Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
NEW RICH $CANDAL
By JOHN LEHMANN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REMEMBER HER?
Presidential-pardon scandal socialite Denise Rich is being sued for $30 million by her ex-employee, music promoter
- J. Hester
August 2, 2003 -- Bill Clinton's socialite pal Denise Rich disguised a $2,000 donation to Hillary Rodham Clinton by coercing her record promoter to make the contribution and later reimbursing him, a new $30 million legal suit charges.
The promoter, Jimmy Hester, who filed the federal lawsuit in Manhattan yesterday, is now at the center of the FBI's long-running criminal probe into the circumstances surrounding Clinton's last-minute presidential pardoning of Rich's ex-husband, Marc Rich, The Post has learned.
Hester's criminal lawyer, Brad Simon, confirmed yesterday that FBI agents interviewed Hester two weeks ago in New York.
Simon, who was not aware that Hester's allegation of Rich's "disguised" $2,000 donation had been included in the civil suit, declined to comment further, but sources said Manhattan U.S. Attorney Jim Comey reactivated the Rich probe in recent months.
It is illegal for a person to make donations in another person's name to get around the $2,000 donation limit, Washington election-law expert Ken Gross said yesterday.
Rich, a wealthy songwriter, sparked a national scandal by helping her husband win the Clinton pardon in the last days of his presidency.
Marc Rich fled to Switzerland after being indicted on charges he evaded $48 million in taxes.
Hester - who claims Denise Rich discriminated against him by sacking him because he's HIV-positive - said in his suit that she insisted in October 1999 that he make the donation to Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton was then gearing up to make her Senate run.
"It was clear to [Hester] that this demand was made so that Rich could disguise the source of the contribution," said Hester's civil lawyer, Pitkin Marshall.
Describing Rich's alleged behavior as "underhanded and unethical," Hester said he initially refused to make the donation but later gave in.
Rich's spokesman, Howard Rubenstein, declined to comment yesterday as Rich and her lawyer had not seen the legal papers. Rich is traveling overseas.
A spokeswoman for Hillary Clinton did not comment."JCRADIO's WORDS, WHEN CAN SHE BE REACHED FOR COMMENT? I'll lay 20:1 odds she knows nothing as always.
Hester, who is suing for $30 million in damages, was hired by Rich in April 1996 as general manager and vice president of songs for her music publishing company, IGD Music & Media. He was paid $240,000 a year.
He claims Rich forced him to make the donation while he was negotiating the terms of his employment contract. Rich had promised him a written employment contract and full medical coverage for years, he claims.
But during the final stages of negotiations in June 2001, Rich's lawyer, Lee Goldberg, altered the employment documents to make Hester an independent contractor, the suit says.
The following January, Hester was sacked one day after telling Rich he was HIV-positive.
The suit said Rich disguised the true reasons for sacking Hester by alleging he sexually harassed another employee Taquanna Harris. Rich paid Harris a $40,000 settlement.
Here is the link to my last post.
A LIBERAL from the QBID thread requested it. This should be fun.
http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2003/8/3/152430
OT : skunksyard
Go here and I will post a link. This is the QBID thread and lets keep it that way.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1281602
Let's Get Back ON TOPIC:
Go to the NOLIB board for the truth on politics.
ot : skunks
Yeah!!! But like you admit he was ELECTED , Thank God.
OT : skunksyard
At least you admit he was ELECTED
Why has this been ignored by the main stream Media?
Sunday, Aug. 3, 2003 3:17 p.m. EDT
Hillary: I'm Grateful I Grew up in 'White Suburbs'
New York Sen. Hillary Clinton said Friday that she was "very grateful" to have to grown up in "the 1950s white suburbs."
Contending that conservatives wanted to roll back the civil rights movement, Sen. Clinton told the American Constitution Society in Washington, D.C., that she was trying to figure out "what is that golden age that they want to go back to."
Then, in a remark reminiscent of Sen. Trent Lott's praise last year for the segregationist presidential campaign of the late Strom Thurmond, the former first lady asked if conservatives meant to take the country "back to the 1950s white suburbs for family life, which I grew up in and write about in my book – and am very grateful for."
Despite expressing gratitude for the all-white surroundings of her Park Ridge, Chicago, youth, Sen. Clinton told the ACS that her hometown "didn't exactly describe the universal experience in America."
She said it was a time "before Brown v. Board, when people were told that in this country we should to try to integrate our schools."
Though Sen. Clinton's comments were televised on C-SPAN, her praise for the "white suburbs" of her youth has so far gone unreported by the mainstream press.
The former first lady's full remarks on the topic went like this:
"There are just a lot of things that happened in the 20th century that some people apparently just couldn't get over. So, starting in the '30s, '40s, '50s, '60s – and with greater acceleration and commitment in the '70s until the current time – there has been a commitment to trying to go back to some golden age.
"Walter Dellinger and I were talking about a panel that will be held tomorrow to try to figure out exactly what was that golden age that they want to go back to.
"You know, is it back to the 1950s white suburbs for family life, which I grew up in and write about in my book – and am very grateful for – but didn't exactly describe the universal experience in America?
"Is it back before Brown v. Board, when people were told in this country we should try to integrate our schools and provide equal opportunity in fact, not just in theory?
"Is back before the New Deal and many of the changes that actually saved capitalism in the eyes of many historians?
"Is it back to before the Progressive era, when children were told that they could no longer work in factories and immigrants were being given the rights and tools to assume a roll in American society?
"Is it back to crony capitalism and the robber baron area [sic]? I don't know. I think it's a combination of all of that." [End of Excerpt]
Skinheads Attack Stockholm Gay Pride Parade
Reuters
Saturday, August 2, 2003; 12:28 PM
STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - A group of around 30 skinheads attacked marchers in a gay pride parade in Stockholm with stones and bottles on Saturday, police and a Reuters witness said.
A young man on the annual march promoting gay, lesbian and transsexual rights was injured in the head and taken to hospital. A police spokesman said his life was not in danger.
The assault took place just after the parade of 4,000 to 5,000 people had passed the Royal Palace in central Stockholm, unveiling a huge rainbow flag.
"A group of around 30 people jumped from behind a street corner and started beating the marchers and throwing bottles at them," said a Reuters cameraman at the scene.
He said the attackers carried banners reading, "Lock up pedophiles" and "Crush pedophiles," referring to a recent advertising campaign by a gay and lesbian rights group featuring pictures of young children.
The campaign, aiming to show that gay orientation can start at an early age, has drawn protests from a child protection group that said the sexual depiction of children could encourage pedophiles.
"We wanted to demonstrate against gay adoptions and against linking sexuality to children," said Marc Abramsson, a leader of the youth organization of the right-wing National Democrats, which had organized a demonstration against the gay parade.
He said about 200 anti-gay protesters had been demonstrating peacefully near the palace until the marchers threw bottles at them.
But a police spokesman said anti-gay activists had started the brawl. Police arrested two people for assault and drove groups of skinheads away from the city center to prevent more violence. The parade resumed later without further trouble. (Additional reporting by Gleb Bryanski)
Looks like the LIB's will be needing some new Ammo LMAO
Stocks Rally on Strong GDP Data
Thursday, July 31, 2003
NEW YORK — Wall Street rallied Thursday as investors reacted positively to a strong economic report showing gross domestic product advanced much faster than expected in the second quarter.
In afternoon trading, the Dow Jones industrial average was up 101 at 9,301. The Nasdaq Composite was up 23 at 1,744, while the Standard & Poor's 500 index was up 10 at 997.
The main force driving the rally was new data released by the Commerce Department showing the U.S. economy grew at a brisk 2.4 percent annual clip in the second quarter, driven by a surge in defense spending.
The pickup in gross domestic product, or GDP, from an annual rate of 1.4 percent in each of the two prior quarters, easily beat Wall Street economists' forecasts for a 1.5 percent pace of second-quarter growth.
Also on Thursday, the government said the weekly number of Americans lodging new jobless claims drifted down unexpectedly to the lowest level since February.
The level of new claims, which gives an early reading on the resilience of the job market, edged down by 3,000 in the July 26 week to 388,000 from a revised 391,000 in the prior week, the Labor Department said.
"The fact that these numbers came in so good, you can only expect there's going to be even better numbers tomorrow," said Jack Francis, co-head of equity trading at UBS.
Friday brings another big batch of economic numbers, including closely watched reports on both the labor market and the manufacturing sector.
The Purchasing Management Associated of Chicago (search) also reported encouraging economic data. The group's index of area business activity rose to 55.9 in June on a seasonally adjusted basis from 52.5 in May, according to Dow Jones Newswires.
A reading above 50 signals that the manufacturing sector is expanding, while a reading below 50 indicates it is contracting. The July reading exceeded analysts' forecast calling for 53.8.
Adding to the optimism on Wall Street, several corporate giants reported strong earnings in the second quarter.
Procter & Gamble Co. (PG), the maker of Tide laundry detergent, Pringles potato chips and about 300 other consumer products, said profit rose as newer products and the weak dollar helped boost sales. Shares were up $1.50, or 1.7 percent, to $89.25 on the New York Stock Exchange.
Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM), the world's biggest publicly traded oil company, said its second-quarter profit rose on higher oil and gas prices and improved refining margins. Exxon was up 28 cents to $35.60.
Insurer Chubb Corp. (CB) said after the close of trading on Wednesday that its quarterly profit rose 20 percent. Its shares were up 4.2 percent, or $2.60, to $64.50.
CVS Corp. (CVS) climbed $1.15 to $30.08, adding to the $1.20 it gained Wednesday when the drug store company reported second-quarter profits that beat analysts' expectations by a penny a share. On Thursday, Morgan Stanley upgraded CVS to "overweight" from "equal-weight."
Tech stocks were also performing well after investment backing. As part of its changing view on the semiconductor business, Merrill raised its ratings on Intersil Corp. (ISIL), Linear Technology Corp. (LLTC), Maxim Integrated Products Inc. (MXIM), Microchip Technology Inc. (MCHP), National Semiconductor Corp. (NSM) and Semtech Corp. (SMTC) to "buy" from "neutral."
Advancing issues outnumbered decliners about 8 to 5 on the New York Stock Exchange. Trading volume came to 993.95 million shares, up from 820.05 million at the same point Wednesday.
The Russell 2000 index, which tracks smaller company stocks, rose 5.42, or 1.2 percent, to 478.22.
Overseas, Japan's Nikkei stock average finished Thursday down 0.7 percent. In Europe, Britain's FTSE 100 gained 0.4 percent, France's CAC-40 rose 1.2 percent and Germany's DAX index advanced 1.3 percent.
CHEMIST1230
Childish nonsense? He is just pointing out the fact that the promised July 4th Press release have not come out as yet.
Childish is your post that were removed.
Thanks for the updates John.
skunksyard
From your mouth to GOD's ears. I wish the same. Look for it by Thursday as per the rumor mill.
Just a thought
If, and I say IF, a PR comes out anytime soon, I am sure it will be nothing but fluff and disappointment as always. Why, you may ask? Because many of us have been down this road one time too many.
Also, from what I am told it will NOT be a joint PR like many have said. There is NO partnership with TW like many would want you to believe. It is simple. TTN has a STATION AGREEMENT with TW. It is up to TTN to sell their product now to all of TW outlets. So far to date nothing has been signed with any outlets as far as I can tell. It is just the same ole runaround just a different day and time.
IMHO Do your own DD
Poll shows backlash on gay issues
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Americans have become significantly less accepting of homosexuality since a Supreme Court decision that was hailed as clearing the way for new gay civil rights, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll has found. After several years of growing tolerance, the survey shows a return to a level of more traditional attitudes last seen in the mid-1990s.
Asked whether same-sex relations between consenting adults should be legal, 48% said yes; 46% said no. Before this month, support hadn't been that low since 1996. (Related item: See poll numbers)
In early May, support for legal relations reached a high of 60%-35%.
The shift in attitudes occurs as gay issues have been in the news. In recent weeks, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas anti-sodomy law, a Canadian court decision allowed gay couples to marry in Ontario, and Wal-Mart expanded anti-discrimination protection to gay workers.
Conservative social activists see a backlash to those developments and the growing visibility of gay characters in entertainment, including such TV shows as Will & Grace. "The more that the movement demands the endorsement of the law and the culture, the more resistance there will be," says Gary Bauer, president of American Values.
Bauer says that sentiment will make it harder for elected officials to avoid taking positions on such questions as a proposed constitutional amendment that would bar marriage of gay couples.
Advocates for gay men and lesbians called the poll disappointing. "Clearly, the debate (over recent developments) has had an effect," says David Smith of the Human Rights Campaign. But over time, he says, "The country always ends up on the side of fairness, and I think they will here, too."
Those making the biggest shifts included African-Americans. On whether homosexual relations should be legal, their support fell from 58% in May to 36% in July. Among people who attend church almost every week, support fell from 61% to 49%.
The survey also found rising opposition to civil unions that would give gay couples some of the rights of married heterosexuals. They were opposed 57%-40%, the most opposition since the question was first asked in 2000.
By 49%-46%, those polled said homosexuality should not be considered "an acceptable alternative lifestyle." It was the first time since 1997 that more people expressed opposition than support.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-28-poll_x.htm
A TRUE AMERICAN HERO
Todays so called celebrities can learn a lot from Mr. Hope. Thanks for the memories....
ONEBGG
I think America's Mayor Rudy and and Ms. Rice are also strong possibilities for 2008.
Democrats in Disarray
Reed Irvine
Saturday, July 26, 2003
On July 25, the Democratic National Committee placed a full-page ad in the New York Times with this message above a photo of President Bush delivering his State of the Union Address:
"America took President Bush at his word. '...Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.' But now we find out that it wasn't true. The CIA knew it. The State Department knew it. [Washington Post, 7/23/03; Time 7/21/03] But he said it anyway. It's time to tell the truth."
Those three dots before Saddam indicate that these six words were omitted: "The British government has learned that." It was necessary to omit them in order to justify the claim that what Bush said was not true. The truth is that the British government maintained then and still maintains that it had reliable information from sources that it could not share with the CIA that Iraq had recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
The New York Times used to check ads of this type for accuracy. If they found anything that they thought was inaccurate, they insisted that it be corrected. Accuracy in Media has placed a number of ads in the Times over the years, and we have occasionally had to defend the accuracy of the copy we submitted or make a change that the Times demanded.
Unless the Times has proof that the British government is lying, it should have required the Democratic National Committee to include the six omitted words and provide the evidence that proves that the British were lying and that the CIA, the State Department and the White House all knew it.
The DNC is sending out e-mail that conveys a message similar to that in the New York Times ad, but it omits the three dots that represent the omission of the attribution to the British government. We tried to find out if those dots were inserted in the ad at the insistence of the Times, but we couldn't get an answer from the advertising department.
The claim that the president's statement is known to be false is based on the fact that there is a crude forgery relating to an alleged Iraqi approach to Niger for the purchase of uranium. This, however, does not prove that there was no approach to Niger or another African country.
Herbert Romerstein, an expert on Soviet disinformation techniques, had a column in the Washington Times on July 21 in which he says, "The crude forgeries were designed to be exposed to discredit the truth about Saddam's nuclear program." He says the Iraqi intelligence service was trained to use this trick by the Soviet KGB.
He cites another example of this trick, which is known as "poisoning the well." A forgery was perpetrated to discredit the London Telegraph's discovery of documents in the Iraqi Foreign Ministry building that revealed that George Galloway, an ultra-left Labour member of Parliament, had been on Saddam's payroll big time. This was followed by a discovery by the Christian Science Monitor of documents confirming this, but they turned out to be forgeries and the Monitor had to apologize for its story about them.
Romerstein says, "Mr. Galloway and his friends are now using the exposure of the Christian Science Monitor forgeries to try to discredit the authentic London Telegraph documents."
The New York Times had published on its op-ed page an account by a former ambassador, Joseph C. Wilson, of a trip he had made to Niger to find out if there was any valid evidence that there was an Iraqi effort to acquire uranium. Romerstein addresses this, noting that Wilson, who had worked for two Democrats, Sen. Al Gore and Rep. Tom Foley, wrote that he spent eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people in Niger and it didn't take him long to conclude that there had been no Niger uranium sale to Iraq.
Romerstein comments, "Intelligence information comes in bits and pieces. Communication intercepts, photographs and agents on the scene are the most valuable sources. The least valuable is the diplomatic cocktail party chitchat that may add a snippet of information to the story."
The DNC apparently didn't clear its ad with Bill Clinton. He told Larry King the Democrats should quit harping on this matter. His advice evoked favorable comment from some Democrats on Capitol Hill, but he apparently didn't clear it with Hillary. She repeated her call for an independent investigation of the matter.
ksquared
It can make one SICK. One day they will figure it out. How anyone can believe "REWRITING HISTORY" is NON fictional is beyond me.
Don't fall for it.
Bubba was on CNN a few nights back showing support for President Bush and the war on IRAQ. I have to admit Bubba is good at what he does, no wonder they call him Slick Willy. The only reason he has done so is because of a pending inquiry. Read my post 1132 and you will see what I mean. Bubba is getting ready to wave his finger at the american people once again. It is obvious if they do an investigation on President Bush, who the DEM's claim lied to the American people, they will have to question BUBBA as well. Remember Bubba used the term NUCLEAR also in his 1998 nation address on IRAQ.. Can someone PLEASE tell me what will it take for everyone to see through the CLINTOONS?
Hillary Ignores Bill's Advice to Shut Up
Bill Clinton's advice that "Democrats should quit harping on President Bush's disputed statement that Iraq had pursued nuclear material from Africa was well-received by many Democrats on Capitol Hill — but not his wife," the Washington Times noted today.
"Everybody makes mistakes when they are president," Clinton observed Tuesday night on CNN in the understatement of the year, and "the thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do right now."
The Times reported, "The comments were widely interpreted as a message to Democratic presidential candidates that their constant criticism of Mr. Bush's Iraq policy is pushing the party too far to the left and away from mainstream voters who still largely support the U.S.-led campaign that deposed Saddam Hussein."
But as we've pointed out, leading Democrats including White House wannabes Howard Dean, Rep. Dick Gephardt and Sen. John Kerry whined even as the U.S. military took out Saddam Hussein's evil mass-murdering sons.
"If I were them, I'd perk my ears up a little and listen," said Sen. Zell Miller, D-Ga. "I think this is a man worth listening to. He won [the presidency] twice, after all."
Clinton "knows a thing or two about the game," said Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn. "I hope they tone down their rhetoric. The administration has answered the uranium question. What the American people care about is, what we are going to do in Iraq."
But Hillary is ignoring her estranged husband once again.
"I think there should be an independent investigation," she snapped Thursday. "I've called for it. How credible are these claims? What else do we need to find out about other claims?"
http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2003/7/25/92740
Wednesday July 23, 2003; 11:42 p.m. EDT
Flowers Wins Another Round Against Hillary
Former Bill Clinton paramour Gennifer Flowers won another round in court this week, when a federal judge ruled that her lawsuit against ABC newsman George Stephanopoulos, Democratic operative James Carville and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton can proceed.
The ruling brings Mrs. Clinton another step closer to being deposed in the case, a development that could undermine her plans to seek the White House.
On Monday U.S. District Judge Philip Pro granted a motion by Sen. Clinton to dismiss the defamation claims against her personally, but he allowed Flowers' claim that Mrs. Clinton conspired with the other two defendants to stand.
According to the Las Vegas Review Journal, Judge Pro found that "Carville and Stephanopoulos acted as the `instrumentality' of Clinton" when they falsely claimed she had fabricated her account of a 12-year affair with Mr. Clinton.
In a lawsuit filed by her attorneys at Judicial Watch, the early Clinton whistleblower contends that the former first lady organized and directed a conspiracy to defame her that included false statements made by Carville and Stephanopoulos.
One such claim was that she had "doctored" tape recordings of her phone conversation with President Clinton. On the tapes, Mr. Clinton agrees that then-New York Governor Mario Cuomo "acts like" a Mafiosi, advises Flowers to perjure herself before an Arkansas State labor grievance hearing and discusses oral sex.
The Washington, D.C.-based legal watchdog group said Wednesday that it intends to depose Mrs. Clinton in the case, as well as her two former aides.
"Ms. Flowers is quite pleased that she finally has the opportunity to hold Ms. Clinton and her minions Carville and Stephanopoulos accountable in court," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a press release.
"Ms. Flowers has been significantly damaged by their ‘smear machine’ and is anxious for justice."
Flowers' Clinton lawsuit revived
Judge rules conspiracy claim against former first lady, aides may proceed
By CARRI GEER THEVENOT
REVIEW-JOURNAL
Gennifer Flowers may proceed with a lawsuit that accuses Hillary Rodham Clinton of conspiring with two men to defame her during the 1992 presidential election campaign, a federal judge in Las Vegas has ruled.
U.S. District Judge Philip Pro dismissed Flowers' lawsuit nearly three years ago, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reinstated the case in November.
Flowers filed a fourth version of her lawsuit in February against Clinton, former presidential aides James Carville and George Stephanopoulos, and book publisher Little, Brown & Co. The lawsuit's claims include defamation, false light and conspiracy.
In an order entered Monday, Pro granted a motion by Clinton to dismiss the defamation and false light claims against her, but allowed the conspiracy claim to proceed against Clinton and the former presidential aides.
According to the order, Flowers has made no allegation that the former first lady, now a senator from New York, made any false statements about her.
Instead, Pro wrote, Flowers "claims that Carville and Stephanopoulos acted as the `instrumentality' of Clinton."
The judge also granted a motion to dismiss the conspiracy claim against Little Brown & Co., which published Stephanopoulos' book "All Too Human: A Political Education."
Flowers claimed during the 1992 presidential campaign that she had a 12-year affair with Bill Clinton when he was governor of Arkansas. He initially denied the allegation but later acknowledged the affair during his deposition in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.
According to Flowers' lawsuit, Hillary Rodham Clinton organized and directed a conspiracy to defame her. Flowers also cites examples of what she describes as defamatory statements made by Carville and Stephanopoulos.
In allowing Flowers to proceed with the conspiracy claim, Pro ruled that the alleged defamatory statements "are arguably consistent with such a conspiracy."
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Jul-23-Wed-2003/news/21787501.html
Dole Kisses Up to Clinton
Melrose Larry Green
Thursday, July 24, 2003
I recently returned from two weeks in Florida, where I was hard at work on my book about Bill and Hillary Clinton. I can guarantee you one thing: This book will once and for all prove conclusively that the Clintons both belong in prison! Try as I do, I cannot forgive Bill and Hillary Clinton for the harm they have done to this country.
I've never said this before, but as much as I despise O.J. Simpson for getting away with the murders of Ron and Nicole, I am over my loathing of Simpson. But not the Clintons. They are raw, unadulterated evil.
Last night I was sick to see Bob Dole kissing Bill Clinton's ass when Clinton called in to the Larry King show to congratulate Dole on his 80th birthday. True to his disgusting form, Clinton made sure that the whole conversation revolved around HIM and what HE did as president. And on the very day that Saddam Hussein's two sons were eliminated (good riddance, boys), Clinton couldn't manage to mention President Bush's name even once during his 20 minutes on the King show!
And what a farce it was to hear the first draft dodger, who decimated the strength of our military, who sold our secrets to the Chinese, who molested more women than the whole NBA combined, who pimped out the White House to the highest bidder – what a farce it was to hear Clinton sound like a president.
And those pardons! Thank God and rest the soul of Barbara Olson for writing the great book "The Final Days," which reveals what a bunch of scumbags Bill and Hillary Clinton are.
How Ken Starr and the U.S. Senate didn't throw Clinton out will be one of the greatest mysteries in American history!
As you await publication of my book, I want you all to read James Hirsen's new book, "Tales from the Left Coast." My copy arrived in the mail from NewsMax today, along with my George Bush cap and my renewed subscription to NewsMax magazine.
I hope you will all call Attorney General John Ashcroft at 202-514-2001 and demand that he reopen investigations into Clinton's pardons on 1/20/01 and the mysterious deaths of Ron Brown and Vince Foster.
And those of you consider Hillary Clinton not to be your favorite senator or potential presidential candidate, please call her office at 202-224-4451.
Thanks for reading. Please tell all your friends about NewsMax and continue to avail yourself of all of NewsMax's fine line of products.
E-mail Melrose Larry Green at melrose1@earthlink.net
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/23/150723.shtml
IS the TAPE ROLLING?
Dems Want Power Back, Will Fix Mess Later
July 22, 2003
In my adopted hometown of Sacramento, a group of 11 California assembly Democrats were caught on tape saying exactly what I've told you their strategy is: cause as much damage as possible so people vote against the other guys, and pick up the pieces later. In the minds of leading Democrats, nothing is as harmful to the state or nation as having Republicans in power.
The proof of this strategy in action comes from a meeting of these Democrats, who discussed slowing progress on a deal to close California's $38 billion budget deficit to force Republicans to hike taxes on hard-working Californians. Never mind that excessive, undisciplined spending caused the crisis. No, it was screw the people now to force Republicans to join us in forcing them to work more hours as tax slaves tomorrow.
The San Francisco Chronicle cites "statements such as one by Los Angeles Assemblyman Fabian Nunez that they may want to 'precipitate a crisis' over the budget this year. That might persuade voters to lower the two-thirds vote threshold needed to pass a spending plan, he reasoned. 'It seems to me if there's going to be a crisis, the crisis should be this year,' Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, D-Los Angeles, said during the meeting. 'What you do is you show people that you can't get to this without a 55% vote.' The unintentional broadcast was interrupted when someone informed the group that a microphone was on. 'Oh s--,' Goldberg said as the sound was cut."
As was the case in Nevada, the citizens of California voted to require a two-thirds majority in the legislature to take money out of their paychecks and food off their children's tables. But as in Nevada where the state's liberal supreme court voted to ignore the will of the people, the liberals in California huddled in a secret meeting to figure out how to create a fake crisis as an excuse to create more tax slaves. Once again, Democrats want to raise taxes to answer every and any crisis - they're simply addicted to your money! They'll do whatever damage they can to your state or the nation, for petty, political, personal reasons. Nothing is too underhanded or harsh when it comes to getting their grubby little hands on power, your votes and your money.
http://rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_072203/content/see_i_told_you_so.guest.html
John
2 down and 2 to go.
Greetings to all of Archies group. It has been awhile. Hope all is well with all.
Why is it that this was only to be found on FOX NEWS?
I guess this is acceptable behavior if you are a DEMOCRAT.
WASHINGTON — Democrats continue to question the leadership of House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (search), but some corners are wondering whether the outrage should focus on Democratic Rep. Pete Stark (search), a central figure in last week's heated argument.
The facts are still in dispute about what happened in last Friday's committee meeting to mark up pension funds legislation. At the time, Democrats objected to Thomas, R-Calif., whisking through approval by voice vote on a bill Democrats have said they had not had a chance to review. The standoff ended with Thomas calling the police to remove the Democrats from the committee library and Democrats storming to the House floor to offer a resolution disapproving of Thomas' actions.
Not in dispute over the events that led up to the House debate that ensued are the heated remarks by Stark, D-Calif., who was left in the committee room to hold down the fort while Democrats strategized on their game plan.
While no cameras recorded the event, a stenographer took down every word Stark uttered. Republican Rep. Kenny Hulshof recited them back on the House floor.
"'You little fruitcake, you little fruitcake, I said you are a fruitcake,'" Hulshof, R-Mo., read from the unofficial transcript.
Stark directed the word — considered by some to be a gay slur —- at Republican Rep. Scott McInnis, who is married and by all accounts not gay.
Republican sources also claim that during the chaotic scene in the committee, Stark fired another gay slur in the direction of Chairman Thomas. The word is too vulgar to print in full, but the last half of it is "sucker."
Now, one Republican wants to know where is the outrage at the Democrat for his seemingly intolerant remarks.
"This isn't the first time. That's the problem here. The Democrats fail to recognize this is an ongoing problem," said Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla.
Stark has a long history of making outrageous remarks. He once called Republican Rep. Nancy Johnson "a whore," and said former Health and Human Services Secretary Louis Sullivan is "a disgrace to his race."
Foley questioned whether Democrats get a pass when it comes to casting aspersions, and whether there is indeed a double standard.
"I trust that you would understand that if a Republican said that, there would be a public lynching," Foley said.
But Stark told Fox News the racket over last week's outburst is much ado about the wrong thing.
"'Fruitcake' means inept, crazy, a nut cake to me," Stark explained.
And instead of condemning Stark, Human Rights Campaign (search) seemed to agree.
A spokesman from the gay activists group, usually quick to condemn hints of slight or slur against the gay community, defended the hot-headed lawmaker, saying he probably used the word to mean McInnis was nutty.
"I think Congressman Stark's use of the word, he probably regrets having used it. I think he meant nothing by it, but I think in the 2003 context, it's probably a poor choice of words. But it's also important to note that Congressman Stark is one of the gay community's staunchest allies," said Winnie Stachelberg, political director of the Human Rights Campaign.
Mark Mead, Director of Public Affairs for the Log Cabin Republicans (search), a gay organization, said Stark's language is unbecoming of any congressional member.
"We're disappointed when any member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, uses insulting words. It's particularly egregious when we're at a time of war and the Ways and Means Committee needs to focus with the president on jump-starting the American economy," Mead said.
Stark issued a statement in which he claimed that his passions got the better of him.
"Sometimes I feel so passionate about an issue that I am not as diplomatic as I should be ... I did exchange words that were not becoming of my office. I regret that," he said.
While many seem to be letting the whole outburst go, the dust-up in the Ways and Means Committee is not over yet.
Democrats are still complaining that Thomas acted improperly by calling police to evict them from the library, and have said that the rights of the minority party are being trampled.
Some Republicans on Capitol Hill are also now quietly whispering that Thomas, often cited for his curt words and cutting behavior, has become a liability and should be replaced as chairman.
GUESS ONLY REPUBLICAN LIES COUNT
My outrage today is focused on this incredible television ad the Demcorats are running in Minnesota. Soon it will be seen in other major cities across the nation. The title of the commercial is "Truth." The commercial seeks to put across the point that President Bush lied to the American people in his State of the Union speech.
The "lie," of course, is supposed to be those now-famous 16 words. You probably have those words memorized, but here they are for those of you with short attention spans:
"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
That statement is true. It is not a lie. The British government is standing by its intelligence assessment to this very day. So, the Democrats want to take a statement which has been verified as true, and somehow turn it into a lie in their TV commercial. Just how do you go about that? Easy, you just eliminate the first five words. On the Democrats television commercial you will see Bush simply say "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
This is blatantly dishonest. The Democrats are showing you that they will lie in order to gain some political advantage -- in this case, raising funds. But where is the media outrage? I can't watch every television news show, but on those that I have watched only one news program has pointed out that the Demcorats eliminated five words from this quote to completely change its meaning. That news channel was, of course, Fox News. Liberals will tell you that by showing what the Demcorats did with this quote Fox News Channel is proving its right-wing bias.
Whether you recognize it or not, America faces perilous times right now. We have the war against terrorism in the Middle East, and North Korea on the other side of the globe. The fact is, the American military does not have the manpower to face both threats. This may well lead to a form of capitulation in North Korea. (Thanks, Jimmy Carter!) While we face these difficult and dangerous times the leftist Democrats are working to use lies, half-truths and deceit to undermine the reputation and the very authority of George Bush. The Democrats are showing that not even the security of the United States ranks above their obsession over lost power. These people are dangerous. They will destroy America to regain political power. If you support them through money or votes you may well be part of the destruction of everything our founding fathers fought to create.
OT : John That key sticking again? LMAO
skunksyard
Just because he is your friend does not make him right. We are all outspoken as I am sure you know. But BS post will not work at IHUB and you know that. Let them leave it at RB.
John was having a little fun while posting about QBID. The response from Chemist was not called for.
At least when you post here you get both sides good and bad and it is mostly done in a respectful manner. IHUB's format is great and RB should learn from it. Lately RB is nothing but BS attacks and SPAM SPAM SPAM. Out of every 20 post 3 are about the company at RB. The opposite is true here.
Anyway enough said. Have a great SUnday and look for a GREAT QBID week. I think a PR will be out this week, but don't expect a joint if you know what I mean. It will NOT happen I am sorry to say. There is a poster at RB who said Friday was everyones last chance. Do you know what he meant by that?
John
You mess with IHUB you mess with the best. I just wish they would keep their RB ATTACK AND SPAM attitude at RB.
Later Dude
CHEMIST1230
Lighten up a little. John's post make perfectly good sense with a little humor, you know laughter and smiles. At least here you get both sides of the story without the attacks. Like he said IGNORE OR BE NICE.
It has been a long five years.
Has anyone seen this post on Archies thread?
By: rusisright
18 Jul 2003, 09:41 PM EDT Msg. 71070 of 71082
Jump to msg. #
Talked to Frank, following is some of the conversation.
Ten year contract is signed with TW.
PR "hope" out next week. QBID will be mentioned in PR. Launch 2nd week in October. R/S could not
say either way. The above is my best recollection of conversation.
As always do your own DD. rus
1. My question being, what does he mean QBID will be mentioned in the Press Release.
2. Who is putting out the Press Release?
3. From what I can gather TW will NEVER do a joint release. It is NOT their policy.
The thing that has me a bit unnerved is that QBID will be MENTIONED. Am I crazy or is QBID the one putting out the PR?
Very Strange Indeed!!!!!!!!
Kind of what I was saying as few days ago Ya Think?
NBC to Broadcast Special 'Queer Eye' Episode
Fri Jul 18, 7:33 PM ET
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - After the show's smash-hit debut on sister network Bravo, NBC said on Friday it will show a special episode of the make-over program "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" next week.
"Queer Eye," in which five gay man with expertise in fashion, grooming, culture, food and interior design team up to make-over a straight man, broke ratings records for Bravo in its hour-long premiere this week.
NBC said it would show a condensed 30-minute version next Thursday at 9:30 p.m.
"After as much media attention and a breakout premiere on Bravo, we want to offer this unusual series a bigger platform," NBC Entertainment President Jeff Zucker said in a statement.
The show was one of many with gay themes that Bravo has shown in the recent past or plans to debut soon.
Broadcast networks are increasingly looking to cable as a source of programming alternatives, particularly during slow periods like the summer.
Last summer, NBC re-aired episodes of the Court TV show "Forensic Files," and ABC rebroadcast episodes of "Monk," the USA show about a neurotic detective. Star Tony Shalhoub (news) was recently nominated for an Emmy award as best actor in a comedy for his performance on the show.
Bravo and NBC are units of General Electric Co., while ABC is owned by the Walt Disney Co.
If just ONLY....
WE MUST NEVER FORGET....
Thanks BUBBA!!!!
9/11 Commission: Clinton Likely to Be Grilled on bin Laden Blunder
If he's called to testify before the independent commission investigating the 9/11 attacks, ex-President Bill Clinton will likely be questioned about his admission that he decided to turn down an offer for Osama bin Laden's extradition to the U.S.
"If the decision is made to call him, then obviously our staff will research what they are going to ask him," commission spokesman Al Felzenberg told NewsMax.com on Thursday. "And since this is obviously on the public record, I wouldn't be surprised if it came up."
On Wednesday NewsMax.com supplied the 9/11 commission with a transcript of Clinton's admission that he let bin Laden off the hook
"We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again," Clinton told the Long Island Association on Feb. 15, 2002.
"They released [bin Laden]. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."
The 9/11 commission was also supplied with an audio link where NewsMax.com's exclusive recording of the ex-president's comments could be accessed.
Felzenberg said the decision to call Clinton, as well as any determination on what questions to ask him, was still months away.
But referring to the question of whether the bin Laden blunder was likely to be on the agenda, he said, "The answer is, yeah, but not yet."
The 9/11 commission is also seeking what Felzenberg described as "a multitude of documents" from the Clinton Library.
"Material that has gone to the Clinton Library has been requested" from the National Archives, which has jurisdiction over the records, he said.
"They own the documents, not the ex-president," Felzenberg explained.
How many lives could have been SAVED if only?????????
Wednesday, July 16, 2003 12:28 p.m. EDT
Clinton-Era Reports Cited Saddam-bin Laden Ties
In the nearly two years since President Bush named Iraq as part of the "Axis of Evil," the American press has been working overtime denying that there was ever any link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden.
But that's not what the same news outlets were saying before the 9/11 attacks, back when Bill Clinton was president and needed justification to attack Iraq.
Just weeks after Clinton bombed the daylights out of suspected hideaways for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, he used his January 1999 State of the Union Address to warn America about both bin Laden and Saddam, mentioning the two terror kingpins almost in the same breath.
"We will defend our security wherever we are threatened - as we did this summer when we struck at Osama bin Laden's network of terror," Clinton told Congress and the nation. "The bombing our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania reminds us again of the risks faced every day by those who represent America to the world."
Moments later Clinton segued into the threat posed by Saddam:
"For nearly a decade, Iraq has defied its obligations to destroy its weapons of terror and the missiles to deliver them. America will continue to contain Saddam, and we will work for the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people."
But rather than launch an all out assault on what reporters now call the "dubious" assertion that Saddam and bin Laden had made common cause, the press took Clinton's ball and ran with it.
In fact, as researched and documented this week by FrontPageMagazine.com, in 1999 the national news media was replete with reports linking the Butcher of Baghdad and the man who masterminded the killing of 3,000 Americans almost two years ago.
Here are a few highlights gathered by FrontPage from the press' Saddam-bin Laden file – stories that have since conveniently disappeared down the media's memory hole:
Associated Press Worldstream
Feb. 14, 1999
Taliban leader says whereabouts of bin Laden unknown
... Analysts say bin Laden's options for asylum are limited.
Iraq was considered a possible destination because bin Laden had received an invitation from Iraqi President Saddam Hussein last month. And Somalia was a third possible destination because of its anarchy and violent anti-U.S. history ....
San Jose Mercury News
SUNDAY MORNING FINAL EDITION
Feb. 14, 1999
U.S. WORRIED ABOUT IRAQI, BIN LADEN TIES TERRORIST COULD GAIN EVEN DEADLIER WEAPONS
U.S. intelligence officials are worried that a burgeoning alliance between terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could make the fugitive Saudi's loose-knit organization much more dangerous ...
In addition, the officials said, Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal is now in Iraq, as is a renowned Palestinian bomb designer, and both could make their expertise available to bin Laden.
"It's clear the Iraqis would like to have bin Laden in Iraq," said Vincent Cannistraro, a former head of counterterrorism operations at the Central Intelligence Agency ...
Saddam has even offered asylum to bin Laden, who has expressed support for Iraq.
... [in] late December, when bin Laden met a senior Iraqi intelligence official near Qandahar, Afghanistan, there has been increasing evidence that bin Laden and Iraq may have begun cooperating in planning attacks against American and British targets around the world.
Bin Laden, who strikes in the name of Islam, and Saddam, one of the most secular rulers in the Arab world, have little in common except their hatred of the United States ...
More worrisome, the American officials said, are indications that there may be contacts between bin Laden's organization and Iraq's Special Security Organization (SSO), run by Saddam's son Qusay. Both the SSO and the Mukhabarat were involved in a failed 1993 plot to assassinate former President George Bush ...
"The idea that the same people who are hiding Saddam's biological weapons may be meeting with Osama bin Laden is not a happy one," said one American official....
Beacon Journal wire services
Oct. 31, 1999
BIN LADEN SPOTTED AFTER OFFER TO LEAVE
DATELINE: JALALABAD, AFGHANISTAN:
... The Taliban has since made it known through official channels that the likely destination is Iraq.
A Clinton administration official said bin Laden's request "falls far short" of the UN resolution that the Taliban deliver him for trial. ...
The Kansas City Star
March 2, 1999
International terrorism, a conflict without boundaries
By Rich Hood
... He [bin Laden] has a private fortune ranging from $250 million to $500 million and is said to be cultivating a new alliance with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, who has biological and chemical weapons bin Laden would not hesitate to use. An alliance between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein could be deadly. Both men are united in their hatred for the United States and any country friendly to the United States. ...
United Press International
Nov. 3, 1999, Wednesday, BC cycle.
WASHINGTON – The U.S. government has tried to prevent accused terror suspect Osama bin Laden from fleeing Afghanistan to either Iraq or Chechnya, Michael Sheehan, head of counter-terrorism at the State Department, told a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee. ...
U.S. Newswire
Dec. 23, 1999
Terrorism Expert Reveals Why Osama bin Laden has Declared War On America; Available for Comment in Light of Predicted Attacks.
... Aauthor Yossef] Bodansky also reveals the relationship between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and how the U.S. bombing of Iraq is "strengthening the hands of militant Islamists eager to translate their rage into violence and terrorism."
National Public Radio
MORNING EDITION (10:00 a.m.ET)
Feb. 18, 1999
THOUGH AFGHANISTAN HAS PROVIDED OSAMA BIN LADEN WITH SANCTUARY, IT IS UNCLEAR WHERE HE IS NOW. ANCHORS: BOB EDWARDS REPORTERS: MIKE SHUSTER
... There have also been reports in recent months that bin Laden might have been considering moving his operations to Iraq. Intelligence agencies in several nations are looking into that. According to Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of CIA counterterrorism operations, a senior Iraqi intelligence official, Farouk Hijazi(ph), sought out bin Laden in December and invited him to come to Iraq.
Mr. VINCENT CANNISTRARO (Former Chief of CIA Counterterrorism Operations): Farouk Hijazi, who was the Iraqi ambassador in Turkey ... known through sources in Afghanistan, members of Osama's entourage let it be known that the meeting had taken place.
SHUSTER: Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. There is a wide gap between bin Laden's fundamentalism and Saddam Hussein's secular dictatorship. But some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony. ...
Foreign news services also carried news of the now-supressed Saddam-bin Laden connection:
Agence France-Presse
Feb. 17, 1999
Saddam plans to use bin Laden against Kuwait, Saudi: opposition
Iraq's President Saddam Hussein plans to use alleged terrorist Osama bin Laden's network to carry out his threats against Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, an Iraqi opposition figure charged on Wednesday.
"If the ... Jaber, a member of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), said Iraq had "offered to shelter bin Laden under the precondition that he carry out strikes on targets in neighbouring countries."
Deutsche Presse-Agentur
Feb. 17, 1999, Wednesday, BC Cycle
Opposition group says bin Laden in Iraq
DATELINE: Kuwait City
An Iraqi opposition group claimed in a published report Wednesday that Islamic militant Osama bin Laden is in Iraq from where he plans to launch a campaign of terrorism against Baghdad's Gulf neighbours.
The claim was made by Bayan Jabor, spokesman for the Teheran-based Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI).
Bin Laden "recently settled in Iraq at the invitation of Saddam Hussein in exchange for directing strikes against targets in neighbouring countries," Jabor told the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Rai al- Aam ... Taleban leaders in Afghanistan, where he had been living, said they lost track of him. Media reports have speculated he sought refuge in Chechnya, Somalia, Iraq, or with a non-Taliban group in Afghanistan.
Jabor, who was interviewed in Damascus, Syria, said Iraq began extending invitations to bin Laden six months ago, shortly after the United States bombed his suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan after linking him with the August 7 bombings of U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and in Dar-es-Salam, Tanzania.
The United States indicted Bin Laden for the embassy bombings and has offered a five million dollar reward for information leading to his capture. Bin Laden's disappearance has coincided with stepped up threats by Iraq against neighbours Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey for allowing the United States and Britain to use their air bases to carry out air patrols over two "no-fly" zones over northern and southern Iraq. ...
Mr. BullNBear52
You can SPIN it any way you want. The articles are from CNN, you know The CLINTOON NEWS NETOWRK, and they explain exactly what happened. The results that followed 2-3 years later are obvious.
Keep trying. I'll be waiting.
Mr. BullNBear52 Sir:
Read this then tell me how many AMERICANS died 2-3 years later thanks to Bubba and his human humidor.
WE MUST NEVER FORGET
BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
On Aug. 20, President Clinton personally ordered the leveling of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant on the outskirts of Khartoum. More or less simultaneously, another flight of cruise missiles was dropped on various parts of Afghanistan and also -- who's counting? -- Pakistan, in an apparent effort to impress the vile Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden, of course, hopes to bring a "judgmental" monotheism of his own to bear on these United States, and is thus in some peoples' minds a sort of Arab version of Ken Starr.
Sources in U.S. Intelligence apparently claimed that there was only one "window" through which to strike at bin Laden, and that the only time they could hope to hit his Afghan fastness by this remote means was on the night of Monica Lewinsky's return to the grand jury. Let's assume they were correct. After all, they helped build and equip his camps and they may know something we don't (even if they ended up missing him). Furthermore, the hideous Taliban regime is not available for the receiving of diplomatic notes, has even executed some Iranian envoys and seems in other ways to be deaf to shame.
But Khartoum? There are two separate but related questions here. First, was the Al-Shifa factory a Tom Clancy cauldron of devil's brew? Second, did it have to be hit that very night? The first question does involve the second, but for convenience let's summarize its headings. The administration said that no medical or commercial products were made at Al-Shifa. It added that the factory was directly related to bin Laden's occult commercial empire. It further said that the traces of the chemical compound EMPTA had been found in the soil outside the plant. Within days, there was an amazingly swift climb-down from all these claims:
Vials of medicine and other evidence of civilian pharmaceutical manufacture were visible in photographs of the first day's debris. The German ambassador to Sudan, Werner Daum, sent a sarcastic cable to Bonn saying that he knew this all along. The British engineer who built the plant, Tom Carnaffin, attested that the plant had no space for the off-the-record experimental work. Other engineers and architects pointed out that the factory had no air-sealed doors, essential if poison gas is to be on the menu. The Sudanese government called loudly for an international inspection, which the Clinton administration -- once so confident -- declined to endorse. By the first week in September, Defense Secretary William Cohen admitted that he "should have known" that Al-Shifa made medical and agricultural products.
Secretary Cohen also admitted in the same statement that there was no longer any "direct" financial connection to be asserted between bin Laden and the plant. But he was still pretty sure that there were indirect ones. That could be. There are also many straightforward connections between the turbanned one and Saudi Arabia. But does anyone believe that the United States would rocket a Saudi Arabian target and let the monarchs find out about it from CNN, or when the missiles fell?
The presence of EMPTA (O-ethyl methyl phosphonothoic acid) proves nothing on its own, whether found in the soil near a factory or inside the factory itself. I spoke to Professor R.J.P. Williams, who is Professor of Inorganic Chemistry at Oxford and considered something of an authority on biological systems and on EMPTA. It can be an intermediate in the production of VX gas, he told me, but it can be an intermediate for dealing with agricultural pests and for myriad other purposes. "We must be told where the compound was found, and in what quantity it is known to have been produced, and whether there is any ascertainable link to nerve-gas production. 'Trace' elements in adjacent soil are of no use. Either the administration has something to hide, or for some reason is withholding the evidence."
So much for the legitimacy of the "legally accurate" target. But suppose that all these suspicions could be dissolved, and that we knew the factory was run by Doctor No or Herr Blofeld of Fu Manchu. It still could not have been folded like a tent and spirited away in a day or so. And the United States has diplomatic relations with Sudan. (It even used these relations, not long ago, to press successfully for the deportation of bin Laden.) Was there a demarche made between the State Department and the Sudanese regime? (We want to see inside this factory right away and will interpret refusal as a hostile act.) There was not. Even Saddam Hussein was and is given more warning than that.
Well then, what was the hurry? A hurry that was panicky enough for the president and his advisors to pick the wrong objective and then, stained with embarrassment and retraction, to refuse the open inquiry that could have settled the question in the first place? There is really only one possible answer to that question. Clinton needed to look "presidential" for a day. He may even have needed a vacation from his family vacation. In any event, he acted with caprice and brutality and with a complete disregard for international law, and perhaps counted on the indifference of the press and public to a negligible society like that of Sudan, and killed wogs to save his own lousy Hyde (to say nothing of our new moral tutor, the ridiculous sermonizer Lieberman). No bipartisan contrition is likely to be offered to the starving Sudanese: unmentioned on the "prayer-breakfast" circuit.
This is why I agree with those who say that we must put Monica behind us, and stop our comic obsession with sex (or "sex" as the president's filthy-minded and incompetent lawyers are still compelled, for perjurious reasons, to call it in their briefing). Clinton must not resign, nor should he be impeached. He and his fans have earned the right to serve out their whole sentence.
Did Bill wag the dog?
After Clinton called out the warplanes, Beltway skeptics said they'd already seen the movie.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BY DAVID CORN / WASHINGTON -- It took only a few minutes for one of the reporters in the Pentagon pressroom to ask Secretary of Defense William Cohen the question on many minds: "Have you seen the movie?" He was referring to "Wag the Dog" and the unsettling coincidence between Thursday's military strikes and a movie in which political fixers concoct a war to distract public attention from a presidential sex scandal.
Cohen adopted a steely expression as he replied, "The only motivation driving this action today was our absolute obligation to protect the American people."
But cynicism could not be avoided. I was eating lunch with a prominent Republican official when his office called to inform him of the Clinton-ordered attacks on terrorist installations in Afghanistan and a supposed chemical-weapons factory in Sudan. The official immediately asked the caller, "Is CNN airing video footage of a young girl running with a kitten?" -- a direct reference to a scene in the film. He got up to leave, noting, "Clinton will do anything to get away from Hillary."
It's inevitable. After what seems a week of media elites venting about The Speech -- and it's only been three days! -- nothing Bill Clinton says can be taken at face value in this town. Some of us have long believed he is a fellow not to be trusted, based on his policy decisions on campaign finance reform, global warming, budget politics, Lani Guinier, welfare legislation, mass murder in Rwanda and other matters. But now the core of Washington's ruling class appears to have turned on the man, as well.
It's tough to argue that he doesn't deserve this. But Republicans ought to be careful about going too far in dismissing Clinton. When Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., questioned Clinton's motives in launching the attacks -- "Why did he wait until now?" -- reporters at a press conference (which Coats opportunistically called minutes after the news broke) harshly cross-examined the senator. Didn't he take Bill Cohen, an ex-senator and Republican with whom Coats served, at his word? Coats had to pause before continuing his anti-Clinton spin.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., also rushed before television cameras to suggest that Clinton may have had more than national security on his mind in deciding to bomb. Oddly, two days ago, the president's critics were arguing that his scandalous behavior rendered it difficult for him to act decisively. Then when he did move forcefully, that aggravated his antagonists.
But there were different takes among Republicans. House Speaker Newt Gingrich stated plainly the assault "was the right thing to do." And Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, remarked, "We should all back the president of the United States." Clearly, Republicans were unable to get all their voices in tune with one message. Some simply couldn't resist the urge to whack at the president -- an impulse that could help Clinton should the public become annoyed with GOP eagerness to exploit Monicagate.
Monica Lewinsky aside, there is always reason to worry that military actions are motivated by political needs. Two days after a 1983 terrorist bombing at the U.S. Marines barracks in Lebanon killed 241 Americans, President Reagan invaded the tiny island of Grenada in a move that seemed designed to substitute a military romp for a deadly disaster.
President Bush's invasion of Panama in 1989 was questioned as a politically convenient operation aimed to dispose of an embarrassment to the U.S. government: the drugged-up, onetime C.I.A. asset Manuel Noriega. The Panama action also afforded Bush the opportunity to counter criticism that he was a bit of a wimp.
In 1993 Clinton ordered the air strike on Iraqi targets in retaliation for an alleged assassination plot against former President George Bush. At that time, I asked a senior White House aide what justified this act of war. "If we don't do anything, the media will be all over us," he replied. The bombing appeared to work. Afterward, the Christian Science Monitor ran a piece that noted, "By slamming cruise missiles into Baghdad in retaliation for a plot to kill his predecessor, President Clinton has struck a blow that may help overcome his public image of wavering leadership."
"Wag the Dog" has merely given a name to what has always been true: Presidents, when they assume their commander-in-chief duties, do not ignore political considerations. Skepticism is always warranted when a president orders a unilateral military action (particularly since the Consitution delegates the power to declare war to Congress, not the chief executive).
But the best skepticism is that which is guided by principle. Was the evidence strong enough to justify the possible loss of life? Will this action prompt more or less terrorism? How does this strike affect the international rule of law? Might it have been more effective to continue pushing Afghanistan to turn over suspected terrorist kingpin Osama bin Laden?
In this summer of scandal, however, that kind of skepticism takes a back seat in Washington to the widespread desire to score a cheap political hit.
Canadian Government Wants Gay Marriage to Be Law of Land
Friday, July 18, 2003
TORONTO — Canada's government proposed Thursday that marriage be defined as the "lawful union of two persons," which would legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country.
The draft bill, presented to the Supreme Court for judicial review before Parliament considers it, is the government's reaction to court rulings that have allowed same-sex marriages in Ontario and British Columbia.
Hundreds of homosexual couples have gotten married in those two provinces in recent weeks, and the proposed law showed Prime Minister Jean Chretien's intention to make Canada the fourth nation in the world to legalize same-sex marriage, after Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands.
"The bill is very short, just two sections, but I believe it speaks volumes about who we are as Canadians and the rights that we share," Justice Minister Martin Cauchon said at a news conference.
He said changing the definition of marriage does nothing to erode the institution or diminish the rights or status of heterosexual marriage.
Titled the Act Respecting Certain Aspects of Legal Capacity for Marriage, the proposal says: "Marriage for civil purposes is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others."
Under current law, marriage is defined as the union of a man and woman. Courts in Ontario and British Columbia have ruled that language unconstitutional, but religious groups and social conservatives say the traditional definition of marriage dates back thousands of years and is a cornerstone of society and procreation.
The proposed new law states that religious communities can define marriage as they wish, an attempt to appease opponents of homosexual marriage.
"We also live in a society that believes in freedom of religion," Cauchon said. "I believe the draft bill strikes the proper balance, and by taking this approach, the government of Canada is doing the right thing at the right time in our history."
In its submission to the Supreme Court, the government asked for answers to three questions involving the proposed new law. Is the law within the exclusive authority of the federal government? Does it respect constitutional rights? And, do guarantees of religious freedom in Canada's Constitution permit some religious groups to refuse to sanctify same-sex marriages as a violation of their beliefs?
It was unclear when the Supreme Court would respond. It is setting its calendar for the rest of the year, and Cauchon conceded an answer may not come until 2004.
Once the Supreme Court has responded, he said, the measure would go to Parliament for a free vote, meaning legislators could vote their conscious rather than follow party discipline.
Cauchon also noted a possible legal challenge by opponents of same-sex marriage who are seeking intervener status to challenge the Ontario court ruling. He said the federal government would likely oppose allowing outside groups to intervene.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92292,00.html
Skunks
I agree with ferguss, GREAT FIND. You should post that on RB as well. Hey, I hope I am wrong and hope to see QBID a reality real soon.
BullNBear52
DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY ASPRINS WERE DESTROYED DURNING THE MONICA WATCH?
When is this BULLSHIT going to stop
The second article shows how BUBBA did the same thing BUSH did but no one complained. AM I missing something or is this a CLINTOON double standard? This is total BULLSHIT plain and simple. Why hasn't anyone ask Bill CLINTOON WHERE HE GOT HIS INFORMATION ABOUT WMD INCLUDING NUCLEAR? WAKE UP AMERICA
Hillary: Bush Stonewalling on WMD Questions
New York Sen. Hillary Clinton said Thursday that the White House has "not been forthcoming" in its responses to questions about the U.S.'s pre-war intelligence on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program.
Calling the WMD questions a matter of "life or death," Mrs. Clinton told WLIE's David Weiss and Amanda Clarke, "I don't believe that the administration is very forthcoming, which I don't understand."
"I have to say that this is a matter of life or death," she insisted, before cautioning that she wasn't accusing the president of knowingly using forged documents detailing Iraq's efforts to obtain uranium from Niger.
"I know enough about how intelligence works that nobody believes that the president, you know, called up somebody in Africa and said, you know, 'Hey, forge some documents and send 'em over here,'" the top Democrat explained.
But Clinton insisted, "The fact is that we've got to figure out first whether our intelligence was accurate."
The former first lady said that while much of what President Bush had asserted regarding Saddam's WMD program was "consistent with [findings by] the Clinton administration," she contended that questions remain about the president's handling of the information.
Those questions include "was [the intelligence] manipulated, was it overstated, was the Congress and the public misled?" she told WLIE.
http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2003/7/18/124006
Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance
President Clinton addressed the nation from the Oval Office
Clinton spells out Iraq's non-compliance
Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites.
Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence.
Iraq tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.
Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all documents requested by the inspectors.
US Forces:
There are 15 U.S. warships and 97 U.S. aircraft in the Persian Gulf region, including about 70 aboard the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise. More than 12,000 sailors and Marines are in the region.
U.S. sources said eight of the warships, equipped with cruise missiles, have been moved into the northern part of the Gulf, within easy striking distance of Baghdad. More troops and jets have been ordered to the region.
More than 300 cruise missiles are available for use against Iraq, and there are air-launched cruise missiles aboard 14 B-52 bombers on the British island of Diego Garcia, sources said.
Britain has 22 strike aircraft in the region.
December 16, 1998
Web posted at: 8:51 p.m. EST (0151 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.
The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.
Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.
"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.
Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.
'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'
The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.
"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.
The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.
Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.
"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said.
"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.
Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs
Clinton said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors.
Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.
"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."
Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.
Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.
Clinton also addressed the ongoing impeachment crisis in the White House.
"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down," he said.
"But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
EVERYONE SUSPECTS BOB GRAHAM IS AN IDIOT --- HE REALLY DOESN’T HAVE TO WORK THAT HARD TO PROVE IT.
Bob Graham, Florida’s demented Democratic Senator and presidential wannabe, is making noises about impeaching George Bush. He says that there are grounds to impeach Bush if we find that he led America to war under false pretences.
What false pretences? That Saddam Hussein was a monster? That Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? Every major industrialized nation in the world agrees with those assessments, so what in the hell is Graham talking about?
We’ll also talk today about Graham’s plan for a millionaire’s tax bracket to help, as he puts it, ease the nation’s deficit. He wants to expand government payments to people who don’t pay taxes under these phony child tax credits, earned income tax credits and other giveaway plans. He wants to raise taxes on dividends and capital gains.
Graham is really playing the Democrat class warfare game to the hilt here. He says that “millionaires are the only people who truly benefit from his policies.”
Florida … you should be embarrassed.
Somewhere in this great country an 86 year old man or woman is getting ready to climb behind the wheel of their Buick and head out for a little drive around town. May God protect us.
As I pointed out yesterday, we have Senator Carl Levin demanding an investigation of Bush’s claims that British intelligence had learned Hussein tried to buy uranium from Africa. An investigation? Levis said the exact same thing in 1998! Where is the investigation of his comments? Oh, I forgot. Alleged lies are only to be investigated when there’s a Republican in the White House. Silly me.
There is a great line in Thursday's "Best of the Web." (See link in the Reading Assignments): "The problem for the Democrats is that a significant number of their voters are far more passionate about their party's enemies than their country's." Boy, is that ever true.
Can we amend our Constitution somehow to make it possible for Tony Blair to run for President after Bush's second term?
There are now about 350 websites out there where you can find my Commencement Speech. Not bad for a speech that has never been delivered at a commencement. At least one of those sites is a porn site. Go figure. Maybe I'll write a state of the union speech and see where that gets me.
Don't get your boxers in a bunch over those dust mites in your bed. If it weren't for those dust mites you would be wallowing in a half-inch layer of you're your old dead skin cells.
A study conducted in Bangkok, Thailand, where apparently a lot of people are having quite a bit of sex, concludes that men with a lot of back hair make better sex partners. Unfortunately all of that hair that disappeared off the top of my head is now growing out of my nose and ears. No word on what that means.
OK .. just to stir the puddin' a bit. I don't personally support the idea of a state-sanctioned "gay marriage." But ... this question. Can you tell me just how your own marriage would be affected if a gay couple were allowed to marry? Come on! I'm waiting. Tell me just what this would do to harm your marriage?
Does anyone actually play board games anymore? Would Monopoly be considered politically incorrect? Maybe we need a new version of Monopoly where once your cash stash goes below a certain point you can force the other players to pay a portion of your rent for you. All Monopoly needs to do is add a “Section 8” card to the Community Chest. That’s the way it works in real life..
I just love this one. A woman tells her husband she doesn't love him any more. She leaves him to join up with her Internet lover. Imagine her surprise when her Internet lover turns out to be ... her now-estranged husband.
You know, it's been quite a while since I heard of a case of spontaneous human combustion. Have any of you seen anyone burst into flames recently? Do you have anyone you would like to see burst into flames?
Researchers in England have reported that if a man dreams of impotence it means that his sex life is about to get better. Trouble is, I just can't remember if that was a dream.
Yesterday’s Latin phrase was “Stick it where the sun doesn’t shine.”
Didn't you just love those Democrats --- Gephardt, Lieberman and Kucinich --- groveling to the NAACP in Miami? You think that's something, wait until they actually get into office. Queasy says jump, they all yell "how high?"
Grey Davis’ wife says that the recall effort against her husband amounts to a “hostile takeover.” Any attempt to remove a Democrat from office is, in a sense, a hostile takeover. It’s a takeover of an office occupied by someone who is hostile to the heritage and promise of America, hostile to the idea of defending our borders, hostile to capitalism, hostile to economic liberty, hostile to the concept of the individual. We need more hostile takeovers.
They’re making a big deal of Nelson Mandela’s 85th birthday. There is much to admire in Mandela’s past. Today, however, he is a bitter anti-American demagogue. He’s also a sacred cow .. so not many will utter the truth about this man.
George Bush pronounces “nuclear” as nu-cue-ler. The left is giving him a rough time over this, citing it as evidence of his lack of intelligence. Check back, Jimmy Carter pronounced it the exact same way, and he was a nuclear engineer!
Hey, I’m moving on up! My name was mentioned in a White House press briefing yesterday. That’s the good part. The bad part is that they spelled it wrong in the transcript. We’ll just call it a foot in the door.
That man who plowed through the crowd in Santa Monica … and killed nine people? This morning CNN had videotape of another incident, this one from ten years ago. This time the very same old man ran his car into a retaining wall. Evidently he’s been a menace for over 10 years. Those who knew, and protected him, share the blame for the deaths of those nine people on Wednesday.
SOURCE: http://www.boortz.com/nealznuz.htm