democratic representative in the Washington Post...which makes the
story
harder for liberals to attack.

The only reason we are in Iraq is because the Bush-shippers thought it
would prop their boy up in the polls. Politics.

I thought y'all were saying it was, "Oil, oil, oil."

Harry always said it was to prop up the Chickenhawkinchief.

I was the one screaming about oil.

Operation
Iraqi
Liberation

Now that the world community is watching, the chickenhawks are having a hard
time explaining why we should make them pay for repairs we caused.

Another major miscalculation by the neocons.

Seems like I mentioned the watchful eyes of the world community several months
ago. Didn't seem to change your rhetoric any then.

The way the Dems are screaming for money from Iraqi oil, after screaming that
Bush was doing this only for oil (as were you, jcs), I can't see how the whole
mess of cirrhotic liverals can stand to see themselves in the mirror.

Is that why Kennedy's hair looks worse every day?

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 21:24:35 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


Indeed, we bombed Iraq to smithereens and have to date found no
significant amounts of evidence to back up our "justification" for the
invasion. Why should the Iraqis pay for the stupidity and deceit of
George W. Bush?

"We bombed Iraq to smithereens..." Did you mean to say that, Harry? Even the
CL's on the hill don't make such blithely ignorant statements. This was the most
"collateral damage free" war that ever was!

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

"JohnH" wrote in message
...

The way the Dems are screaming for money from Iraqi oil, after screaming
that
Bush was doing this only for oil (as were you, jcs), I can't see how the
whole
mess of cirrhotic liverals can stand to see themselves in the mirror.

Is that why Kennedy's hair looks worse every day?


Yes, yes, John. You bet. It was a humanitarian mission all along and oil
had nothing to do with it. Right.

It's a bad plan gone bad. No matter how much you attempt to piece it back
together into something that doesn't look like an preemptive, arrogant
unsupportable disaster, the more foolish you all look.

Wolfowitz was predicting Iraq would pay for its own rebuilding with oil
money. Bush didn't want to wait for a coalition to form because he wanted
to commandeer the situation.

They just didn't calculate real good.

Guess who's going to pay for it? That's right, you and me. How much do you
think those tax cuts are worth now? -$%

Spin away Mr. No Spin.

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 09:08:22 -0700, "jps" wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .

The way the Dems are screaming for money from Iraqi oil, after screaming
that
Bush was doing this only for oil (as were you, jcs), I can't see how the
whole
mess of cirrhotic liverals can stand to see themselves in the mirror.

Is that why Kennedy's hair looks worse every day?


Yes, yes, John. You bet. It was a humanitarian mission all along and oil
had nothing to do with it. Right.

It's a bad plan gone bad. No matter how much you attempt to piece it back
together into something that doesn't look like an preemptive, arrogant
unsupportable disaster, the more foolish you all look.

Wolfowitz was predicting Iraq would pay for its own rebuilding with oil
money. Bush didn't want to wait for a coalition to form because he wanted
to commandeer the situation.

They just didn't calculate real good.

Guess who's going to pay for it? That's right, you and me. How much do you
think those tax cuts are worth now? -$%

Spin away Mr. No Spin.

In other words, you were wrong. Sarcasm doesn't change facts.


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD