Could the Press Grow a Spine?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message thlink.net...
"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...

Fact: Kerry went to war. Bush didn't.


Fact: Kerry used an unearned Purple Heart to get out of Vietnam after
serving just a third of his tour. Bush didn't.

Show your evidence that Kerry didnt earn his third purple
heart, received in his second tour of duty.

ALso,

Show your evidence that Bush didn't get out of Vietnam.

Show why any of that is more important than what both men have
done since.

--

FF

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message ...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

No, you don't know that, you believe that. There is a difference.

I'm not sure why you guys are wasting your time with this "Walt" guy. This is
the same brain washed lunatic that claims Bush, as CinC, was personally
responsible for Abu Garib, but Clinton was not responsible for Somalia, but
Bush 41 was. How can argue with "logic" like that?


If Americans in Somalia were inspired by Clinton to committ crimes
then Clinton would be just as responsible for those crimes as Bush
would be for crimes he inspired at Abu Graib.

To my knowledge. Clinton never declared that the US would not
honor the Geneva conventions. Clinton never tried to create
ad hoc courts to conduct secret trials, in violation of both
the US Constitution and the Geneva Conventions. Clinton's
secretary of defense never ordered Americans to violate the
UCMJ or the Geneva Conventions. Clinton's Secretary of
Defense never ordered that prisoners be hidden from the ICRC.
Clinton's Justice Department never prepared a memo to tell him
that torture is OK, or at least you can get away with it.

If the press grows a spine, they'll interview the UN High
Comissioner for Human Rights. And someone will ask Rumsfeld
if he ever actually read the Geneva Conventions.

--

FF

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Mike Dargan" wrote in message
news:qd0Dc.117009$0y.58857@attbi_s03...

The Republicans and their junior college instructor lackey's have a
long
history of belittling those who served well while exaggerating the
military records of their, more prudent, candidates.

Dunno about a long history, but that was evident in 2000.


I did not write anything that appears above. If you're going to snip my
words then also snip my name.

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
...


... McGovern the "subversive peacenik"
it was the news shots of his anti-war, anti-capitalist supporters and
his
own campaign rhetoric at the Democratic convention and the many campaign
rallies leading up to the election that November.

You say that like it was a bad thing.

Try again peabrain - you're editing achieved that goal, my original comment
was that Nixon didn't paint him up as the "subversive peacenik" he and his
supporters did that and they didn't need any help in achieving that goal.

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
...


... McGovern the "subversive peacenik"
it was the news shots of his anti-war, anti-capitalist supporters and
his
own campaign rhetoric at the Democratic convention and the many campaign
rallies leading up to the election that November.

You say that like it was a bad thing.

Try again peabrain - your own editing achieved that goal, my original
comment was that Nixon didn't paint him up as the "subversive peacenik" he
and his supporters did that and they didn't need any help in achieving that
goal.

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...

I also thought that McGovern flew B-25s.

No....B-24s for the Eighth Air Force.

But just look back at the Republican primaries campaign from 2000.
The Bush camp tried to make McCain out to be mentally unstable. Now
we know that Bush thinks he's on a mission from God. Who was the
real nutcase?

IAC, if McCain was nutty, it was probably due to the time he spent in the Hanoi
Hilton. How is Bush's nuttiness explained? Surely things couldn't have been
that tough in those south Texas cantinas he hung around in during the Battle of
the Gulf of Mexico.

George Z.

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message
. ..
...
As I regularly tell students, political questions are complex and
nuanced. They usually exhibit two opposing positions with deeply held
convictions. ...

It is unfortunate that you perpetuate the myth that political
questions may be sensibly reduced to a mere dichotomy.

He didn't say that, now, did he?

Well, yes, he did. I think his words were "two opposing positions" which is how
my dictionary defines "dichotomy".

George Z.

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...
(WalterM140) wrote in message
...

This dirty tricks organization went full tilt in an effort to keep Clinton
from governing. They did this with the White Water scandal -- nothing there.

Ahem. Last I heard somewhere around 20 folks went to prison in the
Whitewater cases. Jim Tucker, the sitting Governor of Arkansas
went straight from the governor's house to the big house.

"Nothing there" is an incredibly arrogant lie. I'm disappointed
that you believed it.

In the context that the initial purpose of the probe was to get the goods on
Clinton, it was not a lie. They never uncovered sufficient involvement to
warrant an indictment against him. So, as far as Clinton was concerned, there
was nothing there.

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ...

In the context that the initial purpose of the probe was to get the goods on
Clinton, it was not a lie. ...


That misstatement of the charter of the OIC is also a lie.

Somehow, Clinton was better at using one lie to convince people
that another lie was true, than is Bush. Maybe it was those
bedroom eyes vs the dear inthe headlights look.

--

FF

are you kidding?


Like pornographer Ken Starr and CNN, who thrived on the opportunity to
introduce the words "oral sex" into everyday usage the way the
initials, H.B. (Horny *******) are currently being magnified, the
media is having another salacious field day. I think the real initials
that merit widespread circulation are S.M. (Stupid Morons) because
they apply to the media and to all the authorities who still think
that this is all about sex. This is about the murder of Laci Peterson
and about all the unindicted whores (feel free to be vulgar now that
the media has lowered expectations) who blame an innocent man to cover
up their own incompetence or involvement. At the very least, these
S.M.'s are obstructing justice by distorting the truth about the
murder of Laci Peterson. If it wasn't for the investigative reports of
David Sween, who has been one step ahead of the effort to frame an
innocent man, Scott Peterson would have been dead and buried by now,
just like Richard Albert Ricci was. The fact that David Sween is
responsible for saving Scott Peterson became graphically plain
recently, when the disgraced prosecution tried to save the reputation
of the incompetent, Detective Allen Brocchini. The detective had
gotten a call about how Scott dumped Laci in the ocean on April 19,
2003, a day after Scott Peterson was arrested, but Detective Allen
Brocchini did not follow up because, in his words,

"I just couldn't corroborate it, and I just didn't put a lot of stock
in it."

In retrospect, such a call is consistent with the persistent effort to
frame Scott Peterson, and investigator, David Sween, had virually made
that crystal clear when he wrote the following report:

http://www.geocities.com/botenth/scott.htm

So you see, if David Sween did not methodically and systematically
expose every absurd plot to frame Scott Peterson, the prosecution
might have fraudulently "cemented" the case against Scott early on,
and he may have died in prison, just like Richard Albert Ricci did.
The April 19 telephone call tip that Brochini dismissed is the very
same one that the prosecution has currently embraced, and that is a
clear indication of the fact that earlier efforts to frame Scott
Peterson were discarded because David Sween exposed every fraudulent
effort to "cement" the case against Scott Peterson.

If Scott has a guardian angel looking over his shoulder, his name is
David Sween, and I seriously believe that in the absence of his
brilliant reporting, Scott Peterson would be dead.

How long is the prison torture of innocent people going to be
tolerated? Why are we not charging Ken Starr for torture? With Susan
McDougal and her husband, did Starr not use cruel and unusual
punishment, did Starr not obstruct justice, did Starr not tamper with
witnesses, did Starr not violate the racketeering statutes with the
far right wing, did Star not...??? If Starr's look-a-like, Distaso,
manages to turn Scott Peterson into another Jim McDougall, are we
going to applaud this license to murder an innocent man? Jim McDougal
was convicted on May 28, 1996 of 18 charges against him. Facing up to
84 years in prison and $4.5 million in fines, McDougal agreed to
cooperate with Starr's office. His cooperation netted a reduced
sentence, and in April 1997 he was sentenced to three years in prison
and a year of house arrest, three years of probation and a $10,000
fine. Jim McDougal conveniently died in jail in March 1998. His
cooperation produced the allegation that Susan McDougal and Bill
Clinton had been lovers. Was that statement, (true or not), worth 81
years in jail and almost 4.5 million dollars? Pornographer, Ken Starr
evidently thought so. McDougall's death denied the opportunity to
prove that his original indictment was a consequence of his refusal to
lie. Perhaps, if somebody paid a hefty price for the torture of Jim
McDougal, the murders of Chandra Levy and Laci Peterson would have at
least been investigated in a competent manner, because as long as
justice is about harrassing innocent people, it doesn't exist.

http://www.geocities.com/botenth/scott.htm