0
   

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2004 09:20 pm
Lifting my coffee mug to the arrangement.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2004 10:14 pm
Sixty Minutes tonight carried a story which related that even now, this long after 9-11, American chemical companies yet remain under NO security restrictions or codes imposed by government. As noted, this makes the potential of a Bophal in the middle of any large american city. A bill which attempted to correct this rather significant oversight was crushed by the industry. Reporters were able to enter through unlocked gates and walk about without being stopped or questioned.

Full data ought to be up on their site today or tomorrow.

But wouldn't you think competent governance would be on top of this one??? On the other hand, when that government is counting on such businesses for campaign donations...
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2004 10:28 pm
The words no executive wants to hear:
"Sir, there are some people here to see you. They're from '60 Minutes' ... "
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2004 10:50 pm
Yes. I'm not an executive, so for me it is "Bernie, the vice squad is here to see you."
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2004 10:50 pm
ps

Glad to yak with you here again.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2004 10:15 am
Quote:
competent governance


And, where can this be found Question
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2004 10:37 am
Bill, We'd be hard pressed to find any place on this globe where "competent governance" can be found. Wink
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2004 10:39 am
On second thought, maybe it's Iraq. They're the only one's working hard at creating a democratic government - with all the inherent handicaps of outside influence and terrorism at their doorstep. Gotta give them credit for trying - hard.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2004 10:50 am
Dear MoveOn member,

Just this morning, the L.A. Times released a new Halliburton bombshell: it's now clear that over the protests of an Army official, Vice President Cheney's office helped ensure that Cheney's old company Halliburton would receive a $7 billion no-bid contract for rebuilding Iraq.[1] Faced with a choice between serving our troops and helping out his corporate buddies, Cheney chose the latter.

The timing for our new ad exposing how Halliburton and Bush administration officials took taxpayers for a ride couldn't be better. And starting tomorrow, Congress will be holding hearings on whether Halliburton used its close ties to administration officials to get sweetheart deals, shortchanging both our troops and U.S. taxpayers. Since Thursday afternoon, we've already raised about $420,000 to air the ad. But in order to get the ad in front of swing-state voters for a week starting tomorrow, we'll need to raise about $1.1 million. Together, if we all pitch in what we can, we can make it happen.

Take a look at the finished ad and help get it on the air at:

EDIT (MODERATOR): Link Removed

The list of governmental investigations against Halliburton just keeps on growing. Just last Friday, Halliburton disclosed yet another one -- the SEC is investigating one of its subsidiaries for foreign corruption. Halliburton's unethical behavior is in the news this week, and with your help we can get it in front of key voters in battleground states as well.

Thanks for all of your help. We've attached the original email on the ad - which has a lot more detail about Halliburton's shady deals with the Bush administration - below.

Sincerely,

--Eli Pariser
MoveOn PAC
June 14th, 2004
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2004 02:33 pm
Quote:
Ex-diplomats call for Bush's defeat

Group to issue statement Wednesday

The Associated Press
Updated: 9:10 p.m. ET June 13, 2004

WASHINGTON - Angered by Bush administration policies they contend endanger national security, 26 retired U.S. diplomats and military officers are urging Americans to vote President Bush out of office in November.

The group, which calls itself Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, does not explicitly endorse Democrat John Kerry for president in its campaign, which will start officially Wednesday at a Washington news conference.

The Bush-Cheney campaign said Sunday it would have no response until the group formally issues its statement at the news conference.

Among the group are 20 ambassadors, appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents, other former State Department officials and military leaders whose careers span three decades.

Prominent members include retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East during the administration of Bush's father; retired Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., ambassador to Britain under President Clinton and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Reagan; and Jack F. Matlock Jr., a member of the National Security Council under Reagan and ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991.

"We agreed that we had just lost confidence in the ability of the Bush administration to advocate for American interests or to provide the kind of leadership that we think is essential," said William C. Harrop, the first President Bush's ambassador to Israel, and earlier to four African countries.

"The group does not endorse Kerry, although it more or less goes without saying in the statement," Harrop said Sunday in a telephone interview.

Harrop said he listed himself as an independent for years for career purposes but usually has voted Republican.

The former ambassador said diplomats and military officials normally avoid making political statements, especially in an election year.

"Some of us are not that comfortable with it, but we just feel very strongly that the country needs new leadership," Harrop said.

He said the group was disillusioned by Bush's handling of the war in Iraq and a list of other subjects, including the Middle East, environmental conservation, AIDS policy, ethnic and religious conflict and weapons proliferation.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2004 03:17 pm
Not Even a Hedgehog
The stupidity of Ronald Reagan.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 7, 2004, at 10:03 AM PT



Neither a fox nor a hedgehog

Not long ago, I was invited to be the specter at the feast during "Ronald Reagan Appreciation Week" at Wabash College in Indiana. One of my opponents was Dinesh D'Souza: He wasn't the only one who maintained that Reagan had been historically vindicated by the wreckage of the Soviet Union. Some of us on the left had also been very glad indeed to see the end of the Russian empire and the Cold War. But nothing could make me forget what the Reagan years had actually been like.

Ronald Reagan claimed that the Russian language had no word for "freedom." (The word is "svoboda"; it's quite well attested in Russian literature.) Ronald Reagan said that intercontinental ballistic missiles (not that there are any non-ballistic missiles?-a corruption of language that isn't his fault) could be recalled once launched. Ronald Reagan said that he sought a "Star Wars" defense only in order to share the technology with the tyrants of the U.S.S.R. Ronald Reagan professed to be annoyed when people called it "Star Wars," even though he had ended his speech on the subject with the lame quip, "May the force be with you." Ronald Reagan used to alarm his Soviet counterparts by saying that surely they'd both unite against an invasion from Mars. Ronald Reagan used to alarm other constituencies by speaking freely about the "End Times" foreshadowed in the Bible. In the Oval Office, Ronald Reagan told Yitzhak Shamir and Simon Wiesenthal, on two separate occasions, that he himself had assisted personally at the liberation of the Nazi death camps.

There was more to Ronald Reagan than that. Reagan announced that apartheid South Africa had "stood beside us in every war we've ever fought," when the South African leadership had been on the other side in the most recent world war. Reagan allowed Alexander Haig to greenlight the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, fired him when that went too far and led to mayhem in Beirut, then ran away from Lebanon altogether when the Marine barracks were bombed, and then unbelievably accused Tip O'Neill and the Democrats of "scuttling." Reagan sold heavy weapons to the Iranian mullahs and lied about it, saying that all the weapons he hadn't sold them (and hadn't traded for hostages in any case) would, all the same, have fit on a small truck. Reagan then diverted the profits of this criminal trade to an illegal war in Nicaragua and lied unceasingly about that, too. Reagan then modestly let his underlings maintain that he was too dense to understand the connection between the two impeachable crimes. He then switched without any apparent strain to a policy of backing Saddam Hussein against Iran. (If Margaret Thatcher's intelligence services had not bugged Oliver North in London and become infuriated because all European nations were boycotting Iran at Reagan's request, we might still not know about this.)


One could go on. I only saw him once up close, which happened to be when he got a question he didn't like. Was it true that his staff in the 1980 debates had stolen President Carter's briefing book? (They had.) The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard. His reply was that maybe his staff had, and maybe they hadn't, but what about the leak of the Pentagon Papers? Thus, a secret theft of presidential documents was equated with the public disclosure of needful information. This was a man never short of a cheap jibe or the sort of falsehood that would, however laughable, buy him some time.

The fox, as has been pointed out by more than one philosopher, knows many small things, whereas the hedgehog knows one big thing. Ronald Reagan was neither a fox nor a hedgehog. He was as dumb as a stump. He could have had anyone in the world to dinner, any night of the week, but took most of his meals on a White House TV tray. He had no friends, only cronies. His children didn't like him all that much. He met his second wife?-the one that you remember?-because she needed to get off a Hollywood blacklist and he was the man to see. Year in and year out in Washington, I could not believe that such a man had even been a poor governor of California in a bad year, let alone that such a smart country would put up with such an obvious phony and loon.

However, there came a day when Mikhail Gorbachev visited Washington and when the Marriott Hotel?-host of the summit press conferences?-turned its restaurant into the "Glasnost Cafe." On the sidewalk, LaRouche supporters wearing Reagan masks paraded with umbrellas, in mimicry of Neville Chamberlain. I huddled from dawn to dusk with friends, wondering if it could be real. Many of those friends had twice my IQ, or let's say six times that of the then-chief executive. These friends had all deeply wanted either Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale to be, presumably successively, the president instead of Reagan. They would go on to put Michael Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen bumper stickers on their vehicles. No doubt they wish that Mondale had been in the White House when the U.S.S.R. threw in the towel, just as they presumably yearn to have had Dukakis on watch when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. I have been wondering ever since not just about the stupidity of American politics, but about the need of so many American intellectuals to prove themselves clever by showing that they are smarter than the latest idiot in power, or the latest Republican at any rate.

******

Sen. John Kerry waited until the first week of June 2004 to tell us that he met Ahmad Chalabi in London in 1998 and that he didn't care for him then. That makes six intervening years in which the senator could have alerted us to this lurking danger to national security. But something kept him quiet. One must hope that that something wasn't the tendency to pile on. Cheer up, though. At least this shows that Kerry has no pre-emptive capacity.


Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His latest book, Blood, Class and Empire, is out in paperback.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 07:03 am
Quote:
A NYT editorial notices that Angola has become a huge oil producer while its population is among "the world's most miserable," in large part because the Angolan government steals scads of oil revenue?-by one estimate, nine percent of the country's total domestic product. The president of Angola has twice visited the White House and President Bush, who once said, "Corrupt regimes that give nothing to their people deserve nothing from us." The Times notes, "In December, Washington deemed Angola eligible for trade preferences, based on a set of criteria that are supposed to include corruption-related policies." This editorial aside, and with the notable exception of the LAT, the papers have basically ignored the administration's oil-friendly actions involving unsavory leaders in West Africa.


To be found HERE. All references are linked on that page (scroll to very bottom).
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 07:21 am
Quote:
Reporters in chains
Under Homeland Security orders, journalists from England, Sweden, Holland and other friendly countries are being detained at U.S. airports, strip-searched and deported.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Robert Schlesinger



June 15, 2004 | The Department of Homeland Security has started enforcing an obscure provision in immigration law requiring foreign journalists to seek special visas before entering the United States, even though their nonreporting countrymen can enter without any visa at all. Last year, at least 13 foreign journalists were detained and deported at U.S. airports -- most in Los Angeles -- according to the advocacy group Reporters Without Borders. At least one more journalist was similarly turned away this year after being detained, interrogated and strip-searched.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/06/15/foreign_reporters/index.html
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 07:25 am
isn't it about time we shut down the most dangerous institution in america, the library?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 07:28 am
Sex shops first, then library.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 08:42 am
the library, why, my god, there goes Laura's credentials........
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 09:20 am
The new book out "Misunderestimated" speaks to Timber's argument beautifully. It's a good read.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 09:56 am
http://www.buzzflash.com/premiums/graphics/takethem_200.jpg

Quote:
Who could forget Barbara Bush on "Good Morning America"? "Why should we hear about body bags and deaths and how many...It's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?" Babs declared in all seriousness.

Or Ann Coulter, opining: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

Or George W. Bush to the Palestinian Prime Minister: "God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you can help me, I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 10:14 am
Not libraries! We just opened up a spanking new library in Santa Clara with the latest in everything - with self check outs. It's really a beautiful building with a second story and quiet study room (first time I've ever seen one). If any of you come to visit this way, ask to see the Santa Clara main library.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 10:46 am
Bush Campaign Lies (From http://bushcampaignlies.blogspot.com/)
Monday, June 14, 2004
A Brief Respite, and then, a New Voice

Bush Campaign Lie #62: John Kerry Suggested that All Soldiers in Iraq Were Responsible for Abu Ghraib Abuses

According to the Washington Post, on May 12, Bush campaign chair Marc Racicot told reporters in a conference call that Kerry had suggested that all 150,000 soldiers in Iraq were 'somehow universally
responsible' for the torture at Abu Ghraib. The Post follows up by noting that this charge simply isn't true:

Racicot, for instance, told reporters that Kerry suggested that 150,000 or so U.S. troops are "somehow universally responsible" for the
misdeeds of a small number of American soldiers and contractors. Racicot made several variations of this charge. But Kerry never said this, or
anything like it.

As evidence, Racicot pointed to the following quote Kerry made at a fundraiser on Tuesday: "What has happened is not just something that a few a privates or corporals or sergeants engaged in. This is something that comes out of an attitude about the rights of prisoners of war, it's an attitude that comes out of America's overall arrogance in its policy that is alienating countries all around the world."

What Racicot did not mention was that Kerry preceded this remark by saying, "I know that what happened over there is not the behavior of 99.9 percent of our troops."

The Post has been quite thorough. They report Racicot's original statement and his justification, and then they point out that Racicot was intentionally quoting Kerry out of context. It would seem our work here is done.

Only there's more. A more recent Post story ticks off a long litany of wrong or misleading statements by the Bush campaign; a litany which the Bush folks cannot afford to ignore. And the Post brings up Racicot's lie one more time:

Earlier this month, Bush-Cheney Chairman Marc Racicot told reporters in a conference call that Kerry suggested in a speech that 150,000 U.S.
troops are "universally responsible" for the misdeeds of a few soldiers at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison -- a statement the candidate never made. In
that one call, Racicot made at least three variations of this claim and the campaign cut off a reporter who challenged him on it.

The Bush folks presented a lengthy rebuttal to the Post's charges. When they attempted to rebut this particular charge, what did they resort to?
For one thing, they never denied that Racicot made the statement, so we may conclude that he actually did. Instead, they charged that Kerry was
politicizing the scandal and as proof they presented --- the same out-of-context Kerry quote which the Post debunked on May 13. So this
should really polish off this lie.

But there's still more, because the Bush folks are using this distorted quote as proof that Kerry is politicizing Abu Ghraib. As further evidence, they cite the fact that the Kerry campaign sent out at least two emails asking supporters to sign a petition calling for Rumsfeld's resignation --- and asking for contributions to Kerry's campaign. The
support for this charge comes from the notoriously partisan Washington Times. But even the Times article includes the DNC's response stating the obvious:

Mr. Cabrera and Mr. McAuliffe said the Kerry campaign's request for donations is "a standard contribution link" that appears throughout the
RNC and DNC Web sites, even on Web pages dealing with the war on terror.

This is a point which should be obvious to anyone who gives it two seconds' thought: every mass email from the Kerry campaign or the DNC
(and from the Bush campaign and the RNC too, I would guess) is written in a standard template which carries a 'Donate' link. The fact that
such a thing appeared on emails dealing with Abu Ghraib is neither surprising nor indicative of any impropriety.

But let's be honest for a minute. It's an election year. The DNC and the Kerry campaign exist to make their guy look good, and to make Bush look
bad, just like the RNC and Bush campaign exist to make Bush look good and Kerry look bad. Whenever something goes wrong for Bush, of course the DNC and Kerry campaign will emphasize it, and of course they're doing it to help their candidate. This is all just a game. The Kerry
camp will deny that they are trying to gain politically by emphasizing the scandal, even though they really are. The Bush camp will act horrified that Kerry would do such a thing, even though they would behave exactly the same way --- if not worse --- if the tables were turned. No one is pure in this.

But consider this. The worst thing the Kerry folks did was to use their standard email template in sending out a plea to oust Rumsfeld. The worst thing the Bush folks did was to repeatedly distort one of Kerry's statements in order to support their lie that Kerry was politicizing Abu Ghraib and holding all of our troops responsible for it. That's a significant difference. 10:18 PM
Comments (13) | Trackback (0)
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
Bush Campaign Lie #61: The Washington Post Made 10 Misstatements in Criticizing Bush Yesterday, I cited a Washington Post article which slammed the Bush campaign for 'making history with often-misleading attacks.' This article contained some criticisms of the Kerry campaign as well. Of course the Bush campaign has responded, insisting that the Post has it all wrong, and has listed in sickening detail what it says are 10 misstatements in the Post article.

Most of the Post statements have been corroborated here. So I'm going to list all of the passages from the Post article which the Bush folks say are wrong, and provide links to my own corroboration of those statements where appropriate. One of the rebuttals (number 5) will be addressed in a future post.

1. On March 11, the Bush team released a spot saying that in his first 100 days in office Kerry would 'raise taxes by at least $900 billion.' Kerry has said no such thing; the number was developed by the Bush campaign's calculations of Kerry's proposals.
The Post is dead right here. See lie #6.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 03/20/2026 at 03:24:12