Today's Washington Post has an article entitled "Hussein's Capture Not
Likely to Harm Al Qaeda," written by Dana Priest, a Washington Post
Staff Writer. The article is not long, maybe 20 column inches, but was
interesting because of the sources she cites. Some are reproduced
below:

"The prevailing view among many U.S. intelligence agencies and
terrorism experts is..."

"Some terrorism experts...view..."

"The more common view...is..."

"Two officials said..."

"...intelligence sources were reporting..."

"...one official said..."

"...is based on the judgement from many in the intelligence
community..."

"...senior Bush administration officials..."

"...members of congress..."

"...said a counterterrorism intelligence analyst."

"A defense official with access..."

"Another senior administration ..."

"Some experts believe..."

"But most others said they believe..."

Is Dana reporting something here, or is she making up a story to fit
her agenda? She did, in fact, use actual names a few times, one of
whom is an advisor to Senator Kerry.

Is this supposed to be credible?


John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

Regardless of agenda or bias, the premise is basically true. Husseins
capture is unlikely to seriously harm or impact Al Qaeda. The connection -
if any - appears tangental at the most. The only way it can impact Al Qaeda
is to throw a scare into the corrupt states that look the other way as
opposed to ****ing off thier more radical elements.

Iraq wasn't about Al Qaeda and was *never* billed as such. It was billed
(right or wrong) as about WMD. In reality it *was* about throwing a scare
into the hearts of the corrupt govornments of the Middle East, estsablishing
another big, friendly, oil supply to allow us to lean harder on Saudi
Arabia, and to get us a new staging area to squeeze the assholes over there.

The ultimate success (or failure) of that stratagy will take some time to
pan out. Clearly using WMD as the "front story" didn't work out exactly as
intended. Iraq is a pawn in a much bigger chess game - only time will tell
how the game plays out.

-W


"John H" wrote in message
...
Today's Washington Post has an article entitled "Hussein's Capture Not
Likely to Harm Al Qaeda," written by Dana Priest, a Washington Post
Staff Writer. The article is not long, maybe 20 column inches, but was
interesting because of the sources she cites. Some are reproduced
below:

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 22:46:54 GMT, "Clams Canino"
wrote:

Regardless of agenda or bias, the premise is basically true. Husseins
capture is unlikely to seriously harm or impact Al Qaeda. The connection -
if any - appears tangental at the most. The only way it can impact Al Qaeda
is to throw a scare into the corrupt states that look the other way as
opposed to ****ing off thier more radical elements.

Iraq wasn't about Al Qaeda and was *never* billed as such. It was billed
(right or wrong) as about WMD. In reality it *was* about throwing a scare
into the hearts of the corrupt govornments of the Middle East, estsablishing
another big, friendly, oil supply to allow us to lean harder on Saudi
Arabia, and to get us a new staging area to squeeze the assholes over there.

The ultimate success (or failure) of that stratagy will take some time to
pan out. Clearly using WMD as the "front story" didn't work out exactly as
intended. Iraq is a pawn in a much bigger chess game - only time will tell
how the game plays out.

-W


"John H" wrote in message
.. .

I didn't address the details of the story, only the 'journalism.'

I find it strange that any time a Bush administration official has a
positive comment, he is telling a lie. Anytime the administration
sources (unnamed) have a negative comment, it is printed as the whole,
total truth. Can you explain that?

For those who missed original post because of this new thread, I've
reposted below:
************************************************** *
Today's Washington Post has an article entitled "Hussein's Capture Not
Likely to Harm Al Qaeda," written by Dana Priest, a Washington Post
Staff Writer. The article is not long, maybe 20 column inches, but was
interesting because of the sources she cites. Some are reproduced
below:

"The prevailing view among many U.S. intelligence agencies and
terrorism experts is..."

"Some terrorism experts...view..."

"The more common view...is..."

"Two officials said..."

"...intelligence sources were reporting..."

"...one official said..."

"...is based on the judgement from many in the intelligence
community..."

"...senior Bush administration officials..."

"...members of congress..."

"...said a counterterrorism intelligence analyst."

"A defense official with access..."

"Another senior administration ..."

"Some experts believe..."

"But most others said they believe..."

Is Dana reporting something here, or is she making up a story to fit
her agenda? She did, in fact, use actual names a few times, one of
whom is an advisor to Senator Kerry.

Is this supposed to be credible?
************************************************** *******

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John H wrote:

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 22:46:54 GMT, "Clams Canino"
wrote:

Regardless of agenda or bias, the premise is basically true. Husseins
capture is unlikely to seriously harm or impact Al Qaeda. The connection -
if any - appears tangental at the most. The only way it can impact Al Qaeda
is to throw a scare into the corrupt states that look the other way as
opposed to ****ing off thier more radical elements.

Iraq wasn't about Al Qaeda and was *never* billed as such. It was billed
(right or wrong) as about WMD. In reality it *was* about throwing a scare
into the hearts of the corrupt govornments of the Middle East, estsablishing
another big, friendly, oil supply to allow us to lean harder on Saudi
Arabia, and to get us a new staging area to squeeze the assholes over there.

The ultimate success (or failure) of that stratagy will take some time to
pan out. Clearly using WMD as the "front story" didn't work out exactly as
intended. Iraq is a pawn in a much bigger chess game - only time will tell
how the game plays out.

-W


"John H" wrote in message
. ..

I didn't address the details of the story, only the 'journalism.'

I find it strange that any time a Bush administration official has a
positive comment, he is telling a lie. Anytime the administration
sources (unnamed) have a negative comment, it is printed as the whole,
total truth. Can you explain that?

For those who missed original post because of this new thread, I've
reposted below:
************************************************** *
Today's Washington Post has an article entitled "Hussein's Capture Not
Likely to Harm Al Qaeda," written by Dana Priest, a Washington Post
Staff Writer. The article is not long, maybe 20 column inches, but was
interesting because of the sources she cites. Some are reproduced
below:

"The prevailing view among many U.S. intelligence agencies and
terrorism experts is..."

Poor John. He's become a GOP simpie.



--
Email sent to is never read.

"John H" wrote in message

I find it strange that any time a Bush administration official has a
positive comment, he is telling a lie. Anytime the administration
sources (unnamed) have a negative comment, it is printed as the whole,
total truth. Can you explain that?

Yes I can. The stupidest thing the GOP did in the last decade (aside from
letting Ken Starr run amok) was to impeach Clinton for lying about the blow
job. This was compounded by the fact they damn well knew they didn't have
the numbers in Congress to ever *hope* to get a conviction. Instead of
spending 8 years "investigating" the Clintons, the GOP would have better
spent the time working the issues.

Add to that, the Florida election fiasco. No matter who "won" that little
fiasco, you can bet the other side was gonna be ****ED. It turned out the
DNC lost "the battle of Fla." and thusly the war for the White House.

The combination of these two events has resulted in a very, VERY *angry*
Democratic base, and ushered in a new low to the term "mudslinging". What's
happening now, has as much to do with *retaliation* as it does with the
"plain facts". Bush presents as an ample target for the Dems to be sure.
But he never had a prayer in *hell* of getting a fair shake. If you think he
did, you're dreaming.

The next question is: Can the "angry DNC" sell itself to the American
People? I personally think ratcheting down the angry rhetoric a bit could
only help. What might sell well to the Party Faithfull, might not sell as
well in the national election.

-W

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:32:49 GMT, "Clams Canino"
wrote:


"John H" wrote in message

I find it strange that any time a Bush administration official has a
positive comment, he is telling a lie. Anytime the administration
sources (unnamed) have a negative comment, it is printed as the whole,
total truth. Can you explain that?

Yes I can. The stupidest thing the GOP did in the last decade (aside from
letting Ken Starr run amok) was to impeach Clinton for lying about the blow
job. This was compounded by the fact they damn well knew they didn't have
the numbers in Congress to ever *hope* to get a conviction. Instead of
spending 8 years "investigating" the Clintons, the GOP would have better
spent the time working the issues.

Add to that, the Florida election fiasco. No matter who "won" that little
fiasco, you can bet the other side was gonna be ****ED. It turned out the
DNC lost "the battle of Fla." and thusly the war for the White House.

The combination of these two events has resulted in a very, VERY *angry*
Democratic base, and ushered in a new low to the term "mudslinging". What's
happening now, has as much to do with *retaliation* as it does with the
"plain facts". Bush presents as an ample target for the Dems to be sure.
But he never had a prayer in *hell* of getting a fair shake. If you think he
did, you're dreaming.

The next question is: Can the "angry DNC" sell itself to the American
People? I personally think ratcheting down the angry rhetoric a bit could
only help. What might sell well to the Party Faithfull, might not sell as
well in the national election.

-W
Good response, Clams. I think you hit several nails dead on. I sent a
copy of my original post to the Wash Post. I'll let you know if they
answer it, but I doubt they will.

I concur with all you said above. Even my daughter, not much
interested in politics, asks questions about bias in the news media.
Until lately, she would have considered herself liberal. Now she
thinks they're mostly a bunch of hate-mongers.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John H wrote in message . ..
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 22:46:54 GMT, "Clams Canino"
wrote:

Regardless of agenda or bias, the premise is basically true. Husseins
capture is unlikely to seriously harm or impact Al Qaeda. The connection -
if any - appears tangental at the most. The only way it can impact Al Qaeda
is to throw a scare into the corrupt states that look the other way as
opposed to ****ing off thier more radical elements.

Iraq wasn't about Al Qaeda and was *never* billed as such. It was billed
(right or wrong) as about WMD. In reality it *was* about throwing a scare
into the hearts of the corrupt govornments of the Middle East, estsablishing
another big, friendly, oil supply to allow us to lean harder on Saudi
Arabia, and to get us a new staging area to squeeze the assholes over there.

Was it worth it -aske a veteran like John Kerry !

http://jfkawards.freehomepage.com/grassroots.htm

"Clams Canino" wrote in message news:0j5Hb.672225$Fm2.583071@attbi_s04...
"John H" wrote in message

I find it strange that any time a Bush administration official has a
positive comment, he is telling a lie. Anytime the administration
sources (unnamed) have a negative comment, it is printed as the whole,
total truth. Can you explain that?

Yes I can. The stupidest thing the GOP did in the last decade (aside from
letting Ken Starr run amok) was to impeach Clinton for lying about the blow
job. This was compounded by the fact they damn well knew they didn't have
the numbers in Congress to ever *hope* to get a conviction. Instead of
spending 8 years "investigating" the Clintons, the GOP would have better
spent the time working the issues.

Add to that, the Florida election fiasco. No matter who "won" that little
fiasco, you can bet the other side was gonna be ****ED. It turned out the
DNC lost "the battle of Fla." and thusly the war for the White House.

The combination of these two events has resulted in a very, VERY *angry*
Democratic base, and ushered in a new low to the term "mudslinging". What's
happening now, has as much to do with *retaliation* as it does with the
"plain facts". Bush presents as an ample target for the Dems to be sure.
But he never had a prayer in *hell* of getting a fair shake. If you think he
did, you're dreaming.

The next question is: Can the "angry DNC" sell itself to the American
People? I personally think ratcheting down the angry rhetoric a bit could
only help. What might sell well to the Party Faithfull, might not sell as
well in the national election.


if the electorate believes bull like saddam is behind 9/11, saddam
posed an imminent WMD threat, then sure they will be put off by dem
anger. anger is bad only when it's based on superficial reasons, but
when there are good reasons -- saddam was evil, but getting him
undermined getting bin laden -- then it becomes the passionate fuel
needed to win elections.

anyways, it's all besides the point, because what will determine the
outcome will be the results of two extremely volatile factors: iraq
and al qaeda terrorism. if iraq becomes a stable democracy, and US
interests do not suffer more al qaeda attacks, i'll be the first to
admit bush deserves to win.

of course, those are two big ifs:

Soldiering On, Even as Spirits Ebb
By JOHN F. BURNS
The New York Times
Published: December 26, 2003

CAMP ST.-MÈRE, Iraq, Dec. 25
The division's territory is huge: all of western Iraq to the Syrian
and Jordanian borders, hundreds of miles away. But the war's
epicenter, for the Third Brigade, lies along the 80-mile axis from
Baghdad to Ramadi. Falluja falls midway. This is the heart of the
so-called Sunni Triangle, known as such for its domination by Sunni
Muslims, who remain Mr. Hussein's strongest loyalists. About 90
percent of all insurgent attacks have been in this area.

In this war, soldiers here say, all pretense of honor is gone.

Along Highway 1, the expressway stretching westward past Falluja,
shepherds wave at passing American convoys, then use doctored
cellphones to detonate 122-millimeter artillery shells fashioned into
crude bombs and buried in the median strip or under overpasses.
Recently, troops at Camp St.-Mère said, a man sent his 8-year-old son
to throw a grenade into the back of a Humvee, severely wounding an
American soldier. The father and son were seized.

[when waving shepherds, and 8 yr olds are involved in the insurgency,
the insurgency isn't isolated -- it's sunni mainstream, folks, and
they are 20% of the population of 25 million. and with the recently
added fun of the sunnis creating their own political council in
addition to the existing governing council, you can forget about a
stable democracy by summer's end next year. bremer can still pull
out, but they'll leave a country on the brink of disaster.]



U.S. Threat Level Rises to Orange
Attack Risk May Be Highest Since 9/11
By John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 22, 2003; Page A01

Federal officials said yesterday that because fresh intelligence
suggests al Qaeda is planning multiple catastrophic terrorist attacks
in the United States, they were raising the national threat alert
status to "high risk," or code orange, a step administration officials
previously had said they were reluctant to take except in the most
unusual circumstances.

Some of the worrisome new intelligence indicates al Qaeda operatives
are exploring security vulnerabilities on commercial or cargo flights
originating overseas and flying into U.S. airports, officials said. It
suggests the terrorist network is preoccupied with repeating its Sept.
11, 2001, tactic of hijacking aircraft for use as missiles against
U.S. targets, they added.

"The strategic [intelligence] indicators, including al Qaeda's
continued desire to carry out attacks against our homeland, are
perhaps greater now than at any point since September 11th," Homeland
Security Secretary Tom Ridge said at an impromptu news conference
yesterday. "Information indicates that extremists abroad are
anticipating near-term attacks that they believe will rival, or
exceed, the attacks in New York [and] at the Pentagon."


[the threat is "greater now than at any point since september 11th",
even though we got saddam. you think dems are angry? try imagining
fanatical jihadists seething about US crusaders occupying iraq and
oppressing sunnis based on bull**** WMD justifications. that's not
winning the war on terror, it's just energizing al qaeda recruitment.
if bush manages to keep US interests safe, and build a stable
democracy in iraq before election time, he deserves to win. but i
wouldn't bet on it. dean will be president next year. ...and that's
my final answer.]

"Clams Canino" wrote in message news:yT2Hb.468865$Dw6.1379682@attbi_s02...
Regardless of agenda or bias, the premise is basically true. Husseins
capture is unlikely to seriously harm or impact Al Qaeda. The connection -
if any - appears tangental at the most. The only way it can impact Al Qaeda
is to throw a scare into the corrupt states that look the other way as
opposed to ****ing off thier more radical elements.

Iraq wasn't about Al Qaeda and was *never* billed as such. It was billed
(right or wrong) as about WMD.


Let me ask a question here. Is it at all possible that the convoys of
trucks tracked into Seria the last few weeks while the French,
Russians, and Germans held the majority of the member countries back,
were the very carefully accounted for WMD moving to the Bekka (sp?)
valley in Lebanon? Could we really know where they are, and are just
waiting for a good chance to go and get them? Is this not even
possible? How come it never comes in as a part of these conversations?
Could it be that the Bush administration has the courage to take all
the crap from detractors so as not to let the cat out of the bag as it
were? Remember, GWB like his dad does not spend a lot of time
addressing the usual diatribe from the left, he spends more time being
president, for better or worse. It is the very same mistake his dad
made, letting the fabrications go unchecked before the election.
Soooommme presidents, only interested in face time might just make a
big issue of it, send in a couple of missles, look really good in the
poles, and scatter the bugs further afterall. Saddam if nothing else
was known for having a very effective book keeping and tracking system
for most of his stuff. Just noting... Sorry Harry if thinking a little
beyond the DNC talking points makes me a right wing nutsie... gotta
hate that free speech.


In reality it *was* about throwing a scare
into the hearts of the corrupt govornments of the Middle East, estsablishing
another big, friendly, oil supply to allow us to lean harder on Saudi
Arabia, and to get us a new staging area to squeeze the assholes over there.

The ultimate success (or failure) of that stratagy will take some time to
pan out. Clearly using WMD as the "front story" didn't work out exactly as
intended. Iraq is a pawn in a much bigger chess game - only time will tell
how the game plays out.

-W


"John H" wrote in message
...
Today's Washington Post has an article entitled "Hussein's Capture Not
Likely to Harm Al Qaeda," written by Dana Priest, a Washington Post
Staff Writer. The article is not long, maybe 20 column inches, but was
interesting because of the sources she cites. Some are reproduced
below:

Backyard Renegade wrote:

"Clams Canino" wrote in message news:yT2Hb.468865$Dw6.1379682@attbi_s02...
Regardless of agenda or bias, the premise is basically true. Husseins
capture is unlikely to seriously harm or impact Al Qaeda. The connection -
if any - appears tangental at the most. The only way it can impact Al Qaeda
is to throw a scare into the corrupt states that look the other way as
opposed to ****ing off thier more radical elements.

Iraq wasn't about Al Qaeda and was *never* billed as such. It was billed
(right or wrong) as about WMD.


Let me ask a question here. Is it at all possible that the convoys of
trucks tracked into Seria the last few weeks while the French,
Russians, and Germans held the majority of the member countries back,
were the very carefully accounted for WMD moving to the Bekka (sp?)
valley in Lebanon? Could we really know where they are


Uh, we have a president of the USA who couldn't point out Afghanistan on
a globe. You want an answer to a hypothetical?

--
Email sent to is never read.