They also note that povery is up in America since Bush's election in 2000.
Which is exactly why that Census report is being squelched. Classic Bush maneuver: If something reports bad news, well you just put the kibosh on that report and *poof* problem solved!
Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to just copy and paste the whole article. Just because you change around a few words it doesnt mean its not plagarism. I always knew you were a fraud.
What I wrote about Bush and 9/11 was mostly based upon the Harper's article, but also a preliminary report of Clarke's testimony to the 9/11 commission, a Time article and a US News & World Report article about Clarke, and one or two about Rice and 9/11.
Motown 67[/b] ??? He recalled some operational data on the FBI, and remembered thinking it was heartening that 70 investigations were under way. ??? He said that if his advisers had told him there was a cell in the United States, they would have moved to take care of it.???
Whitewash as Public Service How The 9/11 Commission Report defrauds the nation Originally from Harper's Magazine, October 2004. By Benjamin DeMott.[/b] ???He recalled some operational data on the FBI, and remembered thinking it was heartening that 70 investigations were under way. As best he could recollect, Rice had mentioned that the Yemenis' surveillance of a federal building in New York had been looked into in May and June, but there was no actionable intelligence.
See how I put " " around that, that means its a direct quote. And the Harper's magazine was the source, which itself is a direct quote from the 9/11 commission.In the Harper's article, there are quotations around that section as well. That's what quotation marks are for.
Motown67[/b]???Those were followed by a National Security Council memo of December 29, 2000, National Security Council briefings on March 19, 2001 and May 17, 2001, a briefing by Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke to Rice in early January 2001 followed by e-mails to her on March 23, June 28, and June 30, 2001, and a slew of CIA briefings with titles such as ???Bin Laden Planning High Profile Attacks??? on June 30, 2001. There was also a congressional appointed U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century report chaired by Gary Hart and Warren Rudman given to the White House on Feb. 2001 that gave ???stark warnings about possible domestic terrorist attacks.??? Bush personally received briefings by CIA deputy director John McLaughlin, CIA deputy chief of Counterterrorism Center Ben Bonk about Al Qaeda, and a discussion with outgoing President Clinton. In total, the 9/11 Commission said that the Bush administration received more than 40 briefings naming Al Qaeda as a danger to America.???
Whitewash as Public Service How The 9/11 Commission Report defrauds the nation Originally from Harper's Magazine, October 2004. By Benjamin DeMott.[/b] ???The papers directed to Bush, including discussion of possible terrorist use of hijacked planes, ranged from National Security Council briefings (e.g., those of March 19, 2001, and May 17, 2001) and National Security Council memos (e.g., that of December 29, 2000) to email direct from Counterterrorism Security Group Chief Richard Clarke to Condoleezza Rice (on March 23, June 28, and June 30, 2001), as well as a blizzard of CIA Senior Executive Intelligence Briefs (SEIBs) bearing such titles as "Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks" (June 30, 2001). The congressionally appointed U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, cochaired by Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, presented its report to the White House in February 2001. The document contained "stark warnings about possible domestic terrorist attacks." Bush did not meet with either of the cochairs. The officials who did manage to brief Bush in person on these matters included John McLaughlin, the CIA acting deputy director, Ben Bonk, the deputy chief of its Counterterrorist Center, and the outgoing president of the United States.???
Most of that paragraph is based upon that footnote from the Harper's article. Note that I also added "a briefing by Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke to Rice in early January 2001" and "a discussion with outgoing President Clinton. In total, the 9/11 Commission said that the Bush administration received more than 40 briefings naming Al Qaeda as a danger to America.??? Those came from the same Harper's article, plus other articles.
Motown67[/b]???The 9/11 Commission summed up Bush???s reaction to the Al Qaeda threat as the following, ???The President told us the August 6 report [a Presidential daily intelligence briefing entitled ???Bin Ladin Determined to Strike on US???] was historical in nature. President Bush said the article told him that al Qaeda was dangerous, which he said he had known since he had become President. ??? He recalled some operational data on the FBI, and remembered thinking it was heartening that 70 investigations were under way. ??? He said that if his advisers had told him there was a cell in the United States, they would have moved to take care of it.??? Almost all of those claims are false.???
Whitewash as Public Service How The 9/11 Commission Report defrauds the nation Originally from Harper's Magazine, October 2004. By Benjamin DeMott.[/b] ???The President told us the August 6 report was historical in nature. President Bush said the article told him that al Qaeda was dangerous, which he said he had known since he had become President. The President said Bin Ladin had long been talking about his desire to attack America. He recalled some operational data on the FBI, and remembered thinking it was heartening that 70 investigations were under way. As best he could recollect, Rice had mentioned that the Yemenis' surveillance of a federal building in New York had been looked into in May and June, but there was no actionable intelligence.???
See how there's " " around that again? That's called a direct quotation, you should have learned that in high school or college. It's a direct quote dumb ass, and the Harper's article has quotation marks around it as well because it's from a 9/11 Commission report, hence the " " marks.
Sabadadoodoo you really are
Not only that, but in true Bush/Republican fashion, you are attacking the sourcerather than dealing with the issue. What did Bush do about Al Qaeda before 9/11? Nothing.
Article II says what it says, and the Court is decidedly different than it was 30 years ago as are the facts. As for the "wiretapping" my fourth amendment argument concerns "datamining" not wiretapping - my mistake, but again, the circumstances and the change in technology as well as the Court leaves this open as well. Also, section 2 of the AUMF is very open ended in its grant of authority. So, the answer to that question is basically "yes" he gets a free pass to pursue the war on terror.
You should know that all these issues are far from "settled law".
so what you're saying is that the Constitution is some sort of "living document" to be re-interpreted by the justices depending on who is sitting on the bench at any given moment? interesting...
Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to just copy and paste the whole article. Just because you change around a few words it doesnt mean its not plagarism. I always knew you were a fraud.
What I wrote about Bush and 9/11 was mostly based upon the Harper's article, but also a preliminary report of Clarke's testimony to the 9/11 commission, a Time article and a US News & World Report article about Clarke, and one or two about Rice and 9/11.
Motown 67[/b] ??? He recalled some operational data on the FBI, and remembered thinking it was heartening that 70 investigations were under way. ??? He said that if his advisers had told him there was a cell in the United States, they would have moved to take care of it.???
Whitewash as Public Service How The 9/11 Commission Report defrauds the nation Originally from Harper's Magazine, October 2004. By Benjamin DeMott.[/b] ???He recalled some operational data on the FBI, and remembered thinking it was heartening that 70 investigations were under way. As best he could recollect, Rice had mentioned that the Yemenis' surveillance of a federal building in New York had been looked into in May and June, but there was no actionable intelligence.
See how I put " " around that, that means its a direct quote. And the Harper's magazine was the source, which itself is a direct quote from the 9/11 commission.In the Harper's article, there are quotations around that section as well. That's what quotation marks are for.
Motown67[/b]???Those were followed by a National Security Council memo of December 29, 2000, National Security Council briefings on March 19, 2001 and May 17, 2001, a briefing by Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke to Rice in early January 2001 followed by e-mails to her on March 23, June 28, and June 30, 2001, and a slew of CIA briefings with titles such as ???Bin Laden Planning High Profile Attacks??? on June 30, 2001. There was also a congressional appointed U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century report chaired by Gary Hart and Warren Rudman given to the White House on Feb. 2001 that gave ???stark warnings about possible domestic terrorist attacks.??? Bush personally received briefings by CIA deputy director John McLaughlin, CIA deputy chief of Counterterrorism Center Ben Bonk about Al Qaeda, and a discussion with outgoing President Clinton. In total, the 9/11 Commission said that the Bush administration received more than 40 briefings naming Al Qaeda as a danger to America.???
Whitewash as Public Service How The 9/11 Commission Report defrauds the nation Originally from Harper's Magazine, October 2004. By Benjamin DeMott.[/b] ???The papers directed to Bush, including discussion of possible terrorist use of hijacked planes, ranged from National Security Council briefings (e.g., those of March 19, 2001, and May 17, 2001) and National Security Council memos (e.g., that of December 29, 2000) to email direct from Counterterrorism Security Group Chief Richard Clarke to Condoleezza Rice (on March 23, June 28, and June 30, 2001), as well as a blizzard of CIA Senior Executive Intelligence Briefs (SEIBs) bearing such titles as "Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks" (June 30, 2001). The congressionally appointed U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, cochaired by Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, presented its report to the White House in February 2001. The document contained "stark warnings about possible domestic terrorist attacks." Bush did not meet with either of the cochairs. The officials who did manage to brief Bush in person on these matters included John McLaughlin, the CIA acting deputy director, Ben Bonk, the deputy chief of its Counterterrorist Center, and the outgoing president of the United States.???
Most of that paragraph is based upon that footnote from the Harper's article. Note that I also added "a briefing by Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke to Rice in early January 2001" and "a discussion with outgoing President Clinton. In total, the 9/11 Commission said that the Bush administration received more than 40 briefings naming Al Qaeda as a danger to America.??? Those came from the same Harper's article, plus other articles.
Motown67[/b]???The 9/11 Commission summed up Bush???s reaction to the Al Qaeda threat as the following, ???The President told us the August 6 report [a Presidential daily intelligence briefing entitled ???Bin Ladin Determined to Strike on US???] was historical in nature. President Bush said the article told him that al Qaeda was dangerous, which he said he had known since he had become President. ??? He recalled some operational data on the FBI, and remembered thinking it was heartening that 70 investigations were under way. ??? He said that if his advisers had told him there was a cell in the United States, they would have moved to take care of it.??? Almost all of those claims are false.???
Whitewash as Public Service How The 9/11 Commission Report defrauds the nation Originally from Harper's Magazine, October 2004. By Benjamin DeMott.[/b] ???The President told us the August 6 report was historical in nature. President Bush said the article told him that al Qaeda was dangerous, which he said he had known since he had become President. The President said Bin Ladin had long been talking about his desire to attack America. He recalled some operational data on the FBI, and remembered thinking it was heartening that 70 investigations were under way. As best he could recollect, Rice had mentioned that the Yemenis' surveillance of a federal building in New York had been looked into in May and June, but there was no actionable intelligence.???
See how there's " " around that again? That's called a direct quotation, you should have learned that in high school or college. It's a direct quote dumb ass, and the Harper's article has quotation marks around it as well because it's from a 9/11 Commission report, hence the " " marks.
Sabadadoodoo you really are
Not only that, but in true Bush/Republican fashion, you are attacking the sourcerather than dealing with the issue. What did Bush do about Al Qaeda before 9/11? Nothing.
This is not a case of you quoting the same source. The qualifying material around the quotations is identical as is the order in which your points are arranged. You are a PLAGARIST thats why you dont footnote (evidently you must have been paying such close attention to you quotation lesson, you missed the PLAGARISM lesson). By the way, I also found the PLAGARISM from the Time article but didnt feel like I needed to rub it in, but apparently I do. Maybe the dimwits on this board don't care that you lift real authors material and present it as your own, but you know good-and-well what your're doing is PLAGARISM. From a teacher no less, fucking beautiful. And rather than just admit that you are a complete fraud and a hypocrite, you try and blame me for it.
By the way, Im taking a look into your little Run Up to Iraq piece, and have found several instances of plagarism in just the first few paragraphs. It seems that everytime you use a quote, you just cant help but take a liitle extra. You aren't a writer, you're a clerk - you just reorganize things. But I think I'll take a little time with this one and expose you for the fake smart-ass that you are.
Joel's a fucking high school teacher you twit not an author.
If he summarized several pertinent articles for me and didn't inject one iota of his own writing into it, I'm just fine with that.
Way to shoot the messenger.
He presents this material AS HIS OWN. He isnt a messenger, a messenger tells you who is sending the message. He's a fake. He pukes up all this stuff he's copied from other places without citing any reference and says "this is something I've been working on for a while" and all of you drool over it "oh - great job, how insightful, can you send it to me as a word document?"
Joel's a fucking high school teacher you twit not an author.
If he summarized several pertinent articles for me and didn't inject one iota of his own writing into it, I'm just fine with that.
Way to shoot the messenger.
He presents this material AS HIS OWN. He isnt a messenger, a messenger tells you who is sending the message. He's a fake. He pukes up all this stuff he's copied from other places without citing any reference and says "this is something I've been working on for a while" and all of you drool over it "oh - great job, how insightful, can you send it to me as a word document?"
What a joke.
Ha! What a crusade you are on.
I never ONCE considered that material his own, I always understood it to be sourced from other places. It certainly sounds like you're mad that people appreciated it and agreed with it, while you struggle in vain to convince anyone of anything.
This is not a case of you quoting the same source. The qualifying material around the quotations is identical as is the order in which your points are arranged. You are a PLAGARIST thats why you dont footnote (evidently you must have been paying such close attention to you quotation lesson, you missed the PLAGARISM lesson). By the way, I also found the PLAGARISM from the Time article but didnt feel like I needed to rub it in, but apparently I do. Maybe the dimwits on this board don't care that you lift real authors material and present it as your own, but you know good-and-well what your're doing is PLAGARISM. From a teacher no less, fucking beautiful. And rather than just admit that you are a complete fraud and a hypocrite, you try and blame me for it.
By the way, Im taking a look into your little Run Up to Iraq piece, and have found several instances of plagarism in just the first few paragraphs. It seems that everytime you use a quote, you just cant help but take a liitle extra. You aren't a writer, you're a clerk - you just reorganize things. But I think I'll take a little time with this one and expose you for the fake smart-ass that you are.
If you wanna get all technical and shit, PLAGARISM doesn't mean a goddamn thing. Plagiarism dude, plagiarism. It's a silly way to dodge the argument though. I don't know that I've ever seen footnotes on a messageboard.
Joel's a fucking high school teacher you twit not an author.
If he summarized several pertinent articles for me and didn't inject one iota of his own writing into it, I'm just fine with that.
Way to shoot the messenger.
He presents this material AS HIS OWN. He isnt a messenger, a messenger tells you who is sending the message. He's a fake. He pukes up all this stuff he's copied from other places without citing any reference and says "this is something I've been working on for a while" and all of you drool over it "oh - great job, how insightful, can you send it to me as a word document?"
What a joke.
Ha! What a crusade you are on.
I never ONCE considered that material his own, I always understood it to be sourced from other places. It certainly sounds like you're mad that people appreciated it and agreed with it, while you struggle in vain to convince anyone of anything.
The joke's on you...
sorry, jokes on you Johnny and you dont even care. He's a teacher, he knows what he's doing - and now I know what he's doing. You can make excuses for him, I don't particularly care. All the bullshitting we do on this board isnt going to change anything but at least I know that what I write on this board is mine whether you agree with it or not. That's more than he can say which leaves him with nothing; somebody elses ideas with a few words changed around so they fit together. A+ smiley face.
peter, remember the other day when you cut and pasted headlines from the Drudge report and did not cite them? and when you posted an "article" from the WPost that was from the OP/ED page?
Johnny when you type something I assume its Johnny talking, and when I type something its me talking, when Motown writes someting is it Harper's talking, the New York Times maybe, Time Magazine? All we do here is write, there is nothing else here but what we write. So like I said, maybe my arguments arent the most thought out or clear, but at least they're mine because minus that there isn't much to offer here.
Maybe Ill just start posting National Review articles and saying "this is a little something I was pondering over the weekend"
Johnny when you type something I assume its Johnny talking, and when I type something its me talking, when Motown writes someting is it Harper's talking, the New York Times maybe, Time Magazine? All we do here is write, there is nothing else here but what we write. So like I said, maybe my arguments arent the most thought out or clear, but at least they're mine because minus that there isn't much to offer here.
Maybe Ill just start posting National Review articles and saying "this is a little something I was pondering over the weekend"
You're not doing a goddamn thing other than shifting the attention from yourself.
Slobababoo, I ask you, please tell all of us what's good about Bush and why you support him. Enough with the semantics.
sorry, jokes on you Johnny and you dont even care. He's a teacher, he knows what he's doing - and now I know what he's doing. You can make excuses for him, I don't particularly care. All the bullshitting we do on this board isnt going to change anything but at least I know that what I write on this board is mine whether you agree with it or not. That's more than he can say which leaves him with nothing; somebody elses ideas with a few words changed around so they fit together. A+ smiley face.
who cares? this is a thread about bush, if motown cited news sources in support of his argument, that just adds...support. i never bothered to see if he characterized the facts/opinions/theories as his own because it is irrelevant.
furthermore, there have been dozens of times when you responded to political threads with full news articles from various sources (probably links from the heritage foundation). in fact, when you wrote that nonsense about the wiretaps being legal, i specifically asked you to explain "in your own words" why you thought they were legal because i anticipated that you were going to regurgitate some wacko law professor's journal article on the subject.
peter, remember the other day when you cut and pasted headlines from the Drudge report and did not cite them? and when you posted an "article" from the WPost that was from the OP/ED page?
sayin
wrong. i made a comment about something that happened to also be linked to drudge although I pasted the original source. You just called me out on the fact that it was linked through drudge. And saying something is an "article" rather than an "op-ed" is not lifting the entire footnote from a Harper's article and dropping it in a post without saying anything"
Comments
I hear he can BBQ alright. Or atleast pay someone well to do a great job.
What the ,,,,,,??
L13, is that you, thweetheart??!!
He read three Shakespeares this past summer.
Please define 'the war on terror', then maybe there could be a determination of what he get's 'a free pass' on.
Sounds like you enjoy the President having no checks and balances....that's interesting. Intellectually and morally empty, but interesting.
Which is exactly why that Census report is being squelched. Classic Bush maneuver: If something reports bad news, well you just put the kibosh on that report and *poof* problem solved!
What I wrote about Bush and 9/11 was mostly based upon the Harper's article, but also a preliminary report of Clarke's testimony to the 9/11 commission, a Time article and a US News & World Report article about Clarke, and one or two about Rice and 9/11.
See how I put " " around that, that means its a direct quote. And the Harper's magazine was the source, which itself is a direct quote from the 9/11 commission.In the Harper's article, there are quotations around that section as well. That's what quotation marks are for.
Most of that paragraph is based upon that footnote from the Harper's article. Note that I also added "a briefing by Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke to Rice in early January 2001" and "a discussion with outgoing President Clinton. In total, the 9/11 Commission said that the Bush administration received more than 40 briefings naming Al Qaeda as a danger to America.??? Those came from the same Harper's article, plus other articles.
See how there's " " around that again? That's called a direct quotation, you should have learned that in high school or college. It's a direct quote dumb ass, and the Harper's article has quotation marks around it as well because it's from a 9/11 Commission report, hence the " " marks.
Sabadadoodoo you really are
Not only that, but in true Bush/Republican fashion, you are attacking the sourcerather than dealing with the issue. What did Bush do about Al Qaeda before 9/11? Nothing.
Because I am trying to emulate you, the master of ignorant snarky comments.
How'm I doing?
so what you're saying is that the Constitution is some sort of "living document" to be re-interpreted by the justices depending on who is sitting on the bench at any given moment? interesting...
actually dude is funny as hell in this clip.
i dont give a shit about politics or whatever but this is obviously very far off base.
This is not a case of you quoting the same source. The qualifying material around the quotations is identical as is the order in which your points are arranged. You are a PLAGARIST thats why you dont footnote (evidently you must have been paying such close attention to you quotation lesson, you missed the PLAGARISM lesson). By the way, I also found the PLAGARISM from the Time article but didnt feel like I needed to rub it in, but apparently I do. Maybe the dimwits on this board don't care that you lift real authors material and present it as your own, but you know good-and-well what your're doing is PLAGARISM. From a teacher no less, fucking beautiful. And rather than just admit that you are a complete fraud and a hypocrite, you try and blame me for it.
By the way, Im taking a look into your little Run Up to Iraq piece, and have found several instances of plagarism in just the first few paragraphs. It seems that everytime you use a quote, you just cant help but take a liitle extra. You aren't a writer, you're a clerk - you just reorganize things. But I think I'll take a little time with this one and expose you for the fake smart-ass that you are.
do we have a "fraud" graemlin?
If he summarized several pertinent articles for me and didn't inject one iota of his own writing into it, I'm just fine with that.
Way to shoot the messenger.
And they have always been presented in a "no spin" context.
At least that's what my impression has been.
He presents this material AS HIS OWN. He isnt a messenger, a messenger tells you who is sending the message. He's a fake. He pukes up all this stuff he's copied from other places without citing any reference and says "this is something I've been working on for a while" and all of you drool over it "oh - great job, how insightful, can you send it to me as a word document?"
What a joke.
oh yeah,
Ha! What a crusade you are on.
I never ONCE considered that material his own, I always understood it to be sourced from other places. It certainly sounds like you're mad that people appreciated it and agreed with it, while you struggle in vain to convince anyone of anything.
The joke's on you...
If you wanna get all technical and shit, PLAGARISM doesn't mean a goddamn thing. Plagiarism dude, plagiarism. It's a silly way to dodge the argument though. I don't know that I've ever seen footnotes on a messageboard.
sorry, jokes on you Johnny and you dont even care. He's a teacher, he knows what he's doing - and now I know what he's doing. You can make excuses for him, I don't particularly care. All the bullshitting we do on this board isnt going to change anything but at least I know that what I write on this board is mine whether you agree with it or not. That's more than he can say which leaves him with nothing; somebody elses ideas with a few words changed around so they fit together. A+ smiley face.
I'm not making excuses - I simply think it's a nonissue.
sayin
Maybe Ill just start posting National Review articles and saying "this is a little something I was pondering over the weekend"
You're not doing a goddamn thing other than shifting the attention from yourself.
Slobababoo, I ask you, please tell all of us what's good about Bush and why you support him. Enough with the semantics.
who cares? this is a thread about bush, if motown cited news sources in support of his argument, that just adds...support. i never bothered to see if he characterized the facts/opinions/theories as his own because it is irrelevant.
furthermore, there have been dozens of times when you responded to political threads with full news articles from various sources (probably links from the heritage foundation). in fact, when you wrote that nonsense about the wiretaps being legal, i specifically asked you to explain "in your own words" why you thought they were legal because i anticipated that you were going to regurgitate some wacko law professor's journal article on the subject.
dude, you can't have it both ways.
wrong. i made a comment about something that happened to also be linked to drudge although I pasted the original source. You just called me out on the fact that it was linked through drudge. And saying something is an "article" rather than an "op-ed" is not lifting the entire footnote from a Harper's article and dropping it in a post without saying anything"