Nivlem <mlml@svn.net> wrote in news:40DEF81A.4090305@svn.net:

Fred Stone wrote:

You must not have seen the News Hour or Meet the Press criticizing
the NYT and the LA Times for their misleading headlines. This wasn't
FOX News complaining about libruls, this was the premier
"mainstream" outlets saying mean things about their fellow
ideologues at the papers.

I dunno, Fred. Your boy is looking scared, belligerent and defensive
on TV these days, to go along with the bumbling inarticulateness he's
always displayed.

What's that got to do with the fact that even the NYT has had to
acknowledge that they withheld some evidence of Saddam-al Queda
connections?

Just bringing your attention back to another point you wanted to
avoid.

*I* want to avoid the fact that *you* can't look at Bush and see
anything but your own reflection?

As for the Iraq -Al Qaeda claims, the administration's got a
bad credibility gap, and if they've actually got anything, they'd
better cough it up. So far, no smoking guns.

Yeah, right, the only smoking gun you guys would accept is a mushroom
cloud.

Unlike the Taliban, the
Iraqis look like very peripheral players. The Saudis were probably
more complicit than Sadam's regime. *****, without the CIA 15 years
ago, there wouldn't be an Al Qaeda. Are we gonna invade ourselves?

What a stupid question.

Unfortunately for you, but fortunately for America I
think, the polls look bad,

Depends on which polls you look at.

More and more of them are showing Bush sinking. Sorry, Fred.

Wishful thinking. Sorry, Nivlem.

and Kerry's raising more money than Bush
is. When someone is able to get more campaign money than a sitting
Republican President, it says bad things about the incumbent's
prospects, especially since the Republicans have been, for much of
their history, more expressly the party of monied interests. Last
time around, Bush got more money than Gore did.

Bush already has more money than Kerry has raised. Why else would
Kerry have been considering playing with the convention deadline to
dodge spending rules?

Old news, Fred. Right now, the Dems do seem to have more money, and
they're spending more on ads.

And it's not working. Kerry's not getting the pop that he should be, and
now Iraq is going to start looking good for Bush.

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 18:05:50 GMT in alt.atheism, Fred Stone (Fred
Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism

Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in
news:g0q8d0lir4c57juge0o3g68jvt8h5ba8u0@4ax.com:

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 13:40:09 GMT in alt.atheism, Fred Stone (Fred
Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism

johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-064ADB.00554419062004@news.giganews.com:

In article <Xns950C686CD9E07fstone69@207.69.154.204>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/410014|top|06-18-2004::08:05
|reuters.html

ASTANA, Kazakhstan (Reuters) - Russia warned the United States on
several occasions that Iraq's Saddam Hussein planned "terrorist
attacks" on its soil, President Vladimir Putin said Friday.

"After the events of September 11, 2001, and before the start of
the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several
times received such information and passed it on to their American
colleagues," he told reporters...

Interesting. Bush gets his butt kicked this week by the 9/11
Commission's finding that Saddam had no ties to al-Quaeda

And you suck that lie-by-omission even after it's been dealt with.

and this bit
of information suddenly appears. If Dubya knew this before the war,
why wasn't it presented in his arguments to invade Iraq? If backed
by evidence, it would have made a persuasive argument for a
preemptive strike. I wonder why the silence.

Because it would have compromised a source.

One imagines Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson might have a few thoughts
on that position.

One is still waiting for the report from the investigation on that one.

Indeed.

In article <Xns950F534CDCE69fstone69@207.69.154.205>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-E7D11D.22033720062004@news.giganews.com:

In article <Xns950D625D064F8fstone69@207.69.154.206>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-064ADB.00554419062004@news.giganews.com:

In article <Xns950C686CD9E07fstone69@207.69.154.204>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/410014|top|06-18-

5
|reuters.html

ASTANA, Kazakhstan (Reuters) - Russia warned the United States
on several occasions that Iraq's Saddam Hussein planned
"terrorist attacks" on its soil, President Vladimir Putin said
Friday.

"After the events of September 11, 2001, and before the start
of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services
several times received such information and passed it on to
their American colleagues," he told reporters...

Interesting. Bush gets his butt kicked this week by the 9/11
Commission's finding that Saddam had no ties to al-Quaeda

And you suck that lie-by-omission even after it's been dealt with.

There was no meaningful contact. Osama wanted help from Saddam and
Saddam said no. That seems to be the extent of it.

Only in *specific* terms of the 9/11 attack.

Otherwise you have to ignore the evidence that they had a long-term
cooperation on weapons development and training in bomb and poison
making - which was emphasised yet again in public on the
talking-heads Sunday programs.

What evidence?

From what I have read in the newspapers and seen on the
internet, I find nothing conclusive.

Because a "talking head" says
something, it doesn't make it real.

and this bit
of information suddenly appears. If Dubya knew this before the
war, why wasn't it presented in his arguments to invade Iraq? If
backed by evidence, it would have made a persuasive argument for
a preemptive strike. I wonder why the silence.

Because it would have compromised a source.

The sources and the information itself could have been checked out.
I don't see any evidence that anyone on our side even tried. I
think that the administration owes us an explanation on this one.

Since the mainstream media has had their noses rubbed in it, you
think you might actually pay attention to their explanations now?

Not until I see more evidence. The administration has lied before and
I see no reason to trust them now.

I see no reason to trust the
Russians without evidence either.