Could the Press Grow a Spine?

(Madelin McKinnon) wrote in message . com...
are you kidding?


WTF did you come from?


... This is about the murder of Laci Peterson


No, this thread is about the American Press going soft on Bush
for fear that they won't be invited to any more of the press
conferences he doesn't give anyhow...

We go sidetracked into a discussion of Bill Clinton and Ken Starr,
evidently because some folks have yet to notice that the president of
the United States is George W Bush, Not Bill Clinton.

In that context you wrote:



... Why are we not charging Ken Starr for torture?

Perhaps because there is on reason we should? If there is
a reason we should, perhaps you can point it out to us.

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...??? ...

Indeed, to my knowledge he did not. Have you evidence that he did?

Jim McDougal
was convicted on May 28, 1996 of 18 charges against him.

Yes, McDougal, his wife and a few other associtates of the
Clintons were disgusting frauds who stole the life savings
from innocvent people who had trusted them.


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. ...

How so? I do not recall him ever having been quoted as saying that.

McDougall's death denied the opportunity to
prove that his original indictment was a consequence of his refusal to
lie. ...

That assumes that said proof was not alredy barred by reality.

But if you'd like to discuss this somewhere approriate, like
misc.legal or alt.politics.clinton, please go ahead.

--

FF

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message link.net...
"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.


Sorry about that. I'll try to be more careful.

--

FF

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message ...

Blah,blah, blah.
...
BUFDRVR


That about covers it.

--

FF

Howard Berkowitz wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:



The least toxic of these is used theraputically,

No, the most toxic is Type A, which is also the active ingredient in the
therapeutic drug Botox.

Thanks.

But: http://www.cignamedicare.com/partb/l...u/96-003-1.htm

tells us that A and B are both approved by the FDA for theraputic
use.

Here is a more comprehensive overview:

http://www.emedicine.com/pmr/topic216.htm

--

FF

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...
(BUFDRVR) wrote in message
...

(Snip)

I don't remember exatly what Walt said but *I* blame GHB
for sending American Troops into Somalia without any
exit strategy. Clearly GHB was not concerned with how
to get our people out of that situation and the fact that
Clinton fell into the trap and made the situation worse
does nothing to exhonorate GHB of using our troops as
pawns to spite Clinton for wining the election.

At least some good did come of it. For a time, the
humanitarian relief effort was a success.

Unless my foggy memory is again playing tricks on me, I seem to recall that
the
people who profited most from the relief supplies that we sent to that
unfortunate country were the very war lords who kicked us out of it. I seem
to
recall that they sold the relief supplies we sent over there to whichever
starving Somalis had something of value to trade for those supplies.

Please feel free to correct me if I've got it wrong.


Note the caveat above 'for a time'. Even after, though the food
shipments were stolen, someone got to eat who previously
would have starved. I don't think they resold the food abroad.

I never said that they resold the food abroad....they merely sold it to Somalis
who had something of value they would give up for the food. While some Somalis
undoubtedly got the food and survived, we gave it with no strings attached and
nobody should have felt obliged to give up his earthly possessions in order to
get the food, and we intended that destitute Somalis have the same chances of
survival as those with means.

So, when all was said and done, we sent food over there and only affluent or
relatively affluent Somalis got to eat any of it. The starving poor continued
to starve in spite of our best efforts. I don't think I would call that a
successful effort.

George Z.

--

FF

George Z. Bush wrote:

Unless my foggy memory is again playing tricks on me, I seem to recall that
the
people who profited most from the relief supplies that we sent to that
unfortunate country were the very war lords who kicked us out of it.

The militias ate along with your average Somali, but how were you going to
differentiate? Until The US forces began to withdraw, and the war lords resumed
their feuding (not coincidental events) the food distribution was orderly
(well, as orderly as you can expect when feeding masses of starving people) and
did save the lives of millions. Once the warlords began battling, both the U.N.
forces and U.S. forces struggled to maintain control of the food once relief
workers began handing it out. If all you know about Somalia is what you've seen
in "Black Hawk Down", you're missing nearly the first two years of the
operation.

seem to
recall that they sold the relief supplies we sent over there to whichever
starving Somalis had something of value to trade for those supplies.

No, usually the war lords attempted to either a.)seize the food once it reached
the distribution point so they could hand it out to loyal militia followers and
recruit more or b.) set up a series of militia controlled check points and only
allow those loyal to get to the food. It was the increasing insecurity of the
food that convinced Clinton administration officials that in order to prevent
another famine, a stable government needed to be established.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Got a message ID we can use to compare what you say he said
with what he said?

No, it was a series of exchanges under a thread topic I've long
forgotten...along with "Walt".


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

George Z. Bush wrote:

snip rewritten history

So, when all was said and done, we sent food over there and only affluent or
relatively affluent Somalis got to eat any of it.

First let me say thanks for the laugh "affluent or relatively affulent
Somalis". What constitutes affulent in Mogadishu? Two windows in your building
with screens on them? The real, historically accurate, bottom line is that the
first 8 months of operations in Somalia saved hundreds of thousands (if not
more) innocent Somalis. Food distribution was not as you claim until the danger
had passed and the feuding resumed.

Here's a link where you can read about all 3 Operations.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...recent-ops.htm


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ...
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...
(BUFDRVR) wrote in message
...

(Snip)

I don't remember exatly what Walt said but *I* blame GHB
for sending American Troops into Somalia without any
exit strategy. Clearly GHB was not concerned with how
to get our people out of that situation and the fact that
Clinton fell into the trap and made the situation worse
does nothing to exhonorate GHB of using our troops as
pawns to spite Clinton for wining the election.

At least some good did come of it. For a time, the
humanitarian relief effort was a success.

Unless my foggy memory is again playing tricks on me, I seem to recall that
the
people who profited most from the relief supplies that we sent to that
unfortunate country were the very war lords who kicked us out of it. I seem
to
recall that they sold the relief supplies we sent over there to whichever
starving Somalis had something of value to trade for those supplies.

Please feel free to correct me if I've got it wrong.


Note the caveat above 'for a time'. Even after, though the food
shipments were stolen, someone got to eat who previously
would have starved. I don't think they resold the food abroad.

I never said that they resold the food abroad....

It appear we are agreed on that point. Do you understand that
if none of the food was sold abroad then, due ot the humanitarian
effort, there was more food and therefor less starvation in
Somalia than without, even though the warlords eventually
gained control over the distribution of the food? Even when
the warlords had that control there were people in Somalia
not starving who would otherwise have starved.

they merely sold it to Somalis
who had something of value they would give up for the food. While some Somalis
undoubtedly got the food and survived,

Hence my statement 'At least some good did come of it.' I hope you
agree that some Somalis geting the food and sruviving was the object
of the exercise.

we gave it with no strings attached and
nobody should have felt obliged to give up his earthly possessions in order to
get the food, and we intended that destitute Somalis have the same chances of
survival as those with means.

Yes, it is terrible that the distribution effort fell under the control
of the warlords. The only way to stop that would have been to get involved
in a Somalian Civil War and to attempt to build a new Somali nation.


So, when all was said and done, we sent food over there and only affluent or
relatively affluent Somalis got to eat any of it. The starving poor continued
to starve in spite of our best efforts. I don't think I would call that a
successful effort.


Note the caveat above 'for a time'.

Really, I meant that. It took a while for the warlords to gain
control. Even after they did, I am sure that the Somalis who
had the means to procure the food from the warlords distributed it
further in exchange for various forms of renumeration to themselves,
such as labor. That's called 'trickle down'. Perhaps you can
find some Ronald Reagan fans who can explain to you how that works.

If you can explain how sending food to a starving country fails to
help to relieve that famine regardless of who distributes
the food, please do so.

--

FF

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message link.net...
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...

The same way that lesser laws remain intact though they are routinely
violated.


What lesser laws?

State and Federal criminal laws, among others.

It wasn't a trick question, I'm not clear on what you didn't
understand.

--

FF