[quote]My guess is they had political pressure not to spill the beans[/quote] This, according to Slam Dunk Tenet, was the case for Iraq. I have enjoyed the white house spin on this today.
Sigh. This administration ramps up the fear rhetoric to a whole new level. COLOR CODE ORANGE! RED ALERT. MR. SULU, HOW LONG BEFORE THE KLINGONS ATTACK? I stick with my original thoughts on this. As someone who experiences Capitol Hill security on a near daily basis, I have a distaste in my mouth. I see fat-assed Capitol Hill cops with machine guns, looking as though they are about to shoot off their foot at any moment. The last time the Capitol
Yes. Maybe a dozen roses will do it. That prez of Iran looks like he could use a nice flower or two to brighten his day. What a sour puss. "They may be. All we know is that they suspended it in 03. The report does not address when, how or if they have resumed it." You are parcing words. If Iran had resumed their nuclear program, that would have been spelled out in the report. Here is what this NIE leaves the Preside
Iran did not STOP their nuclear weapons program in 03. They suspended it. The problem is, Dr. Guy, that we've been being told Iran is CURRENTLY working on nukes. We were told wrong. It's just not as effective for Bush to say "WE MUST ACT NOW AGAINST IRAQ BECAUSE THEY'VE SUSPENDED THEIR NUCLEAR PROGR
"If Iran had a nuclear weapon, it'd be a dangerous threat to world peace," Bush said a couple of weeks ago at a press conference with Putin, "So I told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you (Russia) ought to be interested" in ensuring Iran not gain the capacity to develop such weapons. (avoid WWIII, NAAAAH. Bring it o
I'm sorry, I've been swamped with work. I think what I saw was an edited version of this in the freebe version of the Post given out on the Metro. The edited version (STILL A POST PUBLICATION, MIND YOU) left a far greater impression as I've described above than this 'extended version'. My gripe remains, even with the 'extended version', that the Post seems to give equal weight to arguments "for Obama being a Muslim" as the arguments against. Even the opening sentece: "In his speec
[quote]not yet...but there's always hope! [/quote] LOL! More likely VEEP for another "hunting accident". Maybe the next "accident victim" can also apologize for being in the way.
sorry, guys, I've been working so missed the discussion on my own article. I don't have the Post in front of me with the article in it that got my goat, and when I tried to pull a copy up online, magically, it had disappeared. They got tons of flack for it. But the article is not the one you refer to, King Bee. Remember -- I work hand in hand with the press, though hesistate in considering myself part of the press -- I produce photos to go with the spin (on both sides of the aisle)
In keeping with my last article, I've decided the following is a law of nature: If you repeat something often enough, people will decide it's true. Even smart people. People like the reporters at the Washington Post, who reported yesterday Barack Obama is a closeted muslim. THAT urban legend has made its rounds through the world wide web,
Maybe. No, advertising is never logical; advertising and marketing appeal to our base desire. So what is the base desire Hill or Mitt is appealing too? And is appealing to our Id (to use a Freud term) the best way to distinguish between candidates? I think it's a problem and dumbs down politics. AND, let's not forget my vavorite "advertise your weakness as your strength" example: CNN. You know, "the most trusted name in news. the best politica
I have the hookers and EEEEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWW man. I'm just sayin', that's all.
I admit, once again, my ADD has kicked in and I haven't read all of this. But I am a health freak and have learned a couple of things. 1) Be careful on weight. Muscle weighs more than fat. I work out every day, am 5'9 and weigh between 160-165 lbs. Some would think, based on that weight, I'm fat. But it's not true, I have muscle. My fat % is below 10. Second, a kid can eat whatever they want, even the crap fed in our cafeterias, if the
Do we define ourselves by the candidates we support? And, do we define others by the candidates they choose? I've noticed some people will support Bush no matter what facts are presented, facts questioning his basic ability to lead. I think, 'boy they've been sold a bill of goods'. Have they? Have the ardent ditto heads been sold a brand, packag
When I really think about it, I have more problem with her supporters than I do with her. That's interesting, Ted. I'm gonna write on that, I think. What an interesting concept.
Coverage of the coverage is my favorite. My dad is a reporter -- he always said when all else failed, interview a colleague about the story. The only problem is, that's now all we get. I prefer Oscar. You can see his tighty whiteys.
I hear what you say, perhaps I should look into that. (Sorry, what were you saying, I was busy blackberrying someone more important)
I cover tons of cocktail parties where politicians show up, swoop in, gobble up the food and booze, shake hands, and exit out. And, no matter who they are, the average joe (sometimes not so average in this case) in the party gets goggle eyed and this stupid smile on their face that says, "YOU ARE GOD I AM NOT WORTHY". It is sickening. Of course, I make my living by taking the photos of wide-eyed, bewitched people with the politician of the month. However, I can say this: It must be in
OK, so I'm still a little mystified by blogging. Write an article headlined "Bush is Bad" or "Bush is the Worst President in History" and receive 200 plus comments. Put it, purely by accident, in the wrong forum and get even MORE exposure. Write, if I do say so myself, a really funny spoof on "Come All Ye Faithful" (timely, too! And, Bipartisan!) and get exactly 0 feedback. This was Saturday Night Live material. Writers strike be damned! Meanwhile, folks say -- Joe Pro Photo
That's the problem of drawing hard, dark lines in the sand and declaring entire nations part of an "axis of evil". When you make sweeping conclusions about difficult problems, and then it's time to sit down and talk, you either can't invite people to the table who should be there because you're breaking your own rules, OR they won't come because you're busy calling them evil. I'll never understand this administration.
There's a nice, the USA is the only country in the world opinion. Let me give you a crash course. Walesa was a plumber who found the Solidarity movement in Poland, eventually ousting the communists from power and creating a democratic state. He won the Nobel Peace Prize as a result. History is ripe with stories of little guy makes it big. I use Walesa because he is still alive and kicking and a part of Poland's politics. No one can force you to make a difference in the wo
Next, I suppose, we'll be inundated with constant news updates on the US election coverage. Gawd 'elp us! ...like we really need to know/care even Unless, of course, Oscar de la Hoya in a fishnet outfit and dress as photographed by a "dancer" overshadows the election coverage, as it very well might. Then, it'll be all things Oscar.
India, Pakistan and Bangladesh would be proud. Of course, there is even talk of dividing up Iraq in terms of majorities, and prior to the success of the surge, there was talk of forming many city states instead of one controlling central government. Of course, drawing lines on the basis of politics is dangerous. Is ethnic cleansing far off? I'm just taking the redrawing of congressional districts into a new spin 'cause it popped into my mind. I reserve the right to call my o
Am I missing how that ties in with a prix fix price menu for oil?
I really am only paying attention to the front runners, partly because of work. I always vote for a long shot in the primary, it seems when it comes to my personal politics. But, I see danger ahead for the democrats if any of the front runners are triumphant. On the Republican side, I see danger, too. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out -- and perhaps I'll need a refill on my vitamin V.
I would agree with you, except the Bush family has very close ties to Saudi Arabia. It's no secret the Saudis pressured OPEC on behalf of Bush to get oil prices down right before his last election, when it was becomming a hot button issue. The Saudi ambassador even took credit for the increased OPEC production (and thus lower prices) in a letter to Bush (probably, no doubt, expecting to capitalize on the favor in the future).
JoeUser Forums