To spell it out...

Post #40,453 by Simon_Jester 5/29/02 10:27:14 PM Reply	To spell it out... The argument (which you're ignoring) is that he should make announcement based on the facts and rumors that he has. He SHOULDN'T be making announcements because he wants to deflect criticism of his administration. ObClinton reference: It's perfectly valid for Clinton to waste a couple of million on a bunch of cruise missiles to kill an International Terrorist (who later kills a couple of thousand Americans). It's not valid for Clinton to waste a couple of million on a bunch of cruise missiles to deflect from some semen stains on a blue dress.
Post #40,456 by bepatient 5/29/02 10:32:59 PM Reply	I'm not mmissing that point. And the facts and rumors have long included further attacks and the use of nuclear materials. Again...I find this amusing because the administration was criticized for not issuing warnings based on non-specific evidence supplied in an Aug 6 briefing. So they issue non-specific warnings based, I'm sure, on reams and reams of data supplied by the prisoners in Gitmo...stuff coming in over the wires...and an increase in chatter on the terrorist bands (chuckle...like its short wave or something) So now the criticism is that he made announcements to deflect the criticism that he should have made announcements...which he did in response to the criticism...this is the song that never ends...it just goes on and on my friends. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #40,459 by bepatient 5/29/02 10:38:20 PM Reply	But I am apparently stuttering ;-) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #40,462 by Simon_Jester 5/29/02 10:50:43 PM Reply	Well, I'm glad you're not missing that point... because...personally...while the warning/no-warning thing is funny.... the "Gee..Clinton is evil because he's trying to divert our attention" but the "Bush is good because he's trying to divert our attention" coming from the same mouth is, to me, even funnier.
Post #40,464 by bepatient 5/29/02 11:16:14 PM Reply	Not around here. I didn't bring up the Monica missiles...you did;-) And I'm not making a value judgement here. Neither good nor bad. I think we're smart enough to understand that the risk is present without having to be told over and over again. Specific threats are different...vague everyday crap is unecessary. I thought we had already agreed on that somewhere else. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #40,549 by Simon_Jester 5/30/02 1:48:11 PM Reply	Well...there is a lot of humor to go around. I didn't bring up the Monica missiles...you did;-) Yep, I surely did. And I'm not making a value judgement here. Neither good nor bad. Neither was I. You were pointing out the humor those demanding threat warnings and then complaining then they got them. I was pointing out the (greater) humor (imo) of that many of the people laughing about Bush's wag-the-dog warnings are the same ones who complained about Clinton's wag-the-dog Monica-missiles. I could even laugh at the people who's are now whining about the "can't please everyone." Most of them were the same ones who were, again, blasting away for Clinton for wagging-the-dog by shooting missiles at terrorists and for not doing enough to stop terrorism. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I guess you really can't please everyone. I think we're smart enough to understand that the risk is present without having to be told over and over again. Specific threats are different...vague everyday crap is unecessary. I thought we had already agreed on that somewhere else. Indeed, I think we did. But that ITSELF is the funniest of all. We both agree that unfiltered information is bad. Yet, you claim that Democrats first demanded vague threat warning and then complained when they got them. You even cited a Democrat that complained about the lack of warnings. So, is he complaining about the amount of vague threats now? No! He STILL believe that more information (and more specific information) needs to be made available. Yet, you somehow feel that this backs your position.
Post #40,560 by bepatient 5/30/02 2:25:28 PM Reply	I suppose the Monica Missiles thing had a humorous side. Its a little harder to laugh about it after getting smacked down by a warhead, though ;-) Now they're speculating that the Mon missiles are the act that set Osama in motion for 9/11. Oh...the tangled web we weave. Graham was one of many. And possibly the problem really stems from the fact that the Dems can't seem to agree on anything lately...except that they hate Bush. But hey...thats an easy one. Maybe the problem is similar to the one of the legal system havng too many lawyers...maybe there's just too many "journalists"...so they create there own news stories. The Ashcroft thing as a case in point...scandle created out of the "analysis" of a news anchor. I thought their job was to report...but that was then..this is now. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #40,580 by Simon_Jester 5/30/02 3:13:20 PM Reply	Exactly.. Now they're speculating that the Mon missiles are the act that set Osama in motion for 9/11. Oh...the tangled web we weave. of course they are. The flip side of the coin is that had the missiles actually nailed Bin Laden, thousands of Americans would probably be alive now. Maybe the problem is similar to the one of the legal system havng too many lawyers...maybe there's just too many "journalists"...so they create there own news stories. The Ashcroft thing as a case in point...scandle created out of the "analysis" of a news anchor. I thought their job was to report...but that was then..this is now. You don't really think those talking heads do any real "analysis" or even journalism, do you? Come on. However, the sources of Ashcroft's flying rumors are far more than the result of a single news anchor. (But if you want to blame just him...be my guest.) I remember hearing questions of Ashcroft's flying habits months ago. I discredited them months ago because, even if it was true, it wasn't going to be proven. However, like it or not, our journalistic standard (via Drudge and others) is to report rumors - and the more outragous the rumor, the better the ratings. Hell, look at the Air Force 1 theftgate. Was there ever any real evidence to that story, or was it all rumors to improve ratings? I think you're at least partly right. I think there's too many news organizations. Unforuately, with this many news organizsations, they can no longer simply compete to deliver the best news and hope to get the best ratings. So now, they compete to get the best ratings irregardless of the validity, balance or truth of the news. As such, they are reporting more and more outragous claims; truth (and integrity) be damned. Ah, but such is the capitialistic system.

Welcome to IWETHEY!