"Ridiculous!" That is not the way this White House operates."
"No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States,"
Monday, July 11, 2005 5:04 p.m. EDT
Julianne Malveaux: USA, Bush Are 'Terrorists'
Semi-regular USA Today columnist Julianne Malveaux said Monday that President Bush is "a terrorist" and that America is "a terrorist nation."
In an interview that began with Malveaux accusing U.S. troops of "beating" terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, the controversial author and economist told ABC Radio host Sean Hannity:
"Terrorism in the United States is as old as we are. You want me to give you a litany of terrorism? You want me to start with what's happened to the Indian population? You want to go on to what happened in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1921?"
"C'mon now, Sean," Malveaux told Hannity. "We are terrorists."
Asked point-blank if the U.S. was a "terrorist nation," Malveaux shot back: "Oh, Absolutely."
In the next breath she added, "The chickens have come home to roost," in an apparent reference to the 9/11 attacks.
Asked if America was "a good country," Malveaux responded tersely, "We're a country." Pressed on why she omitted the adjective "good," she replied: "I can't answer that. I think we have some good and I think we have some evil."
As the interview was winding up, Malveaux went on a tear about the Iraq war and "the weapons of mass distraction."
"You know they weren't there. I know they weren't there," she told Hannity. "George W. Bush is evil. He is a terrorist. He is evil. He is arrogant. And he is out of control."
Jailed Journalist Reports NY Times Desecration
by Scott Ott
(2005-07-09) -- Law enforcement authorities in major U.S. cities put riot police on high alert today after recently-jailed journalist Judith Miller complained that prison guards had desecrated her copy of The New York Times.
"We know that journalists worship the Times," said one deputy police chief, "If they take to the streets in protest, things could get ugly fast."
Ms. Miller, who works for the Times' counter-intelligence department, told an unnamed visitor that her copy of the revered 'Gray Lady' had been carelessly tossed on the floor, handled by a conservative Republican jailer (who she called 'an infidel') and may have been used as a lining for a cat's litter box.
"They did everything but flush it down the toilet," she said. "They have no respect for the 'paper of record', may it publish forever, nor for the wise and powerful ones who create this daily miracle."
Wednesday, a judge sentenced Ms. Miller to jail for obstructing a federal investigation into who leaked the identity of a covert CIA operative, Valerie Plame, who also posed for pictures in a top-secret issue of Vanity Fair magazine.
July 11 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush's administration will report this week that surging tax revenue is shrinking this year's budget deficit from the record 2004 level, possibly by as much as $90 billion, giving him a shot at fulfilling his deficit reduction promise three years early.
IS Hypocrisy Still Considered A Vice?
We rarely read the New York Times' editorials except for their occasional humor value; today's editorial on the Valerie Plame affair is a case in point. To begin with, the Times has a bit of a problem denouncing leaks, as it admits: "Far be it for [sic] us to denounce leaks." No kidding; the Times has carried on a guerrilla war against the Bush administration for the last four and one-half years, relying largely on anti-Bush leaks by Democrats in the CIA and the State Department.
But the Plame "leak" is different, somehow:
[list] But it is something else entirely when officials peddle disinformation for propaganda purposes or to harm a political adversary.[/list]
Yes, we certainly agree with that. That's why our opinion of Joe Wilson is so low. He leaked the contents of his own report to the CIA--in the pages of the New York Times!--only he lied about his own report. He "peddled disinformation," falsely claiming to have found no evidence of an Iraqi effort to buy uranium from Niger, in order to "harm a political adversary," President Bush. The Times didn't mind that particular disinformation, however, since it fit the paper's political agenda. In fact, the Times has never issued a correction of the misstatements in Wilson's op-ed. On the contrary, today's editorial links to Wilson's 2003 piece and repeats its central allegations, without even mentioning that Wilson's op-ed has been found to be fraudulent by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee!
The Times continues:
[list] Mr. Rove said the origins of Mr. Wilson's mission were "flawed and suspect" because, according to Mr. Rove, Mr. Wilson had been sent to Niger at the suggestion of his wife, who works for the Central Intelligence Agency. To understand why Mr. Rove thought that was a black mark, remember that the White House considers dissenters enemies and that the C.I.A. had cast doubt on the administration's apocalyptic vision of Iraq's weapons programs.[/list]
No! Rove "thought that was a black mark" because Wilson had falsely claimed, in the very New York Times op-ed that the editorial linked to this morning, that he had been sent to Niger at the request of Vice-President Cheney's office:
[list]In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake ?- a form of lightly processed ore ?- by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.[/list]
This was another lie by Wilson, as Cheney pointed out at the time, and as the Senate Intelligence Report confirmed. Contrary to false statements made by Wilson and his wife, it was Valerie Plame who suggested her husband for the Niger venture, and the Vice-President's office had nothing to do with it. This is precisely what Karl Rove told Matt Cooper, but the Times demurely fails to quote Cooper's email to that effect.
As usual, the Times's editorial will sound plausible only to the uninformed. But it seems to me that there is a deeper level of malfeasance here.
In all of the liberal huffing and puffing over the supposed "outing" of Valerie Plame--as though she might be in danger as she drove to and from her desk job in Langley, and as though she hadn't posed for a photo shoot in Vanity Fair, dressed up as a spy--I've seen no liberal criticism of a more recent, real outing of a clandestine CIA operation. In this case, those who outed a CIA operation exposed secret agents operating in the field, in circumstances of great personal danger, not a civilian desk employee. The outing of the CIA operation undoubtedly forced the CIA to terminate or change what had been an effective means of protecting the nation's security, and likely did endanger the lives of real covert agents.
I'm referring, of course, to the exposure of a purportedly civilian airline as a CIA operation:
[list] While posing as a private charter outfit - "aircraft rental with pilot" is the listing in Dun and Bradstreet - Aero Contractors is in fact a major domestic hub of the Central Intelligence Agency's secret air service. The company was founded in 1979 by a legendary C.I.A. officer and chief pilot for Air America, the agency's Vietnam-era air company, and it appears to be controlled by the agency, according to former employees.
An analysis of thousands of flight records, aircraft registrations and corporate documents, as well as interviews with former C.I.A. officers and pilots, show that the agency owns at least 26 planes, 10 of them purchased since 2001. The agency has concealed its ownership behind a web of seven shell corporations that appear to have no employees and no function apart from owning the aircraft.
The planes, regularly supplemented by private charters, are operated by real companies controlled by or tied to the agency, including Aero Contractors and two Florida companies, Pegasus Technologies and Tepper Aviation.[/list]
Who was it who "outed" these CIA employees, blew their cover and perhaps endangered their lives? The New York Times, of course! In an article that was based largely on leaks by former CIA employees, who were out to embarrass the administration. Ah, but that's the "good" kind of leak--the kind that exposes the Agency's real covert operatives, not the kind that tries to correct lies told by Democratic Party loyalists in the pages of the New York Times.
At the moment, I tend to think The Market is at or very close to its bottom. Unfortunately, I don't expect a startlingly robust recovery. My current feeling is a Dow in the mid $9K to low $10k range by year end
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=131382#131382
... As long as The Dow is at or above 9K, unemployment is at or below 5.5%, GDP growth is at or above 3%, inflation is below 2%, and both South Korea and Israel still exist come Autum '04, he can't lose. George's military record is merely an inconvenience, not a career-limiting hinderance. In fact, if The Dems sieze on the matter as a key point of opposition, they will simply seal their own doom.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=237973#237973
cicerone imposter wrote:timber, It's good to see some good news on retail sales for a month or two, but what we must look for are long term improvement trends.
EDIT (timber): Expired image link removed
RLX= Retail Index
SPX= Standard & Poor Index
DJI= Dow Jones Industrial ("The Dow Index")
Exactly, c.i. , glad you brought that up.
The Retail Index, up a bit over 40% in the past six months, has significantly, and consistently, outpaced overall market recovery, which by either of two major indexes is up roughly 25% over the same period ... I'd characterize that as more than just "a month or two".
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=357286#357286
Well, sorry, c.i. ... thought you'd know about the Retail Index. Its a tracking indicator of stock prices, just as the DOW and the S&P, to which I compared it, and is composed of the Stocks of major retailers. What makes it particularly useful as a leading indicator is that Retail Stocks are held most heavily by institutional investors ... major funds, multi-national banks, insurance companies, and the like ... not exactly what you'd call adventurous investors. Over the past year, the past six months in particular, the Retail sector has been subject to net acquisition by the really big players. Having collapsed in the latter part of '99, well ahead of the general market downturn, the sector languished well into last year, then began picking up steam. That it is outperforming other, more broadly based indicators is what is significant, as typically the index's performance closey tracks the overall market some months in advance of overall market movement. Applying MACD, or Moving Average Convergence/Divergence analysis, to the sector, indicates continued growth in the sector is highly likely. It is a reading of where Retail WILL BE, not where it IS. Bollinger analysis and Stochastic analysis of the index leads to the same conclusion, among many other methods. While normally applied to individual stocks, such analysis techniques (based on the pricnciple of standard mean deviation), when applied to entire sectors, is extraordinarilly accurate. http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=357939#357939
The major indices have improved significantly over the past 12 months. The folks who've lost money are the ones who've remained behind the curve - a group not populated by "The Big Boys". In the past 52 weeks, The Dow has moved from below $7200 to its current level of nearly $9500 ... a clear 25%+/- increase. The S&P, Russel, and NASDAQ have done even better than the Dow. The facts and history just don't support your argument.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=358030&highlight=dow#358030
The bubble of the late '90s was abberational, c.i., and just about guaranteed a massive correction; take a look at the 5-year performance of the DOW and tell me what it evidences. I see steady recovery over the past two quarters, with the upward trend accellerating.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=358154#358154
Anything's possible, dyslexia, but I'm betting the other way, and using my own real money; after almost four years of playing the market short, I'm going long on futures options contracts. I'm figuring by the end of Q4 '03 the Dow will be well above $10K ... an even more optimistic outlook than I held HERE
I guess my vote in that poll stands out, there's only one for the $10K category.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=361462#361462
Another conjecture: as numbers flow in over the next few weeks showing economic expansion is settling into a sustainable mode after the unprecedented spurt recently reported, the punditocracy will begin shouting they were right all along and that the economy is still in trouble. As the Dow forges beyond $10K and the Nasdaq leaves $2K in the dust, as home ownership increases, unemployment stabilizes then declines and hiring begins to put pressure on the labor pool as both manufacturing and sevices explode, the cry will be that its all an illusion, that debilitating inflation looms, that interest rates are dangerously low, and that the increased tax revenue due to improved earnings threatens to drive the deficit down too rapidly for economic stability. Expect also criticism from abroad that an "intentially and artificially soft dollar" gives the US an unfair export advantage. Bad news sells news, and if bad news can't be found, it must be manufactured.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=441390#441390
At this point, I see no reason The Dow will not break through $10K, probably within the next few trading sessions, retreat a bit under profit-taking pressure, crossing back-and-forth a few times, then finish the year above $10K.
One or two-day swings on "Threats" are really meaningless. Market performance Year-To-Date compared with Market Performance 2-Years-To-Date, 5-Years-To-Date, 10-Years-To-Date, 20-Years-To-Date, and 50-Years-To-Date indicate the current upward momentum not only is solid but accellerating. Coupling that with the consistent positive movement of market indicators, now including even upticks in employment and downticks in unemployment claims despite astounding concurrent productivity gains, along with substantial recent increases in capital investment, consumer sentiment, and overall construction, and the fact that every "revision" over the past 3 quarters (of which there have been many) has been positive, leads to no conclusion other than that there is yet excessive pessimism. The Economy is growing faster, more broadly, and more sustainably than most folks realize.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=467341#467341
Just a little piece of trivia here, for perspective: 18 years ago today, Dec 5, 1985, The Dow broke above $1500 for the first time ever
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=469352#469352
Today, the DOW rose 102.59 points, or 1.04 percent, to 9,965.27, its highest close since May 28, 2002, with congruent gains recorded by the NASDAQ and the S&P 500. As expected, trading on all US exchanges was light in advance of tomorrow's Fed announcement re rates; no rate increase is anticipated, but all eyes will be on the wording of the statement. The item of interest is the term "considerable period" ... if it is missing, that will signal the probability of a rate increase sometime in mid-Q1 to early Q2 '04, which no doubt will bring about a market pullback and likely also strengthen the dollar a bit, though both effects, should either or both occur, will be transitory.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=474607&highlight=dow#474607
So anyhow ... the DOW closed up $86.3) to end at $1008.16. While $10,026.53 was hit, today's close above $10K is a more significant even, IMO. A short-term pullback ... profit taking, is possible tomorrow, but volume and price picked up today right at the close of trading ... fewer overall trades, but larger ones characterized the last half-hour of trading. This indicates to me a sentiment within the market's big players favorable to net acquisition, and I would anticipate the index will close the week still above $10K, is not much unchanged from today's close. By year-end, looking at underlying indicators, barring external shock, the index could close the year well established above $10K, and the NAS settling in above $2K.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=478754#478754
The DOW first crossed $10K in early '99, near the end of the '92-'99 boom. Interest rates then, short and long term, consumer and institutional, were considerably higher. Inflation was running at around double the current pace. Labor productivity was around half its current level. The current ratio of stock prices to corporate earnings is considerably lower than it was then, and corporate earnings are increasing at a rate far in excess of that which applied in the '92-'99 boom. The current market strength is broad-based, not concentrated in speculative, earnings-shy techs, as was the case in the '92-'99 run-up, and includes basic industries, financial services, and so-called "Consumer Cyclicals", such as autos, homebuilders, and durable goods ... all lacking significant momentum in the tech-crazy earlier period, particularly as regards the latter months of the previous boom. The combination of low interest rates, low inflation, and consistent market gains in well in excess of the yields available from interest-bearing investments render stocks a relative bargain, without even taking into account the effect of the cut in the dividend tax rate. The rate-of-return-on-investment is more attractive for stocks than it has been in years.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=480732#480732
Also of note is that yesterdy's DOW close at $10,592.44 is the highest since Mar 12 '02's close of $10632.40. I expect, however, that today's market activity will be flat to slightly down on profit taking, as today's unemployment news was mere good, not astounding. Only well-above-expected news seems to drive market gains anymore, which itself is an encouraging sign; folks are getting accustomed to good news.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=513982#513982
Meanwhile, out there in the real world, the US securites markets are up across the board, with the Dow notching a comforting triple-digit gain, the NASDAQ up well over 45, and the S&P climbing nearly 17.
Don't see anything anywhere in any of that to cause me any distress. I feel pretty good about things, and the way they're goin', right now, actually.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=930250#930250
