zarqs gonna get u

* heres a flash for all u conspiracy buffs out there from pam http://www.elchulo.net/files/pentagon.swf - btw - is that 911zogby poll reflective in any manner of the situation on the ny street? are many people really starting to have such questions?

* "Sobbing American hostage beheaded" - i dont know wot to make of this particular story but my first impressions are that its psyops bollox - u can pick the usual fiction bits out of ap's piece - nice to see zarq still has 2 legs, again. and some new orange suits. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/21/1095651281453.html?from=top5

* joshmarshall on that niger/france bollox yesterday "The thrust of the piece is false." http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_09_19.php#003491

* btw - my guess is that danrather advertently got himself into this mess - it seems that his contract actually had a performance metric where he got paid extra every day he was frontpage news. seems to me thats why he hung onto his purported side of the story even when it looked like it had rove written all over it. contrary-wise - fauxnews did a gotcha interviwe at the airport "do u feel uve been duped?" rather:" "do u feel uve been duped working at fox?" and he also seems to be flappingly suggesting that 43 answer the questions. and all that. i dont know danrather apart from 'he's an old news guy' so i dont come with any baggage - to defend or otherwise. but it looked like he was trying to make sure the story kept growing legs.

* btw - faux have been running 'UN funding alq via oil4food' - which is curious just b4 bushs speech to the un.

* i m having computer trouble so i havent read much in the last 24 hours. the next 24 could be the same.

* as wapo says "But, most important, there is only one reason the story about Bush's choices during the Vietnam years persists. It's because the president won't give detailed answers to the direct questions. Their questions never depended on the discredited CBS documents... Dan Rather has answered his critics. Now it is Bush's turn." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37081-2004Sep20.html

* heres a most curious article by bobnovak - parently the pyjama brigrade are goin nuts (i havent read it) "Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush's decision will be to get out of iraq. They believe that is the recommendation of his national security team and would be the recommendation of second-term officials. An informed guess might have Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, Paul Wolfowitz as defense secretary and Stephen Hadley as national security adviser." could we get more neo-creepy? still, its better than coconut colin pretending to be a brake. (btw - notice how novak didnt even mention powell as he annointed a new sec.of.state) (how do they corrupt colin and *everyone* btw? them must be some good drugs)
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak20.html

however, my guess is that the bloggers will have missed this bit:
"Getting out now would not end expensive U.S. reconstruction of Iraq, and certainly would not stop the fighting. Without U.S. troops, the civil war cited as the worst-case outcome by the recently leaked National Intelligence Estimate would be a reality. It would then take a resolute president to stand aside while Iraqis battle it out." ie he's setting up a straw man to blow over. then we can reinforce everyones views that no, we cant cut&run, we have to 'go massive' - we've seen that the 'gradualist' approach hasnt worked - so lets take the last remaining option - yeah 'go massive'. awriiiight.

* is/was kerry trying to lose? "Kerry said Monday, "Is he really saying to Americans that if we had known there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to al-Qaida, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is resoundingly no because a commander in chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe" dint he ostensibly say the same stoopid thing a few weeks ago? not to damn a man for flopping - but all of his reasons were equally valid last month.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/09/20/politics0951EDT0501.DTL

* "Bush's mistakes, Kerry said, "were not the equivalent of accounting errors. They were colossal failures of judgment -- and judgment is what we look for in a president." is he trying to lose? didja see this on teeve? who writes these sentences? seriously. who talks about accounting errors, equivalent or not, as a preface to 'colossal failures of judgment'. seriously. im sure there are at least 10000 politicians around the world who wouldnt make that mistake. all the while he's sposed to be tuffening his message - in the meantime he's analogizing with farkin rounding errors. its nixons 'i am not a crook' in reverse. im glad i think the election is rigged - otherwise this sort of nonsense would do my head in. it does anyway. im sure that 43 does *nothing* except practise speeches. and watching the videos again and again, like a novice golfer might. kerry simply doesnt get it. i dont mind the parenthetical stuff, and i cant comment on the habits of age, but seriously, even i know, without having a pr education, that u dont preface ur main attack: 'collosal failure' with 'accounting errors'. seriously. please. for the sake of my head - can u at least think about things for a minute?

* btw - im tempted to thing that the current glimpses of 'anti-bush' sentiment are actually the start of something new - but ive been tempted to think the same things in the past, repeaetdly, with apparently strong evidence, and ive always been wrong. even if 'maveric' mccain is apparently getting tuff - once his cred has been worn out he'll be whimpering to hannity like powell was doing the other day






________________________________________________________________________________
Your More Fears. Your More Fears.
wotisitgood4.blogspot.com