PDA

View Full Version : Politics 9-7-04



km gresham
09-07-2004, 06:50 AM
Bush will bury Kerry. Interesting read.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110005576

LeeG
09-07-2004, 07:08 AM
I don't see the basis for a burial in the article but it's worth reading for a few reasons.
It's a good example of Faith based outlooks "he HAS to win...". One thing anyone can see is that the American Enterprise Institute put a plan into motion that will continue regardless of who is elected. They were willing to risk the Republican Party and the election to use military power for pre-emptive war/occupation even though occupation is not in the militarys strengths if multiple war fronts are in the mix. We're weapons heavy for attacking another superpower that Rumsfield worked to change when he came into office,,"Transformation" is the term used for transforming the military from a WWII US/USSR military to a faster more flexible military as evidenced by the the Iraq war. But that's a mixed success,,er catastrophic success as GW put it.

There's a sentence in the closing paragraph that's disengenuous to the core in that Rumsfield/Cheney have worked hard to cancel some weapons systems.

Measuring the bounce from the day after the end of the convention should get the best number. Who knows what happens in two months.

"Indeed, from the convention floor to lavish after-parties, the Republicans I met carried with them the presumption that of course there will be a second Bush administration--although I must point out that in floating my theory, I couldn't find anyone who agreed with the spread, and that one reason for the confidence among conventioneers is the feeling that there has to be a second term. That if the party loses this election, the nation will lose the war on terror. That sense of urgency is only heightened by the fact that Mr. Kerry will have a few more opportunities to turn things around on Mr. Bush--at the debates, for example. And there's always a chance that bad news out of Iraq or a terrorist attack in America could knock the legs out from under the president's campaign. But of course, it is this sense of urgency that is helping put the Republicans over the top."

Omerta
09-07-2004, 07:11 AM
W won't bury Kerry.

Kerry has already buried Kerry. :D

km gresham
09-07-2004, 07:14 AM
There is truth in that statement, Omerta.

LeeG
09-07-2004, 07:14 AM
so speaks another child of God

the reverse is true for GW.

[ 09-07-2004, 08:15 AM: Message edited by: LeeG ]

LeeG
09-07-2004, 08:15 AM
anyone following the AIPAC spy case? Pretty fascinating the links between significan players in Rumsfields office of special plans and the leaking of intel to Israel/Chalabi/Iran.
The partnership with Chalabi was unraveling as the neo-con vision of circling up to Iran was the next logical step after Iraq.

Do you think they hate us because we're free or because we engage in blatant bone head maneuvers like installing an "expatriot" Iraqi who has no support in Iraq and is linked to "bad intel"?

[ 09-07-2004, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: LeeG ]

LeeG
09-07-2004, 08:32 AM
someone elses words but the dots are there,,connect away.
http://sadparade.typepad.com/sad_parade/2004/09/a_few_stories_y.html

More "Corporate Kleptocracy":
Richard Perle was singled out in SEC investigation into a Hollinger International theft scandal by conservative media tycoon Conrad Black et al...

Press tycoon Conrad M. Black and other top Hollinger International Inc. officials pocketed more than $400 million in company money over seven years and Black's handpicked board of directors passively approved many of the transactions, a company investigation concluded.
A report by a special board committee singled out director Richard N. Perle, a former Defense Department official, who received $5.4 million in bonuses and compensation. The report said Perle should return the money to the Chicago company.

Perle is, of course, the highly influential neocon, former Pentagon policy adviser (as member of the Defense Policy Board), friend of Paul Wolfowitz and the think tanks the American Enterprise Institute and the Project for the New American Century. Wonder if "the Prince of Darkness" was in attendance at the Republican Convention?

"The whole ball of wax"

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Chalabi is an Iraqi leader that's fallen out of favor within your administration. I'm wondering if you feel that he provided any false information, or are you particularly—
A: Chalabi?

Q: Yes, with Chalabi.

A: My meetings with him were very brief. I mean, I think I met with him at the State of the Union and just kind of working through the rope line, and he might have come with a group of leaders. But I haven't had any extensive conversations with him.
—President Bush, in a Rose Garden exchange with reporters, June 1, 2004.
###
Q: If the Iraqis choose, however, an Islamic extremist regime, would you accept that, and would that be better for the United States than Saddam Hussein?

BUSH: They're not going to develop that. And the reason I can say that is because I'm very aware of this basic law they're writing. They're not going to develop that because right here in the Oval Office I sat down with Mr. Pachachi and Chalabi and al-Hakim, people from different parts of the country that have made the firm commitment, that they want a constitution eventually written that recognizes minority rights and freedom of religion.
—President Bush, in an Oval Office interview with NBC's Tim Russert aired Feb. 8, 2004--reported inSlate, June 4 2004

...and there is this unfolding story of an FBI probe into classified documents on Iran given to the Israeli lobbying group AIPAC, with Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith and Ahmed Chalabi at the center of the investigation.

Initially, news reports revealed that the FBI was investigating whether Lawrence A. Franklin -- a mid-level analyst specializing in Middle East issues in the Pentagon office of Douglas J. Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy -- had passed a draft presidential directive on Iran to AIPAC, and whether the group had passed the information to Israel. AIPAC is an influential lobbying group with close ties to the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
The FBI probe is actually much broader, according to senior U.S. officials, and has been underway for at least two years. Several sources familiar with the case say the probe now extends to other Pentagon personnel who have a particular interest in assisting both Israel and Chalabi, the former Iraqi dissident who was long a Pentagon favorite but who has fallen out of favor with the U.S. government.

This Knight Ridder report has more...

FBI agents have briefed top White House, Pentagon and State Department officials on the probe in recent days. Based on those briefings, officials said, the bureau appears to be looking into other controversies that have roiled the Bush administration, some of which also touch Feith's office.
They include how the Iraqi National Congress, a former exile group backed by the Pentagon, allegedly received highly classified U.S. intelligence on Iran; the leaking of the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame to reporters; and the production of bogus documents suggesting that Iraq tried to buy uranium for nuclear weapons from the African country of Niger. Bush repeated the Niger claim in making the case for war against Iraq.

"The whole ball of wax" was how one U.S. official privy to the briefings described the inquiry.

So let's connect the dots...Richard Perle is a friend of Chalabi and his influence on Bush administration foreign policy is without doubt. And both are turning out to be corruption-scandal ridden thieves and liars. And guess who's paying the price for their schemes?

LeeG
09-07-2004, 08:39 AM
more Imperial Hubris. Sounds like Perle has peaked.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

...Last we left this story, the report into the looting of the corporation had found that Hollinger was "an entity in which ethical corruption was a defining characteristic." And having found the management of the company to be such a model of integrity, the report went on to reserve its harshest criticisms for Perle, accusing him or "putting his own interests about those of Hollinger's shareholders" and "repeatedly breach[ing] his fiducicary duties."

Some passages seem worth quoting in their entirety ...

With the notable exception of Perle, none of Hollinger’s non-Black Group directors derived any financial or other improper personal benefits from their service on Hollinger’s Board. Unlike Black and Radler, Hollinger’s independent directors did not enrich themselves at the Company’s expense, did not misappropriate corporate opportunities belonging to Hollinger, and did not in any other way engage in self-dealing ... It is, of course, possible for a conflicted board member to act at least somewhat responsibly. As a conflicted executive committee member, however, Perle did not. Rather, his executive committee performance falls squarely into the 'head-in-the-sand' behavior that breaches a director's duty of good faith and renders him liable for damages.
In the latest turn of events, Perle has turned on Conrad Black. In a statement Perle released from his redoubt in the south of France, he now says that the conniving Black pulled the wool over his eyes. Perle of course was duped and given millions of dollars in the process, unlike the shareholders in the company who were duped and fleeced of their assets. So it seems things could be worse for him.

Along the lines noted at the head of this post, when I first heard about this, I was almost tempted to wonder when we'd hear that the Breedon Report -- the one which points such a finger of blame at Perle -- was actually a put up job by the Arabists at the CIA. But apparently this is a case where humor can't outrun sorry reality. In the words of the Times, "Mr. Perle's friends say that he is the victim of unjustified attacks that are motivated more by policy vendettas than substance."

And one other passage from the Times article that is worth noting ...

But others who have known Mr. Perle over the years say that he has been a consummate risk taker in both his business dealings and in some of the foreign policies he advocated, and that he ultimately may have been lured by millions of dollars in compensation and benefits to put aside ethical considerations, as the Breeden report concluded.
"Richard has always been willing to take the highest risks, playing for the highest stakes on policy issues over the years and often winning, but this is also really a story of being seduced by money," said Mr. Gelb, a former official at the State and Defense departments and a former columnist at The New York Times. "People in the foreign policy world do not make a lot of money. They go to think tanks, government, academe, and generally get $125,000 to $150,000 a year. When you are touched by lightning and manage to get into the inner sanctum to make money, the opportunities are delicious."

High-risk gamesmanship on other people's dime, cutting ethical and legal corners, blaming it on someone else when the racket goes south ... Sound like anything else Mr. Perle's been associated with recently?

[ 09-07-2004, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: LeeG ]

NormMessinger
09-07-2004, 08:44 AM
Looks like you've lost them Lee.

LeeG
09-07-2004, 09:08 AM
follow, follow, follow, follow follow the yellow brick road. This is where Cheneys faith in the voting public is so right on. All it takes is one level of abstraction to lead a people. Draw the curtains,,it's magic,,the wizard will tell a story. They hate us because we're free. WMD and mushrrom clouds on the Potomac. An umbrella to deflect ICBMS. Dig one or two levels and it's out of focus,,off the yellow brick road. Comnist, terrists and faggots,,oh my!
The race will be close but there's too much reality for the RNC bounce to last. Once the ball leaves the path it rolls to a stop. Follow, follow, follow, follow follow the yellow brick road!

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJR J8OVF&b=181113 (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=181113)

While New York City hosts the Republicans this week, Washington has – somewhat quietly – launched a series of three different investigations (run by the FBI, the Senate Select Intelligence Committee and the House Judiciary Committee) into practices and leaks at Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith's office at the Pentagon. The FBI probe is the most well known, and involves charges that a Pentagon Iran analyst, Larry Franklin, passed secret government documents concerning the administration's Iran policy to an Israeli lobbying group, AIPAC.

[ 09-07-2004, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: LeeG ]

LeeG
09-07-2004, 10:19 AM
It's interesting to find the history in Cheneys relationship with the CIA. If you don't like the architects work,,,get a new contractor!

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=140711

Peter Malcolm Jardine
09-07-2004, 10:42 AM
That if the party loses this election, the nation will lose the war on terror. That's quite an assumption. Is the war on terror being won now? The jury is still out internationally.\


The media may have their own reasons for sticking to the story line--drama is good for ratings, after all- Is this columnist not a member of the media?


Coming out of the convention Time and Newsweek conducted separate polls, each of which found that the president had opened up an 11-point lead over Mr. Kerry. Which was predicted by all major news syndicates the during the RNC. If Bush did not have a lead coming out of the RNC, the race would truly be over.


but a new Gallup Poll puts Mr. Bush up by a still impressive seven points, 52% to 45%.
This poll, being so soon after the RNC, shows how close this election race is.


many churches helping to mobilize voter turnout (regular church attendees overwhelmingly vote Republican), Some people still deny the connection of the Republican party to christian fundamentalism. I don't know why.


"I might have gone windsurfing--you certainly have a right to clear your head. But I'm not sure I would have taken the press with me. I'm sure both the president and Mr Kerry would have the media following them to the bathroom if they didn't stop them.


Other Democrats now doubt Mr. Kerry's ability to fight back in the political arena A pretty general statement. I am sure there are republicans who feel the same about the President.


Which brings us to the final reason Mr. Bush is probably going to walk away with the election: Mr. Kerry is not a very good politician. This writer seems to imply Mr Kerry is not very electable. Has John Kerry not held elected position for 20 years?


Some Democrats actually argued Mr. Kerry would be popular among veterans. He is popular among some Veterans. It's realistic to assume it wouldn't be all of them.


Perhaps my prediction is buoyed by the euphoric Republicans who flooded this city last week. Perhaps it is indeed. The writer himself may be a republican... stranger things have happened.

My comments on this column are based on nothing more than dissecting this column to point out the obvious fallacies in the writer's statements. The election may well be won by Mr Bush, but this column is hardly a scientific endorsement of that.