From the Daily Mirror:

THE TURKEY HAS LANDED Nov 28 2003

Bush secret Iraq trip to US troops

By Mark Ellis

"US troops in Iraq were served up a real turkey for Thanksgiving Day
yesterday - when President George Bush joined them for a surprise visit."

Hmmm... Dubya & Co. just couldn't let Hillary steal all those headlines for
tooooo long with her recent trip to Afghanistan and Iraq, could they?

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
From the Daily Mirror:

THE TURKEY HAS LANDED Nov 28 2003

Bush secret Iraq trip to US troops

By Mark Ellis

"US troops in Iraq were served up a real turkey for Thanksgiving Day
yesterday - when President George Bush joined them for a surprise visit."


Another Sanders quote form an 'unbiased' source.


Hmmm... Dubya & Co. just couldn't let Hillary steal all those headlines
for
tooooo long with her recent trip to Afghanistan and Iraq, could they?

As if she were running against him for Pres?
hmmmmm......





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sandy swooned:

Bush secret Iraq trip to US troops

Hmmm... Dubya & Co. just couldn't let Hillary steal all those headlines for
tooooo long with her recent trip to Afghanistan and Iraq, could they?

Here's a different take on the matter:

"Hillary in Frantic Bid to Outdo Bush in Baghdad"

"I think they're more excited about [meeting] Geraldo..."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...8/112105.shtml


GeoSynch

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:03:14 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote:

Sandy swooned:

Bush secret Iraq trip to US troops

Hmmm... Dubya & Co. just couldn't let Hillary steal all those headlines for
tooooo long with her recent trip to Afghanistan and Iraq, could they?

Here's a different take on the matter:

"Hillary in Frantic Bid to Outdo Bush in Baghdad"

Actually, yesterday, even the Fox Network choked on the words that she
actually handled the situation pretty well during their roundtable
discussion during the Brit Hume show (he wasn't there). They ran a
clip to try and stir the pot a little, but they were in the same boat
that she was in - they couldn't diss her for her comments because they
were quite laudatory to President Bush, and that's the general tack
that they had to take with her (it was amusing to see the sort of
grudging respect that they gave her).

That must have really hurt them. They initially tried to put a little
negative spin on it, but quickly realized that they couldn't really
diss her.

"I think they're more excited about [meeting] Geraldo..."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...8/112105.shtml

Yeah, like *that* story isn't partisan to the hilt.

Why is it that guys like you are the first to scream BIASED! but
mostly use biased reports yourselves?

Obviously, the headline story from the Daily Mirror was biased, referring to
Bush as "The Turkey". That was merely included as a joke.

And it wasn't the point. The point was: (1) Bush and Blair had planned an
Iraq "celebration summit" for November but (a) their
miscalculations/deceits/general lack of planning/not having a clue what
they're really doing in Iraq or what they're up against had by then resulted
in increasing casualties to U.S., British, Italian and Polish troops there.
This November alone, at least 30 U.S. troops have been killed, and an untold
number wounded; (b) Bush was met by a crowd of angry protestors in London
estimated to be over 300K strong. Luckily, the Michael Jackson thing hit
the news just in time so that FOX, MSNBC and CNN could hold a
Jackson-circle-jerk-athon-marathon blackout of what was going on in London
during the demonstrations. (2) Hillary upstaged Bush by traveling to
Afghanistan (and spending a lot more than 2 piddly hours with American
troops at the airport) before Bush decided to try to upstage her on
Thanksgiving with his ridiculous photo-op. He just had to beat her to
Baghdad before she arrived there Friday. Hillary is traveling with another
Senator not just to boost troop morale, but to assess the situations in
those countries. Pretty damned pathetic and childish of Bush, overall. And
typical of the thinking of this most dangerous administration in American
history.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:03:14 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote:

Sandy swooned:

Bush secret Iraq trip to US troops

Hmmm... Dubya & Co. just couldn't let Hillary steal all those headlines
for
tooooo long with her recent trip to Afghanistan and Iraq, could they?

Here's a different take on the matter:

"Hillary in Frantic Bid to Outdo Bush in Baghdad"

Actually, yesterday, even the Fox Network choked on the words that she
actually handled the situation pretty well during their roundtable
discussion during the Brit Hume show (he wasn't there). They ran a
clip to try and stir the pot a little, but they were in the same boat
that she was in - they couldn't diss her for her comments because they
were quite laudatory to President Bush, and that's the general tack
that they had to take with her (it was amusing to see the sort of
grudging respect that they gave her).

That must have really hurt them. They initially tried to put a little
negative spin on it, but quickly realized that they couldn't really
diss her.

"I think they're more excited about [meeting] Geraldo..."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...8/112105.shtml

Yeah, like *that* story isn't partisan to the hilt.

Why is it that guys like you are the first to scream BIASED! but
mostly use biased reports yourselves?

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
Obviously, the headline story from the Daily Mirror was biased, referring
to
Bush as "The Turkey". That was merely included as a joke.

And it wasn't the point. The point was: (1) Bush and Blair had planned an
Iraq "celebration summit" for November but (a) their
miscalculations/deceits/general lack of planning/not having a clue what
they're really doing in Iraq or what they're up against had by then
resulted
in increasing casualties to U.S., British, Italian and Polish troops
there.

Let's suppose for a moment that Clinton were President, would you still feel
the same way if things were going the same way with Clinton as Commander in
Chief?

It's not always possible to know how things are going to go in an operation
like Iraq. The numbers of troops being killed is, all things considered
very small. More people die here from falling than are being killed in
Iraq.



This November alone, at least 30 U.S. troops have been killed, and an
untold
number wounded; (b) Bush was met by a crowd of angry protestors in London
estimated to be over 300K strong. Luckily, the Michael Jackson thing hit
the news just in time so that FOX, MSNBC and CNN could hold a
Jackson-circle-jerk-athon-marathon blackout of what was going on in London
during the demonstrations. (2) Hillary upstaged Bush by traveling to
Afghanistan (and spending a lot more than 2 piddly hours with American
troops at the airport) before Bush decided to try to upstage her on
Thanksgiving with his ridiculous photo-op.

What makes you think her trip was a morale booster? I know of no military
person who thionks she or Bill deserve any respect. The Commander in Chief
visiting the troops is vastly more important to moral than a freshman
Senator from any state.

He just had to beat her to
Baghdad before she arrived there Friday. Hillary is traveling with
another
Senator not just to boost troop morale, but to assess the situations in
those countries. Pretty damned pathetic and childish of Bush, overall

Your hatred is blinding you to the fact that the troops would rather have 2
hours with Bush than 2 days with Hilary.

snip

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...


Your hatred is blinding you to the fact that the troops would rather have
2
hours with Bush than 2 days with Hilary.

Our lesbian warriors would rather have 2 hours with Hilary.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:03:14 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote:

Sandy swooned:

Bush secret Iraq trip to US troops

Hmmm... Dubya & Co. just couldn't let Hillary steal all those headlines
for
tooooo long with her recent trip to Afghanistan and Iraq, could they?

Here's a different take on the matter:

"Hillary in Frantic Bid to Outdo Bush in Baghdad"

Actually, yesterday, even the Fox Network choked on the words that she
actually handled the situation pretty well during their roundtable
discussion during the Brit Hume show (he wasn't there). They ran a
clip to try and stir the pot a little, but they were in the same boat
that she was in - they couldn't diss her for her comments because they
were quite laudatory to President Bush, and that's the general tack
that they had to take with her (it was amusing to see the sort of
grudging respect that they gave her).

That must have really hurt them. They initially tried to put a little
negative spin on it, but quickly realized that they couldn't really
diss her.

"I think they're more excited about [meeting] Geraldo..."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...8/112105.shtml

Yeah, like *that* story isn't partisan to the hilt.

Friday, Nov. 28, 2003 10:54 a.m. EST
Hillary in Frantic Bid to Outdo Bush in Baghdad

Upstaged by President Bush's amazing Thanksgiving Day visit with U.S. troops
in Baghdad, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton seemed frantic on Friday to meet
with more soldiers than Bush had seen during his appearance at the city's
airport-turned-military base - and to be seen doing so in less-protected
circumstances.

"At the moment, she is on a visit with a military division outside the
security zone," Clinton's spokeswoman told Agence France-Press Friday
afternoon, Iraq time.

Earlier in the day Clinton "had lunch with troops from her home state in the
dining hall at [Saddam Hussein's former] palace," the press aide said.

Though there were no reports of the former first lady being greeted with the
kind of standing ovations generated by the Bush visit, the Clinton flack did
her best to paint a picture of an enthusiastic welcome for her boss, telling
reporters, "She was walking through the hall [of the palace] and people were
coming up to her."

Before lunch with American soldiers, the top Democrat met with senior
officials of the Coalition Provisional Authority, including U.S.
administrator Paul Bremer, whose surprise introduction of Bush yesterday had
soldiers leaping to their feet in amazement.

The scene had to rankle the former first lady.

Her own trip to Afghanistan yesterday was dramatically overshadowed by the
president's bombshell visit. And even though the Bush trip wasn't known when
Clinton met with soldiers in Afghanistan, her own lackluster reception was
something of a public relations disaster.

"I think they're more excited about [meeting] Geraldo," coalition spokesman
Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty told the Boston Globe, referring to the Fox News
Channel correspondent who covered Clinton's visit with the troops at Bagram
Air base.

With European press accounts describing Sen. Clinton as Bush's "undeclared
Democratic opponent," she seemed determined to repair the damage, embarking
on her whirlwind tour of Baghdad in an apparent bid to show that she was at
least as big a military morale booster as the president.

"We are running a little bit behind schedule," Clinton's spokeswoman
explained at one point. "She may then have time to meet with more U.S.
troops."

Seems pretty objective IMO. Most people in the military despise the
Clintons IME, and from reports I've heard and read.

Why is it that guys like you are the first to scream BIASED! but
mostly use biased reports yourselves?

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:28:47 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

Seems pretty objective IMO.

You're joking of course. Bush was "amazing", while Clinton was
"frantic".

"The scene had to rankle the former first lady".

Oh really? I guess that mindreading has become an objective standard.

And I'm not even factoring bombastic phrasing like:

"Her own trip to Afghanistan yesterday was dramatically overshadowed
by the president's bombshell visit".

"And even though the Bush trip wasn't known when
Clinton met with soldiers in Afghanistan, her own lackluster reception
was something of a public relations disaster".

It's all in the tone, you know.

No, this wasn't objective in *any* sense of the word.

I will give you credit for getting the formatting right, though.
Please keep it up. It makes it a lot easier to read what you cut 'n
paste.

Also, let's look at the columnists used on this site:

David Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, Dr. Jack Wheeler (who created the
Reagan Doctrine and, who wrote about Clinton "Let's start with two
things we know for sure about Hillary. First, she wants to be
president. Second, she will do anything to be so. There is no lie she
won't tell, no friend she won't destroy, no pledge she won't break, no
slander she won't spread, no political dirty trick she won't employ in
order to reside in the White House again, this time as the POTUS"),
and, of course, the infamous founder of the afformentioned Front Page
Magazine, David Horowitz.

Hey, I've got nothing against the Right having their own outlets. Even
though I find Fox News appalingly partisan in a way the the major
networks seem to avoid for the most part, I occasionally check it out
to see how the other side lives (and since I'm going to be spending
Christmas with one of my closest friends, a guy who comes close to
being a neo-conservative, I want to be conversant in FoxSpeak, as Fox
is the only new outlet that darkens his door).

My objection is calling these sorts of outlets that keep getting
quoted here anything more than op-ed pieces, thinly disguised as
legitimate news.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...

My objection is calling these sorts of outlets that keep getting
quoted here anything more than op-ed pieces, thinly disguised as
legitimate news.


Fair enough, now what about Sanders?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:28:47 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

Seems pretty objective IMO.

You're joking of course. Bush was "amazing", while Clinton was
"frantic".

"The scene had to rankle the former first lady".

Oh really? I guess that mindreading has become an objective standard.

And I'm not even factoring bombastic phrasing like:

"Her own trip to Afghanistan yesterday was dramatically overshadowed
by the president's bombshell visit".

"And even though the Bush trip wasn't known when
Clinton met with soldiers in Afghanistan, her own lackluster reception
was something of a public relations disaster".

It's all in the tone, you know.

No, this wasn't objective in *any* sense of the word.

It is if it's true, which is very likely.

I will give you credit for getting the formatting right, though.
Please keep it up. It makes it a lot easier to read what you cut 'n
paste.

Also, let's look at the columnists used on this site:

David Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, Dr. Jack Wheeler (who created the
Reagan Doctrine and, who wrote about Clinton "Let's start with two
things we know for sure about Hillary. First, she wants to be
president. Second, she will do anything to be so. There is no lie she
won't tell, no friend she won't destroy, no pledge she won't break, no
slander she won't spread, no political dirty trick she won't employ in
order to reside in the White House again, this time as the POTUS"),
and, of course, the infamous founder of the afformentioned Front Page
Magazine, David Horowitz.

Formerly employed by the Black Panthers, raised by socialists.

Hey, I've got nothing against the Right having their own outlets. Even
though I find Fox News appalingly partisan in a way the the major
networks seem to avoid for the most part,

Fox always presents 2 sides of every issue and gives equal time to the left.
The main difference with Fox is you know the politics of the talking heads
where you don't always on the other networks.

I occasionally check it out
to see how the other side lives (and since I'm going to be spending
Christmas with one of my closest friends, a guy who comes close to
being a neo-conservative, I want to be conversant in FoxSpeak, as Fox
is the only new outlet that darkens his door).

My objection is calling these sorts of outlets that keep getting
quoted here anything more than op-ed pieces, thinly disguised as
legitimate news.

That's different from the New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, or
the L.A. Times, how exactly?

dave weil wrote:

Here's a different take on the matter:

"Hillary in Frantic Bid to Outdo Bush in Baghdad"

Actually, yesterday, even the Fox Network choked on the words that she
actually handled the situation pretty well during their roundtable
discussion during the Brit Hume show (he wasn't there).

Oh, so you do watch the Fox News Channel?
Excellent, excellent. There's hope for you, yet!

They ran a
clip to try and stir the pot a little, but they were in the same boat
that she was in - they couldn't diss her for her comments because they
were quite laudatory to President Bush, and that's the general tack
that they had to take with her (it was amusing to see the sort of
grudging respect that they gave her).

That must have really hurt them. They initially tried to put a little
negative spin on it, but quickly realized that they couldn't really
diss her.

They must've been swept up by the Thanksgiving spirit.

"I think they're more excited about [meeting] Geraldo..."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...8/112105.shtml

Yeah, like *that* story isn't partisan to the hilt.

Why is it that guys like you are the first to scream BIASED! but
mostly use biased reports yourselves?

They're a most welcome counterbalance to the heavily leftist media
elite, who themselves are breaking out in cold sweats seeing their
influence evaporate quicker than water in a hot skillet.


GeoSynch

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:14:38 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

Here's a different take on the matter:

"Hillary in Frantic Bid to Outdo Bush in Baghdad"

Actually, yesterday, even the Fox Network choked on the words that she
actually handled the situation pretty well during their roundtable
discussion during the Brit Hume show (he wasn't there).

Oh, so you do watch the Fox News Channel?
Excellent, excellent. There's hope for you, yet!

Actually, unlike certain people, I try to cover all of the bases.

But I think I addressed why I was watching Fox in another post. It
isn't a regular occurance, believe me.

They ran a
clip to try and stir the pot a little, but they were in the same boat
that she was in - they couldn't diss her for her comments because they
were quite laudatory to President Bush, and that's the general tack
that they had to take with her (it was amusing to see the sort of
grudging respect that they gave her).

That must have really hurt them. They initially tried to put a little
negative spin on it, but quickly realized that they couldn't really
diss her.

They must've been swept up by the Thanksgiving spirit.

Nah, that wasn't it.

"I think they're more excited about [meeting] Geraldo..."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...8/112105.shtml

Yeah, like *that* story isn't partisan to the hilt.

Why is it that guys like you are the first to scream BIASED! but
mostly use biased reports yourselves?

They're a most welcome counterbalance to the heavily leftist media
elite, who themselves are breaking out in cold sweats seeing their
influence evaporate quicker than water in a hot skillet.

I'm not talking about reading them for entertainment, or even for
agenda reinforcement. I'm talking about using them as "news sources".
This would be like me using a column by Ellen Goodman as "fact".

Your statement sounds like a little desperate itself. "Leftist media
elite". Where do you get your dialogue from - Spiro Agnew?

BTW, I see you are *still* trying to deperately cover your mistake
about the Bush demos. Just give in and admit that you were wrong,
won't you?

dave weil wrote:

Oh, so you do watch the Fox News Channel?
Excellent, excellent. There's hope for you, yet!

Actually, unlike certain people, I try to cover all of the bases.

And I see more than enough liberals just on Fox: Mara Liasson,
Juan Williams, Alan Colmes, Ellen Ratner, Eleanor Clift, Susan
Estrich, Pat Halpin, Ellis Hennigan, ad nauseum

But I think I addressed why I was watching Fox in another post. It
isn't a regular occurance, believe me.

Your loss.

BTW, I see you are *still* trying to deperately cover your mistake
about the Bush demos. Just give in and admit that you were wrong,
won't you?

All we're going to agree on here is the 30,000 figure at 4 p.m.
After that, the politically correct influences took over and the numbers
are no longer believable.

BTW, have you seen any photos to support the 100,000 claim?


GeoSynch