on Bush and his crashes

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
He thinks Al Jezeera is reporting
objective truth about the US. I've
never heard that opinion from anyone who
doesn't have a bomb strapped
around their midriff...

This is an interesting article on Al-Jazeera that shows that, in some
ways, it's probably better than some of the US mainstream media:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG228HQN31.DTL

JT

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
He thinks Al Jezeera is reporting
objective truth about the US. I've
never heard that opinion from anyone who
doesn't have a bomb strapped
around their midriff...

This is an interesting article on Al-Jazeera that shows that, in some
ways, it's probably better than some of the US mainstream media:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG228HQN31.DTL

JT

John Forrest Tomlinson writes:

Mark Hickey wrote:

He thinks Al Jazeera is reporting objective truth about the US.
I've never heard that opinion from anyone who doesn't have a bomb
strapped around their midriff...

This is an interesting article on Al-Jazeera that shows that, in
some ways, it's probably better than some of the US mainstream
media:

http://tinyurl.com/54ru2

If it isn't blessed by the RNC it is communist-terrorist trash to
people who respond as Mark Hickey does, who instead of seeing what was
said and responding to the subject under discussion, calls people
names and makes rude similes. For instance, I heard the RNC base
their platform on that trial lawyers are what's wrong with this
nation. What a ruse of scapegoating that is! I see that the style of
Rep. Newt Gingrich and Sen. Joseph McCarthy is not dead in the
Republican camp.

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3880610

Jobst Brandt

John Forrest Tomlinson writes:

Mark Hickey wrote:

He thinks Al Jazeera is reporting objective truth about the US.
I've never heard that opinion from anyone who doesn't have a bomb
strapped around their midriff...

This is an interesting article on Al-Jazeera that shows that, in
some ways, it's probably better than some of the US mainstream
media:

http://tinyurl.com/54ru2

If it isn't blessed by the RNC it is communist-terrorist trash to
people who respond as Mark Hickey does, who instead of seeing what was
said and responding to the subject under discussion, calls people
names and makes rude similes. For instance, I heard the RNC base
their platform on that trial lawyers are what's wrong with this
nation. What a ruse of scapegoating that is! I see that the style of
Rep. Newt Gingrich and Sen. Joseph McCarthy is not dead in the
Republican camp.

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3880610

Jobst Brandt

===============================
THE DAILY MIS-LEAD
www.Misleader.org
===============================

BUSH ATTACKED NAT'L GUARD SERVICE OF OTHERS

The White House is currently attacking those who raise questions about
President Bush's National Guard record. They say the questions about
Bush's failure to fulfill his commitment are "dirty politics."[1] Yet
a look at the record shows that it was President George H.W. Bush -
and his top campaign strategist George W. Bush - who tried to smear
the National Guard and military record of their opponents.

As reported in the August 23, 1988 Los Angeles Times, then Vice
President George H.W. Bush's campaign co-chairman John Sununu went on
national television to impugn an opponent's dealings with the National
Guard during Vietnam. Sununu specifically claimed Sen. Lloyd Bentsen
(D-TX) had improperly helped get his son into the Texas National Guard
during Vietnam. Bentsen's son served in the very same National Guard
unit at the very same time as George W. Bush. The Bush campaign's
attacks came just days after Bush's allies on Capitol Hill launched a
vicious attack on Gov. Michael Dukakis (D-MA) for receiving a draft
deferment during the Korean War.[2]

At the time of the coordinated attack, George W. Bush was serving as a
senior adviser to his father's campaign.[3]

Sources:

1. "New Questions On Bush National Guard Duty ," CBS2Chicago.com, 9/08/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1310344&l=54246.
2. "Report that Bentsen Got Son into National Guard Also Denied; Dukakis
Angry about Charge of Avoiding Korean War," Los Angeles Times, 8/23/88.
3. GeorgeWBush.com, 9/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1310344&l=54247.
================================================== =============================
Jobst Brandt

===============================
THE DAILY MIS-LEAD
www.Misleader.org
===============================

BUSH ATTACKED NAT'L GUARD SERVICE OF OTHERS

The White House is currently attacking those who raise questions about
President Bush's National Guard record. They say the questions about
Bush's failure to fulfill his commitment are "dirty politics."[1] Yet
a look at the record shows that it was President George H.W. Bush -
and his top campaign strategist George W. Bush - who tried to smear
the National Guard and military record of their opponents.

As reported in the August 23, 1988 Los Angeles Times, then Vice
President George H.W. Bush's campaign co-chairman John Sununu went on
national television to impugn an opponent's dealings with the National
Guard during Vietnam. Sununu specifically claimed Sen. Lloyd Bentsen
(D-TX) had improperly helped get his son into the Texas National Guard
during Vietnam. Bentsen's son served in the very same National Guard
unit at the very same time as George W. Bush. The Bush campaign's
attacks came just days after Bush's allies on Capitol Hill launched a
vicious attack on Gov. Michael Dukakis (D-MA) for receiving a draft
deferment during the Korean War.[2]

At the time of the coordinated attack, George W. Bush was serving as a
senior adviser to his father's campaign.[3]

Sources:

1. "New Questions On Bush National Guard Duty ," CBS2Chicago.com, 9/08/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1310344&l=54246.
2. "Report that Bentsen Got Son into National Guard Also Denied; Dukakis
Angry about Charge of Avoiding Korean War," Los Angeles Times, 8/23/88.
3. GeorgeWBush.com, 9/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1310344&l=54247.
================================================== =============================
Jobst Brandt

===============================
THE DAILY MIS-LEAD
www.Misleader.org
===============================

BUSH ATTACKED NAT'L GUARD SERVICE OF OTHERS

The White House is currently attacking those who raise questions about
President Bush's National Guard record. They say the questions about
Bush's failure to fulfill his commitment are "dirty politics."[1] Yet
a look at the record shows that it was President George H.W. Bush -
and his top campaign strategist George W. Bush - who tried to smear
the National Guard and military record of their opponents.

As reported in the August 23, 1988 Los Angeles Times, then Vice
President George H.W. Bush's campaign co-chairman John Sununu went on
national television to impugn an opponent's dealings with the National
Guard during Vietnam. Sununu specifically claimed Sen. Lloyd Bentsen
(D-TX) had improperly helped get his son into the Texas National Guard
during Vietnam. Bentsen's son served in the very same National Guard
unit at the very same time as George W. Bush. The Bush campaign's
attacks came just days after Bush's allies on Capitol Hill launched a
vicious attack on Gov. Michael Dukakis (D-MA) for receiving a draft
deferment during the Korean War.[2]

At the time of the coordinated attack, George W. Bush was serving as a
senior adviser to his father's campaign.[3]

Sources:

1. "New Questions On Bush National Guard Duty ," CBS2Chicago.com, 9/08/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1310344&l=54246.
2. "Report that Bentsen Got Son into National Guard Also Denied; Dukakis
Angry about Charge of Avoiding Korean War," Los Angeles Times, 8/23/88.
3. GeorgeWBush.com, 9/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1310344&l=54247.
================================================== =============================
Jobst Brandt

wrote:

Sources:

1. "New Questions On Bush National Guard Duty ," CBS2Chicago.com, 9/08/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1310344&l=54246.

Heh heh heh... great source.

We are supposed to believe that a typed document from the early 1970's
contains:

1) Times New Roman font (not yet developed)
2) Propotional font spacing (ditto, other than some very high-end IBM
Selectric typewriters - unlikely given the office in question)
3) Superscript font on the "th" following the squadron number. No
typewriter on earth would have done that in the early 1970's.

Not only are the anti-GWB forces dishonest, they're apparently not too
bright either. Yeesh!

It should be interesting to see how they handle getting caught in this
obvious attempt to affect the opinion of their viewers. It will be
more interesting to see just how much the networks mention about the
fact the "blockbuster documents" they've all been trashing Bush with
are obvious forgeries.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

wrote:

Sources:

1. "New Questions On Bush National Guard Duty ," CBS2Chicago.com, 9/08/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1310344&l=54246.

Heh heh heh... great source.

We are supposed to believe that a typed document from the early 1970's
contains:

1) Times New Roman font (not yet developed)
2) Propotional font spacing (ditto, other than some very high-end IBM
Selectric typewriters - unlikely given the office in question)
3) Superscript font on the "th" following the squadron number. No
typewriter on earth would have done that in the early 1970's.

Not only are the anti-GWB forces dishonest, they're apparently not too
bright either. Yeesh!

It should be interesting to see how they handle getting caught in this
obvious attempt to affect the opinion of their viewers. It will be
more interesting to see just how much the networks mention about the
fact the "blockbuster documents" they've all been trashing Bush with
are obvious forgeries.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

wrote:

Sources:

1. "New Questions On Bush National Guard Duty ," CBS2Chicago.com, 9/08/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1310344&l=54246.

Heh heh heh... great source.

We are supposed to believe that a typed document from the early 1970's
contains:

1) Times New Roman font (not yet developed)
2) Propotional font spacing (ditto, other than some very high-end IBM
Selectric typewriters - unlikely given the office in question)
3) Superscript font on the "th" following the squadron number. No
typewriter on earth would have done that in the early 1970's.

Not only are the anti-GWB forces dishonest, they're apparently not too
bright either. Yeesh!

It should be interesting to see how they handle getting caught in this
obvious attempt to affect the opinion of their viewers. It will be
more interesting to see just how much the networks mention about the
fact the "blockbuster documents" they've all been trashing Bush with
are obvious forgeries.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame