Walter Hinteler wrote:Foxfyre wrote:
I wonder if the writer of this piece takes issue with ABC too? Or did he ever take issue with Bill Clinton who put the best face on something in a speech? The hypocrisy of some of these media types is simply stunning these days.
No idea. I suggest, you email to
alertnet at reuters.com
or write to
Reuters
30 South Colonnade
London E14 4EP
United Kingdom
phone Deputy Editor -- +44 20 7542 9484
and ask them :wink:
Naw, no time before New Year's and postage goes up in the USA after that. Anyhow, if they don't report honestly, how can I expect them to answer honestly via mail?
foxfyre- I can find material in my files if necessary but I can tell you that the Democrats were allied as one when Clinton was stuttering under the burden of the DNA on the little blue dress. Every night on TV, the Clinton defenders, who included the snake Carville in the lead along with the oily Lanny Davis repeatedly told the American public that nothing was proven and that the nation had to move on.
emphasis added by me
Walter Hinteler wrote:Quote:Posted on Mon, Dec. 19, 2005
Bush leaves out the bad news in Iraqi poll
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - President Bush is making selective use of an opinion poll when he tells people that Iraqis are increasingly upbeat.
...
Among the findings:
_More than two-thirds of Iraqis surveyed face-to-face opposed the U.S. presence, but only one-quarter of respondents wanted American troops to leave right away.
...
I assume "more than two-thirds" equals 68% and "only one-quarter" equals 25%.
Thus:
32% do not know whether or not they want to the USA to leave; 68% of Iraqis want the USA to leave Iraq; and of those who want the USA to leave, only 25% want the USA to leave immediately.
That would imply that 75% (i.e., 100%-25%) of that 68%, or 51%, will want the USA to "leave immediately" after some
condition is met.
What do you think that
condition probably is?
I bet that
condition is:
More than half the Iraqis decide they can defend themselves without any more help from the USA.
Sooner or later that will happen! Gee, won't that be nice when it does happen?
Ican- I hope you realize that Walter Hinteler is not interested in any view which is pro American.
'The more things change .....'
Mortkat wrote:foxfyre- I can find material in my files if necessary but I can tell you that the Democrats were allied as one when Clinton was stuttering under the burden of the DNA on the little blue dress. Every night on TV, the Clinton defenders, who included the snake Carville in the lead along with the oily Lanny Davis repeatedly told the American public that nothing was proven and that the nation had to move on.
I'll defend the Democrats on that one. Spokespersons or advocates for a position, issue, person, or party are naturally going to put the best face on it. This is human nature and the way it has always been done. The hypocrisy comes when it is accepted from anybody and everybody except the target of an attack. To expect President Bush to outline all that is wrong as well as all that is right when this is asked or expected of nobody else is not only hypocritical but just plain dumb.
Mortkat wrote:Ican- I hope you realize that Walter Hinteler is not interested in any view which is pro American.
The fact that I post copied AP articels doesn't necessarily indicate that I own.
Associated Press is actually only connetced with my computer (like a couple more news agencies).
Sunni Arabs on Tuesday said that partial results released earlier this week in Iraq's parliamentary elections were a "falsification of the will of the people" and said that there was abundant evidence of fraud.
Preliminary results [
PDF text] from Baghdad province were released Monday, showing that with 89 percent of ballot boxes counted, the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance had won almost 59 percent of the vote with the Sunni Arab Iraqi Accordance Front taking about 19 percent.
The Sunni coalition group rejected the results saying there would be "grave repercussions on security and political stability" if efforts are not made to correct mistakes, and head of the IAF said that the alliance could demand that elections be held again in Baghdad.
The Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq (IECI) has said that it will address all complaints [
press release, PDF]; so far the commission has received almost 700 complaints including 20 classified as "red", meaning they could affect specific election results.
The IECI said Tuesday that final results will not be ready and certified until early January [
AP report].
Full report:
Sunnis Call Election Results Fraudulent
ican711nm wrote:testing able2know
What did you do all the time before? :wink:
Testing able2know
emphasis added by me
Walter Hinteler wrote:Quote:
Sunni Arabs on Tuesday said that partial results released earlier this week in Iraq's parliamentary elections were a "falsification of the will of the people" and said that there was abundant evidence of fraud.
...
The IECI said Tuesday that final results will not be ready and certified until early January [AP report].
Full report: Sunnis Call Election Results Fraudulent
Echos from November 2000 Democrats?
ican711nm wrote:
Echos from November 2000 Democrats?
No, actually written by a certain Jason Straziuso and posted (the publication I've copied/pasted) on December 20, 2005 at 7:43 AM (ET).
Still testing able2know (i.e., able2know operations not able2know debate)
Walter Hinteler wrote:Quote:Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:36 pm Post: 1739262 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ican711nm wrote: Echos from November 2000 Democrats?
No, actually written by a certain Jason Straziuso and posted (the publication I've copied/pasted) on December 20, 2005 at 7:43 AM (ET).
What's the name of the author/source of that article got to do with whether or not the Sunni protest is or is not
Echos from November 2000?
Oops, I didn't get that you think, Iraquian Sunnis are repeating now what the US Democrats already said in 2000.
I'd thought, you meant that I quoted on old article.
Sorry.
ican711nm wrote:
Still testing able2know (i.e., able2know operations not able2know debate)
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Quote:Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:36 pm Post: 1739262 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ican711nm wrote:
Echos from November 2000 Democrats?
No, actually written by a certain Jason Straziuso and posted (the publication I've copied/pasted) on December 20, 2005 at 7:43 AM (ET).
What's the name of the author/source of that article got to do with whether or not the Sunni protest is or is not
Echos from November 2000 Democrats?
_________________
I bet certainty is impossible and probability suffices to govern belief and action. One sees things from a much different perspective at an altitude of 45,000 feet.[/quote]
Yes, the
November 2000 Democrats stated then the equivalent of what the Sunnis are alleging now: ""falsification of the will of the people" and "there was abundant evidence of fraud." In the case of the
November 2000 Democrats, they accused the Republicans of election fraud. This charge was later shown by Florida and Federal election commissions to be unfounded. After that, more than a half-dozen independent investigatory groups investigated and came to the same conclusion.
By the way, we also subsequently learned that in some other states there were a great many Democrat voters (some voting more than once) who were discovered to have died before the election -- most of these died many years before the November 2000 election.
Also, this is my end of testing of able2know operations.
Bush tells Americans and the world that his authority to listen to telephone conversaions and track emails were limited to suspected al Qaida connected people. Bull Shet!
December 20, 2005
F.B.I. Watched Activist Groups, New Files Show
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 - Counterterrorism agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted numerous surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations that involved, at least indirectly, groups active in causes as diverse as the environment, animal cruelty and poverty relief, newly disclosed agency records show.
F.B.I. officials said Monday that their investigators had no interest in monitoring political or social activities and that any investigations that touched on advocacy groups were driven by evidence of criminal or violent activity at public protests and in other settings.
After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, John Ashcroft, who was then attorney general, loosened restrictions on the F.B.I.'s investigative powers, giving the bureau greater ability to visit and monitor Web sites, mosques and other public entities in developing terrorism leads. The bureau has used that authority to investigate not only groups with suspected ties to foreign terrorists, but also protest groups suspected of having links to violent or disruptive activities.
But the documents, coming after the Bush administration's confirmation that President Bush had authorized some spying without warrants in fighting terrorism, prompted charges from civil rights advocates that the government had improperly blurred the line between terrorism and acts of civil disobedience and lawful protest.
One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a "Vegan Community Project." Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group's "semi-communistic ideology." A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
The documents, provided to The New York Times over the past week, came as part of a series of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. For more than a year, the A.C.L.U. has been seeking access to information in F.B.I. files on about 150 protest and social groups that it says may have been improperly monitored.
The F.B.I. had previously turned over a small number of documents on antiwar groups, showing the agency's interest in investigating possible anarchist or violent links in connection with antiwar protests and demonstrations in advance of the 2004 political conventions. And earlier this month, the A.C.L.U.'s Colorado chapter released similar documents involving, among other things, people protesting logging practices at a lumber industry gathering in 2002.
The latest batch of documents, parts of which the A.C.L.U. plans to release publicly on Tuesday, totals more than 2,300 pages and centers on references in internal files to a handful of groups, including PETA, the environmental group Greenpeace and the Catholic Workers group, which promotes antipoverty efforts and social causes.
Many of the investigative documents turned over by the bureau are heavily edited, making it difficult or impossible to determine the full context of the references and why the F.B.I. may have been discussing events like a PETA protest. F.B.I. officials say many of the references may be much more benign than they seem to civil rights advocates, adding that the documents offer an incomplete and sometimes misleading snapshot of the bureau's activities.
"Just being referenced in an F.B.I. file is not tantamount to being the subject of an investigation," said John Miller, a spokesman for the bureau.
"The F.B.I. does not target individuals or organizations for investigation based on their political beliefs," Mr. Miller said. "Everything we do is carefully promulgated by federal law, Justice Department guidelines and the F.B.I.'s own rules."
A.C.L.U officials said the latest batch of documents released by the F.B.I. indicated the agency's interest in a broader array of activist and protest groups than they had previously thought. In light of other recent disclosures about domestic surveillance activities by the National Security Agency and military intelligence units, the A.C.L.U. said the documents reflected a pattern of overreaching by the Bush administration.
"It's clear that this administration has engaged every possible agency, from the Pentagon to N.S.A. to the F.B.I., to engage in spying on Americans," said Ann Beeson, associate legal director for the A.C.L.U.
"You look at these documents," Ms. Beeson said, "and you think, wow, we have really returned to the days of J. Edgar Hoover, when you see in F.B.I. files that they're talking about a group like the Catholic Workers league as having a communist ideology."
The documents indicate that in some cases, the F.B.I. has used employees, interns and other confidential informants within groups like PETA and Greenpeace to develop leads on potential criminal activity and has downloaded material from the groups' Web sites, in addition to monitoring their protests.
In the case of Greenpeace, which is known for highly publicized acts of civil disobedience like the boarding of cargo ships to unfurl protest banners, the files indicate that the F.B.I. investigated possible financial ties between its members and militant groups like the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front.
These networks, which have no declared leaders and are only loosely organized, have been described by the F.B.I. in Congressional testimony as "extremist special interest groups" whose cells engage in violent or other illegal acts, making them "a serious domestic terrorist threat."
In testimony last year, John E. Lewis, deputy assistant director of the counterterrorism division, said the F.B.I. estimated that in the past 10 years such groups had engaged in more than 1,000 criminal acts causing more than $100 million in damage.
When the F.B.I. investigates evidence of possible violence or criminal disruptions at protests and other events, those investigations are routinely handled by agents within the bureau's counterterrorism division.
But the groups mentioned in the newly disclosed F.B.I. files questioned both the propriety of characterizing such investigations as related to "terrorism" and the necessity of diverting counterterrorism personnel from more pressing investigations.
"The fact that we're even mentioned in the F.B.I. files in connection with terrorism is really troubling," said Tom Wetterer, general counsel for Greenpeace. "There's no property damage or physical injury caused in our activities, and under any definition of terrorism, we'd take issue with that."
Jeff Kerr, general counsel for PETA, rejected the suggestion in some F.B.I. files that the animal rights group had financial ties to militant groups, and said he, too, was troubled by his group's inclusion in the files.
"It's shocking and it's outrageous," Mr. Kerr said. "And to me, it's an abuse of power by the F.B.I. when groups like Greenpeace and PETA are basically being punished for their social activism."
ican 711 wrote that the phony charge offered by the Democrats in 2000( being echoed now by sore losers in Iraq?) was shown to be false.
He is correct.
In the November 12, 2001 edition of the New York Times( CERTAINLY NOT A RIGHT WING PUBLICATION) the headline read:
Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote
The story reads as follows:
"A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.
Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A CLOSE EXAMINATION OF THE BALLOTS FOUND THAT MR. BUSH WOULD HAVE RETAINED A SLENDER MARGIN OVER MR. GORE IF THE FLORIDA COURT'S ORDER TO RECOUNT MORE THAN 43,000 BALLOTS HAD NOT BEEN REVERSED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff---filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties--Mr. Bush woudl have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations."
end of quote
Enough with the bogus charges about 2000. When the NEW YORK TIMES( no friend of the present administration) writes a story like that above, it is time for the ignorant to take note.
cicerone imposter wrote:Bush told Americans and the world that
his authority to listen to telephone conversaions and track emails were limited to suspected al Qaida connected people. Bull Shet!
Quote:December 20, 2005
F.B.I. Watched Activist Groups, New Files Show
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 - Counterterrorism agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted numerous surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations that involved, at least indirectly, groups active in causes as diverse as the environment, animal cruelty and poverty relief, newly disclosed agency records show.
...
Bush told Americans and the world that his specific 30
authorizations "to listen to the telephone conversations and track emails [were] limited to suspected al Qaida connected people."
Bush's total authority as president, whether exercised or not, of course goes far beyond that. For example:
Quote:The Constitution of the United States of America
Article II.
Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
Bush is not the enemy! Are you?
