| lisasawitch 2005-08-18, 8:59 am |
| You were accused tried and convicted did not appeal and never have had
anyone but you declare yourself innocent or the charges false.
Shut up already. And answer the questions below.
You're a DELIBERATE LIAR!
KATHLEEN IT AIN'T FUNNY STOP THE LIES YOU LYING LIAR!
Featured in Court & Police
Kathleen Dickson
Published on 5/8/2004
Kathleen Dickson, 46, of 23 Garden St., Pawcatuck, was charged Thursday
with being a fugitive from justice.
=A9 The Day Publishing Co., 2004
Featured in Court & Police
Kathleen Dickson
Published on 5/9/2004
Kathleen Dickson, 45, of 23 Garden St., Pawcatuck, was charged Friday
with second-degree harassment and threatening.
=A9 The Day Publishing Co., 2004
ANSWER THE QUESTIONS KATHLEEN
Let's see how you like it kathleen EVERY time you post, I will change
the title of the thread and I will post these questions until you
answer them one by one and answering them means NOT talking about
McSweegan or former Governor Rowland and all your typical diversionary
crap anyway.
PLUS you are cross posting ONCE AGAIN TOTALLY OFF TOPIC and you're
selfish to do this to one newsgroups CRIMINAL to do it to multiple
newsgroups--yes here is your "crime": You are preventing people who
need help from getting help for your selfish personal reasons that you
are so completely egocentric along with delusional paranoid
schizophrenic with psychotic features that you just can't see past your
own twisted delusional psychotic personal agenda--which ought to be
about getting your kids back and solving your own enormous problems in
life instead of trying to solve anyone else's. By preventing people
from getting help you are responsible for the consequences. Surely
people are dying as a result so you are a murderer (trying out a little
kathleen "logic" here. So you are now being reported to the DOJ FBI and
CIA and WHO and UN and DCF and the federal and state courts and
homeland insanity department and all over the planet as a murderer.
How do you like them apples?
Now answer the questions. And stop the off topic cross posting. Answer
the questions TRUTHFULLY for a change. Focus on the question. If
there's a question yOU don't understand which is hard to believe given
your self declared genius IQ, let us know and we'll rephrase it.
Don't LIE as you do and don't try your diversionary tactics. Ignore
this and I will keep reposting it kathleen. Not only that but your
silence will be construed as admissions to all OF the facts listed as
questions.
PS: This is NOT "taunting" You have put your credibility at issue. You
have repeatedly said that you NEVER lie. We deserve the answers to
these questions. Straight answers.
REPOST:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group.../browse_thre...
Nope we're talking about YOU. ANSWER THE QUESTIONS
And come back and tell us when Steere or McSweegan or anyone else is
actually charged with your "Lyme Crymes" instead of telling us what
you, in all your infinite wisdom, think will happen.
Now let's talk not about who WILL be convicted but WHO already has
been--YOU.
Here's the question list. One by one give us some answers. Your post is
just like the Bush White House trying to DIVERT attention from what
Karl Rove did to Joe Wilson--by attacking him AGAIN.
Nope answer the questions kathleen. Stop trying to change the subject.
I know you're delusional but try to focus. Here is a list of questions
for YOU. We've already heard your ramblings about 100,000 times. Now
dish some TRUTH for a change--I'm going to leave space between the
questions for your answers:
Was your case appealed and was your conviction overturned?
You CLAIM there is a court Order prohibiting you from criticizing the
government. Post it!
And what isn't true? Everything can be backed up with your own posts
kathleen. Not a big secret how people know since you posted it all
here.
Were you charged with and convicted of threatening and harassing
Jessica Gauvin?
Did you flee to Canada?
Did you tell everyone that your case was a custody case against DCF
when the truth was that it was a criminal case against you and your
kids had been taken away many months earlier and you didn't even appeal
that?
Did you threaten to bomb the stonington schools, joke or not?
Did you show up at your kid's safe house with a bag full of drugs
whether you meant to give them to your lawyer or not?
Come on specifically what isn't true?
You were charged tried and convicted in a court of law. Right or wrong,
admit or deny?
Now you say you've proven you're innocent.
In what court were your convictions overturned?
In fact, tell us what the charges were. Give some detail. What exactly
were you convicted of doing or threatening to do to Jessica Gauvin?
Tell us what your diagnosis was in the mental institution?
You admit or deny that your kids were taken away by child services in
CT?
Admit or deny you were charged with crimes?
Admit or deny you feld to canada?
Admit or deny you were convicted?
Admit or deny you were institutionalized in a mental ward locked wing?
Admit or deny that your convictions were never reversed, in fact you
never filed an appeal did you?
So who's lying about what?
Yeah sure, you say everyone lied about the charges. But that's not what
the court thought was it?
Did you register a website claiming on it you were working for Pfizer
at the time when you had "retired" years before?
Was Lymeraft which solicited funds for YOU, ever a proper legally
registered charity?
Kathleen you're the liar here.
Do you really expect everyone to believe that the rest of the world is
crazy, not you?
And that the rest if the world has conspired to frame you? Because of
your lyme activism which you have even admitted amounts to more posting
on the internet than any real accomplishments?
http://groups-beta.google.com/group...wse_thread/thr=
ead/961a6d2015746801/41df41b82df2d0a1?hl=3Den#41df41b82df2d0a1
Come on kathleen. What isn't true specifically issue by issue above.
Tell us specifically which items you say aren't true. We can go back
and find the posts where you admitted stuff and show what a liar YOU
are!
And see kathleen's post advocating cyberterrorism:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group...wse_thread/thr=
ead/f4f83960053d8933/cbae392e9ba84df7?q=3DEWALD&rnum=3D3&hl=3Den#cbae392e9b=
a84df7
This is a federal crime. A SERIOUS Federal Crime. So do what you think
is right! By the way this is almost certainly a violation of her
probation/parole.
Kathleen Dickson
860-599-5451
23 Garden St., Pawcatuck 06379
Remember, she's provided everyone with contact information for the FBI
in New Haven: FBI New Haven 203-777-6311
Here's a way to contact the FBI via the internet:
FBI Tips and Public Leads
https://tips.fbi.gov/
While the FBI continues to encourage the public to submit information
regarding the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, this form may also
be used to report any suspected criminal activity to the FBI.
FBI Tips and Public Leads
Your First Name
Your Middle Name
Your Last Name
Your Phone
Your Email
Your Street 1
Your Street 2
Your Suite/Apt/Mail Stop
Your City
Your State
Your Country
Your Zip Code / Route
Please describe your information:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group...wse_thread/thr=
ead/507b61f6eeaa6a31/540c8012ea93f24d?q=3Dcyber&rnum=3D1&hl=3Den#540c8012ea=
93f24d
kathleen May 3, 1:45 pm hide options
Newsgroups: sci.med.diseases.lyme
From: "kathleen" <kathleen.dick...@snet.net> - Find messages by this
author
Date: 3 May 2005 10:45:05 -0700
Local: Tues, May 3 2005 1:45 pm
Subject: FBI Cyber Crime information
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse
http://www.fbi.gov/cyberinvest/cyberhome.htm
http://www.ic3.gov/
National White Collar crime center:
http://www.nw3c.org/----------------------------
The FBI plays two very important roles in cyberspace. First, it is the
lead law enforcement agency for investigating cyber attacks by foreign
adversaries and terrorists. The potential damage to the United
States'national security from a cyber-based attack includes
devastating interruptions of critical communications, transportation,
and other services. Additionally, such attacks could be used to access
and steal protected information and plans. The FBI also works to
prevent criminals, sexual predators, and others intent on malicious
destruction from using the Internet and on-line services to steal from,
defraud, and otherwise victimize citizens, businesses, and communities.
The mission of the Cyber Division is to:
coordinate, supervise and facilitate the FBI's investigation of those
federal violations in which the Internet, computer systems, or networks
are exploited as the principal instruments or targets of terrorist
organizations, foreign government sponsored intelligence operations, or
criminal activity and for which the use of such systems is essential to
that activity;
form and maintain public/private alliances in conjunction with enhanced
education and training to maximize counterterrorism,
counter-intelligence, and law enforcement cyber response capabilities;
and
until such time as a final decision is made regarding the future role
and location of the National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC),
the FBI will direct and coordinate the Center's mission to protect the
Nation's critical information infrastructure and other key assets.
Federal Bureau of Investigation - Contact Us
http://www.fbi.gov/contactus.htm
The FBI can be contacted twenty-four hours a day, every day. Here's
how:
FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Call (202) 324-3000 or write to the following address:
Federal Bureau of Investigation
J=2E Edgar Hoover Building
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20535-0001
Local FBI Offices
See Your Local FBI Office for the addresses and phone numbers of our
field offices nationwide-as well as links to their web sites.
FBI Offices Worldwide
If you are outside the United States and need to reach the FBI, call
the nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate office.
Reporting Crime
To report a violation of U.S. federal law or provide a possible tip in
a criminal or counterterrorism investigation, use our electronic FBI
Tips and Public Leads form. Or contact your local FBI field office or
closest international office.
To report suspected espionage activity, see our Awareness of National
Security Issues and Response (ANSIR) page.
Been victimized by an online scam? File a complaint with the Internet
Crime Complaint Center run by the FBI and the National White Collar
Crime Center.
Chuck wrote:
> ad_icon
> washingtonpost.com
> War: The Metaphor
>
> By Dan Froomkin
> Special to washingtonpost.com
> Thursday, August 4, 2005; 12:21 PM
>
> Metaphors are hell for the Bush administration.
>
> In a speech in Texas yesterday, President Bush made it clear that he is
> not deserting the "global war on terror" phraseology, in spite of
> indications from senior aides in recent weeks that a nomenclature shift
> was in the works.
>
> The much-discussed would-be change in locution to "global struggle
> against violent extremism" -- from G-WOT to G-SAVE -- had become a
> source of mirth to some administration critics.
>
> But this isn't the first time Bush or his aides have temporarily
> retreated from -- and then returned to -- the metaphor that has
> consistently been his most potent weapon in the battle for public
> opinion.
>
> Almost exactly a year ago, after one of the president's rare speeches
> to a not entirely friendly audience, Bush briefly went off script.
> Here's the transcript of the Aug. 6, 2004, event at a minority
> journalists' convention.
>
> Bush was asked to describe the mission for the U.S. troops in Iraq and
> to explain how they would know when they're done. Toward the end of his
> meandering reply, he had this to say:
>
> "We actually misnamed the war on terror. It ought to be the struggle
> against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies who
> happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the
> free world."
>
> The transcripts records laughter from the audience.
>
> Dana Milbank related the incident in The Washington Post a few days
> later. He generously offered up the acronym:
> "SAIEWDNBIFSWHTUTAAWTTTSTCOTFW."
>
> Bush never mentioned it in public again.
>
> Just a few weeks later, in an interview with Matt Lauer broadcast on
> NBC's "Today" show on Aug. 30, Bush himself exposed one of the
> metaphor's major flaws.
>
> "Lauer: So I'm just saying can we win it? Do you see that?
>
> "President Bush: I don't think you can win it. But I think you can
> create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less
> acceptable in parts of the world -- let's put it that way."
>
> The Bush campaign went into major damage control after that one.
>
> As Mike Allen reported in The Washington Post a few days later:
> "President Bush rushed Tuesday to reverse his assertion that the war on
> terrorism cannot be won, as his campaign sought to limit the damage
> from a statement that Democrats had used to paint the commander in
> chief as defeatist.
>
> " 'Make no mistake about it: We are winning and we will win,' Bush told
> the 86th annual convention of the American Legion as he continued his
> journey toward the Republican National Convention for his acceptance
> speech Thursday night."
>
> The metaphor has an internal structural weakness. War is generally
> declared against an opponent. But terror is a tactic. As some have
> pointed out, declaring a "war on terror" is like declaring a "war on
> flanking maneuvers."
>
> But this latest rebranding attempt has its roots in more practical
> considerations. Strictly speaking, the war on terror is not going well.
> Osama bin Laden is still at large and the insurgency in Iraq -- where
> terror had not previously been a problem -- is flourishing.
>
> The big thinkers in the Bush administration would understandably rather
> emphasize the (much more popular) ideological nature of the struggle
> than just the military side.
>
> As Susan B. Glasser wrote in The Washington Post in May: "The Bush
> administration has launched a high-level internal review of its efforts
> to battle international terrorism, aimed at moving away from a policy
> that has stressed efforts to capture and kill al Qaeda leaders since
> Sept. 11, 2001, and toward what a senior official called a broader
> 'strategy against violent extremism.' "
>
> Then Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker wrote in the New York Times last
> week: "The Bush administration is retooling its slogan for the fight
> against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, pushing the idea that the
> long-term struggle is as much an ideological battle as a military
> mission, senior administration and military officials said Monday. . .
> .
>
> "Administration and Pentagon officials say the revamped campaign has
> grown out of meetings of President Bush's senior national security
> advisers that began in January, and it reflects the evolution in Mr.
> Bush's own thinking nearly four years after the Sept. 11 attacks."
>
> Much discussion -- and no little ridicule -- ensued.
>
> Harvard scholar Juliette Kayyem , for instance, wrote in an op-ed in
> the Los Angeles Times: "It was President Bush himself who insisted on
> calling it a global war on terror. . . . 'A war between good and evil,'
> he called it. A war 'to save the world.'
>
> "But now, apparently, a decision has been made that the language of war
> isn't working for him anymore."
>
> On the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, correspondent/satirist Stephen
> Colbert reported: "Finally the phrase 'war on terror' is over, and we
> can all get on with our lives."
>
> But some administration observers wondered if the change in fact
> signaled a significant change in strategy.
>
> Just yesterday, Brookings Institution scholar Ivo Daalder blogged that
> it "represents a repudiation of the last four years of American
> policy."
> But No
>
> Richard W. Stevenson writes in today's New York Times that Bush left no
> doubt yesterday: "President Bush publicly overruled some of his top
> advisers on Wednesday in a debate about what to call the conflict with
> Islamic extremists, saying, 'Make no mistake about it, we are at war.'
>
> "In a speech here, Mr. Bush used the phrase 'war on terror' no less
> than five times. Not once did he refer to the 'global struggle against
> violent extremism,' the wording consciously adopted by Defense
> Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other officials in recent weeks after
> internal deliberations about the best way to communicate how the United
> States views the challenge it is facing."
>
> Stevenson writes that "administration officials became concerned when
> some news reports linked the change in language to signals of a shift
> in policy. At the same time, Mr. Bush, by some accounts, told aides
> that he was not happy with the new phrasing, a change of tone from the
> wording he had consistently used since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
>
> "It is not clear whether the new language embraced by other
> administration officials was adopted without Mr. Bush's approval or
> whether he reversed himself after the change was made."
>
> Here is the text of Bush's speech.
>
> Reuters reports: "President Bush, following the deadliest roadside bomb
> attack on U.S. forces in Iraq, said on Wednesday the best way to honor
> the dead was to fight the insurgents and train Iraqi troops, and he
> rejected any early U.S. pullout."
> Ziggurat of Zealotry?
>
> The Financial Times editorializes that "the Bush administration
> sometimes resembles the Chinese communist party in the pithy language
> and acronyms it concocts to get important messages across to an
> American public that is really not very interested. . . .
>
> "Another catchphrase, favoured by Philip Zelikow, the State department
> guru on all this, to describe al-Qaeda's radical message of terror, is
> 'the ziggurat of zealotry'."
> Poll Watch
>
> CBS News reports on its latest poll: "The president's approval level
> remains below 50 percent, and Americans are still divided over the war
> in Iraq. They are paying attention to one of the summer's major news
> stories -- the possible 2003 leak to reporters of the identity of CIA
> covert agent Valerie Plame. In fact, the story has captured a level of
> attention from the public similar to the early stages of political
> scandals such as Whitewater, the Democrats' 1996 fundraising and Iran
> Contra. . . .
>
> "Americans are skeptical about the Bush administration's behavior and
> public statements about the 2003 leak of the name of undercover CIA
> officer Valerie Plame to reporters. Only 12 percent think the Bush
> administration is telling the entire truth about the matter; more than
> half -- 55 percent -- think the administration is mostly telling the
> truth but hiding something, and another 22 percent think it is lying."
>
> Here are the complete results .
> Could Get Worse
>
> Agence France Presse reports: "Another day of carnage in Iraq
> threatened to deal a new blow to brittle public backing for President
> George W. Bush's handling of the war, as 14 Marines perished in a
> roadside bombing. . . .
>
> "[T]he fact that the admired and talismanic US Marines were caught in
> the crosshairs could weigh on public opinion, after recent polls showed
> increasing disquiet among Americans at the cost of the Iraq war."
> Pushing the Domestic Message
>
> Jim VandeHei writes in The Washington Post: "President Bush said
> Wednesday that the combination of Republican tax cuts and new
> pro-business policies is helping to spread 'economic vitality' across
> the country and has put the White House ahead of pace toward trimming
> the deficit in half by 2009. . . .
>
> "The president has not realized the lift in public polls that aides had
> hoped for amid the upbeat economic news and bipartisan agreements on
> Capitol Hill. With Bush's approval ratings stuck at or near all-time
> lows in several national surveys, GOP strategists suspect that high
> gasoline prices and uncertainty in Iraq have overshadowed job gains, a
> strong stock market, and better-than-expected economic growth and
> legislative results. . . .
>
> "Bush and congressional Republicans plan to spend much of August
> touting the economic indicators and the potential benefits of the new
> energy and transportation policies, which will pour billions of dollars
> into local communities and scores of industries."
> Big Spenders
>
> Jonathan Weisman writes in The Washington Post: "When the year started,
> President Bush made spending restraint a mantra, laying out an austere
> budget that would freeze non-security discretionary spending for five
> years and setting firm cost limits on transportation and energy bills.
> But now, as Congress fills in the details of the budget plan, there is
> little interest in making deep cuts and enormous pressure to spend.
>
> "Lawmakers have seen little to fear from a political backlash, some
> acknowledge, and Bush has yet to wield his veto pen. In fact, the White
> House has proved itself largely unable to overcome the institutional
> forces that have long driven lawmakers to ply their parochial interests
> with cash."
>
> Carl Hulse writes in the New York Times: "In a piece of legislative
> legerdemain, Congress managed to stuff an extra $8.5 billion into the
> highway bill and still meet Mr. Bush's demands by requiring that the
> added money be turned back to the Treasury on Sept. 30, 2009, the day
> the bill expires.
>
> "The question of whether that new bottom line translates into financial
> flexibility or fiscal irresponsibility now depends on who is adding
> things up.
>
> "Budget watchdog groups, already upset at spending they equate to
> highway bill robbery, say the maneuver is the crowning offense
> perpetrated by a profligate Congress and exposes the administration as
> co-conspirators."
> About ALEC
>
> Bush's speech yesterday, by the way, was to the American Legislative
> Exchange Council (ALEC), a group of conservative policy advocates
> founded in 1973 by Paul Weyrich, and historically funded by
> conservative foundations, pro-gun groups and corporations, including
> pharmaceutical manufacturers and tobacco companies.
> Rove Watch
>
> Paul Bedard writes in U.S. News: "White House officials and senior
> Republican strategists are bracing for a new round of attacks on Deputy
> Chief of Staff Karl Rove's involvement in the CIA leak probe, as
> Democrats move to take advantage of the slow news cycle in August. But
> insiders say they don't expect to hear anything new in the charges.
>
> " 'There is no new news,' says one senior White House adviser and Rove
> ally. 'Rove is cool as a cucumber.'
>
> "The Democrats, nonetheless, are looking at the case involving the leak
> of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame as a way to paint the White
> House as stonewalling a legitimate investigation. Coupled with the Bush
> administration's decision not to provide all documents related to
> Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts, some Democrats believe they can
> make the case that the White House isn't being honest with the public.
> Part of the strategy was unveiled this week when the Democratic
> National Committee released a fact sheet titled 'Mr. Bush, Tear Down
> That Stone Wall.' The opening paragraph said the theme will be built on
> every day."
>
> Terry Gross had New York Times reporter Adam Liptak and Wall Street
> Journal reporter Anne Marie Squeo talking about the Plame case on
> Tuesday.
>
> Here's Liptak on syndicated columnist Robert Novak, who first published
> Plame's identity: "Robert Novak, although he's free to talk about what
> he may have said to the grand jury, if indeed he testified, just won't
> lay out the facts. And that lack of transparency is a kind of
> violation, I think, of the bond that journalists have with their
> readers -- not to say who his source was, no one's suggesting that --
> but that he should say what he has done or not done in cooperating with
> the special prosecutor in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald."
>
> Here's Liptak on the news-gathering process on the story: "Well, it's a
> funny thing because even as this case supposedly is drying up
> confidential sources all over town, in this very case people are
> leaking like crazy. And, of course, they leak for partisan ends."
>
> Here's Liptak apparently acknowledging that none of his leaks are
> coming from the prosecution: "Grand juries are secret, meant to be
> secret, and perhaps Anne Marie has better luck than me. But Patrick
> Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, has run an exceedingly tight ship."
>
> Here's Liptak on whether jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller
> has ever even asked her source for permission to break confidentiality:
> "Judy and her lawyers have declined to answer the question of whether
> they have done anything at all to contact the source and try to obtain
> a satisfactory waiver."
>
> And here's why Liptak thinks it's a great story: "It's just
> fascinating. It's authentically important. It implicates Justice,
> intelligence, foreign policy, the role of the press. It's a terrific,
> fascinating story, and I only wish it were a little less tangled
> because I have the feeling that sometimes readers get lost when you try
> to explain, as we have to over paragraph after paragraph, the tangled
> background of the story. But the patient reader who, you know, is
> willing to absorb and take it all in will find that it's a very
> illuminating, interesting story."
>
> Here's Squeo agreeing: "Yeah, absolutely. And . . . to echo what Adam
> has said, I mean, I think that as a reporter, these are the kinds of
> stories you want to cover. You know, it's kind of invigorating, and
> every morning you pick up your rivals' newspapers with dread and
> anticipation that they may have scooped you, you know, or really
> excited 'cause you might have scooped them. And, I mean, I think it's
> -- you know, if you're a reporter, this is a hot story. There's a lot
> of very interesting aspects to it. And, you know, there's still so much
> intrigue about it that we have yet to find out."
> Fitzgerald Indicts and Chuckles
>
> Meanwhile, Fitzgerald held a press conference yesterday to announce
> indictments -- but not in this case. Something about fraud in Chicago .
>
> Abdon M. Pallasch writes in the Chicago Sun Times: "U.S. Attorney
> Patrick Fitzgerald was a bit coy Wednesday when asked if he wants to
> stay on the job.
>
> " 'I'm going to just do my job until somebody tells me otherwise,' he
> said. 'I love my job. I'm very, very lucky to work with the people
> behind me. I have no plans to do anything else.' . . .
>
> "How many more years would he like to serve?
>
> " 'I'm not going to start lobbying for a job,' he said. 'You always
> serve at the pleasure and the will of the president. You're not
> guaranteed four years. You're just told you're very lucky to get a job.
> You do your job and if someone tells you it no longer serves the
> pleasure of the president, you pack your bags and you move on.''
>
> "Chuckling a little, he added, 'I'm just doing my job, and if the phone
> doesn't ring and someone tells me to leave, I just keep doing my job.'
> "
> Colombian Visitor
>
> Nedra Picker writes for the Associated Press: "President Bush has
> turned his remote ranch into a stage for down-home diplomacy, where a
> barbecue grill and a pickup truck have become his favorite tools for
> dealing with world leaders.
>
> "The 1,600-acre property in central Texas is a place where aides say
> the president feels most comfortable and can spend more get-to-know-you
> time with his guests than in hurried Washington. On Thursday, Colombian
> President Alvaro Uribe will be the 14th foreign leader to visit the
> ranch."
>
> The Associated Press has a list of foreign dignitaries who have visited
> Bush at his ranch.
>
> Andy Webb-Vidal writes in the Financial Times: "President George W.
> Bush will today welcome his Colombian counterpart, Alvaro Uribe, to his
> ranch near Crawford, Texas, cementing a political relationship that is
> now Washington's most significant in Latin America.
>
> "The meeting is important for Mr Uribe, who wants to get more military
> and financial aid to improve his chances of defeating a 41-year-old
> insurgency that funds itself largely from Colombia's illegal drug
> exports."
> Over There
>
> Richard Wolffe and Holly Bailey write in Newsweek about the White
> House's great interest in the new 13-part drama "Over There" on FX --
> the first TV drama about the current war in Iraq.
>
> "The art-imitates-real-life idea is breaking new ground in both TV and
> politics, posing a curious question for President Bush and his aides:
> could 'Over There' affect the already-fragile poll numbers on Iraq?
> According to one senior Bush aide, the president has voiced a strong
> interest in the series but hasn't yet seen it for himself. Bush quizzed
> his aides last week about how the show was produced and how faithful it
> was to the conflict. 'Does it really depict what is going on? Do you
> get a sense of it?' Bush asked. In fact, just a handful of senior aides
> have seen the show and report it to be 'riveting' and 'pretty vivid.'
> But the senior aide says, 'We don't have an official opinion yet. I
> don't think enough people have seen it.'
>
> "You can understand why Bush's aides would be unsure of the show. While
> the White House likes to honor the troops in Iraq, it remains uneasy
> about other institutions speaking for those same troops."
> The Helen Thomas Affair
>
> Albert Eisele writes in The Hill about how Helen Thomas's private
> commentary about Vice President Cheney ended up on the Drudge Report.
>
> After a conversation with Thomas, which Eisele believed was clearly on
> the record, he recounted, "I then wrote what I thought was an innocuous
> item in our 'Under the Dome' column Thursday in which I quoted her
> response: 'The day I say Dick Cheney is going to run for president,
> I'll kill myself. All we need is one more liar.' She says I shouldn't
> have quoted her 'because we all say stuff we don't want printed.'
>
> "Little did I know, being a creature of the typewriter/telegraph era of
> journalism, that cybergossip Matt Drudge would pounce on the item and
> transmit it to the farthest regions of the Internet universe, along
> with an unflattering photograph of Ms. Thomas. That was all Drudge
> acolytes needed to unleash a flood of e-mails condemning her -- and me,
> as her unwitting accomplice."
> =A9 2005 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...4/BL2005080400=
971_pf.html
|