|
OT Let the Spinning Begin!
NOYB and a few others will be spinning so much, people will think
they're Whirling Dervishes! Sources Say Bush Directly Involved In Leak Scandal In September 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan had this to say about the CIA leak scandal: "The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration." (McClellan added, "[T]here's been nothing, absolutely nothing, brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement, and that includes the Vice President's office.") Since July, we've known that top administration officials -- including Karl Rove and Scooter Libby -- were involved, speaking to reporters about Joe Wilson's wife and her role at the CIA. Over the weekend, startling new evidence emerged that suggested direct involvement in the scandal by Vice President Cheney and President Bush. SOURCE -- BUSH DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN LEAK SCANDAL: On ABC's This Week, George Stephanopolous said the leak scandal could become unmanageable for the White House if "as a source close to this told me this week, President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some of these discussions." This would help explain why Bush spent more than an hour answering questions about the leak with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. But it would also explode the notion, carefully maintained by the White House, that Bush is merely a bystander who wants to "get to the bottom" of what happened. SOURCE -- CHENEY DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN LEAK SCANDAL: The New York Times reported Saturday that "a lawyer who knows Mr. Libby's account said the administration efforts to limit the damage from Mr. Wilson's criticism extended as high as Mr. Cheney." Specifically, on July 12, 2003, "Mr. Libby consulted with Mr. Cheney about how to handle inquiries from journalists about the vice president's role in sending Mr. Wilson to Africa in early 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear material there for its weapons program." The leaking of Cheney's role by a source who appears sympathetic to the White House may be an effort to manage the story. Similarly, the first details about Karl Rove's role were released by his own lawyer. TOP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS MAY BE INDICTED FOR CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY: The public defense of both Karl Rove and Scooter Libby in the CIA leak scandal have focused on the specific claim they they didn't know Valerie Plame's name. But even if Patrick Fitzgerald is unable to prove a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Rove, Libby and others could still be charged with perjury if they lied to investigators. The Washington Post reports another possibility: "Fitzgerald is considering whether he can bring charges of a criminal conspiracy perpetrated by a group of senior Bush administration officials." Significantly, "To prove a criminal conspiracy, the actions need not have been criminal, but conspirators must have had a criminal purpose." |
What is there to spin? As the article points out, it doesn't appear that
there was any violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. So, instead, the article goes on to *speculate* that Fitzgerald may be considering charges of perjury or criminal conspiracy. At this point, it's nothing more speculation and wishing on the part of whichever left-wing conspiracy site you lifted this from. wrote in message ups.com... NOYB and a few others will be spinning so much, people will think they're Whirling Dervishes! Sources Say Bush Directly Involved In Leak Scandal In September 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan had this to say about the CIA leak scandal: "The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration." (McClellan added, "[T]here's been nothing, absolutely nothing, brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement, and that includes the Vice President's office.") Since July, we've known that top administration officials -- including Karl Rove and Scooter Libby -- were involved, speaking to reporters about Joe Wilson's wife and her role at the CIA. Over the weekend, startling new evidence emerged that suggested direct involvement in the scandal by Vice President Cheney and President Bush. SOURCE -- BUSH DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN LEAK SCANDAL: On ABC's This Week, George Stephanopolous said the leak scandal could become unmanageable for the White House if "as a source close to this told me this week, President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some of these discussions." This would help explain why Bush spent more than an hour answering questions about the leak with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. But it would also explode the notion, carefully maintained by the White House, that Bush is merely a bystander who wants to "get to the bottom" of what happened. SOURCE -- CHENEY DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN LEAK SCANDAL: The New York Times reported Saturday that "a lawyer who knows Mr. Libby's account said the administration efforts to limit the damage from Mr. Wilson's criticism extended as high as Mr. Cheney." Specifically, on July 12, 2003, "Mr. Libby consulted with Mr. Cheney about how to handle inquiries from journalists about the vice president's role in sending Mr. Wilson to Africa in early 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear material there for its weapons program." The leaking of Cheney's role by a source who appears sympathetic to the White House may be an effort to manage the story. Similarly, the first details about Karl Rove's role were released by his own lawyer. TOP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS MAY BE INDICTED FOR CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY: The public defense of both Karl Rove and Scooter Libby in the CIA leak scandal have focused on the specific claim they they didn't know Valerie Plame's name. But even if Patrick Fitzgerald is unable to prove a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Rove, Libby and others could still be charged with perjury if they lied to investigators. The Washington Post reports another possibility: "Fitzgerald is considering whether he can bring charges of a criminal conspiracy perpetrated by a group of senior Bush administration officials." Significantly, "To prove a criminal conspiracy, the actions need not have been criminal, but conspirators must have had a criminal purpose." |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... What is there to spin? As the article points out, it doesn't appear that there was any violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. So, instead, the article goes on to *speculate* that Fitzgerald may be considering charges of perjury or criminal conspiracy. At this point, it's nothing more speculation and wishing on the part of whichever left-wing conspiracy site you lifted this from. Yeah.....WAPO, NYT, and Boy George..........there are three dependable news sources......LMAO wrote in message ups.com... NOYB and a few others will be spinning so much, people will think they're Whirling Dervishes! Sources Say Bush Directly Involved In Leak Scandal In September 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan had this to say about the CIA leak scandal: "The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration." (McClellan added, "[T]here's been nothing, absolutely nothing, brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement, and that includes the Vice President's office.") Since July, we've known that top administration officials -- including Karl Rove and Scooter Libby -- were involved, speaking to reporters about Joe Wilson's wife and her role at the CIA. Over the weekend, startling new evidence emerged that suggested direct involvement in the scandal by Vice President Cheney and President Bush. SOURCE -- BUSH DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN LEAK SCANDAL: On ABC's This Week, George Stephanopolous said the leak scandal could become unmanageable for the White House if "as a source close to this told me this week, President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some of these discussions." This would help explain why Bush spent more than an hour answering questions about the leak with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. But it would also explode the notion, carefully maintained by the White House, that Bush is merely a bystander who wants to "get to the bottom" of what happened. SOURCE -- CHENEY DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN LEAK SCANDAL: The New York Times reported Saturday that "a lawyer who knows Mr. Libby's account said the administration efforts to limit the damage from Mr. Wilson's criticism extended as high as Mr. Cheney." Specifically, on July 12, 2003, "Mr. Libby consulted with Mr. Cheney about how to handle inquiries from journalists about the vice president's role in sending Mr. Wilson to Africa in early 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear material there for its weapons program." The leaking of Cheney's role by a source who appears sympathetic to the White House may be an effort to manage the story. Similarly, the first details about Karl Rove's role were released by his own lawyer. TOP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS MAY BE INDICTED FOR CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY: The public defense of both Karl Rove and Scooter Libby in the CIA leak scandal have focused on the specific claim they they didn't know Valerie Plame's name. But even if Patrick Fitzgerald is unable to prove a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Rove, Libby and others could still be charged with perjury if they lied to investigators. The Washington Post reports another possibility: "Fitzgerald is considering whether he can bring charges of a criminal conspiracy perpetrated by a group of senior Bush administration officials." Significantly, "To prove a criminal conspiracy, the actions need not have been criminal, but conspirators must have had a criminal purpose." |
NOYB wrote: At this point, it's nothing more speculation and wishing on the part of whichever left-wing conspiracy site you lifted this from. hehe!! Thank you for making my point, spinboy! |
P Fritz wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... What is there to spin? As the article points out, it doesn't appear that there was any violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. So, instead, the article goes on to *speculate* that Fitzgerald may be considering charges of perjury or criminal conspiracy. At this point, it's nothing more speculation and wishing on the part of whichever left-wing conspiracy site you lifted this from. Yeah.....WAPO, NYT, and Boy George..........there are three dependable news sources......LMAO Proves what you know.......NOTHING. You are dead wrong. |
Sources Say Bush Directly Involved In Leak Scandal
"Sources"? Wow, Guzzi-boy! ! You finally made the big times! |
NY Times has one of the largest subscription decreases ever. I wonder why?
:) |
"Dan J.S." wrote in message ... NY Times has one of the largest subscription decreases ever. I wonder why? :) Don't read much news, eh? Print newspapers everywhere are losing readership for a number of reasons, none of which you're likely to be aware of. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Dan J.S." wrote in message ... NY Times has one of the largest subscription decreases ever. I wonder why? :) Don't read much news, eh? Print newspapers everywhere are losing readership for a number of reasons, none of which you're likely to be aware of. I use Mozilla Firefox and a plug-in called BugMeNot when "logging" into any of the online newspapers that require free registration. It won't work on pay sites like the Wall Street Journal. Yet, surprisingly, the Journal isn't seeing the same large decrease in readership. |
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 16:30:32 +0000, NOYB wrote:
What is there to spin? As the article points out, it doesn't appear that there was any violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. So, instead, the article goes on to *speculate* that Fitzgerald may be considering charges of perjury or criminal conspiracy. At this point, it's nothing more speculation and wishing on the part of whichever left-wing conspiracy site you lifted this from. I don't know if any charges will come from the Plame investigation, but I will point out, it wasn't the Watergate burglary that brought Nixon down, it was the cover-up. If anyone in the Bush administration is charged, it will be another nail in this lame duck's coffin. Bush is already wounded, additional bleeding will put his numbers in the Carter area. Can you say failed Presidency? http://uspolitics.about.com/library/...l_approval.htm |
Dan J.S. wrote: NY Times has one of the largest subscription decreases ever. I wonder why? :) Certain segments of the public have no respect for people with differing views. It's never political, it's always personal. I wonder if some of the people in that group are cancelling subscriptions to "punish" the Times? |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Dan J.S." wrote in message ... NY Times has one of the largest subscription decreases ever. I wonder why? :) Don't read much news, eh? Print newspapers everywhere are losing readership for a number of reasons, none of which you're likely to be aware of. I use Mozilla Firefox and a plug-in called BugMeNot when "logging" into any of the online newspapers that require free registration. It won't work on pay sites like the Wall Street Journal. Yet, surprisingly, the Journal isn't seeing the same large decrease in readership. It is no wonder the subscriptions are plummeting when they have no credibility........ 4 corrections on the same story? LMAO.....but the brain dead liebrals will still lap it up. http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea...sp?vnu_content _id=1001220139 |
|
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 16:30:32 +0000, NOYB wrote: What is there to spin? As the article points out, it doesn't appear that there was any violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. So, instead, the article goes on to *speculate* that Fitzgerald may be considering charges of perjury or criminal conspiracy. At this point, it's nothing more speculation and wishing on the part of whichever left-wing conspiracy site you lifted this from. I don't know if any charges will come from the Plame investigation, but I will point out, it wasn't the Watergate burglary that brought Nixon down, it was the cover-up. Shoot. You could very well be talking about Able Danger now. If anyone in the Bush administration is charged, it will be another nail in this lame duck's coffin. Bush is already wounded, additional bleeding will put his numbers in the Carter area. Can you say failed Presidency? http://uspolitics.about.com/library/...l_approval.htm Bush 43's numbers have held steady in the mid to upper 40's...despite record gas prices, a war that half of our nation opposes, and a major hurricane that exposed many weaknesses in our government at all levels. There's hardly a similarity to Carter or Nixon, who finished 12 approval points, and 22 approval points, respectively, behind where Bush is right now. When you're fighting a war like we're fighting in Iraq, 2 1/2 years isn't enough time to decide how things are going to turn out. Talk to me in 3 years if his numbers have dipped to below 40% by then. I'd bet not. Let's see... Almost 2 1/2 years after the US entered WWII, our forces got obliterated by Rommel at Kasserine Pass. What do you suppose FDR's approval rating would have been if CNN/Gallup was around back then taking weekly approval ratings? |
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 20:54:07 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 16:23:56 -0400, thunder wrote: On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 16:30:32 +0000, NOYB wrote: What is there to spin? As the article points out, it doesn't appear that there was any violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. So, instead, the article goes on to *speculate* that Fitzgerald may be considering charges of perjury or criminal conspiracy. At this point, it's nothing more speculation and wishing on the part of whichever left-wing conspiracy site you lifted this from. I don't know if any charges will come from the Plame investigation, but I will point out, it wasn't the Watergate burglary that brought Nixon down, it was the cover-up. If anyone in the Bush administration is charged, it will be another nail in this lame duck's coffin. Bush is already wounded, additional bleeding will put his numbers in the Carter area. Can you say failed Presidency? http://uspolitics.about.com/library/...l_approval.htm What was there to cover up? According to what I've read, everybody in the known universe knew that Valerie Palme was Wilson's wife and she worked at the CIA. Everyone seems to be concentrating on the IIPA. There are quite a few more laws that could apply and may have been broken. Try the Espionage Act, perjury, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy, all could apply. I would also point out, that the IIPA may indeed apply. The CIA initially filed the complaint, with the Justice Dept., that started this investigation. I'm just guessing here, because we know how frivolous the CIA can be, but perhaps, their lawyers felt a law may have been broken. Jesus - doesn't take a freakin' intelligence genius to put two and two together and come up with four. That's truly fortunate, because we are not talking intelligence geniuses, we are talking the Bush administration. |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Dan J.S." wrote in message ... NY Times has one of the largest subscription decreases ever. I wonder why? :) Don't read much news, eh? Print newspapers everywhere are losing readership for a number of reasons, none of which you're likely to be aware of. I use Mozilla Firefox and a plug-in called BugMeNot when "logging" into any of the online newspapers that require free registration. It won't work on pay sites like the Wall Street Journal. Yet, surprisingly, the Journal isn't seeing the same large decrease in readership. I suspect it's because WSJ has something that's not so easy to find in a print newspaper: More complete financial data. I don't mean articles - I'm talking about the charts. Without that, it would be just another newspaper. |
wrote in message oups.com... Dan J.S. wrote: NY Times has one of the largest subscription decreases ever. I wonder why? :) Certain segments of the public have no respect for people with differing views. It's never political, it's always personal. I wonder if some of the people in that group are cancelling subscriptions to "punish" the Times? You're a journalist, Chuck. You know what grade level the Times is aimed at (8th, IIRC). Others like the Gannett rags shoot for 6th. The articles sometimes read like Hardy Boy novels. |
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:53:42 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
The point is that her given name, her married name, her CV and employment situation were all available through public sources. Do you have a cite for this? Has the CIA gone so far downhill that NOC agents' identities are available through public sources? There is no "crime". It's a joke to spend another 20 bizillion dollars on a false "crime" and "investigation". I don't know a crime has been committed, but I'm willing to wait and see. How can you be so sure no crime has been committed? Bull**** is bull**** and this smells like bull****. No, you know what is bull****, the catty way this administration attempts to ruin careers of anyone that remotely doesn't tow their line. |
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:39:53 +0000, NOYB wrote:
Bush 43's numbers have held steady in the mid to upper 40's...despite record gas prices, a war that half of our nation opposes, and a major hurricane that exposed many weaknesses in our government at all levels. Damn, NOYB, a realistic assessment. That doesn't sound like the Bush cheerleader we all know. ;-) There's hardly a similarity to Carter or Nixon, who finished 12 approval points, and 22 approval points, respectively, behind where Bush is right now. The blood bleeds slowly, NOYB. Remember, Nixon actually did win reelection by a landslide, over 60% of the vote and all but one state. I doubt that Bush will reach Nixon's lows, without Bush himself being indicted (I don't expect that he will be). His core support is larger than that, but Carter? He could easily reach Carter's lows. When you're fighting a war like we're fighting in Iraq, 2 1/2 years isn't enough time to decide how things are going to turn out. Talk to me in 3 years if his numbers have dipped to below 40% by then. I'd bet not. Let's see... Almost 2 1/2 years after the US entered WWII, our forces got obliterated by Rommel at Kasserine Pass. What do you suppose FDR's approval rating would have been if CNN/Gallup was around back then taking weekly approval ratings? Probably quite high. The country was overwhelmingly in support of that war. Remember, there were very, very, few protesting our invasion of Afghanistan. Our country was fully in support Bush going after bin Laden. Iraq is Bush's downfall and the news from there, isn't looking like it will improve. To me, it's looking like a Civil War is a very real possibility. The Sunnis have always been problematic, but now the Kurds are also unhappy with the Shias. Jaafari in all probability is an Iranian agent. Between Chalabi and Jaafari it's looking like the Iranians have played Bush for a chump, and we are holding the dirty end of the stick. It's a real mess. |
"Dan J.S." wrote in message ... NY Times has one of the largest subscription decreases ever. I wonder why? :) They are blind to its cause! |
wrote in message oups.com... Dan J.S. wrote: NY Times has one of the largest subscription decreases ever. I wonder why? :) Certain segments of the public have no respect for people with differing views. It's never political, it's always personal. I wonder if some of the people in that group are cancelling subscriptions to "punish" the Times? You can't hold your self up as providing an objective perspective on the happenings in the world when you stories take a biased view that is in sync with your editorial view. People see through the thin viel of objectivity that the major newspapers present! |
Bert Robbins wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Dan J.S. wrote: NY Times has one of the largest subscription decreases ever. I wonder why? :) Certain segments of the public have no respect for people with differing views. It's never political, it's always personal. I wonder if some of the people in that group are cancelling subscriptions to "punish" the Times? You can't hold your self up as providing an objective perspective on the happenings in the world when you stories take a biased view that is in sync with your editorial view. People see through the thin viel of objectivity that the major newspapers present! I don't disagree with your basic premise, but I have serious doubts whether the majority of the public expects or even wants total objectivity. News formats with an obvious and open bias seem to be generally gaining in popularity; with Fox News a specific example. More people are also gravitating to "opinion" formats, (such as talk radio) where there is no specific claim to even be factually accurate, let alone unbiased. |
wrote in message oups.com... Bert Robbins wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Dan J.S. wrote: NY Times has one of the largest subscription decreases ever. I wonder why? :) Certain segments of the public have no respect for people with differing views. It's never political, it's always personal. I wonder if some of the people in that group are cancelling subscriptions to "punish" the Times? You can't hold your self up as providing an objective perspective on the happenings in the world when you stories take a biased view that is in sync with your editorial view. People see through the thin viel of objectivity that the major newspapers present! I don't disagree with your basic premise, but I have serious doubts whether the majority of the public expects or even wants total objectivity. News formats with an obvious and open bias seem to be generally gaining in popularity; with Fox News a specific example. More people are also gravitating to "opinion" formats, (such as talk radio) where there is no specific claim to even be factually accurate, let alone unbiased. Nice spin Chuck! People want to know the who, what, where, when and how. They don't want the reporter to interject their biases regardless of whether that bias is left or right. The press is failing to perform its duty which is to inform the public rather than to sway public opinion in any direction. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Dan J.S." wrote in message ... NY Times has one of the largest subscription decreases ever. I wonder why? :) Don't read much news, eh? Print newspapers everywhere are losing readership for a number of reasons, none of which you're likely to be aware of. I use Mozilla Firefox and a plug-in called BugMeNot when "logging" into any of the online newspapers that require free registration. It won't work on pay sites like the Wall Street Journal. Yet, surprisingly, the Journal isn't seeing the same large decrease in readership. I suspect it's because WSJ has something that's not so easy to find in a print newspaper: More complete financial data. I don't mean articles - I'm talking about the charts. Without that, it would be just another newspaper. Hardly anyone uses those charts - plus there are not that many charts. You may be thinking USA TODAY :) . Anyone in the financial world will use real time charting like Bloomberg terminals or Reuters Bridge systems. |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:39:53 +0000, NOYB wrote: Bush 43's numbers have held steady in the mid to upper 40's...despite record gas prices, a war that half of our nation opposes, and a major hurricane that exposed many weaknesses in our government at all levels. Damn, NOYB, a realistic assessment. That doesn't sound like the Bush cheerleader we all know. ;-) There's hardly a similarity to Carter or Nixon, who finished 12 approval points, and 22 approval points, respectively, behind where Bush is right now. The blood bleeds slowly, NOYB. Remember, Nixon actually did win reelection by a landslide, over 60% of the vote and all but one state. I doubt that Bush will reach Nixon's lows, without Bush himself being indicted (I don't expect that he will be). His core support is larger than that, but Carter? He could easily reach Carter's lows. When you're fighting a war like we're fighting in Iraq, 2 1/2 years isn't enough time to decide how things are going to turn out. Talk to me in 3 years if his numbers have dipped to below 40% by then. I'd bet not. Let's see... Almost 2 1/2 years after the US entered WWII, our forces got obliterated by Rommel at Kasserine Pass. What do you suppose FDR's approval rating would have been if CNN/Gallup was around back then taking weekly approval ratings? Probably quite high. The country was overwhelmingly in support of that war. The country overwhelmingly supported war with Japan because of Pearl Harbor. But there were plenty of doves who opposed sending our guys to die in Northern Africa and Europe to fight "Europe's war". After Kasserine Pass, you can bet that there were a lot of American's questioning whether we should be there at all. Remember, there were very, very, few protesting our invasion of Afghanistan. Our country was fully in support Bush going after bin Laden. Iraq is Bush's downfall and the news from there, isn't looking like it will improve. Most Americans supported going into Iraq as well. But Americans are fickle and impatient. A little bad news goes a long way in shaking the resolve of a good portion of our country. To me, it's looking like a Civil War is a very real possibility. The Sunnis have always been problematic, but now the Kurds are also unhappy with the Shias. Jaafari in all probability is an Iranian agent. Between Chalabi and Jaafari it's looking like the Iranians have played Bush for a chump, and we are holding the dirty end of the stick. It's a real mess. A perpetual civil war might not be such a bad thing for American security. Continuous internal conflict makes them very little threat to other nations. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... thunder wrote: On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:39:53 +0000, NOYB wrote: Bush 43's numbers have held steady in the mid to upper 40's...despite record gas prices, a war that half of our nation opposes, and a major hurricane that exposed many weaknesses in our government at all levels. Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Sept. 29-30, 2005. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. . "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?" . Approve 40% Disapprove 53% Rasmussen: 47% Fox: 45% CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 45% Newsweek's numbers are a bit out of line with reality. I guess that's what happens when you let an agenda get in the way of the truth. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Dan J.S." wrote in message ... NY Times has one of the largest subscription decreases ever. I wonder why? :) Don't read much news, eh? Print newspapers everywhere are losing readership for a number of reasons, none of which you're likely to be aware of. I use Mozilla Firefox and a plug-in called BugMeNot when "logging" into any of the online newspapers that require free registration. It won't work on pay sites like the Wall Street Journal. Yet, surprisingly, the Journal isn't seeing the same large decrease in readership. I suspect it's because WSJ has something that's not so easy to find in a print newspaper: More complete financial data. I don't mean articles - I'm talking about the charts. You can find better charts on Yahoo. Without that, it would be just another newspaper. With a pretty damn good readership. |
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:07:43 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: ~~ snippage ~~ A perpetual civil war might not be such a bad thing for American security. Continuous internal conflict makes them very little threat to other nations. I'm not sure they are a "threat" anymore civil war or not. Although a perpetual civil war would keep the dumbasses busy. If they're fighting each other, then we can sit back and watch who is arming who. It will certainly make it easier to pick sides if you see Iran sending arms, intel, and money to one of the sides. |
"Dan J.S." wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Dan J.S." wrote in message ... NY Times has one of the largest subscription decreases ever. I wonder why? :) Don't read much news, eh? Print newspapers everywhere are losing readership for a number of reasons, none of which you're likely to be aware of. I use Mozilla Firefox and a plug-in called BugMeNot when "logging" into any of the online newspapers that require free registration. It won't work on pay sites like the Wall Street Journal. Yet, surprisingly, the Journal isn't seeing the same large decrease in readership. I suspect it's because WSJ has something that's not so easy to find in a print newspaper: More complete financial data. I don't mean articles - I'm talking about the charts. Without that, it would be just another newspaper. Hardly anyone uses those charts - plus there are not that many charts. You may be thinking USA TODAY :) . Anyone in the financial world will use real time charting like Bloomberg terminals or Reuters Bridge systems. On a subway? :-) |
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... "Dan J.S." wrote in message ... NY Times has one of the largest subscription decreases ever. I wonder why? :) They are blind to its cause! So are you. Print newspapers are losing readers all across the editorial/political spectrum. Any idea why? |
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... thunder wrote: On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:39:53 +0000, NOYB wrote: Bush 43's numbers have held steady in the mid to upper 40's...despite record gas prices, a war that half of our nation opposes, and a major hurricane that exposed many weaknesses in our government at all levels. Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Sept. 29-30, 2005. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. . "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?" . Approve 40% Disapprove 53% Rasmussen: 47% Fox: 45% CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 45% Newsweek's numbers are a bit out of line with reality. I guess that's what happens when you let an agenda get in the way of the truth. the key to the newsweek poll is "adults nationwide" i.e. meaningless |
"P Fritz" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... thunder wrote: On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:39:53 +0000, NOYB wrote: Bush 43's numbers have held steady in the mid to upper 40's...despite record gas prices, a war that half of our nation opposes, and a major hurricane that exposed many weaknesses in our government at all levels. Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Sept. 29-30, 2005. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. . "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?" . Approve 40% Disapprove 53% Rasmussen: 47% Fox: 45% CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 45% Newsweek's numbers are a bit out of line with reality. I guess that's what happens when you let an agenda get in the way of the truth. the key to the newsweek poll is "adults nationwide" i.e. meaningless Moron. It means they selected their survey population from a wide area, to differentiate from a study which might involve only people from one city or state. |
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... thunder wrote: On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:39:53 +0000, NOYB wrote: Bush 43's numbers have held steady in the mid to upper 40's...despite record gas prices, a war that half of our nation opposes, and a major hurricane that exposed many weaknesses in our government at all levels. Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Sept. 29-30, 2005. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. . "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?" . Approve 40% Disapprove 53% Rasmussen: 47% Fox: 45% CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 45% Newsweek's numbers are a bit out of line with reality. I guess that's what happens when you let an agenda get in the way of the truth. I assume you didn't like the way Newsweek phrased their survey questions. Do you know what they were, or do you disapprove without having that information? |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... thunder wrote: On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:39:53 +0000, NOYB wrote: Bush 43's numbers have held steady in the mid to upper 40's...despite record gas prices, a war that half of our nation opposes, and a major hurricane that exposed many weaknesses in our government at all levels. Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Sept. 29-30, 2005. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. . "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?" . Approve 40% Disapprove 53% Rasmussen: 47% Fox: 45% CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 45% Newsweek's numbers are a bit out of line with reality. I guess that's what happens when you let an agenda get in the way of the truth. I assume you didn't like the way Newsweek phrased their survey questions. Do you know what they were, or do you disapprove without having that information? I disapprove of the constant negative barrage of misinformation that continually comes out of Newsweek. There are numerous ways that polling data can be manipulated or "shaped" to fit an agenda. When one poll differs substantially from three other major polls, you have to begin to wonder why...particularly when you add it to the fact that they consistently put out negative info on the President. |
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:14:57 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:07:43 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: ~~ snippage ~~ A perpetual civil war might not be such a bad thing for American security. Continuous internal conflict makes them very little threat to other nations. I'm not sure they are a "threat" anymore civil war or not. Although a perpetual civil war would keep the dumbasses busy. If they're fighting each other, then we can sit back and watch who is arming who. It will certainly make it easier to pick sides if you see Iran sending arms, intel, and money to one of the sides. That's true, but unfortunately, we couldn't do anything about it anyway. The one mistake Rumsfield has consistently made throughout his Defense career is the mistaken belief that quick reaction forces substitute Division level administration and peacekeeping. As we are seeing in Iraq, that is patently a false assumption. I like his idea about quick reaction, kick ass and take names, confrontation, but his insistence that you can use them also as peace keepers and administration is stupid. Iran will keep sending arms, supplies and suiciders into Iraq because we can't seal the borders or effectively interdict them because the forces are tied up keeping the peace. But we can use those quick-strike forces inside of Iran. |
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:07:43 +0000, NOYB wrote:
The country overwhelmingly supported war with Japan because of Pearl Harbor. But there were plenty of doves who opposed sending our guys to die in Northern Africa and Europe to fight "Europe's war". After Kasserine Pass, you can bet that there were a lot of American's questioning whether we should be there at all. Yeah, but, after Pearl Harbor, Hitler foolishly declared war on us. He had hoped the Japanese would start another front with the Soviet Union. They didn't. While it's true there were plenty of isolationists, Pearl Harbor changed all that, and I would strongly suspect while Kasserine was discouraging, Americans were still supportive of the war effort. Most Americans supported going into Iraq as well. But Americans are fickle and impatient. A little bad news goes a long way in shaking the resolve of a good portion of our country. To a degree, but I suspect the slow realization that it wasn't about WMD, or bin Laden, or . . . plays a large part. When the cause is just, I don't underestimate America's will, but to this day, no one in this administration has come clean about the true reasons for this war. A perpetual civil war might not be such a bad thing for American security. Continuous internal conflict makes them very little threat to other nations. NOYB, even in the unlikely chance that a Civil War was contained inside Iraq's borders, have you considered what it would do to the price of a barrel of oil? Civil War means this administration has failed, and the next administration will have to put the pieces back together. It also means 2,000 young Americans have died in vain. That's unacceptable. |
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:14:57 +0000, NOYB wrote:
If they're fighting each other, then we can sit back and watch who is arming who. It will certainly make it easier to pick sides if you see Iran sending arms, intel, and money to one of the sides. Of course Iran will pick a side, as will the Saudis, the Syrians, the Turks. That is the problem with unrest. Blink your eyes, and you have a full blown regional conflict. Definitely not a good outcome. |
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... thunder wrote: On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:39:53 +0000, NOYB wrote: Bush 43's numbers have held steady in the mid to upper 40's...despite record gas prices, a war that half of our nation opposes, and a major hurricane that exposed many weaknesses in our government at all levels. Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Sept. 29-30, 2005. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. . "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?" . Approve 40% Disapprove 53% Rasmussen: 47% Fox: 45% CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 45% Newsweek's numbers are a bit out of line with reality. I guess that's what happens when you let an agenda get in the way of the truth. I assume you didn't like the way Newsweek phrased their survey questions. Do you know what they were, or do you disapprove without having that information? I disapprove of the constant negative barrage of misinformation that continually comes out of Newsweek. There are numerous ways that polling data can be manipulated or "shaped" to fit an agenda. When one poll differs substantially from three other major polls, you have to begin to wonder why...particularly when you add it to the fact that they consistently put out negative info on the President. OK - you're an expert. Provide us with 3 "impartial" survey questions. |
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net... A perpetual civil war might not be such a bad thing for American security. Continuous internal conflict makes them very little threat to other nations. But, you've said in the past that Iraq was not a threat, and that Bush's original list of reasons was just a polite disguise for the only real reason: A military presence to protect the oil supply. As far as a threat to security, you know that's ridiculous. There are steps we should've taken 30 years ago in terms of increased vigilance - the same types of things the Israelis have been doing for years. Iraq didn't keep us from doing those things (increase airport security, for instance). |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:07:43 +0000, NOYB wrote: The country overwhelmingly supported war with Japan because of Pearl Harbor. But there were plenty of doves who opposed sending our guys to die in Northern Africa and Europe to fight "Europe's war". After Kasserine Pass, you can bet that there were a lot of American's questioning whether we should be there at all. Yeah, but, after Pearl Harbor, Hitler foolishly declared war on us. He had hoped the Japanese would start another front with the Soviet Union. They didn't. While it's true there were plenty of isolationists, Pearl Harbor changed all that, and I would strongly suspect while Kasserine was discouraging, Americans were still supportive of the war effort. I'm sure they were. But I'm talking relative dropoff in approval. According to Rasmussen, Bush's poll numbers are almost exactly where they were pre-9/11 and only slightly lower than they were pre-election 2004. Most Americans supported going into Iraq as well. But Americans are fickle and impatient. A little bad news goes a long way in shaking the resolve of a good portion of our country. To a degree, but I suspect the slow realization that it wasn't about WMD, or bin Laden, or . . . plays a large part. When the cause is just, I don't underestimate America's will, but to this day, no one in this administration has come clean about the true reasons for this war. A perpetual civil war might not be such a bad thing for American security. Continuous internal conflict makes them very little threat to other nations. NOYB, even in the unlikely chance that a Civil War was contained inside Iraq's borders, have you considered what it would do to the price of a barrel of oil? Civil War means this administration has failed, and the next administration will have to put the pieces back together. It also means 2,000 young Americans have died in vain. That's unacceptable. Instability in Iraq isn't going to affect the price of oil as long as some semblance of stability remains in Saudi Arabia. I believe the true purpose of our going into Iraq was to permanently station troops in the Middle East on the borders of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia...so that we didn't need to leave our troops in Saudi Arabia. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:37 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com