Tartarin wrote:Let Scrat believe as s/he does. Serves us very well in the long run. Shhhhh.
I absolutely love that I am being taken to task for speaking out against election fraud. I love it. Thank God I didn't take a stand against rape or murder. I bet I really would have caught hell then.
you bet scrat, us'n liberals are all agog about rape and murder, its just what we do....well, when not fooling around with chickens that is....
Scrat is a delight, the squealy little sister just waiting to be teased! Thank you, Scrat. I was always the little sister. Nice to have someone to nudge and tickle!
Tartarin
Don't pick on scrat he is sensitive.
Tartarin wrote:Scrat is a delight, the squealy little sister just waiting to be teased! Thank you, Scrat. I was always the little sister. Nice to have someone to nudge and tickle!
How lovely for you to have me to blame for your complete lack of social graces and civility, and how fortunate that the moderators simply sit on their hands while you once again turn a worthwhile discussion into a vehicle for your petty little insults.
S/he sure is sensitive. That comment was meant as a joke. Scrat may not be a laugher. I guess that WAS a squeal I heard!!
Well, Scrat, you sailed through that one. Must give you a real feeling of freedom.
Mapleleaf has often requested data on the men and women behind the candidate. A bit here about those working for John Edwards:
Quote:"It is no coincidence that Edwards sought a centrist solution: Bruce Reed, head of the Democratic Leadership Council and former Clinton aide, helped write the plan, while Wendy Button, who recently left the staff of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), wrote his speech. Edwards, who talks to Bill Clinton frequently about his speeches and political strategy, is clearly emulating the former president in both style and substance. The health care proposal fits nicely into that 'New Democrat' mold, said Reed. 'And if we are going to enact a health care plan, it has to be one we can afford.'"
Wa Po
"Senator Graham is a serious man. He's running a serious campaign, dealing with serious issues. And he's one of the Democratic candidates who deserves serious consideration. And there's one other thing Democrats should consider and Republicans should fear. Unlike this president, Bob Graham has demonstrated an ability to win Florida."
--James Carville
Bob Graham's formal request to the White House to declassify a portion of the 9/11 Commission's report on Saudi ties to al-Qaeda, also requested by the government of Saudi Arabia, was denied by the Bush administration:
Quote:President Bush refused on Tuesday to release classified passages from a congressional report on possible links between Saudi Arabian government officials and the Sept. 11 hijackers. Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal agreed to let U.S. investigators question a suspected Saudi agent who befriended the hijackers.
Bush said he would not comply with a Saudi request to declassify 28 pages from the 850-page report because it could compromise national security. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., the former vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, disagreed, reiterating his view that "90, 95 percent of it would not compromise, in my judgment, anything in national security." Bush ignored a reporter's question on Shelby's assessment.
"Saudi Arabia is indicted by insinuation," Prince Saud told reporters at the White House. "It is an outrage to any sense of fairness that 28 blank pages are now considered substantial evidence to proclaim the guilt of a country that has been a true friend and partner to the United States for over 60 years."
Yahoo! News
PDiddie -- I'm really liking Bob Graham, have all the way along. Think we may have discussed this already. But here's a new thought? To what extent are the Dem candidates acting as a team? More than one might think, I believe... I don't much care for where Edwards' mouth is these days, though it must give Al From comfort!!
So, I dont get it. Most posts I saw thus far on the issue claimed that the blanked-out pages in the report were censored to prevent it from becoming clear that the real Al-Qaeda link was in S-A, not in Saddam's Iraq. But now even the Saudis themselves are demanding those parts to be declassified? So, why's the government insisting on the secrecy, if its not to 'protect' the Saudis?
(This is
really, btw, just a way to bookmark a thread that I've been reading for months already, without ever having added something myself - see, even I can shut up, sometimes ...
nimh
We'll have to take your word on the reading but not talking, as our first sight of you is this verbal instance.
But your confusion is shared. Something in here is not consistent. I wish I could trust any of them (Saudi or administration) to be truthful in their statements, but I don't. There are serious corporate connections and interests behind the scenes, and they are unquestionably in play. It could even be the case that the Saudi protest and request for release of information is made for appearance reasons, but with the prior understanding that no release will follow. We'll just have to hope some dilligent and resourceful reporters can find some loose strings to pull on.
PD, thanks for the behind the scenes insight.
Quote:I wish I could trust any of them
...sad, isn't it...I suppose most of us have that feeling.
I read today that the Saudis are accepting the decision not to declassify the section of the 9-11 report regarding them. I guess if the US had classified a section about me that showed I was either a willing and knowing money pumper for the terrorists OR a too rich dope who didn't have a clue where any of the cash I was doling out was going to (including to people that might kill me.) I think I would be happy to continue to have that all be a secret.
How bout you?
(I posted this in the US/Iraq string too)
Nimh, Blatham -- I'm gonna to lay mahself out for a flayin' here, but when I first heard about the 28 pages, I thought I "knew" for sure. We'll see. Deep within our "diplomatic" and economic relationship with Saudi lie a network of business relationships, some very unsavory, reflecting badly on many of the Bush family's (and others') dealings. There've been hints of this right out in the open for years. The Saudis don't give a damn about this kind of corruption, it's endemic. It's endemic here, too, but we like to think it is not. Once the Sy Hersh's and others get their hands on the details... open confirmation of what they've been unable to print so far... or perhaps more accurately, once muckrakers are able to use this material freely, the box will be open, the sins will be romping all over the media, the morning talk shows, the New Yorker, etc. etc. No longer under the rug, right out in full view, a living issue for so many more voters.... That's my theory.
I heard something on the radio yesterday and wanted to float it here.
Sen Chris Dodd (D-CT) and a few other demmocrats who aren't running were discussing the field of candiadates.
They seemed to have a concensus that both Dean and Kerry had to win the NH primary to have any possibility of winning the nomination, Gephardt has to win Iowa and Edwards has to win in the Carolinas. They also pushed the idea that Lieberman only has to do well (but not necessarily win) in 2 of these to win the nomination.
For the life of me I can't see the reasoning in their view. Is it purely a "you must win near your home state or it shows you don't have much of a following" thing? Have any of you heard anything similar to this and gotten any more info on the though process behind it?
blatham wrote:But your confusion is shared. Something in here is not consistent. I wish I could trust any of them (Saudi or administration) to be truthful in their statements, but I don't. There are serious corporate connections and interests behind the scenes, and they are unquestionably in play. It could even be the case that the Saudi protest and request for release of information is made for appearance reasons, but with the prior understanding that no release will follow. We'll just have to hope some dilligent and resourceful reporters can find some loose strings to pull on.
Good comments. I think the request was more likely a gamble, betting that no release would occur, but you could be right about prior information. I'm not comfortable with our ties with the House of Saud and would have added them to the Axis of Evil speech while I was at it. Our country permits too many evils from those with whom we lay down.
And get up up flea-ridden . . .
You know, Fishin', I think all bets are off in the sense that the old models (which Dodd's notion is based on) are no longer being followed. MoveOn, Dean, and the sheer power of the kind of money which supports Bush change the picture a lot. The problem with the DLC/DNC is, in part, their failure to have recognized these changes back in the '90's and reframe their game plan. Dean has given them a jolt, but it's surely a bit late. The DLC/DNC and elected Dems in Washington will try to maintain power, try to play and measure success by their old rules, try to understand the process according to their old models, but I suspect they won't succeed.
Someone posting in the official Dean blog (worth keeping track of, by the way), a fervent younger supporter, wrote that his parents keep saying Dean will never win because the only support he has is from what he called "the Village/Berkeley" people. But we know from Dean's successes in moving around the country -- vide Iowa -- that he appeals to the "Grant Wood" people too! His support in Texas is growing rapidly and reaches well beyond Austin's liberal-land.
