Full Version: Ethics/Values in politics
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
Viva Zapata!
QUOTE
We must free the people of Mexico from their cruel government.... 
They's freeing their ownselves. Yup, it might be cheaper & better all 'round to free their government off of 'em.
But the "theys" would still be left there, both sides.
Serious people say that no immigrant group has ever shown less inclination to melt into the pot. Melting is the exception, not the rule. 
How long would it take to capture Mexico? Imagine, Pemex making a profit.
QUOTE(lil bart @ Apr 29 2005, 05:41 PM)
Serious people say that no immigrant group has ever shown less inclination to melt into the pot. Melting is the exception, not the rule.
[right][snapback]79610[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]79610[/snapback][/right]
Not my experience here. But they have to be part of the US, not just laborers sending money "home". (which is what supports Mexico along with our tourism)
I think the majority are laborers sending money home, AV. That's a key component of the divide.
I think that's why we'd be better off to let some in for good and keep the rest out. Workers that pay taxes for a lifetime and we don't have to pay to raise. Somebody is going to have to pay SS taxes to support the boomers.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Apr 29 2005, 06:08 PM)
I think that's why we'd be better off to let some in for good and keep the rest out. Workers that pay taxes for a lifetime and we don't have to pay to raise. Somebody is going to have to pay SS taxes to support the boomers.
[right][snapback]79624[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]79624[/snapback][/right]
Isn't this how we used to have legal immigration?
QUOTE(lil bart @ Apr 29 2005, 06:14 PM)
Isn't this how we used to have legal immigration?
[right][snapback]79627[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]79627[/snapback][/right]
That's my point. Allow a little more legal, and scrap the guest worker crap.
We should just take over mexico and then the snow birds will have a less expensive place to live when and if they get to retire. 
You can buy into their socialized healthcare system already. Money will go a long way south of the border. But you have to know who to pay off.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Apr 29 2005, 08:42 PM)
You can buy into their socialized healthcare system already. Money will go a long way south of the border. But you have to know who to pay off.
[right][snapback]79645[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]79645[/snapback][/right]
Mmm-hai-hey, let's see now, we have the Monsterometer,
Flipper-finder, Hoax-a-scope which is important for the
looking and finding.
Fetch the expensive machine that goes PING!
The administrators are coming.
The administrators are coming.
There is absolutely NO place for ethics/values in politics...it just doesn't get things done!
Sherry, I sure wouldn’t want to be in those shoes. Yes, the jets may have scrambled from Sandusky, wouldn’t that be a shame.
But to have to choose between ordering the killing of American citizens, or letting them die taking out the Capitol
Upon whom shoulders I have seen the sunset under the specimen trees,
With mockingbirds calling the tune
Long live liberty and long live the spirit of Washington
is that too corny for a good ol' Merigan? Satiddy night rule.
But to have to choose between ordering the killing of American citizens, or letting them die taking out the Capitol
Upon whom shoulders I have seen the sunset under the specimen trees,
With mockingbirds calling the tune
Long live liberty and long live the spirit of Washington
is that too corny for a good ol' Merigan? Satiddy night rule.
Blair, Blair
So glad you’re there
Glue to the past
Cautious yet hopeful pace
Peace in the glen
Who will talk of justice and reason
Amid the scrutiny of myriad interests
All with their narrow focii.
Master and Commander, we salute ye.
Dead reckoning, through fog and mire.
And the doldrums that bespeak a change
May that sense of purpose prevail
Now snap to, and ship the shape
I see, in this country, a political advantage
To capital way over labour.
And the results are bloody awful.
Capital may cooperate with the best of labour to its advantage,
Begrudging the rest
To their niggardly offense, and the failure of the whole.
Yet the rich do alright.
Labour must reform.
So glad you’re there
Glue to the past
Cautious yet hopeful pace
Peace in the glen
Who will talk of justice and reason
Amid the scrutiny of myriad interests
All with their narrow focii.
Master and Commander, we salute ye.
Dead reckoning, through fog and mire.
And the doldrums that bespeak a change
May that sense of purpose prevail
Now snap to, and ship the shape
I see, in this country, a political advantage
To capital way over labour.
And the results are bloody awful.
Capital may cooperate with the best of labour to its advantage,
Begrudging the rest
To their niggardly offense, and the failure of the whole.
Yet the rich do alright.
Labour must reform.
Wanted: A Handle for the Scandal
By Al Kamen
Wednesday, May 4, 2005; Page A17
Just a few months ago, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) looked to be in fine shape to weather a new round of allegations that he'd run afoul of House ethics rules.
After all, House Republicans had neatly disemboweled the ethics committee, not known as a den of pit bulls to begin with; gotten rid of that annoying Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.), who tended to take his duties seriously; and changed the rules to make it easier to dismiss complaints.
Republicans, with a well-deserved reputation for being far more loyal to their leaders than Democrats are to theirs, seemed steadfast in their support for DeLay.
But in a stunning about-face -- not to mention a show of disloyalty to the beleaguered majority leader -- the new rules have been rescinded and it appears the committee is going to investigate DeLay's fine golf trip to Scotland (allegedly funded via tribal casino money), a visit to Taiwan and another to Russia.
This could mean months of investigation. Which means months of leaks and counter-leaks in glorious Washington tradition. It also means the "scandal" needs a name. Yes, Loop Fans can help! Name this scandal!
Names ending in -gate, while not banned, will start with a 10-point penalty. Themes could include golf, casinos, Native Americans, Scotland, travel, termites, and hammers and other household tools.
For example, a colleague suggested "Agua Caliente," meaning hot water. It also is the name of a tribe -- the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, casino folks and owners of about 6,700 acres of what became Palm Springs, Calif. -- that is a former client of DeLay's close pal Jack Abramoff , a lobbyist who is also under a bit of scrutiny these days.
Send your entry -- and rationale -- via e-mail to intheloop@washpost.com or mail to In the Loop, The Washington Post, 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20071. Deadline is midnight May 13. Top 10 winners get a still-rare, highly coveted In the Loop T-shirt. Entries on background are welcome, but everyone MUST include telephone numbers to be eligible.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5050301593.html
Hmmmm, I'm gonna have to think about this.
By Al Kamen
Wednesday, May 4, 2005; Page A17
Just a few months ago, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) looked to be in fine shape to weather a new round of allegations that he'd run afoul of House ethics rules.
After all, House Republicans had neatly disemboweled the ethics committee, not known as a den of pit bulls to begin with; gotten rid of that annoying Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.), who tended to take his duties seriously; and changed the rules to make it easier to dismiss complaints.
Republicans, with a well-deserved reputation for being far more loyal to their leaders than Democrats are to theirs, seemed steadfast in their support for DeLay.
But in a stunning about-face -- not to mention a show of disloyalty to the beleaguered majority leader -- the new rules have been rescinded and it appears the committee is going to investigate DeLay's fine golf trip to Scotland (allegedly funded via tribal casino money), a visit to Taiwan and another to Russia.
This could mean months of investigation. Which means months of leaks and counter-leaks in glorious Washington tradition. It also means the "scandal" needs a name. Yes, Loop Fans can help! Name this scandal!
Names ending in -gate, while not banned, will start with a 10-point penalty. Themes could include golf, casinos, Native Americans, Scotland, travel, termites, and hammers and other household tools.
For example, a colleague suggested "Agua Caliente," meaning hot water. It also is the name of a tribe -- the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, casino folks and owners of about 6,700 acres of what became Palm Springs, Calif. -- that is a former client of DeLay's close pal Jack Abramoff , a lobbyist who is also under a bit of scrutiny these days.
Send your entry -- and rationale -- via e-mail to intheloop@washpost.com or mail to In the Loop, The Washington Post, 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20071. Deadline is midnight May 13. Top 10 winners get a still-rare, highly coveted In the Loop T-shirt. Entries on background are welcome, but everyone MUST include telephone numbers to be eligible.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5050301593.html
Hmmmm, I'm gonna have to think about this.
Democrats to unveil bill tightening lobbyist rules
Crackdown on political junkets is key to measure
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | May 4, 2005
WASHINGTON -- Democratic members of Congress today will unveil a sweeping proposal to tighten lobbying restrictions and reporting requirements, as controversy swirls around embattled House majority leader Tom DeLay and his ties to former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
The bill would crack down on improper congressional junkets by banning trips for members of Congress and their staffs if foreign agents pay the bills. It would also require organizations that pay for such trips to disclose in advance where the money came from, and guarantee that they are not operating as fronts for lobbyists.
The measure would also double the amount of time that former lawmakers and top staff members must wait before they can lobby Congress after leaving office, from one year to two. Fines for violations would be increased, new House committees would be created to ensure compliance with the new laws, and a searchable database would be created to bring more public awareness of lobbying activities.
Representative Martin T. Meehan, a Lowell Democrat who is one of the bill's two primary sponsors, said the recent ethics allegations against DeLay and other members who have engaged in questionable practices demonstrate the need for the first major overhaul of lobbying regulations in a decade.
''The system needs fundamental change, and I think these scandals are endemic of a larger problem," Meehan said. ''There's an ethical cloud hanging over Congress today."
Meehan said K Street, the Washington locale of many lobbying firms, ''has really become Congress's back office. That's where the bills are written; that's where the deals get made."
bingo. Too much corporate input, not enough input from the US employee.
The bill is being introduced as Democrats seek to gain political advantage from the DeLay allegations and the ongoing investigations of Abramoff. Representative Rahm Emanuel, an Illinois Democrat who is chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the bill's cosponsor, has said voters are tired of a Republican majority that is too close to special-interest lobbyists.
The bill figures to be a tough sell in the GOP-controlled Congress, particularly as Republican leaders move to defend DeLay, one of the party's most powerful members. The bill will be referred to the Committee on House Administration, whose chairman, Representative Robert W. Ney, Republican of Ohio, has also faced questions about his relationship with Abramoff. A Ney spokesman said yesterday that the chairman will review the bill after it is filed and will not comment until he has seen it.
DeLay has come under scrutiny in a number of areas, including allegations that he violated ethics rules by taking luxury trips overseas that were paid for by lobbyists and registered agents for foreign interests. His close ties to Abramoff, an influential political insider who is under federal and congressional investigation for his work on behalf of Indian tribes and other groups, have drawn particular fire to DeLay, a Texas lawmaker who is the second-ranking Republican House member.
Yesterday, the controversy around Abramoff widened with the disclosure that two DeLay aides and two House Democrats had their travel expenses initially paid by Abramoff's firm, an apparent violation of ethics rules. The Associated Press reported that the aides and Representative James Clyburn, Democrat of South Carolina, and Representative Bennie G. Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi, traveled to the South Pacific islands and Abramoff's lobbying firm picked up the tab, but the congressmen initially reported that the trip was paid for by a private, not-for-profit firm.
The Democrats' bill probably wouldn't have prevented some of the apparent irregularities surfacing around Abramoff, said Bill Allison, a spokesman for the government watchdog group Center for Public Integrity. But those allegations underscore problems in the existing ethics system, and could provide momentum for reform, he said.
''It's generally only when somebody's been caught that there's momentum for change," Allison said.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt...lobbyist_rules/
Crackdown on political junkets is key to measure
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | May 4, 2005
WASHINGTON -- Democratic members of Congress today will unveil a sweeping proposal to tighten lobbying restrictions and reporting requirements, as controversy swirls around embattled House majority leader Tom DeLay and his ties to former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
The bill would crack down on improper congressional junkets by banning trips for members of Congress and their staffs if foreign agents pay the bills. It would also require organizations that pay for such trips to disclose in advance where the money came from, and guarantee that they are not operating as fronts for lobbyists.
The measure would also double the amount of time that former lawmakers and top staff members must wait before they can lobby Congress after leaving office, from one year to two. Fines for violations would be increased, new House committees would be created to ensure compliance with the new laws, and a searchable database would be created to bring more public awareness of lobbying activities.
Representative Martin T. Meehan, a Lowell Democrat who is one of the bill's two primary sponsors, said the recent ethics allegations against DeLay and other members who have engaged in questionable practices demonstrate the need for the first major overhaul of lobbying regulations in a decade.
''The system needs fundamental change, and I think these scandals are endemic of a larger problem," Meehan said. ''There's an ethical cloud hanging over Congress today."
Meehan said K Street, the Washington locale of many lobbying firms, ''has really become Congress's back office. That's where the bills are written; that's where the deals get made."
bingo. Too much corporate input, not enough input from the US employee.
The bill is being introduced as Democrats seek to gain political advantage from the DeLay allegations and the ongoing investigations of Abramoff. Representative Rahm Emanuel, an Illinois Democrat who is chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the bill's cosponsor, has said voters are tired of a Republican majority that is too close to special-interest lobbyists.
The bill figures to be a tough sell in the GOP-controlled Congress, particularly as Republican leaders move to defend DeLay, one of the party's most powerful members. The bill will be referred to the Committee on House Administration, whose chairman, Representative Robert W. Ney, Republican of Ohio, has also faced questions about his relationship with Abramoff. A Ney spokesman said yesterday that the chairman will review the bill after it is filed and will not comment until he has seen it.
DeLay has come under scrutiny in a number of areas, including allegations that he violated ethics rules by taking luxury trips overseas that were paid for by lobbyists and registered agents for foreign interests. His close ties to Abramoff, an influential political insider who is under federal and congressional investigation for his work on behalf of Indian tribes and other groups, have drawn particular fire to DeLay, a Texas lawmaker who is the second-ranking Republican House member.
Yesterday, the controversy around Abramoff widened with the disclosure that two DeLay aides and two House Democrats had their travel expenses initially paid by Abramoff's firm, an apparent violation of ethics rules. The Associated Press reported that the aides and Representative James Clyburn, Democrat of South Carolina, and Representative Bennie G. Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi, traveled to the South Pacific islands and Abramoff's lobbying firm picked up the tab, but the congressmen initially reported that the trip was paid for by a private, not-for-profit firm.
The Democrats' bill probably wouldn't have prevented some of the apparent irregularities surfacing around Abramoff, said Bill Allison, a spokesman for the government watchdog group Center for Public Integrity. But those allegations underscore problems in the existing ethics system, and could provide momentum for reform, he said.
''It's generally only when somebody's been caught that there's momentum for change," Allison said.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt...lobbyist_rules/
Now here is the ultimate in stupidity. This moron suggests giving the war mongers Bush and Blair the Nobel Peace Prize.
Why don't they just throw the Nobel on the ground and sh*t on it? What a total sham.
Buuuuuut, then again, Bush made the Medal of Freedom virtually worthless by awarding it to those incompetents who backed the Iraq war.
Nobel for Bush and Blair?
By John Hughes
SALT LAKE CITY – I have a provocative suggestion for the Nobel Prize selection committee: Tony Blair and George Bush for the Nobel Peace Prize.
They deserve it for ridding us of Saddam Hussein, undoubtedly one of the world's worst tyrants and mass murderers since Adolf Hitler, and for triggering a wave of democratic stirring throughout Islamic world.
It would be a particularly fitting tribute for the prime minister, who may or may not survive this week's British general election. But whether in or out of office, he should be honored for standing for principle in Iraq in the face of considerable dissent from his own compatriots. His stand is reminiscent of that of Winston Churchill in the late 1930s who correctly pinpointed the evil of Hitler while some of his countrymen looked the other way.
Now before the steam starts coming out of the ears of all those anti-Bush and anti-Blair folks, let's look at a few facts.
One of the foremost arguments likely to be marshaled against a Nobel for Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair is that they brought freedom to Iraq only after waging war. But a string of other winners got the peace prize after being involved in both war and peace. They include such luminaries as Henry Kissinger, Menachem Begin, Mikhail Gorbachev, Yasser Arafat, Kofi Annan, and Jimmy Carter.
Another criticism is that the war in Iraq was waged on the pretext of neutralizing Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. True, those weapons turned out not to be there. But every major Western intelligence service believed before the outset of war that they were there. The United Nations believed they were there. The Israelis believed they were there. The Saudis believed they were there. Some of Hussein's generals believed they were there because Hussein told them so, even while he was telling the UN they weren't there. US intelligence agencies believed they were there. And, in the face of all this, Bush and Blair mistakenly believed they were there.
If the premise was wrong, the overthrow of Hussein was still a plus for everyone who cherishes freedom for all.
Bush and Blair, the American conservative and British Labourite, were at one on ousting the Taliban from Afghanistan and setting that tragic Islamic land on the road to democracy.
But it was the elimination of Hussein and the stirring turnout of millions of newly emancipated voters in Iraq - in defiance of death threats - that inspired the beginnings of a movement throughout the Arab world to claim freedom from repression and backwardness.
Thus we have witnessed Palestinians begin an orderly series of democratic elections, starting with the installation of their president, Mahmoud Abbas. With the passing of Arafat we have seen small but heartening steps in the direction of peace between Palestinians and Israelis - a cause Prime Minister Blair has forcefully championed.
Two important Arab allies of the US - Saudi Arabia and Egypt - have, in the face of nudging by Bush, taken some hesitant steps in the right direction.
Saudi Arabia, has held limited, but nonetheless welcome, elections for municipal councils.
Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak, sensing the winds of change, will for the first time allow direct multiparty presidential elections in October. Those carefully orchestrated elections are likely to return Mr. Mubarak to power, but opposition parties are hopeful that further reforms will ensue.
Extraordinary events have taken place suddenly in Lebanon. Last week the longtime presence of Syrian occupation troops came to an end after significant international pressure upon the Damascus regime. Lebanon will conduct parliamentary elections in May, thus opening a new chapter in that country's history.
These events are a setback for Syria's dictatorial leader Bashar al-Assad, whose people see not only the makings of democracy in Iraq, but also in neighboring Lebanon, where huge crowds have taken to the streets in praise of liberty.
Even in Iran, presidential elections are due next month. There can be little optimism about the outcome there because the ruling regime has exerted a repressive hand upon opposition newspapers and politicians, carefully eliminating candidates who favor change. Nonetheless, even though they have little immediate chance of upending the regime by orthodox means, there is a wave of discontent among under-30 Iranians, who are acutely conscious of the positive changes taking place in nations around them.
When democracy takes hold in this region, the contribution of such Western leaders as Bush and Blair should not be overlooked.
Blah, blah, blah. Bush and Blair are NOT heroes. And if it never happens? If it devolves into a civil war? What should we award them then, 20 to 50?
• John Hughes, who served as assistant secretary of State in the Reagan administration, is a former editor of the Monitor.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0504/p09s02-cojh.html
Why don't they just throw the Nobel on the ground and sh*t on it? What a total sham.
Buuuuuut, then again, Bush made the Medal of Freedom virtually worthless by awarding it to those incompetents who backed the Iraq war.
Nobel for Bush and Blair?
By John Hughes
SALT LAKE CITY – I have a provocative suggestion for the Nobel Prize selection committee: Tony Blair and George Bush for the Nobel Peace Prize.
They deserve it for ridding us of Saddam Hussein, undoubtedly one of the world's worst tyrants and mass murderers since Adolf Hitler, and for triggering a wave of democratic stirring throughout Islamic world.
It would be a particularly fitting tribute for the prime minister, who may or may not survive this week's British general election. But whether in or out of office, he should be honored for standing for principle in Iraq in the face of considerable dissent from his own compatriots. His stand is reminiscent of that of Winston Churchill in the late 1930s who correctly pinpointed the evil of Hitler while some of his countrymen looked the other way.
Now before the steam starts coming out of the ears of all those anti-Bush and anti-Blair folks, let's look at a few facts.
One of the foremost arguments likely to be marshaled against a Nobel for Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair is that they brought freedom to Iraq only after waging war. But a string of other winners got the peace prize after being involved in both war and peace. They include such luminaries as Henry Kissinger, Menachem Begin, Mikhail Gorbachev, Yasser Arafat, Kofi Annan, and Jimmy Carter.
Another criticism is that the war in Iraq was waged on the pretext of neutralizing Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. True, those weapons turned out not to be there. But every major Western intelligence service believed before the outset of war that they were there. The United Nations believed they were there. The Israelis believed they were there. The Saudis believed they were there. Some of Hussein's generals believed they were there because Hussein told them so, even while he was telling the UN they weren't there. US intelligence agencies believed they were there. And, in the face of all this, Bush and Blair mistakenly believed they were there.
If the premise was wrong, the overthrow of Hussein was still a plus for everyone who cherishes freedom for all.
Bush and Blair, the American conservative and British Labourite, were at one on ousting the Taliban from Afghanistan and setting that tragic Islamic land on the road to democracy.
But it was the elimination of Hussein and the stirring turnout of millions of newly emancipated voters in Iraq - in defiance of death threats - that inspired the beginnings of a movement throughout the Arab world to claim freedom from repression and backwardness.
Thus we have witnessed Palestinians begin an orderly series of democratic elections, starting with the installation of their president, Mahmoud Abbas. With the passing of Arafat we have seen small but heartening steps in the direction of peace between Palestinians and Israelis - a cause Prime Minister Blair has forcefully championed.
Two important Arab allies of the US - Saudi Arabia and Egypt - have, in the face of nudging by Bush, taken some hesitant steps in the right direction.
Saudi Arabia, has held limited, but nonetheless welcome, elections for municipal councils.
Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak, sensing the winds of change, will for the first time allow direct multiparty presidential elections in October. Those carefully orchestrated elections are likely to return Mr. Mubarak to power, but opposition parties are hopeful that further reforms will ensue.
Extraordinary events have taken place suddenly in Lebanon. Last week the longtime presence of Syrian occupation troops came to an end after significant international pressure upon the Damascus regime. Lebanon will conduct parliamentary elections in May, thus opening a new chapter in that country's history.
These events are a setback for Syria's dictatorial leader Bashar al-Assad, whose people see not only the makings of democracy in Iraq, but also in neighboring Lebanon, where huge crowds have taken to the streets in praise of liberty.
Even in Iran, presidential elections are due next month. There can be little optimism about the outcome there because the ruling regime has exerted a repressive hand upon opposition newspapers and politicians, carefully eliminating candidates who favor change. Nonetheless, even though they have little immediate chance of upending the regime by orthodox means, there is a wave of discontent among under-30 Iranians, who are acutely conscious of the positive changes taking place in nations around them.
When democracy takes hold in this region, the contribution of such Western leaders as Bush and Blair should not be overlooked.
Blah, blah, blah. Bush and Blair are NOT heroes. And if it never happens? If it devolves into a civil war? What should we award them then, 20 to 50?
• John Hughes, who served as assistant secretary of State in the Reagan administration, is a former editor of the Monitor.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0504/p09s02-cojh.html
Hell, Bush should pardon her and give her the Medal of Freedom too.
Abu Ghraib: Questions Linger
'I knew that was wrong." Those are the words of Pfc. Lynndie England, as she pleaded guilty Monday to mistreating Iraqi prisoners in the Abu Ghraib scandal.
A year ago, a photo of her giving the thumbs up next to a pyramid of nude prisoners - along with other disturbing pictures of abuse involving her and some of her colleagues - shocked the nation and the world. The images portrayed not only the harm inflicted on the prisoners, but the damage done to America's credibility as a torchbearer for human rights.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0504/p08s03-comv.html
What damage to America's credibility? That is sooooo old 'mercan. Get with the program. We ADVOCATE torture now. We advocate assassinations and death squads. Hell, we ship em offshore to avoid responsibility for the very worse types of torture.
What law? What morality?
What we saw ... that is the new reality.
But at least we have the sense to attack homosexuals in the homeland.
Welcome to Bushworld.
Abu Ghraib: Questions Linger
'I knew that was wrong." Those are the words of Pfc. Lynndie England, as she pleaded guilty Monday to mistreating Iraqi prisoners in the Abu Ghraib scandal.
A year ago, a photo of her giving the thumbs up next to a pyramid of nude prisoners - along with other disturbing pictures of abuse involving her and some of her colleagues - shocked the nation and the world. The images portrayed not only the harm inflicted on the prisoners, but the damage done to America's credibility as a torchbearer for human rights.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0504/p08s03-comv.html
What damage to America's credibility? That is sooooo old 'mercan. Get with the program. We ADVOCATE torture now. We advocate assassinations and death squads. Hell, we ship em offshore to avoid responsibility for the very worse types of torture.
What law? What morality?
What we saw ... that is the new reality.
But at least we have the sense to attack homosexuals in the homeland.
Welcome to Bushworld.
QUOTE
They include such luminaries as Henry Kissinger, Menachem Begin, Mikhail Gorbachev, Yasser Arafat, Kofi Annan, and Jimmy Carter.
As if the hawks think any in this list (aside from that jerk Kissenger) are worthy of respect.
Talk about a bunch of BS.
Mornin' bee.
I'm on a roll.
mmmmm.... rolls....
I'm on a roll.
mmmmm.... rolls....
Gas can??
QUOTE(davisął @ May 4 2005, 07:50 AM)
Gas can??
[right][snapback]80664[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]80664[/snapback][/right]
QUOTE(davisął @ May 4 2005, 12:49 PM)
Mornin' bee.
I'm on a roll.
mmmmm.... rolls....
[right][snapback]80663[/snapback][/right]
I'm on a roll.
mmmmm.... rolls....
[right][snapback]80663[/snapback][/right]
QUOTE(davisął @ May 4 2005, 08:49 AM)
Mornin' bee.
I'm on a roll.
mmmmm.... rolls....
[right][snapback]80663[/snapback][/right]
I'm on a roll.
mmmmm.... rolls....
[right][snapback]80663[/snapback][/right]
Good morning davis.
The backlash against this bs will be something to see.
QUOTE(Bee @ May 4 2005, 08:20 AM)
Good morning davis.
The backlash against this bs will be something to see.
[right][snapback]80673[/snapback][/right]
The backlash against this bs will be something to see.
[right][snapback]80673[/snapback][/right]
I hope so. Unfortunately some of our fellow citizens are incredibly gullible.
QUOTE(Bee @ May 4 2005, 08:41 AM)
As if the hawks think any in this list (aside from that jerk Kissenger) are worthy of respect.
Talk about a bunch of BS.
[right][snapback]80661[/snapback][/right]
Talk about a bunch of BS.
[right][snapback]80661[/snapback][/right]
'Zacklee....how's that for irony?
The slimiest character on that list is probably the one these vermin respect the most...
http://www.zpub.com/un/wanted-hkiss.html
QUOTE(davisął @ May 4 2005, 08:21 AM)
I hope so. Unfortunately some of our fellow citizens are incredibly gullible.
[right][snapback]80674[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]80674[/snapback][/right]
And you are from... ... ... what country?
QUOTE
WASHINGTON, May 3 - Newly disclosed documents from an American territory in the Pacific show that the powerful Washington lobbyist at the center of federal corruption investigations here paid directly for travel to the islands by several members of Congress, Democrat and Republican, as well as two senior aides to Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, despite House rules that bar such payments.
The lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, submitted bills to his law firm for more than $350,000 in expenses for several trips to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in 1996 and 1997 on behalf of the congressmen, as well as several others including Edwin Buckham, Mr. DeLay's former chief of staff, and Tony Rudy, his former deputy chief of staff.
In letters and e-mail messages to the Marianas, Mr. Abramoff acknowledged that he had paid for the trips and asked the island government, which had hired him to lobby against proposed labor measures that would have affected the islands, to send him checks.
House travel rules bar lobbyists from paying for Congressional travel, even if the lobbyist is reimbursed by a group or government agency that is allowed to pay for travel.
Mr. DeLay also visited the Marianas in late 1997 on a trip arranged by Mr. Abramoff. The documents, obtained by The New York Times under a Freedom of Information request, do not include information about how Mr. DeLay's expenses were covered. Mr. DeLay, his aides and two Democrats all said they believed that the Marianas government had paid for the travel or, in one case, that a conservative educational group, the National Security Caucus Foundation, had paid, an action that would have been in accordance with House ethics rules.
The former director of that group, Gregg Hilton, said in an interview on Tuesday that the foundation, now defunct, did not pay and that he believed that the Marianas government was paying for the trips. According to the records, Mr. Abramoff paid for Mr. Hilton's own travel to the Marianas....
The lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, submitted bills to his law firm for more than $350,000 in expenses for several trips to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in 1996 and 1997 on behalf of the congressmen, as well as several others including Edwin Buckham, Mr. DeLay's former chief of staff, and Tony Rudy, his former deputy chief of staff.
In letters and e-mail messages to the Marianas, Mr. Abramoff acknowledged that he had paid for the trips and asked the island government, which had hired him to lobby against proposed labor measures that would have affected the islands, to send him checks.
House travel rules bar lobbyists from paying for Congressional travel, even if the lobbyist is reimbursed by a group or government agency that is allowed to pay for travel.
Mr. DeLay also visited the Marianas in late 1997 on a trip arranged by Mr. Abramoff. The documents, obtained by The New York Times under a Freedom of Information request, do not include information about how Mr. DeLay's expenses were covered. Mr. DeLay, his aides and two Democrats all said they believed that the Marianas government had paid for the travel or, in one case, that a conservative educational group, the National Security Caucus Foundation, had paid, an action that would have been in accordance with House ethics rules.
The former director of that group, Gregg Hilton, said in an interview on Tuesday that the foundation, now defunct, did not pay and that he believed that the Marianas government was paying for the trips. According to the records, Mr. Abramoff paid for Mr. Hilton's own travel to the Marianas....
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/04/politics...artner=homepage
QUOTE
WASHINGTON, May 3 - The furor was marked by an array of incendiary elements: abuse of special privileges for House members, suspect record keeping, complaints about the ethics committee, a powerful leader under fire.
Ultimately, the disclosures exacted a significant political toll - in the 1992 elections.
What became known as the House banking scandal forced the retirement of dozens of lawmakers and led to the defeat of many more at the polls as House members fell victim to public outrage at revelations of unlimited overdraft protection at the loosely regulated House bank.
Some now see parallels between that tempest and the intense scrutiny on the travel and lobbyist ties of Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, that has rippled outward to an increasing number of lawmakers of both parties who are discovering discrepancies in the way they reported trips.
Both episodes are about special opportunities afforded to elected officials - in the current case the prospect of free travel to desirable destinations like Britain and Asia. Both are tied to record keeping. And the general outlines of both can be grasped by voters familiar with the concept of bounced checks as well as the cost of airfare and luxury hotel rooms.
"I think there is some potential for this to be analogous," said Vic Fazio, a Washington consultant who was chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee during the tumult of the bank affair. "But, frankly, I don't know if this will penetrate with the public in the same way the ability of members of Congress to routinely overdraft their checks did."
It is virtually certain that the 2006 elections will feature accusations that Mr. DeLay and others - including Congressional staff members - traveled overseas on trips that were sponsored by private groups but might have been inappropriately underwritten by lobbyists. Mr. DeLay has denied any wrongdoing.
The House ethics committee, which is scheduled to meet Wednesday to begin work for the year after resolving an impasse over rules, is expected to open an inquiry soon into the travels of Mr. DeLay and his relationship with Jack Abramoff, a Washington lobbyist who helped arrange trips for him. The panel could end up examining the travel history of other members as well, and the work is likely to take months, perhaps extending into next year.
Democrats already have ideas about making the downtown Washington restaurant that is partly owned by Mr. Abramoff and that is the scene of many Republican fund-raising events, into the 2006 version of the House bank. Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's campaign recently paid a bill for a 2003 event at the restaurant, Signatures, after being questioned by BusinessWeek. Other Republicans have been settling up their accounts as well.
"The name Signatures is appropriate because it sounds like all that Republicans needed was their signature on the bill," said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "Neither cash or credit was necessary."....
One thing the bank scandal illustrated, however, was that the majority party - as the party in charge - was considered more responsible by voters and had the most to lose.....
"It is quite possible we are going to find that all kinds of members were just careless in the way they handled their travels," said Norm Ornstein, an expert on Congress at the American Enterprise Institute. "My guess is we are going to find a real distinction between people who did it once or twice and those who did it on a repeated basis."
Ultimately, the disclosures exacted a significant political toll - in the 1992 elections.
What became known as the House banking scandal forced the retirement of dozens of lawmakers and led to the defeat of many more at the polls as House members fell victim to public outrage at revelations of unlimited overdraft protection at the loosely regulated House bank.
Some now see parallels between that tempest and the intense scrutiny on the travel and lobbyist ties of Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, that has rippled outward to an increasing number of lawmakers of both parties who are discovering discrepancies in the way they reported trips.
Both episodes are about special opportunities afforded to elected officials - in the current case the prospect of free travel to desirable destinations like Britain and Asia. Both are tied to record keeping. And the general outlines of both can be grasped by voters familiar with the concept of bounced checks as well as the cost of airfare and luxury hotel rooms.
"I think there is some potential for this to be analogous," said Vic Fazio, a Washington consultant who was chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee during the tumult of the bank affair. "But, frankly, I don't know if this will penetrate with the public in the same way the ability of members of Congress to routinely overdraft their checks did."
It is virtually certain that the 2006 elections will feature accusations that Mr. DeLay and others - including Congressional staff members - traveled overseas on trips that were sponsored by private groups but might have been inappropriately underwritten by lobbyists. Mr. DeLay has denied any wrongdoing.
The House ethics committee, which is scheduled to meet Wednesday to begin work for the year after resolving an impasse over rules, is expected to open an inquiry soon into the travels of Mr. DeLay and his relationship with Jack Abramoff, a Washington lobbyist who helped arrange trips for him. The panel could end up examining the travel history of other members as well, and the work is likely to take months, perhaps extending into next year.
Democrats already have ideas about making the downtown Washington restaurant that is partly owned by Mr. Abramoff and that is the scene of many Republican fund-raising events, into the 2006 version of the House bank. Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's campaign recently paid a bill for a 2003 event at the restaurant, Signatures, after being questioned by BusinessWeek. Other Republicans have been settling up their accounts as well.
"The name Signatures is appropriate because it sounds like all that Republicans needed was their signature on the bill," said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "Neither cash or credit was necessary."....
One thing the bank scandal illustrated, however, was that the majority party - as the party in charge - was considered more responsible by voters and had the most to lose.....
"It is quite possible we are going to find that all kinds of members were just careless in the way they handled their travels," said Norm Ornstein, an expert on Congress at the American Enterprise Institute. "My guess is we are going to find a real distinction between people who did it once or twice and those who did it on a repeated basis."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/04/politics/04ethics.html
QUOTE(davisął @ May 4 2005, 06:27 AM)
Now here is the ultimate in stupidity. This moron suggests giving the war mongers Bush and Blair the Nobel Peace Prize.
Why don't they just throw the Nobel on the ground and sh*t on it? What a total sham.
Buuuuuut, then again, Bush made the Medal of Freedom virtually worthless by awarding it to those incompetents who backed the Iraq war.
Nobel for Bush and Blair?
By John Hughes
SALT LAKE CITY – I have a provocative suggestion for the Nobel Prize selection committee: Tony Blair and George Bush for the Nobel Peace Prize.
They deserve it for ridding us of Saddam Hussein, undoubtedly one of the world's worst tyrants and mass murderers since Adolf Hitler, and for triggering a wave of democratic stirring throughout Islamic world.
It would be a particularly fitting tribute for the prime minister, who may or may not survive this week's British general election. But whether in or out of office, he should be honored for standing for principle in Iraq in the face of considerable dissent from his own compatriots. His stand is reminiscent of that of Winston Churchill in the late 1930s who correctly pinpointed the evil of Hitler while some of his countrymen looked the other way.
Now before the steam starts coming out of the ears of all those anti-Bush and anti-Blair folks, let's look at a few facts.
One of the foremost arguments likely to be marshaled against a Nobel for Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair is that they brought freedom to Iraq only after waging war. But a string of other winners got the peace prize after being involved in both war and peace. They include such luminaries as Henry Kissinger, Menachem Begin, Mikhail Gorbachev, Yasser Arafat, Kofi Annan, and Jimmy Carter.
Another criticism is that the war in Iraq was waged on the pretext of neutralizing Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. True, those weapons turned out not to be there. But every major Western intelligence service believed before the outset of war that they were there. The United Nations believed they were there. The Israelis believed they were there. The Saudis believed they were there. Some of Hussein's generals believed they were there because Hussein told them so, even while he was telling the UN they weren't there. US intelligence agencies believed they were there. And, in the face of all this, Bush and Blair mistakenly believed they were there.
If the premise was wrong, the overthrow of Hussein was still a plus for everyone who cherishes freedom for all.
Bush and Blair, the American conservative and British Labourite, were at one on ousting the Taliban from Afghanistan and setting that tragic Islamic land on the road to democracy.
But it was the elimination of Hussein and the stirring turnout of millions of newly emancipated voters in Iraq - in defiance of death threats - that inspired the beginnings of a movement throughout the Arab world to claim freedom from repression and backwardness.
Thus we have witnessed Palestinians begin an orderly series of democratic elections, starting with the installation of their president, Mahmoud Abbas. With the passing of Arafat we have seen small but heartening steps in the direction of peace between Palestinians and Israelis - a cause Prime Minister Blair has forcefully championed.
Two important Arab allies of the US - Saudi Arabia and Egypt - have, in the face of nudging by Bush, taken some hesitant steps in the right direction.
Saudi Arabia, has held limited, but nonetheless welcome, elections for municipal councils.
Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak, sensing the winds of change, will for the first time allow direct multiparty presidential elections in October. Those carefully orchestrated elections are likely to return Mr. Mubarak to power, but opposition parties are hopeful that further reforms will ensue.
Extraordinary events have taken place suddenly in Lebanon. Last week the longtime presence of Syrian occupation troops came to an end after significant international pressure upon the Damascus regime. Lebanon will conduct parliamentary elections in May, thus opening a new chapter in that country's history.
These events are a setback for Syria's dictatorial leader Bashar al-Assad, whose people see not only the makings of democracy in Iraq, but also in neighboring Lebanon, where huge crowds have taken to the streets in praise of liberty.
Even in Iran, presidential elections are due next month. There can be little optimism about the outcome there because the ruling regime has exerted a repressive hand upon opposition newspapers and politicians, carefully eliminating candidates who favor change. Nonetheless, even though they have little immediate chance of upending the regime by orthodox means, there is a wave of discontent among under-30 Iranians, who are acutely conscious of the positive changes taking place in nations around them.
When democracy takes hold in this region, the contribution of such Western leaders as Bush and Blair should not be overlooked.
Blah, blah, blah. Bush and Blair are NOT heroes. And if it never happens? If it devolves into a civil war? What should we award them then, 20 to 50?
• John Hughes, who served as assistant secretary of State in the Reagan administration, is a former editor of the Monitor.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0504/p09s02-cojh.html
[right][snapback]80659[/snapback][/right]
Why don't they just throw the Nobel on the ground and sh*t on it? What a total sham.
Buuuuuut, then again, Bush made the Medal of Freedom virtually worthless by awarding it to those incompetents who backed the Iraq war.
Nobel for Bush and Blair?
By John Hughes
SALT LAKE CITY – I have a provocative suggestion for the Nobel Prize selection committee: Tony Blair and George Bush for the Nobel Peace Prize.
They deserve it for ridding us of Saddam Hussein, undoubtedly one of the world's worst tyrants and mass murderers since Adolf Hitler, and for triggering a wave of democratic stirring throughout Islamic world.
It would be a particularly fitting tribute for the prime minister, who may or may not survive this week's British general election. But whether in or out of office, he should be honored for standing for principle in Iraq in the face of considerable dissent from his own compatriots. His stand is reminiscent of that of Winston Churchill in the late 1930s who correctly pinpointed the evil of Hitler while some of his countrymen looked the other way.
Now before the steam starts coming out of the ears of all those anti-Bush and anti-Blair folks, let's look at a few facts.
One of the foremost arguments likely to be marshaled against a Nobel for Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair is that they brought freedom to Iraq only after waging war. But a string of other winners got the peace prize after being involved in both war and peace. They include such luminaries as Henry Kissinger, Menachem Begin, Mikhail Gorbachev, Yasser Arafat, Kofi Annan, and Jimmy Carter.
Another criticism is that the war in Iraq was waged on the pretext of neutralizing Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. True, those weapons turned out not to be there. But every major Western intelligence service believed before the outset of war that they were there. The United Nations believed they were there. The Israelis believed they were there. The Saudis believed they were there. Some of Hussein's generals believed they were there because Hussein told them so, even while he was telling the UN they weren't there. US intelligence agencies believed they were there. And, in the face of all this, Bush and Blair mistakenly believed they were there.
If the premise was wrong, the overthrow of Hussein was still a plus for everyone who cherishes freedom for all.
Bush and Blair, the American conservative and British Labourite, were at one on ousting the Taliban from Afghanistan and setting that tragic Islamic land on the road to democracy.
But it was the elimination of Hussein and the stirring turnout of millions of newly emancipated voters in Iraq - in defiance of death threats - that inspired the beginnings of a movement throughout the Arab world to claim freedom from repression and backwardness.
Thus we have witnessed Palestinians begin an orderly series of democratic elections, starting with the installation of their president, Mahmoud Abbas. With the passing of Arafat we have seen small but heartening steps in the direction of peace between Palestinians and Israelis - a cause Prime Minister Blair has forcefully championed.
Two important Arab allies of the US - Saudi Arabia and Egypt - have, in the face of nudging by Bush, taken some hesitant steps in the right direction.
Saudi Arabia, has held limited, but nonetheless welcome, elections for municipal councils.
Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak, sensing the winds of change, will for the first time allow direct multiparty presidential elections in October. Those carefully orchestrated elections are likely to return Mr. Mubarak to power, but opposition parties are hopeful that further reforms will ensue.
Extraordinary events have taken place suddenly in Lebanon. Last week the longtime presence of Syrian occupation troops came to an end after significant international pressure upon the Damascus regime. Lebanon will conduct parliamentary elections in May, thus opening a new chapter in that country's history.
These events are a setback for Syria's dictatorial leader Bashar al-Assad, whose people see not only the makings of democracy in Iraq, but also in neighboring Lebanon, where huge crowds have taken to the streets in praise of liberty.
Even in Iran, presidential elections are due next month. There can be little optimism about the outcome there because the ruling regime has exerted a repressive hand upon opposition newspapers and politicians, carefully eliminating candidates who favor change. Nonetheless, even though they have little immediate chance of upending the regime by orthodox means, there is a wave of discontent among under-30 Iranians, who are acutely conscious of the positive changes taking place in nations around them.
When democracy takes hold in this region, the contribution of such Western leaders as Bush and Blair should not be overlooked.
Blah, blah, blah. Bush and Blair are NOT heroes. And if it never happens? If it devolves into a civil war? What should we award them then, 20 to 50?
• John Hughes, who served as assistant secretary of State in the Reagan administration, is a former editor of the Monitor.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0504/p09s02-cojh.html
[right][snapback]80659[/snapback][/right]
Nobel made explosives and improved gunpower...
QUOTE(Grigorii @ May 4 2005, 10:02 AM)
Nobel made explosives and improved gunpower...
[right][snapback]80686[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]80686[/snapback][/right]
The irony is rich, is it not?
Did he make explosives for war or for construction purposes? I can't remember that part.
How ya doin grig?
QUOTE(Grigorii @ May 4 2005, 10:02 AM)
Nobel made explosives and improved gunpower...
[right][snapback]80686[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]80686[/snapback][/right]
Even worse, Nobel is big in phama.
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ May 4 2005, 09:49 AM)
Even worse, Nobel is big in phama.
[right][snapback]80703[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]80703[/snapback][/right]
He was generally credited for putting the H in HE.
QUOTE(davisął @ May 4 2005, 04:27 AM)
Wanted: A Handle for the Scandal
<snip>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5050301593.html
Hmmmm, I'm gonna have to think about this.
[right][snapback]80648[/snapback][/right]
<snip>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5050301593.html
Hmmmm, I'm gonna have to think about this.
[right][snapback]80648[/snapback][/right]
You might need the late-night or South Park version, but davey, it's half of what you have been thinking about since .... well, seems forever. I'll look forward to seeing your submissions.
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ May 4 2005, 09:11 AM)
He was generally credited for putting the H in HE.
[right][snapback]80712[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]80712[/snapback][/right]
QUOTE(lil bart @ May 4 2005, 11:01 AM)
[right][snapback]80725[/snapback][/right]
The High in High Explosives.
Oh.
boom
2 Senior AIPAC Employees Ousted
FBI Investigating if Pair Gave Classified Information to Israel
By Dan Eggen and Jerry Markon
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, April 21, 2005; Page A08
Two senior employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, one of Washington's most influential lobbying organizations, have left their jobs amid an FBI investigation into whether they passed classified U.S. information to the government of Israel, a source close to the organization said yesterday.
The source characterized the departures as firings.
Lawyers for the two men, policy director Steve Rosen and senior analyst Keith Weissman, released a statement strongly denying any wrongdoing.
"Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman have not violated any U.S. law or AIPAC policy," said the statement, issued by Abbe Lowell and John Nassikas. "Contrary to press accounts, they have never solicited, received, or passed on any classified documents. They carried out their job responsibilities solely to serve AIPAC's goal of strengthening the US-Israel relationship."
The attorneys declined through a spokesman to comment further. An AIPAC spokesman also declined to discuss details, but disputed portions of the statement issued by the men's attorneys.
"The statement made by Rosen and Weissman represents solely their view of the facts," said AIPAC spokesman Patrick Dorton. "The action that AIPAC has taken was done in consultation with counsel after careful consideration of recently learned information and the conduct AIPAC expects of its employees."
The exit of Rosen and Weissman marks a dramatic about-face for AIPAC, which in previous public statements has strongly defended the actions of all its employees as the FBI conducted its probe.
The developments also come as federal prosecutors in Alexandria are considering filing criminal charges in the case, according to two law enforcement officials. The probe centers on whether a Defense Department policy analyst, Lawrence A. Franklin, provided a draft presidential directive on Iran and other information to AIPAC, and whether AIPAC then passed the material on to Israel, officials have said.
"Things are moving quickly," one of the officials said in a recent interview. "It is definitely moving closer to some conclusions."
Franklin has been cooperating with authorities at times but so far has not reached any agreement with prosecutors, officials said. Franklin is now back working at the Defense Department, but not in the Pentagon and without his previous security privileges, officials said.
Franklin's attorney, Plato Cacheris, did not return a telephone message left at his office late yesterday.
The FBI raided AIPAC's offices in Washington twice last year, obtaining computer files and serving grand jury subpoenas on four senior executives. The grand jury handling the case sits in Alexandria.
AIPAC has demonstrated an ability to provide large amounts of campaign contributions to congressional friends of Israel. In Fortune magazine's now-discontinued survey of groups with clout in the capital, AIPAC regularly was ranked in the top five, along with AARP and the National Rifle Association.
AIPAC and its affiliates also annually take members of Congress and their staffers on tours of Israel, cementing relations between the leaders of both countries and ensuring continued high levels of foreign assistance from the United States to Israel.
Hmmm .. Tom DeLay was in Israel a few times now that I think of it.
The brewing scandal at AIPAC has caused an uproar in the Jewish community, especially among wealthy political donors. Many of the group's supporters fear that the turmoil could undercut U.S. backing of Israel at a critical time for that nation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Apr20.html
FBI Investigating if Pair Gave Classified Information to Israel
By Dan Eggen and Jerry Markon
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, April 21, 2005; Page A08
Two senior employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, one of Washington's most influential lobbying organizations, have left their jobs amid an FBI investigation into whether they passed classified U.S. information to the government of Israel, a source close to the organization said yesterday.
The source characterized the departures as firings.
Lawyers for the two men, policy director Steve Rosen and senior analyst Keith Weissman, released a statement strongly denying any wrongdoing.
"Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman have not violated any U.S. law or AIPAC policy," said the statement, issued by Abbe Lowell and John Nassikas. "Contrary to press accounts, they have never solicited, received, or passed on any classified documents. They carried out their job responsibilities solely to serve AIPAC's goal of strengthening the US-Israel relationship."
The attorneys declined through a spokesman to comment further. An AIPAC spokesman also declined to discuss details, but disputed portions of the statement issued by the men's attorneys.
"The statement made by Rosen and Weissman represents solely their view of the facts," said AIPAC spokesman Patrick Dorton. "The action that AIPAC has taken was done in consultation with counsel after careful consideration of recently learned information and the conduct AIPAC expects of its employees."
The exit of Rosen and Weissman marks a dramatic about-face for AIPAC, which in previous public statements has strongly defended the actions of all its employees as the FBI conducted its probe.
The developments also come as federal prosecutors in Alexandria are considering filing criminal charges in the case, according to two law enforcement officials. The probe centers on whether a Defense Department policy analyst, Lawrence A. Franklin, provided a draft presidential directive on Iran and other information to AIPAC, and whether AIPAC then passed the material on to Israel, officials have said.
"Things are moving quickly," one of the officials said in a recent interview. "It is definitely moving closer to some conclusions."
Franklin has been cooperating with authorities at times but so far has not reached any agreement with prosecutors, officials said. Franklin is now back working at the Defense Department, but not in the Pentagon and without his previous security privileges, officials said.
Franklin's attorney, Plato Cacheris, did not return a telephone message left at his office late yesterday.
The FBI raided AIPAC's offices in Washington twice last year, obtaining computer files and serving grand jury subpoenas on four senior executives. The grand jury handling the case sits in Alexandria.
AIPAC has demonstrated an ability to provide large amounts of campaign contributions to congressional friends of Israel. In Fortune magazine's now-discontinued survey of groups with clout in the capital, AIPAC regularly was ranked in the top five, along with AARP and the National Rifle Association.
AIPAC and its affiliates also annually take members of Congress and their staffers on tours of Israel, cementing relations between the leaders of both countries and ensuring continued high levels of foreign assistance from the United States to Israel.
Hmmm .. Tom DeLay was in Israel a few times now that I think of it.
The brewing scandal at AIPAC has caused an uproar in the Jewish community, especially among wealthy political donors. Many of the group's supporters fear that the turmoil could undercut U.S. backing of Israel at a critical time for that nation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Apr20.html
QUOTE(davisął @ May 4 2005, 11:13 AM)
The irony is rich, is it not?
Did he make explosives for war or for construction purposes? I can't remember that part.
[right][snapback]80687[/snapback][/right]
Did he make explosives for war or for construction purposes? I can't remember that part.
[right][snapback]80687[/snapback][/right]
Yes, indeed he did...he saw dynamite as a tool that would change the landscape for the better....easing in the bulilding of railroads, mining....etc., etc, thus being a boon...or izit boom, to mankind.
Now that you mention it I may have seen it on a railroad show. History Channel, Dicovery Channel, PBS have so much stuff I can't keep track.
Spooky avatar, bix.
QUOTE
Just Another Lobbyist? No Dice.
By Ruth Marcus
Thursday, May 5, 2005; Page A25
If Job isn't the first biblical figure who leaps to mind when you think of Jack Abramoff, maybe that's because you're not Jack Abramoff. The Book of Job tells the story of a "blameless and upright" man who did well by doing good ("three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen . . . and very many servants") before God tested him by taking it all. Flash forward a few millennia, move the story from the land of Uz to the District of Columbia, substitute lobbying clients for camel and skyboxes for oxen, and -- miracle of miracles -- the Book of Jack.
In a pair of self-pitying interviews published this week, the fallen lobbyist described his travails as if -- like Job's -- none were of his own making. "All of a sudden, in an almost Jobian fashion, my whole world collapsed," says Abramoff, an Orthodox Jew who seemed to flaunt his piety (the Christian right loved it) the way other lobbyists flash their Rolexes.
Abramoff cops only to being "an aggressive advocate for people who engaged me," as he put it to the New York Times Magazine -- more successful than his less-scrutinized colleagues but no sleazier. "I can't imagine there's anything I did that other lobbyists didn't do and aren't doing today," Abramoff told Time magazine.
All of which raises the age-old question: Why is this lobbyist different from all other lobbyists?
Because as much as he'd like you to think otherwise, Abramoff is -- or, more precisely, was -- different, in degree and in kind. He's hoping that people are already so disgusted with lobbying and lobbyists that they can't distinguish between the quotidian seaminess of a flawed system and the multiple ways in which Abramoff exploited, twisted and undermined that system to enrich himself and those around him.
Abramoff, as he says, did things that other lobbyists do -- but on a scale so egregious that he managed to make his fellow lobbyists look like a bunch of Nader's Raiders. He served as a one-stop-shopping political operation for congressional conservatives in general and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in particular.
Abramoff was abetted -- encouraged even -- by the pay-to-play mentality honed by DeLay. But even within the parameters of the unabashed money machine assembled by the GOP majority, Abramoff's full-service operation stood out.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5050402054.html
By Ruth Marcus
Thursday, May 5, 2005; Page A25
If Job isn't the first biblical figure who leaps to mind when you think of Jack Abramoff, maybe that's because you're not Jack Abramoff. The Book of Job tells the story of a "blameless and upright" man who did well by doing good ("three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen . . . and very many servants") before God tested him by taking it all. Flash forward a few millennia, move the story from the land of Uz to the District of Columbia, substitute lobbying clients for camel and skyboxes for oxen, and -- miracle of miracles -- the Book of Jack.
In a pair of self-pitying interviews published this week, the fallen lobbyist described his travails as if -- like Job's -- none were of his own making. "All of a sudden, in an almost Jobian fashion, my whole world collapsed," says Abramoff, an Orthodox Jew who seemed to flaunt his piety (the Christian right loved it) the way other lobbyists flash their Rolexes.
Abramoff cops only to being "an aggressive advocate for people who engaged me," as he put it to the New York Times Magazine -- more successful than his less-scrutinized colleagues but no sleazier. "I can't imagine there's anything I did that other lobbyists didn't do and aren't doing today," Abramoff told Time magazine.
All of which raises the age-old question: Why is this lobbyist different from all other lobbyists?
Because as much as he'd like you to think otherwise, Abramoff is -- or, more precisely, was -- different, in degree and in kind. He's hoping that people are already so disgusted with lobbying and lobbyists that they can't distinguish between the quotidian seaminess of a flawed system and the multiple ways in which Abramoff exploited, twisted and undermined that system to enrich himself and those around him.
Abramoff, as he says, did things that other lobbyists do -- but on a scale so egregious that he managed to make his fellow lobbyists look like a bunch of Nader's Raiders. He served as a one-stop-shopping political operation for congressional conservatives in general and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in particular.
Abramoff was abetted -- encouraged even -- by the pay-to-play mentality honed by DeLay. But even within the parameters of the unabashed money machine assembled by the GOP majority, Abramoff's full-service operation stood out.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5050402054.html
If that ain't a Caption Contest just begging to be set in motion.
Sounds like the Kenny Boy of lobbyists -- at least.
QUOTE(lil bart @ May 5 2005, 01:00 PM)
If that ain't a Caption Contest just begging to be set in motion.
Sounds like the Kenny Boy of lobbyists -- at least.
[right][snapback]81070[/snapback][/right]
I can understand the timing of the assault on Delay. One you know how his buddy Abramoff worked, it's follow the money from there.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4630872
Lobbyist Abramoff Linked to Democrats' Trips
Listen to this story...
All Things Considered, May 4, 2005 · Robert Siegel talks to Jeffrey Smith of the Washington Post about the latest news concerning Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Smith says that Abramoff paid -- at least in part -- for trips by two Democratic congressmen, James Clyburn and Bennie Thompson, and two staff members to then-Majority Whip Tom DeLay, to the Northern Mariana Islands in the 1990s.
Lobbyist Abramoff Linked to Democrats' Trips
Listen to this story...
All Things Considered, May 4, 2005 · Robert Siegel talks to Jeffrey Smith of the Washington Post about the latest news concerning Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Smith says that Abramoff paid -- at least in part -- for trips by two Democratic congressmen, James Clyburn and Bennie Thompson, and two staff members to then-Majority Whip Tom DeLay, to the Northern Mariana Islands in the 1990s.
QUOTE(davisął @ May 4 2005, 02:11 PM)
boom
[right][snapback]80764[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]80764[/snapback][/right]
KA-boom.
QUOTE(SpeedRacerXxtreme @ May 5 2005, 03:44 PM)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4630872
Lobbyist Abramoff Linked to Democrats' Trips
Listen to this story...
All Things Considered, May 4, 2005 · Robert Siegel talks to Jeffrey Smith of the Washington Post about the latest news concerning Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Smith says that Abramoff paid -- at least in part -- for trips by two Democratic congressmen, James Clyburn and Bennie Thompson, and two staff members to then-Majority Whip Tom DeLay, to the Northern Mariana Islands in the 1990s.
[right][snapback]81075[/snapback][/right]
Lobbyist Abramoff Linked to Democrats' Trips
Listen to this story...
All Things Considered, May 4, 2005 · Robert Siegel talks to Jeffrey Smith of the Washington Post about the latest news concerning Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Smith says that Abramoff paid -- at least in part -- for trips by two Democratic congressmen, James Clyburn and Bennie Thompson, and two staff members to then-Majority Whip Tom DeLay, to the Northern Mariana Islands in the 1990s.
[right][snapback]81075[/snapback][/right]
It's interesting that the Dem congress critters are both in "swing" states.
N'est ce pas?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.