Pot meets kettle. You mean like Tom Delay's 2000-2001
Posted By: land grab in Texas? sm on 2009-02-09
In Reply to: Obama Decision to Move Census to White House... - sm
We are still dealing with the aftermath. But hey, he was just trying to help out the shrub and the rest of the GOP good ole boys.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
More DeLay fun and
AP: DeLay, Blunt Traded Secret Donations
By JOHN SOLOMON and SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writers1 hour, 33 minutes ago
Tom DeLay deliberately raised more money than he needed to throw parties at the 2000 presidential convention, then diverted some of the excess funds to longtime ally Roy Blunt through a series of donations that benefited both men's causes.
When the financial carousel stopped, DeLay's private charity, the consulting firm that employed DeLay's wife and the Missouri campaign of Blunt's son all ended up with money, according to campaign documents reviewed by The Associated Press.
Jack Abramoff, a Washington lobbyist recently charged in an ongoing federal corruption and fraud investigation, and Jim Ellis, the DeLay fundraiser indicted with his boss last week in Texas, also came into the picture.
The complicated transactions are drawing scrutiny in legal and political circles after a grand jury indicted DeLay on charges of violating Texas law with a scheme to launder illegal corporate donations to state candidates.
Blunt last week temporarily replaced DeLay as House majority leader, and Blunt's son, Matt, has now risen to Missouri's governor.
The government's former chief election enforcement lawyer said the Blunt and DeLay transactions are similar to the Texas case and raise questions that should be investigated regarding whether donors were deceived or the true destination of their money was concealed.
These people clearly like using middlemen for their transactions, said Lawrence Noble. It seems to be a pattern with DeLay funneling money to different groups, at least to obscure, if not cover, the original source, said Noble, who was the Federal Election Commission's chief lawyer for 13 years, including in 2000 when the transactions occurred.
None of the hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations DeLay collected for the 2000 convention were ever disclosed to federal regulators because the type of group DeLay used wasn't governed by federal law at the time.
DeLay has temporarily stepped aside as majority leader after being indicted by a Texas prosecutor.
Spokesmen for the two Republican leaders say they disclosed what was required by law at the time and believe all their transactions were legal, though donors might not always have know where their money was headed.
It illustrates what others have said, that money gets transferred all the time. This was disclosed to the extent required to be disclosed by applicable law, said Don McGahn, a lawyer for DeLay. It just shows that donors don't control funds once they're given.
Blunt and DeLay planned all along to raise more money than was needed for the convention parties and then route some of that to other causes, such as supporting state candidates, said longtime Blunt aide Gregg Hartley.
We put together a budget for what we thought we would raise and spend on the convention and whatever was left over we were going to use to support candidates, said Hartley, Blunt's former chief of staff who answered AP's questions on behalf of Blunt.
Hartley said he saw no similarity to the Texas case. The fact that DeLay's charity, Christine DeLay's consulting firm and Blunt's son were beneficiaries was a coincidence, Hartley said.
Much of the money — including one donation to Blunt from an Abramoff client accused of running a sweatshop garment factory in the Northern Mariana Islands — changed hands in the spring of 2000, a period of keen interest to federal prosecutors.
During that same time, Abramoff arranged for DeLay to use a concert skybox for donors and to take a golfing trip to Scotland and England that was partly underwritten by some of the lobbyist's clients. Prosecutors are investigating whether the source of some of the money was disguised, and whether some of DeLay's expenses were originally put on the lobbyist's credit card in violation of House rules.
Both DeLay and Blunt and their aides also met with Abramoff's lobbying team several times in 2000 and 2001 on the Marianas issues, according to law firm billing records obtained by AP under an open records request. DeLay was instrumental in blocking legislation opposed by some of Abramoff's clients.
Noble said investigators should examine whether the pattern of disguising the original source of money might have been an effort to hide the leaders' simultaneous financial and legislative dealings with Abramoff and his clients.
You see Abramoff involved and see the meetings that were held and one gets the sense Abramoff is helping this along in order to get access and push his clients' interest, he said. And at the same time, you see Delay and Blunt trying to hide the root of their funding.
All of these transactions may have strings attached to them. ... I think you would want to look, if you aren't already looking, at the question of a quid pro quo, Noble said.
Blunt and DeLay have long been political allies. The 2000 transactions occurred as President Bush was marching toward his first election to the White House, DeLay was positioning himself to be House majority leader and Blunt was lining up to succeed DeLay as majority whip, the third-ranking position in the House.
The entities Blunt and DeLay formed allowed them to collect donations of any size and any U.S. source with little chance of federal scrutiny.
DeLay's convention fundraising arm, part of his Americans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee (ARMPAC), collected large corporate donations to help wine and dine Republican VIPs during the presidential nominating convention in Philadelphia in late summer 2000. DeLay's group has declined to identify any of the donors.
Blunt's group, a nonfederal wing of his Rely on Your Beliefs Fund, eventually registered its activities in Missouri but paid a $3,000 fine for improperly concealing its fundraising in 1999 and spring 2000, according to Missouri Ethics Commission records.
Both groups — DeLay's and Blunt's — were simultaneously paying Ellis, the longtime DeLay fundraiser who was indicted along with his boss in Texas in the alleged money laundering scheme.
The DeLay group began transferring money to Blunt's group in two checks totaling $150,000 in the spring of 2000, well before Republicans actually met in Philadelphia for the convention. The transfers accounted for most of money Blunt's group received during that period.
DeLay's convention arm sent $50,000 on March 31, 2000. Eight days later, the Blunt group made a $10,000 donation to DeLay's private charity for children on April 7, 2000, and began the first of several payments totaling $40,000 to a northern Virginia-based political consulting firm formed by DeLay's former chief of staff, Ed Buckham.
That consulting firm at the time also employed DeLay's wife, Christine, according to DeLay's ethics disclosure report to Congress.
Hartley said Blunt was unaware that Mrs. DeLay worked at the firm when he made the payments, and that she had nothing to do with Blunt's group.
On April 14, 2000, Concorde Garment Manufacturing, based in the Northern Marianas Islands that was part of Abramoff's lobbying coalition, contributed $3,000 to Blunt's group.
Hartley said the donation was delivered during a weekend of fundraising activities by Blunt and DeLay but his boss did not know who solicited it.
Concorde, derided for years in lawsuits as a Pacific island sweatshop, paid a $9 million penalty to the U.S. government in the 1990s for failing to pay workers' overtime. The company was visited by DeLay.
The company was a key member of the Marianas garment industry that the islands' government was trying to protect when it hired Abramoff to lobby DeLay, Blunt and others to keep Congress from imposing tougher wage and tax standards on the islands.
After the November 2000 election, Abramoff's firm billed its Mariana Islands clients for at least one meeting with Blunt and three meetings with Blunt's staff, billing records show. Abramoff's team also reported several meetings with DeLay and his staff on the issue, including one during the presidential convention.
On May 24, 2000 — just before DeLay left with Abramoff for the Scottish golfing trip — DeLay's convention fundraising group transferred $100,000 more to Blunt's group. Within three weeks, Blunt turned around and donated the same amount to the Missouri Republican Party.
The next month, the state GOP began spending large amounts of money to help Blunt's son, Matt, in his successful campaign to become Missouri secretary of state. On July 25, 2000, the state GOP made its first expenditure for the younger Blunt, totaling just over $11,000. By election day, that figure had grown to more than $160,000.
Hartley said Blunt always liked to help the state party and the fact that his son got party help after his donation was a coincidence. They are unrelated activities, he said.
Exchanges of donations occurred again in the fall. Just a few days before the November election, DeLay's ARMPAC gave $50,000 to the Missouri GOP. A month later, the Missouri GOP sent $50,000 to DeLay's group.
___
Associated Press Writer David Lieb in Missouri contributed to this story.
On the Net:
Documents for this story are available at: http://wid.ap.org/documents/delay/index.html
There's more than meets the eye with this guy
I think we all need to check him out more carefully. I'm sure this can all be verified somewhere.
Funny the people will trash this article but they put up absolute trash about McCain and Palin that they have no facts to back it up.
It's all personality based for some.
Former Aide to DeLay
November 21, 2005
Former Aide to DeLay Pleads Guilty in Conspiracy Case
By DAVID STOUT
and PHILIP SHENON
WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 - Michael Scanlon, former aide to a powerful congressman and onetime partner of a wealthy lobbyist, pleaded guilty today to a federal conspiracy charge as part of a deal in which he agreed to cooperate with an investigation into possible wrongdoing by some lawmakers.
Mr. Scanlon's comedown from a young and wealthy Washington power-player to disgraced felon, formalized before Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of Federal District Court here, had been expected. But it still may have sent shivers down Capitol corridors.
Mr. Scanlon agreed to pay restitution totaling more than $19 million to the tribes and faces up to five years in prison. He was allowed to remain free on $5 million bond. After pleading guilty, the well-tanned Mr. Scanlon appeared incongruously cheerful. Asked by reporters why he was smiling, he replied, I'm always smiling.
Mr. Scanlon, 35, was accused of conspiring to defraud Indian tribes out of millions of dollars as part of a lobbying and corruption scheme that involved wining and dining of some lawmakers, treating them to lavish trips and contributing to their campaigns.
Representative Bob Ney, an Ohio Republican, who heads the House Appropriations Committee, was alluded to in the indictment (although not by name) as a main beneficiary of largess, in return for helping Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Scanlon with their clients.
Lawyers involved in the case have confirmed that Mr. Ney is the Representative #1 cited in the indictment. The congressman - who has not been charged - has asserted that he was duped by the two and is cooperating with prosecutors, a spokesman for Mr. Ney says.
Mr. Scanlon's lawyer, Plato Cacheris, was asked whether any other members of Congress had anything to fear. I have no comment on that, he replied.
Until recently, Mr. Scanlon occupied a powerful - and lucrative - position at the intersection of political power and lobbying influence. For several years, he worked as a top aide to Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the Republican majority leader. He left Mr. DeLay's office in 2000 to become an associate of Jack Abramoff, a Republican lobbyist.
Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Scanlon earned more than $80 million representing a few wealthy Indian tribes on gambling issues. Those transactions have been under investigation by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee as well as federal prosecutors.
In an e-mail message made public by the committee, Mr. Scanlon seemed to lust for wealth, and seemed to see the Indian tribes as easy targets. I want all their money!!! he wrote of one tribe in 2002. Referring to the money available from another tribe, he exclaimed, Weeez gonna be rich!!!
Mr. DeLay has been indicted in Texas on charges involving political fund-raising that are not related to the inquiry in which Mr. Scanlon pleaded guilty today. And Mr. Abramoff has been indicted in Florida on unrelated fraud-and-conspiracy charges involving an attempt to buy a fleet of casino boats.
Like Mr. Ney, Mr. DeLay has been named as a beneficiary of Mr. Abramoff's and Mr. Scanlon's generosity. He, too, has denied wrongdoing. Mr. Cacheris, when asked whether Mr. DeLay had reason to worry over Mr. Scanlon's cooperating with prosecutors, said, You'll have to ask his lawyers.
It seems that there is more to this story than meets the eye. sm
It seems that AIG structured those bonuses the way they did because the government tried to rein them in back in the 1990's. Evidentally the rules they played by back then were so convoluted that not even the FTC or SEC or the other alphabet soup people knew what was really going on.
And here it is...only 10:00 a.m. and already the Dow is down -31.86. Does not bode well for the O and his cronies. Any joy in mudville from 4 dayas of going up just tanked.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29724816/
Which candidate meets this definition? sm
IMO neither, but I am curious to see who thinks they do. We have some Republicans calling themselves conservative, but they more closely resemble Fabian socialists.
Tomy DeLay just indicted for conspiracy.
It is just one scandal after another with these guys.
Troops die without body armor. Why the delay?
For Lack of Body Armor, Troops Die. Why the Delay? |
|
Paul Rieckhoff on body armor in USA Today: Rieckhoff and other veterans are calling for a congressional investigation. That's justified. Tracking their complaints could save lives in future wars — not to mention this one.
From USA Today
After Army and Marine Corps generals were summoned Wednesday to a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill, the brass emerged with vows to improve body armor for all U.S. troops in Iraq.
That's good to hear, but shouldn't it have happened sooner?
Members of Congress were reacting to a newly reported analysis by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner, which concluded that 80% of the fatal injuries to Marines in the study might have been prevented by additional armor coverage. Side armor, a special concern, is just beginning to arrive in Iraq.
The armor situation fits a deadly pattern of blunders by the war's architects. The quick invasion of Iraq happened as planned, but — as former Iraq civilian administrator Paul Bremer acknowledges in his new book — the Bush administration didn't anticipate the widespread and lethal insurgency that followed.
The occupying U.S. troops soon found themselves facing deadly new tactics with inadequate armor on both their vehicles and themselves. This tragic miscalculation has had tragic consequences.
To date, 1,510 soldiers and 633 Marines have died in Iraq, many of them killed by rifle shots or explosions in which better armor could have made a difference.
Army generals say the body armor used by soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan has already been improved seven times. All soldiers there have bullet-proof body vests called Interceptors, which have front-and-back ceramic plates. Side panels, which are added to the Interceptors to provide more coverage, are just now being distributed to Marines.
Defending their body-armor decisions, Army spokesmen conjure up images of medieval combatants whose ever-heavier personal armor brought their horses to their knees. A soldier wrapped in armor can't fight in the heat of Iraq, they say.
Maybe not, but the Pentagon owes further explanations to military families and to Congress, which since 2001 has appropriated $302 billion to cover operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of the questions that need answering include:
• Was there proper planning? Thousands of troops arrived in Iraq with old-style flak jackets. Not until January 2004 did all troops have the new Interceptor vests, according to a Government Accountability Office report released last year.
•Was the armor upgraded fast enough? The Marine Corps says it moved quickly to add side armor upon learning the news from the examiner's report. But the Army has yet to supply its soldiers with side protection.
• Do the services have adequate supply systems? Those systems appear hobbled by slow turnarounds and poor reliability. In November, more than 18,000 vests were recalled for failing to meet ballistics tests.
Army and Marine commanders know that no battle plan survives the first contact with the enemy. The question is how quickly the services adapt. The answer in Iraq is tooslowly, says Paul Rieckhoff, who led an Army platoon there protected only by the flak jackets, which can't stop an AK-47 round.
The body armor delays mirror problems with the Humvee. Not until last July did the Army finally replace its soft-skinned Humvees, proven tragically vulnerable to roadside bombs, with a fully armored version.
Rieckhoff and other veterans are calling for a congressional investigation. That's justified. Tracking their complaints could save lives in future wars — not to mention this one. |
My bet is Delay will be found innocent and Rove is old news.
Besides, last time I check we had a system of balances in this country. The time and the law will prevail, I have no doubt.
Palin meets her first world leaders in New York. sm
Palin meets her first world leaders in New York
By SARA KUGLER, Associated Press Writer Tue Sep 23, 7:30 PM ET
NEW YORK - Sarah Palin met her first world leaders Tuesday. It was a tightly controlled crash course on foreign policy for the Republican vice presidential candidate, the mayor-turned-governor who has been outside North America just once.
ADVERTISEMENT
Palin sat down with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. The conversations were private, the pictures public, meant to build her resume for voters concerned about her lack of experience in world affairs.
"I found her quite a capable woman," Karzai said later. "She asked the right questions on Afghanistan."
The self-described "hockey mom" also asked former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger for insights on Georgia, Russia, China and Iran, and she'll see more leaders Wednesday on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly meetings.
It was shuttle diplomacy, New York-style. At several points, Palin's motorcade got stuck in traffic and New Yorkers, unimpressed with the flashing lights, sirens and police officers in her group, simply walked between the vehicles to get across the street. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, three hours behind Palin in seeing Karzai, found herself overshadowed for a day as she made her own rounds.
John McCain's presidential campaign has shielded the first-term Alaska governor for weeks from spontaneous questions from voters and reporters, and went to striking lengths Tuesday to maintain that distance as Palin made her diplomatic debut.
The GOP campaign, applying more restrictive rules on access than even President Bush uses in the White House, banned reporters from the start of the meetings, so as not to risk a question being asked of Palin.
McCain aides relented after news organizations objected and CNN, which was supplying TV footage to a variety of networks, decided to pull its TV crew from Palin's meeting with Karzai.
Overheard: small talk.
Palin is studying foreign policy ahead of her one debate with Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden, a senator with deep credentials on that front. More broadly, the Republican ticket is trying to counter questions exploited by Democrats about her qualifications to serve as vice president and step into the presidency at a moment's notice if necessary.
There was no chance of putting such questions to rest with photo opportunities Tuesday.
But Palin, who got a passport only last year, no longer has to own up to a blank slate when asked about heads of state she has met.
She also got her first intelligence briefing Tuesday, over two hours.
Karzai generated light laughter when he told an audience at the Asia Society that, in addition to Rice and Norway's prime minister, he had seen Palin on Tuesday. Thomas Freston, a member of the society's board, drew loud applause and laughter when he responded: "You're probably the only person in the room who's met Gov. Palin."
Randy Scheunemann, a longtime McCain aide on foreign policy, was close at hand during her meetings. Another adviser, Stephen Biegun, also accompanied her at each meeting and briefed reporters later.
Karzai and Palin discussed security problems in Afghanistan, including cross-border insurgencies. They also talked about the need for more U.S. troops there, which both McCain and Democrat Barack Obama say is necessary, Biegun said.
With both Karzai and Uribe, Palin discussed the importance of energy security. With Uribe, the conversation also touched on the proposed U.S.-Colombian Free Trade Agreement that McCain and Palin support but Obama opposes.
Her meeting with Kissinger, which lasted more than an hour, covered a range of national security and foreign policy issues, specifically Russia, Iran and China, Biegun said.
"Rather than make specific policy prescriptions, she was largely listening, having an exchange of views and also very interested in forming a relationship with people she met with today," he said.
Before Palin's first meeting of the day, with Karzai, campaign aides had told reporters in the press pool that followed her they could not go into meetings where photographers and a video camera crew would be let in for pictures.
Bush and members of Congress routinely allow reporters to attend photo opportunities along with photographers, and the reporters sometimes are able to ask questions at the beginning of private meetings before they are ushered out.
At least two news organizations, including AP, objected to the exclusion of reporters and were told that the decision to have a "photo spray" only was not subject to discussion. After aides backed away from that, campaign spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said the reporter ban was a "miscommunication."
On Wednesday, McCain and Palin are expected to meet jointly with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili and Ukrainian President Viktor Yuschenko. Palin is then to meet separately with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
Palin, 44, has been to neighboring Canada and to Mexico, and made a brief trip to Kuwait and Germany to see Alaska National Guard troops.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDU4OTdhMTFhN2YwZTY3MmMzNGFhYzc3ODdhOTA0ZjQ=
technically not even president-elect until electoral college meets. nm
.
From 2001
EXTREMISM ON THE LEFT AND RIGHT
Many believe that leftist extremism in the United States was at its peak during the 1960s and 1970s and that right-wing extremism then became the major threat. While the
bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and a number of other incidents attributed to right-wing extremists indicate that the major threat is from the right, leftist extremism remains a concern within the United States.
I wonder if that settled down since 2001. nm
.
Something else happened in 09/2001........ sm
My 17YO stepson was killed in a motorcycle accident in which a car pulled out in front of him. He had been taught to safely ride a motorcycle, had a helmet on, and was traveling at a safe rate of speed. Was it his fault he was killed? Was it his parents' fault he was killed? Was it the City of Mesquite's fault he was killed?
No.
It was a tragedy, but there is nothing that could have been done to keep that accident from happening from our standpoint. The only person who could have prevented it was the driver of the car who pulled out in front of him.
Sometimes things happen that are beyond our control. Bush could not have stopped the 911 disaster. He was not the pilot of any of the planes. He could not personally marshall each plane and verify each passenger on the manifest. He could not keep those planes from crashing into the Towers or the Pentagon or in the field in Pennsylvania.
I'm so sick and tired of hearing the Dems bash Bush from everything from 911 to their own bad hair days. If you are going to blame anyone in the US for 911, blame the airlines who did not have proper security in place in the event that terrorists might try something like this. Blame Clinton for not taking out Bin Laden when he had 3, count 'me, THREE chances to do so. Or better yet, blame AL Quaida for sending their terrorists off in search of their 70 virgins. I'm not the biggest Bush fan in the world, but the man does not deserve to be blamed for things he had no control over. Oh, sure, he may have known that terroist activitis were brewing, but as I said, he could not have done anything to stop what happened.
Uh...the DATE was 9/11/2001
I do believe that was Dumb-ya's administration. Why don't you read a book? You need some education.
Who was Pres on 09/11/2001?
Why would anyone give him credit for PROTECTING us?
Yes, my income grew after 2001...nm
Moved home, and I took my primary account home with me as an IC, and then promptly found two other accounts. I've always worked more than one job, and being at home is no different. And it's always been just me doing the work, no one else.
However, in the last two years, since dems have had control of Congress, my income has plummeted by 20,000. The most I ever made was close to $80,000 a year, and that was working 12 hours a day, every day, seven days a week.
Now, I have to work more day, get paid less, and make somewhere around $55 or 60,000.
I'm an IC MT/editor/QA type person, who does all three, for different clients, depending on who I work for.
Not an MTSO, but took advantage of all the tax breaks for small businesses, as well as HSA account for health purposes, just for my husband and myself.
Soooo...to answer your question to sam....Yes, I did well in the first four years after 9/11. I work my butt off, to be able to live where I do. We're middle class America....but dropping fast.
I cannot afford to have more taxes. I cannot afford to pay for more social programs for those who do not work.
As someone said recently on this board. Why should I work my butt off to make $60,000 a year, to be told I am in an upper middle class bracket, and have to dole out thousands more in taxes to the people who refuse to work? (And if they can't work, there are progrmas for them) I'd do just as well working only 40 hours a week, instead of the 80 to 100 I do work.
Do not believe for a moment, that Obama knows what he's doing for the economy. It's all a subterfuge to raise taxes anything that isn't tied down, and then some. A one time tax rebate to lower and middle America, to buy their votes. Then tax, tax, tax.
No thanks.
If we had NUKED the Afghan SOB's on 9/12/2001,
.
Obama talking about redistribution of wealth in 2001...
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/26/obama-in-2001-how-to-bring-about-redistributive-change/
Before discounting this because it is on a conservative site....the You Tube tape is there...you can hear "O" in his own words.
Between May and July 2001, the National Security Agency reported
at least 33 different intercepts indicating a possible imminent al Qaeda attack. The FBI issued 216 secret, internal threat warnings between January 1 and September 10, 2001, of which 6 mentioned possible attacks against airports or airlines. The Federal Aviation Administration issued 15 notices of possible terrorist threats against American airlines. The State Department issued 9 separate warnings during the same period to embassies and citizens abroad, including 5 that highlighted a general threat to Americans all over the world.
Yeah, that Bill Clinton wasn't doing his job alright.
Oh, wait.
No objective person can state with 100% certainty what happened 9-11-2001.
Some believe what they were told via news, some believe the new presentation of facts, theories, evidence, and logic. I believe that al-Quaeda terrorist attacked the US on 9-11. I take to the conspiracy theories with a grain of salt, until different is proven to be true. Out of all of the theories and logic presented, the one unanswered question is why was the bin Laden family allowed to flee America the day after the attacks??? It's at least one piece of the puzzle that doesn't fit and to me the American public has not gotten a satisfactory answer. Heck, most don't even know or care.
On a lighter note, have you seen The Seige starring Denzel Washington and Bruce Willis? Released in 1998 and eerily similar to post 9-11.
oh pot! oh kettle! nm
nm
pot-kettle
you have the weird thought process. you call yourself a Christian and then think it's God's plan this man was murdered? I think God is loving, and I think he loved this man, too. You know, he does love everyone, even the abortionist. get it- everyone.
pot...meet kettle....
I like Kettle Corn!
:)
Well, you are just a kettle of contractions,
aren't you? You went to a Christian school through high school, Christians are closed minded, yet your own children are in a school where they can pray and you say yea? I suppose it all depends on which god they are praying to, huh?
2000 election
Yes, Bush did win only one election. The first election was handed to him by the Supreme Court Five. If it had been handled properly and fairly, Gore would have won as he had the popular vote.
2000 dead: How many is
2000 Dead: How Many Is Too Many?
By Mike Hoffman
When I left for the Middle East in February 2003 with a Marine artillery unit, I was told Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, had been assisting Al Qaeda, was partly responsible for 9/11 and was an imminent threat to the United States and Iraq’s neighbors.
We destroyed Iraq’s under-equipped and demoralized military – the imminent threat to our nation -- in a little over a month. Since the invasion, no weapons inspection team has found evidence of any weapons of mass destruction and the claims that Saddam Hussein was working with Al Qaeda have been shown to be nonsense. When I left Iraq for home in May 2003, after President Bush told us “Mission Accomplished,” 139 Americans had died.
After the invasion was over and the occupation began, Iraqis didn’t throw flowers and candy at our feet. Instead roadside bombs and ambushes awaited us down every street. The administration said we were about to turn a corner. We were told that once Saddam and his sons were captured or killed the insurgents would give up, demoralized by the loss of their leader; peace would reign. By the time Saddam was captured in December 2003, 463 Americans had died in Iraq.
The capture of Saddam had no effect, and daily attacks against American forces and Iraqi security forces continued. It was during this time that the bloody Shiite Rebellion occurred. This was some of the fiercest fighting yet in Iraq. Even with this rebellion happening, we were told there was still hope. Sovereignty would soon be handed over to the Iraqis and another corner would be turned. But we needed to stay and provide the Iraqis security until we could “officially” turn the country back over to them. This would empower the Iraqis and end the Insurgency. By then, June 2004, 958 had come home in boxes.
Most Iraqis didn’t seem to care they had sovereignty, since we still occupied their country. They were still without electricity and faced an average unemployment rate of 70%. Every time US soldiers walked outside the wire they were still taking their lives in their hands. Then, we were told, elections would fix this. The Iraqis would have their own government in place and begin drafting a constitution. This would demoralize the terrorists and end the fighting. On the day of the elections, January 30, 2005, the U.S. death toll was 1,537.
What’s wrong with this picture?
The first time we were told the war was over we had lost 139 American; now we have lost 2,000 American lives in Iraq. Time and time again we are told things are getting better, that we have “turned a corner.”
In the Viet Nam War we didn’t “turn corners;” instead policy makers talked about the “light at the end of the tunnel.” We know now that by 1968 President Johnson knew there was no light at the end of the tunnel; he knew his war was lost. The Pentagon Papers showed this; Robert McNamara admits it today. Over 22,000 American troops died in Viet Nam after 1968 in a war our leaders knew was hopeless and just piling up American and Asian bodies.
Again, there is no light at the end of the tunnel, and we’ve turned so many corners we’re going in circles. Our leaders know they can’t win this war, but, like Johnson and McNamara, they refuse to admit it to the American people. Meanwhile, our troops remain a huge provocative force in the region and each individual soldier a prized target. Failure to face this reality is exacerbating the current chaos in Iraq and preventing real regional diplomatic solutions.
So the question falls to ordinary Americans: How many more brave men and women are we willing to sacrifice before we force our leaders to bring the troops home? I pray that it does not take another 56,000 like it did in Viet Nam.
Mike Hoffman was a lance corporal in a Marine artillery unit during the invasion of Iraq. He is a member of Iraq Veterans Against The War.
2000 yrs ago? Try 6000....
not looking for any kind of attention - you are awfully presuming/assuming for a public board/forum poster....you know nothing about me...
please do not respond to any of my posts if you don't like them - you DO have that choice.
I have never been called since 2000
to be included in a national poll. I'm Democrat. I answer all phone calls JUST to have my voice heard. Why haven't they called me?
Stolen, just like in 2000
I guess it is alright if the Republicans steal an election, but not the Dems???
I'd say that's the pot calling the kettle black, gt. sm
It's not up to you to judge who is Christian and who is not. Anyone who wishes for someone to burn in hell along with his family has no business especially judging anyone's Christianity. Good Lord.
Pot..kettle..black, LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Please post where I have made a *generalization about everything*? LOL, that in itself is a wild broad generalization by you..er..which one are you today?? Cant keep track, changing your handle every few posts..Continue on with your lies, misrepresentations and extremely board generalizations..I need a good laugh this afternoon.
Well if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black.
Please no racist comments.....pots and kettles are black....this isn't a race issue.
Ain't that the pot calling the kettle black?
You accuse us of attacking, when I believe you were the one that called another poster ugly, jealous because of her opinion of SP? Many of us here are sick to death of you people and your hypocritical double standards. Practice what you preach!
Sorta like Ma Kettle on the Beverly
gonna shoot me some vittles... Me, I like the grocery store; it's more lady-like! 
Now THERE'S the pot calling the kettle black..lm
if I ever saw one - you 3 have the gall to call the rest of us who do not agree with you "bitter, hateful and not worthy of a reply," yet you continue to badger, demean, prod and goad the rest of us who, yes REALLY, do not agree with you, can't understand your so-called "logic" with all that is happening in this country right now and who is responsible for it happening (yep, get a grip - it's now Obama's fault this mess is occurring - it may have started on Bush's watch, but Obama has certainly and assuredly starting forcing this country toward socialism and deepened our debt threefold on top of many other unforgivable things from a president who supposedly loves this country). As long as this is a free country and as long as the moderator continues to allow this type of rhetoric, you 3 don't have the right to spew such nastiness to the rest of us. JMO........
The $2000 debit card sm
has provisions that state the card cannot be used for alcohol or cigarettes. They will get no cash back on any purchase.
The government has already thought of all these things. The card can only be used for food, personal items, etc.
I can't believe it matters. 2000 or 6000, what's... sm
The difference? It's still an ancient piece of fiction written by primitive, superstitious people from a corner of a long-dead empire. Why anyone in the present day would chose to believe any of it, let alone feel compelled to organize their life around it (or believe that it predicts the future, of all things!) is beyond me.
Here is the lastest immigration law, 2000. sm
http://www.aca.ch/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=91&Itemid=80
Then you'll just have to do what the dems did since 2000
Suck it up, tune him out and go on about your business.
Then you'll just have to do what the dems did since 2000
Suck it up, tune him out and go on about your business. He's not going anywhere anytime soon.
Once again gt, you are the proverbal pot calling the kettle black.
x
Don't make us LAUGH too hard there, kettle.
Gt happens to be on the CORRECT board and her views aren't the least hateful to anyone else who is on the CORRECT board expressing the appropriate views. Who are you to sit there complaining that your divisive and disruptive behavior isn't treated with the proper respect here? It's all so much petulant kindergarten whining. If you don't like it, LEAVE. If you stay we have to assume you do like it, and in that case, what are you wasting time complaining about?
Still protesting too much.....and pot calling kettle black.
Sarcasm, condescenion, put-downs...check your last sentence. And I was serious, I hope you DO have a good day...you probably need one, because you bear a lot of hostility toward an anonymous poster on a public board. Remember Teddy...you shot first.
I've been called worse than a pot or a kettle. LOL
Racist comment? Please point it out to me.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
NO MESSAGE. You wouldn't understand it anyway. Wutta buzzoo.
Another look at the 2000 Bush v. Gore debate.
I wonder if Bush would still have won if voters knew the extent to which he blatantly lied during this debate. To find the TRUTH, all someone has to do is take just about EVERYTHING Bush said, REVERSE IT (with the possible exception of the comment: "I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place." I didn't understand it in 2000 and still don't know what it means. And why did he only focus on "our friends in the Middle East?") I know this isn’t new news, but I found it interesting to take a second look at this. Hindsight being 20/20, I'm amazed at how good Gore is suddenly starting to look!
From www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html
MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?
BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today's military is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we're overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It's to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place.
MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, one minute.
GORE: I want to make it clear, our military is the strongest, best-trained, best-equipped, best-led fighting force in the world and in the history of the world. Nobody should have any doubt about that, least of all our adversaries or potential adversaries. If you entrust me with the presidency, I will do whatever is necessary in order to make sure our forces stay the strongest in the world. In fact, in my ten-year budget proposal I've set aside more than twice as much for this purpose as Governor Bush has in his proposal. Now, I think we should be reluctant to get involved in someplace in a foreign country. But if our national security is at stake, if we have allies, if we've tried every other course, if we're sure military action will succeed, and if the costs are proportionate to the benefits, we should get involved. Now, just because we don't want to get involved everywhere doesn't mean we should back off anywhere it comes up. I disagree with the proposal that maybe only when oil supplies are at stake that our national security is at risk. I think that there are situations like in Bosnia or Kosovo where there's a genocide, where our national security is at stake there.
BUSH: I agree our military is the strongest in the world today, that's not the question. The question is will it be the strongest in the years to come? Everywhere I go on the campaign trail I see moms and dads whose son or daughter may wear the uniform and they tell me about how discouraged their son or daughter may be. A recent poll was taken among 1,000 enlisted personnel, as well as officers, over half of whom will leave the service when their time of enlistment is up. The captains are leaving the service. There is a problem. And it's going to require a new commander in chief to rebuild the military power. I was honored to be flanked by Colin Powell and General Norman Schwartzkopf recently stood by me side and agreed with me. If we don't have a clear vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that. I'm going to rebuild our military power. It's one of the major priorities of my administration.
I just hope we don't have a repeat of the 2000 election...sm
Whoever wins, let them win by a wide enough margin that the is no question. To this day I do not know how Bush et AL got away with that one. Talk about stupid democrats!
By trying to address 2000 and 2004 election corruption
nm
This person was talking about the 2000 debit cards and calling them handouts...sm
Now is not the time to be talking about handups in the midst of a national disaster like the one in NO. In a time like this it is too late for that and inappropriate. But enlighten me, what kind of handup has the republican party offered the displaced NO citizens?
These people NEED HANDOUTS AND YESTERDAY, until they can regain some type of normal existence and then handups would be good. Some people can't stand to see a person get anything. I've learned that's just how some people are. Even though they are cush in front of their computers posting away, they think if I'm not getting 2000 dollars from the government neither should they. And then there's the, I got mine croud. They feel that these people should have educated themselves, worked harder and they wouldn't be in this position, so let em' stay in the astrodome until they can figure something out.
I don't agree and think these compasionate conservative Christians who think this way should ask themselves WWJD?
Lol. Media Matters liberal misinformation vs conservative misinformation.. pot ... kettle...nm
nm
|
