Lindaland
  Global Unity
  Hmm, now if this had been from an Republican???? (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Hmm, now if this had been from an Republican????
pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 06, 2004 02:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
First off: Sorry about the use of "an" before Republican. I am a terrible speller at times LOL!


Wes Clark Wins! (On Wall Street)
Kerry may have swept Iowa, but Wesley Clark has taken the Street.
FORTUNE
Monday, January 26, 2004
By Richard Behar


John Kerry may have won Iowa, but Wesley Clark cleaned up on Wall Street. On Jan. 20, just a day after the caucuses, bankers tell FORTUNE, Clark made about $1.2 million in paper profit on his investment in Messer Griesheim, when the private German maker of industrial gases agreed to sell most of its assets to rival Air Liquide. While the $3.3 billion deal went largely unnoticed in the U.S., it was the best investment Clark ever made. And it barely cost him a dime—thanks to a low-interest, "non-recourse" loan from Goldman Sachs, which insulated Clark (a Messer director since August 2001) from any personal exposure. "Was he smiling yesterday?" wondered a Goldman executive, just hours after the Euro-deal was announced. "General Clark's probably got more money than he's ever had in his life."

Clark resigned nearly all his directorships last fall after he announced his candidacy. But he stayed on Messer's board until early January. Goldman co-owns 67% of the firm, and "Clark was our guy on the board," says a Goldman insider, who adds that the company wanted to find a way to give Clark a stake. But Goldman's stock was held by a fund whose bylaws didn't permit loans. So, in a complex swap, Messer loaned Clark 500,000 euros for his 6,734-share purchase in mid-2002, and then Goldman bought the note from Messer. The non-recourse terms mean that if the deal had gone south and Clark defaulted, Goldman would be stuck. In other words, pure upside for Clark, who repaid the note—but kept stock when he left the board.

Overall, that was the biggest home run of the general's brief tenure as a businessman. After leaving the military in mid-2000, Clark spent nearly three years working as a managing director for Little Rock's Stephens Group, one of the largest investment houses off Wall Street. He was eventually pushed out—and left behind some sour feelings.

Clark's primary role was to help the firm expand into defense and IT sectors. He used his impeccable contacts to gain not one but two audiences with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, giving Stephens an inside track on the government's Iraq thinking. And he was likable, often speaking to packed rooms during client forums. "He's smart, he knows the technology, and has the contacts," says Warren Stephens, the firm's CEO. "But we needed about five years with him—to help him filter deals. As with many who are new, he thought everything he saw was doable."

Clark helped one Stephens-backed firm, SmartSignal—which uses harmonics to determine when an engine is failing—to get a contract at DARPA, the DoD's research wing. And as both a lobbyist and board director, he helped another Stephens-backed firm—Acxiom, one of the world's largest processors of consumer data—secure government contracts in homeland security.

But he couldn't persuade Stephens to back a DARPA-funded startup called PharmAthene—a Virginia developer of biowarfare vaccines, whose chairman, Joel McCleary, is a former treasurer of the Democratic National Committee. (Clark joined PharmAthene's board last January, just days before Stephens suggested he resign.) And Warren tells FORTUNE that Clark never informed the firm about his Messer investment. According to top securities lawyer and ex-prosecutor Sean O'Shea, employees of securities firms "must disclose an outside investment" to their bosses. Violators can face disciplinary action by regulators. (Clark says he's "very grateful for the start" in business that the Stephens family gave him, but declines further comment.)

Warren says he nudged Clark out after the General began publicly criticizing the Bush administration and it became clear he had presidential ambitions. (Warren serves as finance co-chair of President Bush's reelection drive in Arkansas.) "He was disappointed, and so was I," says Stephens. At the time, Clark had a different spin. On March 1, he told the local paper that he had decided to leave Stephens to prepare for covering the war as a military analyst for CNN—a post he had held since 2001.

Before packing his bags Clark asked Stephens's top deputy, Curt Bradbury, a staunch conservative, if Warren would ever rehire him. "When you get well," Bradbury responded.
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/print/0,15935,582232,00.html

Now let's look at Mr. Kerry:

THE REAL KERRY

By HOWIE CARR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email Archives
Print Reprint



February 5, 2004 -- BOSTON

ONE of the surest ways to get the phones ringing on any Massachusetts talk-radio show is to ask people to call in and tell their John Kerry stories. The phone lines are soon filled, and most of the stories have a common theme: our junior senator pulling rank on one of his constituents, breaking in line, demanding to pay less (or nothing) or ducking out before the bill arrives.

The tales often have one other common thread. Most end with Sen. Kerry inquiring of the lesser mortal: "Do you know who I am?"

And now he's running for president as a populist. His first wife came from a Philadelphia Main Line family worth $300 million. His second wife is a pickle-and-ketchup heiress.

Kerry lives in a mansion on Beacon Hill on which he has borrowed $6 million to finance his campaign. A fire hydrant that prevented him and his wife from parking their SUV in front of their tony digs was removed by the city of Boston at his behest.

The Kerrys ski at a spa the widow Heinz owns in Aspen, and they summer on Nantucket in a sprawling seaside "cottage" on Hurlbert Avenue, which is so well-appointed that at a recent fund-raiser, they imported porta-toilets onto the front lawn so the donors wouldn't use the inside bathrooms. (They later claimed the decision was made on septic, not social, considerations).

It's a wonderful life these days for John Kerry. He sails Nantucket Sound in "the Scaramouche," a 42-foot Hinckley powerboat. Martha Stewart has a similar boat; the no-frills model reportedly starts at $695,000. Sen. Kerry bought it new, for cash.

Every Tuesday night, the local politicians here that Kerry elbowed out of his way on his march to the top watch, fascinated, as he claims victory in more primaries and denounces the special interests, the "millionaires" and "the overprivileged."

"His initials are JFK," longtime state Senate President William M. Bulger used to muse on St. Patrick's Day, "Just for Kerry. He's only Irish every sixth year." And now it turns out that he's not Irish at all.

But in the parochial world of Bay State politics, he was never really seen as Irish, even when he was claiming to be (although now, of course, he says that any references to his alleged Hibernian heritage were mistakenly put into the Congressional Record by an aide who apparently didn't know that on his paternal side he is, in fact, part-Jewish).

Kerry is, in fact, a Brahmin - his mother was a Forbes, from one of Massachusetts' oldest WASP families. The ancestor who wed Ralph Waldo Emerson's daughter was marrying down.

At the risk of engaging in ethnic stereotyping, Yankees have a reputation for, shall we say, frugality. And Kerry tosses around quarters like they were manhole covers. In 1993, for instance, living on a senator's salary of about $100,000, he managed to give a total of $135 to charity.

Yet that same year, he was somehow able to scrape together $8,600 for a brand-new, imported Italian motorcycle, a Ducati Paso 907 IE. He kept it for years, until he decided to run for president, at which time he traded it in for a Harley-Davidson like the one he rode onto "The Tonight Show" set a couple of months ago as Jay Leno applauded his fellow Bay Stater.

Of course, in 1993 he was between his first and second heiresses - a time he now calls "the wandering years," although an equally apt description might be "the freeloading years."

For some of the time, he was, for all practical purposes, homeless. His friends allowed him into a real-estate deal in which he flipped a condo for quick resale, netting a $21,000 profit on a cash investment of exactly nothing. For months he rode around in a new car supplied by a shady local Buick dealer. When the dealer's ties to a congressman who was later indicted for racketeering were exposed, Kerry quickly explained that the non-payment was a mere oversight, and wrote out a check.

In the Senate, his record of his constituent services has been lackluster, and most of his colleagues, despite their public support, are hard-pressed to list an accomplishment. Just last fall, a Boston TV reporter ambushed three congressmen with the question, name something John Kerry has accomplished in Congress. After a few nervous giggles, two could think of nothing, and a third mentioned a baseball field, and then misidentified Kerry as "Sen. Kennedy."

Many of his constituents see him in person only when he is cutting them in line - at an airport, a clam shack or the Registry of Motor Vehicles. One talk-show caller a few weeks back recalled standing behind a police barricade in 2002 as the Rolling Stones played the Orpheum Theater, a short limousine ride from Kerry's Louisburg Square mansion.

The caller, Jay, said he began heckling Kerry and his wife as they attempted to enter the theater. Finally, he said, the senator turned to him and asked him the eternal question.

"Do you know who I am?"

"Yeah," said Jay. "You're a gold-digger."

John Kerry. First he looks at the purse.


How can these people say they think the rich get too many breaks and they are for the poor when this is how they act?

~Pidaua

IP: Logged

Aphrodite
unregistered
posted February 06, 2004 03:15 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Funny.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 06, 2004 03:46 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That's pretty funny pidaua.

One of the most objectionable things about John Kerry, (in my opinion), is that he's a hypocrite for railing against special interest groups while taking their money and advancing their causes. In all the Senate, no one has taken more special interest money than John Kerry.

Kerry Blocked Law and Drew Cash http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/4/211510.shtml

Records Link Kerry's Nominations to Donations http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/6/91035.shtml

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 06, 2004 03:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
What annoys me is the hypocracy. It is the finger pointing at Bush / Cheney and others, accusing them of corporate / oil greed - when Clark and Kerry are the shining example of just that.

Kerry being known by his own people as a gold digging, stuck up do-nothing, is sad. You are 100% right jwhop about Kerry being for special interest groups. The guy is for sale. How sick is that?

IP: Logged

Harpyr
Newflake

Posts: 0
From: Alaska
Registered: Jun 2010

posted February 06, 2004 11:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Harpyr     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm perfectly willing to admit these guys are just as much ruled by special interests as Bush/Cheney.
What's the point of arguing such ridiculousness? Like I've said.. Demoblicans..Republicrats.. They are all just corporate puppets essentially.

IP: Logged

Ra
Moderator

Posts: 80
From: Atlanta
Registered: May 2009

posted February 07, 2004 04:31 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ra     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
pidaua, so true.

The media is insane.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 07, 2004 11:00 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Clark Papers Show Pressure Over Kosovo

WASHINGTON (AP) - Wesley Clark took issue with a report Saturday that cited papers from his tenure as NATO commander as saying Clinton administration officials urged an end to the Kosovo war in the summer of 1999 so the conflict would not hurt Al Gore's coming presidential campaign.

Clark, campaigning in Virginia ahead of that state's Democratic presidential primary on Tuesday, said President Clinton and his national security adviser, Sandy Berger, "were totally committed to this operation. I never had any political pressure to do anything but succeed."

But here's what he said in 2000.

In a January 2000 interview, Clark told NATO's official historian, "There were those in the White House who said, 'Hey, look, you gotta finish the bombing before the Fourth of July weekend. That's the start of the next presidential campaign season, so stop it. It doesn't matter what you do, just turn it off. You don't have to win this thing, let it lie."

One thing is certain. Clark is a liar. The only question is, was he lying in 2000 or is he lying now?

Those who are AOL subscribers can check the story here.
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20040207095209990013

IP: Logged

Harpyr
Newflake

Posts: 0
From: Alaska
Registered: Jun 2010

posted February 07, 2004 05:02 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Harpyr     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
All these guys make me wanto to retch..BLECH!

IP: Logged

TINK
unregistered
posted February 07, 2004 07:29 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I agree with you 100% pidaua. The hypocrisy of those who point their fingers at certain deficiencies of the Republicans but are unwilling to acknowledge those same traits in the Democrats. Of course it works both works, doesn't it.

I live in New England and can personally attest to Sen. Kerry's less than stellar reputaton. He's arrogant in the extreme and very much out of reach. An old time patrician. On the other hand, I spend a lot of time in Maine and Bush Junior isn't exactly loved up there either. Mostly for the same reasons. Ah, to be privalged. It must be fun trying to squeeze your rich, pampered as$ thru the eye of a needle.

You are so right Harpyr. As usual. Corporate puppets all. It's all just a show. A sad diversion. Bread and Circus.

IP: Logged

QueenofSheeba
unregistered
posted February 08, 2004 01:21 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
A mud-slinging contest! Oh what fun, I LOVE mud-slinging...

Corporate Corruption and Academia: The Bush-Harvard-Enron connection

By Joseph Kay
19 October 2002

Information that has come to light over the past several weeks underscores the extent to which both the Bush administration and the academic establishment are implicated in the wave of corporate corruption scandals in the United States.

HarvardWatch—a coalition of Harvard students and alumni that monitors governance at the university—has published a series of reports that document the way in which the Ivy League university helped the oil firm Harken fashion Enron-type deals that hid debt and artificially elevated earnings. At the time, George W. Bush was a director of the company. HarvardWatch has also documented the close ties between Harvard, Enron and officials in both the Bush and Clinton administrations.

Harvard and Harken

The connection between Harvard and Harken dates back to 1986, shortly after George W. Bush took up a position on the company’s board of directors. Bush came to Harken after Harken purchased Bush’s small oil company, Spectrum 7, at an inflated price. Without the Bush connection, there is little likelihood the deal would have been made, since Spectrum was failing as a company. George W. Bush’s father was then vice-president, and the younger Bush himself had many political connections.

One of these connections was to Harvard University, where Bush had received his MBA degree. Some months after Harken bought Spectrum 7, Harvard, together with the billionaire financier George Soros, poured money into Harken, which at the time was struggling to pay off loans to its main creditors, Bank of Boston and First City Bankcorp. First City agreed to refinance the loans, and, according to an article published in the Wall Street Journal on October 9, a key factor in the decision was the financial support provided by Harvard Management Corporation (HMC). HMC controls the university’s assets, valued at $20 billion.

Harvard quickly acquired a third of Harken’s stock. Between 1987 and 2000, representatives of the university held positions on the company’s board of directors, with seats on the executive and compensation committees. The university’s representatives were both heavily invested in the company personally, owning 10,000 shares of Harken each.

Harvard’s heavy investment in Harken is inexplicable except for the presence of Bush, who retained his position at Harken until 1993, when he became governor of Texas. Harken never sustained profitable operations, though it hoped to use Bush’s connections to improve its financial state. Over the next five years, HMC had to bail out Harken in order forestall a number of severe crises. HMC was controlled at the time by Robert Stone, an oil man and long-time supporter of the Republican Party and Bush’s father.

According to the HarvardWatch report, “Harvard and another major shareholder loaned Harken $46 million in May, 1990, to help it escape from a severe liquidity crisis.” It is not clear how much of this loan came from Harvard.

In December of 1990, Harvard and Harken established a partnership—known as the Harken Anadarko Partnership (HAP)—that helped hide the company’s financial strains. The new entity consisted of $64.5 million worth of property contributed by Harvard and $26.1 million worth of drilling operations contributed by Harken. The latter carried with them $20 million in debt and liabilities, leaving Harken with a net investment in the company of $6 million. Because this was less than 20 percent of the total value of HAP, Harken was not required to include the partnership in its financial statements.

The upshot was that Harvard assumed a large percentage of Harken’s debt. The report cites the minutes of a meeting of Harken’s board of directors in which Bush himself motioned to go ahead with the partnership.

The deal has many similarities with the sort of “structured finance” arrangements that were made at Enron. The basic idea is to shift debt off of a company’s balance sheet in order to improve reported earnings and elevate share values. Such partnerships were an important component of the accounting gimmicks widely used by American corporations during the stock market boom of the 1990s.

Bush administration officials and Harvard have claimed that, unlike Enron’s partnerships, there was nothing illegal in HAP. Enron’s partnerships were not really partnerships, since they were run by company insiders, with no external financing. Using them to shift debt from the parent company, therefore, violated accounting regulations.

However, HAP is hardly different. Harvard and its representatives were heavily invested in Harken, and thus stood to gain by deceiving investors as to the true value of the company. This is what HAP accomplished.

While the stock value of Harken had fallen to a low of $1.25 in late 1990, it began to soar over the two years following the creation of HAP. According to the HarvardWatch report, the improved financial figures “allowed Harken’s stock price to temporarily reverse its precipitous decline and reach its historical high in 1991, indicating that the Anadarko partnership misled investors about the future profitability of the company. With its insider access to information about the performance of HAP and Harken’s long-term sustainability, Harvard used this bubble as an opportunity to sell 1.6 million of Harken shares.”

Bush himself did not benefit directly from the HAP deal, since he had already sold most of his Harken stocks to finance the purchase of an ownership share in the Texas Rangers. From this deal he would eventually make over $15 million. Bush’s Harken stock was sold shortly after Harken carried out another suspicious financial transaction [See On eve of Wall Street speech: Bush’s past business dealings come back to haunt him, 9 July, 2002].

One of the mysteries surrounding Bush’s sale of Harken stock has been the identity of the purchaser. The amount of stock Bush sold was equivalent to twenty times the company’s daily trading volume. If this volume of shares had been dumped onto the market, the price would have dropped sharply. Bush needed a large investor to buy his stock all at once.

Though the identity of the buyer has not been revealed, there is circumstantial evidence that it was none other than Harvard University. In The Buying of the President 2000, Charles Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity reports, “The available evidence suggests that the investor was Harvard. The university increased its holdings in Harken around the time. No new institutional investors appeared on the scene.”

According to Lewis, at the bottom of a spreadsheet used by Bush’s broker to record calls to Bush was the name of Michael Eisenson—one of Harvard’s representatives on the Harken board—along with the telephone number of the Harvard Management Corporation.

Harvard, Enron, Bush and Clinton

The HAP deal appears to be a classic example of corporate insiders—including the current president of the United States and the richest university in the country—cashing in on shady deals and leaving the ordinary investor to pay the tab. A chronicle of the links between Bush and Harvard, however, must also take into account Harvard’s operations with Enron, a company with numerous ties to the Bush administration, whose former chairman and CEO, Kenneth Lay, was Bush’s biggest financial backer.

The ties between Harvard and Enron are quite extensive and are detailed in a report available on the HarvardWatch website(www.harvardwatch.org), entitled “Trading Truth: A Report on Harvard’s Enron Entanglements.” These ties, in turn, connect Harvard to officials in both the Clinton and Bush administrations who have helped create conditions for corporate corruption to flourish.

All of these connections revolve around the drive in the 1990s to deregulate the energy market. This deregulation created the basis for Enron’s operations, which consisted principally of buying and selling energy contracts. The deregulation of the energy markets was one of the principal causes of the California energy crisis of 2000, when energy giants, including Enron, reaped enormous profits by manipulating the energy market and inflating prices.

Harvard University has been the source of much of the economic theory used to defend the process of deregulation. In particular, the Harvard Electricity Policy Group, which counted Enron as a principal financial supporter, has published 1,000 reports advocating deregulation. William Hogan, the research director of HEPG, specifically advised the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to adopt the “Enron model.” Even after the crisis of 2000, HEPG continued to oppose any regulation, such as price caps on astronomically high energy costs.

Throughout the speculative boom of the late 1990s, HEPG and the Harvard Business School (HBS) championed the type of economic activity—financial manipulations and speculation on derivative instruments—in which Enron specialized. Enron was lauded throughout the period as an ideal corporation, and Harvard Business School was at the forefront of the academic establishment in heaping praise on the company. A number of its reports became required reading for business schools throughout the country.

The massive corporate fraud carried out against the American people would not have been possible without the critical aid provided by academia. In the case of Harvard, those championing the fraud had a personal stake in its success. Many of the members of Harvard’s governing board have had intimate ties with Enron.

Herbert “Pug” Winokur is a member of the Harvard Corporation, the university’s seven-member governing body, and has served as the director of the Harvard Management Corporation. He is also a longtime member of Enron’s board of directors. As the chairman of the company’s finance committee, Winokur had to approve all of the fraudulent financial arrangements engineered by Jeffrey Skilling, Enron’s former CEO and a graduate of Harvard Business School.

The largest individual shareholder of Enron stock, at least up to the time of the company’s collapse, is Robert Belfer, who is also a member of Enron’s board. Belfer is a major Harvard donor. He has given so much money to the university that a Harvard building has been named after him—the Belfer Center for International and Strategic Affairs. He has served on Harvard’s Committee on University Resources for nine years.

Jonathon Jacobson, another Harvard graduate, manages Highfields Capital, a private firm that controls about $2 billion of Harvard’s endowment. Highfields was set up on the basis of $500 million of Harvard’s money.

In 2001, just before Enron’s troubles became public, Highfields sold short on Enron stock (i.e., bet that the stock price would fall), yielding the firm and Harvard some $50 million in profit when the stock tanked. This transaction quite naturally arouses suspicions that Jacobson and Harvard may have benefited from inside information provided by Winokur, Belfer or one of Harvard’s other Enron connections.

Two current members of the Bush administration—chief economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey and US trade representative Robert Zoellick—are also involved in the Enron-Harvard nexus. Lindsey received his doctorate at Harvard and is a former professor in the school’s economics department. He once served on Enron’s advisory board and has been a consultant for Citigroup, Enron’s largest creditor. Zoellick also received a degree from Harvard and once served as the director of the university’s Belfer center. He was also a member of Enron’s advisory board.

The connections also stretch back to the Clinton Administration. Clinton’s treasury secretary, Robert Rubin, was once a board member of the Harvard Management Company. While serving in the Clinton administration, he helped oversee the passage of legislation favorable to Enron. When he left government, Rubin joined Citigroup as a high-ranking executive.

John Holdren is the head of Harvard’s Environment and Natural Resources Program (ENRP), which is heavily funded by Belfer. Holdren was chosen by Clinton to oversee the Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, which issued a report in June 2001 that called for the “privatization, deregulation, and restructuring of energy industries [to] help bring private capital into the energy sector.”

Finally, there is Lawrence Summers, who replaced Rubin as treasury secretary in 1999. Kenneth Lay sent a gushing congratulatory note to Summers, who responded with a promise that “I'll keep my eye on power deregulation and energy-market infrastructure issues.” When Bush came to office, Summers left government to become president of Harvard University.

------------------
Hello everybody! I used to be QueenofSheeba and then I was Apollo and now I am QueenofSheeba again (and I'm a guy in case you didn't know)!

IP: Logged

QueenofSheeba
unregistered
posted February 08, 2004 01:25 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
PS- Kerry is bad for being snobby and aristocratic? Bush is worse for being incapable of making an intelligent remark off script. But boy, he is good at reading speeches.

"One of the most meaningful things that's happened to me since I've been the governor — the president — governor — president. Oops. Ex-governor. I went to Bethesda Naval Hospital to give a fellow a Purple Heart, and at the same moment I watched him—get a Purple Heart for action in Iraq — and at that same — right after I gave him the Purple Heart, he was sworn in as a citizen of the United States — a Mexican citizen, now a United States citizen." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 9, 2004

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier — so long as I'm the dictator." —George W. Bush, Dec. 19, 2000

"Dick Cheney and I do not want this nation to be in a recession. We want anybody who can find work to be able to find work." —George W. Bush, 60 minutes II, CBS, December 5, 2000

Obviously I'm not inuslting his intelligence, just his public speaking skills.
It's all in good fun.

------------------
Hello everybody! I used to be QueenofSheeba and then I was Apollo and now I am QueenofSheeba again (and I'm a guy in case you didn't know)!

IP: Logged

Harpyr
Newflake

Posts: 0
From: Alaska
Registered: Jun 2010

posted February 08, 2004 01:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Harpyr     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
hmmm... not to totally change the topic but as long as we're talking about GW's verbal gaffes, I'd like to adress this very odd one.. He's talking about when he first heard about the terrorist attacks and he can't seem to keep his story straight.

quote:
Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident.

But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack."


source-The White House


The italics are mine.. What the heck was he talking about?? The t.v. was on? Uhhh.. the impact on the first tower wasn't caught on television. It was the second impact that was. This could be just another example of GW's awful ability to speak off the cuff and he's just confused as usual or it indicates that we are not getting the real story on when the pRes knew about the attacks. Frankly I don't see how it's possible that he didn't know before entering that school. I know that there was a reporter who was informed by her editor that the first tower was hit and when the editor asked her to talk to the pres about it she said that he was en route to the elementary school. If this reporter's editor knew about it then NO DOUBT the secret service knew about it to.. So anyway.. point being.. I think this gaffe is evidence that he's not very good at lying when it's off the cuff.

IP: Logged

TINK
unregistered
posted February 08, 2004 07:16 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I don't think being snobby and aristocratic would necessarily make anyone a bad president. But it would prevent you from being a "populist", and both Bush and Kerry like to make that claim. The motorcycle ride on Leno, the jeans and cowboy hat and Marlboro Man stance. Good Grief.

Harpyr, I've always enjoyed that particular quote too. I suppose some will claim it was a highly stressful, confusing moment and his memory is tad mixed-up. Silly. Do you remember where you were when it happened? Do you recall what you were doing when you found out? Of course. But the Prez is perplexed??!!

Interesting Enron stuff, QOS. Where did you find it?

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 09, 2004 10:38 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I don't see the demon is what he said. In that I mean, he was being honest - saying what he felt about what had happened, instead of making sure his words matched up to what the population wanted to hear.

If you had asked me my response would have been 'I was in Phoenix waiting to fly that day back to Baltimore. As I came out of the bathroom my ex said 'Oh my God, a plane hit the tower" I though to myself "God, I hate packing - what in the hell is he mumbling about? Well, sucks to be that guy - wow...it looks like the dream I had"...Then I saw the second hit and thought '$hit, how are we going to get back to BWI".

Was I perplexed? Yep, just like 99% of the country. Being president does not exempt one from being freaked out over an incident.


QofS,

You posted a perfect example of nepotism in our country. If you watched 20/20 they did a huge special on the "pay backs" that occur between friends and family, regardless of political persuasion.

I work for flaming liberals that are in charge of a public corporation. My current CEO is so incredibly liberal that he abuses his position by coming into our offices and spouting off useless political diatribes about how evil George Bush is. Hmm, if I did that I would be written up, but that is not the point. This company has become a jobs program for his liberal cronies. He bought a brand new $50,000 car to go with his brand new $1.5 Million home in order to "relfect his new station in life". LOL...those were HIS words. Meanwhile, he is firing all the long time, low wage employees and trying to move this company into a "whiter" county. Yeah, nice hypocracy.

All candidate posture. I have problems with some of GW's views - namely immigration and some of his spending. I also had the chance to hear him speak at a Cattlemen's meeting in 2001. He was genuine and was approachable. The former pres of the Arkansas Cattlemen's assoc. had a chance to meet with him in a small group and said he was likable, intelligent and so on. I put a lot of stock into what the cattleman believe because they are the ones busting their butts in the extreme weather and market fluctuations in order to make ends meet.

It does matter to me if the president is going to be a snob and rude to the "little people" Hell, it's the little people that are voting. If we start to make exceptions now, then what are we saying? We want someone to help the country grow, but at the same time we have no problem having them look down on us? Isn't that like voting in people with the philosophy of "Hell, let them eat cake?"

IP: Logged

Harpyr
Newflake

Posts: 0
From: Alaska
Registered: Jun 2010

posted February 09, 2004 11:07 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Harpyr     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Pid, the 'demon' of what he said, so to speak, wasn't his inner thoughts at the moment of finding out.. It's that he can't seem to get straight just exactly where he was when he found out. I don't know about you but I remember the EXACT details of when and how I first found out. The Bush's quote above not only defies what the 'official' story says but it defies reality, since he claimed to have seen the first impact on t.v.... Something that didn't take place.. Unless he was shown video of the first impact by the secret service in the limo on his way to the school.. Which really begs the BIG question.. If they knew planes were being used as missiles before the prez was at the school, they WHY did he proceed with the highly publicized appearance at an elementary school which is less than 10 miles from an airport itself when no doubt, the SS KNEW that there were other planes not yet accounted for??
Could it be because they also KNEW that none of the hijacked planes were a threat to the prez? Now, how would they know that?


BTW.. your boss sounds like a class A jerk. It's really hard for me not to think that money corrupts, no matter what sometimes.
The administration is not just rude to the little people, Bush flat out has no CLUE what a poor person's life is like. Just like most of the other elites in this country. Might as well call them what they are .. royalty.

IP: Logged

uriel203
unregistered
posted February 09, 2004 12:45 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
heres a few more reams of documents on the enron scandal starring jeffrey "the angel" skilling and kenneth"out a the loop"lay. dont forget that Bush jr appointed Thomas White,former enron ceo, as SECRETARY OF THE ARMY!!!
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/inves_admin/admin_enron.htm

of course that dwarfs the ONGOING WESTAR SCANDAL concerning the bribing of
Bush jr's buddies from Texas, but even westar makes these allegations about
Kerry look like chump change....i can agree with deregulation of price controls, but removing SEC oversight even AFTER the enron scandal??!!

http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/energybill/westar/
http://www.citizen.org/documents/westartimeline.pdf

bush jr's interview with Tim Russert.....

BUSH:"Well, first let me kind of step back and talk about intelligence in general, if I might."
(ha ha ha)

BUSH:"It is because the war against terrorists is a war against individuals" ..."who have these kind of shadowy networks, individuals who deal with rogue nations."
(hmmm...you mean like chile, panama, pakistan, iraq, iran-contra terrorists and drug dealers ,bcci terrorists and arms dealers.. etc, etc,etc ?)

RUSSERT: Will you testify before the commission?

BUSH: This commission? You know, I don't testify? I will be glad to visit with them. I will be glad to share with them knowledge. I will be glad to make recommendations, if they ask for some.
(i dont think they want you to share knowledge and make recommendations....i think they want you to TESTIFY!!lol)

RUSSERT: There is another commission right now looking into Sept. 11.
(bush evades....)
RUSSERT: Will you testify before that commission?
(more evasion , doesnt answer....)
RUSSERT: Would you submit for questioning, though, to the 9/11 Commission?
BUSH: Perhaps, perhaps.
(wait...was that an answer ...or not?)

RUSSERT: The night you took the country to war, March 17th, you said this:"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
RUSSERT: Mr. President, the Director of the CIA said that his briefings had qualifiers and caveats, but when you spoke to the country, you said "there is no doubt." When Vice President Cheney spoke to the country, he said "there is no doubt." Secretary Powell, "no doubt." Secretary Rumsfeld, "no
doubt, we know where the weapons are." You said, quote, "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency." "Saddam Hussein is a threat that we must deal with as quickly as possible." You gave the clear sense that this was an immediate threat that must be dealt with.

BUSH: I think, if I might remind you that in my language I called it a grave and gathering threat, but I don't want to get into word contests.
(lol..because he'll definitely lose a word contest, Russert is QUOTING bush jr and his cabinet)

now compare bush jr with Kerry concerning military and foreign intelligence record.....

bush jr

According to a copy of the National Guard document granting him an "honourable" discharge on October 1, 1973, Bush completed five years and four months of service -- less than the obligatory six years -- before
going to Harvard Business School.
Asked why no evidence has been found to show he reported to duty in Alabama during the summer and fall of 1972, Bush said: "There may be no evidence, but I did report. Otherwise, I wouldn't have been honourably discharged... I did show up in Alabama."
the retired general who commanded the 187th, William Turnipseed, and his personnel chief, Kenneth K. Lott, say they do not remember Bush ever reporting.
Bush's annual effectiveness report, signed by two superiors, says "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of the report," May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1973.
Hodges also said he did not see Bush at the Texas base again after Bush left for Montgomery. "If I had been there on the day[s] he came out, I would have seen him," Hodges said.
(so there IS evidence...just none that supports bush jr lol)

John Kerry, however wasnt born with a silver spoon in his mouth,he had to EARN his way by fighting for the common man and against government corruption....

While serving as a swift boat captain, patrolling the Mekong Delta in Vietnam, Kerry was honored for his bravery and valor, earning a Silver Star, three Purple Hearts, and the Bronze Star with Combat V awards. When he returned home after two tours of duty he became a cofounder of Vietnam
Veterans of America.
Senator Kerry attended law school and was elected as the assistant prosecutor for Middlesex County, MA in 1976 where he took on organized crime and put the Number Two mob boss in New England behind bars. He
cleared a backlog of cases that were languishing in the courts, and created an innovative rape crisis crime unit. He has continued to work for criminal justice, supporting and writing the Community Oriented Police System Act that provided federal funds to put more police on the streets.
In 1982, Senator Kerry was elected to serve as Lieutenant Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. While in office, he served as vice chairman on the governor's Anti-Crime Council, where he pushed for expanded
racketeering laws and a victims' assistance program. He established himself as a strong voice for the environment, working hard to reduce the sulfur dioxide emissions that were poisoning the water in Massachusetts.
In his role as Senator he has been a staunch supporter of campaign finance reform, and refused to take PAC contributions for his campaign. While still a freshman Senator, John Kerry started an investigation that led to the exposure of the Oliver North's ties with the Contras. He has worked with John McCain extensively to address the issue of Vietnam POW/MIAs, and to normalize trade relations with Vietnam. Senator Kerry has worked with a number of Republicans on public school reform, including changing teacher certification and ending tenure. He broke with many in the Democratic party when he supported the 1996 welfare reform legislation. Throughout his Senate career he has supported the rights of unions to collectively bargain, and has consistently cosponsored legislation to provide federal
funds for hiring new fire fighters.

he served as lt. governor then with four consecutive terms being voted in as senator, doesnt sound "unpopular" to me.....
i guess it boils down to a choice between a man with special interests in saudi arabia, pakistan, oil interests, and arms dealing interests against a man with special interests in veterans and ketchup.....

of course his experience as a Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Senate Intelligence Committee is why i favor him as the far lesser of two evils....
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/


concerning bush jr.s statements about the plane hitting the building, i'm sure he MEANT to say he saw that a plane HAD hit the building....
what baffles me is that he sat around and waited for 20+ minutes after being told "America is under attack!!" to leave this school full of children.....waiting for a SCHEDULED news conference!!?? when they had information that the president HIMSELF was being targeted??!!


IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 09, 2004 02:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yes, because 20 minutes in an eternity and we would really want to freak out the kids.

Now, come on - let's look at this logically. First off they have to do some amount of planning before whisking the pres away. God knows - if there are rogue planes about you do NOT want to send him right up into the air where is a greater target. Cheney is the one that ordered all flights grounded and for all the planes to land at the nearest airports.

Secondly a plan of action needed to be put into place. Pres is only one dude - so the important peeps get together and have to assess the damage and decide the safest route of our commander in chief and VP to be taken to in order to avoid the target issue.

Last of all, even though there are emergency plan protocols, nothing prepares a person or group of people for real life situations.

How long do you think it took to respond to the first attack on the WTC? What about when the USS Cole was attacked, or Oklahoma city? If we took them all apart and judged a person's compentency on how fast they got the "hell" out of whereever they were, I think you would see a different picture unfolding.

Hell, since Pearl Harbor was on last night let's look at that example. How long did it take for the big wigs in DC to warn Pearl Harbor about the attack? Do you remember? They were too late - because emergencies happen in real time and the DC peeps responded waaaaaay after the attack was over. That is true life, but in this day of instant gratification, DSL, Internet - high speed everything, hell we think we can react in nanoseconds.

Also Uriel,

I appreciate that you want to turn this into a Kerry versus Bush thread, which is your right to express your opinion, but keep in mind, this wasn't started to discuss their military backgrounds. Yes, Kerry served in Vietnam, but Clinton didn't. So- lets not start trying to pit those who did serve against those who did not as qualifying as a honest politician. I do believe in that same interview Bush said "My records are open - have at em". He has nothing to hide.

Does Kerry take money from Special Interest groups? You betcha!!!
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/31/elec04.prez.main/

"A study by the Center for Responsive Politics shows Kerry has received more money from lobbyists than any senator, current or former, dating back to 1989, when the center first starting collecting the data. As of September 30, 2003, Kerry had received nearly $640,000, the group said."


Although he DOES NOT accept money from the PAC's per se: this is how the money is broken down for the year ending 2003:

Sector Total
Agribusiness $ 95,070 Communic/Electronics $1,657,321 Construction $ 455,845
Defense $ 56,050
Energy/Nat Resource $ 164,036
Finance/Insur/RealEst $4,070,783
Health $ 823,151
Lawyers & Lobbyists $4,536,564 Transportation $ 149,875
Misc Business $1,999,601
Labor $ 9,550
Ideology/Single-Issue $ 189,037
Other $1,989,304

The PAC donation was less than $18,000

Now who are Kerry's top contributors?

Skadden, Arps et al $116,150
2 Mintz, Levin et al $112,250
3 Goldman Sachs $84,000
4 FleetBoston Financial $83,250
5 Robins, Kaplan et al $82,200
6 Citigroup Inc $81,500
7 Piper Rudnick $80,250
8 Harvard University $75,800
9 Hill, Holliday et al $75,500
10 Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance $68,950
11 Viacom Inc $63,250
12 Hale & Dorr $58,400
13 Staples Inc $52,000
14 Verizon Communications $50,650
15 Bain Capital $49,500
15 Morgan Stanley $49,500
17 Akin, Gump et al $49,300
18 News Corp $46,200
19 Credit Suisse First Boston $43,250
20 Clifford Law Offices $43,000

There is always a way these idiots lie and say that they are against one thing, but they take money a different way. Such as getting those PAC's to pay their "family" lobbyists which is then funneled back into the campaign. BOTH sides do it.

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 09, 2004 02:31 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
For information about PAC's here it is:

What Is a PAC?
Political Action Committee (PAC) — A popular term for a political committee organized for the purpose of raising and spending money to elect and defeat candidates. Most PACs represent business, labor or ideological interests. PACs can give $5,000 to a candidate committee per election (primary, general or special). They can also give up to $15,000 annually to any national party committee, and $5,000 annually to any other PAC. PACs may receive up to $5,000 from any one individual, PAC or party committee per calendar year. A PAC must register with the FEC within 10 days of its formation, providing name and address for the PAC, its treasurer and any connected organizations. Affiliated PACs are treated as one donor for the purpose of contribution limits.

PACs have been around since 1944, when the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) formed the first one to raise money for the re-election of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The PAC's money came from voluntary contributions from union members rather than union treasuries, so it did not violate the Smith Connally Act of 1943, which forbade unions from contributing to federal candidates. Although commonly called PACs, federal election law refers to these accounts as "separate segregated funds" because money contributed to a PAC is kept in a bank account separate from the general corporate or union treasury.

Many politicians also form Leadership PACs, which are not technically affiliated with the candidate, as a way of raising money to help fund other candidates' campaigns. Leadership PACs are often indicative of a politician's aspirations for leadership positions in Congress or for higher office. (A breakdown of spending by Leadership PACs is available on this web site.) Further background on Leadership PACs is online in the Center's 1996 publication, "A Bag of Tricks."

For more information on PACs, check out the FEC's "Campaign Guide for Corporations and Labor Organizations" and the "Campaign Guide for Nonconnected Committees" (both available in PDF format). For an alphabetical list of PAC acronyms, abbreviations, initials, and common names, see the FEC's list of PACRONYMS. A chart showing the rise and fall in the number of PACs over the years is also available on the FEC's web site.

IP: Logged

uriel203
unregistered
posted February 09, 2004 02:50 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
omg!! so THE PRESIDENT was much safer in a school full of children, we wouldnt want to "freak them out" huh?
his motorcade back to airforce1(yes...MUCH SAFER) wasnt delayed except by a SCHEDULED newsconference(in front of the school!!) at 9:30 where he made a 5 second statement.
at roughly the same time a BOEING 757 was LANDING ON the pentagon....

why did Card even bother notifying him that "America is under attack"!!??


IP: Logged

Harpyr
Newflake

Posts: 0
From: Alaska
Registered: Jun 2010

posted February 09, 2004 02:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Harpyr     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hey.. the 20 minutes is irrelevant. He knew BEFORE entering that classroom. His quote reveals that.

Pidaua,
did you read my post? I know it's totally off topic but it's something I'm really wondering about. It's been admitted by the administration that one of the few eventualities they are unable to do anything about is the scenario of a plane being hijacked with exposives on board, sticking to it's flight pattern as if nothing is up, coming into Dulles airport as if for a landing and then suddenly veering off course at the last possible moment and slamming into the White House.

THe SS admits they have no solution for this problem. Now that same possiblility exists for that particular elementary school that Bush spoke at on 9-11 due to it's close proximity to an airport.
No doubt the SS, with all of the intelligence resources at their disposal, KNEW BEFORE Bush arrived at the school about the first tower being hit. Yet they allowed him to arrive as scheduled to this highly publicized appearance even though other planes had been hijacked and were unaccounted for. Why did they put the president at such extreme risk???

I say it's because they knew he wasn't really at risk because they knew what the actual targets of the hijacked planes would be ahead of time. That quote of his is more revealing than it first appears.

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 09, 2004 02:56 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Uriel,

Please tell me what you would have done to make the response better? You are not providing ANY valid arguments, but instead you are coming off as just a shrill Bush hater. Let me ask you this, what is the purpose of pointing out the response time?

I can't help but find your argument concerning the response time totally ridiculous, but I look forward to reading your explanations.

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 09, 2004 03:07 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Harpyr,

Then what you are alluding to is that there was some large conspiracy with the SS and the administration. I do not subscribe to the theory that Bush knew what was happening but let it happen. That the SS had the total information but failed to prevent it.

To acknowledge that, in my mind, is lending credibility to what I, and most American's, think is total hog wash.

I appreciate passion for those that want to be passionate over issues. I listen and read the arguments, but I draw the line at conspiracy issues involving 9-11. I think it is a non-issue propagated by two forms of people, those that hate Bush and will do anything possible to discredit him and those that believe in all conspiracy issues period - like Area 51.

Should real evidence come out that Bush and his people knew, then I will believe and I will be the first in line to ask for justice. Until that time, I will not even entertain the thought.

By the way Harpyr, I am not trying to pin you into either category. I realize you are just asking questions.

IP: Logged

uriel203
unregistered
posted February 09, 2004 03:18 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
BTW Pidaua, YOU were the one who brought Bush/Cheney into this thread on John Kerry.

I think theres a difference between LEGAL campaign contributions and the CRIMINAL probes of enron and westar..lol!!
you wouldnt like to see the records that Bush/Cheney are hiding??!!


IP: Logged

Harpyr
Newflake

Posts: 0
From: Alaska
Registered: Jun 2010

posted February 09, 2004 03:36 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Harpyr     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Pidaua,
I wonder if you would even be able to see real evidence of the conspiracy if it were presented to you. You sound as if you have closed off your mind on this issue. I have presented information that, while it may not be hard evidence, is enough to raise some tough questions that all Americans should be asking. Yet you admit you aren't interested in even entertaining the possibility. Well.. if people didn't entertain the possiblility that they may be being lied too then the truth would continue to be buried. I'm not asking you to believe there was a conspiracy, I'm just asking you to open your mind enough to entertain the possiblility that the administration has something to hide re: 9-11.
*sigh*
The problem is that most Americans are too afraid to see the truth, if you ask me. The truth can be damn scary.

Sorry if this comes off as harsh. Nothing personal. I'm in a b#tchy mood today. My arm has this weird nerve pain going on and I think it's put me in a cynical pi$$y mood.

IP: Logged

uriel203
unregistered
posted February 09, 2004 03:36 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
there is no doubt in my mind that had i been president i would have commanded the secret service to return me to airforce 1 immediately, i wouldnt have to jump up screaming( and i dont believe bush jr was in any way concerned for the kids "freaking out" after reading for 5 minutes he got up prematurely anyway and went to the classroom next door and waited for the 9:30 news conference)

and btw yes only rightwing extremists would dream up "hogwash" like this....
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html

IP: Logged


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a