"David" wrote in message
...
The riots had nothing to do with Newsweek. This is pure Karl Rove
bull****. He's killing 2 birds with one lie:

That would explain all those ban Newsweek signs at the riots. Once again
your precious liberal media F's up and people die because of it.

On Tue, 17 May 2005 12:45:44 -0500, "MnMikew"
wrote:


"David" wrote in message
.. .
The riots had nothing to do with Newsweek. This is pure Karl Rove
bull****. He's killing 2 birds with one lie:

That would explain all those ban Newsweek signs at the riots. Once again
your precious liberal media F's up and people die because of it.


You have been brainwashed. The USA mass media news is, with very rare
exceptions, total bull****.

David wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2005 12:45:44 -0500, "MnMikew"
wrote:


"David" wrote in message
.. .
The riots had nothing to do with Newsweek. This is pure Karl Rove
bull****. He's killing 2 birds with one lie:

That would explain all those ban Newsweek signs at the riots. Once again
your precious liberal media F's up and people die because of it.


You have been brainwashed. The USA mass media news is, with very rare
exceptions, total bull****.

That may be true... but you're pretty full of it too, are you not, 'tard boy?

dxAce
Michigan
USA

David wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2005 12:45:44 -0500, "MnMikew"
wrote:


"David" wrote in message
.. .
The riots had nothing to do with Newsweek. This is pure Karl Rove
bull****. He's killing 2 birds with one lie:

That would explain all those ban Newsweek signs at the riots. Once again
your precious liberal media F's up and people die because of it.


You have been brainwashed.

As for you... it would be pretty darn hard to wash something that did not exist.

Hope your morning tote went OK. Did you strut proudly?

dxAce
Michigan
USA

David wrote:


Molly Ivins is the former editor of the liberal monthly The Texas
Observer. She is the bestselling author of several books including Who
Let the Dogs In?

And a total idiot.

To even the score, I've been flushing photos of Shrub down the toilet.
Maybe I'll put a photo of Shrub in the portapotty at the park.

On Tue, 17 May 2005 15:30:33 -0500, "MnMikew"
wrote:


"David" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 17 May 2005 12:45:44 -0500, "MnMikew"
wrote:


"David" wrote in message
.. .
The riots had nothing to do with Newsweek. This is pure Karl Rove
bull****. He's killing 2 birds with one lie:

That would explain all those ban Newsweek signs at the riots. Once again
your precious liberal media F's up and people die because of it.


You have been brainwashed. The USA mass media news is, with very rare
exceptions, total bull****.

Yeah ok Mr. Buzzflash.

They Lied to Us
Memo proves leadership knew Saddam was not a threat

by Molly Ivins

Meanwhile, back in Iraq. I was going to leave out of this column
everything about how we got into Iraq, or whether it was wise, and or
whether the infamous "they" knowingly lied to us. (Although I did plan
to point out I would be nobly refraining from poking at that
pus-riddled question.)
Since I believe one of our greatest strengths as Americans is shrewd
practicality, I thought it was time we moved past the now unhelpful,
"How did we get into his mess?" to the more utilitarian, "What the
hell do we do now?"

However, I cannot let this astounding Downing Street memo go
unmentioned.

On May 1, the Sunday Times of London printed a secret memo that went
to the defense secretary, foreign secretary, attorney general and
other high officials. It is the minutes of their meeting on Iraq with
Tony Blair. The memo was written by Matthew Rycroft, a Downing Street
foreign policy aide. It has been confirmed as legitimate and is dated
July 23, 2002. I suppose the correct cliché is "smoking gun."

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible
shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush
wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the
conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were
being fixed around the policy. (There it is.) The NSC (National
Security Council) had no patience with the U.N. route, and no
enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There
was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military
action."

After some paragraphs on tactical considerations, Rycroft reports, "No
decisions had been taken, but he (British defense secretary) thought
the most likely timing in U.S. minds for military action to begin was
January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the U.S.
congressional elections.

"The foreign secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell
this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take
military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case
was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD
capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should
work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the U.N.
weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification
for the use of force.

"The attorney general said that the desire for regime change was not a
legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases:
self-defense, humanitarian intervention or UNSC authorization. The
first and second could not be the base in this case."

There is much more in the memo, which can be found easily online.
What's difficult now is placing the memo in the timeframe. Can you
remember how little you knew about a war with Iraq in July 2002? Most
of us who opposed the war concluded some time ago this was the way it
went down. There was plenty of evidence, though nothing this direct
and cold. Think of the difference it would have made if we had known
all this three years ago. Now? The memo was a huge story in Britain,
but is almost unreported here.

The memo does get us some forwarder. At least it finally settles this
ridiculous debate about how Dear Leader Bush just wanted to bring
democracy all along and we did it all for George Washington.

Enough said. What to do? Now that we're there, at least we're on the
right side, not even withstanding the disgusting Ahmed Chalabi as oil
minister. Unfortunately, our very support for the good guys is making
it much harder for them. A tactical Catch-22. I was impressed by the
premise of Reza Aslan's new book, "No God but God," which is that all
of Islam is undergoing a struggle between the modernists and the
traditionalists, between reformers and reactionaries.

But in Iraq, which already had a secular state, we have the additional
complication of sectarian/ethnic divisions -- your Sunnis, your
Shiites, your Kurds -- not to mention, the tribalism within those
divisions. (Am I bitter enough to point out once again that Paul
Wolfowitz said under oath, "There is no history ethnic strife in
Iraq"? You bet your ass I am.)

Our most basic problem in-country is that having the U.S. of A. on
your side automatically makes you about as popular as a socialist in
the Texas Legislatu We are working against the guys we want to win
by supporting them. This requires some serious skulling but is not, in
politics, all that unusual a pickle.

There is a political solution. Like all politics, it requires a deal.
What about letting the interim government make a deal with the Sunnis
for us to withdraw -- as in, "You cooperate with us, and we'll get the
Americans out of here for you." We can't make that deal, but the
Iraqis can.

Molly Ivins is the former editor of the liberal monthly The Texas
Observer. She is the bestselling author of several books including Who
Let the Dogs In?

David wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2005 15:30:33 -0500, "MnMikew"
wrote:


"David" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 17 May 2005 12:45:44 -0500, "MnMikew"
wrote:


"David" wrote in message
.. .
The riots had nothing to do with Newsweek. This is pure Karl Rove
bull****. He's killing 2 birds with one lie:

That would explain all those ban Newsweek signs at the riots. Once again
your precious liberal media F's up and people die because of it.


You have been brainwashed. The USA mass media news is, with very rare
exceptions, total bull****.

Yeah ok Mr. Buzzflash.

They Lied to Us
Memo proves leadership knew Saddam was not a threat

by Molly Ivins

Meanwhile, back in Iraq. I was going to leave out of this column
everything about how we got into Iraq, or whether it was wise, and or
whether the infamous "they" knowingly lied to us. (Although I did plan
to point out I would be nobly refraining from poking at that
pus-riddled question.)
Since I believe one of our greatest strengths as Americans is shrewd
practicality, I thought it was time we moved past the now unhelpful,
"How did we get into his mess?" to the more utilitarian, "What the
hell do we do now?"

However, I cannot let this astounding Downing Street memo go
unmentioned.

On May 1, the Sunday Times of London printed a secret memo that went
to the defense secretary, foreign secretary, attorney general and
other high officials. It is the minutes of their meeting on Iraq with
Tony Blair. The memo was written by Matthew Rycroft, a Downing Street
foreign policy aide. It has been confirmed as legitimate and is dated
July 23, 2002. I suppose the correct cliché is "smoking gun."

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible
shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush
wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the
conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were
being fixed around the policy. (There it is.) The NSC (National
Security Council) had no patience with the U.N. route, and no
enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There
was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military
action."

After some paragraphs on tactical considerations, Rycroft reports, "No
decisions had been taken, but he (British defense secretary) thought
the most likely timing in U.S. minds for military action to begin was
January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the U.S.
congressional elections.

"The foreign secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell
this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take
military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case
was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD
capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should
work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the U.N.
weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification
for the use of force.

"The attorney general said that the desire for regime change was not a
legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases:
self-defense, humanitarian intervention or UNSC authorization. The
first and second could not be the base in this case."

There is much more in the memo, which can be found easily online.
What's difficult now is placing the memo in the timeframe. Can you
remember how little you knew about a war with Iraq in July 2002? Most
of us who opposed the war concluded some time ago this was the way it
went down. There was plenty of evidence, though nothing this direct
and cold. Think of the difference it would have made if we had known
all this three years ago. Now? The memo was a huge story in Britain,
but is almost unreported here.

The memo does get us some forwarder. At least it finally settles this
ridiculous debate about how Dear Leader Bush just wanted to bring
democracy all along and we did it all for George Washington.

Enough said. What to do? Now that we're there, at least we're on the
right side, not even withstanding the disgusting Ahmed Chalabi as oil
minister. Unfortunately, our very support for the good guys is making
it much harder for them. A tactical Catch-22. I was impressed by the
premise of Reza Aslan's new book, "No God but God," which is that all
of Islam is undergoing a struggle between the modernists and the
traditionalists, between reformers and reactionaries.

But in Iraq, which already had a secular state, we have the additional
complication of sectarian/ethnic divisions -- your Sunnis, your
Shiites, your Kurds -- not to mention, the tribalism within those
divisions. (Am I bitter enough to point out once again that Paul
Wolfowitz said under oath, "There is no history ethnic strife in
Iraq"? You bet your ass I am.)

Our most basic problem in-country is that having the U.S. of A. on
your side automatically makes you about as popular as a socialist in
the Texas Legislatu We are working against the guys we want to win
by supporting them. This requires some serious skulling but is not, in
politics, all that unusual a pickle.

There is a political solution. Like all politics, it requires a deal.
What about letting the interim government make a deal with the Sunnis
for us to withdraw -- as in, "You cooperate with us, and we'll get the
Americans out of here for you." We can't make that deal, but the
Iraqis can.

Molly Ivins is the former editor of the liberal monthly The Texas
Observer. She is the bestselling author of several books including Who
Let the Dogs In?

I'm going to write a book... working title is: Who Let the 'Tards In?

dxAce
Michigan
USA

On Tue, 17 May 2005 15:50:13 -0400, Cmd Buzz Corey
wrote:

David wrote:


Molly Ivins is the former editor of the liberal monthly The Texas
Observer. She is the bestselling author of several books including Who
Let the Dogs In?

And a total idiot.
She seems very nice. Went to High School with the president.

DX Ace,