Hannity, as we speak, is discussing a memo leaked to him supposedly for
Democrats on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee (I think I got that
right). Anyway, it purports to advise democrat members how to twist things to
make Bush and administration look very bad. Interesting, but don't have the memo
yet. I'm sure jcs will post it as soon as it's available.

Stay tuned. Hannity, on Fox at 9:00 pm, EST, should be interesting tonight.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

JohnH wrote:

Hannity, as we speak, is discussing a memo leaked to him supposedly for
Democrats on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee (I think I got that
right). Anyway, it purports to advise democrat members how to twist things to
make Bush and administration look very bad. Interesting, but don't have the memo
yet. I'm sure jcs will post it as soon as it's available.

Stay tuned. Hannity, on Fox at 9:00 pm, EST, should be interesting tonight.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

No one has to "twist things" to make the Bush adminstration look bad. It
may well be the most incompetent administration in US history.



--
Email sent to will never reach me.

Which issue is most important to you in the 2004 election?
Economy 55%
War on Iraq 34%
Other 11%

How vulnerable is Bush?
Very 43%
Somewhat 34%
Not at all 23%

Who would you most like to see jump in the race?
No one -- the right candidates are already in the race 47%
Hillary Clinton 20%
Al Gore 14%
Everyone who lost in the California recall 10%
Ralph Nader 5%
Ross Perot 4%
Total Votes: 38,698

Note on Poll Results

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 20:16:37 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:

Hannity, as we speak, is discussing a memo leaked to him supposedly for
Democrats on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee (I think I got that
right). Anyway, it purports to advise democrat members how to twist things to
make Bush and administration look very bad. Interesting, but don't have the memo
yet. I'm sure jcs will post it as soon as it's available.

Stay tuned. Hannity, on Fox at 9:00 pm, EST, should be interesting tonight.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

No one has to "twist things" to make the Bush adminstration look bad. It
may well be the most incompetent administration in US history.

Then why, Harry, do so many of you exert so much effort in your attempts to do
so? Wouldn't fishing be more fun? Speaking of which, I caught a nice striper
trolling out by #83 today.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:

No one has to "twist things" to make the Bush adminstration look bad. It
may well be the most incompetent administration in US history.

Compared to what, the Clinton administration? You must be joking. . .

Steve

JohnH wrote in message . ..
Hannity, as we speak, is discussing a memo leaked to him supposedly for
Democrats on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee (I think I got that
right). Anyway, it purports to advise democrat members how to twist things to
make Bush and administration look very bad. Interesting, but don't have the memo
yet. I'm sure jcs will post it as soon as it's available.

Stay tuned. Hannity, on Fox at 9:00 pm, EST, should be interesting tonight.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

So, do you think Hannity is honest? I just LOVE the way the guy cries
and whines about how the Dems are saying bad things about the BushCo,
calling him a liar and such. Then listen to him when he starts bashing
a dem. He's nothing more nor less than a two faced pig.

"Steve" wrote in message ...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:

No one has to "twist things" to make the Bush adminstration look bad. It
may well be the most incompetent administration in US history.

Compared to what, the Clinton administration? You must be joking. . .

Steve

Yeah, although it's true that Bush has flubbed up the economy, made
everybody in the world resent us, distanced us from the U.N., attacked
a nation unprovoked, made a shambles of commonly excepted protocol,
etc., etc, that damned Clinton wanted a blow job.

On 5 Nov 2003 04:19:45 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

JohnH wrote in message . ..
Hannity, as we speak, is discussing a memo leaked to him supposedly for
Democrats on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee (I think I got that
right). Anyway, it purports to advise democrat members how to twist things to
make Bush and administration look very bad. Interesting, but don't have the memo
yet. I'm sure jcs will post it as soon as it's available.

Stay tuned. Hannity, on Fox at 9:00 pm, EST, should be interesting tonight.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

So, do you think Hannity is honest? I just LOVE the way the guy cries
and whines about how the Dems are saying bad things about the BushCo,
calling him a liar and such. Then listen to him when he starts bashing
a dem. He's nothing more nor less than a two faced pig.
Hannity's honesty is not in question. Read the memo!

"We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we
have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:

"1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to
major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by
administration officials. We are having some success in that regard.

"For example, in addition to the President's State of the Union speech,
the chairman [Sen. Pat Roberts] has agreed to look at the activities of
the office of the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, as well as
Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department.

"The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these
offices and cosigns our requests for information is helpful and
potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find but our prospects
for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing
of the majority. [We can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads
we are pursuing.]

"2) Assiduously prepare Democratic 'additional views' to attach to any
interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules
provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it.

"In that regard we may have already compiled all the public statements
on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the
most exaggerated claims. We will contrast them with the intelligence
estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will
also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit
the scope of the inquiry.

"The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question
of establishing an Independent Commission [i.e., the Corzine Amendment.]

"3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear
we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the
majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the
administration's use of intelligence at any time. But we can only do so
once.

"The best time to do so will probably be next year, either:

"A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim
report, thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our
case to the public. Additional views on the interim report (1). The
announcement of our independent investigation (2). And (3) additional
views on the final investigation. Or:

"B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue,
we would attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that
context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation
based on principled but vague notions regarding the use of intelligence.

"In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent
investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter
footdragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger
investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman. We
have independently submitted written requests to the DOD and we are
preparing further independent requests for information.

"SUMMARY: Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's
concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet we have an important role
to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest,
methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case
for unilateral preemptive war.

"The approach outlined above seems to offer the best prospect for
exposing the administration's dubious motives." [End of Memo Excerpt.]

The revelation that Democrats are using the intelligence committee to
conduct opposition research for the coming presidential campaign demands
an investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee, Hannity said.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...4/165925.shtml
John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

"basskisser" wrote in message

Yeah, although it's true that Bush has flubbed up the economy

Translation: "flubbed up" = 1. was in office when the country was
attacked, starting a war and decimating the airline industry, with multiple
associated downline ripple effects; 2. concurrently inherited an ongoing
economic recession; 3. had to deal with a corporate fraud scandal that had
been building for 5+ years

... made everybody in the world resent us

Most of the world already resented us politically. Comes with being #1.
Note, however, that in spite of the official whining rhetoric, US of A is
still far and away the #1 destination for immigrants seeking opportunity.

...distanced us from the U.N.

And this is a bad thing? "Distancing" ourselves from a third-world country
club whose main interest is preserving their individual New York residences
and expense accounts?

... attacked a nation unprovoked

Which nation was that? You couldn't be referring to Afghanistan, a nation
that had turned over virtually it's entire land mass and administration to
be used as a training/staging area by an organization that had publicly
declared itself at war with the US. Nor could you be referring to Iraq, a
nation that knowingly, willfully, and publicly violated treaty provisions
with the US and others that it publicly agreed to and signed in 1991. We
must have attacked some other country while no one was looking.


... made a shambles of commonly excepted protocol,

A protocol is a set of procedures or behaviors voluntarily followed by
persons involved, with the aim of having affairs run smoothly and fairly and
beneficially for all concerned. You'll need to be more specific as to
exactly where and/or when such a set of circumstances was in place that the
US subsequently "shambled".

etc., etc, that damned Clinton wanted a blow job.

You still don't quite grasp reality, do you? Clinton got laughed at (but
not embarrassed - and that speaks volumes) because of the blow jobs. He got
impeached because he looked the country in the eye seventeen times in
succession, and lied. Not once or twice -- people can shake that off.
Seventeen effing times.

... made a shambles of commonly excepted protocol,

A protocol is a set of procedures or behaviors

One more thing -- I believe the word you were seeking is "accepted", a
"...commonly accepted protocol...". A "commonly excepted protocol" would
be one routinely disregarded by parties involved, so it would be difficult
to make a shambles of that, no?