From: Digestifier To: Subject: Dead-Flames Digest #694 Dead-Flames Digest #694, Volume #48 Thu, 27 Oct 05 21:00:01 PDT Contents: Re: Phil at Bimbo's (JimK) Re: Phil at Bimbo's (JimK) Re: what political Blogs do you read? (nDc) ("Carlisle") FUJI CD_R and DVD ALERT! (Tom) Re: My project is finally done, Free CD to anyone who wants one. ("£ Î Z @ R Ð") Re: what political Blogs do you read? (nDc) ("Ray") Re: what political Blogs do you read? (nDc) ("Carlisle") Re: shes gone ("Neil X.") ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JimK Subject: Re: Phil at Bimbo's Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:01:14 -0400 Reply-To: jkezwind@comcast.net On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 14:36:52 -0700, leftie wrote: >JC Martin wrote: > >> Rick L wrote: >> >>> If anyone has an extra I would love to go. >>> Rick >> >> No! Me first!!! > >HEY! I'M WORKING THIS CORNER! Bimbo! JimK ------------------------------ From: JimK Subject: Re: Phil at Bimbo's Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:02:24 -0400 Reply-To: jkezwind@comcast.net On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 19:31:49 -0500, "Steve Terry" wrote: > >"Dave Kelly" wrote in message >news:EGc8f.4273$D13.3636@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... >> Looks like I'm working Bimbos tonite. >> The regular bathroom attendant wanted the nite off, >> so I picked up his shift. >> Look for me....I'l be the guy in the tuxedo handing out >> moist towels and snake dancing on the urinals. >> >> > >That sounds like a job for your sherpa. Meanwhile, you hit the wimmins >bathroom and hand out napkins. > Better than collecting them. JimK ------------------------------ From: "Carlisle" Subject: Re: what political Blogs do you read? (nDc) Date: 27 Oct 2005 20:08:36 -0700 Roger wrote: > Carlisle wrote: > > Ray wrote: > > > Carlisle wrote: > > > > > > Here's a good source for well researched information that Ray and I > > > > > > both have turned to in our moments of doubt and pain-- > > > > > > http://www.opinionjournal.com/ > > > > > > > > > > Carlisle, I have repeatedly demonstrated to you where an > > > > > opinionjournal.com that you cited a couple of days ago was factually > > > > > incorrect. What part of this do you still not understand? > > > > > > > > "OpinionJournal.com is not the same thing as WJS editorials - > > > > OpinionJournal.com has a much wider range of voices than just the > > > > notoriously right-wing WSJ editors." > > > > Ray, this is a quote from you on October 20th. > > > > > > WSJ editorials are one part of OpinionJournal.com, and they are not > > > "well-research information" - they are disinformation. > > > > > > The non-WSJ editorial essays at OpinionJournal.com are a mixed bag - > > > how much "well researched information" they contain depends on the > > > author. > > > > > > OpinionJournal.com is a mixed bag of disinformation, opinion, and fact. > > > To believe that an essay is "well researched information" merely > > > because it is published at OpinionJournal.com is folly, and WSJ > > > editorials are proof. > > > > > > HTH, > > > Ray > > > > OpinionJournal & the WSJ are generally reliable sources. The paper is > > run by human beings and mistakes will be made. In the grand scheme of > > things, the WSJ has a distinguished reputation among the mainstream > > media, notwithstanding that the *official* editorials have a > > conservative pro-business slant. I mean, it IS the Wall Street Journal. > > Not your cup of meat apparently, but far from a "rag of > > disinformation". The thing you seem to be hung up on right now is the > > the Journal stated that Valerie Plame was not "covert". By this I > > assumed they meant>>on assignment, overseas, and/or in harm's way. They > > did not make that point clear enough. If it turns out that they were > > mistaken, they will need to make a public correction or their > > reputation will suffer and they will lose subscribers. It's that > > simple. > > Carrie > > Editorials are opinion pieces, and I doubt the WSJ will apologize or > correct any unsubtantiated claims made on their editorial page. > The distinction you seem to have trouble with is that of fact vs > opinion. The WSJ's actual reporting is first-rate. Their editorial page > twists and distorts whatever facts necessary to substantiate their > opinion. Ray is right, it's not just bias, it's actual distortion and > lies. The WSJ is not alone in this, other papers do the same to one > degree or another. Just take the editorial page with a very large grain > of salt. > > Roger Editorial pages, like political blogs are notorious for what you describe. The two pages of paper that make up WSJ editorial content are more than just the Review & Outlook. From there you have a diverse range of guest contributors (like today's Claudia Rosett piece on corruption at the UN), letters to the editor and a section that has a revolving set of regular writers. Al Hunt used to write for the WSJ editorial page on a weekly basis for years. My favorite part of the paper is Personal Journal. It has helped me stay current with technology, health, arts, entertainment, ad infinitum. cpc ps-the WSJ should cut me a check for all I've done for their damn rag in the last week!! ;} ------------------------------ From: Tom Subject: FUJI CD_R and DVD ALERT! Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:30:36 -0500 The first time I got stung on Fuji's rebate scams was on ZIP discs years ago..Never got my rebate till 4 months later I called and made a big stink etc.( I ALWAYS keep copies of rebate forms) Mysteriosly arrived a few days later Well, fool me twice, I ordered CD_Rs and never got the rebate etc. etc and the third time (hey they OFFER good rebates) I fell for the "If you register your rebate online you gets your rebate in 2 weeks" trick. Well 1 month later (who knows what they did with my e-mail address but afterwards I had to change it due to spam) I had to call, threaten etc. and mysteriously received it shortly thereafter. Well what goes around... I got a $700 Fuji camera for x-mas last year and guess what- I immediately returned it. I will NEVER but anything from Fuji EVER AGAIN. I wonder if the few bucks they made delaying my rebates saved them money on my returned camera? ------------------------------ From: "£ Î Z @ R Ð" Subject: Re: My project is finally done, Free CD to anyone who wants one. Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:32:09 -0400 > Could you make sure to put it on a CD-RW disc? why? they're actual cds... -- - Jonathan October 27, 2005 -- T H E C D S A R E H E R E ! E-mail me your mailing addresses for a FREE CD! No strings attached, even shipping is on me. Go to www.guestroomproject.com and listen to some clips. If you like what you hear, click on CONTACT ME to request a free CD. "Dave Kelly" wrote in message news:lJb8f.4265$D13.583@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... > I'll take one > Could you make sure to put it on a CD-RW disc? > thanks, baby > > Sweet-Pants Productions > 2400 Fulton Street > San Francisco California > 94112 > Attn: Jaco/Joni > ------------------------------ From: "Ray" Subject: Re: what political Blogs do you read? (nDc) Date: 27 Oct 2005 20:33:27 -0700 Carlisle wrote: > Ray wrote: > > Carlisle wrote: > > > > > Here's a good source for well researched information that Ray and= I > > > > > both have turned to in our moments of doubt and pain-- > > > > > http://www.opinionjournal.com/ > > > > > > > > Carlisle, I have repeatedly demonstrated to you where an > > > > opinionjournal.com that you cited a couple of days ago was factually > > > > incorrect. What part of this do you still not understand? > > > > > > "OpinionJournal.com is not the same thing as WJS editorials - > > > OpinionJournal.com has a much wider range of voices than just the > > > notoriously right-wing WSJ editors." > > > Ray, this is a quote from you on October 20th. > > > > WSJ editorials are one part of OpinionJournal.com, and they are not > > "well-research information" - they are disinformation. > > > > The non-WSJ editorial essays at OpinionJournal.com are a mixed bag - > > how much "well researched information" they contain depends on the > > author. > > > > OpinionJournal.com is a mixed bag of disinformation, opinion, and fact. > > To believe that an essay is "well researched information" merely > > because it is published at OpinionJournal.com is folly, and WSJ > > editorials are proof. > > OpinionJournal & the WSJ are generally reliable sources. OpinionJournal is various sources - it's only as reliable as the various sources are. That a given source is published at OpinionJournal says nothing about its veracity. > The paper is > run by human beings and mistakes will be made. In the grand scheme of > things, the WSJ has a distinguished reputation among the mainstream > media, And aside from their editorial page, well deserved too. > notwithstanding that the *official* editorials have a > conservative pro-business slant. I mean, it IS the Wall Street Journal. > Not your cup of meat apparently, but far from a "rag of > disinformation". Again (upteenth time - I've lost track): it's not the fact that WSJ editoral page is conservative that makes it a rag, it's the fact that it routinely distorts the truth and lies. > The thing you seem to be hung up on right now is the > the Journal stated that Valerie Plame was not "covert". By this I > assumed they meant>>on assignment, overseas, and/or in harm's way. The WSJ wrote that Plame was "surely not undercover". And they did not qualify that declaration with any variation of "by undercover we mean undercover on assignment, overseas, and/or in harm's way." > They did not make that point clear enough. "Clear enough?!? In the context of declaring that she was "surely not undercover" they did not make that point at all. > If it turns out that they were mistaken, This is not a 'mistake' - it's a lie. Again: regardless of what Plame's covert status actually was or 'turns out' to have been, AT THE TIME THE WSJ EDITORIAL PAGE MADE THEIR CLAIM THE AVAILABLE PUBLIC INFORMATION DID NOT SUPPORT IT. > they will need to make a public correction or their > reputation will suffer and they will lose subscribers. It's that > simple. If only. What you don't seem to understand is that - and as Rush Limbuagh has amply demonstrated for decades now - lying often pays. All you need is suckers, er, buyers. Moreover the rest of the WSJ is a quality paper - many people subscribe to the WSJ in spite of the WSJ editorial page. Here's another WSJ editorial page lie, Carlisle -- one that you've repeatedly turned a blind eye to, even though it's unassailably a lie, and even though I've demonstrated as much to you repeatedly now. Wilson's July 2003 editorial did NOT, as the WSJ editorial you cited stated, accuse the Bush Administration of lying - it only raised the possibility. Again: I appended Wilson's July 2003 essay. If you still think the Wall Street Journal editorial page wasn't lying here then please cite from the appended article where Wilson accused the Bush Adminstration of lying. =========================== July 6, 2003 What I Didn't Find in Africa By JOSEPH C. WILSON 4th WASHINGTON Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq? Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat. For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as charg=E9 d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and S=E3o Tom=E9 and Pr=EDncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council. It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me. In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake - a form of lightly processed ore - by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office. After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government. In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible. The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq - and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival. I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place. Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired. (As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors - they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government - and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.) Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip. Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure. I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country. Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa. The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case. Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government. The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraqwere warranted. I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program - all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed. But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons. ---=20 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html ------------------------------ From: "Carlisle" Subject: Re: what political Blogs do you read? (nDc) Date: 27 Oct 2005 20:47:46 -0700 Ray wrote: > Carlisle wrote: > > Ray wrote: > > > Carlisle wrote: > > > > > > Here's a good source for well researched information that Ray and I > > > > > > both have turned to in our moments of doubt and pain-- > > > > > > http://www.opinionjournal.com/ > > > > > > > > > > Carlisle, I have repeatedly demonstrated to you where an > > > > > opinionjournal.com that you cited a couple of days ago was factually > > > > > incorrect. What part of this do you still not understand? > > > > > > > > "OpinionJournal.com is not the same thing as WJS editorials - > > > > OpinionJournal.com has a much wider range of voices than just the > > > > notoriously right-wing WSJ editors." > > > > Ray, this is a quote from you on October 20th. > > > > > > WSJ editorials are one part of OpinionJournal.com, and they are not > > > "well-research information" - they are disinformation. > > > > > > The non-WSJ editorial essays at OpinionJournal.com are a mixed bag - > > > how much "well researched information" they contain depends on the > > > author. > > > > > > OpinionJournal.com is a mixed bag of disinformation, opinion, and fact. > > > To believe that an essay is "well researched information" merely > > > because it is published at OpinionJournal.com is folly, and WSJ > > > editorials are proof. > > > > OpinionJournal & the WSJ are generally reliable sources. > > OpinionJournal is various sources - it's only as reliable as the > various sources are. That a given source is published at > OpinionJournal says nothing about its veracity. > > > The paper is > > run by human beings and mistakes will be made. In the grand scheme of > > things, the WSJ has a distinguished reputation among the mainstream > > media, > > And aside from their editorial page, well deserved too. > > > notwithstanding that the *official* editorials have a > > conservative pro-business slant. I mean, it IS the Wall Street Journal. > > Not your cup of meat apparently, but far from a "rag of > > disinformation". > > Again (upteenth time - I've lost track): it's not the fact that WSJ > editoral page is conservative that makes it a rag, it's the fact that > it routinely distorts the truth and lies. > > > The thing you seem to be hung up on right now is the > > the Journal stated that Valerie Plame was not "covert". By this I > > assumed they meant>>on assignment, overseas, and/or in harm's way. > > The WSJ wrote that Plame was "surely not undercover". And they did not > qualify that declaration with any variation of "by undercover we mean > undercover on assignment, overseas, and/or in harm's way." > > > They did not make that point clear enough. > > "Clear enough?!? In the context of declaring that she was "surely not > undercover" they did not make that point at all. > > > If it turns out that they were mistaken, > > This is not a 'mistake' - it's a lie. Again: regardless of what > Plame's covert status actually was or 'turns out' to have been, AT THE > TIME THE WSJ EDITORIAL PAGE MADE THEIR CLAIM THE AVAILABLE PUBLIC > INFORMATION DID NOT SUPPORT IT. > > > they will need to make a public correction or their > > reputation will suffer and they will lose subscribers. It's that > > simple. > > If only. What you don't seem to understand is that - and as Rush > Limbuagh has amply demonstrated for decades now - lying often pays. All > you need is suckers, er, buyers. Moreover the rest of the WSJ is a > quality paper - many people subscribe to the WSJ in spite of the WSJ > editorial page. > > Here's another WSJ editorial page lie, Carlisle -- one that you've > repeatedly turned a blind eye to, even though it's unassailably a lie, > and even though I've demonstrated as much to you repeatedly now. > Wilson's July 2003 editorial did NOT, as the WSJ editorial you cited > stated, accuse the Bush Administration of lying - it only raised the > possibility. Again: I appended Wilson's July 2003 essay. If you still > think the Wall Street Journal editorial page wasn't lying here then > please cite from the appended article where Wilson accused the Bush > Adminstration of lying. > > --------------------------- > July 6, 2003 > > What I Didn't Find in Africa > By JOSEPH C. WILSON 4th > > WASHINGTON > > Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam > Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq? > > Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up > to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the > intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to > exaggerate the Iraqi threat. OK, right here. "Some of the intelligence was TWISTED to exaggerate the Iraqi threat". And Wilson may be totally correct. I think this is what happened. The Administration was determined to build a case for war. But he did imply that the Bush Administration distorted the truth. C'mon, Ray!! Good nite. cpc ------------------------------ From: "Neil X." Subject: Re: shes gone Date: 27 Oct 2005 20:53:34 -0700 > Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote: > > He's really in a box now. The ultra right will demand even more vigorously > than usual some religious fanatic. The Dems will plant their feet more > firmly in the ground than usual, and we may very well end up with nuclear > option / filibuster scenario everyone fears. In other words, 8 Supreme > Court justices until Bush leaves office? Damn, Toad, you don't usually live in political fantasyland. 8 justices for the next 3 years?? A less likely scenario I can scarcely imagine. Try this instead: Bush nominates a hard-right jurist with impeccable intellectual credentials and gets 80 votes for his/her nomination. HTH, Neil X. ------------------------------ ** FOR YOUR REFERENCE ** The service addresses, to which questions about the list itself and requests to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, are as follows: Internet: dead-flames-request@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames-request%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames-request You can send mail to the entire list (and rec.music.gdead) via one of these addresses: Internet: dead-flames@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames End of Dead-Flames Digest ****************************** .