They (Washington Post) printed it! OT
 

John H wrote:
In case you're interested. This is proof the Washington Post isn't
totally, 100%, biased!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jan2.html


John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

Well done & good on ya!!!

Maybe all that's needed is for the honest to actually say something
when the left spruik BS??

Again well done.

K

They (Washington Post) printed it! OT
 

Harry Krause wrote:
Joe Parsons wrote:


On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 13:43:44 -0500, John H wrote:


In case you're interested. This is proof the Washington Post isn't
totally, 100%, biased!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jan2.html


John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John, is it your belief that the story that prompted your letter to the editor
("No-Name Reporting") was a fabrication?

Or do you think there might be a possibility that many of the sources used in
Dana Priest's story spoke "not for attribution?"

It is definitely true that, journalistically speaking, being able to name every
single source is preferable--but it is not responsible journalism to refuse to
report a statement merely because someone speaks not-for-attribution.

For anyone who might be interested, the original news article ("Hussein's
Capture Not Likely to Harm Al Qaeda") is at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec25.html.

Apart from those sources who spoke not-for-attribution, what do you find in the
article that was non-credible? And do you find the named sources (Michael
Pillsbury, Matthew Levitt, Steven Simon and Rand Beers) to be credible because
they are named?

But it's always a treat to see one's name in print, isn't it!

And we knew you back when...

Joe Parsons



Herring's just looking for ways, *any* ways, to pump up his
simple-minded belief in George W. Bush. The fact that the Post ran his
little note to the editor on Saturday tells it all - Saturday's reader
letters are mostly run as an inside joke. Remember that old feature on
Johnny Carson's Tonight Show...the one where Johnny comes out in a
lumberjack's plaid jacket and makes some idiotic response to an item in
the news? That's our Johnny...Herring.


Gee who's a bit jealous then, you have never been published much less
in the Washington Post, all you can do is have you junior position in
the PR dept of a lefty union insurance Co, where you pretend you "write"
yet where are the articles??? Lies upon lies nothing mo-)

The fact that you work in the PR dept just helps explain how & why you
have no idea what the truth is.

K

I try to keep a little on topic material if possible so .....


PR Contacts

For media inquiries, please contact the individual listed below:

Harry Krause
ULLICO Inc.
(202) 682-7957



Here's some of Harry's lies for you, just to bring back old memories:-)



Just to make your day, not only was
I a civilian employee in SE Asia, it was in Vietnam, it was during the
war against Vietnam, I did see some horrific sights and I was working at
the time for a U.S. general. Is that straightforward enough for you,
John, or is your amoeba still chasing your synapse


I'm doing my part to ease unemployment. I'm hiring another writer for my staff. Will be putting the ad on MONSTER.COM and in the Wash Post.



I need more staff because 2004 is a major election year and business
booked to date indicates we'll be drowning in work. We need to hire a
production coordinator, too. It has very little to do with the state of the economy, other than using it as reason to defeat Republicrap
candidates.


I'm doing my part to ease unemployment. I'm hiring another writer for my

staff. Will be putting the ad on MONSTER.COM and in the Wash Post.











We have first-class benefits, including a top-of-the-line health
insurance plan, a non-contributory defined-benefit pension plan, a 401k,
and a life insurance policy equal to annual salary. We contribute a
share of profits to the 401k on behalf of the employee. Our employees
pay $4.50 for generic prescriptions and $8.00 for non-generics, but
that's going up next year to $10 and $15. New employees get two weeks
vacation the first year, and that goes to three weeks the third year. In
addition, we have 12 paid holidays and we shut down from noon on
Christmas eve to the day after New Year's Day. We also provide 20 days
of paid sick leave a year. And we have an outside company administering
pre-tax flexible bennies for our employees.
Our fringe benefit package follows the trade union model, except, of
course, for the profit contributions to 401k's. Trade unions are
not-for-profit enterprises.
How do these compare to the bennies at your shop?

Paid? Every year? I call "bull****". With 3 weeks vacation, 12 paid
holidays, and 20 paid sick days that's 47 *paid* days off every year. Are
they hourly employees? For a "small business", that's the road to
bankruptcy.

Boy...and you had me going there for a minute.

Not quite so simple, though you are trying hard to make it so. Our
business is up because we're on the cusp of an election year. Our
business always goes up in a major election year.
You could say we're going to be doing very well in 2004 because Bush is
such a total failure.


The 20 paid sick days aren't part of the "paid" days off unless those
days are used. None of our people abuses sick leave. In fact, no one as
yet has even come close to using 20 sick days in one year. They're there
in case they're needed.


Oh, I forgot. We also provide everyone with LTD.

The company provides an insurance plan that pays 50% of an employe's
salary for Long Term Disability. Employes have the option of purchasing
an additional 16.66%, bringing their total to 66.66%. The basic benefit
maximum is $4,000 per month. With the buy up, the limit is increased to
$10,000 per month.




Sure. I'm in the market for a new marine diesel of 420-480 shp. I'm especially
interested in Volvo's TAMD74P EDC, because Volvo has had a lot of experience
with electronic controls in that size diesel. I've dismissed getting a Cat 3208
TA because the technology is so old and because a couple of commercial fishermen
I know who have had 3208's have, basically, burned them out.



Thanks. Yes, Cummins is talked about favorably by some of the guys I've been
talking to. Most of them have had experience with Cats, especially the 3208, and
in recent years some have moved to Volvos.

These are commercial fishermen, mostly, running hulls somewhat similar to what
we're doing.



No, the diesel is for a new boat we're having built.



Hmmm. A fishing/day cruising boat with some range, nice speed, a real soft ride,
offshore capabilities and sleeping/full head(with standup shower
enclosure)/galley accommodations. Fiberglass, although the architect did try to
convince me to go with cold-molded wood, which I do like.
More specifically, I suppose, a lobsta' boat, sort of, if that brings up a
mental image for you.



She'll measure 36' sans a bowsprit x a little more than 12' in beam. The hull
buttom is built down to the keel. There are no chines.
The hull is efficient at displacement and planing speeds. According to the hull
builder, if we keep the weight within certain limits, we'll achieve a WOT of
about 37-38 mph, and a very easy cruise of 30-32 mph on a single diesel of about
420-450 hp. She'll cruise slow and economically, too.
We expect a very smooooooooooth riding boat, able to take on a big headsea at a
pretty good clip without beating up the folks inside.
Fitting out a boat like this is going to be an interesting and stimulating
experience. Basically, we get to spec everything and we end up with a custom
boat

It's Lou Codega. He's a widely known and respected naval architect. He
does Regulator's hulls, too. He's done the Navigator 37. I believe he's
also done designs for Carolina Classic.

Cummins faxed me a bunch of computer generated data today on engine choices for

the new boat.

On the 36-footer, 16,000 pounds displacement:

QSM11 635 hp, 36.3 mph WOT, 32.1 mph at sustained cruise, marine gear ratio of
1.77, turning a four blade 26x35 prop on a 2.50 inch Aquamet 22 shaft. Too much
engine.

QSM11 535 hp at 2300 rpm, 33.3 mph WOT, 29.5 mph at sustained cruise of 2100
rpm, same gear ratio, 24x34 prop. Right on the money.

6CTA8.3 450 hp, 30.6 mph WOT, 27.5 mph at sustained cruise, 2.00:1 gear ratio,
24x31 four blade prop on Aquamet 22 2" shaft.

Cummins tells me its program is "about 8% too conservative."

Looks like the QSM11 535 will be the right engine. Its fuel use is only a little
more than the 450's and a lot less than the 635 hp engine. What I want is a 30
mph sustained cruise speed, and 535 hp will do it. Cummins also figured the boat
at 1000 pounds heavier than our target, which is probably the smart thing to do.
Besides, the QSM is a new, all computerized design.


The hull form is what got to me. The boat has a substantial keel and it is a
built-down keel, right to its bottom, not just "tacked" on. It backs down
beautifully. And it seems to roll one heck of a lot less in a beam sea than the
semi-vee 36 footers I've been on, and especially some large deep vee fishing
boats of about the same size its been my pleasure to fish aboard. I believe it
is a function of the keel and the really low center of gravity. Amazing, for a
boat that is round bilged and fairly flat under the transom. No chines. Just
splash rails forward and aft. A soft, soft ride...which is what I wanted.






Here's just some of his prior lies (in his own words pasted);

I sold off nearly $3,000,000 in new motors and boats, depressing
the new boat
industry in southern Connecticut for an entire season. Everything was
sold...every
cotter pin, every quart of oil, 30 days after I started. For near
full-retail, too.


He had just under $1,000,000 on floor plan with a
syndicate of banks led by National Shawmut of Boston. He had been a
solid customer of that back for more than 20 years and they gave him
great rates.



As far as your other complaints, well, almost every president in my memory,
and I *remember* Truman, Eisenhower (who cheated on his wife), Kennedy,
Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush, lied and participated in
deceit to one degree or another, and on issues far more important than who
was giving them blow jobs.

Good lord. I met *every* president in the damned group except Bush, and I
worked once for his father.



My father used to pray that the north shore of LI Sound would be hit by
a mild hurricane. No
one injured, no on-shore property damaged, but lots of boats sunk.
Preferably early in July.


We had the Hatteras for two years. Last year, out of the cold clear, a
broker approached me with an offer to buy. Our continued Florida
lifestyle was somewhat up in the air, because the two breadwinners
hereabouts were about to be offered long-term but temporary assignments
they could not refuse in the Washington, D.C., area. So, after being
romanced a little, we sold the Hatt for almost precisely what we paid
for it. Not bad, after two full years of use. And I mean full years. So,
we didn't "make" any money off the Hatt, but we didn't lose any, either.
The proceeds were prudently invested.

The PWC was won as
a prize in a raffle.



Never mind that. Why does he have a Bilgeliner in front of his office?
Is it a display of "Boating Don'ts?"
Yeah, when we were in the boat biz, my father always had one or two














"around the back" that he was forced to take in trade. These were sold
as "as is, where is." He made sure the engine would start and run.
Beyond that, it was up to the prospective buyer to decide if he wanted
it. They moved off the lot pretty quickly, partially because my dad's
main store was on a highly trafficked commercial route with lots of
manufacturing and machining and aerospace plants near by. In those days,
workers at these places could fix anything.


Actually, Dipper, I don't think my father ever saw a Bayliner. But he still
called bumpers bumpers.
--



Bayliner wined and dined my father a half dozen times to entice him
into becoming its dealer. His operation was the largest small boat
dealership in its area of New England, and for 30 years, he was the
*exclusive* Evinrude dealer in a densely populated coastal county. He
also handled Mercuries. He never liked Bayliners, and referred to them
as "jerry-built."


From 1947 until he died, he sold more than 500 outboard motors a
year from his stores, accounting for a reasonably high percentage of *all*
outboards sold in his home state for those years.


This is a killer. My father was in the boat business dating back to
right after
the Big War. When he died and I was looking through his warehouse, I found
wrapped in a nuclear fall-out bag (no kidding), a brand-new 1949
Evinrude 8015
50 hp outboard. The motor was a gift to my father from Evinrude for
winning some
outboard stock utility or hydroplane race.

I gave the motor to a friend of my dad's, who worked at the shop as head
mechanic. I don't believe he ever used it and I'm sure it is still
brand-new. I
have no idea who might own it now.



He also built
boats, and I worked on a few, both wood, glass covered wood and
all fiberglass. After he died, however, we sold the biz and I've
just been an occasional boat owner.


Besides, I worked off and on in the
boat business and inherited it when he died. So, as I said, I'm
knee-deep in boat heritage.


Oh,
and I had some friends who died in the service, too, but it wasn't for
what they believed in. They were drafted, shipped to Vietnam and came
back in body bags.


During the war, he turned out experimental brass shell casings
for the
Army and hopped up outboards for the Navy, which wanted to use them on
smaller
landing craft. I had photos at one time of my father with Ole Evinrude
himself.
My mother knew one of Evinrude's wives...she was a minor movie star or
singer...I forgot which. Maybe both.



Have you ever sailed from San Francisco to Hawaii? I have.
Have you ever rounded Cape Horn? I have, twice.
Have you ever transited the Panama Canal? I have.
Have you owned more than 20 boats in your lifetime? I have.
Have you ever sailed large boats competitively? I have.
Have you ever been hundreds of miles from land in a powerboat under your
command? I have.


My father and his chief mechanic once crossed the Atlantic in winter in
a 22'
boat powered by twin outboards. Yes, it is possible, even the fuel. Got a
"fireboat" welcome in NYC.




Here are some:

Hatteras 43' sportfish
Swan 41' racing/cruising sloop
Morgan 33
O'Day 30
Cruisers, Inc., Mackinac 22
Century Coronado
Bill Luders 16, as sweet a sailboat as ever caught a breeze.
Century 19' wood lapstrake with side wheel steering
Cruisers, Inc. 18' and 16' wood lapstrakes
Wolverines. Molded plywood. Gorgeous. Several. 14,15,17 footers with various
Evinrudes
Lighting class sailboat
Botved Coronet with twin 50 hp Evinrudes. Interesting boat.
Aristocraft (a piece of junk...13', fast, held together with spit)
Alcort Sunfish
Ancarrow Marine Aquiflyer. 22' footer with two Caddy Crusaders.
Guaranteed 60
mph. In the late 1950's.
Skimmar brand skiff
Arkansas Traveler fiberglass bowrider (I think it was a bowrider)
Dyer Dhow
Su-Mark round bilge runabout, fiberglass
Penn Yan runabouts. Wood.
Old Town wood and canvas canoe
Old Town sailing canoe...different than above canoe



Sometime in the early 1960s, I was driving back from Ft. Leonard Wood to
Kansas City in a nice old MGA I owned at the time. About halfway home it
started raining heavily, I turned on the wipers, and EVERY SINGLE
electrical accessory and light in the car flashed on, there was a large
popping sound and it all blew out at once. And the car caught fire. I
pulled over to the side of the road, watched the fire, removed my
license plate and hitched on home. For all I know, that old MGA is still
there.

Sure was a pretty little car.


Puh-lease, Karen. You've not seen nor have I ever posted one example of
my professional writings on building structure and the effects on it of
hurricane-force winds and seismic activity. I haven't done any of these
in at least 10 year, but at the time I was field researching,
photographing and writing these reports, they were quite accurate,
topical and well-received by their intended audiences.


A small fleet of Polar skiffs were purchased by an inshore bait, tackle

and boat rental business on the ICW in NE Florida. These boats were not
used on open waters. Within 90 days, cracks developed in the liners that
also served as the deck over the flotation in the bottom of the hulls. A
guide I know, one whose boats and engines are supplied to him by
manufacturers, also had a Polar skiff go bad on him for the same reasons
-liner and then hull fractures.














Harry has claimed to have a 20 yrs his junior beautiful wife, he even put a fake pic of a beautiful woman on a website once claiming it was his "young bride", he may have a wife, although I doubt it, we don't like nor tolerate misogynists for long.

Needless to say he's made up many "dramatic" over the top stories over the years about this lie to feed his ego & pretend he's the centre of attention, but as with his boat claims & other crap, there's never once been even a shred of independently verifiable material.

After he stalked Madcow in real life, which was most frightening, I do suspect he's very very dangerous & that this "bride" story is his delusional appropriation of his, probably court ordered, treating psychotherapist as "wife" (it seems he was under lock & key for what?? over a year??? a sexual deviant maybe??), have a read of just a small part of his BS & make up your own mind, it's all about free choice:-)


1. She *is* my bride. There are no rules that determine the end of
"bride-hood." If I want to refer to her as my bride, I may.

2. As a professional writer, I know the rules of language and am entitled to
break them in exercise of my license.

3. I doubt many married women would object to their husbands lovingly
referring to them as brides. The connotations are pleasant.

4. She's 20 years younger than I am.



Naw. What happened was that I handled a couple of "political" consulting
jobs funded out of the DC area to help a few candidates and defeat a
couple of ballot issues. Through no fault of mine, we won each of the
races, so some of the deep pockets types based in the DC area think I
actually *know something* about the process. I was offered a contract
that requires my presence in DC quite frequently. My bride also was
offered a job up here that represented a significant professional career
move. So, we're "up here" much of the time and "down there" the rest of
it, except when we're "somewhere else." I've been back to Jax (well,
really south of Jax) five times since coming "up here" late last summer
and my bride just returned from a business trip there.

I swear this is true.


Here's a funny. My bride had to fly out to San Diego Wednesday and
hitched a ride on her company's corporate jet. They landed in Salina,
Kansas, which is due north of Wichita and Skippy's suburb of Derby.

So when she gets to San Diego, I get a call asking, "What the hell did
you do in Kansas...we didn't fly over one significant patch of
water...?"

Harry, you make over 500 posts a week to this group and you don't own
a boat?
And why are you so crabby?
Maybe these two factors are related?



One has to own something to use it? Hmmm. My bride drives off in her car
every day, but she doesn't own it.

I'm not crabby. You asked for advice I gave you some. I questioned your
wanting to take a very small boat out into high seas and suddenly you
turned sour. It's your pot; you are the one stewing in it.

No, it is the boat of a friend. It is a 24' ProLine center console with,
if I recall, a 225 hp Merc on it. It was a dark and stormy day in
January (1997) when we went out, but the sky cleared once we got out to
the Gulf Stream.


Bride and I caught and released:

1 white marlin
12-15 yellowtail snappers, maybe two pounds each. Pretty, pretty fish.
Assorted red snappers
1 amberjack
2 jack crevalle jacks
1 snook
Nondescript sharks

Did you spend a year as a line psychotherapist at a 650-bed state
hospital for forensic patients?
Did you spend a year as senior psychotherapist at a county facility for
substance abusers?
Did you spend two years as chief of therapy at a private, 200-bed
facility for the mentally and emotionally ill, at which approximately
half the patients were trying to beat drugs or alcohol?
Are you currently chief of therapy for a for a multi-practitioner
practice of some 825 patients, about a third of which are seeking help
for substance abuse problems?


Licensed psychotherapist
Screening as to character and background for each degree earned
On-going screening by faculty while in educational system
Interviews and screenings for required years of internships, plus, at the same
time, supervision by a licensed professional.
Close professional and personal supervision by a licensed therapist for two years
of employment before being allowed to apply for licensure
Licensure background check, submission of recommendations by licensed
practitioners
Four hour written examination on state laws
Five hour written examination on diagnosis, procedure and practice

My wife went through this before becoming licensed. Her final internship was as a
psychotherapist at a 600-bed high security state psychiatric hospital where, on a
daily basis, she was exposed to more danger than your average soldier.

My wife worked for a year as psychotherapist in a Florida 600-bed state
mental institution for forensic patients. She saw and treated numerous
sexual deviants who do a bit more than expose themselves. Such "treatment"
is part of being in the mental health professions.


You see, I'm a nautical psychotherapist, and for only $125 an hour,
until their health insurance runs out, I help Bayliner owners overcome their
feelings of boatable inadequacy.


She is a licensed, practicing
psychotherapist and often tells me I am the sanest person she sees each
day. Which can be taken any way one likes.


1. I'm married to a psychotherapist. Live-in therapy, dontcha know? And much of
Freud is passe.

My ex-wife surpassed the anti-Christ at least a decade ago.

They're not actually "free" moments. I go to boat dealers to round-up
Bayliner owners who are trying to find one who will take their own
version of flotsam and jetsam in on trade.


1. The address listed is not a home address. It is an office.

2. I have three phone numbers. The phone number listed is not one of
mine. It has never been one of mine. The phone number *did* belong to an
after-hours message recording hotline my wife maintained for her most
mentally disturbed patients. Some of these troubled souls were
court-ordered referrals. *Every* call to that phone number--every
call--was recorded AND because of the nature of the line, my wife had
the ability to alert the telephone company to trace the phone number of
every incoming call to that line, *even* if the person making the call
tried to block his number.

Why, you might ask? Because when you are dealing with suicidal people,
they'll liable to tell their therapist over the phone that they are
planning to take their life. If the therapist believes the threat is
real, she or he will want to dispatch emergency srvices and perhaps the
police.

In the years my wife has provided this pro bono service, she has never
received a threatening or abusive call from a mentally ill patient or
court-ordered referral. However, after the ranking Flaming Ass of this
newsgroup posted the hotline number in this newsgroup, she received a
number of abusive, foul-mouthed AND life-threatening calls. These were
mostly directed at me but, of course, I never received them BECAUSE
(duh!) the phone is not mine and I've never answered it.
Naturally, my wife alerted the authorities, with whom she works closely
because of her court-referred patients. The authorities are
investigating the callers and have involved both the FBI *and*
authorities in other states, including Florida, Georgia, California and
Texas. Working with the telephone company, the authorities have been
able to trace the origin of virtually every abusive call. And, of
course, they have the tape recordings of the abusive messages. Several
suspects have been identified. I really don't know what the outcome of
all this will be. We haven't had an update in several weeks, nor are
either of us here that interested in the sleazeballs that would make
such calls.


The phone number, of course, is "wired," so when the obnoxious calls came in
from the idiot rec.boaters, the numbers were easy enough to trace. The local
police handled a complaint, the local telco was involved and when it was
discovered the point of origin was out of state, the FBI got involved. At
least one of the idiots was caught and prosecuted. As far as I can tell, he
has not posted here again

They (Washington Post) printed it! OT
 

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 23:50:28 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 13:43:44 -0500, John H wrote:

Joe, below is the original letter sent to the Post:

****************************
Today's Washington Post has an article entitled "Hussein's Capture Not
Likely to Harm Al Qaeda," written by Dana Priest, a Washington Post
Staff Writer. The article is not long, maybe 20 column inches, but was
interesting because of the sources she cites. Some are reproduced
below:

"The prevailing view among many U.S. intelligence agencies and
terrorism experts is..."

"Some terrorism experts...view..."

"The more common view...is..."

"Two officials said..."

"...intelligence sources were reporting..."

"...one official said..."

"...is based on the judgement (sic) from many in the intelligence
community..."

"...senior Bush administration officials..."

"...members of congress..."

"...said a counterterrorism intelligence analyst."

"A defense official with access..."

"Another senior administration (sic) ..."

"Some experts believe..."

"But most others said they believe..."

Is Dana reporting something here, or is she making up a story to fit
her agenda? She did, in fact, use actual names a few times, one of
whom is an advisor to Senator Kerry.

Is this supposed to be credible?

John L. Herring
Alexandria, VA
************************************************** *********
In case you're interested. This is proof the Washington Post isn't
totally, 100%, biased!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jan2.html


John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John, is it your belief that the story that prompted your letter to the editor
("No-Name Reporting") was a fabrication?

The thesis of her article is: "But the prevailing view among many U.S.
intelligence agencies and terrorism experts is that Hussein's capture,
and indeed the U.S. war in Iraq, will have little discernible
short-term impact on the web of al Qaeda-affiliated organizations that
most threaten the United States and U.S. interests abroad."

I do not disagree with that statement, nor do I think any reasonable
person would. Furthermore, I think the same statement could be made
when and if we capture/kill Osama. It's like saying, "The resignation
of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will have little short
term impact on the conduct of Iraqi operations by US forces."

Or do you think there might be a possibility that many of the sources used in
Dana Priest's story spoke "not for attribution?"

There may be a possibility that many of the sources used spoke "not
for attribution." There may also be a possibility that many of her
"sources" were fictitious.

It is definitely true that, journalistically speaking, being able to name every
single source is preferable--but it is not responsible journalism to refuse to
report a statement merely because someone speaks not-for-attribution.

Completely understandable, if the statement was made. However, when a
journalist must use a non-attributable source every one and a half
inches in her story, a reader should start wondering about the
credibility of the journalist. A named source is at least putting
his/her own credibilitly on the line when making a statement. The
named source can be contacted to see if he/she actually made the
statement. There is a big difference between 'someone' and 'almost
everyone'!

For anyone who might be interested, the original news article ("Hussein's
Capture Not Likely to Harm Al Qaeda") is at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec25.html.

Apart from those sources who spoke not-for-attribution, what do you find in the
article that was non-credible? And do you find the named sources (Michael
Pillsbury, Matthew Levitt, Steven Simon and Rand Beers) to be credible because
they are named?

There is nothing in the article I find 'non-credible'. I find it
easier to believe that the statements from the named sources were
actually made. In fact, if the entire story had consisted of only the
last four paragraphs, I would have had no comment.

But it's always a treat to see one's name in print, isn't it!

And we knew you back when...

Joe Parsons


John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

They (Washington Post) printed it! OT
 

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 22:49:29 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

Wow, John! Congrats! The funny thing is...you probably have now been
published in the NY Times more times than Harry. And he writes for a
living!



"John H" wrote in message
.. .
In case you're interested. This is proof the Washington Post isn't
totally, 100%, biased!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jan2.html


John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


I'm sure Harry will have some snide, unanswered, comments.

It was the Washington Post, not the Times.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

They (Washington Post) printed it! OT
 

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:10:37 -0500, John H wrote:

[snip]

John, is it your belief that the story that prompted your letter to the editor
("No-Name Reporting") was a fabrication?

The thesis of her article is: "But the prevailing view among many U.S.
intelligence agencies and terrorism experts is that Hussein's capture,
and indeed the U.S. war in Iraq, will have little discernible
short-term impact on the web of al Qaeda-affiliated organizations that
most threaten the United States and U.S. interests abroad."

I do not disagree with that statement, nor do I think any reasonable
person would.

And yet, if we are to believe statements made by the administration, Saddam's
capture *will* have an effect on the operations of Al Qaeeda, since there is
supposedly some connection between the two.

Furthermore, I think the same statement could be made
when and if we capture/kill Osama.

*Any* statement can be made; defending the statement successfully is another
matter, however.

It's like saying, "The resignation
of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will have little short
term impact on the conduct of Iraqi operations by US forces."

Is it your belief that an extranational terrorist organization, Al Qaeda, has
the same sort of organization and depth as our military?

Or do you think there might be a possibility that many of the sources used in
Dana Priest's story spoke "not for attribution?"

There may be a possibility that many of the sources used spoke "not
for attribution." There may also be a possibility that many of her
"sources" were fictitious.

If that is, in fact, your belief, then you are saying that the story itself is
fraudulent. Are you?

It is definitely true that, journalistically speaking, being able to name every
single source is preferable--but it is not responsible journalism to refuse to
report a statement merely because someone speaks not-for-attribution.

Completely understandable, if the statement was made. However, when a
journalist must use a non-attributable source every one and a half
inches in her story, a reader should start wondering about the
credibility of the journalist. A named source is at least putting
his/her own credibilitly on the line when making a statement. The
named source can be contacted to see if he/she actually made the
statement. There is a big difference between 'someone' and 'almost
everyone'!

When a source speaks not-for-attribution, the journalist is ethically bound not
to name the source. If we can stipulate that the unnamed sources in the story
did, in fact, make those statements and that they were the only sources of that
information, are you saying that the reporter should have suppressed that
information?

For anyone who might be interested, the original news article ("Hussein's
Capture Not Likely to Harm Al Qaeda") is at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec25.html.

Apart from those sources who spoke not-for-attribution, what do you find in the
article that was non-credible? And do you find the named sources (Michael
Pillsbury, Matthew Levitt, Steven Simon and Rand Beers) to be credible because
they are named?

There is nothing in the article I find 'non-credible'. I find it
easier to believe that the statements from the named sources were
actually made. In fact, if the entire story had consisted of only the
last four paragraphs, I would have had no comment.

Oh, I understand the thrust of your letter to the Post; but I'm wondering
whether you believe that the information from the several unnamed sources was
fabricated, or that it should have been suppressed, if true.

Joe Parsons

They (Washington Post) printed it! OT
 

Here's a less-than anonymous government official also stating that Saddam
Hussein was not linked to the 9-11 attack on the US. Better watch this guy,
though. If he dares to disagree with the general spin being put out by the
right wing radio spinmeisters, he could be on the list of people accused of
treason or terrorism before long. :-)


Bush says no evidence that Saddam Hussein involved in Sept. 11 attacks

By TERENCE HUNT



President Bush said Wednesday there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was
involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 _ disputing a notion held
by a majority of Americans. (AP /Charles Dharapak)


WASHINGTON (AP) - President George W. Bush said Wednesday there was no evidence
that deposed Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist
attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 - disputing an impression that critics say the
administration tried to foster to justify the war against Iraq.

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties," the president
said. But he also said: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved
with September the 11th."

The president's comment was the administration's firmest assertion that there
is no proven link between Saddam and Sept. 11. It came after Vice- President
Dick Cheney on Sunday clouded the issue by saying, "It's not surprising people
make that connection" between Saddam and the attacks.

Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press, also repeated an allegation - doubted by many
in the intelligence community - that Mohamed Atta, the lead Sept. 11 attacker,
met a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Prague five months before Sept. 11.


"We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of
confirming it or discrediting it," Cheney said Sunday. However, other U.S.
authorities have said information gathered on Atta's movement show he was on
the U.S. East Coast when that meeting supposedly took place.


Critics of the administration have pointed to statements like Cheney's as
evidence that the administration was exaggerating al-Qaida's prewar links with
Saddam to help justify the U.S.-led war against Iraq.

A recent poll indicated that nearly 70 per cent of Americans believed the Iraqi
leader probably was personally involved. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said
Tuesday: "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I
could say that."

The administration has argued that Saddam's government had close links to
al-Qaida, the terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden that masterminded the
Sept. 11 attacks.

On Sunday, for example, Cheney said that success in stabilizing and
democratizing Iraq would strike a major blow at the "the geographic base of the
terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on
9-11."

Bush himself has taken to referring to Iraq as the central front in the war
against terror.

And Tuesday, in an interview on ABC's Nightline, National Security Adviser
Condoleezza Rice said that one of the reasons Bush went to war against Saddam
was because he posed a threat in "a region from which the 9-11 threat emerged."


Cheney on Sunday was asked whether he was surprised that more than two-thirds
of Americans in a Washington Post poll would express a belief that Iraq was
behind the attacks.

"No, I think it's not surprising that people make that connection," he replied.


Rice, asked about the same poll numbers, said: "We have never claimed that
Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9-11."

Bush said there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people
about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11.

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the
11th," Bush said. "What the vice-president said was is that he (Saddam) has
been involved with al-Qaida.

"And al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered
the killing of a U.S. diplomat . . . There's no question that Saddam Hussein
had al-Qaida ties."

Most of the administration's public assertions have focused on the man Bush
mentioned, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a senior bin Laden associate who officials
have accused of trying to train terrorists in the use of poison for possible
attacks in Europe, running a terrorist haven in northern Iraq - an area outside
Saddam's control before the war - and organizing an attack that killed an
American aid executive in Jordan last year.

They (Washington Post) printed it! OT
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Here's a less-than anonymous government official also stating that Saddam
Hussein was not linked to the 9-11 attack on the US

Bush never said Hussein was not linked to the 9/11 attacks...just that
"We've had no *evidence* that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the
11th." Of course, that statement was made last September...before Hussein's
capture.

They (Washington Post) printed it! OT
 

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 16:17:58 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:10:37 -0500, John H wrote:

[snip]

John, is it your belief that the story that prompted your letter to the editor
("No-Name Reporting") was a fabrication?

The thesis of her article is: "But the prevailing view among many U.S.
intelligence agencies and terrorism experts is that Hussein's capture,
and indeed the U.S. war in Iraq, will have little discernible
short-term impact on the web of al Qaeda-affiliated organizations that
most threaten the United States and U.S. interests abroad."

I do not disagree with that statement, nor do I think any reasonable
person would.

And yet, if we are to believe statements made by the administration, Saddam's
capture *will* have an effect on the operations of Al Qaeeda, since there is
supposedly some connection between the two.

The key words are "short term."

Furthermore, I think the same statement could be made
when and if we capture/kill Osama.

*Any* statement can be made; defending the statement successfully is another
matter, however.

It's like saying, "The resignation
of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will have little short
term impact on the conduct of Iraqi operations by US forces."

Is it your belief that an extranational terrorist organization, Al Qaeda, has
the same sort of organization and depth as our military?

I have no idea how and to what depth Al Qaeda is organized.

Or do you think there might be a possibility that many of the sources used in
Dana Priest's story spoke "not for attribution?"

There may be a possibility that many of the sources used spoke "not
for attribution." There may also be a possibility that many of her
"sources" were fictitious.

If that is, in fact, your belief, then you are saying that the story itself is
fraudulent. Are you?

I have already stated my opinion regarding the thesis of her story.

It is definitely true that, journalistically speaking, being able to name every
single source is preferable--but it is not responsible journalism to refuse to
report a statement merely because someone speaks not-for-attribution.

Completely understandable, if the statement was made. However, when a
journalist must use a non-attributable source every one and a half
inches in her story, a reader should start wondering about the
credibility of the journalist. A named source is at least putting
his/her own credibilitly on the line when making a statement. The
named source can be contacted to see if he/she actually made the
statement. There is a big difference between 'someone' and 'almost
everyone'!

When a source speaks not-for-attribution, the journalist is ethically bound not
to name the source. If we can stipulate that the unnamed sources in the story
did, in fact, make those statements and that they were the only sources of that
information, are you saying that the reporter should have suppressed that
information?

I did not so stipulate. Are you stating that all journalists are
'ethically bound'? Who determines the ethics by which they are bound?
Does bias not exist in journalism?

For anyone who might be interested, the original news article ("Hussein's
Capture Not Likely to Harm Al Qaeda") is at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec25.html.

Apart from those sources who spoke not-for-attribution, what do you find in the
article that was non-credible? And do you find the named sources (Michael
Pillsbury, Matthew Levitt, Steven Simon and Rand Beers) to be credible because
they are named?

There is nothing in the article I find 'non-credible'. I find it
easier to believe that the statements from the named sources were
actually made. In fact, if the entire story had consisted of only the
last four paragraphs, I would have had no comment.

Oh, I understand the thrust of your letter to the Post; but I'm wondering
whether you believe that the information from the several unnamed sources was
fabricated, or that it should have been suppressed, if true.

Joe Parsons

I believe that 'unnamed' sources are much over-used by the press, and
that readers have allowed them to get away with it.

Here is a question I have been pondering:

According to many, the WMD do not exist because we haven't found them.

If the 'Bush administration source' who allegedly gave Novak the name
of a CIA undercover operative is not found, will that mean that said
source did not exist?
John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

They (Washington Post) printed it! OT
 

NOYB wrote:

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Here's a less-than anonymous government official also stating that Saddam
Hussein was not linked to the 9-11 attack on the US

Bush never said Hussein was not linked to the 9/11 attacks...just that
"We've had no *evidence* that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the
11th." Of course, that statement was made last September...before Hussein's
capture.

Under US law, at least until the Bush fascists took over, "no evidence"
meant you were acquitted. Now, under the new Bush fascism, we hold
people without charging them, brutalize them without finding them
guilty, and keep their relatives from seeing them.

And no, I am not talking about Saddam.

We're sliding down a slippery slope into fascism.



--
Email sent to is never read.

They (Washington Post) printed it! OT
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Here's a less-than anonymous government official also stating that
Saddam
Hussein was not linked to the 9-11 attack on the US

Bush never said Hussein was not linked to the 9/11 attacks...just that
"We've had no *evidence* that Saddam Hussein was involved with September
the
11th." Of course, that statement was made last September...before
Hussein's
capture.

Under US law, at least until the Bush fascists took over, "no evidence"
meant you were acquitted.

No, not really. It simply meant that despite overwhelming circumstantial
evidence, charges would be held up pending further discovery of hard
evidence.

You see the decision to go to war with Iraq as the trial. I see it as the
serving of an arrest warrant. The trial hasn't even begun and liberals have
already circled the wagons in his defense.