http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...4/152lndzv.asp

Something to ponder.

Steve
Holland, MI
Drake R7, R8 and R8B

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat 29 May 2004 08:31:28a, dxAce
wrote in
message :


http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...00/004/152lndz
v.asp


Darn good article. It will be interesting to see the contortions the
anti-
US/Bush/War crowd will go through to spin it.


That's entirely predictable. They will ignore any facts, and point
out the Weekly Standard is published by "neocons." FWIW, Stephen
Hayes, the author, has a book coming out on the same topic that will
provide further info on the connection.

From: "T. Early"

That's entirely predictable. They will ignore any facts, and point
out the Weekly Standard is published by "neocons." FWIW, Stephen
Hayes, the author, has a book coming out on the same topic that will
provide further info on the connection.

Uh, gee, weren't you one of the folks deriding anyone who's trying to sell a
book with anti-Bush words as nonobjective? So when Hayes writes an article to
promote his upcoming book that's just further verification?

Consistency seems to be something you've forgotten about. But, please, don't be
too offended by that "ruthless" insult on my part.....


Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

Michael 'I don't have a clue, so I'll fabricate one' Bryant wrote:

From: "T. Early"

That's entirely predictable. They will ignore any facts, and point
out the Weekly Standard is published by "neocons." FWIW, Stephen
Hayes, the author, has a book coming out on the same topic that will
provide further info on the connection.

Uh, gee, weren't you one of the folks deriding anyone who's trying to sell a
book with anti-Bush words as nonobjective? So when Hayes writes an article to
promote his upcoming book that's just further verification?

Consistency seems to be something you've forgotten about.

At least you are a consistent liar and fabricator... it's the only thing you've got
going, so run with it!

-=jd=- wrote:

On Sat 29 May 2004 08:31:28a, dxAce wrote in
message :


http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...00/004/152lndz
v.asp



Darn good article. It will be interesting to see the contortions the anti-
US/Bush/War crowd will go through to spin it.

No need to put a spin on it. The article merely provides,
as dxace said, something to ponder. It doesn't provide
proof. Something else to ponder: Why would the Saddam
regime list the name of one of their intelligence operatives
(Shakir) as an officer of the Fedayeen Saddam? This seems
too stupid even for the Saddam regime.

--
M2

"Michael Bryant" wrote in message
...
From: "T. Early"

That's entirely predictable. They will ignore any facts, and point
out the Weekly Standard is published by "neocons." FWIW, Stephen
Hayes, the author, has a book coming out on the same topic that
will
provide further info on the connection.

Uh, gee, weren't you one of the folks deriding anyone who's trying
to sell a
book with anti-Bush words as nonobjective? So when Hayes writes an
article to
promote his upcoming book that's just further verification?

Not that it matters, but I wasn't--provided there are supportable
facts in the book. There are anti-Bush -opinions- in books and there
are anti-Bush -facts- in books. The source is relevant to the former
but not the latter, assuming the facts can be substantiated.
Unfortunately for the professional Bush bashers, their tomes tend to
be long on opinion and short on facts--much like a lot of the
anti-Bush rhetoric here.


Consistency seems to be something you've forgotten about. But,
please, don't be
too offended by that "ruthless" insult on my part.....


Well, I didn't get involved in that whole "ruthless" discussion, but
don't let that stop you. I don't find you to be "ruthless." I find
you to be factually-challenged. Among other gaffes, I'm still waiting
to hear you support your claim that the London think tank that you
referred to in a post was regarded as right wing and a possible CIA
operation. I questioned it at the time, but it seems that you
"forget" to respond when inquiries like that come up.

From: "T. Early"

Unfortunately for the professional Bush bashers, their tomes tend to
be long on opinion and short on facts--much like a lot of the
anti-Bush rhetoric here.


So, people that served under Bush you classify as professional Bush-haters? A
bold, broad stroke on your part....

Well, I didn't get involved in that whole "ruthless" discussion, but
don't let that stop you. I don't find you to be "ruthless." I find
you to be factually-challenged. Among other gaffes, I'm still waiting
to hear you support your claim that the London think tank that you
referred to in a post was regarded as right wing and a possible CIA
operation. I questioned it at the time, but it seems that you
"forget" to respond when inquiries like that come up.


Well, that could hardly be classified as me ruthlessly insulting someone in the
group. You can go to the group's web page to see that they are hardly a
left-wing think-tank as others suggested. In regards to them being a front for
CIA operations that is a bit difficult to prove given the CIA's tendency to
classify their covert fronts, but you might try to do a little research,
yourself.


Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

"Michael Bryant" wrote in message
...
From: "T. Early"

Well, I didn't get involved in that whole "ruthless" discussion,
but
don't let that stop you. I don't find you to be "ruthless." I
find
you to be factually-challenged. Among other gaffes, I'm still
waiting
to hear you support your claim that the London think tank that you
referred to in a post was regarded as right wing and a possible CIA
operation. I questioned it at the time, but it seems that you
"forget" to respond when inquiries like that come up.


Well, that could hardly be classified as me ruthlessly insulting
someone in the
group. You can go to the group's web page to see that they are
hardly a
left-wing think-tank as others suggested. In regards to them being a
front for
CIA operations that is a bit difficult to prove given the CIA's
tendency to
classify their covert fronts, but you might try to do a little
research,
yourself.


Again, I never said word one about you being "ruthless," and have no
idea what that thread was about. I questioned this remark of yours:

"It's a conservative think-tank! Many leftists have accused of it of
being a
front for the CIA. If a conservative think-tank says Bush has screwed
up US defense policy, it only increases my credibility"

There's no indication that this group is conservative and frankly I'm
doubtful if you know whether it is or is not. Their website does not
indicate any particular leaning, and if "many leftists" have said so
much about the organization it should be very easy for -you- to
support -your own- statement by pointing us to those "many." I
belabor this minor point only to illustrate a pretty clear inclination
in a number of your posts to a) make a definitive statement that is
wrong--here to increase your own "credibility"; b) attempt to change
the tenor of what you actually said in a second post when challenged;
and then c) toss the ball back into the other person's court to avoid
having to admit you shot from the hip.

Since you seem to be on a mission to bombard this group with items you
consider newsworthy for whatever reasons, perhaps a bit more
attention to detail might be in order.

BTW, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (not to be
confused with the London-based International Institute for Strategic
Studies), an American think tank formerly affiliated with Georgetown
University, had a conservative bent some years ago with (alleged?)
intelligence connections. http://www.csis.org/

"T. Early" wrote:
| Since you seem to be on a mission to bombard this group with items you
| consider newsworthy for whatever reasons, perhaps a bit more
| attention to detail might be in order.

More Brybaby hypocrazy!

73,

Steve Lawrence
KAØPMD
Burnsville, Minnesota

(NOTE: My email address has only one "dot."
You'll have to edit out the one between the "7"
and the "3" in my email address if you wish to
reply via email)


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.688 / Virus Database: 449 - Release Date: 5/18/04

Michael 'I wake up a 'tard, I go to bed a 'tard' Bryant wrote:

"T. Early"

Since you seem to be on a mission to bombard this group with items you
consider newsworthy for whatever reasons, perhaps a bit more
attention to detail might be in order.

Take a hike.

You do that, Fat Boy, and you might drop a few pounds off your fat hillbilly ass.