Latest Re Rove on Truth Out
By Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.[1] He has worked as a private consultant on issues of international terrorism and security for the U.S. Government and private companies. Johnson has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and news programs.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Views
2.1 1996
2.2 1998
2.3 1999
2.4 2000
2.5 2001
2.6 2003
2.6.1 Plame affair
2.7 2008
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Background
Larry Johnson moved to Washington, D.C. in 1979 to begin work on a Ph.D. at the American University. Although he completed successfully all coursework and comprehensive exams, he did not write a dissertation. In 1978 and in 1983-85 he worked in Latin America on community development projects as a community organizer. Returning to the United States in 1985 he joined the Central Intelligence Agency, thanks in part to a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that helped to "open doors" for him at the Agency.[3] Johnson entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 and was a classmate of Valerie Plame. Every member of that class was undercover. After a year in the Career Trainee program, which included a stint with the Afghan Task Force, Johnson was assigned as an analyst in the Middle America Caribbean Division in the Latin American Affairs Office of the Directorate of Intelligence. He received two Exceptional Performance awards and was promoted ultimately to Senior Regional Analyst for Central America.
Johnson remained undercover in the CIA until October 1989, when he resigned from the CIA and started a new job in the Office of Counter Terrorism at the Department of State. Johnson played an instrumental role in launching the Terrorism Rewards program international advertising campaign (working with Diplomatic Security officers Brad Smith and Michael Parks). [4] Johnson also was involved in a variety of crisis management response operations, including the release of hostages from Lebanon and liaison with the Pan Am 103 families. He left government service in October 1993 and started his own business as a consultant.
After leaving government service, Johnson became a frequent guest on many major television news shows when a question of terrorism came up. He was first interviewed by CNN following the capture of Carlos the Jackal. Johnson subsequently appeared on CNN, ABC's Nightline, CBS, the BBC, MSNBC, the Jim Lehrer News Hour, NBC, and NPR. In December of 1999, for example, Johnson was hired by NBC to serve as its terrorist expert for the Y2000 and was in Time Square with Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric ("a lot of fun and the best way to see in the New Year"). Johnson also was hired in January 2002 as a Fox News Analyst and remained under contract until February 2003.
Since 1994 a significant focus of Johnson's consulting work has been with the U.S. military special operations forces in scripting and conducting military counter terrorism exercises. He traveled under orders from the U.S. military to Iraq in May 2006 to work on a short term project.
A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000, Johnson became a strong critic of the Bush administration in May 2003 for its conduct of the war in Iraq and, a few months later, for its role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.[5] He was also featured in the 2004 political documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Since Robert Novak's controversial disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in July 2003, Johnson has contributed to public discourse on intelligence matters, often sparking further controversy. He has been interviewed by both the mass media and the alternative media and published commentaries on a variety of issues, including the Plame affair, the controversy concerning Mary McCarthy, and the resignation of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence.
[edit]Views
This article or section may contain an inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline.
Please help convert this timeline into prose or, if necessary, a list.
[edit]1996
In 1996, Johnson noted that terrorism worldwide was on the decline. "Terrorist incidents [both internationally and in the US] have fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s. Whether measured by the number of incidents, the number of fatalities, or the number of groups, raw statistics demonstrate that the level of terrorist violence has declined since the mid-1980s. In fact, the evidence suggests terrorism was more widespread and deadly 10 years ago."[6]
He also wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times suggesting that the newer and more deadly terrorist threat to the U.S. was embodied by "networks of terrorists, mostly foreign, working within its borders." Exemplifying this threat was Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In the article, Johnson suggests that enhanced cooperation between intelligence agencies, particularly the FBI and CIA, is mandatory to meet the growing threat of terror networks.[7]
[edit]1998
In 1998, Johnson argued that while overall terrorism was declining, the threat from bin Laden and al-Qaeda should be the focus of American counterterrorism policy:
The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals associated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama's status as the most lethal terrorist is certain.[8]
In addition, he told USA Today that bin Laden had participated in "virtually every major attack of terrorism against the United States" in the 1990s. Johnson underlined the threat posed by bin Laden, saying that he was possessed by "hatred and craziness." If left unanswered, "he would continue to terrorize Americans around the world. He has no compunction about killing women and children. He's a complete egalitarian in his murderous attitude."[9]
[edit]1999
In an interview with PBS's Frontline for its 1999 program, Hunting bin Laden, Johnson discussed Osama bin Laden.[10] According to Johnson, Americans had "tended to make Osama bin Laden sort of a superman in Muslim garb." "Actually," he continues, "Osama bin Laden, in my view, represents more of a symptom of a problem, and the problem is this: the Saudi Arabian government, not just Osama bin Laden but many people in Saudi Arabia, have been sending money to radical Islamic groups for years." Johnson continued:
When you look at who's killed Americans in the last 10 years, the individuals he's supported and backed--I'm basing that upon the initial information that's been released in the indictments and conversations with others in the intelligence communities--Osama bin Laden has been the one killing Americans. No other terrorist group in the world has been out killing Americans except for Osama bin Laden.... Osama bin Laden remains out there as the one really targeting us. So, we recognize that he's the threat. He's serious about wanting to kill Americans, but as long as he's in Afghanistan, as long as he doesn't have access to a cell phone, as long as he can't just hop on a plane and travel wherever he wants without fear of being arrested, his ability to plan and conduct terrorist operations is extremely limited. We have to recognize [that] he would like to do a lot of damage. He would like to kill Americans, but wanting to is different from being able to, having the full capabilities in place.[11]
In the interview, Johnson doubted the ability of members of bin Laden's organization to plan and put their lives on the line:
There's not another Ali or Mustafa out there at this point and Osama bin Laden in my view has not been a very effective organizer or leader. He talks a great game and puts out terrific threats as far as stirring the passions in the United States and maybe firing up the imaginations of some young Muslims throughout the world. But when push comes to shove, can he get a group of people who are together who will say: we are going to plan an operation, we're going to put our lives on the line, we're going to go out and try and kill people and we don't care what the consequence is? It hasn't happened.[12]
Frontline asked:
[Is it] ... fair to say what you're saying is that the president of the United States, his national security advisor, his deputy national security advisor for counter-terrorism, are basically blowing smoke [about the danger posed by bin Laden] and his followers]?
Johnson responded:
They're grossly exaggerating the problem. They are hyping it. They shouldn't be talking about rising terrorism. Instead of saying "terrorism's rising," it's not. "Terrorism is spreading," it's not. "More people are dying from terrorism," not the case. But what they should be saying is, "There's one individual out there that really doesn't like us, and he's made it his mission in life to kill Americans, and we've gotta deal with him." But we need to have a voice of reason in that process instead of putting ourselves out crying wolf, because this is essentially what's taking place right now. They call it the administration that cries wolf.[12]
[edit]2000
Johnson co-authored an article in 2000 with Milt Bearden which focused on the threat posed by al-Qaeda specifically, rather than terrorism trends in general. Beardon and Johnson note that new information emerging about the bombings at Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 points to the threat posed by Imad Mugniyah and Osama Bin Laden will require "a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations," concluding:
The Clinton Administration has shot its bolt on the terrorist problem with small effect, and no last minute show of force will change the record. A new administration can start afresh with a more sharply defined set of terrorism goals – Mughniyeh and bin Laden and their protectors for starters – and bring the full, coordinated force of American diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities to bear on the problem.[13]
[edit]2001
After Johnson's testimony to the special forum at the U.S. Senate, Gary J. Schmitt, executive director and CEO of the Project for the New American Century, refers in the Daily Standard (blog) to an op-ed piece Johnson wrote two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, claiming that Johnson argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism.[14]
In an editorial entitled "The Declining Terrorist Threat," published in the New York Times on 10 July 2001, Johnson says:
Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.... None of these beliefs are based in fact.... While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.[15]
Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, after quoting the above passage, Timothy Noah concludes a post in his "Chatterbox" feature at Slate: "Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong."[16] Johnson defended himself against such attacks:
The rightwing is resurrecting an op-ed I wrote in July 2001. I stand by the full article. It is still relevant today. I am accused, incorrectly, of ignoring the threat of terrorism. In fact, I correctly noted that the real threat emanated from Bin Laden and Islamic extremism. President Bush, for his part, ignored the CIA warning in August 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States.[17]
After September 11, Johnson appeared several times on FOX News to address the question of military action against terrorism. On 14 November, he defended the FBI's proposal to interview 5,000 students in the U.S. suspected of having information relevant to the September 11 investigations:
I think they should talk to everyone that they feel they have a need to talk to. I mean, look, this is war. This is not a legal proceeding. This isn't the O.J. Simpson trial. The folks that attacked us -- they murdered Americans. And we've got to recognize that in wartime, we should do things differently.[18]
[edit]2003
In January 2003, Johnson wrote an analysis of the relationship between the upcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq and the threat of transnational terrorism. According to Johnson, Bremer's response was to tell him that "it didn't matter what Saddam did or didn't do, we were going to war."[19] The paper warned that an invasion would "do little to destroy the infrastructure of radical Islamic terrorism responsible for the 9-11 attacks." Noting that Saddam Hussein's regime has been a longtime supporter of regional terrorist organizations such as the PLO, Johnson examines contacts between Saddam Hussein and transnational terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda:
There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. . . . According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. . . .
Johnson notes that the period immediately leading up to 2003 saw a rise of activity surrounding terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, suggesting that "Iraq is willing to help a movement that it would otherwise oppose on ideological grounds. Nonetheless," Johnson concludes, "it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden.[20]
In that analysis Johnson also warns that the U.S.-led invasion was likely to backfire:
In fact there is a serious risk that a U.S. led war against Iraq may crystallize the diffused anger in the Arab and Muslim world — a heretofore unattained goal of bin Laden and his followers — and persuade more Muslim youths to take up the terrorist banner against America and her citizens.... If we decide to invade Iraq we must be prepared for the contingency that our attack will inspire young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims, especially young adults to the cause of jihad, a U.S. attack may enable Islamic extremists to attract new followers.[20]
Johnson also gave interviews on the topic of what to do with captured al-Qaeda leaders; while he did not condone torture, he suggested that a "sleep deprivation and reward system" might be useful for getting information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
I don't see a constitutional right to have eight hours of sleep. You shouldn't subject someone to freezing but they don't get to wear mink coats, either.[21]
In May 2003, Johnson joined members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in condemning the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes:
It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.[22]
[edit]Plame affair
After Robert Novak wrote a column identifying the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson as a CIA officer, the media invited Johnson to comment on the ensuing scandal because he had been a member of the same Career Trainee class with Valerie Plame Wilson. For example, in October 2003, he appeared on Democracy Now to discuss the Plame affair. He told interviewer Amy Goodman that Valerie Wilson's cover should have been respected whether she was an "analyst" or a "cleaning lady": "if she's undercover she's undercover, period. If the media allows themselves to get distracted with those kinds of curve balls, they ignore the issue."[23]
He told a Senate Democratic Policy Committee in October 2003, "My classmates and I have been betrayed. Together, we have kept the secrets of each other's identities a secret for 18 years. Each and every one of us have kept that secret, whether we were in the CIA, in other government service or in the private sector. But this issue is not just about a blown cover. It is about the destruction of the very essence, the core of human intelligence collection activities: plausible deniability, apparently, for partisan domestic political reasons."[24]
Johnson testified at a special joint hearing of Congressional and Senate Democrats on 22 July 2005 about the consequences arising from the Plame affair.[25]
[edit]2008
In 2008, Johnson emerged as a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and a strong critic of Barack Obama. Larry Johnson's blog, NoQuarterUSA, became a rally point for Clinton supporters wary of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president. Supporters of Barack Obama insist that a story that first appeared on Johnson's blog--a report that Republican operatives have a tape of Michelle Obama making racially insenstive comments about caucasians--has been "refuted" Barack Obama's Fight the Smears website.[26]. However, Johnson never claimed to have the tape and reported that the Republican operatives controlling it intended to release the tape sometime after the Democratic Convention in August 2008. On October 21, however, he asserted that the operative in possession of the tape had been instructed by the McCain campaign not to release it.[27]
[edit]Notes
^ http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/
^ Larry C. Johnson, "About Me," No Quarter (personal blog).
^ "Former CIA Official Larry Johnson Delivers Democratic Radio Address," transcript posted on official Democratic National Committee's website for The Democratic Party, July 23, 2005], accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Interview with Larry Johnson, confirmed by his supervisor
^ "Ex-CIA official Blasts Bush on Leak of Operative's Name: Democrats' Radio Address Focuses on White House Aides' Role," CNN July 23, 2005, accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Gail Russell Chaddock, "Why Terrorists Pick On the French," Christian Science Monitor (5 December 1996) p. 1.
^ Larry Johnson, "Terrorists Among Us," New York Times (20 August 1996) p. A19.
^ Terrorism Today
^ Lee Michael Katz, "The Hunt for Bin Laden," USA Today (21 August 1998) p. 1A.
^ See Transcript of original interview with Larry C. Johnson, as broadcast on Frontline in 1999. Cf. "Interview: Larry C. Johnson," for Hunting bin Laden, transcript of interview broadcast on Frontline subsequently on 13 April 2001. See also dedicated PBS webpages for media links: Iraq and the War on Terror, Frontline PBS, online featured programs, accessed 19 November 2006.
^ frontline: hunting bin laden: interviews: larry c. johnson | PBS
^ a b [1].
^ As posted in [2].
^ Gary Schmitt, [ 07/25/2005 "Meet Larry Johnson: The CIA official Turned Democratic Spokesman Has a Pre-9/11 Mindset," Daily Standard (blog), July 25, 2005, accessed November 20, 2006.
^ *Larry C. Johnson, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," The New York Times 10 July 2001: A19.
^ Timothy Noah, "(Not Exactly a) Whopper of the Week: Larry C. Johnson," Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics (blog), hosted by Slate September 21, 2001, accessed November 20, 2006. Note the full context of this quotation:
It is, to be sure, a little bit cheap (and slightly at odds with the usual parameters of this feature) to criticize someone for making an erroneous prediction, particularly after a tragedy. Chatterbox is especially reluctant to tag Johnson because Johnson's op-ed was argued forcefully, backed up meticulously with factual data, and bravely at odds with conventional wisdom at the time of its publication. Add in that Johnson now makes his living as a consultant to corporations about terrorism, and therefore had everything to gain by exaggerating the dangers terrorism poses, and the guy practically looks like a hero. Chatterbox, who two decades ago was an editor for the New York Times op-ed page, would have published Johnson's piece had he still been an editor there this past July. In his capacity at Slate, Chatterbox might well have written up Johnson's prediction, and perhaps even endorsed it.
But boy, is he glad he didn't! Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong. Sadly, a mistake this embarrassing cannot be ignored. As a fellow skeptic, Chatterbox in all sincerity wishes Johnson better luck next time.
^ Larry C. Johnson, "Johnson vs. President Bush," re-posted and updated by SusanHu at DailyKos (blog) July 25, 2005.
^ FOX News Interview with John Garrett (14 November 2001) Transcript #111405cb.260.
^ [3].
^ a b Larry C. Johnson, "Setting the Record Straight on Iraqi Terrorism," posted in Booman Tribune: A Progressive Community (personal blog) 27 January 2003. accessed 19 November 2006.
^ Qtd. in Toby Harnden, "CIA 'pressure' on al-Qa'eda chief," The London Telegraph 5 March 2003: 16.
^ Qtd. in Nicolas D. Kristof, "Save Our Spooks," The New York Times 30 May 2003:A6.
^ Democracy Now (3 October 2003)[4]
^ U.S. Senate, Democratic Policy Committee Meeting on the CIA Operative Leak, (24 October 2003).
^ Letter to the Senate.[Needs full source citation; see "References" section.]
^ Tumulty, Karen (2008-06-12). "Will Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan Work?", Time Magazine. Retrieved on 20 June 2008.:"a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson"
^ Whitey Tape, API, Phil Berg, and Andy MartinSee Authors Posts (1090) on May 21, 2006 at 11:20 PM in Current Affairs
The following was posted today on Truth Out. They are sticking to their guns and justifiably so. Time will tell.
LJ
Information Sharing on the Rove Indictment Story
by
Marc AshI’d like to break this posting into two categories: What we know, and what we believe. They will be clearly marked.
We know that we have now three independent sources confirming that
attorneys for Karl Rove were handed an indictment either late in the
night of May 12 or early in the morning of May 13. We know that each
source was in a position to know what they were talking about. We know
that the office of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald will not confirm,
will not deny, will not comment on its investigation or on our report.
We know that both Rove’s attorney Robert Luskin and Rove’s spokesman
Mark Corallo have categorically denied all key facts we have set forth.
We know we have information that directly contradicts Luskin and
Corallo’s denials. We know that there were two network news crews
outside of the building in Washington, DC that houses the offices of
Patton Boggs, the law firm that represents Karl Rove. We know that the
4th floor of that building (where the Patton Boggs offices are located)
was locked down all day Friday and into Saturday night. We know that we
have not received a request for a retraction from anyone. And we know
that White House spokesman Tony Snow now refuses to discuss Karl Rove -
at all.Further, we know - and we want our readers to know - that we are
dependent on confidential sources. We know that a report based solely
on information obtained from confidential sources bears some inherent
risks. We know that this is - by far - the biggest story we have ever
covered, and that we are learning some things as we go along. Finally,
we know that we have the support of those who have always supported us,
and that must now earn the support of those who have joined us as of
late.
We now move on to what we believe. (If you are looking for any guarantees, please turn back now.)
We believe that we hit a nerve with our report. When I get calls on my cell phone from Karl Rove’s attorney and spokesman, I have to wonder what’s up. "I" believe - but cannot confirm - that Mark Corallo, Karl Rove’s spokesman gave Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post my phone number. I believe Howard Kurtz contacted me with the intention of writing a piece critical of our organization. I know that Anne Marie Squeo of the Wall Street Journal attacked us and independent journalism as a whole in her piece titled, "Rove’s Camp Takes Center of Web Storm / Bloggers Underscore How Net’s Reporting, Dynamics Provide Grist for the Rumor Mill." We believe that rolling out that much conservative journalistic muscle to rebut this story is telling. And we believe that Rove’s camp is making a concerted effort to discredit our story and our organization.
Further - and again this is "What We Believe" - Rove may be turning state’s evidence. We suspect that the scope of Fitzgerald’s investigation may have broadened - clearly to Cheney - and according to one "off the record source" to individuals and events not directly related to the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. We believe that the indictment which does exist against Karl Rove is sealed. Finally, we believe that there is currently a great deal of activity in the Plame investigation.
We know that this story is of vital interest to the community, and that providing as much information as we can is very important to our readers. We want you to know that this is challenging territory and that we are proceeding with as much speed as the terrain will allow.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
I believe in TO…I stand by them…
they are brave…..
the fact that their server is jammed
is monkey business by
the thugs I’ll wager….
we are in danger of the
silent coup continuing..
hopefully fitzgerald
survives this..hale and hearty
I have a hunch that what happened is that Fitz showed ‘em a proposed indictment, and said something like, “this is what the indictment will look like unless you come to Jesus.” My hunch is not based on sources, but rather the experiences of having been a criminal defense attorney for 30 years.
Visit the Schapira Blog, What we know so far … at Http://schapira.blogspot.com
… and tell ‘em Big Mitch sent ya!
LJ I would like more detail on your “justifiably” comment. Give us the scoop.
this is why we will all be best served by history. Rove’s machine is big, it is smart and it does not go down lightly … nor will it go down alone. TO may not have all the facts correct, but the thunder of the offset mechanism is reminding us to remimber history and not allow TO to be swiftboated.
Why is Joe Wilson helping truthout?
Wayne Madsen reported last week that his Wash. DC sources were also saying an indictment of Rove was imminent. Madsen thought the indictment would come down last Friday, which didn’t happen of course.
I don’t know how indictments and the grand jury work. But Truthout’s vigorous support of Jason Leopold and his story is an indication, to me at least, that there is some truth to it. Perhaps Rove is negotiating or turning state’s evidence to avoid an indictment, which otherwise would’ve been handed down last week? With the publication of Cheney’s Plame notes on Wilson’s article, it’s clear that Fitzgerald is indeed looking at Cheney too.
Truthout says that according to their sources Fitzgerald is looking beyond the Plame leak? Does that imply Fitzgerald may be examining the source of the Niger papers?
Alas, I was so hoping for another Fitzmas last week. But we just have to wait and see.
rove turning state’s evidence? its a possibility. time will tell for sure. one thing is certain, my gut tells me something big is yet to come. thanks for posting the article larry.
wishful thinking and ejubilatio praecox.
Is it at least possible that Leopold was deliberately set up by his sources to be embarrassed? One of many reasons journalists should not use anonymous sources except in the most extreme circumstances (James Risen, NSA story, Dana Priest, secret prisons story, etc.)
Is Joe going to out his sources that helped in the truthout story too?
–Time will tell.
LJ—
Well actually Larry, you and Joe can tell since you have both been working with truthout.org and Joe has eliminated and confirmed sources for William Pitt. It would be very helpful if you both outed your sources - the sources you confirmed for Jason.
When I was growing up I was taught that deriving pleasure from the misery of others was wrong and not something that one indulged in. Well I have changed my tune. Nothing would give me more pleasure than to see this son of a bitch get what he so rightly deserves, the only thing that would top it would be the removal from office of the worst most damaging president this country and the world has ever seen. Quite frankly I am at a loss as to why they have been permitted to continue with their destruction of our constitution, a document written by men who risked their lives to put to paper words that created a free and civil society of men. Now we have small men with no vision, wisdom, strength of character, or integrity running America into the ground seemingly at will with free reign-what the fuck.
Shadenfreude for your misery Mr. Rove-you piece of rat shit-I hope your indictment is a fait accompli.
I wanted to add something I think important. What you are doing is what people should be doing, all of us and I want to thank you for the work that must be difficult in the face of the pressure brought to bear on those who disagree with this administration. Did you ever think in your born days that someone would make this kind of statement in America-you go guys.
Everything is connected. The Niger fraud(Hill&Knowlton), Yellowcake myths, the Iraqi National Congress(Chalabi) and Iranian Liberation Front, Ledeen and Curveball Ghorbanifar, the OSP stovepipe(Gingrich) and several parallel programs, and the effort to out Plame for a dual purpose.
She controlled much of the sanctions oversight regarding proliferation and laundering of oil wealth for other geoploticial aims. Brewster was close to ARAMCO and perhaps even the Chevron pipeline as part of the GH Venture Partners project in Uzbekistan. Especially the energy sector’s role in WMD proliferation was of interest to Jennings.
The initial plan was to forestall disclosure to win an election. It worked. Rove probably pleads the 5th up to the point he was being asked about it and tried to spin things. He would plead 5th on self, then fall back on the President’s ability to consider it declassified, but the problem with that was Senator Rockefellor’s contested notes of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Fitz checks back, has additional mismatches to the evidence he used to get inital cooperation, and it expands the scope of the Rove involvement.
Libby was not technically authorized to see or disclose it either. That would be Senior Department leaders.
Both made statements implicating themselves to other witnesses, Fitzgerald gets their logs and contacts on archive and backgrounds this. Bush has tried to loophole much of this with other ongoing investigations or with his unitary war powers ability to classify at his discretion via the AG’s interpretation.
Rockefeller was forbidden from saying any of this information via classification, and they claim Bush declassified. Either he didn’t and broke the Intelligence Identities Act or he did and then lied to a member of Congress about it in Committee policy.
Both are impeachable. One is more grave in its punishments, the other takes the same character in light of its use to put this country to war.
Fitzgerald has used triangulation to play Rove and Libby off one another. Rove’s “fair game” statement constitutes intent for collateral effect on Plame and her network.
Everyone has amnesia, it’s the Reagan criminal defense rebroadcast. Patrick is helping people remember.
Cheney had the money to run the Bush White House, but Rumsfeld probably put Cheney in place. Old favors from the Nixon/Ford days. Cheney looks to have someone helped him get the Halliburton gig and work for all the defense contractors, Rumsfeld divested a billion in holdings for the DoD post. Then there’s other ARAMCO Cheney dealings fromt e previous generation…
Follow the Money.
Of course Cheney hedged his hopes by disclosing in front of Bush as well, probably in presence of then AG Ashcroft and Counsel Gonzales. It may radically change the attempted firing of Fitz when that time comes. Alberto may have to resign to accomplish it over conflict.
Cheney’s staffer, Bush’s campaign guru playing off each other. The initial amnesia, 5th, and late pardon/executive disclosure hit a wall. Their record of statements to the Senate indicate the information was not fully declassified.
1)Forget it, 2)stall, 3)then claim 5th to what the prosecution can only notify on you, 4)argue it was a declassify past the two year mark and 5)await a pardon.
The six degress of Karl Rove, 6)turned snitch completes the loop.
Two liars, will try to see who can lie more and get a mistrial done. Last resort, because others have set the background that ended the ‘Unitary Boss’ bailout.
Like Robert Novak, Karl Rove knows why the caged bird sings…
The hammer would have dropped if Rove didn’t play ball. The real horse hockey is over, the cutthroat deal begins now.
He’s on borrowed time. Fittingly, that matches the deficit.
Rove had no business or authority to be invoilved in the first place. Hadley and Libby were bigger items in applied terms, their respective seniors in particular.
Lexis chronology will show Rove and Libby have implicated selves already. If it was about them it would be over already.
They did not have authority or clearances to see or disclose. This goes to the top.
See also:
transcripts, McGlauhglin Group(statements to a reporter)
transcripts, PBS News Hour w/Jim Lehrer, Shields and Brooks, June 6 of ‘06(statements to a reporter, several times over)
excellent synopsis, Mr. Murder… I am just waiting for the last pieces to fall in place.
Not too long ago, probably two years or so, I had the opportunity to corner(bad choice of words, perhaps)Congressman Dingell asnd ask why no one was calling the thugs on the treachery and deceit… He said “you have to remember that there are a LOT of very powerful people in Washington. Can’t get anywhere while they are still in office…” That’s one of the reasons I have joined Jim Marcinkowski’s campaign, even tho I live in Dingell’s district. He had the courage to stand up before it was ‘popular’. Not afraid of the ‘powerful’ He kows that Truth is on his side.
Follow the Money… yes, I have, and I KNOW that it will all come out.;. Just can’t wait… Truthout has courage, and I continue to support their efforts. They have done nothing in the past that makes me doubt their reporting, so I will wait until all the cards are on the table. My gut feeling is that you are on the right track, Mr. M…
It is a shame that those in power are so corrupt, and so many more are afraid to stand up to the ‘machine’. It is more than a shame, it is a disgrace. I can’t wait till Fitzmas, I am with Larry and Jim… let the truth come out, and let me have a part in making it happen…
The Truth WILL set us free… Best to all, M
Good stuff, all.
Hey Prchr Lady - I’m in Sandy Levin’s district. his is an excerpt from a speech of Jim’s - maybe you were there…
The Administration’s ignoring of the law in the case of wiretapping is but one part of what I see as an emerging pattern or practice of illegal and unethical conduct.
When my CIA classmate, Valerie Wilson’s cover was exposed by the White House in 2003, I as well as other members of my class appeared in October of that year on Nightline to explain the consequences of that unprecedented act. It was from that program that the CIA leak case became a national story. Behind the scenes, there is an interesting, as well as informative story.
After the Nightline program, my fellow classmates and I wrote a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee requesting a hearing to explain our side of the story. That letter was ignored until we were contacted by Senator Tom Daschle’s staff offering a Democratic Senate hearing in the Capital. The Senate Democratic offer was accepted and a hearing was set for a Friday morning in Washington. Almost immediately after the Democratic hearing became public, we were notified by the Senate Intelligence Committee staff that we would be granted a hearing before a closed session of the Senate Intelligence Committee. That hearing was to take place the afternoon of the day before the Friday Senate hearing. We accepted that as well.
I flew to Washington and appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee on
Thursday. The thrust of my delivery to the Committee was that we, the classmates of Valerie Wilson, were betrayed. We were betrayed because whether we were inside or outside the Agency, we kept her identity a secret for more than 18 years. There was nothing “secret” about my remarks.
Following my delivery to the Committee on that Thursday afternoon, I left the Senate offices and went to a nearby park. While sitting on a park bench I received a call from Senator Daschle’s office with a message: Senate Republican Pat Roberts, Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, had declared all of my testimony before the Committee “secret”. I was then asked if I could still testify the next day before the Senate Democrats or whether I would have to first check for approval with the CIA legal affairs office. I was flabbergasted and didn’t know what to say. I had to think about it. I had to call back.
As I sat on that park bench there were many thoughts running through my mind. I had signed a secrecy agreement upon entering the CIA. If I testified the next day, telling the same story I told the Intelligence Committee, would I be in violation of that agreement? Could the Senate Intelligence Chairman simply declare what I said secret? Would I be arrested or subject to criminal prosecution? Could the CIA even “clear” my remarks within a few hours? Would the public hearing be cancelled and the public not learn of this important issue?
As I sat there, by myself, it was kind of lonely debating the issues in my mind. The first thing I did (and you should keep this in mind at all times! Ha!), I called a lawyer. While this very good friend of mine is probably the brightest, most commonsensical lawyer I know, he knew absolutely nothing about national security law. But we talked, and he helped. I knew there was nothing
secret about my testimony, but that didn’t ease my mind as what the Republicans might try to do, based on what they had just done! The more we talked, the angrier I became. I knew what I had to do.
After about 20 minutes of talking and thinking about it, I called Senator Daschle’s staffer and told her to tell the Committee Chairman “to go to hell”.
National Security: The Attack on the Constitution - And the Use and Abuse of Secrecy - 2/8/2006
Delivered to the Washtenaw County Democratic Party, February 8, 2006
http://www.marcinkowskiforcongress.com/speeches_details.asp?id=7
What about this today?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/420152p-354720c.html
Mr. Murder,
Finding your insight and angle most informative. Do you have reccomendations for other web sites?
Do you post at other sites? Journals?
Please respond if you can…
B.G. Kridderz
Sandy - Re Daily News Piece - Holy Shit!
Sic Semper Tyrannis, that Larry links here, with Col. Pat Lang, is very good for historical, political and cutlural reference.
You’ll find items in your library as well. I’d suggest ARAMCO manuals/annuals and books nearby…
Having worked in the corporate world for the last 20 years, let me tell you something about rumors. Frequently people close to a good source will hear something that is true, but the details are still in flux.
A good example - A few weeks ago at my current firm, a coworker with good connections told me that a very unpopular employee was going to be laid off that day. It didn’t happen; but she did get laid off two weeks later. So the information was correct, but the timing was off.
Red, that was part of the entire Rove deal. I’ll bet anything the ax was going to fall on Wednesday. It was then he decided to plead and they slowed their cooperation enough to push Fitz past the usual Friday news dump.
It doesn’t mean it isn’t true, just that people on the wrong side of the case are doing their best to stymie it and still try to play ball.
Regardless, the liability involved is tantamount, the civil damages coming up against Rove, etc. and the conspiracy/RICO suits from that as accessories to homicide will be of great impact.
Remember even if he’s pardoned he still faces damages and there’s enough on record to put him under.
He’s going to get his, one way or another. Every way is what he really deserves. Get in karma what he dished out upon his fellow citizens.
I looked up IAEA reports in public domain and posted them on two sports sites.
One , a former aide to to a NJ gov scrubbed, the other, my friend who runs it works for a defense firm in NJ.
Both sites scrubbed the comments. About the time of Valerie’s name being outed. Was watching real close, there was a trail on the Ingersoll Rand subcontractors to Niger and their information showed only one plant at 20% capacity for the time the high grade claims were made. Google has a cache they store for liability reasons that could still probably access the sites, not on public domain. I also named names in it, matching an Intelligence Community.gov public access link of posts listed on a page from the DCI shuffle that Tenet used in it to the policies and the different rumors coming out. Kind of connecting the dots on the run. Just public appointments and their business connections, mind you.
If you want historical background go to Col. Lang’s site at Sic Semper Tyrannis. Larry has him blogrolled here. Most local libraries have items not listed specifically online as well. I get ARAMCO annuals on occasion from mine to look back in retrospect.
Had a former college teacher who was retired Army INTEL and an oil wildcat assessor who matched the people and places during desert storm and told us how it would go. He got everything right. Day.By.Day. It was a disappointment to have the Communications Dean block his making statements of record. He was ready to say things on camera about a President sending the Guard to Kuwait when his son was a confirmed Deserter. He worked in Texas and the Gulf of Mexico and could name names, his sources feared the CIA track record and the elder family leader.
He didn’t and would make the statements. Those days and that time are gone now.
Just afterward, I talked to an in-law(a two star) and he was coming to the same reckoning. After he retired, with three stars, he came to the same conclusion I did.
He voted Kerry.
We both voted for Bush’s dad the first time. True believers.
Most of my posts are just emotional rants now. Worst case scenarios. I keep an eye out on things only as an outsider. But the people Bush purged like Richard Clarke can keep as good(or better) an eye on what is going on with their knowing of which subcontractors to pulse(as per NSA policies) and what kind of overall market signs and chatter to observe.
The new NSA guy has a lot of fans voting for him to run the CIA, it should help unify their tasks and expedite effective action. He was part of the Bush purge of career pros, for political partisan reasons, or lifestyle choices and showed no leadership against that. Of course you must make concessions to stay in position, it’s a terrible tightrope to walk but comes with the job.
Russia drove out people of different mindsets. We won the Cold War as a result. America could combine the efforts of many different mindsets towards a common, unified purpose.
The new foe develops within cultures that are strict and also oppose many of the same lifestyles or political modes that Bushco does. You won’t win playing it by their rules.
Trust, but verify. Dubya has an Oedipal complex. He was dad’s press goon who went after people like Dukakis(ever wonder how they got the dirt on his psychiatrists’ sessions? see also Ellsberg).
Dubya did the dirty deeds of going after people in the media or issuing rumors and innuendos. He doesn’t think he has to govern, he never learned that from dad. He only knew dirty campaigning and cutthroat campaigning on media formats.
As much as I hate him, he really did lose a chance to take what he could have learned from pops and improve their record. Pity the man. Rich beyond measure, rendered a pauper.
His dad ignored a hurricane in Florida, a recession, insider trading(smirked his way through blind trusts references, snickering). That, and his son’s bail outs of both Neil and Marvin was enough in the day. You learn from mistakes as well as success. He didn’t do either.
American voters did. Guess he thinks Diebold will take care of that. It has so far.
(Thanks again to Mr.Johnson, Col.Lang, Susan, and the various contributors here.)
http://www.seixon.com/blog/archives/2006/05/truth_on_sale.html
I just listened to a News Report on the Investigation…and the Comments that Rove may still be Indicted…
Interesting that Mr. Fitzpatrick only has Four Investigators on his Staff who ALL Have other fULL TIME JOBS..and a Small Budget to work with..
I wonder WHO is Responsible for that..??
NAMES>>NAMES>>NAMES…
AND…How Mr. Fitzpatricks budget and Staff compare to the Clintons Whitewater Investigation..and the Size of Ken Starrs Staff and Budget..??
Anyone got the Data..??
Perhaps there should be some Media Attention on UNLIMITED RESOURCES…
Vs..Restricted Resources..
and WHY..??
I Think we got a righ to know..
Aren’t the Democrats tired of being called a Bunch of Whiny Wimps with No Guts..??
No Plan..?
Why does it seem that they would just rather give thier Lunch Money to the Nieghborhood Bullys than Put up a Fight..??
They may be Underdogs..
But they should still..
BARK and BITE..
and Form thier Own PACK..
and Fight Back..
NOW..
I HATE Bullys..
My concern, Patrick is on two fronts. Well actually, my concern is on more that two fronts, but specifically two fronts.
Firstly the Democrats have been particularly good at shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. History provides copious and glowing credentials on this front. Credentials to the discredit to what could be, in principle, a glorious organisation.
Secondly, and this is the really worrying thing. Lets take a great stateman, like Clinton and look at what he did, how he behaved. Why were the people so disolutioned that they wanted him out in 1994? Did his administration behave any differently to the Republicans? There are mixed feelings amongst intellectuals about the validity of the prosecution of the former Yugoslavia. Some argue that Clinton was as despotic as Bush is on Iraq. If we look at the aftermath of Yugoslavia, drugs and prostitution are up along with Corporate inroads (all thanks to free [sic] trade). On the other hand local SMEs and craft industries are way down. Now that’s all thanks to the Demoncrats and that worries me.
But taking away the obvious differences between an extra-ordinary statesmen and a redneck, the choice between Clinton and Bush. Taking all that away, if you look at what is done, there doesn’t seem to be a great deal of difference between the Democrat and Republican. It was the Democrats who came up with the idea “free trade”. A term that Winston Churchill hated. Winston has been misquoted many times [on this], but I think that he was first and foremost a capitalist and that did not mean exclusivity. In effect, the free market has become a club that precules most SME, unless they ‘team’ with a larger organisation. Essentially the Corporation has it all ways, skimming off the SME’s efforts or taking the whole pie for itself. And this is “democratic”? To me that goes against the social agenda and fairness in general. And that is my problem , in general, with the Democrats.
That’s why, given the choice, I would vote neither Democrat nor Republican. But I am a great believer in cats changing their spots, so I never give up hope that some party or another might earn my vote.
‘Libby also told the grand jury that Cheney often scribbled on newspaper articles and kept them on a corner of his desk at the White House.
“He often cut out from a newspaper an article using a little penknife that he has and put it on the edge of his desk,” Libby testified, according to a transcript of the grand jury proceeding that Fitzgerald attached to his filing.
Libby testified that Cheney would pull an article out of the pile later and “think about it.” ‘
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/14659670.htm
Cutouts. Just like the cherrypicked excerpts of WMD hype. Looks like Cheney took his method of piecing together war reasonings from dubious sources and now applies it towards the Fitzgerald investiagtion.
He thinks if he spins enough of the sympathetic stories together it makes a clear case. Cheney sees himself doing no wrong, why can’t the rest of us see that?
Cheney used a cutout named curveball to spin the war lies. Yellowcake forgeries(Ledeen), aluminum tubes, select excerpts of Manucher Ghorbanifar, Hussein Khamel, Kadhim Mijbel(who discredited the Iraq Survey Group Claims), and the false Atta to Prague rumors via Hill & Knowlton’s PR office just like the Desert Storm baby incubator myths…
A stack of cutouts.
You are a jackass. Am still working in the USG for 26 years - US 5th SFG, CIA, and DEA. You weren’t even a case officer like many of us who faced real peril. Why don’t you get a real job and quit bashing our government which you love to hate? You were in the CIA 17 years ago as an analyst for pete’s sake. What a sham. Liberals are stupid enough to listen to your drivel.
FROM LARRY:
GEE TIM, YOU ARE A REAL TOUGH GUY. OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE TROUBLE HOLDING A JOB AND THINKING CLEARLY. THERE WAS A REASON I DIDN’T TELL BYRON YORK WHAT I’VE BEEN DOING SINCE LEAVING STATE DEPARTMENT IN 1993. IF YOU WERE REALLY THE BAD ASS YOU CLAIM THEN YOU WOULD KNOW WHAT I’M DOING. OBVIOUSLY, YOU ARE PROBABLY FLOPPING BURGERS IN SOME DIVE AND DREAMING OF BEING SOMETHING YOU’RE NOT. YOU ARE WELCOME TO KISS MY ASS.
Larry, Tim is the archetypical reason I am extremely concerned right now. With so much entrenched prejudice and “assumption” how can things possibly change?
While your nation supports the “waving of credentials” over reason and fair, balanced arguement then the people like Tim will control through their current demagogory.
It is so rare, I have saddly found, that a person with credentials has the ability or the conscience to use them scrupulously.
I am heartened to hear reports of small wins for the good and the fair, but much more is to be done if there is to be any serious change in direction.
Hi Thinker - I agree the Dems have done their share of shooting themselves in the foot. As far as the Balkans go - how much did it cost the US? How many combat casualties? A million lives were saved. NATO wasn’t perfect and isn’t now - but it worked there. As far as an analogy between GW Bush & Clinton, I don’t believe Clinton would ever have had a Sec of Labor who has open contempt for labor. Nor do I believe that Clinton had an obsession to return to the gilded age. As far as international affairs, I believe the parallel between GHWB & Clinton is a lot closer. Just my two cents.
Patrick Fitzgerald can resubmit(in full) his requests for information via subpoenae regarding the energy task force hearings.
Ken Lay’s conviction waives his right of Executive Privilege. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060525/ap_on_bi_ge/enron_trial
Care to find out what kind Taliban money Cheney pumped into Afghanistan as part of the 43 million in appropriations he had stricken from Congressional record on the day of 9-12-01?
Want to see what kind of divvies of Afghanistan and Iraq’s fossile fuels were bid on or assesssed by the Bush White House? All of it while Ken Lay was on paid salary of over 80 thousand a year in the White House?
That is the second man who had a job in the Bush White House who is a felon. The other was the Procurement Chief David Safavian.
“Until his resignation on the day the criminal complaint against him was signed, Safavian was the top administrator at the federal procurement office in the White House Office of Management and Budget, where he set purchasing policy for the entire government.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901859.html
He ’s doing
Safavian was involved in hurricane Katrina relief projects for the Government bid process. Nobody from Congress has hosted a full investigation of the Bush White House Katrina fraud to the extent Bush people face hearings or court action.
George W. Bush is immoral on his best day. Safavian was responsible for sending out money that Karl Rove steered when Bush made him the main man for the Katrina relief oversight.
Those records will soon be available as well. Executive privilege cannot be maintained by lawbreakers.
Quote: “Wayne Madsen reported last week that his Wash. DC sources were also saying an indictment of Rove was imminent. ”
Wayne Masden reported last year that “someone in power” had sent assassins after him.
As here, he may very well still stick by that “justifiable” report (without disclosing said justification) but nobody else should.
Quote:
“FROM LARRY: THERE WAS A REASON I DIDN’T TELL BYRON YORK WHAT I’VE BEEN DOING SINCE LEAVING STATE DEPARTMENT IN 1993. IF YOU WERE REALLY THE BAD ASS YOU CLAIM THEN YOU WOULD KNOW WHAT I’M DOING.”
You appear to be running a blog critical of an administration that reacts harshly to criticism, complete with profile picture.
4 Star Generals are shown the door but Larry gets a pass.
Who’s buying that ?
The VA lost info on every honorable discharge from ‘76 until today.
They spent over ten days waiting to notify or take action.
Bush still has confidence in his VA director.
No outrage by the tolls?
Thank god for men like Larry..Who “STAND UP..”
Who are the ONLY Checks and Balances We Have…During this CRITICAL TIME for the United States…Whith its RADICVAL Transformations… REACTIONS…and Political policys and EXTREME TRANSITIONS..
Someone needs to “KEEP WATCH..” Like Larry and other Brave Americans..
NO Amdinistration..or Political party..Or POLICY…is without its Faults..
Just Like PEOPLE..
We~All Make Mistakes..
I say..Which is More Important..??
To Question the Reactions of Larry…and Others..
Or The Reactions of the GOVERNMENT..and POLITICIANS..
Who Have the WELFARE oif the NATION..
And Its PEOPLE..
In Thier HANDS..
BAD Decisions..Have Clearly been made…and CONFIRMED..
We are in a “CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS..”
And its time for PATRIOTS like Larry and Others..
To gather ..AS~WE HAVE..”
In the Same Spirit of Concern..For the State of the Union..
The Wefare of Nation..
And it PEOPLE..
AS Our Founding Fathers..
And STAND UP..
Because we Have a RIGHT to Our Opinion ..and EXPRESS those Opinions and Concerns..As CITIZENS..
Just as You do…
Like the Various Members of those Men..with the TREMENDOUS and Exempolary SUPPORT..of Thier WOMEN..
In the Colonies..
Each made His DISTINCT Contribution..Each has His own “STYLE”…His Own PERSONALITY..
But…They “STOOD UP..”
So I Respect Larrys Right to Do it..’HIS WAY’..
Because I Know He is doing it For US~ALL..
And I..for One…Knowing I’m NOt Alone..
APPRECIATE IT..
Thank You…LARRY..
This is about the WELFARE of the United States..
And PRESERVING and PROTECTING..
the CONSTITUION..
A`SWORN DUTY…of the SERVANTS..
of the UNITED~STATES GOVERNMENT..
And the “gate Keepers” will Continue..
To “Keep Watch..”
Tank - 4 star generals aren’t easily ridiculed as none dare let their egos get in the way of reason. If this board were a “set up”, I [for one] wouldn’t post here. If Larry was a champion of the existing establishment he must be one “dumb mutha”. If this establishment “reacts harshly to criticism” and it knows of this board, then you must have the wrong take. Conversely, looking at the CVs of GWB, Rummy, The Chain Man et al, they seem to enjoy immersing themselves in ignorance. As this is not [in the main] an ignorant place, I can only assume they are blissfully unaware of here.
Taters - I don’t disagree that Clinton was not a magician and an extra-ordinary stateman, but if you look at the ’submerged 10th’ over his administration compared to the top 10%, who were actually looked after [rhetoric aside]?
I spoke to a number of ‘working class’ guys (from the US) post Clinton and many felt they had not been given the fair share of the pie by him. So ultimately it was not a surprise that the Reps got unellected. Here in Australia the Government pitches national dept relief, so works on an agenda of removing national debt. And when funds are in surpluss, does it reinvest the funds into the Australian ecconomy? No, it throws bucket loads of cash at various hard-up American Corporations. Hard-up invariably due to the incompetance of their “jobs-for-the-boys” leadership. The Democrats similarly fill up your social fund for the Republicans to milk it their term [you know for important social improvements like wars on other nations]. Come on, we all know thats the longer term plan, because they’ve been doing it for years and nothing ever changes!
As I’ve said before, I am a great believer that a leopard can change its spots and I am sure one day someone will entice me to cast my vote!
“Tank - If this board were a “set up”, I [for one] wouldn’t post here. If Larry was a champion of the existing establishment he must be one “dumb mutha”. If this establishment “reacts harshly to criticism” and it knows of this board, then you must have the wrong take.”
No “Thinker” you’ve got the wrong take on what I said. Practically the complete opposite.
Tank - I try to be thorough in my arguements (I did say ‘try’ *wink*) and record all [reasonable] possibilities. You, to me, are one of the good guys, but not everyone else is so I needed to clear things up just in case the “Tim’s” misinterpreted.