Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Please note, these are all CURRENT items that have happened during the Bush > presidency.  This is not reaching back 40 years for a scandal. – > (1) The Chief of Staff to the Vice-President has been indicted for perjury > and obstruction of justice in connection with alleged treason-related > activities in the deliberate outing of a covert CIA agent during war-time > (the first such indictment of a sitting White House official since Ulysses > Grant); > (2) The Deputy Chief of Staff to the President (Rove) who, until very > recently, was the foremost political and domestic public policy advisor to > the President, is reportedly about to be indicted for perjury and > obstruction of justice in connection with the same probe; > (3) The House Majority Leader has been indicted and awaits trial in > connection with alleged money laundering which was designed to corruptly > influence state elections where corporate campaign funding has been > prohibited for over a century; and, after being indicted on charges on > which the underlying theory is that he was trying to game the system, he > has proceeded to run for re-election and then timely resign in order to > game the system; > (4) The Senate Majority Leader is under investigation by the SEC for > alleged insider trading and other securities law violations in connection > with his ownership and disposition of Hospital Corp. of America securities; > (5) The Chief Domestic Policy Advisor to the President has been arrested on > shoplifting charges in which it is alleged that he repeatedly tried to scam > numerous retail merchandizers; > (6) The Chief Republican Lobbyist has already pleaded guilty to multiple > influence-peddling charges in connection with numerous nefarious > activities, including bribery and mail and wire fraud; > (7) The former Republican Governor of Illinois has just been convicted of > multiple counts of individual corruption, including scamming campaigns for > payments to family members and, most notoriously, being involved in a > "bribe-for-license" scheme while Secretary of State that resulted in the > death of a Wisconsin family; > (8) The sitting Republican Governor of Kentucky has just been indicted on > three counts of corruption; > (9)  The Republican Governor of Ohio has previously been indicted on > several charges of corruption; > (10) The House Appropriations Chairman is currently under investigation in > connection with various allegations involved in the next-described scandal; > (11) An important member of the House Appropriations Committee, > particularly the Defense Appropriations SubCommittee, has already pleaded > guilty to multiple charges of individual corruption, including bribery, in > connection with multiple allegations of "bribes for public contracts" and > favorable real property resale prices; > (12) An important Member of the Senate Appropriations and Commerce > Committees is also presumably under investigation for close involvement > with the lobbyists and contractors involved in the preceding-described > scandal; > (13) The Chairman of the House Administration Committee is also under > investigation for numerous corruption allegations; > (14) Three Department of Homeland Security officials have been arrested in > connection with child internet pornography allegations; > (15) The third-ranking official at the Central Intelligence Agency has just > had his home and office raided in connection with a burgeoning multi-agency > probe into alleged corruption involved with alleged poker/prostitute > parties at the Watergate Hotel with the lobbysists/contractors potentially > involved in some of the above-described scandals; > (16) The Vice-President shoots a man; doesn’t report the incident until > hours later; escapes any meaningful investigation and forces the victim to > apologize for getting shot; > (17) Journalists have been demonstrated to have been receiving payments > from the administration in excahnge for favorable stories. > (19) Bogus journalist "Jeff Gannon" attended White House breifings with > bogus press credentials, so that he can ask easy questions that support the > administration’s positions.

Response:

*A married Democratic mayor can be caught smoking crack cocaine with a prostitute and, even after he is convicted and sentenced to prison, get reelected. *A married Democratic senator who leaves a party with a single young woman and gets into a drunk-driving accident that kills her does not merely avoid jail time, but retains his Senate seat and indeed goes on to become one of the most powerful politicians in his party. *The entire Democratic Party is caught accepting millions in illegal foreign campaign donations and Chinagate, the biggest influence-peddling scandal in U.S. history, morphs into a bipartisan referendum on campaign finance reform! *Bill Clinton has sex with an intern and subsequently lies (under oath) about it and doesn’ t go to jail for it.  But Martha Stewart lies (under oath) about a stock deal and gets 6 months in the federal pen. *The main difference between the Democrats and the Gambino mob is that Democrats qualify for federal matching funds. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

Response:

> Bill Clinton has sex with an intern

Whereas George W. Bush lies the country into an BS war, spies on his fellow countrymen using spurious reasoning, leads a sustained attack on the civil rights of all Americans and drives up the deficit to heights hereto unseen. It was better when all you had to "worry" about was a President getting a blow job.

Response:

>*A married Democratic mayor can be caught smoking crack cocaine with a >prostitute and, even after he is convicted and sentenced to prison, get >reelected.

Helps to be of the proper ethnic origin, doesn’t it? >*A married Democratic senator who leaves a party with a single young >woman and gets into a drunk-driving accident that kills her does not >merely avoid jail time, but retains his Senate seat and indeed goes on >to become one of the most powerful politicians in his party.

In the not too far future, when a child asks "What killed Democracy?". This will be a prime example of one of the death spasms. People who are stupid enough to repeatedly elect representatives such as the Kennedy dynasty don’t deserve a choice. >*The entire Democratic Party is caught accepting millions in illegal >foreign campaign donations and Chinagate, the biggest >influence-peddling scandal in U.S. history, morphs into a bipartisan >referendum on campaign finance reform!

Hopefully the Democrats will regain power soon. The sooner the Chinese take over the US, the sooner somebody will clean up the mess. Not that the Republicans won’t sell out, the Democrats will just get it done faster. >*Bill Clinton has sex with an intern and subsequently lies (under oath) >about it and doesn’ t go to jail for it.  But Martha Stewart lies >(under oath) about a stock deal and gets 6 months in the federal pen.

Bill should have asked Teddy the K to give Monica a ride home. >*The main difference between the Democrats and the Gambino mob is that >Democrats qualify for federal matching funds.

Well, the Gambinos know how to deal with traitors… >People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

Sure they should. The bigger ones, the better.

Response:

courageously avow: >*A married Democratic mayor can be caught smoking crack cocaine with a >prostitute and, even after he is convicted and sentenced to prison, get >reelected.

Kind of lets you know what the voter’s thought of the Republican candidate now doesn’t it. >*A married Democratic senator who leaves a party with a single young >woman and gets into a drunk-driving accident that kills her does not >merely avoid jail time, but retains his Senate seat and indeed goes on >to become one of the most powerful politicians in his party.

Kind of tells you what the voters thought of his Republican opponent then doesn’t it. >*The entire Democratic Party is caught accepting millions in illegal >foreign campaign donations and Chinagate, the biggest >influence-peddling scandal in U.S. history, morphs into a bipartisan >referendum on campaign finance reform! >*Bill Clinton has sex with an intern and subsequently lies (under oath) >about it and doesn’ t go to jail for it.  But Martha Stewart lies >(under oath) about a stock deal and gets 6 months in the federal pen.

Yeah?  And how many innocent civilians did this kill? >*The main difference between the Democrats and the Gambino mob is that >Democrats qualify for federal matching funds. >People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

No.  You guys drop bombs on the weak and innocent instead.  Maybe its time everything got nuked back into the stone age so we could start over. 1, 2, 3, 4, oil is not worth fighting for 2, 4, 6, 8, Bush stinks worse than Watergate. Ken Wilson

Response:

courageously avow: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->*A married Democratic mayor can be caught smoking crack cocaine with a >prostitute and, even after he is convicted and sentenced to prison, get >reelected. >Helps to be of the proper ethnic origin, doesn’t it? >*A married Democratic senator who leaves a party with a single young >woman and gets into a drunk-driving accident that kills her does not >merely avoid jail time, but retains his Senate seat and indeed goes on >to become one of the most powerful politicians in his party. >In the not too far future, when a child asks >"What killed Democracy?". >This will be a prime example of one of the death spasms. >People who are stupid enough to repeatedly elect >representatives such as the Kennedy dynasty don’t >deserve a choice. >*The entire Democratic Party is caught accepting millions in illegal >foreign campaign donations and Chinagate, the biggest >influence-peddling scandal in U.S. history, morphs into a bipartisan >referendum on campaign finance reform! >Hopefully the Democrats will regain power soon. >The sooner the Chinese take over the US, the sooner >somebody will clean up the mess. >Not that the Republicans won’t sell out, the Democrats >will just get it done faster. >*Bill Clinton has sex with an intern and subsequently lies (under oath) >about it and doesn’ t go to jail for it.  But Martha Stewart lies >(under oath) about a stock deal and gets 6 months in the federal pen. >Bill should have asked Teddy the K to give Monica a ride home. >*The main difference between the Democrats and the Gambino mob is that >Democrats qualify for federal matching funds. >Well, the Gambinos know how to deal with traitors… >People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. >Sure they should. The bigger ones, the better.

So, put your panties back over you head and lead the charge fruitloop. Ken Wilson

Response:

dolt.princess Kenni, spokesloon for the Al-Queef brigade of the People’s Liberation Jihad for the Independence of the Democratic People’s Republic – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >courageously avow: >>*A married Democratic mayor can be caught smoking crack cocaine with a >>prostitute and, even after he is convicted and sentenced to prison, get >>reelected. >Helps to be of the proper ethnic origin, doesn’t it? >>*A married Democratic senator who leaves a party with a single young >>woman and gets into a drunk-driving accident that kills her does not >>merely avoid jail time, but retains his Senate seat and indeed goes on >>to become one of the most powerful politicians in his party. >In the not too far future, when a child asks >"What killed Democracy?". >This will be a prime example of one of the death spasms. >People who are stupid enough to repeatedly elect >representatives such as the Kennedy dynasty don’t >deserve a choice. >>*The entire Democratic Party is caught accepting millions in illegal >>foreign campaign donations and Chinagate, the biggest >>influence-peddling scandal in U.S. history, morphs into a bipartisan >>referendum on campaign finance reform! >Hopefully the Democrats will regain power soon. >The sooner the Chinese take over the US, the sooner >somebody will clean up the mess. >Not that the Republicans won’t sell out, the Democrats >will just get it done faster. >>*Bill Clinton has sex with an intern and subsequently lies (under oath) >>about it and doesn’ t go to jail for it.  But Martha Stewart lies >>(under oath) about a stock deal and gets 6 months in the federal pen. >Bill should have asked Teddy the K to give Monica a ride home. >>*The main difference between the Democrats and the Gambino mob is that >>Democrats qualify for federal matching funds. >Well, the Gambinos know how to deal with traitors… >>People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. >Sure they should. The bigger ones, the better. >So, put your panties back over you head and lead the charge fruitloop. >Ken Wilson

"Charge fruitloop"? WTF is that, Princess? Must be something Kanadian? You can "lead" it. You already seem to have lead poisoning. Keep eating those paint chips. — |   ^        JOIN THE |  /"   ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN |   /    TO RID USENET OF |   X    NATTERING FUCKWITS |  /    

Response:

> "Charge fruitloop"? > WTF is that, Princess?

What your clients say when they want to expense your time together.

Response:

>>*Bill Clinton has sex with an intern and subsequently lies (under oath) >about it and doesn’ t go to jail for it.  But Martha Stewart lies >(under oath) about a stock deal and gets 6 months in the federal pen. > Bill should have asked Teddy the K to give Monica a ride home.

Touche’

Response:

>> "Charge fruitloop"? > WTF is that, Princess? >What your clients say when they want to expense your time together.

And what do *your* clients say when you ask: "Super Size it?" — |   ^        JOIN THE |  /"   ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN |   /    TO RID USENET OF |   X    NATTERING FUCKWITS |  /    

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>*Bill Clinton has sex with an intern and subsequently lies (under oath) >>>about it and doesn’ t go to jail for it.  But Martha Stewart lies >>>(under oath) about a stock deal and gets 6 months in the federal pen. >> Bill should have asked Teddy the K to give Monica a ride home. >Touche’ >Console yourselves while the man you elected ruins the country.

Actually, I’m looking forward to the change. Democratic majority in US Congress in ‘06 Hillary Clinton, US President in ‘08 Hu Chin-t’ao, US President in ‘09. bring it on…

Response:

courageously avow: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>>*Bill Clinton has sex with an intern and subsequently lies (under oath) >>>>about it and doesn’ t go to jail for it.  But Martha Stewart lies >>>>(under oath) about a stock deal and gets 6 months in the federal pen. >>> Bill should have asked Teddy the K to give Monica a ride home. >>Touche’ >Console yourselves while the man you elected ruins the country. >Actually, I’m looking forward to the change. >Democratic majority in US Congress in ‘06 >Hillary Clinton, US President in ‘08 >Hu Chin-t’ao, US President in ‘09. >bring it on…

A quadriplegic isn’t as lame as you banjo boy.  BTW, nice tooth. Ken Wilson

Response:

dolt.princess Kenni, spokesloon for the Al-Queef brigade of the People’s Liberation Jihad for the Independence of the Democratic People’s Republic – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >courageously avow: >>>>>*Bill Clinton has sex with an intern and subsequently lies (under oath) >>>>>about it and doesn’ t go to jail for it.  But Martha Stewart lies >>>>>(under oath) about a stock deal and gets 6 months in the federal pen. >>>> Bill should have asked Teddy the K to give Monica a ride home. >>>Touche’ >>Console yourselves while the man you elected ruins the country. >Actually, I’m looking forward to the change. >Democratic majority in US Congress in ‘06 >Hillary Clinton, US President in ‘08 >Hu Chin-t’ao, US President in ‘09. >bring it on… >A quadriplegic isn’t as lame as you banjo boy.  BTW, nice tooth. >Ken Wilson

On February 1, 2009, recently elected Canadian Prime Minister, the Honourable Bill Graham, signs documents ceding "complete and total control of all Canadian property and citizens" to the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. The Honourable Mr. Graham is rewarded for his efforts on behalf of the Chinese People with a lifetime pension and a retirement villa located in the People’s Protectorate Zone of Puerto Vallarta, former Mexico.

Response:

I understand, and if youmeanyone is willing to see corruption where corruption is, despite who’s admin is in power at the moment, then the complaining is fine with me. In other words, can you equally bash a democrat? If so, then yer a fair guy. BTW, I’m neither, it’s easier to see politicians left or right for what they are.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > My point is, this is what we are dealing with at the moment… they happen > to be Republicans. >> Please note, these are all CURRENT items that have happened during the >Bush >> presidency.  This is not reaching back 40 years for a scandal. – >- >> (1) The Chief of Staff to the Vice-President has been indicted for perjury >> and obstruction of justice in connection with alleged treason-related >> activities in the deliberate outing of a covert CIA agent during war-time >> (the first such indictment of a sitting White House official since Ulysses >> Grant); >> (2) The Deputy Chief of Staff to the President (Rove) who, until very >> recently, was the foremost political and domestic public policy advisor to >> the President, is reportedly about to be indicted for perjury and >> obstruction of justice in connection with the same probe; >> (3) The House Majority Leader has been indicted and awaits trial in >> connection with alleged money laundering which was designed to corruptly >> influence state elections where corporate campaign funding has been >> prohibited for over a century; and, after being indicted on charges on >> which the underlying theory is that he was trying to game the system, he >> has proceeded to run for re-election and then timely resign in order to >> game the system; >> (4) The Senate Majority Leader is under investigation by the SEC for >> alleged insider trading and other securities law violations in connection >> with his ownership and disposition of Hospital Corp. of America >securities; >> (5) The Chief Domestic Policy Advisor to the President has been arrested >on >> shoplifting charges in which it is alleged that he repeatedly tried to >scam >> numerous retail merchandizers; >> (6) The Chief Republican Lobbyist has already pleaded guilty to multiple >> influence-peddling charges in connection with numerous nefarious >> activities, including bribery and mail and wire fraud; >> (7) The former Republican Governor of Illinois has just been convicted of >> multiple counts of individual corruption, including scamming campaigns for >> payments to family members and, most notoriously, being involved in a >> "bribe-for-license" scheme while Secretary of State that resulted in the >> death of a Wisconsin family; >> (8) The sitting Republican Governor of Kentucky has just been indicted on >> three counts of corruption; >> (9)  The Republican Governor of Ohio has previously been indicted on >> several charges of corruption; >> (10) The House Appropriations Chairman is currently under investigation in >> connection with various allegations involved in the next-described >scandal; >> (11) An important member of the House Appropriations Committee, >> particularly the Defense Appropriations SubCommittee, has already pleaded >> guilty to multiple charges of individual corruption, including bribery, in >> connection with multiple allegations of "bribes for public contracts" and >> favorable real property resale prices; >> (12) An important Member of the Senate Appropriations and Commerce >> Committees is also presumably under investigation for close involvement >> with the lobbyists and contractors involved in the preceding-described >> scandal; >> (13) The Chairman of the House Administration Committee is also under >> investigation for numerous corruption allegations; >> (14) Three Department of Homeland Security officials have been arrested in >> connection with child internet pornography allegations; >> (15) The third-ranking official at the Central Intelligence Agency has >just >> had his home and office raided in connection with a burgeoning >multi-agency >> probe into alleged corruption involved with alleged poker/prostitute >> parties at the Watergate Hotel with the lobbysists/contractors potentially >> involved in some of the above-described scandals; >> (16) The Vice-President shoots a man; doesn’t report the incident until >> hours later; escapes any meaningful investigation and forces the victim to >> apologize for getting shot; >> (17) Journalists have been demonstrated to have been receiving payments >> from the administration in excahnge for favorable stories. >> (19) Bogus journalist "Jeff Gannon" attended White House breifings with >> bogus press credentials, so that he can ask easy questions that support >the >> administration’s positions.

Response:

courageously avow: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >dolt.princess Kenni, spokesloon for the Al-Queef brigade of the People’s >Liberation Jihad for the Independence of the Democratic People’s Republic >courageously avow: >>>>>>*Bill Clinton has sex with an intern and subsequently lies (under oath) >>>>>>about it and doesn’ t go to jail for it.  But Martha Stewart lies >>>>>>(under oath) about a stock deal and gets 6 months in the federal pen. >>>>> Bill should have asked Teddy the K to give Monica a ride home. >>>>Touche’ >>>Console yourselves while the man you elected ruins the country. >>Actually, I’m looking forward to the change. >>Democratic majority in US Congress in ‘06 >>Hillary Clinton, US President in ‘08 >>Hu Chin-t’ao, US President in ‘09. >>bring it on… >A quadriplegic isn’t as lame as you banjo boy.  BTW, nice tooth. >Ken Wilson >On February 1, 2009, recently elected Canadian Prime Minister, >the Honourable Bill Graham, signs documents ceding "complete >and total control of all Canadian property and citizens" to >the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. The Honourable Mr. Graham >is rewarded for his efforts on behalf of the Chinese People >with a lifetime pension and a retirement villa located in the >People’s Protectorate Zone of Puerto Vallarta, former Mexico.

Sounds like some pretty strong meds you’re taking to create those kind of hallucinations.  You wouldn’t want to share with some of the boys in the newsgroup would you? Ken Wilson

Response:

dolt.princess Kenni, spokesloon for the Al-Queef brigade of the People’s Liberation Jihad for the Independence of the Democratic People’s Republic – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >courageously avow: >dolt.princess Kenni, spokesloon for the Al-Queef brigade of the People’s >Liberation Jihad for the Independence of the Democratic People’s Republic >>courageously avow: >>>>>>>*Bill Clinton has sex with an intern and subsequently lies (under oath) >>>>>>>about it and doesn’ t go to jail for it.  But Martha Stewart lies >>>>>>>(under oath) about a stock deal and gets 6 months in the federal pen. >>>>>> Bill should have asked Teddy the K to give Monica a ride home. >>>>>Touche’ >>>>Console yourselves while the man you elected ruins the country. >>>Actually, I’m looking forward to the change. >>>Democratic majority in US Congress in ‘06 >>>Hillary Clinton, US President in ‘08 >>>Hu Chin-t’ao, US President in ‘09. >>>bring it on… >>A quadriplegic isn’t as lame as you banjo boy.  BTW, nice tooth. >>Ken Wilson >On February 1, 2009, recently elected Canadian Prime Minister, >the Honourable Bill Graham, signs documents ceding "complete >and total control of all Canadian property and citizens" to >the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. The Honourable Mr. Graham >is rewarded for his efforts on behalf of the Chinese People >with a lifetime pension and a retirement villa located in the >People’s Protectorate Zone of Puerto Vallarta, former Mexico. >Sounds like some pretty strong meds you’re taking to create those kind >of hallucinations.  You wouldn’t want to share with some of the boys >in the newsgroup would you? >Ken Wilson

Princess, if you are hearing sounds while reading text on your computer it just might be time to have those pesky rectal polyps removed from your ear canals again. — |   ^        JOIN THE |  /"   ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN |   /    TO RID USENET OF |   X    NATTERING FUCKWITS |  /    

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I understand, and if youmeanyone is willing to see corruption where >corruption is, despite who’s admin is in power at the moment, then the >complaining is fine with me. In other words, can you equally bash a >democrat? If so, then yer a fair guy. BTW, I’m neither, it’s easier to see >politicians left or right for what they are. > I have gotten out in the street to protest against democratic > administrations.  I protested against LBJ.  I didn’t think Clinton was all > the great but compared to Bush?  No contest. >> My point is, this is what we are dealing with at the moment… they happen >> to be Republicans. >> >> Please note, these are all CURRENT items that have happened during the >> >Bush >> >> presidency.  This is not reaching back 40 years for a scandal. – >- >> >- >> >> (1) The Chief of Staff to the Vice-President has been indicted for >perjury >> >> and obstruction of justice in connection with alleged treason-related >> >> activities in the deliberate outing of a covert CIA agent during >war-time >> >> (the first such indictment of a sitting White House official since >Ulysses >> >> Grant); >> >> (2) The Deputy Chief of Staff to the President (Rove) who, until very >> >> recently, was the foremost political and domestic public policy advisor >to >> >> the President, is reportedly about to be indicted for perjury and >> >> obstruction of justice in connection with the same probe; >> >> (3) The House Majority Leader has been indicted and awaits trial in >> >> connection with alleged money laundering which was designed to >corruptly >> >> influence state elections where corporate campaign funding has been >> >> prohibited for over a century; and, after being indicted on charges on >> >> which the underlying theory is that he was trying to game the system, >he >> >> has proceeded to run for re-election and then timely resign in order to >> >> game the system; >> >> (4) The Senate Majority Leader is under investigation by the SEC for >> >> alleged insider trading and other securities law violations in >connection >> >> with his ownership and disposition of Hospital Corp. of America >> >securities; >> >> (5) The Chief Domestic Policy Advisor to the President has been >arrested >> >on >> >> shoplifting charges in which it is alleged that he repeatedly tried to >> >scam >> >> numerous retail merchandizers; >> >> (6) The Chief Republican Lobbyist has already pleaded guilty to >multiple >> >> influence-peddling charges in connection with numerous nefarious >> >> activities, including bribery and mail and wire fraud; >> >> (7) The former Republican Governor of Illinois has just been convicted >of >> >> multiple counts of individual corruption, including scamming campaigns >for >> >> payments to family members and, most notoriously, being involved in a >> >> "bribe-for-license" scheme while Secretary of State that resulted in >the >> >> death of a Wisconsin family; >> >> (8) The sitting Republican Governor of Kentucky has just been indicted >on >> >> three counts of corruption; >> >> (9)  The Republican Governor of Ohio has previously been indicted on >> >> several charges of corruption; >> >> (10) The House Appropriations Chairman is currently under investigation >in >> >> connection with various allegations involved in the next-described >> >scandal; >> >> (11) An important member of the House Appropriations Committee, >> >> particularly the Defense Appropriations SubCommittee, has already >pleaded >> >> guilty to multiple charges of individual corruption, including bribery, >in >> >> connection with multiple allegations of "bribes for public contracts" >and >> >> favorable real property resale prices; >> >> (12) An important Member of the Senate Appropriations and Commerce >> >> Committees is also presumably under investigation for close involvement >> >> with the lobbyists and contractors involved in the preceding-described >> >> scandal; >> >> (13) The Chairman of the House Administration Committee is also under >> >> investigation for numerous corruption allegations; >> >> (14) Three Department of Homeland Security officials have been arrested >in >> >> connection with child internet pornography allegations; >> >> (15) The third-ranking official at the Central Intelligence Agency has >> >just >> >> had his home and office raided in connection with a burgeoning >> >multi-agency >> >> probe into alleged corruption involved with alleged poker/prostitute >> >> parties at the Watergate Hotel with the lobbysists/contractors >potentially >> >> involved in some of the above-described scandals; >> >> (16) The Vice-President shoots a man; doesn’t report the incident until >> >> hours later; escapes any meaningful investigation and forces the victim >to >> >> apologize for getting shot; >> >> (17) Journalists have been demonstrated to have been receiving payments >> >> from the administration in excahnge for favorable stories. >> >> (19) Bogus journalist "Jeff Gannon" attended White House breifings with >> >> bogus press credentials, so that he can ask easy questions that support >> >the >> >> administration’s positions.

Response:

Sam Rayburn used to say that "if you can’t smoke it, drink it, or eat it in twenty-four hours, then don’t take it."  Now, even in Mr. Sam’s days, such personal ethics were not always universally followed, but the leadership set the example.  Today, where is such leadership?  What will history say about the level of honor and integrity during the Bush Dynasty? When viewed as a list, the level of corruption in this Republican era is literally stunning.  There is an almost incomprehensible multitude of myriad scandals involving alleged malfeasance at the very highest levels of government; the details of each individual matter are difficult to follow, even for the most interested public citizens.  The common thread in all this personal corruption seems to be that elected office is merely a place where one can scam the public for personal gain; irrespective of public policy concerns. It should first be stated that the corruption list is in addition to all of the other scandals and scams that the Bush-era Republicans have inflicted on us, including the bald-faced lies that got us into a disastrous never-ending war, the constant smear campaigns against any critic, the shameless flaunting of the rule of law in unprecedented ways, the utter and appalling incompetence as witnessed by the ongoing dearth of a response to the Katrina disaster, the virtually universal abdication of any meaningful oversight by the Republican-dominated Congress, the constant cronyism, the war-mongering, the torture, the warrantless domestic spying, the propagandizing of classified information, the inordinate secrecy and the "go fuck yourself" mentality.  Even if all of that wasn’t happening (with no end in sight), the corruption is already easily the most significant of any administration in American history. The list includes the following (and additions are welcome!). (1) The Chief of Staff to the Vice-President has been indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with alleged treason-related activities in the deliberate outing of a covert CIA agent during war-time (the first such indictment of a sitting White House official since Ulysses Grant); (2) The Deputy Chief of Staff to the President who, until very recently, was the foremost political and domestic public policy advisor to the President, is reportedly about to be indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with the same probe; (3) The House Majority Leader has been indicted and awaits trial in connection with alleged money laundering which was designed to corruptly influence state elections where corporate campaign funding has been prohibited for over a century; and, after being indicted on charges on which the underlying theory is that he was trying to game the system, he has proceeded to run for re-election and then timely resign in order to game the system; (4) The Senate Majority Leader is under investigation by the SEC for alleged insider trading and other securities law violations in connection with his ownership and disposition of Hospital Corp. of America securities; (5) The Chief Domestic Policy Advisor to the President has been arrested on shoplifting charges in which it is alleged that he repeatedly tried to scam numerous retail merchandizers; (6) The Chief Republican Lobbyist has already pleaded guilty to multiple influence-peddling charges in connection with numerous nefarious activities, including bribery and mail and wire fraud; (7) The former Republican Governor of Illinois has just been convicted of multiple counts of individual corruption, including scamming campaigns for payments to family members and, most notoriously, being involved in a "bribe-for-license" scheme while Secretary of State that resulted in the death of a Wisconsin family; (8) The sitting Republican Governor of Kentucky has just been indicted on three counts of corruption; (9)  The Republican Governor of Ohio has previously been indicted on several charges of corruption; (10) The House Appropriations Chairman is currently under investigation in connection with various allegations involved in the next-described scandal; (11) An important member of the House Appropriations Committee, particularly the Defense Appropriations SubCommittee, has already pleaded guilty to multiple charges of individual corruption, including bribery, in connection with multiple allegations of "bribes for public contracts" and favorable real property resale prices; (12) An important Member of the Senate Appropriations and Commerce Committees is also presumably under investigation for close involvement with the lobbyists and contractors involved in the preceding-described scandal; (13) The Chairman of the House Administration Committee is also under investigation for numerous corruption allegations; (14) Three Department of Homeland Security officials have been arrested in connection with child internet pornography allegations; (15) The third-ranking official at the Central Intelligence Agency has just had his home and office raided in connection with a burgeoning multi-agency probe into alleged corruption involved with alleged poker/prostitute parties at the Watergate Hotel with the lobbysists/contractors potentially involved in some of the above-described scandals; (16) The Vice-President shoots a man; doesn’t report the incident until hours later; escapes any meaningful investigation and forces the victim to apologize for getting shot; (17) Journalists have been demonstrated to have been receiving payments from the administration for favorable stories. and a new one http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/newsrelease.php?view=131 The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported this week that Rep. Sensenbrenner asked IMDI, a group that brings together politicians and corporate executives, for a European trip that had been cancelled to be rescheduled because "he felt so strongly" about going on the trip. The institute then organized a special week-long trip to Berlin and Liechtenstein just for Rep. Sensenbrenner and his wife. The trip had been cancelled this year due to the publicity surrounding the Jack Abramoff scandal. IMDI is headed by Don Bonker, a former congressman and now lobbyist for APCO Worldwide, an international public relations firm. Corporations underwrite IMDI, which rents space from APCO. Rep. Sensenbrenner’s conduct may have violated the federal law that prohibits Members from soliciting a gift from any person who has interests before the House. 5 U.S.C.

Question:

Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.), a veteran member of the Ways and Means Committee whose homes in Washington and New Orleans were raided by the FBI last week, had been the target of an undercover FBI sting involving public corruption for nearly a year, according to law enforcement sources. Investigators are looking into whether Jefferson illegally pocketed hundreds of thousands of dollars of an investor’s money from business transactions during the sting, according to the sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the case. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/12/AR200…

Response:

> Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.), a veteran member of the Ways and Means > Committee whose homes in Washington and New Orleans were raided by the FBI > last week, had been the target of an undercover FBI sting involving public > corruption for nearly a year, according to law enforcement sources. > Investigators are looking into whether Jefferson illegally pocketed hundreds > of thousands of dollars of an investor’s money from business transactions > during the sting, according to the sources who spoke on the condition of > anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the case. > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/12/AR200…

Only hundreds of thousands?  Jeez he should learn from the Chicago dems how to do it right.

Response:

So what’s the running count?  Ten to one Republican?  100:1?

Response:

> So what’s the running count?  Ten to one Republican?  100:1?

I played that one out a few months ago with another poster here and the Democratic list was FARrrrrrr longer than the Repub list. The major media regularly posts REPUB in the headline if it’s a Republican, yet they frequently leave out party affiliation when it’s a Democrat. Here is a site that some may find interesting http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=corruptdems More interesting info at http://politicalgraveyard.com/index.html Below is from another site; Edward Moore Kennedy – Democrat – U. S. Senator from Massachusetts. Pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, after his car plunged off a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island killing passenger Mary Jo Kopechne. DNC – The Federal Election Commission imposed $719,000 in fines against participants in the 1996 Democratic Party fundraising scandals involving contributions from China, Korea and other foreign sources. The Federal Election Commission said it decided to drop cases against contributors of more than $3 million in illegal DNC contributions because the respondents left the country or the corporations are defunct. Sandy Berger – Democrat – National Security Advisor during the Clinton Administration. Berger plead GUILTY  to removing highly classified terrorism documents and handwritten notes from the National Archives during preparations for the Sept. 11 commission hearings. Robert Torricelli – Democrat – Withdrew from the 2002 Senate race with less than 30 days before the election because of controversy over personal gifts he took from a major campaign donor and questions about campaign donations from 1996. James McGreevey – Democrat – New Jersey Governor . Admitted to having a gay affair. Resigned after allegations of sexual harassment, rumors of being blackmailed on top of fundraising investigations and indictments. Sowande Ajumoke Omokunde – Democrat – the son of newly elected U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore, was booked on charges of criminal damage to property for allegedly slashing tires on 20 vans and cars rented by the Republican Party for use in Election Day voter turnout efforts. Daniel David Rostenkowski – Democrat – U.S. Representative from Illinois from 1959 to 1995. Indicted on 17 felony charges- pleaded guilty to two counts of misuse of public funds and sentenced to seventeen months in federal prison. Melvin Jay Reynolds – U.S. Representative from Illinois from 1993 to 1995. Convicted on sexual misconduct and obstruction of justice charges and sentenced to five years in prison. Charles Coles Diggs, Jr. – Democrat – U.S. Representative from Michigan from 1955 to 1980. Convicted on eleven counts of mail fraud and filing false payroll forms- sentenced to three years in prison. George Rogers – Democrat – Massachusetts State House of Representatives from 1965 to 1970. M000ember of Massachusetts State Senate from 1975 to 1978. Convicted of bribery in 1978 and sentenced to two years in prison. Don Siegelman – Democrat Governor Alabama – indicted in a bid-rigging scheme involving a maternity-care program. The charges accused Siegelman and his former chief of staff of helping Tuscaloosa physician Phillip Bobo rig bids. Siegelman was accused of moving $550,000 from the state education budget to the State Fire College in Tuscaloosa so Bobo could use the money to pay off a competitor for a state contract for maternity care. John Murtha, Jr. – Democrat – U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania. Implicated in the Abscam sting, in which FBI agents impersonating Arab businessmen offered bribes to political figures; Murtha was cited as an unindicted co-conspirator Gerry Eastman Studds – Democrat – U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1973 to 1997. The first openly gay member of Congress. Censured by the House of Representatives for having sexual relations with a teenage House page. James C. Green – Democrat – North Carolina State House of Representatives from 1961 to 1977. Charged with accepting a bribe from an undercover FBI agent, but was acquitted. Convicted of tax evasion in 1997. Frederick Richmond – Democrat – U.S. Representative from New York from 1975 to 1982. Arrested in Washington, D.C., in 1978 for soliciting sex from a minor and from an undercover police officer – pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Also – charged with tax evasion, marijuana possession, and improper payments to a federal employee – pleaded guilty. Raymond Lederer – Democrat – U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1977 to 1981. Implicated in the Abscam sting – convicted of bribery and sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000. Harrison Arlington Williams, Jr. – Democrat – U.S. Senator from New Jersey from 1959 to 1970. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Allegedly accepted an 18% interest in a titanium mine. Convicted of nine counts of bribery, conspiracy, receiving an unlawful gratuity, conflict of interest, and interstate travel in aid of racketeering. Sentenced to three years in prison and fined $50,000. Frank Thompson, Jr. – Democrat – U.S. Representative from New Jersey from 1955 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting, convicted on bribery and conspiracy charges. Sentenced to three years in prison Michael Joseph Myers – Democrat – U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1976 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting – convicted of bribery and conspiracy; sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000; expelled from the House of Representatives on October 2, 1980. John Michael Murphy – Democrat – U.S. Representative from New York from 1963 to 1981. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Convicted of conspiracy, conflict of interest, and accepting an illegal gratuity. Sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000. John Wilson Jenrette, Jr – Democrat – U.S. Representative from South Carolina from 1975 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Convicted on bribery and conspiracy charges and sentenced to prison Neil Goldschmidt – Democrat – Oregon governor. Admitted to having an illegal sexual relationship with a 14-year-old teenager while he was serving as Mayor of Portland. Alcee Lamar Hastings – Democrat – U.S. Representative from Florida. Impeached and removed from office as federal judge in 1989 over bribery charges. Marion Barry – Democrat – mayor of Washington, D.C., from 1979 to 1991 and again from 1995 to 1999. Convicted of cocaine possession after being caught on videotape smoking crack cocaine. Sentenced to six months in prison. Mario Biaggi – Democrat – U.S. Representative from New York from 1969 to 1988. Indicted on federal charges that he had accepted bribes in return for influence on federal contracts.Convicted of obstructing justice and accepting illegal gratuities. Tried in 1988 on federal racketeering charges and convicted on 15 felony counts. Lee Alexander – Democrat – Mayor of Syracuse, N.Y. from 1970 to 1985. Was indicted over a $1.5 million kickback scandal. Pleaded guilty to racketeering and tax evasion charges. Served six years in prison. Bill Campbell – Democrat – Mayor of Atlanta. Indicted and charged with fraud over claims he accepted improper payments from contractors seeking city contracts. Frank Ballance – Democrat – Congressman North Carolina. Pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and money laundering related to mishandling of money by his charitable foundation. Hazel O’Leary – Democrat – Secretary of Energy during the Clinton Administration – O’leary took trips all over the world as Secretary with as many 50 staff members and at times rented a plane, which was used by Madonna during her concert tours. Lafayette Thomas – Democrat – Candidate for Tennessee State House of Representatives in 1954. Sheriff of Davidson County, from 1972 to 1990. Indicted in federal court on 54 counts of abusing his power as sheriff. Pleaded guilty to theft and mail fraud; sentenced to five years in prison. Mary Rose Oakar – Democrat – U.S. Representative from Ohio from 1977 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges of funneling $16,000 through fake donors. David Giles – Democrat – candidate for U.S. Representative from Washington in 1986 and 1990. Convicted in June 2000 of child rape. Edward Mezvinsky – Democrat – U.S. Representative from Iowa from 1973 to 1977. Indicted on 56 federal fraud charges. Lena Swanson – Democrat – Member of Washington State Senate in 1997. Pleaded guilty to charges of soliciting unlawful payments from veterans and former prisoners of war. Abraham J. Hirschfeld – Democrat – candidate in Democratic primary for U.S. Senator from New York in 1974 and 1976. Offered Paula Jones $1 million to drop her sexual harassment lawsuit against President Bill Clinton. Convicted in 2000 of trying to hire a hit man to kill his business partner. Henry Cisneros – Democrat – U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development from 1993 to 1997. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of lying to the FBI. James A. Traficant Jr. – Member of House of Representatives from Ohio. Expelled from Congress after being convicted of corruption charges. Sentenced today to eight years in prison for accepting bribes and kickbacks. John Doug Hays – Democrat – member of Kentucky State Senate from 1980 to 1982 Found guilty of mail fraud for submitting false campaign reports stemming from an unsuccessful run for judge. He was sentenced to six months in prison to be followed by six months of home confinement and three years of probation. Henry J. Cianfrani – Democrat – Pennsylvania State Senate from 1967 to 1976. Convicted on federal charges of racketeering and mail fraud for padding his Senate payroll. Sentenced to five years in federal prison. David Hall – Democrat – Governor of Oklahoma from 1971 to 1975. Indicted on extortion and conspiracy charges. Convicted … read more »

Response:

Pages and pages – virtually endless of corrupt Dems! I ran out of time reading them there were so many! It might have been easier if they had posted non-corrupt Dems! Then they could have gotten down to 0 or 1 – much more manageable :) Greg

Response:

> Pages and pages – virtually endless of corrupt Dems!

"I am not a crook!"  Oh, sorry… ANOTHER corrupt Republican.

Response:

Why don’t you post this shit to a ng which is slightly interested?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.), a veteran member of the Ways and Means > Committee whose homes in Washington and New Orleans were raided by the FBI > last week, had been the target of an undercover FBI sting involving public > corruption for nearly a year, according to law enforcement sources. > Investigators are looking into whether Jefferson illegally pocketed > hundreds of thousands of dollars of an investor’s money from business > transactions during the sting, according to the sources who spoke on the > condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the case. > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/12/AR200…

Response:

for a score card go here http://talkingpointsmemo.com/grandolddocket.php http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/14556190.htm The V-P’s chief of staff under indictment for perjury, the President’s deputy chief of staff about to be indicted for obstruction of justice; the House Majority Leader indicted for money laundering; the Senate Majority Leader under investigation for insider trading; the Governor of Illinois convicted on multiple counts of corruption; the Chief Republican lobbyist indicted for multiple forms of influence-peddling; the House Appropriations chairmen under suspicion of bribery, an important House Defense appropriator convicted of bribery; three DHS officials arrested for child internet porn; the chirf domestic policy adviser arrested for shoplifting – all Republicans… and now the Republican Governor of Kentucky indicted too.

Response:

Wheaton’s back to his inaccurate lists again.   An example of inaccuracy, Murtha was never charged of anything and was cleared by House ethnics.  Another misleading fact, Hirschfeld was never elected to a political office other than City Commission. Show us the list of Republicans to prove your claim that the Democrat list is larger. Mr Soul

Response:

> Wheaton’s back to his inaccurate lists again.

Oh do tell… > An example of inaccuracy, Murtha was never charged of anything and was > cleared by > House ethnics.

What I posted IS FACTUAL; "John Murtha, Jr. – Democrat – U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania. Implicated in the Abscam sting, in which FBI agents impersonating Arab businessmen offered bribes to political figures; Murtha was cited as an unindicted co-conspirator." Here is from google; [PDF] George Mason University SCHOOL of LAW       File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – View as HTML       Murtha was later named as an unindicted coconspirator in the indictments … Murtha, whose run-in with the law during the Abscam investigation has …       www.law.gmu.edu/faculty/papers/docs/04-43.pdf – Similar pages Murtha was an Unindicted Coconspirator so what I posted, as usual was FACTUAL, and you are wrong, also as usual.  Another misleading fact, Hirschfeld was never elected > to a political office other than City Commission.

What I posted IS FACTUAL; "Abraham J. Hirschfeld – Democrat – candidate in Democratic primary for U.S. Senator from New York in 1974 and 1976. Offered Paula Jones $1 million to drop her sexual harassment lawsuit against President Bill Clinton. Convicted in 2000 of trying to hire a hit man to kill his business partner." What I posted does NOT say that he was elected to ANY office! Once again the King of Inference rides on. > Show us the list of Republicans to prove your claim that the Democrat > list is larger.

Once again, I am answering the King of Inference! What I wrote was,"I played that one out a few months ago with another poster here and the Democratic list was FARrrrrrr longer than the Repub list." As we all know I was referencing YOU when YOU had earlier made claims about Repubs having more Criminals! I challenged YOU to prove it, and once again, you were IMPOTENT as to verifying your baseless, factless, hollow, DISHONEST claims. So you have done nothing but verify as FACTUAL what I posted, and once again proved your claim to the King of Inference Crown! Congrats Mr Soul!

Response:

>>> So what’s the running count?  Ten to one Republican?  100:1? >I played that one out a few months ago with another poster here and the >Democratic list was FARrrrrrr longer than the Repub list. > The devil is in the details though, isn’t it, Johnny?

It sure is.  Comparing Conyers > having staffers babysit his kids to Tom Delay’s deals with Jack Abramoff, > is absurd.

I NEVER made that comparison, but why let those fact thingies influence you post. > You are still talking about Chappaquiddick?  How lame is that?  You want > to > go back in history, how far back should we go?

We STILL have Kennedy’s endangering the public as they get behind the wheel IMPAIRED. Obviously some do NOT learn from history. > As usual, when you can’t successfully argue current events, you take the > time machine route.  Republicans are in power NOW, and the CURRENT > Republican corruption is everywhere.

You are obviously posting WITHOUT reading the facts FIRST! The Dario Herrera, McKinney, Jefferson, Mollohan are current as you would know if you read the news! That is why USA Today published the following story! WASHINGTON – For the past year, Democrats have been jockeying for the high ground on congressional ethics, hoping a largely Republican lobbying scandal would help propel them into the majority come November’s elections. But the issue is proving to be a two-edged sword, as Democrats themselves have come under scrutiny for allegations of bribery and conflicts of interest. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-09-democrats-ethics_x…

Response:

<bullshit> And you always claim to be a "Libertarian" instead of the right-wing Republican you really are. Wanker.

Response:

I’m still waiting for the Republican list.  Without the list, you cannot verify your claim. Mr Soul

Response:

PS – once again Wheaton is dishonest.  His orginal post cites corrupt Democrats.  Then he produces a list that includes Democrats that are not corrupt. He also makes a claim that there are more corrupt Democrat’s then Republicans, but of course, he doesn’t prove it. Typical Wheaton spin & dishonesity. Mr Soul

Response:

there should be a weighte scale for severity of crimes. All of these lists are too long to post here even for me. This list is a little stale http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/gopscorecard.htm WayneMadsenReport.com Dec. 15, 2005 STATE BY STATE GOP SCANDAL SCORECARD Republican sex scandals http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Republican_Sex_Scandals photos of the Banana Republicans http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000300.htm With James Tobin’s sentencing less than a week away, the DOJ prosecutors today filed a memorandum in U.S. District Court asking Judge Steven McAuliffe to sentence Tobin to 2 years in prison. (Tobin faces a maximum potential sentence of 5 years.) http://www.senatemajority.com/node/290

Response:

http://www.senatemajority.com/node/276 GOP Playbook Commit crime Issue clean campaign pledge Cover-up crime Last week, the Associated Press reported that GOP Marketplace, the company hired to carry out the 2002 Election Day phone jamming, had a history of similar illegal activity. Owners of GOP Marketplace include Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, Carlyle Group co-founder Ed Mathias, Washington lobbyists Ed Rogers and Lanny Griffith, and former Tennessee Republican Party Chair Tommy Hopper. (Read more about who owned GOP Marketplace here.) In January 2002, GOP Marketplace was hired by James Treffinger, then a New Jersey Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate. In October 2002, while GOP Marketplace and the New Hampshire Republican State Committee worked to finalize the scheme to jam Democratic phone lines, Treffinger was indicted on 20 counts, including bribery, intimidation, and conspiracy. The final count in the 50 plus page indictment described a scheme hatched by Treffinger and a political consultant – Allen Raymond of GOP Marketplace. (Read that portion of the 20-count indictment here.) As the Associated Press reported, the tactic used by GOP Marketplace in New Jersey was to place "attack ad calls" during the Super Bowl – calls which attacked one of Treffinger’s opponents, but were designed to appear as though they were paid for by a third candidate. Immediately after carrying out the New Jersey scheme, the Treffinger campaign released a "Clean Campaign" pledge, which "called upon his challengers … to join him in a pledge to wage a clean, honest, and open campaign." Treffinger also wrote a letter to the very opponents he had misrepresented and attacked only days earlier: "I believe that voters deserve an issues-based discussion without the distortions and misrepresentations which so often characterize modern day campaigns." (Read Treffinger’s "Clean Campaign" pledge and letter here.) In New Hampshire, a similar strategy was followed. The first news reports of the phone jamming in early February 2003 prompted the resignation of Charles McGee, then Executive Director of the New Hampshire Republican State Committee. Immediately after calling asking for McGee’s resignation, then NHRSC Chair Jayne Millerick issued a press release, "challenging Democrats to a code of ethics." Millerick said: "The steps we are taking today send a strong message that unethical activity will not be tolerated on my watch." (Read Millerick’s "Code of Ethics" press release here.) The same day Jayne Millerick issued the "Code of Ethics" press release, phone jamming co-conspirator Charles McGee cashed a $6,000 "election bonus" check from the New Hampshire Republican party. Three weeks later, McGee resigned, although Millerick continued to pay McGee’s salary. Next time you see a Republican issuing a clean campaign pledge, be sure and check their alibi. GOP Marketplace – New Jersey scheme Go here to read the portion of the Treffinger indictment describing the illegal attack calls Go here to see the invoice and check from GOP Marketplace paying a subcontractor to carry out the New Jersey scheme Go here to read the Treffinger clean campaign pledge and letter GOP Marketplace – New Hampshire scheme Go here to see the check from the New Hampshire Republican State Committee to GOP Marketplace Go here to read Jayne Millerick’s Press Release calling for Democrats to abide by a "Code of Ethics" Go here to see the New Hampshire Republican State Committee’s $6,000 "Election Bonus" parting gift to phone jamming coconspirator Charlees McGee, cashed the same day Millerick issued the "Code of Ethics" In August 2005, RNC Chair Ken Mehlman wrote a letter to the American Center for Voting Rights in which he said the Republican Party: "We will not tolerate fraud; we will not tolerateintimidation; we will not tolerate suppression. No employee, associate, or any person representing the Republican Party who engages in these kinds of acts will remain in that position. Republicans do not need to resort to fraud and intimidation to win, and no Republican who does deserves victory." Read that letter here.

Response:

> I’m still waiting for the Republican list.  Without the list, you > cannot verify your claim.

Oh I ALWAYS come through Mr Soulman! Once again, I am answering the King of Inference! What I wrote was,"I played that one out a few months ago with another poster here and the Democratic list was FARrrrrrr longer than the Repub list." As we all know I was referencing YOU when YOU had earlier made claims about Repubs having more Criminals! I challenged YOU to prove it, and once again, you were IMPOTENT as to verifying your baseless, factless, hollow, DISHONEST claims. So you have done nothing but verify as FACTUAL what I posted, and once again proved your claim to the King of Inference Crown! Congrats Mr Soul!

Response:

> PS – once again Wheaton is dishonest.

Another Lemming claim that you have NEVER been able to verify, but why let facts influence your posts at this late date! His orginal post cites corrupt > Democrats.  Then he produces a list that includes Democrats that are > not corrupt.

Really? Please do point out specifics Mr Soulman. > He also makes a claim that there are more corrupt Democrat’s then > Republicans, but of course, he doesn’t prove it.

Once again you prove your self to be the King of Inference. Please do point out where I stated that. > Typical Wheaton spin & dishonesity.

As usual, Mr Soulman the King of Inference sets the standard of ignorant and dishonest unproven claims. At least you are consistent!

Response:

>> Comparing Conyers >> having staffers babysit his kids to Tom Delay’s deals with Jack >> Abramoff, >> is absurd. >I NEVER made that comparison, > Yes you did, since it was included in your list… and you posted the list > in a feeble attempt to say the Dems are more corrupt.

Please post a direct quote of me ever saying such a thing! You can NOT because you are LYING as you Lefty Lemmings do so easily. >We STILL have Kennedy’s endangering the public as they get behind the >wheel >IMPAIRED. Obviously some do NOT learn from history. > Which Kennedy is that?

Patrick Kennedy the son of the Chappaquiddick killer, in for his third detox/rehab in SIX MONTHS!

Response:

> Johnny continues to defend the Bush adminstration,

Why do you LIE so obviously? We all know that I have NOT done any such thing, but why let facts influence your posts at this late date! even as more intelligent > Republicans are realizing what a terrible president he is… and he thinks > he’s a genius.

Why do you LIE so obviously? We all know that I have NOT posted any such thing, but why let facts influence your posts at this late date!

Response:

> PS – once again Wheaton is dishonest.  His orginal post cites corrupt > Democrats.  Then he produces a list that includes Democrats that are > not corrupt. > He also makes a claim that there are more corrupt Democrat’s then > Republicans, but of course, he doesn’t prove it. > Typical Wheaton spin & dishonesity. > Mr Soul

Fewer dems get elected, so it makes sense that there are fewer corrupt ones.  You have to evaluate on a percntage basis.

Response:

> > Johnny continues to defend the Bush adminstration, > Why do you LIE so obviously?

It’s not a lie. You regularly pimp the Bush administration.

Response:

You continue your web of lies.  Show us the list of corrupt Republicans so you can verify your claim earlier in this thread.  We’re all waiting. Mr Soul

Response:

We’re still waiting for the list.  When will you show it? Mr Soulu

Response:

So it’s Democrat = BAD and Republican = GOOD?? That about sums John Wheaton up?

Response:

Question:

Bush challenges hundreds of laws By Charlie Savage (Boston Globe) President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution. Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ”whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research. Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush’s assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ”to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ”execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional. Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush’s theory about his own powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the courts. Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation’s sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work. Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files ‘’signing statements" — official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register. In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills — sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed. ”He agrees to a compromise with members of Congress, and all of them are there for a public bill-signing ceremony, but then he takes back those compromises — and more often than not, without the Congress or the press or the public knowing what has happened," said Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio political science professor who studies executive power. The Constitution grants Congress the power to create armies, to declare war, to make rules for captured enemies, and ”to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." But, citing his role as commander in chief, Bush says he can ignore any act of Congress that seeks to regulate the military. On at least four occasions while Bush has been president, Congress has passed laws forbidding US troops from engaging in combat in Colombia, where the US military is advising the government in its struggle against narcotics-funded Marxist rebels. After signing each bill, Bush declared in his signing statement that he did not have to obey any of the Colombia restrictions because he is commander in chief. Bush has also said he can bypass laws requiring him to tell Congress before diverting money from an authorized program in order to start a secret operation, such as the ”black sites" where suspected terrorists are secretly imprisoned. Congress has also twice passed laws forbidding the military from using intelligence that was not ”lawfully collected," including any information on Americans that was gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches. In October 2004, five months after the Abu Ghraib torture scandal in Iraq came to light, Congress passed a series of new rules and regulations for military prisons. Bush signed the provisions into law, then said he could ignore them all. One provision made clear that military lawyers can give their commanders independent advice on such issues as what would constitute torture. But Bush declared that military lawyers could not contradict his administration’s lawyers. Other provisions required the Pentagon to retrain military prison guards on the requirements for humane treatment of detainees under the Geneva Conventions, to perform background checks on civilian contractors in Iraq, and to ban such contractors from performing ‘’security, intelligence, law enforcement, and criminal justice functions." Bush reserved the right to ignore any of the requirements. The new law also created the position of inspector general for Iraq. But Bush wrote in his signing statement that the inspector ‘’shall refrain" from investigating any intelligence or national security matter, or any crime the Pentagon says it prefers to investigate for itself. Many laws Bush has asserted he can bypass involve requirements to give information about government activity to congressional oversight committees. In December 2004, Congress passed an intelligence bill requiring the Justice Department to tell them how often, and in what situations, the FBI was using special national security wiretaps on US soil. The law also required the Justice Department to give oversight committees copies of administration memos outlining any new interpretations of domestic-spying laws. And it contained 11 other requirements for reports about such issues as civil liberties, security clearances, border security, and counternarcotics efforts. After signing the bill, Bush issued a signing statement saying he could withhold all the information sought by Congress. Likewise, when Congress passed the law creating the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, it said oversight committees must be given information about vulnerabilities at chemical plants and the screening of checked bags at airports. It also said Congress must be shown unaltered reports about problems with visa services prepared by a new immigration ombudsman. Bush asserted the right to withhold the information and alter the reports. When Congress passed a massive energy package in August, for example, it strengthened whistle-blower protections for employees at the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. When Bush signed the energy bill, he issued a signing statement declaring that the executive branch could ignore the whistle-blower protections. David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive-power issues, said Bush has cast a cloud over ”the whole idea that there is a rule of law," because no one can be certain of which laws Bush thinks are valid and which he thinks he can ignore. Golove said that to the extent Bush is interpreting the Constitution in defiance of the Supreme Court’s precedents, he threatens to ”overturn the existing structures of constitutional law." A president who ignores the court, backed by a Congress that is unwilling to challenge him, Golove said, can make the Constitution simply ”disappear." Lower-level officials will follow the president’s instructions even when his understanding of a law conflicts with the clear intent of Congress, crafting policies that may endure long after Bush leaves office, Cooper said. ”Years down the road, people will not understand why the policy doesn’t look like the legislation," he said. Such political fallout from Congress is likely to be the only check on Bush’s claims, legal specialists said. The courts have little chance of reviewing Bush’s assertions, especially in the secret realm of national security matters. ”There can’t be judicial review if nobody knows about it," said Neil Kinkopf, a Georgia State law professor who was a Justice Department official in the Clinton administration. ”And if they avoid judicial review, they avoid having their constitutional theories rebuked." Without court involvement, only Congress can check a president who goes too far. But Bush’s fellow Republicans control both chambers, and they have shown limited interest in launching the kind of oversight that could damage their party. Bruce Fein, a deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration, said the American system of government relies upon the leaders of each branch ”to exercise some self-restraint." But Bush has declared himself the sole judge of his own powers, he said, and then ruled for himself every time. ”This is an attempt by the president to have the final word on his own constitutional powers, which eliminates the checks and balances that keep the country a democracy," Fein said. ”There is no way for an independent judiciary to check his assertions of power, and Congress isn’t doing it, either. So this is moving us toward an unlimited executive power."

Response:

LOL — "Guitarmen, wake up and pluck wire for sound, let ‘em hear you play"      – CHARLIE CHRISTIAN 1939

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Bush challenges hundreds of laws > By Charlie Savage > (Boston Globe) > President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than > 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power > to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his > interpretation of the Constitution. > Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and > regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress > be told about immigration services problems, ”whistle-blower" > protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against > political interference in federally funded research. > Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush’s assertions that he > can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the > expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of > government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power > to write the laws and to the president a duty ”to take care that the > laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared > that he does not need to ”execute" a law he believes is > unconstitutional. > Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush’s theory about his own > powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the > law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of > the courts. > Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a > bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he > has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the > legislation’s sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise > upon their work. > Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush > quietly files ‘’signing statements" — official documents in which a > president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal > bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are > recorded in the federal register. > In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the > Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the > bills — sometimes including provisions that were the subject of > negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. > He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he > has signed. > ”He agrees to a compromise with members of Congress, and all of them > are there for a public bill-signing ceremony, but then he takes back > those compromises — and more often than not, without the Congress or > the press or the public knowing what has happened," said Christopher > Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio political science professor who > studies executive power. > The Constitution grants Congress the power to create armies, to declare > war, to make rules for captured enemies, and ”to make rules for the > government and regulation of the land and naval forces." But, citing his > role as commander in chief, Bush says he can ignore any act of Congress > that seeks to regulate the military. > On at least four occasions while Bush has been president, Congress has > passed laws forbidding US troops from engaging in combat in Colombia, > where the US military is advising the government in its struggle against > narcotics-funded Marxist rebels. > After signing each bill, Bush declared in his signing statement that he > did not have to obey any of the Colombia restrictions because he is > commander in chief. > Bush has also said he can bypass laws requiring him to tell Congress > before diverting money from an authorized program in order to start a > secret operation, such as the ”black sites" where suspected terrorists > are secretly imprisoned. > Congress has also twice passed laws forbidding the military from using > intelligence that was not ”lawfully collected," including any > information on Americans that was gathered in violation of the Fourth > Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches. > In October 2004, five months after the Abu Ghraib torture scandal in > Iraq came to light, Congress passed a series of new rules and > regulations for military prisons. Bush signed the provisions into law, > then said he could ignore them all. One provision made clear that > military lawyers can give their commanders independent advice on such > issues as what would constitute torture. But Bush declared that military > lawyers could not contradict his administration’s lawyers. > Other provisions required the Pentagon to retrain military prison guards > on the requirements for humane treatment of detainees under the Geneva > Conventions, to perform background checks on civilian contractors in > Iraq, and to ban such contractors from performing ‘’security, > intelligence, law enforcement, and criminal justice functions." Bush > reserved the right to ignore any of the requirements. > The new law also created the position of inspector general for Iraq. But > Bush wrote in his signing statement that the inspector ‘’shall refrain" > from investigating any intelligence or national security matter, or any > crime the Pentagon says it prefers to investigate for itself. > Many laws Bush has asserted he can bypass involve requirements to give > information about government activity to congressional oversight > committees. > In December 2004, Congress passed an intelligence bill requiring the > Justice Department to tell them how often, and in what situations, the > FBI was using special national security wiretaps on US soil. The law > also required the Justice Department to give oversight committees copies > of administration memos outlining any new interpretations of > domestic-spying laws. And it contained 11 other requirements for reports > about such issues as civil liberties, security clearances, border > security, and counternarcotics efforts. > After signing the bill, Bush issued a signing statement saying he could > withhold all the information sought by Congress. > Likewise, when Congress passed the law creating the Department of > Homeland Security in 2002, it said oversight committees must be given > information about vulnerabilities at chemical plants and the screening > of checked bags at airports. > It also said Congress must be shown unaltered reports about problems > with visa services prepared by a new immigration ombudsman. Bush > asserted the right to withhold the information and alter the reports. > When Congress passed a massive energy package in August, for example, it > strengthened whistle-blower protections for employees at the Department > of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. > When Bush signed the energy bill, he issued a signing statement > declaring that the executive branch could ignore the whistle-blower > protections. > David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in > executive-power issues, said Bush has cast a cloud over ”the whole idea > that there is a rule of law," because no one can be certain of which > laws Bush thinks are valid and which he thinks he can ignore. > Golove said that to the extent Bush is interpreting the Constitution in > defiance of the Supreme Court’s precedents, he threatens to ”overturn > the existing structures of constitutional law." > A president who ignores the court, backed by a Congress that is > unwilling to challenge him, Golove said, can make the Constitution > simply ”disappear." > Lower-level officials will follow the president’s instructions even when > his understanding of a law conflicts with the clear intent of Congress, > crafting policies that may endure long after Bush leaves office, Cooper > said. > ”Years down the road, people will not understand why the policy doesn’t > look like the legislation," he said. > Such political fallout from Congress is likely to be the only check on > Bush’s claims, legal specialists said. > The courts have little chance of reviewing Bush’s assertions, especially > in the secret realm of national security matters. > ”There can’t be judicial review if nobody knows about it," said Neil > Kinkopf, a Georgia State law professor who was a Justice Department > official in the Clinton administration. ”And if they avoid judicial > review, they avoid having their constitutional theories rebuked." > Without court involvement, only Congress can check a president who goes > too far. But Bush’s fellow Republicans control both chambers, and they > have shown limited interest in launching the kind of oversight that > could damage their party. > Bruce Fein, a deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration, said > the American system of government relies upon the leaders of each branch > ”to exercise some self-restraint." But Bush has declared himself the > sole judge of his own powers, he said, and then ruled for himself every > time. > ”This is an attempt by the president to have the final word on his own > constitutional powers, which eliminates the checks and balances that > keep the country a democracy," Fein said. ”There is no way for an > independent judiciary to check his assertions of power, and Congress > isn’t doing it, either. So this is moving us toward an unlimited > executive power."

Response:

> LOL

There must have been some people that "laughed out loud" when Hilter became Chancellor.

Response:

Question:

FBI Probes Contractor, Ex-Lawmaker Ties By MARK SHERMAN (Associated Press) FBI agents are investigating whether a defense contractor provided prostitutes, limousines and hotel suites to a lawmaker who has been convicted on bribery charges, two federal officials said Friday. Investigators have contacted Washington-area escort services, two hotels and a limousine company in recent weeks, one official said. The allegations were raised by Mitchell Wade, another defense contractor who also has pleaded guilty to charges stemming from the bribery conspiracy involving former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, the officials said. Cunningham is serving a prison term of eight years, four months after pleading guilty in November to taking $2.4 million in homes, yachts and other bribes. Wade is cooperating with investigators as part of his plea agreement in February. He has told them that Brent Wilkes, a San Diego defense contractor who has been identified as a co-conspirator, secured prostitutes, limousines and suites at two Washington hotels for Cunningham, the officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is continuing.

Response:

This one is gonna be really juicy. I can’t wait to hear Mick defend these guys. Gonna be some mighty fine entertainment. We’ll learn some new sex terms besides blow jobs.

Response:

Question:

As far as I am concerned there is only one way to determine whether we "win" or we "lose".  And that will be when we "win" or when we "lose".  All this talk about whether we are "winning" or whether we are "losing" is meaningless conjecture, because time will tell whether we "win" or "lose".

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->                          It Takes a Potemkin Village >   By FRANK RICH >   WHEN a government substitutes propaganda for governing, the Potemkin >   village is all. Since we don’t get honest information from this White >   House, we must instead, as the Soviets once did, decode our rulers’ >   fictions to discern what’s really happening. What we’re seeing now is >   the wheels coming off: As the administration’s stagecraft becomes more >   baroque, its credibility tanks further both at home and abroad. The >   propaganda techniques may be echt Goebbels, but they increasingly come >   off as pure Ali G. >   The latest desperate shifts in White House showmanship say at least as >   much about our progress (or lack of same) in Iraq over the past 32 >   months as reports from the ground. When President Bush announced the >   end of "major combat operations" in May 2003, his Imagineers felt the >   need for only a single elegant banner declaring "Mission >   Accomplished." Cut to Nov. 30, 2005: the latest White House bumper >   sticker, "Plan for Victory," multiplied by Orwellian mitosis over >   nearly every square inch of the rather "Queer Eye" stage set from >   which Mr. Bush delivered his oration at the Naval Academy. >   And to no avail. Despite the insistently redundant graphics – and >   despite the repetition of the word "victory" 15 times in the speech >   itself – Americans believed "Plan for Victory" far less than they once >   did "Mission Accomplished." The first New York Times-CBS News Poll >   since the Naval Academy pep talk, released last Thursday, found that >   only 25 percent of Americans say the president has "a clear plan for >   victory in Iraq." Tom Cruise and evolution still have larger >   constituencies in America than that. >   Mr. Bush’s "Plan for Victory" speech was, of course, the usual >   unadulterated nonsense. Its overarching theme – "We will never accept >   anything less than complete victory" – was being contradicted even as >   he spoke by rampant reports of Pentagon plans for stepped-up troop >   withdrawals between next week’s Iraqi elections and the more important >   (for endangered Republicans) American Election Day of 2006. The >   specifics were phony, too: Once again inflating the readiness of Iraqi >   troops, Mr. Bush claimed that the recent assault on Tal Afar "was >   primarily led by Iraqi security forces" – a fairy tale immediately >   unmasked by Michael Ware, a Time reporter embedded in that battle’s >   front lines, as "completely wrong." No less an authority than the >   office of Iraq’s prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, promptly released >   a 59-page report documenting his own military’s inadequate leadership, >   equipment and training. >   But this variety of Bush balderdash is such old news that everyone >   except that ga-ga 25 percent instantaneously tunes it out. We >   routinely assume that the subtext (i.e., the omissions and deliberate >   factual errors) of his speeches and scripted town meetings will be >   more revealing than the texts themselves. What raised the "Plan for >   Victory" show to new heights of disinformation was the subsequent >   revelation that the administration’s main stated motive for the >   address – the release of a 35-page document laying out a "National >   Strategy for Victory in Iraq" – was as much a theatrical prop as the >   stunt turkey the president posed with during his one furtive visit to >   Baghdad two Thanksgivings ago. >   As breathlessly heralded by Scott McClellan, this glossy brochure was >   "an unclassified version" of the strategy in place since the war’s >   inception in "early 2003." But Scott Shane of The New York Times told >   another story. Through a few keystrokes, the electronic version of the >   document at [4]whitehouse.gov could be manipulated to reveal text >   "usually hidden from public view." What turned up was the name of the >   document’s originating author: Peter Feaver, a Duke political >   scientist who started advising the National Security Council only this >   June. Dr. Feaver is an expert on public opinion about war, not war >   itself. Thus we now know that what Mr. McClellan billed as a 2003 >   strategy for military victory is in fact a P.R. strategy in place for >   no more than six months. That solves the mystery of why Lt. Gen. >   Martin Dempsey of the Army, who is in charge of training Iraqi troops, >   told reporters that he had never seen this "National Strategy" before >   its public release last month. >   In a perfect storm of revelations, the "Plan for Victory" speech fell >   on the same day that The Los Angeles Times exposed new doings on >   another front in the White House propaganda war. An obscure Defense >   Department contractor, the Lincoln Group, was caught paying off Iraqi >   journalists to run upbeat news articles secretly written by American >   Army personnel and translated into Arabic (at a time when American >   troops in harm’s way are desperate for Arabic translators of their >   own). One of the papers running the fake news is Al Mutamar, the >   Baghdad daily run by associates of Ahmad Chalabi. So now we know that >   at least one P.R. plan, if not a plan for victory, has been consistent >   since early 2003. As Mr. Chalabi helped feed spurious accounts of >   Saddam’s W.M.D. to American newspapers to gin up the war, so his >   minions now help disseminate happy talk to his own country’s press to >   further the illusion that the war is being won. >   The Lincoln Group’s articles (e.g., "The Sands Are Blowing Toward a >   Democratic Iraq") are not without their laughs – for us, if not for >   the Iraqis, whose intelligence is insulted and whose democratic >   aspirations are betrayed by them. But the texts are no more revealing >   than those of Mr. Bush’s speeches. Look instead at the cover-up that >   has followed the Los Angeles Times revelations. The administration and >   its frontmen at once started stonewalling from a single script. Mr. >   McClellan, Pentagon spokesmen, Senator John Warner and Donald Rumsfeld >   all give the identical answer to the many press queries. We don’t have >   the facts, they say, even as they maintain that the Lincoln Group >   articles themselves are factual. >   The Pentagon earmarks more than $100 million in taxpayers’ money for >   various Lincoln Group operations, and it can’t get any facts? Though >   the 30-year-old prime mover in the shadowy outfit, one Christian >   Bailey, fled from Andrea Mitchell of NBC News when she pursued him on >   camera in Washington, certain facts are proving not at all elusive. >   Ms. Mitchell and other reporters have learned that Mr. Bailey has had >   at least four companies since 2002, most of them interlocking, >   short-lived and under phantom names. Government Executive magazine >   also discovered that Mr. Bailey "was a founder and active participant >   in Lead21," a Republican "fund-raising and networking operation" – >   which has since scrubbed his name from its Web site – and that he and >   a partner in his ventures once listed a business address identical to >   their Washington residence. This curious tale, with its trail of cash >   payoffs, trading in commercial Iraqi real estate and murky bidding >   procedures for lucrative U.S. government contracts, could have been >   lifted from "Syriana" or "Glengarry Glen Ross." While Mr. Rumsfeld and >   Mr. McClellan valiantly continue their search for "the facts," what we >   know so far can safely be filed under the general heading of "Lay, >   DeLay and Abramoff." >   The more we learn about such sleaze in the propaganda war, the more we >   see it’s failing for the same reason as the real war: incompetence. >   Much as the disastrous Bremer regime botched the occupation of Iraq >   with bad decisions made by its array of administration cronies and >   relatives (among them Ari Fleischer’s brother), so the White House >   doesn’t exactly get the biggest bang for the bucks it shells out to >   cronies for fake news. >   Until he was unmasked as an administration shill, Armstrong Williams >   was less known for journalism than for striking a deal to dismiss a >   messy sexual-harassment suit against him in 1999. When an Army >   commander had troops sign 500 identical good-news form letters to >   local newspapers throughout America in 2003, the fraud was so >   transparent it was almost instantly debunked. The fictional scenarios >   concocted for Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman also unraveled quickly, as >   did last weekend’s Pentagon account of 10 marines killed outside >   Falluja on a "routine foot patrol." As the NBC correspondent Jim >   Miklaszewski told Don Imus last week, he received calls within hours >   from the fallen’s loved ones about how the marines had been >   slaughtered after being recklessly sent to an unprotected site for a >   promotion ceremony. >   Though the White House doesn’t know that its jig is up, everyone else >   does. Americans see that New Orleans is in as sorry shape today as it >   was under Brownie three months ago. The bipartisan 9/11 commissioners >   confirm that homeland security remains a pork pit. Condi Rice’s daily >   clarifications of her clarifications about American torture policies >   are contradicted by new reports of horrors before her latest >   circumlocutions leave her mouth. And the president’s latest Iraq >   speeches – most recently about the "success" stories of Najaf and >   Mosul – still don’t stand up to the most rudimentary

… read more »

Response:

                         It Takes a Potemkin Village    By FRANK RICH    WHEN a government substitutes propaganda for governing, the Potemkin  village is all. Since we don’t get honest information from this White House, we must instead, as the Soviets once did, decode our rulers’ fictions to discern what’s really happening. What we’re seeing now is the wheels coming off: As the administration’s stagecraft becomes more baroque, its credibility tanks further both at home and abroad. The propaganda techniques may be echt Goebbels, but they increasingly come off as pure Ali G. The latest desperate shifts in White House showmanship say at least as much about our progress (or lack of same) in Iraq over the past 32 months as reports from the ground. When President Bush announced the end of "major combat operations" in May 2003, his Imagineers felt the need for only a single elegant banner declaring "Mission Accomplished." Cut to Nov. 30, 2005: the latest White House bumper sticker, "Plan for Victory," multiplied by Orwellian mitosis over nearly every square inch of the rather "Queer Eye" stage set from which Mr. Bush delivered his oration at the Naval Academy. And to no avail. Despite the insistently redundant graphics – and despite the repetition of the word "victory" 15 times in the speech itself – Americans believed "Plan for Victory" far less than they once did "Mission Accomplished." The first New York Times-CBS News Poll since the Naval Academy pep talk, released last Thursday, found that only 25 percent of Americans say the president has "a clear plan for victory in Iraq." Tom Cruise and evolution still have larger constituencies in America than that. Mr. Bush’s "Plan for Victory" speech was, of course, the usual unadulterated nonsense. Its overarching theme – "We will never accept anything less than complete victory" – was being contradicted even as he spoke by rampant reports of Pentagon plans for stepped-up troop withdrawals between next week’s Iraqi elections and the more important (for endangered Republicans) American Election Day of 2006. The specifics were phony, too: Once again inflating the readiness of Iraqi troops, Mr. Bush claimed that the recent assault on Tal Afar "was primarily led by Iraqi security forces" – a fairy tale immediately unmasked by Michael Ware, a Time reporter embedded in that battle’s front lines, as "completely wrong." No less an authority than the office of Iraq’s prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, promptly released a 59-page report documenting his own military’s inadequate leadership, equipment and training. But this variety of Bush balderdash is such old news that everyone except that ga-ga 25 percent instantaneously tunes it out. We routinely assume that the subtext (i.e., the omissions and deliberate factual errors) of his speeches and scripted town meetings will be more revealing than the texts themselves. What raised the "Plan for Victory" show to new heights of disinformation was the subsequent revelation that the administration’s main stated motive for the address – the release of a 35-page document laying out a "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" – was as much a theatrical prop as the stunt turkey the president posed with during his one furtive visit to Baghdad two Thanksgivings ago. As breathlessly heralded by Scott McClellan, this glossy brochure was "an unclassified version" of the strategy in place since the war’s inception in "early 2003." But Scott Shane of The New York Times told another story. Through a few keystrokes, the electronic version of the document at [4]whitehouse.gov could be manipulated to reveal text "usually hidden from public view." What turned up was the name of the document’s originating author: Peter Feaver, a Duke political scientist who started advising the National Security Council only this June. Dr. Feaver is an expert on public opinion about war, not war itself. Thus we now know that what Mr. McClellan billed as a 2003 strategy for military victory is in fact a P.R. strategy in place for no more than six months. That solves the mystery of why Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey of the Army, who is in charge of training Iraqi troops, told reporters that he had never seen this "National Strategy" before its public release last month. In a perfect storm of revelations, the "Plan for Victory" speech fell on the same day that The Los Angeles Times exposed new doings on another front in the White House propaganda war. An obscure Defense Department contractor, the Lincoln Group, was caught paying off Iraqi journalists to run upbeat news articles secretly written by American Army personnel and translated into Arabic (at a time when American troops in harm’s way are desperate for Arabic translators of their own). One of the papers running the fake news is Al Mutamar, the Baghdad daily run by associates of Ahmad Chalabi. So now we know that at least one P.R. plan, if not a plan for victory, has been consistent since early 2003. As Mr. Chalabi helped feed spurious accounts of Saddam’s W.M.D. to American newspapers to gin up the war, so his minions now help disseminate happy talk to his own country’s press to further the illusion that the war is being won. The Lincoln Group’s articles (e.g., "The Sands Are Blowing Toward a Democratic Iraq") are not without their laughs – for us, if not for the Iraqis, whose intelligence is insulted and whose democratic aspirations are betrayed by them. But the texts are no more revealing than those of Mr. Bush’s speeches. Look instead at the cover-up that has followed the Los Angeles Times revelations. The administration and its frontmen at once started stonewalling from a single script. Mr. McClellan, Pentagon spokesmen, Senator John Warner and Donald Rumsfeld all give the identical answer to the many press queries. We don’t have the facts, they say, even as they maintain that the Lincoln Group articles themselves are factual. The Pentagon earmarks more than $100 million in taxpayers’ money for various Lincoln Group operations, and it can’t get any facts? Though the 30-year-old prime mover in the shadowy outfit, one Christian Bailey, fled from Andrea Mitchell of NBC News when she pursued him on camera in Washington, certain facts are proving not at all elusive. Ms. Mitchell and other reporters have learned that Mr. Bailey has had at least four companies since 2002, most of them interlocking, short-lived and under phantom names. Government Executive magazine also discovered that Mr. Bailey "was a founder and active participant in Lead21," a Republican "fund-raising and networking operation" – which has since scrubbed his name from its Web site – and that he and a partner in his ventures once listed a business address identical to their Washington residence. This curious tale, with its trail of cash payoffs, trading in commercial Iraqi real estate and murky bidding procedures for lucrative U.S. government contracts, could have been lifted from "Syriana" or "Glengarry Glen Ross." While Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. McClellan valiantly continue their search for "the facts," what we know so far can safely be filed under the general heading of "Lay, DeLay and Abramoff." The more we learn about such sleaze in the propaganda war, the more we see it’s failing for the same reason as the real war: incompetence. Much as the disastrous Bremer regime botched the occupation of Iraq with bad decisions made by its array of administration cronies and relatives (among them Ari Fleischer’s brother), so the White House doesn’t exactly get the biggest bang for the bucks it shells out to cronies for fake news. Until he was unmasked as an administration shill, Armstrong Williams was less known for journalism than for striking a deal to dismiss a messy sexual-harassment suit against him in 1999. When an Army commander had troops sign 500 identical good-news form letters to local newspapers throughout America in 2003, the fraud was so transparent it was almost instantly debunked. The fictional scenarios concocted for Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman also unraveled quickly, as did last weekend’s Pentagon account of 10 marines killed outside Falluja on a "routine foot patrol." As the NBC correspondent Jim Miklaszewski told Don Imus last week, he received calls within hours from the fallen’s loved ones about how the marines had been slaughtered after being recklessly sent to an unprotected site for a promotion ceremony. Though the White House doesn’t know that its jig is up, everyone else does. Americans see that New Orleans is in as sorry shape today as it was under Brownie three months ago. The bipartisan 9/11 commissioners confirm that homeland security remains a pork pit. Condi Rice’s daily clarifications of her clarifications about American torture policies are contradicted by new reports of horrors before her latest circumlocutions leave her mouth. And the president’s latest Iraq speeches – most recently about the "success" stories of Najaf and Mosul – still don’t stand up to the most rudimentary fact checking. This is why the most revealing poll number in the Times/CBS survey released last week was Mr. Bush’s approval rating for the one area where things are going relatively well, the economy: 38 percent, only 2 points higher than his rating on Iraq. It’s a measure of the national cynicism bequeathed by the Bush culture that seeing anything, even falling prices at the pump, is no longer believing.      * Copyright 2005The New York Times Company References    4. http://whitehouse.gov/–

Response:

>As far as I am concerned there is only one way to determine whether we "win" >or we "lose".  And that will be when we "win" or when we "lose".  All this >talk about whether we are "winning" or whether we are "losing" is >meaningless conjecture, because time will tell whether we "win" or "lose".

If you are over sixty you will be dead before american military stops being killed in Iraq on a dailey basis…. By then either U.S. (and so the world) will have been completely overrun by fascism–> as has been the creeping trend for the last fifty years…. Or a brand new peaceful society will have gained considerable ground due to such influences as the open communication between all people that the internet and various other media offer…. ie the war-mongers, hate-mongers, war-profiteers, etc, those who profit from the suffering of mankind, will have been exposed in their multiple lies.

Response:

Question:

Jesus, save me from newsgroup gurus spouting their ignorance. That innocent abroad, West, wrote to Triode Dick (a benefactor of DIYers): >Your web site is simply fantastic. Unfortunate for me, I do not read Dutch. Many Americans are talking about your site. Have you ever considered to have it repeated in English?<

Yo, Westley, everything you need to know is on those excellent circuits, and Dick has actually published some instructions in English. Nice of you though to let him know you appreciate his hard work and his generous attitude. >To ask someone to translate their language to English for your convenience seems so  . . . . . .   American!<

Don’t you guys just despise rentboys who hate their own people? They’re probably diseased rentboys (and crooked garage traders) because they have no respect for themselves. But I don’t think we should let them get away with having no respect for a entire great nation. >But don’t americans speak american? Do you really mean to tell me they speak English?<

They speak and write better English than you do, Patrick. Compare the otherwise wretched Ludwig’s glib errors with your awkwardness in your mother tongue and no further evidence need be called. Stick to fucking sheep and your bolshie brickie’s reflex anti-Americanism won’t trip you up. >West Coast American English is now the world canonical standard. Northeast US English is more similar to British English than the Midwest/West Coast version FWIW.<

You’re a blustering idiot, Ludwig, with a perverse talent for expressing certainty in exactly inverse proportion to your knowledge on any subject. In this case the observable truth is diametrically opposite to your claim; no wonder you claim your erroneous version so loudly and so certainly. The canonical standard of movers and shakers is that midatlantic version of English heard in the Northeast US, not on the West Coast as you claim. One has to be rather low on the food tree to aspire to speak as one hears actors speak in Hollywood movies. I can understand how you made the error; you should try getting away from your street corner gang more often. >Americans don’t speak English, they speak American.<

I can understand why you have to do PA rather than audio, Don. You’re tonedeaf. I imagine that you speak the same way most people who need to travel to earn a living do, with an intonation somewhere between Sandhurst and Hyannisport, that accent which the ignorant, the envious and closet socialists decry as "mid-Atlantic" or "multinationalspeak" or "adman anglo-american", because if you spoke one of the English dialects so beloved of the left**, no one would understand a word you say and you would not do any business. Besides being tonedeaf-not that I think it matters for a PA merchant-you are also, once more, spouting ignorantly on a subject of which you know nothing. Americans speak English, and a large part of America speaks better English than the politically correct English do. In the leafy Pilgrim States you can hear the authentic tones of Plymouth and Portsmouth some centuries ago. Now, to save you the embarrassment of being corrected twice in the same thread, let me immediately answer your next dumb objection, that I am confusing an Irish accent with English, before you even utter it. You’re wrong. The final, incontrovertible authority is the BBC Pronunciation Unit. They say the finest English in the world is now spoken in Ireland, in St Colombines, a private school (what you call a public school*) in Dublin. I trust that has cleared up this matter. Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ "an unbelievably comprehensive web site" — Hi-Fi News & Record Review *Though I speak quite a few languages, and in many of them all the dialects that can make one fit in (in France, for instance, one doesn’t when in the provinces speak like the 16th arrondissement of Paris unless one wants to be ripped a second fundament by the local traders, except in August when no one in his right mind is found in Paris and the provincial traders are fully occupied ripping the English a second arsehole), I have on second thoughts turned my face against multilingualism (I never believed in multiculuralism even when it was freshly minted-it was a sleight of hand then and now stands exposed for what it always was, a political crock, and a leaky one at that). Cosmopolitans universally speak English. Civilized peoples universally speak English. The middle classes, the bedrock of civil, peaceful society, universally speak English. More Chinese speak English than Americans who speak English. English is compulsory in Russian and Chinese schools. Let them learn English. Communication is peace. I grew up in South Africa where the Afrikaners turned their language into an irredentist cause; I have lived the last quarter-century in Ireland, where a minority of the Irish have turned their language (Gaelic) into an irredentist cause. Other European terrorists like the Spanish Basque and the Moldies that bother the Dutch, are all given root by their distinct languages. Let everyone speak English, let’s ban all these other chattering tongues, and be done with wars. The history of those languages is worthless against peace, and their literature can be translated into English; most of it is crap anyway, their only value lying in being written in some nationalist’s treasured language, another cause for irredentism. (I admire the Dutch, for instance, for always being on time for appointments and for being equally rude to everyone, but their greatest book is about a lawyer, which is already a bad start, and the denouement, the high point of supposed excitement in a thick book, is where he says he will never marry because he’s married to the law. That’s like having John Grisham as your entire nation’s nearest approach not even to Shakespeare but to Jeffrey Archer. Or take the French, who claim to be the guardians of culture: their most worthwhile literature, of which there is quite a bit, announces itself as worth preserving, though not necessarily in French, by lending itself to comprehensible translation into English, the rest merely highlighting once again the talent of the French in their own language to say nothing meaningful with supple beauty and much pretentiousness; that is why Americans and often the British too are so baffled by highly rated French politicians once these jokers enter the international arena and the pitiless translation of their every word into English exposes their perfervid vacuity. As for Scandinavian "literature", it’s like having to read Jude the Obscure over and over again, which just goes to prove how evenhanded I am; Thomas Hardy the most boring writer who ever lived.) **For our American friends, there is a social hierarchy in British education. First of all, children get a better education in state (and some other) schools in Ireland, Scotland and Wales than in England itself. In most of these places, the comprehensive school is the lowest common denominator, in the most pejorative sense possible, followed by grammar schools (theoretically for gifted boys from the lower classes but in fact monopolized by the children of the middle classes), all of the preceding being publicly funded schools, followed by what are known as "public" schools which are in fact fee-paying private schools (Eton, Harrow, Winchester, Rugby, etc, like Philips Exeter or Philips Andover or Groton in the States). These exclusive schools are "public" because anyone whose family has the right connections and the right money can attend. They are "public" by contrast with being *privately* educated at home by tutors. Until mid to late Victorian times the richer aristocrats, tutored at home, sneered at the lesser aristocrats who were forced by (relative) penury to send their children to Eton… About the time Winston Churchill, the grandson of a very grand duke, attended school, attitudes started changing, thought not being tutored at home was one reason the very highest level of British society for the vastly greater part of his life considered Churchill not quite sound.

Response:

<snip gibberish> The newsgroup has been much more pleasant in your absence.  Why not crawl back under the rock you came from, and take Phil with you. Your friend, Jon

Response:

> <snip gibberish> > The newsgroup has been much more pleasant in your absence.  Why not crawl > back under the rock you came from, and take Phil with you. > Your friend, > Jon

Syphilis is an occupational hazard of Yaeger’s other profession as a rent boy. One notable effect is a short attention span. So here is what I said about Yaeger: >To ask someone to translate their language to English for your convenience seems so  . . . . . .   American!<

Don’t you guys just despise rentboys who hate their own people? They’re probably diseased rentboys (and crooked garage traders) because they have no respect for themselves. But I don’t think we should let them get away with having no respect for a entire great nation. And here is my full post, which admittedly isn’t for those with soundbite attention spans like Yaeger: Jesus, save me from newsgroup gurus spouting their ignorance. That innocent abroad, West, wrote to Triode Dick (a benefactor of DIYers): >Your web site is simply fantastic. Unfortunate for me, I do not read Dutch. Many Americans are talking about your site. Have you ever considered to have it repeated in English?<

Yo, Westley, everything you need to know is on those excellent circuits, and Dick has actually published some instructions in English. Nice of you though to let him know you appreciate his hard work and his generous attitude. >To ask someone to translate their language to English for your convenience seems so  . . . . . .   American!<

Don’t you guys just despise rentboys who hate their own people? They’re probably diseased rentboys (and crooked garage traders) because they have no respect for themselves. But I don’t think we should let them get away with having no respect for a entire great nation. >But don’t americans speak american? Do you really mean to tell me they speak English?<

They speak and write better English than you do, Patrick. Compare the otherwise wretched Ludwig’s glib errors with your awkwardness in your mother tongue and no further evidence need be called. Stick to fucking sheep and your bolshie brickie’s reflex anti-Americanism won’t trip you up. >West Coast American English is now the world canonical standard. Northeast US English is more similar to British English than the Midwest/West Coast version FWIW.<

You’re a blustering idiot, Ludwig, with a perverse talent for expressing certainty in exactly inverse proportion to your knowledge on any subject. In this case the observable truth is diametrically opposite to your claim; no wonder you claim your erroneous version so loudly and so certainly. The canonical standard of movers and shakers is that midatlantic version of English heard in the Northeast US, not on the West Coast as you claim. One has to be rather low on the food tree to aspire to speak as one hears actors speak in Hollywood movies. I can understand how you made the error; you should try getting away from your street corner gang more often. >Americans don’t speak English, they speak American.<

I can understand why you have to do PA rather than audio, Don. You’re tonedeaf. I imagine that you speak the same way most people who need to travel to earn a living do, with an intonation somewhere between Sandhurst and Hyannisport, that accent which the ignorant, the envious and closet socialists decry as "mid-Atlantic" or "multinationalspeak" or "adman anglo-american", because if you spoke one of the English dialects so beloved of the left**, no one would understand a word you say and you would not do any business. Besides being tonedeaf-not that I think it matters for a PA merchant-you are also, once more, spouting ignorantly on a subject of which you know nothing. Americans speak English, and a large part of America speaks better English than the politically correct English do. In the leafy Pilgrim States you can hear the authentic tones of Plymouth and Portsmouth some centuries ago. Now, to save you the embarrassment of being corrected twice in the same thread, let me immediately answer your next dumb objection, that I am confusing an Irish accent with English, before you even utter it. You’re wrong. The final, incontrovertible authority is the BBC Pronunciation Unit. They say the finest English in the world is now spoken in Ireland, in St Colombines, a private school (what you call a public school*) in Dublin. I trust that has cleared up this matter. Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ "an unbelievably comprehensive web site" — Hi-Fi News & Record Review *Though I speak quite a few languages, and in many of them all the dialects that can make one fit in (in France, for instance, one doesn’t when in the provinces speak like the 16th arrondissement of Paris unless one wants to be ripped a second fundament by the local traders, except in August when no one in his right mind is found in Paris and the provincial traders are fully occupied ripping the English a second arsehole), I have on second thoughts turned my face against multilingualism (I never believed in multiculuralism even when it was freshly minted-it was a sleight of hand then and now stands exposed for what it always was, a political crock, and a leaky one at that). Cosmopolitans universally speak English. Civilized peoples universally speak English. The middle classes, the bedrock of civil, peaceful society, universally speak English. More Chinese speak English than Americans who speak English. English is compulsory in Russian and Chinese schools. Let them learn English. Communication is peace. I grew up in South Africa where the Afrikaners turned their language into an irredentist cause; I have lived the last quarter-century in Ireland, where a minority of the Irish have turned their language (Gaelic) into an irredentist cause. Other European terrorists like the Spanish Basque and the Moldies that bother the Dutch, are all given root by their distinct languages. Let everyone speak English, let’s ban all these other chattering tongues, and be done with wars. The history of those languages is worthless against peace, and their literature can be translated into English; most of it is crap anyway, their only value lying in being written in some nationalist’s treasured language, another cause for irredentism. (I admire the Dutch, for instance, for always being on time for appointments and for being equally rude to everyone, but their greatest book is about a lawyer, which is already a bad start, and the denouement, the high point of supposed excitement in a thick book, is where he says he will never marry because he’s married to the law. That’s like having John Grisham as your entire nation’s nearest approach not even to Shakespeare but to Jeffrey Archer. Or take the French, who claim to be the guardians of culture: their most worthwhile literature, of which there is quite a bit, announces itself as worth preserving, though not necessarily in French, by lending itself to comprehensible translation into English, the rest merely highlighting once again the talent of the French in their own language to say nothing meaningful with supple beauty and much pretentiousness; that is why Americans and often the British too are so baffled by highly rated French politicians once these jokers enter the international arena and the pitiless translation of their every word into English exposes their perfervid vacuity. As for Scandinavian "literature", it’s like having to read Jude the Obscure over and over again, which just goes to prove how evenhanded I am; Thomas Hardy the most boring writer who ever lived.) **For our American friends, there is a social hierarchy in British education. First of all, children get a better education in state (and some other) schools in Ireland, Scotland and Wales than in England itself. In most of these places, the comprehensive school is the lowest common denominator, in the most pejorative sense possible, followed by grammar schools (theoretically for gifted boys from the lower classes but in fact monopolized by the children of the middle classes), all of the preceding being publicly funded schools, followed by what are known as "public" schools which are in fact fee-paying private schools (Eton, Harrow, Winchester, Rugby, etc, like Philips Exeter or Philips Andover or Groton in the States). These exclusive schools are "public" because anyone whose family has the right connections and the right money can attend. They are "public" by contrast with being *privately* educated at home by tutors. Until mid to late Victorian times the richer aristocrats, tutored at home, sneered at the lesser aristocrats who were forced by (relative) penury to send their children to Eton… About the time Winston Churchill, the grandson of a very grand duke, attended school, attitudes started changing, thought not being tutored at home was one reason the very highest level of British society for the vastly greater part of his life considered Churchill not quite sound.

Response:

Jute, What you wrote sucked the first time.  You’re a repeat offender. The sad fact that you think someone might be interested in your bovine excrement is only a symptom of your psychopathology. Your friend, Jon

Response:

> Jute, > What you wrote sucked the first time.  You’re a repeat offender. > The sad fact that you think someone might be interested in your bovine > excrement is only a symptom of your psychopathology.

 Just ignore that idiot, as do the vast majority of Usenet readers. Talking straight with crooked people is a bottomless pit of frustration.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Jute, > What you wrote sucked the first time.  You’re a repeat offender. > The sad fact that you think someone might be interested in your bovine > excrement is only a symptom of your psychopathology. > Your friend, > Jon

Ah, when one spots usage of phraseology like "bovine excrement" vs. simple "bullshit", an upper middle class wannabe has been ID’d.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Jesus, save me from newsgroup gurus spouting their ignorance. > That innocent abroad, West, wrote to Triode Dick (a benefactor of > DIYers): >Your web site is simply fantastic. Unfortunate for me, I do not read Dutch. Many Americans are talking about your site. Have you ever considered to have it repeated in English?< > Yo, Westley, everything you need to know is on those excellent > circuits, and Dick has actually published some instructions in English. > Nice of you though to let him know you appreciate his hard work and his > generous attitude. >To ask someone to translate their language to English for your convenience seems so  . . . . . .   American!< > Don’t you guys just despise rentboys who hate their own people? > They’re probably diseased rentboys (and crooked garage traders) > because they have no respect for themselves. But I don’t think we > should let them get away with having no respect for a entire great > nation. >But don’t americans speak american? Do you really mean to tell me they speak English?< > They speak and write better English than you do, Patrick.

Andre, calm down, with so much being said about people talking about people, and what someone said about someone else said, is there are big deal I am missing out on here? But I did enjoy Alistair Cook’s "letter from America" every time he came on radio here. Perhaps you think him smug and pompous, but I though he could speak quite proper for a yank. The thing is that america is so damn big and diversified that there is no shortage of people you’d love to invite home and feed well, and people you’d rather feed from doggie bowl in the gutter. I’d rather plod on trying to savour people on their merit without wasting too much time on those I despise, which also is facilitated by at least slight acts of fogiveness along life’s way… > Compare the > otherwise wretched Ludwig’s glib errors with your awkwardness in your > mother tongue and no further evidence need be called. Stick to fucking > sheep and your bolshie brickie’s reflex anti-Americanism won’t trip > you up.

Look, there are plenty of ppl in Oz who would incur a australian brickies’ curse, not just americans. I myself could not put sound to a brickies curse because I was never a brickie, since I was  trained carpenter and joiner early in life before spending 15 years as a foreman in charge of large contracts to try to ekk the best work i could from the team comprised of all sorts of trades people, who by enlarge despite their idiosyncrasies we all depend on and who work harder for their money than many an intellectual layabout I could think of. Some of the carpenteer’s curses I have heard leave the type of curse that a brickie thinks up as being rather palid, but shearers from NZ who come to OZ to undercut the Oz labour rates give even rosier curses, and the Oz shearers also are rather cursery. Sheep are nevous in Oz at the sight of the NZ labour which excells at the work of shearing sheep. Ever tried shearing Andre? Its the worst sort of torture, but we have winter wollies as a result, and so best we forget these sweaty meaty men’s growls and consternations. Oh, and we have those extremely supreme merino wool suits as a result of sheep being well bred in OZ, and bred better than the men who shear them. There was a saying that Australia rides on the sheep’s back, meaning that out trade surplus depended on vast quantities of wool being traded. If a few sheep got ridden on some other way then that’s no big deal, what’s a man to do when he is 1,500 Kms from a woman? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->West Coast American English is now the world canonical standard. Northeast US English is more similar to British English than the Midwest/West Coast version FWIW.< > You’re a blustering idiot, Ludwig, with a perverse talent for > expressing certainty in exactly inverse proportion to your knowledge on > any subject. In this case the observable truth is diametrically > opposite to your claim; no wonder you claim your erroneous version so > loudly and so certainly. The canonical standard of movers and shakers > is that midatlantic version of English heard in the Northeast US, not > on the West Coast as you claim. One has to be rather low on the food > tree to aspire to speak as one hears actors speak in Hollywood movies. > I can understand how you made the error; you should try getting away > from your street corner gang more often. >Americans don’t speak English, they speak American.< > I can understand why you have to do PA rather than audio, Don. You’re > tonedeaf. I imagine that you speak the same way most people who need to > travel to earn a living do, with an intonation somewhere between > Sandhurst and Hyannisport, that accent which the ignorant, the envious > and closet socialists decry as "mid-Atlantic" or > "multinationalspeak" or "adman anglo-american", because if you > spoke one of the English dialects so beloved of the left**, no one > would understand a word you say and you would not do any business. > Besides being tonedeaf-not that I think it matters for a PA > merchant-you are also, once more, spouting ignorantly on a subject of > which you know nothing. Americans speak English, and a large part of > America speaks better English than the politically correct English do. > In the leafy Pilgrim States you can hear the authentic tones of > Plymouth and Portsmouth some centuries ago. Now, to save you the > embarrassment of being corrected twice in the same thread, let me > immediately answer your next dumb objection, that I am confusing an > Irish accent with English, before you even utter it. You’re wrong. > The final, incontrovertible authority is the BBC Pronunciation Unit. > They say the finest English in the world is now spoken in Ireland, in > St Colombines, a private school (what you call a public school*) in > Dublin. > I trust that has cleared up this matter. > Andre Jute > Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ > "an unbelievably comprehensive web site" — Hi-Fi News & Record Review > *Though I speak quite a few languages, and in many of them all the > dialects that can make one fit in (in France, for instance, one > doesn’t when in the provinces speak like the 16th arrondissement of > Paris unless one wants to be ripped a second fundament by the local > traders, except in August when no one in his right mind is found in > Paris and the provincial traders are fully occupied ripping the English > a second arsehole), I have on second thoughts turned my face against > multilingualism (I never believed in multiculuralism even when it was > freshly minted-it was a sleight of hand then and now stands exposed > for what it always was, a political crock, and a leaky one at that). > Cosmopolitans universally speak English. > Civilized peoples universally > speak English. The middle classes, the bedrock of civil, peaceful > society, universally speak English. More Chinese speak English than > Americans who speak English. English is compulsory in Russian and > Chinese schools. Let them learn English. Communication is peace.

What can I say? I thought that civilisation diminished exponentially the further you went away from Paris or London, so that by the time you get to Australia, and its inner dusty regions the civilistation is extremely filtered, and the bandwidth of civilisation is quite narrow, acompanied by a lot of But at least a few here have not forgot the legacy of things british, and the legacy of the inumerable peoples who went before britain became a power and with such a linguistic legacy. Australia has not had a history which included civil wars since 1788. Before that, the ppl here were the blacks, and they skirmished with each other often enough so that a man risked bastardry from his fellow man much in the same way could occur in Britain before 1788. Would being able to express himself better have done a man any better if he’d had english? I really wonder. Much of the history of the peoples who speak english is drenched with blood and bloody mindedness. as the story of english speaking peoples will describe. But what happens in 50 years when India and China have hyper world power status and the power of Washington is on a dismal wane? > I grew > up in South Africa where the Afrikaners turned their language into an > irredentist cause; I have lived the last quarter-century in Ireland, > where a minority of the Irish have turned their language (Gaelic) into > an irredentist cause.

Irredendist. I don’t know this word. Does it mean "likely to take a bite out of someone else’s arse?" – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Other European terrorists like the Spanish Basque > and the Moldies that bother the Dutch, are all given root by their > distinct languages. Let everyone speak English, let’s ban all these > other chattering tongues, and be done with wars. The history of those > languages is worthless against peace, and their literature can be > translated into English; most of it is crap anyway, their only value > lying in being written in some nationalist’s treasured language, > another cause for irredentism. (I admire the Dutch, for instance, for > always being on time for appointments and for being equally rude to > everyone, but their greatest book is about a lawyer, which is already a > bad start, and the denouement, the high point of supposed excitement in > a thick book, is where he says he will never marry because he’s > married to the law. That’s like having John Grisham as your entire > nation’s nearest approach not even to Shakespeare but to Jeffrey > Archer. Or take the French, who claim to be the guardians of culture: > their most worthwhile literature, of which there is quite a bit, > announces itself as worth

… read more »

Response:

>But I did enjoy Alistair Cook’s "letter from America" every time he came on radio here. >Perhaps you think him smug and pompous, but I though he could speak >quite proper for a yank.

Hee hee! Alistair wasn’t a Yank. He was born in Salford – that was why he could speak quite proper (well, quite proper for a Lancastrian) d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com

Response:

> Jute, > What you wrote sucked the first time.  You’re a repeat offender. > The sad fact that you think someone might be interested in your bovine > excrement is only a symptom of your psychopathology. > Your friend, > Jon

Andre’s sarcasm may have been aimed at you but was comparatively harmless, compared to what it could be if biased up and fed more signal from the gain control. I trade from what could be called a garage, and a brick garage at that, and, shock horror, one which I built myself 30 years ago, and little did I realize then that i would be pilloried now for being a brickie, which officially I have never been, and for being some kind of illicit trader. Alas, amoung interlectuals, it is SO uncool to pick up a trowel and mix up the "mud" and set out to spend a saturday’s spare time laying bricks to build a shed. Only fat boring women think it is a marvel, and the few sexy slim women i knew were repelled at the view of me laying bricks rather that spending money and laying them in expensive resorts. Let’s not loose the faith here, strike a blow against anti-garageism. Politely will do fine. Brickies make good lovers too, ( when they ain’t drunk ). But such mentions of my alleged dubious background of suspect dealings within brick walls are mere lettuce leaf whippings, and at worst leave me green and smelling like old vegies. Amidst the onslaught of the lettuce attacks, I keep smiles on the faces of of my customers as i try to satisfy their whimsical notions of what hi-fi is all about. People here don’t mind dealing with a green man who pongs of vegies. I must be the original Vegetational Man, who grows the best tubers in the nation. Patrick Turner.

Response:

> >But I did enjoy Alistair Cook’s "letter from America" every time he came on radio here. >Perhaps you think him smug and pompous, but I though he could speak >quite proper for a yank. > Hee hee! Alistair wasn’t a Yank. He was born in Salford – that was why > he could speak quite proper (well, quite proper for a Lancastrian)

On this occasion I don’t care if you are correct, but he sounded "well bred american" to me. Patrick Turner. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> d > Pearce Consulting > http://www.pearce.uk.com

Response:

Amp U. Tator, YACA, said: > The sad fact that you think someone might be interested in your bovine > excrement is only a symptom of your psychopathology. >Ah, when one spots usage of phraseology like "bovine excrement" >vs. simple "bullshit", an upper middle class wannabe has been

That’s the exact same thought I had when I saw your tortured circumlocution "phraseology" where an unpretentious person would say "phrase". >ID’d.

Grammar much? ;-) . .

Response:

We would be so much more convinced of your disinterest if you two limp mouthfoamers didn’t spend so much bandwidth telling each other how you’re ignoring me. — Andre Jute > Jute, > What you wrote sucked the first time.  You’re a repeat offender. > The sad fact that you think someone might be interested in your bovine > excrement is only a symptom of your psychopathology.

The Mexican teenager Bret Ludwig replied: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->  Just ignore that idiot, as do the vast majority of Usenet readers. > Talking straight with crooked people is a bottomless pit of frustration.

Response:

I don’t object to brickies. I object to their common bolshie anti-Americanism. You’re hardly one to fling accusations at intellectuals. You write more on the net than most intellectuals. Alastair Cooke was born an Englishman and went to America on a scholarship in 1932. I really don’t understrand why you would think I had a problem with Cooke. I loved him. I ate in the kitchen every Friday night in order to listen to his Letter from America. Irredentism is what the IRA and Basque terrorists practice. It means a splintering from a proper nation. It is always driven by a separate language. I don’t care if the single language is English or Mandarin or Spanish, as long as we take away from these mickey mouse nationalists one of their trouble-making false distinctions from all other people. Andre Jute – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Jesus, save me from newsgroup gurus spouting their ignorance. > That innocent abroad, West, wrote to Triode Dick (a benefactor of > DIYers): > >Your web site is simply fantastic. Unfortunate for me, I do not read Dutch. Many Americans are talking about your site. Have you ever considered to have it repeated in English?< > Yo, Westley, everything you need to know is on those excellent > circuits, and Dick has actually published some instructions in English. > Nice of you though to let him know you appreciate his hard work and his > generous attitude. > >To ask someone to translate their language to English for your convenience seems so  . . . . . .   American!< > Don’t you guys just despise rentboys who hate their own people? > They’re probably diseased rentboys (and crooked garage traders) > because they have no respect for themselves. But I don’t think we > should let them get away with having no respect for a entire great > nation. > >But don’t americans speak american? Do you really mean to tell me they speak English?< > They speak and write better English than you do, Patrick. > Andre, calm down, with so much being said about people talking about people, > and what someone said about someone else said, is there are big deal I am missing out on here? > But I did enjoy Alistair Cook’s "letter from America" every time he came on radio here. > Perhaps you think him smug and pompous, but I though he could speak > quite proper for a yank. > The thing is that america is so damn big and diversified that there is no shortage > of people you’d love to invite home and feed well, and people > you’d rather feed from doggie bowl in the gutter. > I’d rather plod on trying to savour people on their merit > without wasting too much time on those I despise, which also is facilitated by > at least slight acts of fogiveness along life’s way… > Compare the > otherwise wretched Ludwig’s glib errors with your awkwardness in your > mother tongue and no further evidence need be called. Stick to fucking > sheep and your bolshie brickie’s reflex anti-Americanism won’t trip > you up. > Look, there are plenty of ppl in Oz who would incur a australian brickies’ curse, not > just americans. > I myself could not put sound to a brickies curse because I was never a brickie, > since I was  trained carpenter and joiner early in life before spending > 15 years as a foreman in charge of large contracts to try to ekk the best > work i could from the team comprised of all sorts of trades people, > who by enlarge despite their idiosyncrasies we all depend on and who work > harder for their money than many an intellectual layabout I could think of. > Some of the carpenteer’s curses I have heard leave the type of curse that a brickie thinks up > as being rather palid, but shearers from NZ who come to OZ to undercut the Oz labour rates > give even rosier curses, and the Oz shearers also are rather cursery. > Sheep are nevous in Oz at the sight of the NZ labour which excells at the > work of shearing sheep. > Ever tried shearing Andre? > Its the worst sort of torture, but we have winter wollies as a result, > and so best we forget these sweaty meaty men’s growls and consternations. > Oh, and we have those extremely supreme merino wool suits > as a result of sheep being well bred in OZ, and bred better than the men who shear > them. > There was a saying that Australia rides on the sheep’s back, meaning that out trade surplus depended > on vast quantities of wool being traded. > If a few sheep got ridden on some other way then that’s no big deal, > what’s a man to do when he is 1,500 Kms from a woman? > >West Coast American English is now the world canonical standard. Northeast US English is more similar to British English than the Midwest/West Coast version FWIW.< > You’re a blustering idiot, Ludwig, with a perverse talent for > expressing certainty in exactly inverse proportion to your knowledge on > any subject. In this case the observable truth is diametrically > opposite to your claim; no wonder you claim your erroneous version so > loudly and so certainly. The canonical standard of movers and shakers > is that midatlantic version of English heard in the Northeast US, not > on the West Coast as you claim. One has to be rather low on the food > tree to aspire to speak as one hears actors speak in Hollywood movies. > I can understand how you made the error; you should try getting away > from your street corner gang more often. > >Americans don’t speak English, they speak American.< > I can understand why you have to do PA rather than audio, Don. You’re > tonedeaf. I imagine that you speak the same way most people who need to > travel to earn a living do, with an intonation somewhere between > Sandhurst and Hyannisport, that accent which the ignorant, the envious > and closet socialists decry as "mid-Atlantic" or > "multinationalspeak" or "adman anglo-american", because if you > spoke one of the English dialects so beloved of the left**, no one > would understand a word you say and you would not do any business. > Besides being tonedeaf-not that I think it matters for a PA > merchant-you are also, once more, spouting ignorantly on a subject of > which you know nothing. Americans speak English, and a large part of > America speaks better English than the politically correct English do. > In the leafy Pilgrim States you can hear the authentic tones of > Plymouth and Portsmouth some centuries ago. Now, to save you the > embarrassment of being corrected twice in the same thread, let me > immediately answer your next dumb objection, that I am confusing an > Irish accent with English, before you even utter it. You’re wrong. > The final, incontrovertible authority is the BBC Pronunciation Unit. > They say the finest English in the world is now spoken in Ireland, in > St Colombines, a private school (what you call a public school*) in > Dublin. > I trust that has cleared up this matter. > Andre Jute > Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ > "an unbelievably comprehensive web site" — Hi-Fi News & Record Review > *Though I speak quite a few languages, and in many of them all the > dialects that can make one fit in (in France, for instance, one > doesn’t when in the provinces speak like the 16th arrondissement of > Paris unless one wants to be ripped a second fundament by the local > traders, except in August when no one in his right mind is found in > Paris and the provincial traders are fully occupied ripping the English > a second arsehole), I have on second thoughts turned my face against > multilingualism (I never believed in multiculuralism even when it was > freshly minted-it was a sleight of hand then and now stands exposed > for what it always was, a political crock, and a leaky one at that). > Cosmopolitans universally speak English. > Civilized peoples universally > speak English. The middle classes, the bedrock of civil, peaceful > society, universally speak English. More Chinese speak English than > Americans who speak English. English is compulsory in Russian and > Chinese schools. Let them learn English. Communication is peace. > What can I say? > I thought that civilisation diminished exponentially the further you went away from > Paris or London, so that by the time you get to Australia, and > its inner dusty regions the civilistation is extremely filtered, and the bandwidth of > civilisation is quite narrow, acompanied by a lot of > But at least a few here have not forgot the legacy of things british, > and the legacy of the inumerable peoples who went before britain became a power > and with such a linguistic legacy. > Australia has not had a history which included civil wars since 1788. > Before that, the ppl here were the blacks, and they skirmished with each other > often enough so that a man risked bastardry from his fellow man much in the same > way could occur in Britain before 1788. > Would being able to express himself better have done a man any better > if he’d had english? > I really wonder. > Much of the history of the peoples who speak english is drenched with blood and bloody mindedness. > as the story of english speaking peoples will describe. > But what happens in 50 years when India and China have hyper world power status and the > power of Washington is on a dismal wane? > I grew > up in South Africa where the Afrikaners turned their language into an > irredentist cause; I have lived the last quarter-century in Ireland, > where a minority of the Irish have turned their language (Gaelic) into > an irredentist cause. > Irredendist. > I don’t know this word. > Does it mean "likely

… read more »

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Amp U. Tator, YACA, said: >>The sad fact that you think someone might be interested in your bovine >>excrement is only a symptom of your psychopathology. >Ah, when one spots usage of phraseology like "bovine excrement" >vs. simple "bullshit", an upper middle class wannabe has been > That’s the exact same thought I had when I saw your tortured circumlocution > "phraseology" where an unpretentious person would say "phrase". >ID’d. > Grammar much? ;-) > . > .

That’s fair. But "tortured circumlocution" just won you the asshole-ology trophy ;-)

Response:

>Jesus, save me from newsgroup gurus spouting their ignorance.

No irony there… BTW, thanks for crossposting this to aga. Appreciated, as usual. The Repair Guy http://repairguy1993.netfirms.com/

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >But I did enjoy Alistair Cook’s "letter from America" every time he came on radio here. > >Perhaps you think him smug and pompous, but I though he could speak > >quite proper for a yank. > Hee hee! Alistair wasn’t a Yank. He was born in Salford – that was why > he could speak quite proper (well, quite proper for a Lancastrian) >On this occasion I don’t care if you are correct, but he sounded >"well bred american" to me.

Ah, so you were *not* joking! AC never sounded like a Yank in his life, or even a ‘well bred American’ – surely a contradiction in terms for that infant mongrel nation? — Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art – Audio is Engineering

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >But I did enjoy Alistair Cook’s "letter from America" every time he came on radio here. > >Perhaps you think him smug and pompous, but I though he could speak > >quite proper for a yank. > Hee hee! Alistair wasn’t a Yank. He was born in Salford – that was why > he could speak quite proper (well, quite proper for a Lancastrian) > On this occasion I don’t care if you are correct, but he sounded > "well bred american" to me.

Really ? I’d never have thought that. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3581573.stm it’s Cooke btw. Graham

Response:

> But I did enjoy Alistair Cook’s "letter from America" every time he came on radio here. > Perhaps you think him smug and pompous, but I though he could speak > quite proper for a yank.

He was English. Born Salford 1908, educated Blackpool GS and Jesus, Cambridge. He sent letters home from the former colony. hth Andy

Response:

>> But I did enjoy Alistair Cook’s "letter from America" every time he came on radio here. > Perhaps you think him smug and pompous, but I though he could speak > quite proper for a yank. >He was English. Born Salford 1908, educated Blackpool GS and Jesus, Cambridge. >He sent letters home from the former colony.

Actually his letters were Letters from America. He was pretty categorical that they were not Letters to England. I presume he wanted to keep his worldwide syndication options uncluttered. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>But I did enjoy Alistair Cook’s "letter from America" every time he came on radio here. >>Perhaps you think him smug and pompous, but I though he could speak >>quite proper for a yank. >He was English. Born Salford 1908, educated Blackpool GS and Jesus, Cambridge. >He sent letters home from the former colony. > Actually his letters were Letters from America. He was pretty > categorical that they were not Letters to England. I presume he wanted > to keep his worldwide syndication options uncluttered.

His name was Alfred Cooke, he added the Alistair aged 22. He became a naturalised American in 1941 He was a British Broadcasting Corporation employee/contractor. The BBC commissioned the series. I strongly suspect that the BBC owned the rights and that they syndicated them. It was originally American Letter. The BBC certainly had the rights to broadcast it on the world service almost everywhere. best Andy

Response:

> I don’t object to brickies. I object to their common bolshie > anti-Americanism. You’re hardly one to fling accusations at > intellectuals. You write more on the net than most intellectuals.

But quantity doesn’t make me an intellectual. What is an intellectual anyway? one who uses his intellect I guess, and I could and might fling some pithy comments at some interllectuals but I’d probably be wasting my time, since so many are immune to persuasion, or the idea that perhaps there is really more than one valid view about just about anything. > Alastair Cooke was born an Englishman and went to America on a > scholarship in 1932. I really don’t understrand why you would think I > had a problem with Cooke.

I could understand if you either liked or hated the man. I sure liked his clarity, which gave a fidelity of description if you wish, perhaps he’d have made a better President than some the US has had, but then it takes more than being a good speaker and conveyor of the essence of the doings of the ppl in a country to be President, shirtloads of money are required, and IQ over 90. > I loved him. I ate in the kitchen every > Friday night in order to listen to his Letter from America.

A heck of a lot of his reports are now on CD…… > Irredentism is what the IRA and Basque terrorists practice. It means a > splintering from a proper nation. It is always driven by a separate > language. I don’t care if the single language is English or Mandarin or > Spanish, as long as we take away from these mickey mouse nationalists > one of their trouble-making false distinctions from all other people.

Perhaps you have a point, but were not the troubles of the Irish due to the way the poms treated the Irish? The Irish were deprived of their ancestral farming land and forced to bow to the english lords… My ancestors emigrated to Oz to escape the potato famine. My great great grandmother went to the wharf to see her best friend off who had bought a passage to Oz on a sailing ship. But at the wharf the friend got cold feet, and my GGGM said "Well now Mary, t’would be a shame to waste such a fine ticket, I’ll be off to Australia meself now", and the rest is history. But many who would never have emigrated decided to fight the british. Was it language that caused that or just attachment and love for the home soil? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Patrick Turner, tree qwarters Irish, ( but two turds english ).

Response:

> Ah, so you were *not* joking! AC never sounded like a > Yank in his life, or even a ‘well bred American’ – surely > a contradiction in terms for that infant mongrel nation?

It’s called "hybrid vigor"  ;_)

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Amp U. Tator, YACA, said: >>> The sad fact that you think someone might be interested in your bovine >>> excrement is only a symptom of your psychopathology. >> Ah, when one spots usage of phraseology like "bovine excrement" >> vs. simple "bullshit", an upper middle class wannabe has been > That’s the exact same thought I had when I saw your tortured > circumlocution > "phraseology" where an unpretentious person would say "phrase". >> ID’d. > Grammar much? ;-) > . > . > That’s fair. > But "tortured circumlocution" just won you the asshole-ology trophy ;-)

I’d just like to say… Nah, soddit, I won’t bother! :) Jute sounds like a total tosser to me tho.

Response:

Question:

Dishonest, Reprehensible, Corrupt …     By Frank Rich     The New York Times     Sunday 27 November 2005     George W. Bush is so desperate for allies that his hapless Asian tour took him to Ulan Bator, a first for an American president, so he could mingle with the yaks and give personal thanks for Mongolia’s contribution of some 160 soldiers to "the coalition of the willing." Dick Cheney, whose honest-and-ethical poll number hit 29 percent in Newsweek’s latest survey, is so radioactive that he vanished into his bunker for weeks at a time during the storms Katrina and Scootergate.     The whole world can see that both men are on the run. Just how much so became clear in the brace of nasty broadsides each delivered this month about Iraq. Neither man engaged the national debate ignited by John Murtha about how our troops might be best redeployed in a recalibrated battle against Islamic radicalism. Neither offered a plan for "victory." Instead, both impugned their critics’ patriotism and retreated into the past to defend the origins of the war. In a seasonally appropriate impersonation of the misanthropic Mr. Potter from "It’s a Wonderful Life," the vice president went so far as to label critics of the administration’s prewar smoke screen both "dishonest and reprehensible" and "corrupt and shameless." He sounded but one epithet away from a defibrillator.     The Washington line has it that the motivation for the Bush-Cheney rage is the need to push back against opponents who have bloodied the White House in the polls. But, Mr. Murtha notwithstanding, the Democrats are too feeble to merit that strong a response. There is more going on here than politics.     Much more: each day brings slam-dunk evidence that the doomsday threats marshaled by the administration to sell the war weren’t, in Cheney-speak, just dishonest and reprehensible but also corrupt and shameless. The more the president and vice president tell us that their mistakes were merely innocent byproducts of the same bad intelligence seen by everyone else in the world, the more we learn that this was not so. The web of half-truths and falsehoods used to sell the war did not happen by accident; it was woven by design and then foisted on the public by a P.R. operation built expressly for that purpose in the White House. The real point of the Bush-Cheney verbal fisticuffs this month, like the earlier campaign to take down Joseph Wilson, is less to smite Democrats than to cover up wrongdoing in the executive branch between 9/11 and shock and awe.     The cover-up is failing, however. No matter how much the president and vice president raise their decibel levels, the truth keeps roaring out. A nearly 7,000-word investigation in last Sunday’s Los Angeles Times found that Mr. Bush and his aides had "issued increasingly dire warnings" about Iraq’s mobile biological weapons labs long after U.S. intelligence authorities were told by Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service that the principal source for these warnings, an Iraqi defector in German custody code-named Curveball, "never claimed to produce germ weapons and never saw anyone else do so." The five senior German intelligence officials who spoke to The Times said they were aghast that such long-discredited misinformation from a suspected fabricator turned up in Colin Powell’s presentation to the United Nations and in the president’s 2003 State of the Union address (where it shared billing with the equally bogus 16 words about Saddam’s fictitious African uranium).     Right after the L.A. Times scoop, Murray Waas filled in another piece of the prewar propaganda puzzle. He reported in the nonpartisan National Journal that 10 days after 9/11, "President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda."     The information was delivered in the President’s Daily Brief, a C.I.A. assessment also given to the vice president and other top administration officials. Nonetheless Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney repeatedly pounded in an implicit (and at times specific) link between Saddam and Al Qaeda until Americans even started to believe that the 9/11 attacks had been carried out by Iraqis. More damning still, Mr. Waas finds that the "few credible reports" of Iraq-Al Qaeda contacts actually involved efforts by Saddam to monitor or infiltrate Islamic terrorist groups, which he regarded as adversaries of his secular regime. Thus Saddam’s antipathy to Islamic radicals was the same in 2001 as it had been in 1983, when Donald Rumsfeld, then a Reagan administration emissary, embraced the dictator as a secular fascist ally in the American struggle against the theocratic fascist rulers in Iran.     What these revelations also tell us is that Mr. Bush was wrong when he said in his Veterans Day speech that more than 100 Congressional Democrats who voted for the Iraqi war resolution "had access to the same intelligence" he did. They didn’t have access to the President’s Daily Brief that Mr. Waas uncovered. They didn’t have access to the information that German intelligence officials spoke about to The Los Angeles Times. Nor did they have access to material from a Defense Intelligence Agency report, released by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan this month, which as early as February 2002 demolished the reliability of another major source that the administration had persistently used for its false claims about Iraqi-Al Qaeda collaboration.     The more we learn about the road to Iraq, the more we realize that it’s a losing game to ask what lies the White House told along the way. A simpler question might be: What was not a lie? The situation recalls Mary McCarthy’s explanation to Dick Cavett about why she thought Lillian Hellman was a dishonest writer: "Every word she writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the.’ "     If Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney believe they were truthful in the run-up to the war, it’s easy for them to make their case. Instead of falsely claiming that they’ve been exonerated by two commissions that looked into prewar intelligence – neither of which addressed possible White House misuse and mischaracterization of that intelligence – they should just release the rest of the President’s Daily Briefs and other prewar documents that are now trickling out. Instead, incriminatingly enough, they are fighting the release of any such information, including unclassified documents found in post-invasion Iraq requested from the Pentagon by the pro-war, neocon Weekly Standard. As Scott Shane reported in The New York Times last month, Vietnam documents are now off limits, too: the National Security Agency won’t make public a 2001 historical report on how American officials distorted intelligence in 1964 about the Gulf of Tonkin incident for fear it might "prompt uncomfortable comparisons" between the games White Houses played then and now to gin up wars.     Sooner or later – probably sooner, given the accelerating pace of recent revelations – this embarrassing information will leak out anyway. But the administration’s deliberate efforts to suppress or ignore intelligence that contradicted its Iraq crusade are only part of the prewar story. There were other shadowy stations on the disinformation assembly line. Among them were the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group, a two-man Pentagon operation specifically created to cherry-pick intelligence for Mr. Cheney’s apocalyptic Iraqi scenarios, and the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), in which Karl Rove, Karen Hughes and the Cheney hands Lewis Libby and Mary Matalin, among others, plotted to mainline this propaganda into the veins of the press and public. These murky aspects of the narrative – like the role played by a private P.R. contractor, the Rendon Group, examined by James Bamford in the current Rolling Stone – have yet to be recounted in full.     No debate about the past, of course, can undo the mess that the administration made in Iraq. But the past remains important because it is a road map to both the present and the future. Leaders who dissembled then are still doing so. Indeed, they do so even in the same speeches in which they vehemently deny having misled us then – witness Mr. Bush’s false claims about what prewar intelligence was seen by Congress and Mr. Cheney’s effort last Monday to again conflate the terrorists of 9/11 with those "making a stand in Iraq." (Maj. Gen. Douglas Lute, director of operations for Centcom, says the Iraqi insurgency is 90 percent homegrown.) These days Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney routinely exaggerate the readiness of Iraqi troops, much as they once inflated Saddam’s W.M.D.’s.     "We’re not going to sit by and let them rewrite history," the vice president said of his critics. "We’re going to continue throwing their own words back at them." But according to a Harris poll released by The Wall Street Journal last Wednesday, 64 percent of Americans now believe that the Bush administration "generally misleads the American public on current issues to achieve its own ends." That’s why it’s Mr. Cheney’s and the president’s own words that are being thrown back now – not to rewrite history but to reveal it for the first time to an angry country that has learned the hard way that it can no longer afford to be without the truth. _____ Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company <http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/112705Y.shtml>        Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access              >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Response:

> Dishonest, Reprehensible, Corrupt … >    By Frank Rich >    The New York Times

Dishonest, reprehensible, and corrupt? That typifies Frank Rich! Frank Rich’s War "Those who charge President Bush and Vice President Cheney with lying to get America involved in the war in Iraq, as the New York Times columnist Frank Rich did yesterday, have a special obligation to get the truth correct themselves. It’s one thing for Mr. Rich to disagree with the decision to go to war in Iraq and to blame Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney for the decision. It’s another for Mr. Rich to accuse our elected leaders of misleading the country while the columnist himself goes about misleading readers of The New York Times. The Niger Uranium Mr. Rich’s New York Times column yesterday refers to Mr. Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address with the "bogus 16 words about Saddam’s fictitious African uranium." Those words were, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." But those 16 words are neither bogus nor fictitious. They were and are true. A July 2004 report of the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported that an Iraqi delegation visited Niger in June of 1999 and met with Niger’s then-prime minister, Ibrahim Mayaki. The committee relayed that Mr. Mayaki said the meeting was about "expanding commercial relations" between the two countries, which Mr. Mayaki interpreted to mean "that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales." A July 2004 report by the British government’s Butler Commission found that Mr. Bush’s State of the Union comment was "well-founded." As the Commission put it, "It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible. … The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it." According to the Butler Commission, Saddam Hussein’s government claimed that a 1999 mission to Niger by Iraq’s ambassador to the Vatican was for the purpose of conveying an invitation to the Nigerian president to visit Iraq. Now, it’s possible that, in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, if Frank Rich were president, he would have concluded that the Iraqi ambassador to the Vatican probably just had jetted down to Niger for the purpose of hand-delivering an invitation. But the British concluded otherwise, and it’s hardly "bogus" or "fictitious" for Mr. Bush to have said so. Given Saddam’s known nuclear ambitions – remember Osirak? – and Niger’s main export, would it have been prudent for Mr. Bush to take the word of Saddam’s envoy over that of the British? Two Commissions Mr. Rich’s New York Times column yesterday accuses Messrs. Bush and Cheney of "falsely claiming they’ve been exonerated by two commissions that looked into prewar intelligence – neither of which addressed possible White House misuse and mischaracterization of that intelligence." Yet two major reports that looked into the matter of the administration and intelligence did exonerate the president. Here is a quote from the report of the bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission: "The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community’s pre-war assessments of Iraq’s weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments." Here is a quote from the report of the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: "The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities." Yet, in contravention of those conclusions – reached by groups that included Democrats such as Senators Edwards, Levin, Wyden, and Durbin and Clinton administration officials Lloyd Cutler, William Studeman, and Walter Slocombe – Mr. Rich speaks of "the administration’s deliberate efforts to suppress or ignore intelligence that contradicted its Iraq crusade." September 11 and Iraq Mr. Rich accuses Mr. Cheney of dissembling by conflating the terrorists of September 11, 2001, with those we are fighting in Iraq. As evidence that Mr. Cheney is lying he cites an American general who says the Iraqi insurgency is 90% homegrown. But it’s undisputed that the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq is a Jordanian, Zarqawi, who shares with the rest of Al Qaeda, including the September 11 terrorists, the goal of re-establishing the caliphate. Certainly in their violent targeting of civilians and their jihadist rhetoric, those who attacked New York office buildings on September 11 and those who are blowing up restaurants and hospitals in Iraq have a lot in common. One may choose to emphasize or de-emphasize the similarities, but emphasizing the similarities as Mr. Cheney has done hardly amounts to dissembling. The DIA Report and Senator Levin Mr. Rich references a report of the Defense Intelligence Agency released by Senator Levin, a Democrat of Michigan, which Mr. Rich said demolished the credibility of a source the administration used "for its false claims about Iraq-Al Qaeda collaboration." Here’s how Mr. Levin hyped the report in a press release. "In February 2002, the DIA stated the following, which has remained classified until now: ‘Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.’ That DIA finding is stunningly different from repeated Administration claims of a close relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Just imagine the impact if that DIA conclusion had been disclosed at the time. It surely could have made a difference in the congressional vote authorizing the war." The only stunning thing here is the disingenuousness of Messrs. Levin and Rich. First of all, the DIA report is not much different from what Bush administration officials were saying publicly at the time. On February 6, 2002, the director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, made a similar argument in public testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, saying, "Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It has also had contacts with al-Qa’ida. Their ties may be limited by divergent ideologies, but the two sides’ mutual antipathy toward the United States and the Saudi royal family suggests that tactical cooperation between them is possible – even though Saddam is well aware that such activity would carry serious consequences." Moreover, the notion that the secular Baathists and the Islamic jihadists are so ideologically divergent that they will not work together has been disproven by what is going on now in Iraq, where they are cooperating against Iraqi moderates and American troops. James Bamford Mr. Rich cites the reporting in Rolling Stone of James Bamford. Yet even Mr. Rich’s own newspaper, the Times, in reviewing Mr. Bamford’s 2001 book, remarked on Mr. Bamford’s "palpable distaste for the Israeli state." Said the Times review, "Rather too credulously, Bamford sides with the conspiracy theorists." The Truth Mr. Rich writes that the White House’s record on the road to Iraq recalls the saying, "Every word she writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the.’" Here is what Mr. Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address, the one whose 16 words about Uranium in Africa caused such a storm. "The dictator who is assembling the world’s most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages – leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained – by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning." That the president spoke the truth has been sadly confirmed in free Iraq. The Associated Press’s Nadia Abou El-Magd interviewed Firas Adnan, whose tongue had been cut off with a box cutter by a Saddam loyalist. Mr. Adnan, "his slurred words barely comprehensible," said of Saddam, "He is a despot, the biggest despot, Iraq will be much better without him." Susan Sachs of Mr. Rich’s own New York Times reported from the mass graves of Hilla: "On April 11, 1991, a few weeks into the Shiite rebellion, Iraqi helicopters dropped leaflets over Karbala ordering everyone to leave or be attacked with chemical weapons. Mr. Mohani piled his relatives into a pickup truck and a car and fled. About four miles south of the city, the escape route was blocked. There, he said, he saw Mr. Hussein’s son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, executing people randomly at a checkpoint. ‘He was telling people to get out of their cars and then he would shoot them, shoot them until his arm was too tired to do it anymore.’" Does Mr. Rich think his own colleague and the Associated Press are also part of what he derides as "propaganda" and "the disinformation assembly line"? And when it comes time for a new generation to ask their elders what they did during the war to end the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, what are the editors of the Times going to have to say for themselves?" … read more »

Response:

i’m afraid that you have provided proof (once again) that our friends to the left here will not read and will not respond to. you have made your point quite well, and with impartial judges, you would have won this debate. our friends however, will never awknowledg that. Kudo’s to you anyway. now stand back and wait for the petty name calling that is sure to come now that their are facts on the table for them to ignore and push aside. take care, paul az

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Dishonest, Reprehensible, Corrupt … >    By Frank Rich >    The New York Times > Dishonest, reprehensible, and corrupt? That typifies Frank Rich! > Frank Rich’s War > "Those who charge President Bush and Vice President Cheney with lying to > get America involved in the war in Iraq, as the New York Times columnist > Frank Rich did yesterday, have a special obligation to get the truth > correct themselves. It’s one thing for Mr. Rich to disagree with the > decision to go to war in Iraq and to blame Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney for the > decision. It’s another for Mr. Rich to accuse our elected leaders of > misleading the country while the columnist himself goes about misleading > readers of The New York Times. > The Niger Uranium > Mr. Rich’s New York Times column yesterday refers to Mr. Bush’s 2003 State > of the Union address with the "bogus 16 words about Saddam’s fictitious > African uranium." Those words were, "The British government has learned > that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from > Africa." But those 16 words are neither bogus nor fictitious. They were > and are true. A July 2004 report of the bipartisan Senate Select Committee > on Intelligence reported that an Iraqi delegation visited Niger in June of > 1999 and met with Niger’s then-prime minister, Ibrahim Mayaki. The > committee relayed that Mr. Mayaki said the meeting was about "expanding > commercial relations" between the two countries, which Mr. Mayaki > interpreted to mean "that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium > yellowcake sales." > A July 2004 report by the British government’s Butler Commission found > that Mr. Bush’s State of the Union comment was "well-founded." As the > Commission put it, "It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials > visited Niger in 1999.The British Government had intelligence from several > different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of > acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of > Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible. … The forged documents > were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment > was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it." > According to the Butler Commission, Saddam Hussein’s government claimed > that a 1999 mission to Niger by Iraq’s ambassador to the Vatican was for > the purpose of conveying an invitation to the Nigerian president to visit > Iraq. Now, it’s possible that, in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, if > Frank Rich were president, he would have concluded that the Iraqi > ambassador to the Vatican probably just had jetted down to Niger for the > purpose of hand-delivering an invitation. But the British concluded > otherwise, and it’s hardly "bogus" or "fictitious" for Mr. Bush to have > said so. Given Saddam’s known nuclear ambitions – remember Osirak? – and > Niger’s main export, would it have been prudent for Mr. Bush to take the > word of Saddam’s envoy over that of the British? > Two Commissions > Mr. Rich’s New York Times column yesterday accuses Messrs. Bush and Cheney > of "falsely claiming they’ve been exonerated by two commissions that > looked into prewar intelligence – neither of which addressed possible > White House misuse and mischaracterization of that intelligence." Yet two > major reports that looked into the matter of the administration and > intelligence did exonerate the president. Here is a quote from the report > of the bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission: "The Commission found no > evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community’s > pre-war assessments of Iraq’s weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in > the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance > did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical > judgments." > Here is a quote from the report of the bipartisan Senate Select Committee > on Intelligence: "The Committee did not find any evidence that > Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure > analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of mass > destruction capabilities." Yet, in contravention of those conclusions – > reached by groups that included Democrats such as Senators Edwards, Levin, > Wyden, and Durbin and Clinton administration officials Lloyd Cutler, > William Studeman, and Walter Slocombe – Mr. Rich speaks of "the > administration’s deliberate efforts to suppress or ignore intelligence > that contradicted its Iraq crusade." > September 11 and Iraq > Mr. Rich accuses Mr. Cheney of dissembling by conflating the terrorists of > September 11, 2001, with those we are fighting in Iraq. As evidence that > Mr. Cheney is lying he cites an American general who says the Iraqi > insurgency is 90% homegrown. But it’s undisputed that the leader of Al > Qaeda in Iraq is a Jordanian, Zarqawi, who shares with the rest of Al > Qaeda, including the September 11 terrorists, the goal of re-establishing > the caliphate. Certainly in their violent targeting of civilians and their > jihadist rhetoric, those who attacked New York office buildings on > September 11 and those who are blowing up restaurants and hospitals in > Iraq have a lot in common. One may choose to emphasize or de-emphasize the > similarities, but emphasizing the similarities as Mr. Cheney has done > hardly amounts to dissembling. > The DIA Report and Senator Levin > Mr. Rich references a report of the Defense Intelligence Agency released > by Senator Levin, a Democrat of Michigan, which Mr. Rich said demolished > the credibility of a source the administration used "for its false claims > about Iraq-Al Qaeda collaboration." Here’s how Mr. Levin hyped the report > in a press release. "In February 2002, the DIA stated the following, which > has remained classified until now: ‘Saddam’s regime is intensely secular > and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is > unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.’ That DIA > finding is stunningly different from repeated Administration claims of a > close relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Just imagine the impact if > that DIA conclusion had been disclosed at the time. It surely could have > made a difference in the congressional vote authorizing the war." > The only stunning thing here is the disingenuousness of Messrs. Levin and > Rich. First of all, the DIA report is not much different from what Bush > administration officials were saying publicly at the time. On February 6, > 2002, the director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, made a similar > argument in public testimony before the Senate Select Committee on > Intelligence, saying, "Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, > altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It has also > had contacts with al-Qa’ida. Their ties may be limited by divergent > ideologies, but the two sides’ mutual antipathy toward the United States > and the Saudi royal family suggests that tactical cooperation between them > is possible – even though Saddam is well aware that such activity would > carry serious consequences." > Moreover, the notion that the secular Baathists and the Islamic jihadists > are so ideologically divergent that they will not work together has been > disproven by what is going on now in Iraq, where they are cooperating > against Iraqi moderates and American troops. > James Bamford > Mr. Rich cites the reporting in Rolling Stone of James Bamford. Yet even > Mr. Rich’s own newspaper, the Times, in reviewing Mr. Bamford’s 2001 book, > remarked on Mr. Bamford’s "palpable distaste for the Israeli state." Said > the Times review, "Rather too credulously, Bamford sides with the > conspiracy theorists." > The Truth > Mr. Rich writes that the White House’s record on the road to Iraq recalls > the saying, "Every word she writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the.’" > Here is what Mr. Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address, the one > whose 16 words about Uranium in Africa caused such a storm. "The dictator > who is assembling the world’s most dangerous weapons has already used them > on whole villages – leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or > disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained – > by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International > human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture > chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on > the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. > If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning." > That the president spoke the truth has been sadly confirmed in free Iraq. > The Associated Press’s Nadia Abou El-Magd interviewed Firas Adnan, whose > tongue had been cut off with a box cutter by a Saddam loyalist. Mr. Adnan, > "his slurred words barely comprehensible," said of Saddam, "He is a > despot, the biggest despot, Iraq will be much better without him." Susan > Sachs of Mr. Rich’s own New York Times reported from the mass graves of > Hilla: "On April 11, 1991, a few weeks into the Shiite

… read more »

Response:

> Dishonest, reprehensible, and corrupt?

Indeed. The Bush administration is dishonest, reprehensible, and corrupt.

Response:

Are you on some kind of quest to find the least credible publications in the world, John — the New York Sun editorial page?  You’ve got to be kidding…. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Dishonest, Reprehensible, Corrupt … >    By Frank Rich >    The New York Times >Dishonest, reprehensible, and corrupt? That typifies Frank Rich! >Frank Rich’s War >"Those who charge President Bush and Vice President Cheney with lying to get >America involved in the war in Iraq, as the New York Times columnist Frank >Rich did yesterday, have a special obligation to get the truth correct >themselves. It’s one thing for Mr. Rich to disagree with the decision to go >to war in Iraq and to blame Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney for the decision. It’s >another for Mr. Rich to accuse our elected leaders of misleading the country >while the columnist himself goes about misleading readers of The New York >Times. >The Niger Uranium >Mr. Rich’s New York Times column yesterday refers to Mr. Bush’s 2003 State >of the Union address with the "bogus 16 words about Saddam’s fictitious >African uranium." Those words were, "The British government has learned that >Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from >Africa." But those 16 words are neither bogus nor fictitious. They were and >are true. A July 2004 report of the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on >Intelligence reported that an Iraqi delegation visited Niger in June of 1999 >and met with Niger’s then-prime minister, Ibrahim Mayaki. The committee >relayed that Mr. Mayaki said the meeting was about "expanding commercial >relations" between the two countries, which Mr. Mayaki interpreted to mean >"that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales." >A July 2004 report by the British government’s Butler Commission found that >Mr. Bush’s State of the Union comment was "well-founded." As the Commission >put it, "It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in >1999.The British Government had intelligence from several different sources >indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since >uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the >intelligence was credible. … The forged documents were not available to >the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact >of the forgery does not undermine it." >According to the Butler Commission, Saddam Hussein’s government claimed that >a 1999 mission to Niger by Iraq’s ambassador to the Vatican was for the >purpose of conveying an invitation to the Nigerian president to visit Iraq. >Now, it’s possible that, in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, if Frank >Rich were president, he would have concluded that the Iraqi ambassador to >the Vatican probably just had jetted down to Niger for the purpose of >hand-delivering an invitation. But the British concluded otherwise, and it’s >hardly "bogus" or "fictitious" for Mr. Bush to have said so. Given Saddam’s >known nuclear ambitions – remember Osirak? – and Niger’s main export, would >it have been prudent for Mr. Bush to take the word of Saddam’s envoy over >that of the British? >Two Commissions >Mr. Rich’s New York Times column yesterday accuses Messrs. Bush and Cheney >of "falsely claiming they’ve been exonerated by two commissions that looked >into prewar intelligence – neither of which addressed possible White House >misuse and mischaracterization of that intelligence." Yet two major reports >that looked into the matter of the administration and intelligence did >exonerate the president. Here is a quote from the report of the bipartisan >Robb-Silberman commission: "The Commission found no evidence of political >pressure to influence the Intelligence Community’s pre-war assessments of >Iraq’s weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, >analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure >cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments." >Here is a quote from the report of the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on >Intelligence: "The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration >officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to change >their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities." >Yet, in contravention of those conclusions – reached by groups that included >Democrats such as Senators Edwards, Levin, Wyden, and Durbin and Clinton >administration officials Lloyd Cutler, William Studeman, and Walter >Slocombe – Mr. Rich speaks of "the administration’s deliberate efforts to >suppress or ignore intelligence that contradicted its Iraq crusade." >September 11 and Iraq >Mr. Rich accuses Mr. Cheney of dissembling by conflating the terrorists of >September 11, 2001, with those we are fighting in Iraq. As evidence that Mr. >Cheney is lying he cites an American general who says the Iraqi insurgency >is 90% homegrown. But it’s undisputed that the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq is >a Jordanian, Zarqawi, who shares with the rest of Al Qaeda, including the >September 11 terrorists, the goal of re-establishing the caliphate. >Certainly in their violent targeting of civilians and their jihadist >rhetoric, those who attacked New York office buildings on September 11 and >those who are blowing up restaurants and hospitals in Iraq have a lot in >common. One may choose to emphasize or de-emphasize the similarities, but >emphasizing the similarities as Mr. Cheney has done hardly amounts to >dissembling. >The DIA Report and Senator Levin >Mr. Rich references a report of the Defense Intelligence Agency released by >Senator Levin, a Democrat of Michigan, which Mr. Rich said demolished the >credibility of a source the administration used "for its false claims about >Iraq-Al Qaeda collaboration." Here’s how Mr. Levin hyped the report in a >press release. "In February 2002, the DIA stated the following, which has >remained classified until now: ‘Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is >wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to >provide assistance to a group it cannot control.’ That DIA finding is >stunningly different from repeated Administration claims of a close >relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Just imagine the impact if that >DIA conclusion had been disclosed at the time. It surely could have made a >difference in the congressional vote authorizing the war." >The only stunning thing here is the disingenuousness of Messrs. Levin and >Rich. First of all, the DIA report is not much different from what Bush >administration officials were saying publicly at the time. On February 6, >2002, the director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, made a similar >argument in public testimony before the Senate Select Committee on >Intelligence, saying, "Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, >altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It has also >had contacts with al-Qa’ida. Their ties may be limited by divergent >ideologies, but the two sides’ mutual antipathy toward the United States and >the Saudi royal family suggests that tactical cooperation between them is >possible – even though Saddam is well aware that such activity would carry >serious consequences." >Moreover, the notion that the secular Baathists and the Islamic jihadists >are so ideologically divergent that they will not work together has been >disproven by what is going on now in Iraq, where they are cooperating >against Iraqi moderates and American troops. >James Bamford >Mr. Rich cites the reporting in Rolling Stone of James Bamford. Yet even Mr. >Rich’s own newspaper, the Times, in reviewing Mr. Bamford’s 2001 book, >remarked on Mr. Bamford’s "palpable distaste for the Israeli state." Said >the Times review, "Rather too credulously, Bamford sides with the conspiracy >theorists." >The Truth >Mr. Rich writes that the White House’s record on the road to Iraq recalls >the saying, "Every word she writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the.’" >Here is what Mr. Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address, the one >whose 16 words about Uranium in Africa caused such a storm. "The dictator >who is assembling the world’s most dangerous weapons has already used them >on whole villages – leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or >disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained – by >torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International >human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture >chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on >the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If >this is not evil, then evil has no meaning." >That the president spoke the truth has been sadly confirmed in free Iraq. >The Associated Press’s Nadia Abou El-Magd interviewed Firas Adnan, whose >tongue had been cut off with a box cutter by a Saddam loyalist. Mr. Adnan, >"his slurred words barely comprehensible," said of Saddam, "He is a despot, >the biggest despot, Iraq will be much better without him." Susan Sachs of >Mr. Rich’s own New York Times reported from the mass graves of Hilla: "On >April 11, 1991, a few weeks into the Shiite rebellion, Iraqi helicopters >dropped leaflets over Karbala ordering everyone to leave or be attacked with >chemical weapons. Mr. Mohani piled his relatives into a pickup truck and a >car and fled. About four miles south of the city, the escape route was >blocked. There, he said, he saw Mr. Hussein’s son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, >executing people randomly at a checkpoint. ‘He was telling people to get out >of their cars and then he would shoot them, shoot them until his arm was too >tired to do it

… read more »

Response:

> Are you on some kind of quest to find the least credible publications in > the world, John — the New York Sun editorial page?

Once again a Lefty leaves the facts to stand, and attacks the source because the facts, are the facts, and he was unable to refute the facts. See ya, John

Response:

>But those 16 words are neither bogus nor fictitious. They were and are true.

Please – do we have to start this up all again.  They were bogus & they shouldn’t have been in the State of Union.  The CIA has said, the administration has said that, the Senate pre-war intel report said that.  Do I have to provide links & proof for all this or are you just going to be ignorant & stubborn again? Paul – when we present facts you never chime in & compliment us.  Why’s that? Mr Soul

Response:

> and attacks the source

New York Times. Pot. Kettle. Black.

Response:

Paul – shame on you.  Prove to you is one article that John cites that disagrees with an article that Bruce cites?  Why is it that you believe this NY Sun article – because John cites it? Mr Soul

Response:

> >But those 16 words are neither bogus nor fictitious. They were and are >true. > Please – do we have to start this up all again.

They were bogus & they > shouldn’t have been in the State of Union.  The CIA has said, the > administration has said that, the Senate pre-war intel report said > that.

They have NOT been proven incorrect. Those words were, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." 1) Bush stated  that the BRITISH Government, GOT THAT? The BRITISH, and the BRITS STILL stand behind that statement, and the Butler Report backs it up! Bush did NOT say the CIA, he clearly stated the BRITISH Government. > Do I have to provide links & proof for all this or are you just > going to be ignorant & stubborn again?

I have verified this before, but if you care to explore it again, that is your option. The BRITISH still stand behind that statement, and the Butler Report verifies that the British got that from HUMAN sources, NOT the Bogus documents, but HUMAN INTEL. > Paul – when we present facts you never chime in & compliment us.  Why’s > that?

Because you do NOT present facts, you throw rocks. See ya, John

Response:

>> Are you on some kind of quest to find the least credible publications in > the world, John — the New York Sun editorial page? >Once again a Lefty leaves the facts to stand, and attacks the source because >the facts, are the facts, and he was unable to refute the facts.

There is too much blatant spin and too many omitted "facts" in that ignorant editorial to waste my time citing point by point.   Whoever wrote it isn’t qualified to sharpen Frank Rich’s pencils.  The issue is settled, Rich nailed it, and the righty refutation attempts are uniformly pathetic.        Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access              >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Response:

>> and attacks the source > New York Times. > Pot. > Kettle. > Black.

You have made quite an ignorant claim. Find ONE occasion where I did not take on the facts, and I only attacked the source as YOU regularly do. Bye, John

Response:

> Prove to you is one article

"Prove to you is one article"?

Response:

> They have NOT been proven incorrect

Yes they have and you know it. Stop lying.

Response:

> >> and attacks the source > New York Times. > Pot. > Kettle. > Black. > You have made

You’re a bullshitter, pure and simple.

Response:

>> >> and attacks the source > > New York Times. > > Pot. > > Kettle. > > Black. > You have made > You’re a bullshitter, pure and simple.

As I previously stated, ONCE AGAIN, you make claims that you are unable to verify, but why let facts influence your posts at this late date! Find ONE occasion where I did not take on the facts, and I only attacked the source as YOU regularly do. Bye, John

Response:

>> They have NOT been proven incorrect > Yes they have and you know it. Stop lying.

Those words were, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Bush stated  that the BRITISH Government, GOT THAT? The BRITISH, and the BRITS STILL stand behind that statement, and the Butler Report backs it up! Bush did NOT say the CIA, he clearly stated the BRITISH Government. I have verified this before, but if you care to explore it again, that is your option. The BRITISH still stand behind that statement, and the Butler Report verifies that the British got that from HUMAN sources, NOT the Bogus documents, but HUMAN INTEL. These items are only important if you care to consider the facts, but that would require immense change in your thought process to include such matters into your cognitive processes, and why change your style at this late date. See ya, John

Response:

This is so sad that I have to present this information because John is capable of finding these facts. This is what you quoted: "But those 16 words are neither bogus nor fictitious. They were and are true." This statement is false.  If the author of the op-ed piece had said that Bush didn’t know that the words were wrong when he put them in the SofU speech, then it would be true.  But the author claims the words are still true, so the statement is false, because we NOW know that this information was bogus. "Both the Butler report and the Senate Intelligence Committee report make clear that Bush’s 16 words weren’t based on the fake documents. The British didn’t even see them until after issuing the reports — based on other sources — that Bush quoted in his 16 words. But discovery of the Italian fraud did trigger a belated reassessment of the Iraq/Niger story by the CIA." – The administration acknowledges the 16 words were false: "Fleischer: Now, we’ve long acknowledged — and this is old news, we’ve said this repeatedly — that the information on yellow cake did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect." – see http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030707-5.html. – The CIA now acknowedges the 16 words were false: "Tenet: These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President.".  See http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/press_release/2003/pr07112003.html.  Tenet also said: "Because we viewed the reporting on such acquisition attempts to be inconclusive, we expressed reservations about its inclusion but our colleagues said they were confident in their reports and left it in their document." – The Senate pre-war intel report acknowledges the 16 words were false: (U) Conclusion 21. When coordinating the State of the Union, no Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts or officials told the National Security Council (NSC) to remove the "16 words" or that there were concerns about the credibility of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting. A CIA official’s original testimony to the Committee that he told an NSC official to remove the words "Niger" and "500 tons" from the speech, is incorrect. Mr Soul

Response:

> >> >> and attacks the source >> > New York Times. >> > Pot. >> > Kettle. >> > Black. >> You have made > You’re a bullshitter, pure and simple. > As I previously stated

Wow. You admitted that you were a bullshitter? Great. Now the healing can begin.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >> >> and attacks the source > >> > New York Times. > >> > Pot. > >> > Kettle. > >> > Black. > >> You have made > > You’re a bullshitter, pure and simple. > As I previously stated > Wow. You admitted that you were a bullshitter? Great. Now the healing > can begin.

More dishonest edits, but we already know that it is NOT possible to have any faith in anything that you post. Find ONE occasion where I did not take on the facts, and I only attacked the source as YOU regularly do. Bye, John

Response:

> This is so sad that I have to present this information because John is > capable of finding these facts.

Once again you quote the CIA, and the CIA did NOT verify the claim, the Brits did, and the Brits still stand by the story. If you would care to read the 16 words, Bush says that the Brits said that Saddam was trying to buy Urnium from Niger. The Brits DID say that. The Brits still say that. What Bush said was FACTUAL. He did NOT say that the CIA was standing behind that claim, he said the BRITS, and the BRITS still stand behind it. See ya, John

Response:

> Find ONE occasion where I did not take on the facts, and I only attacked the > source as YOU regularly do

Your continuing attacks on the New York Times.

Response:

> and the CIA did NOT verify the claim

And Dubya still gave Tennet that Presidential medal. A payoff to keep him silent.

Response:

No – you are misrepresenting the piece that you cite.  If you would re-read that piece, it goes on at length to say that the actual words were correct, from sources other than the Brit’s.  Who cares if the Brit’s still stand by it, we know that it was incorrect? And it’s also sad that Bush would use British intel over our own.  If I had been Bush, I would have had those claims checked over & over again by our intelligence groups, before I told that the American people. Wouldn’t you have? The 16 words are an example of how Bush cherry-picked the intel w/o actually lying to the American people, which I’ve never claimed that he actually did.  He was smart enough to know that he couldn’t lie & get a way with it, so he cherry-picked. Mr Soul

Response:

>> Find ONE occasion where I did not take on the facts, and I only attacked > the > source as YOU regularly do > Your continuing attacks on the New York Times.

Find ONE. I have only clipped from papers like the New York Times own story were Calame admitted 239 stories that ran as factual while they were erroneous, and that he stated that many of those stories have still NOT been corrected. Again, I only address the facts! See ya! John

Response:

Question:

I have been considering different building methods for a small cottage, (~20′ x 26′ interior).  I have already dismissed ICFs and am thinking of using hollow core concrete blocks with solar heated air running through the cavities.  This air would be separate from the regular room air.  The floors would also use concrete blocks which I think would offer a very comfortable radiant envelope with built-in thermal mass. I was originally thinking of pex tube hydronic in-floor heat until I saw this link http://www.blockjoist.com/ that uses a special truss system with concrete blocks and top coat of regular concrete.  If the hollow cores in the floor were in line with the cores in the walls they might make for a good thermo-syphon conduit. I could cover the exterior with foam board and siding.  Although I would prefer field stone for the exterior, (lots of it laying around my place), it would require another wythe of concrete on the foundation wall down to the footing, which may be too costly.  This would make for a fairly solid sandwich wall structure that would be nearly impervious to the elements and vapor movement. One of my other concerns is freezing during extended power outages, (this is in northern Wisconsin).  If I avoid using hydronic heating I won’t have to worry about that system freezing and can plan my plumbing to allow for fast drain down for the time I am not there.  However, it would still be nice to have it maintain an above freezing temperature to avoid having to bring home all the things that could be damaged, (canned goods comes to mind).  If I could maintain about 40F with a passive system it would be easier to get comfortable after arriving late on a Friday evening when the outside temp is -20F. A friend of mine heats his place with wood, (24′ x 32′ with loft) and it takes half the weekend to get comfortable with several stokings at night.  Regardless of what type of other heat source I use I want things to be comfortable in a few hours and I thought this whole hollow core thermal mass passive thermal idea might work. I would probably use the entire gable end south wall as a collector with few or no windows.  The air would syphon through the attic above the second story loft, down the walls, through the floors and back through some sort of plenum in the basement floor to the bottom of the collector.  I’d also like to work it out so the air flow is in opposite directions in every other core of the floor to minimize any hot/cold spots. If the south wall has 9 vertical feet of collector space and a 22 x 11 foot triangular area above that on the 12 pitch gable I should be able to build a (9′ x 22′) + (11′ x 11′) = 319 sqft collector.  I don’t know enough yet to calculate any more results from this. If anyone has anything to add I would appreciate it.  I also have not calculated the cost difference of building with block as opposed to conventional materials.  If anyone has used the block truss floor system I would also appreciate any feedback on costs/performance of that as well. Thanks, Dennis

Response:

How do you know these construction block holes will not be full of mortar, as they should? How will you connect one tube with the next and still support the roof or are they all in parallel?

> I have been considering different building methods

for a small cottage, > (~20′ x 26′ interior).  I have already dismissed ICFs and am thinking > of using hollow core concrete blocks with solar heated air running > through the cavities.  This air would be separate

from the regular room > air.  The floors would also use concrete blocks which I think would > offer a very comfortable radiant envelope with

built-in thermal mass. > I was originally thinking of pex tube hydronic

in-floor heat until I – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> saw this link http://www.blockjoist.com/ that uses a special truss > system with concrete blocks and top coat of regular concrete.  If the > hollow cores in the floor were in line with the cores in the walls they > might make for a good thermo-syphon conduit. > I could cover the exterior with foam board and siding.  Although I > would prefer field stone for the exterior, (lots of it laying around my > place), it would require another wythe of concrete on the foundation > wall down to the footing, which may be too costly. This would make for > a fairly solid sandwich wall structure that would be nearly impervious > to the elements and vapor movement. > One of my other concerns is freezing during extended power outages, > (this is in northern Wisconsin).  If I avoid using hydronic heating I > won’t have to worry about that system freezing and

can plan my plumbing > to allow for fast drain down for the time I am not there.  However, it > would still be nice to have it maintain an above

freezing temperature – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> to avoid having to bring home all the things that could be damaged, > (canned goods comes to mind).  If I could maintain about 40F with a > passive system it would be easier to get comfortable after arriving > late on a Friday evening when the outside temp is -20F. > A friend of mine heats his place with wood, (24′ x 32′ with loft) and > it takes half the weekend to get comfortable with several stokings at > night.  Regardless of what type of other heat source I use I want > things to be comfortable in a few hours and I thought this whole hollow > core thermal mass passive thermal idea might work. > I would probably use the entire gable end south wall as a collector > with few or no windows.  The air would syphon through the attic above > the second story loft, down the walls, through the floors and back > through some sort of plenum in the basement floor to the bottom of the > collector.  I’d also like to work it out so the air flow is in opposite > directions in every other core of the floor to

minimize any hot/cold > spots. > If the south wall has 9 vertical feet of collector space and a 22 x 11 > foot triangular area above that on the 12 pitch gable I should be able > to build a (9′ x 22′) + (11′ x 11′) = 319 sqft

collector.  I don’t know > enough yet to calculate any more results from this. > If anyone has anything to add I would appreciate it. I also have not > calculated the cost difference of building with block as opposed to > conventional materials.  If anyone has used the block truss floor > system I would also appreciate any feedback on

costs/performance of – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> that as well. > Thanks, > Dennis

Response:

>How do you know these construction block holes will not >be full of mortar, as they should?

First, I will know if they are full of mortar if I am the one laying them.  Second, nothing says that they must be filled.  I could fill every 3rd core, this is common practice.  In fact, the empty cores are often filled with styrofoam beads.  In addition to that, if I use the double wythe foam sandwich wall with field stone above grade, that I mentioned, I wouldn’t have to fill any of the cores if the exterior wythe was the structural member.  If I understand everything correctly at this web sight http://www.blockjoist.com/ these blocks also are not filled with mortar. >How will you connect one tube with the next and still >support the roof or are they all in parallel?

I guess I’m not quite sure what you are asking.  I haven’t worked out every tiny detail yet.  However, the roof will be supported by some type of rafter system to allow for usable living space, ie. two bedrooms.  It might even be possible to use the block joist system for this.  A little cutting of block and/or strategic placement will allow the horizontal block cores and the vertical cores to line up.  There are also three sided blocks.  Maybe I could use three sided blocks at the corse that intersects with the floors. I’m really interested to know if anyone has tried the block joist system and if anyone who knows a lot more about solar collectors and thermal mass than I do thinks this may work or not and why. Dennis

Response:

>I have been considering different building methods for a small cottage, >(~20′ x 26′ interior)…

In northern Wisconsin, eg Eau Claire, where NREL says 430 Btu/ft^2 falls on the ground and 790 falls on a south wall on an average 16.8 F December day with a 25.3 F max. Not an easy solar house heating climate. >… thinking of using hollow core concrete blocks with solar heated air >running through the cavities.  This air would be separate from the regular >room air.

I’ve seen that, with room air entering and leaving block walls through holes at the top and bottom. Mice and dust come to mind, and a low temp swing. Mass with a higher temp swing can store more heat. Water can be cheaper than concrete and it stores about 3X more heat by volume. >The floors would also use concrete blocks which I think would >offer a very comfortable radiant envelope with built-in thermal mass.

Warm air rises, so getting solar heat into a floor is difficult. >I could cover the exterior with foam board and siding…

How much? >One of my other concerns is freezing during extended power outages…

You might just drain the pipes. >If I could maintain about 40F with a passive system it would be easier >to get comfortable after arriving late on a Friday evening when >the outside temp is -20F.

You might maintain 40 F with electric heat, or the loss from a large heat storage tank on the ground. You can heat SIPs a lot faster than concrete. Or 9" TGI walls with poured cellulose insulation. >A friend of mine heats his place with wood, (24′ x 32′ with loft) and >it takes half the weekend to get comfortable with several stokings at >night.  Regardless of what type of other heat source I use I want >things to be comfortable in a few hours and I thought this whole hollow >core thermal mass passive thermal idea might work.

I like the idea of massy ceilings for heat storage. Or a low-e ceiling surface above fin tube pipe, with a big heat storage tank on the ground. With a slow ceiling fan and a room temp thermostat and an occupancy sensor to warm a room as needed. >I would probably use the entire gable end south wall as a collector >with few or no windows.  The air would syphon through the attic above >the second story loft, down the walls, through the floors and back >through some sort of plenum in the basement floor to the bottom of the >collector.

The air is unlikely to flow naturally below the base of the collector. >If the south wall has 9 vertical feet of collector space and a 22 x 11 >foot triangular area above that on the 12 pitch gable I should be able >to build a (9′ x 22′) + (11′ x 11′) = 319 sqft collector.  I don’t know >enough yet to calculate any more results from this.

A square foot of R2 sunspace glazing with 80% solar transmission might collect 0.8×790 = 632 Btu and lose 6h(70-20)1ft^2/R2 = 150 on an average December day, ie 482 Btu net, so a 9′x22′ sunspace might collect 95.4K, or more, with an enclosed solar staircase roof. With 48 ft^2 of R4 windows and 694 ft^2 of Rw walls and 520ft^2/Rc of ceiling conductance and 12+694/Rw for windows and walls and 94.5K = 24h((65-16.8)(12+694/Rw+(Tc-16.8)520/Rc), 64.3/Rw+(Tc-16.8)/Rc = 6.45. With R32 walls, Tc = 16.8+4.44Rc. Rc = 40 makes Tc = 194 F, theoretically. If Tc = 120 and the ceiling can still warm the cottage at 80 and it loses 5×24h((100-16.8)520ft^2/R40+(65-16.8)(12+694ft^2/R32)) = 325K Btu over 5 cloudy days and (120-80)520P = 325K, P = 15.6 psf of ceiling water, ie a 3" depth. Or put fin-tube pipe under a low-e ceiling with 15.6×520 = 8112 pounds of water in a 130 ft^3 tank on the ground, eg a 4′x8′x4′ deep tank. Nick

Response:

>I’ve seen that, with room air entering and leaving block walls through holes >at the top and bottom. Mice and dust come to mind, and a low temp swing. >Mass with a higher temp swing can store more heat. Water can be cheaper >than concrete and it stores about 3X more heat by volume.

Yes, I’ve read a book about this concept.  However, I am considering a closed loop system in which the room air does not mix with the air in the cores.  If the system was sealed mice would not be able to get in and any concrete dust would stay in the cavities.  I understand that water is cheaper and a better thermal mass storage system.  The biggest issue I have with it, in this remote location, is that I don’t want any water that could freeze due to a system failure.  I’m also curious if HDPE tubes burried several feet under the basement floor might work for thermal heat storage.  I gotta dig that hole anyway, I may as well have it dug deeper while the guy is there with his back hoe.  This is on a hill top 20 feet above the water table. >The floors would also use concrete blocks which I think would >offer a very comfortable radiant envelope with built-in thermal mass. >Warm air rises, so getting solar heat into a floor is difficult.

If the system is a closed loop I’m not sure this will be a problem. I’m only just learning about this stuff, so help me to understand. Also, I was not very clear in my first description of what I envision. I’ll do my best to describe it without a drawing. This cottage would have a basement floor, main floor/basement ceiling and second floor/main floor ceiling with concrete blocks lying on their sides, connected to each level via the cores in concrete block walls. In the 45 degree angle slanting wall area of the loft/second floor there would be a ceiling about 7 feet high.  The area above this second floor ceiling is where the heated solar collector air would first go after leaving the south wall.  If you were standing outside looking north at the solar collector and could see through the walls and could see the air moving it might look like this. As the air is heated in the collector it rises into the attic area, which is sealed and ducted through the rafters to the walls.  This displaces relatively cooler air through the ducts to the walls.  By blocking or partially blocking some of the cores I believe it could be directed at each intersection.  The path of air flow for one core might go down an east duct to knee wall to floor.  At the floor/main floor ceiling it moves west to the opposite wall, down the west wall to the main floor/basement ceiling, back through the floor to the east wall, down the east wall to the basement floor, through the basement floor into a large duct area running north to south under the center of the basement floor to the south wall, up the south wall cavities back to the lower entrance of the solar collector.  Does this make sense? I guess I understood a thermo-syphon with a solar collector to function similar to a DC electrical circuit.  If the air is run through ducts aren’t they like electrical conductors?  As long as they return to the source to make a complete circuit does it matter if some of them are physically lower than the collector? >I could cover the exterior with foam board and siding… >How much?

I’m not sure yet.  Perhaps 4", maybe more. >One of my other concerns is freezing during extended power outages… >You might just drain the pipes.

Yes, that would be easy enough to do, especially If I don’t have to get rid of 40 gallons of hot water.  Maybe I should install point of use water heaters. >You might maintain 40 F with electric heat, or the loss from a large heat >storage tank on the ground. You can heat SIPs a lot faster than concrete. >Or 9" TGI walls with poured cellulose insulation.

I agree and have considered SIPs.  My concerns about SIPs, (which I think are way cool), is the lack of availability in the area, the need for contractor installation with an expensive crane and crew make it a non DIY/local help project.  What are TGI walls? >I like the idea of massy ceilings for heat storage. Or a low-e ceiling >surface above fin tube pipe, with a big heat storage tank on the ground. >With a slow ceiling fan and a room temp thermostat and an occupancy >sensor to warm a room as needed.

This sounds like something I might like to try, maybe in my garage, or a house that I occupy regularly. >The air is unlikely to flow naturally below the base of the collector.

See my thought on this above. I appreciate your input.  You seem to be the most knowledgeable poster in this group on how to cost effectively incorporate solar heating. Like I said before, I am just learning.  One of my biggest misunderstandings is in some of the calculations.  I can grasp the concepts when explained, but many of the variables are foreign to me. Is there a file I can get that has this information? There are some other reasons why I am currently stuck on masonry construction, (yes, I could change my mind).  I like the strength it offers, it is resistant to things like storms and fire and is low maintenance.  The most likely causes of damage that I have seen are freezing pipes and burglary/vandalism.  This is a place I go to relax. I don’t want to worry about it or be saddled with a lot of maintenance like with the mobile home that is there now. I would also like to make steel shutters to cover the outside of the windows that would have sliding bolts on the inside that would slide into the wall for security when I am not there.  I could also make steel entrance door covers that have locking similar to some of the doors on Navy ships, which would also only be used when not there.  By making it extremely difficult to break in the thiefs will most likely move on to easier targets.  The weakest link then would be an angry vandal, ("how dare he try to keep me out"), who might take his frustration out on the solar collector, causing the building to freeze. So anyway, that is what I would like to accomplish a few years from now.  A small, cozy, aesthetically pleasing, story book cottage.  One that will last for generations. Dennis

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Warm air rises, so getting solar heat into a floor is difficult. >If the system is a closed loop I’m not sure this will be a problem… >This cottage would have a basement floor, main floor/basement ceiling >and second floor/main floor ceiling with concrete blocks lying on their >sides, connected to each level via the cores in concrete block walls. >In the 45 degree angle slanting wall area of the loft/second floor >there would be a ceiling about 7 feet high.  The area above this second >floor ceiling is where the heated solar collector air would first go >after leaving the south wall.  If you were standing outside looking >north at the solar collector and could see through the walls and could >see the air moving it might look like this. >As the air is heated in the collector it rises into the attic area, >which is sealed and ducted through the rafters to the walls.  This >displaces relatively cooler air through the ducts to the walls.

I’m not entirely clear about your plan, but it seems to me you might end up with a stagnant pocket of hot air in the attic. Cool air can "displace" warmer air by sliding below it, but I’m not sure the opposite works. >similar to a DC electrical circuit.  If the air is run through ducts >aren’t they like electrical conductors?

Sort of, but it’s hard to make warm air go downhill. >As long as they return to the source to make a complete circuit does it >matter if some of them are physically lower than the collector?

Maybe not. The basic force is bouyancy. Air at 70 F weighs about 0.075 lb/ft^3. At T (F), it weighs about 0.075(460+70)/(460+T). So in principle, you might figure out all the temperatures in a loop and find out whether air will circulate or not. But air is sneaky. >What are TGI walls?

TGIs are 2×3/plywood/2×3 trusses. They are normally used for joists vs studs, but you can use them for studs. You might make walls with 9.25" TGIs on 2′ centers. >Like I said before, I am just learning.  One of my biggest >misunderstandings is in some of the calculations.  I can grasp the >concepts when explained, but many of the variables are foreign to me. >Is there a file I can get that has this information?

I’ll append one. Nick Notes for a Pennsylvania Renewable Energy Festival Workshop on Solar House Heating and Natural Cooling Techniques Kempton, PA                September 24, 2005 Written by Nick Pine, with Drew Gillett and Rich Komp Debatable Conclusions 1. Heat flows like electricity. 2. Solar heat can be 100 times cheaper than solar electricity. 3. Superinsulated houses have to be very small or very large. 4. Direct gain houses can be improved. 5. Indirect gain can be more efficient. 6. We might store heat in the ceiling. 7. We might have a separate cloudy-day heat store. 8. Low temp heat storage and distribution are difficult. 9. Shurcliff’s lung might be a good air-air heat exchanger. 10. Greywater heat exchangers, Big Fins and solar ponds can help. 11. We might also gather heat from PVs. 12. Smart ventilation can be helpful. 13. Swamp coolers can be improved. 0.0 Introduction The US has 5% of the world’s population and consumes 26% of the world’s energy. House heating and cooling accounts for about one third of that. In 1980, "envelope house" inventor Tom Smith said:   It’s a snap to save energy in the US. As soon as more people become   involved in the basic math of heat transfer and get a gut-level,   as well as intellectual, grasp on how a house works, solution after   solution will appear. This workshop aims at improving that grasp, which we can control better than our US cheap energy policy… If we paid related costs of healthcare and air pollution and Gulf wars at the pump, gasoline would be a lot more expensive. Drew says this writeup needs exercises for the reader. OK: Exercise 0.1: The US consumed 21 million 42 gallon $41 barrels of oil per day in 2004. What goes into the real cost per gallon? (Debatable answers appear at the end of these notes :-) Most people think "electricity" when they hear "energy," even though most houses need more heating energy than electrical energy (the ratio is 1:1 in Hawaii and 5:1 in Vermont.) It’s easy to shrink the small electrical slice of the home energy pie with compact fluorescent (CF) lights and more efficient appliances. Solar heat can be very inexpensive compared to solar electricity. PV panels at $3 per peak watt cost 150X more than polycarbonate glazing at $1/50W = 0.02/Pw. And sunspaces add floorspace to a house. A square foot of "solar collector" only collects about $1/year at $1/gallon so anything (except PVs??? :-) that costs more than $10/ft^2 (half labor) and only collects energy with no other purpose seems economically-doomed… Exercise 0.2: Should we a) replace a 60 W bulb with a 14 watt CF or b) buy 60-14 = 46 additional watts of PV power? Most of us "know" how to design passive solar houses with well-established rules of thumb, but let’s relax and take a fresh look from a standpoint of basic physics…    Berlin is a nice town and there were many opportunities for a student to    spend his time in an agreeable manner, for instance with the nice girls.    But instead of that we had to perform big and awful calculations.        Konrad Zuse, inventor of the 1936 Z1 computer Overview This is a workshop on "Ohm’s law for heatflow" with applications to solar water and house heating and natural cooling. We’ll discuss a solar pond and a simple greywater heat exchanger, some inexpensive plastic pipe coiled inside a 55-gallon drum. With hot water bursts of 13 gallons or less, it could be 97% efficient. If it is, why bother with solar hot water? We’ll provide arithmetic tools and data and strategies needed to site-build effective house heating and cooling systems using inexpensive materials and skills. Participants will need some familiarity with high school algebra. We’ll discuss power, energy, heatflow, and overnight and cloudy day heat storage at a high-school math and physics level, with insulation values and heat capacities of materials, simple equations involving time constants, evaporative and night ventilation cooling, passive and low-energy solar heating, climate data, and schemes for houses that are 100% solar-heated and naturally cooled, by design. We’ll provide a calculator (Steve Baer says "Throw away your calculator." :-) and a CD-ROM. Promising techniques include solar closets, trickle collectors, "pancake houses," soap bubble foam insulation, and solar attics, including systems to collect heat and electricity from water-cooled standard PV panels. Rich Komp is president of the Maine Solar Energy Association and a PV author with a PChem PhD, Drew Gillett is a Professional Engineer with civil engineering and architectural degrees, and I’m an EE by training. Disclaimer Some of the techniques we describe are experimental. Some have never been tried. We do not accept responsibility for their safety or functionality. 1. Power and energy Energy is the stuff we pay for, measured in Joules or watt-hours or kilowatt-hours (kWh) or Calories or "British thermal units" (Btu), no longer used in Britain :-) The British now use joules or kWh. A Btu is a quantity of heat, about the same as the energy in a kitchen match or a mouse-hour. One Btu can heat one pound (16 ounces) of water one degree F. One Calorie (capital C, 4.19 kilojoules) can heat one kilogram of water 1 C. Exercise 1.1: How many Btu [joules] are needed to heat 8 ounces [0.25 kg] of water from 50 to 212 F [10 to 100 C] to make a cup of tea? [the brackets describe _comparable but not identical_ metric exercises.] Power is the rate of energy flow over time. A mere number, vs the stuff we pay for. Energy is power times time. One watt-hour of energy is equivalent to 3.41 Btu. If energy were miles traveled, power would be miles per hour. If energy were a paycheck, power would be an hourly rate of pay. Exercise 1.2: How long would it take to heat the tea water with a 300 W immersion heater? We might check this with an immersion heater and a watch and a $100 Raytek IR thermometer. Or a HOBO from Onset Computer Corp (1-800-LOGGERS.) Their $119 battery-powered U12-013 HOBO is about the size of a matchbox. It can record 43,000 12-bit samples at 1 second to 18 hour intervals of its own temperature and relative humidity (RH), with jacks for 2 more temperature probes or other devices on cables, and upload them to a PC spreadsheet via a USB port. People often confuse power and energy, as in "My house uses lots of power" (vs energy) or "My furnace capacity is 50,000 Btu," (vs Btu/h.) Power is measured in watts or kilowatts (kW.) Unlike energy, it can’t be used or consumed. People confuse heat and temperature, too. A bathtub full of hot water contains a lot of useful house heat, compared to a candle, but the candle is much hotter. A lower minimum usable temperature increases useful heat. Temperature is a measure of heat intensity. A 12-volt 100 amp-hour 50 pound automobile battery stores 267 times more energy (12Vx100Ah = 1200 Wh) than a 9-volt 500 milliamp-hour (9Vx0.5Ah = 4.5 Wh) 2 ounce transistor radio battery, at a lower voltage (ie "electrical temperature.") The $40 battery can store about 200 kWh over its lifetime, at 20 cents/kWh. A $1 cubic foot of water cooling from 130 to 80 F stores (130F-80F)64Btu/F = 3200 Btu, ie about 1 kWh, with a much longer lifetime and simpler I/O. 2. Rich Komp, Ohm, and Newton Rich Komp (who is still alive) says heat moves by conduction (a hot frying pan handle), convection (including air movement), radiation (the sun brings about 1000 watts per square meter or 300 Btu per hour per square foot on a clear day at noon in the Sahara), and phase change (144 Btu melts a pound of ice and 1000 Btu evaporates a pound of water.) About 300 years ago, Isaac Newton said the amount of heat that flows through a wall is proportional to its area and the temperature … read more »

Response:

Thanks Nick, I saved a copy of your notes.  I’ll have to print them out and run through the exercises. >As long as they return to the source to make a complete circuit does it >matter if some of them are physically lower than the collector? >Maybe not. The basic force is bouyancy. Air at 70 F weighs about 0.075 >lb/ft^3. At T (F), it weighs about 0.075(460+70)/(460+T). So in principle, >you might figure out all the temperatures in a loop and find out whether >air will circulate or not. But air is sneaky.

I see.  I guess I would be wise to try a small scale experiment before investing large sums of money.  Maybe I can try something with the old run down mobile home or the small shed out back.  Too late this year, everything is already closed up for the winter.  In the mean time I will continue to moniter this sight and work on improving my knowledge of things solar. Dennis

Response:

Dennis, If you want the cottage to heat up quickly when you get there, you do not want to have a lot of thermal mass in the *living space*, because you are going to have to heat up all that mass when you arrive for the weekend. However, if you want a solar collector to keep the cottage from freezing overnight, you’ll need some thermal storage somewhere to supply heat during the night.  This storage should be isolated from the living space so that you do not have to heat it when you are there on the weekends. Air is a terrible heat transfer fluid.   – You need to move a lot of it.  If you pick up 500 BTU/ft^2/day     off a 300 ft^2 collector with a 10F temperature rise, you’ll need     to move 750,000 cubic feet of air a day.  That’s about 3000 cfm,     which is not going to happen with natural convection.   – You need big ducts to move all that air, which are big enough to     have internal convection.  It is this internal convection that     makes it so hard to get an air thermosyphon to move the heat     where you want it to go.   – Air doesn’t store heat, so you need to transfer the heat from     the collector to the air, then from the air to the store, and     then back to the air in the cottage so it can leak out at night. I know you don’t want to hear it, but water is a much better fluid for this application. Would it be possible to orient the cottage so that one eave of the roof faces south?  If the cottage is 26′ east-west, you might build a 30′ wide by 18′ high trickle collector on the south slope, using corrugated aluminum painted black with double-wall polycarbonate over it.  Use double wall for the strength rather than the insulation, because you want it to deal with snow loads and winds without flexing and rattling around so much that it develops stress fractures. I would avoid glass at first.  I’d want to actually see the polycarb fail before I tried something so much more expensive.  Note that the polycarb you’ll be using is more usually employed in greenhouses which have very high inside humidity and temperatures above 60F.  That’s pretty similar to the conditions you’ll put it in. In particular, I’d shoot for a water temp rise from 70F to 90F during the day.  Your collector will see maybe 800 BTU/ft^2/day insolation, transmit 600 BTU/ft^2/day when it’s dirty, and lose 160 during 4-5 hours of collection.  So it’ll put 240,000 BTU/day into the heat store.  Now you’re cooking with gas.  If you can get the whole cottage down to an average of R-10 (x 1700 ft^2 area) the trickle collector could keep the thing at 65 degrees in February.  (But that’d require a hydronic floor.) My understanding is you’ll use concrete block construction for the basement, which will be 20′ x 26′.  Build a low wall 3 feet tall across the short distance, perhaps 12 feet from the side of the basement.  Install 4 inches of EPS foam on the bottom and against the basement sides (2 layers of 2" boards).  Don’t insulate the side facing the rest of the basement.  It would probably be better for this insulation to be between the basement and the dirt, but that gets into a bunch of details I don’t want to consider. Cover the resulting space with a 30′ x 20′ EPDM sheet, "folded up like a Chinese take-out box" (this, like everything else, is taken from Nick Pine’s playbook).  Fill it with water, cover with another 20′ x 10′ EPDM sheet.  That’s your 4500 gallon tank — big enough to store a few of nights worth of heat.  It’ll heat the house by conducting heat to the air in the basement across that top face.  You might need more heat flow than that, but you can tinker with it after you move in.  I tend to like oversize tanks. To keep the collector from baking the polycarb to an early death each summer, you’ll need to vent that collector to the air, top and bottom, but only when you’re not running the trickle pump, of course. Polycarb: https://www.sundancesupply.com/PolyPage.html EPDM: http://www.coloradolining.com/products/epdm_price_list.htm Specs/assumptions/sizes:   – 20′ x 26′ cottage   – 8mm 2-wall R-value 1.7, 81% transmission   – 30′ x 18′ trickle collector   – 6 gpm pump, 40′ head: 1/8 HP pump, on for 4-5 hours a day      (electric cost: about $12 for a 160-day heating season)   – 20′ x 12′ x 2.5′ insulated tank: 4500 gallons

Response:

>I know you don’t want to hear it, but water is a much better fluid >for this application.

I’d rather hear the facts and put something together that works, even if it isn’t my first choice.  So I am keeping all suggestions so I can digest it all and make some good decisions. Thanks, Dennis

Response:

>Build a low wall 3 feet tall >across the short distance, perhaps 12 feet from the side of the >basement.  Install 4 inches of EPS foam on the bottom and against the >basement sides (2 layers of 2" boards).

Is there a way I can cost effectively make this water proof without the EPDM?  Also, what do you think about putting the water storage under the basement floor? I see sometimes my posts are being repeated.  Does anyone have a suggestion as to what I might be doing wrong? Dennis

Response:

When you post your news provider sends back a signal that the message is received. This misses sometimes and the message sits waiting again. If you use the same browser for email then your "check for updates on a periodic basis" option is probably on and keeps sending and looking for new messages, over and over. Turn that off if you can. In short, bad receive communications.

>Build a low wall 3 feet tall >across the short distance, perhaps 12 feet from the side of the >basement.  Install 4 inches of EPS foam on the

bottom and against the – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->basement sides (2 layers of 2" boards). > Is there a way I can cost effectively make this water proof without the > EPDM?  Also, what do you think about putting the water storage under > the basement floor? > I see sometimes my posts are being repeated.  Does anyone have a > suggestion as to what I might be doing wrong? > Dennis

Response:

Dennis> Is there a way I can cost effectively make this water Dennis> proof without the EPDM?  Also, what do you think about Dennis> putting the water storage under the basement floor? EPDM cost is the least of your worries.  Think about the roof. Budget:  15′ x 20′ EPDM sheet:                    117.00  25′ x 20′ EPDM sheet:                    146.25  4" EPS foam on sides and bottom:    300.00  30′ x 18′ corrugated aluminum roof:      900.00 (wild guess)  30′ x 18′ 2-wall 8mm polycarbonate:      918.00  1/8 HP circulator pump:                  200.00  control:                                 300.00 (guess)  misc:                                    500.00  total:                                 $3381 Note: system will provide ~2.5 therms/day for a 200+ day heating season, or around $700/year in equivalent cost of gas heating.  Payback time around 5 years, but you should assume that controller is going to fail every 5 years or so. You could scale it down, of course. Now, would I be worried about putting all that water in the basement?  I’m looking at having a 10k gallon tank in the house my wife and I are building.  This is in California, where having a hot tank in the basement during the summer is not a great idea.  We are essentially on top of the San Andreas, and the basement is already complicated as a result. …so I backed off, and we’re specifying it as an in-ground tank about 20 feet from the house, under a deck.  So am I being hypocritical suggesting you put your tank in the basement?  Maybe.  We have issues you don’t.  Our house is probably more valuable than this cottage, and will be used more. (Extra sources:) EPS foam: http://www.waynesbuildingsupply.com/eps.html

Response:

Question:

Taxpayer alret: Massive rip-off heading south… US: No-Bid Contracts Win Katrina Work White House uses practices criticized in Iraq rebuilding for hurricane-related jobs. by Yochi J. Dreazen, The Wall Street Journal September 12th, 2005 WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is importing many of the contracting practices blamed for spending abuses in Iraq as it begins the largest and costliest rebuilding effort in U.S. history. The first large-scale contracts related to Hurricane Katrina, as in Iraq, were awarded without competitive bidding, and using so-called cost-plus provisions that guarantee contractors a certain profit regardless of how much they spend. Contracts for temporary housing have been awarded to politically connected companies like Fluor Corp. and Bechtel National Inc., a unit of Bechtel Group Inc., leading congressional Democrats to renew charges of cronyism they first leveled when the firms won lucrative work in Iraq. In response, there have been bipartisan calls in Congress to establish a new government agency to manage the Louisiana rebuilding, and possibly have it run by a prominent figure such as former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani or former Secretary of State Colin Powell. Separately, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) yesterday said she supported the creation of an "antifraud commission" to oversee government contracts issued in response to the disaster. Some are questioning as well whether the Federal Emergency Management Agency — which has a small procurement staff responsible for spending a relatively tiny amount of federal money each year — is capable of effectively disbursing tens of billions of dollars. In Iraq, several audits found that contracting problems were exacerbated by overworked and inexperienced government procurement officers who weren’t up to the difficult work they were entrusted to carry out. "You can easily compare FEMA’s internal resources to what you saw in the early days of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq: a small, underfunded organization taking on a Herculean task under tremendous time pressure," said Steven Schooner, a contracting expert at George Washington University law school in Washington. "That is almost by definition a recipe for disaster." FEMA already is under fire for its poor initial response to Katrina. Its chief, Michael Brown, was removed on Friday as head of the direct relief effort. (See related article.) Officials at the agency, a division of the sprawling Department of Homeland Security, said they are up to the task of ensuring that the money will be spent efficiently. "FEMA has extensive experience in acquiring the products and services required to make sure that the support needed in response and recovery operations is secured quickly to meet the needs of disaster victims," said James McIntyre, a spokesman for the agency. In Iraq, audits have uncovered evidence that hundreds of millions of dollars were misspent by some contractors willing to stretch or break rules, while government officials were unwilling or unable to prevent abuses. Government reports have detailed systemic management failings, lax or nonexistent oversight and alleged fraud and embezzlement by officials charged with administering the rebuilding, as well as questionable activities by the contractors they employed. For example, audits have found evidence of procurement officers paying contractors twice for the same work and spending tens of millions of dollars with little to no documentation. Officials from Bechtel and Fluor declined to discuss comparisons between their work in Iraq and the Gulf Coast. Bechtel spokesman Howard Menaker said the company’s deal with the government was still being finalized and declined to comment further. A Fluor spokesman referred questions to FEMA. The administration has allocated more than $62 billion to the regions hit by Katrina, and the final price tag is expected to soar to more than $100 billion. Already, at least seven contracts have been awarded for the post-Katrina effort. The Army Corps of Engineers late last week announced a $100 million deal with Shaw Group Inc. of Baton Rouge, La., for relief operations including the pumping of flood water out of New Orleans. Halliburton Co.’s Kellogg, Brown & Root unit, also prominent in the Iraq reconstruction effort, is doing repair work at three U.S. Navy facilities in Mississippi as part of an existing Pentagon contract. FEMA, meanwhile, has announced four major contracts with firms charged with providing emergency housing relief in storm-battered areas of Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi. The $100 million contracts with Bechtel, Fluor, Shaw Group and Denver-based CH2M Hill Cos. were awarded after what FEMA described as "limited competition." FEMA also recently hired Houston-based Kenyon Worldwide Disaster Management to collect human remains in the disaster zone. FEMA didn’t announce the total of that contract, and Kenyon didn’t respond to requests to comment. All the deals include cost-plus language, which means the companies can pass along all their costs — plus a predetermined profit — to the government. Similar provisions were routinely used in Iraq. Critics said they encouraged waste by removing any incentive to control costs. FEMA officials and outside contracting experts said no-bid contracting and cost-plus language have been used in prior disasters to speed the government’s ability to get contractors on the ground and in place as fast as possible. They said cost-plus, in particular, is required after disasters like Katrina because it is difficult, if not impossible, for the government to know exactly how big the relief and rebuilding efforts ultimately will be. FEMA has been given primary responsibility for spending the more than $50 billion in aid approved by lawmakers last week, which means it will be the lead contracting agency for months to come. That gives it a responsibility well beyond its normal role in past disasters. The agency has never before been asked to disburse money at the level that it will for Katrina. Of the $305 billion spent on federal-government procurement in fiscal year 2003, FEMA accounted for $87 million. The agency already has spent many times that in the Katrina aftermath. Unlike in Iraq, where an inspector general is tasked solely with probing reconstruction contracts, FEMA has said oversight for the Katrina relief effort will be provided by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general. Several Democrats and outside experts have raised additional questions about how the government spends the money allocated for Katrina relief. A provision in the latest Katrina relief bill temporarily raised the spending limit on government credit cards used for Katrina-related purchases to $250,000 from $15,000 per transaction, to allow officials to buy needed supplies more quickly than if they went through normal procurement channels. Numerous audits have found that the government lacks adequate controls to prevent misuse of such cards. In 2000, for instance, a probe by the General Accounting Office, now the Government Accountability Office, found that government credit cards in two California Navy units had been used for more than $660,000 in fraudulent or questionable purchases of personal goods ranging from jewelry to pizza. The report by Congress’s investigative arm found that government employees bought numerous objects of "questionable government need" like $2,500 flat-panel computer monitors.

Response:

I’m no Bush supporter but when it comes to emergencies there is no time for a legnthy bid process. But what we need to do is research the companies that are used and find the connections to the chimp. SR

Response:

> I’m no Bush supporter but when it comes to emergencies there is no time > for a legnthy bid process. But what we need to do is research the > companies that are used and find the connections to the chimp.

I don’t know if it is out of ignorance, or dishonesty that No-Bid Contracts are portrayed the way that they are in this forum. They have been used for decades, and the amount of profit is built into the contract, and is the regular and automatic audits. So in the semi-annual audit, if the profit exceeds the agreed amount, the overage is paid back. That is the process no matter who the contractor is, and that is why you’ll hear that in an audit that there were overages that have to be paid back by Bechtel, Halliburton, or Brown Kellog Root. As for the "Ties" to the Administration, Bechtel, Halliburton, and Brown Kellog Root have been getting these Contracts for decades from both Democratic, and Republican Administrations. The bidding process could take years otherwise, plus these companies are also cleared for Top Secrets. Before we went into Iraq, the above companies were told what we would attack, and what we estimated the damage would be so the Construction Companies could plan on how much manpower, and materials would be needed to rebuild the destroyed sites. All of this has been fully explored in this ng before, but there are some that can do thing but rehash debunked mythology. See ya, John

Response:

>I don’t know if it is out of ignorance, or dishonesty that No-Bid Contracts >are portrayed the way that they are in this forum. They have been used for >decades, and the amount of profit is built into the contract, and is the >regular and automatic audits. So in the semi-annual audit, if the profit >exceeds the agreed amount, the overage is paid back. That is the process no >matter who the contractor is, and that is why you’ll hear that in an audit >that there were overages that have to be paid back by Bechtel, Halliburton, >or Brown Kellog Root.

        Exactly right, John. The USAID organization has a lot of information on these contracts on their website, there was also a good description by their chief legal counsel that described it.         These are actually PRE-bid contracts. I’m sure that there is a lot of significant expense that smaller entrepreneurial corps could handle very well, but that is seldom the focus of the ranting. As you note, it is all audited, with fixed % profits. —-== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com – Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==—- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups —-= East and West-Coast Server Farms – Total Privacy via Encryption =—-

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I’m no Bush supporter but when it comes to emergencies there is no time >for a legnthy bid process. But what we need to do is research the >companies that are used and find the connections to the chimp. >I don’t know if it is out of ignorance, or dishonesty that No-Bid Contracts >are portrayed the way that they are in this forum. They have been used for >decades, and the amount of profit is built into the contract, and is the >regular and automatic audits. So in the semi-annual audit, if the profit >exceeds the agreed amount, the overage is paid back. That is the process no >matter who the contractor is, and that is why you’ll hear that in an audit >that there were overages that have to be paid back by Bechtel, Halliburton, >or Brown Kellog Root. >As for the "Ties" to the Administration, Bechtel, Halliburton, and Brown >Kellog Root have been getting these Contracts for decades from both >Democratic, and Republican Administrations. The bidding process could take >years otherwise, plus these companies are also cleared for Top Secrets. >Before we went into Iraq, the above companies were told what we would >attack, and what we estimated the damage would be so the Construction >Companies could plan on how much manpower, and materials would be needed to >rebuild the destroyed sites. >All of this has been fully explored in this ng before, but there are some >that can do thing but rehash debunked mythology. >See ya, >John

What you have said is true, however no bid contracts discourage competition and encourage nepotism, surely a capitalist like yourself should understand that. I don’t think no bids should be used for the reconstruction. The cleanup which is more immediate is another story and all expediency should be exercised. I wouldn’t think though that the bid process would be so lengthy that it should not be used for companies wanting to participate in  reconstruction effort. Tubeguru

Response:

courageously avow: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I don’t know if it is out of ignorance, or dishonesty that No-Bid Contracts >are portrayed the way that they are in this forum. They have been used for >decades, and the amount of profit is built into the contract, and is the >regular and automatic audits. So in the semi-annual audit, if the profit >exceeds the agreed amount, the overage is paid back. That is the process no >matter who the contractor is, and that is why you’ll hear that in an audit >that there were overages that have to be paid back by Bechtel, Halliburton, >or Brown Kellog Root. >    Exactly right, John. The USAID organization has a lot of >information on these contracts on their website, there was also a good >description by their chief legal counsel that described it. >    These are actually PRE-bid contracts. I’m sure that there is a >lot of significant expense that smaller entrepreneurial corps could >handle very well, but that is seldom the focus of the ranting. As you >note, it is all audited, with fixed % profits. >—-== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com – Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==—- >http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups >—-= East and West-Coast Server Farms – Total Privacy via Encryption =—-

Our government here uses a similar mechanism called a Standing Offer. It usually has a time limit and a maximum overall total value.  It may or may not have price limits on how much can be committed against it in any one transaction but it is designed to facilitate quick action without a lot of unnecessary red tape on the part of government agencies availing themselves of the service.  Some of them allow for very large transactions that on the surface may not appear as having been tendered but, in truth, most suppliers capable of providing services at the given level has been tendered to offer or is aware when the bids open to have tendered an offer, i.e. fuel and oil products for ocean going vessels owned by the government.  Even with Canada’s smaller Navy and Coast Guard, you can see where the national Standing Offers for those products would be quite high for a year’s worth of purchasing.  The bottom line for the companies winning the tenders is they have to be able to provide the service without fail. Ken Wilson Proud Owner of Lord Valve, PMG, John Wheaton, Claude Lucas,  Freep the Xenophobe, Chuck, pseudobacker, and the rest of the  Union of Rightwing Idiots Needing Explanations (URINE)  and, at his own request, Karl Rovershank (aka Lars from Mars) Supporting the Troops at http://www.resisters.ca http://www.criticalhistory.com/

Response:

It’s working out so well in Iraq, isn’t it?

Response:

> It’s working out so well in Iraq, isn’t it?

As some stories have illustrated, it has worked very well in Iraq. Those good news stories rarely get much attention, what gets covered is a few areas where there is trouble, not the majority of the country where things are working pretty well. See ya, John

Response:

What part of missing multi-millions of "reconstruction" money don’t you comprehend. What part of massive contractor fraud? What part of no oversight or spending? After two years, they can’t even secure the road to the airport? It’s not even safe to go out for coffee in the capital. Are Libertarians also pro-war, pro big business, and pro fraud? Libertarianism… isn’t that basically a philiospy that tries to rationalize selfishness?   Oh no, wait — that’s neo-conservativism.

Response:

Oh yeah, please, oh enlightened one, tell us — where in Iraq are things "working pretty well"  Bagdhad?  Falluja? Tal Afar? Abu Ghraib? We’ve stopped international terror and we are safer now, right?

Response:

> Oh yeah, please, oh enlightened one, tell us — where in Iraq are > things "working pretty well"  Bagdhad?  Falluja? Tal Afar? Abu Ghraib? > We’ve stopped international terror and we are safer now, right?

and we built what we paid for.

Response:

Question:

Did New Orleans Catastrophe Have to Happen? ‘Times-Picayune’ Had Repeatedly Raised Federal Spending Issues By Will Bunch Published: August 30, 2005 9:00 PM ET PHILADELPHIA Even though Hurricane Katrina has moved well north of the city, the waters may still keep rising in New Orleans late on Tuesday. That’s because Lake Pontchartrain continues to pour through a two-block-long break in the main levee, near the city’s 17th Street Canal. With much of the Crescent City some 10 feet below sea level, the rising tide may not stop until it’s level with the massive lake. New Orleans had long known it was highly vulnerable to flooding and a direct hit from a hurricane. In fact, the federal government has been working with state and local officials in the region since the late 1960s on major hurricane and flood relief efforts. When flooding from a massive rainstorm in May 1995 killed six people, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, or SELA. Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with carrying out SELA, spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside. Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security — coming at the same time as federal tax cuts — was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars. Newhouse News Service, in an article posted late Tuesday night at The Times-Picayune Web site, reported: "No one can say they didn’t see it coming. … Now in the wake of one of the worst storms ever, serious questions are being asked about the lack of preparation." In early 2004, as the cost of the conflict in Iraq soared, President Bush proposed spending less than 20 percent of what the Corps said was needed for Lake Pontchartrain, according to a Feb. 16, 2004, article, in New Orleans CityBusiness. On June 8, 2004, Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; told the Times-Picayune: "It appears that the money has been moved in the president’s budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that’s the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can’t be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us." Also that June, with the 2004 hurricane season starting, the Corps’ project manager Al Naomi went before a local agency, the East Jefferson Levee Authority, and essentially begged for $2 million for urgent work that Washington was now unable to pay for. From the June 18, 2004 Times-Picayune: "The system is in great shape, but the levees are sinking. Everything is sinking, and if we don’t get the money fast enough to raise them, then we can’t stay ahead of the settlement," he said. "The problem that we have isn’t that the levee is low, but that the federal funds have dried up so that we can’t raise them." The panel authorized that money, and on July 1, 2004, it had to pony up another $250,000 when it learned that stretches of the levee in Metairie had sunk by four feet. The agency had to pay for the work with higher property taxes. The levee board noted in October 2004 that the feds were also now not paying for a hoped-for $15 million project to better shore up the banks of Lake Pontchartrain. The 2004 hurricane season was the worst in decades. In spite of that, the federal government came back this spring with the steepest reduction in hurricane and flood-control funding for New Orleans in history. Because of the proposed cuts, the Corps office there imposed a hiring freeze. Officials said that money targeted for the SELA project — $10.4 million, down from $36.5 million — was not enough to start any new jobs. There was, at the same time, a growing recognition that more research was needed to see what New Orleans must do to protect itself from a Category 4 or 5 hurricane. But once again, the money was not there. As the Times-Picayune reported last Sept. 22: "That second study would take about four years to complete and would cost about $4 million, said Army Corps of Engineers project manager Al Naomi. About $300,000 in federal money was proposed for the 2005 fiscal-year budget, and the state had agreed to match that amount. But the cost of the Iraq war forced the Bush administration to order the New Orleans district office not to begin any new studies, and the 2005 budget no longer includes the needed money, he said." The Senate was seeking to restore some of the SELA funding cuts for 2006. But now it’s too late. One project that a contractor had been racing to finish this summer: a bridge and levee job right at the 17th Street Canal, site of the main breach on Monday. The Newhouse News Service article published Tuesday night observed, "The Louisiana congressional delegation urged Congress earlier this year to dedicate a stream of federal money to Louisiana’s coast, only to be opposed by the White House. … In its budget, the Bush administration proposed a significant reduction in funding for southeast Louisiana’s chief hurricane protection project. Bush proposed $10.4 million, a sixth of what local officials say they need." Local officials are now saying, the article reported, that had Washington heeded their warnings about the dire need for hurricane protection, including building up levees and repairing barrier islands, "the damage might not have been nearly as bad as it turned out to be." _____ of this article also appears on his blog at that newspaper, Attytood.