That's because Fannie and Freddie are in his back pocket
Posted By: Backwards typist on 2009-06-23
In Reply to: Barney Frank is a nut! He would also not listen re - Fannie and Freddie until too late!!.nm
He received a lot of money from both places. Would you go against them if you get large election donations and low housing costs with cheap mortages? I don't think so. That's why he has to go. He is just as corrupt as the others.
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 on Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac...
Freddie found itself in Justice Department crosshairs in 2003, after it finally admitted to years of accounting schemes to underreport its earnings...to the tune of $5 billion. Freddie paid a $125 million fine to federal regulators, more than $400 million in shareholder lawsuit settlements, and $3.8 million in civil fines to settle Federal Election Commission charges of improper political fundraising.
Freddie's creative accounting was nothing compared to Fannie's. As determined by two separate federal reports in 2004 and 2006, Fannie Mae out-and-out cooked the books so the bigwigs at the top could rake in millions in windfall profits. The Washington Post reports that Fannie misstated its earnings by about $10.6 billion from 1998 through 2004. all so fraudulent multimillion dollar bonuses could kick in for Fannhie's bigwigs.
Those Fannie Mae bigwigs who cashed in on the cooked books? Chairman Franklin Raines, Bill Clinton's OMB director...A whopping $52 million. Vice Chair Jamie Gorelick (remember her from the 9-11 Commission hearings), Clinton's deputy ATTORNEY GENERAL, $15 million. Chairman and Chief Executive James A. Johnson, liberal lobbyist (the one who was kicked off Obama's VP vetting committee...looks like they should have vetted their committee) due to his role in the Countrywide financial scandal...$1.9 million. Raines and the CFO of Fannie Mae were ousted.
Dems, loathe to clean up Fannie and Freddie houses even though Greenspan said preventitive action needed to be taken "sooner than later," came up with a "reform bill" in early 2005. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) mandated that Fannie and Freddie had to start handing out mortgages to "minority and moderate income buyers." Whether these new customers were creditworthywas of little concern; Congress had race and bean-counting to achieve. And now they basically owned half of the US housing market.
And now the American taxpayer is bailing out BOTH of these companies.
Is Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac the Democrat's Enron? Sure looks like it to me.
And incidentally, Franklin Raines has been advising the Obama campaign on the mortgage and housing issues....ahem.
We own AIG, Fannie and Freddie
Maybe the international community wants their money back now. Maybe that is why credit markets are frozen. Since AIG and Fannie and Freddie are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, the world is lining up for their securitized mortgages to be repaid.
Maybe this bailout is not to buy up bad debt, but to pay off bad debt the government has already bought, insured, and now needs to ask us money for to pay. WE ARE BEING LIED TO AGAIN!
freddie and fannie
SHOT IN THE FANNIE MAE
The History of a Financial Disaster
1997
Fannie Mae is a GSE (Govt. Sponsored Entity) regulated by Congress.
Fannie Mae buys mortgages from other companies.
It is backed by the taxpayers for all losses, but keeps all profits.
President Clinton loosens Home Loan Requirements.
1998
Banks begin making thousands of bad loans,0 down, no documentation, for 120%! (1998 – 2008).
Executives at Fannie receive huge bonuses if loan targets are met.
Franklin Raines and Jamie Garelick from the Clinton Administration are appointed to run Fannie Mae.
2003
President Bush proposes a new oversight committee to clean up Fannie Mae, but Democrats derail the effort.
Rep. Melvyn Watt, (D-NC) Committee on Financial Institutions & Consumer Credit. stated, "I don’t see much other than weakening the bargaining power poorer families to get affordable housing."
1999 - 2004
Raines earns $100 million in bonuses.
Garelick earns $75 million in bonuses.
In 2004, Enron collapses, congress investigates, Executives Skilling & Lay go to jail, for fraudulent bookkeeping.
Congress responds with the Sorbanes-Oxley Act, more heavy regulation of corporations.
2004
An OMB investigation finds massive fraudulent bookkeeping at Fannie Mae.
False numbers triggered executive bonuses every year.
Congress holds no hearings, no one goes to jail, or is punished.
WHY NOT?
1999 -2005
Fannie Mae gives millions to Democratic causes, examples: Jesse Jackson & ACORN.
Fannie Mae pays millions to 354 congressmen and senators, from both parties.
Who got the most money?
Top 4 Recipients
Top 4 Recipients
2005
Franklin Raines & top execs are forced to resign from Fannie Mae.
They do not go to jail.
There is no media "perp. walk."
They keeps all of their bonuses
They finally pay $31.4 million in civil fines.
2005
The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act is sponsored by:
2005
None of the top 4 recipients support the legislation.
The reform act is blocked by Democrats, never even making it out of committee.
None of the politicians return any of the money, tainted by fraud.
2008
Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac go bankrupt and the govt. takes them over completely.
Lehman Brothers, goes bankrupt from investing in bad mortgages.
AIG get $85 million in loan guarantees, after insuring bad loans & projects.
Taxpayers will ultimately pay BILLIONS.
2008
Franklin Raines is now an advisor to the Obama Campaign which wants the govt. to take over more of the economy.
Did government involvement in the mortgage market work out?
How will even MORE government involvement make it better? Do you want to be Sweden?
McCain favors revising regulations & loan standards, selling off Fannie & Freddie.
SOURCES
Congressional Record, 5/25/06
"Hannity & Colmes," Fox News, 9/16-9/17/08
Herald Tribune, 4/18/08
New York Times, 9/13/03
www. govtrack.com, 9/17/08
Obama on Freddie and Fannie
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gG5WlF
McCain and Fannie and Freddie
Contributions from Fannie and Freddie's boards of directors and lobbyists, who are technically not employees. That analysis found Fannie and Freddie-related contributors gave $169,000 to John McCain and his related committees, compared with $16,000 to Obama and his related committees.
The other money Obama received was from employees and their families, not the corporation.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/727/
Dems and the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac fiasco...
Collapse or the Democrat Swindle of the U.S. Taxpayer
In 2006 an election year, the Democrats were still trying to lay the Enron scandal on Bush and the Republicans. With the help of the press a cover up of a larger financial scandal was taking place. A scandal that we are paying for today. In 2006 a 3 year investigation into fraud at Fannie Mae was concluded. It revealed a level of financial misconduct by Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, and others that grossly overstated earnings by 10.6 Billion dollars. To gain bonuses.
For those who don't know both Raines and Gorelick were high ranking officials in the Clinton Administration.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html
http://eddriscoll.com/archives/013595.php
Hillary supporter's take on fannie/freddie....
I hope you haven’t just eaten, because what you are about to read will disturb you–and well it should. It’s proof that John McCain foresaw the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae disaster in 2006– and tried against all Obama-Like minds to ward it off.
Below are John McCain’s remarks urging the passage of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which he co-sponsored and which was rendered “Dead” in Congress.
Guess who prevailed and didn’t take heed? Or more appropriately, guess who deliberately “looked the other way”?
This is all we need to know to understand exactly WHICH candidate in this election is willing to break some eggs when it comes to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–two organizations that, with the help of certain Democrats, deliberately redistributed wealth the easy way. Now we are all paying for it, as intended all along. Just as John McCain warned below.
As we view the carnage, this is all we need to know to understand exactly WHICH candidate foresaw this carnage we are witnessing, and which candidate worked to convince the other candidate to help avoid it. It is all we need to know to recognize exactly WHICH candidate had the right judgment and was looking out for the rest of us.
Joe Biden? It’s time for US to be Patriotic? No. It’s time for YOU to be patriotic. In fact, it’s too late. As for you saying, “It’s time to be part of the deal”. We want no part of this “deal”. And what a “deal” it was!
May 26, 2006
Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
Quick Info
S-90 Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005
Last Action: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Status: Dead
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190,to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.
Update: Well looky here. Here’s a glowing Wall Street piece on Obama, written in June 2008. You would think Mr. “Regulator” Obama really is Jesus looking out for us! But…..here’s the paragraph that hooked me–the paragraph that haunts today:
He characterized the senator as a quick study on financial services, citing his early support of efforts by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank to empower the Federal Housing Administration to help struggling homeowners.
Oh they “empowered” all right. The Democrats killed this bill while Dodd, Frank and Obama fiddled and helped Fannie and Freddie cook their books, continue to tank, all the while keeping the regulators out of their way. These are the guys who killed the bill that McCain fought for. The bill that would have avoided the financial disaster we witnessed during the past two weeks. In the meantime, take a look at which senators were feeding at the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac trough. My party is not what it used to be. My party has not only let me down, but it has also screwed me and my country in the process.
Note: All of these facts can be independently confirmed if you are interested in the truth of this matter.
More on Barney Frank and fannie/freddie...
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080924145932.aspx
Fannie/Freddie going to cost 7 billion...
if we are lucky.
Thank the dems for defending Freddie, Fannie,etc.
nm
Freddie and Fannie were questioned years ago for
nm
Dems are the real cause of Fannie and Freddie
nm
McCain saw Fannie/Freddie coming in 2005...
and sponsored legislation which the Democrats blocked.
John McCain did anticpate the problems with GSEs and see them as a systemic financial problem. He even sponsored legislation to deal with it, and this is what he said:
"I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."
McCain deserves credit for being on the right side of this. Meanwhile, Obama in just four years in the Senate raked more contributions from Fannie and Freddie than any other Senator in the last 19 years — save Chris Dodd, who's pretty demonstrably in the pocket of Big Mortgage.
Fannie and Freddie....Barney Frank, Chris Dodd...
you left them off your list. The two MAJOR players. Who got the most donations from fannie/freddie? Barack Obama and Chris Dodd. Obama got more from them in his 3 years than other senators did in 20. You do the math and follow the money.
Dollars you have in your pocket won't be worth anything.....
As value decreases now, world is found on shaky ground, too, so my thought is that they are probably going to come up with a currency that will be used by all countries involved (from research I've done) and the dollars you have in your bank account, savings account (?) and pocket won't be worth a red minted cent!
MSNBC is deeply in Obama's pocket...
and please don't come back with Fox News is a conservative network. They allow and have contributors on both sides of the aisle and let them air their opinions. MSNBC doesn't allow anyone not for Obama to speak. Everyone should go to each candidate's web site and see how they stand on the issues.
Former CEO of Freddie Mac is a pub, had to return millions he thieved
http://www.reuters.com/article/bankingfinancial-SP/idUSN0642989720071107
http://www.nndb.com/people/222/000163730/
Emanuel Was Director of Freddie Mac During Scandal...
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6201900&page=1
Emanuel Was Director Of Freddie Mac During Scandal
New Obama Chief of Staff, Others on Board, Missed "Red Flags" of Alleged Fraud Scheme
By BRIAN ROSS and RHONDA SCHWARTZ
November 7, 2008
President-elect Barack Obama's newly appointed chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, served on the board of directors of the federal mortgage firm Freddie Mac at a time when scandal was brewing at the troubled agency and the board failed to spot "red flags," according to government reports reviewed by ABCNews.com.
According to a complaint later filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Freddie Mac, known formally as the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, misreported profits by billions of dollars in order to deceive investors between the years 2000 and 2002.
Emanuel was not named in the SEC complaint (click here to read) but the entire board was later accused by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) (click here to read) of having "failed in its duty to follow up on matters brought to its attention."
In a statement to ABCNews.com, a spokesperson said Emanuel served on the board for "13 months-a relatively short period of time."
The spokesperson said that while on the board, Emanuel "believed that Freddie Mac needed to address concerns raised by Congressional critics."
Freddie Mac agreed to pay a $50 million penalty in 2007 to settle the SEC complaint and four top executives of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation were charged with negligent conduct and, like the company, agreed to settle the case without admitting or denying the allegations.
The actions by Freddie Mac are cited by some economists as the beginning of the country's economic meltdown.
The federal government this year was forced to take over Freddie Mac and a sister federal mortgage agency, Fannie Mae, pledging at least $200 billion in public funds.
Freddie Mac records have been subpoenaed by the Justice Department as part of its investigation of the suspect accounting procedures.
Emanuel was named to the Freddie Mac board by President Bill Clinton in 2000 and resigned his position when he ran for Congress in May, 2001.
Freddie Mac Misrepresented Income, Says SEC
During the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to the SEC, Freddie Mac substantially misrepresented its income to "present investors with the image of a company that would continue to generate predictable and growing earnings."
The role of the 18-member board of directors, including Emanuel, was not addressed in the SEC's public action but was heavily criticized by the oversight group (OFHEO) in 2003.
The oversight report said the board had been apprised of the suspect accounting tactics but "failed to make reasonable inquiries of management."
The report also said board members appointed by the President, such as Emanuel, serve terms that are far too short "for them to play a meaningful role on the Board."
As a Congressman, Emanuel recused himself from any votes dealing with Freddie Mac until just this year.
In dealing with the nation's economic crisis, the new White House chief of staff will almost certainly be involved in discussions about the house and mortgage markets.
Emanuel's spokesperson said, "As White House chief of staff he will work with President-elect Obama and his economic advisers to help ensure we protect taxpayers and homeowners."
Fannie Mae's CEO & Obama
Fannie Mae's CEO (Daniel Mudd) calls Obama and the Democrats the "Family" and "Conscience" of Fannie Mae.
The recent bank failures were caused by the Housing Crisis, which was caused by Mortgage Lenders handing out BILLIONS of Dollars in bad loans and the biggest offenders: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The "Family" and "Conscience" of Fannie Mae and Congress, THE DEMOCRATS, failed miserably and now WE the Tax Payers are stuck paying for their screw-ups.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are semi-private lending institutions crated by the Clinton administration and the Congressional Democrats, designed to make mortgages available and more affordable to more people and to act as moderators for the mortgage industry. They DO NOT follow the same STRICT government regulations that other lenders must follow. They have huge MULTI-MILLION dollars budgets to lobby congress and to pay large political contributions to keep regulators off their backs.
The TOP THREE U.S. Senators getting BIG political contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are DEMOCRATS and the #2 recipient was none other than BARACK OBAMA.
1. Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT).. $165,400 (Chairman of Senate Banking Committee)
2. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)....... $126,349 (Only 4 yrs in the Senate)
3. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA).......... $111,000 What is it about Barack Obama that makes him the #2 recipient of pay-offs even ahead of John Kerry and others, even though he is only a Freshman in the Senate?
Many Washington Democrats have gone to work at Fannie and Freddie after leaving Washington and have mad MILLIONS of Dollars in the process.
As early as 2005 the Congressional Black Caucus and Barack Obama KNEW that Fannie Mae was failing but "THE FAMILY" Democrats and OBAMA took payoffs to do NOTHING about it.
Obama was in the room during this speech. He heard about the problems that faced Fannie Mae and yet he did NOTHING about it.
During the THREE years following the day when he heard this speech about Fannie Mae's problems, Obama received $126,349 in payoffs from Fannie Mae to keep quiet and DO NOTHING about their disastrous lending practices. Now Obama blames John McCain for the Housing Crisis and the bank failu res and says that HE can fix it.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac got a Federal bailout when it became obvious that they were bankrupt. Yet the Federal Government allowed Lehman Brothers to collapse pushing our economy over the edge.
Obama has been attacking McCain and Republican policies for the current financial turmoil. However, "...Senator Obama was at the head of the line when the piggies lined up at the Fannie and Freddie trough for campaign bucks."
__________________
Fannie Mae/NY Times
Check out the date on this. Of course, this came as no surprise to me. It's surprising to ever find an objective article from the NY Times, but sometimes they surprise us.
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''
Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''
Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.
Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.
Fannie CEO is Daniel Mudd
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gPfdSGL82ufTASVrfgCbKslcCYPgD92M2NI03
Bush orchestrated Fannie Mae F-up
The former chief executive officer of Fannie Mae says the Bush administration helped orchestrate an accounting scandal that cost him his job and that he wants to use White House documents to defend himself in a shareholder lawsuit.
Franklin Raines, who served as President Clinton's budget director, argues in court documents that the Bush administration felt the government-chartered agency wielded too much power in the mortgage industry. His attorneys say the White House pushed regulators to weaken Fannie Mae and triggered a $6 billion accounting scandal.
Raines subpoenaed the White House for documents in July. Justice Department lawyers will go before a federal judge Thursday to fight it.
Relying primarily on articles by financial journalists and the testimony of industry analysts, Raines describes in court documents an unofficial task force dubbed "Noriega" that was formed to weaken Fannie Mae and drive down its stock price.
Fannie Mae is the largest U.S. buyer and backer of home loans. It was created by Congress but is publicly traded. Raines says the Bush administration wanted to undermine confidence in the agency so it could push for tighter government controls.
You think O is a good guy? He profited from Fannie
nm
you tube video on freddy and fannie
Foreign investors. China and Russia insisted on Fannie Mac bail out.
dd
get on back, neocon, get on back
Tell ya what, sweetheart, last I checked this is the LIBERAL BOARD and I havent been banned, as I dont break the rules, so I can stay as long as I want..Seems to me, conservative, you are the one who should mosey on by and get back to drink more Kook-Aid.
Go back then
So, *Really* or whomever you are..I have a thought, why dont you go back to the conservative board and have some fun discussing how you are gonna save America and the world from terrorists or whatever you think we are accomplishing with this war. Bye..bye..**BIG HUG**
Did think you could come back on that
except to call names. If you can't defend yourself just call names...that's how it works, right?
It's funny and predictable how you all react when you're called on the carpet about your hypocrisy.
*Did think you could come back on that*??
You don't consider *unhinged liberal* calling names?!
All you do is come here and pick, pick, pick, fight, fight, fight. You're boring, and you're terribly unfriendly and unpleasant to be around. For that reason, I don't think I'm going to continue to provide an audience for any more of your attention-seeking temper tantrums.
Other than that, I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by *Did think you could come back on that.* Is English your second language or is your anger and hatred causing you to become a bit *unhinged* yourself? (Was just a rhetorical question. No need to respond. I won't be reading it.) 
We should just go back to
ignoring them, Democrat.
Their own board is dead because they can't stand to AGREE with each other and just be NICE people. They have too much venom that they need to purge or explode, and they've been doing it here.
Not one of them (assuming there is more than one) has posted anything that deserves a response. Not one.
They're just pitiful, bitter, angry, hateful people, and the more we feed them, the fatter they get.
OMG, they are back
The neocons are back..the administrator tells them not to post here but THEY ARE BACK!! A fungus is among us!
Welcome back...nm
Welcome back! You are definitely not alone ...sm
I think anyone who is still able to think for themselves can see it, it is almost predictable actually. Because of all that is going on lately, the translation for that propaganda is:
You need to vote for Republicans so you will not get killed by terrorists.
Back at ya....
Not flip-flops by one person...but several:
1.
WASHINGTON - House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi continues to prove that she is willing to say or do just about anything in attempts to gain traction for Democrats. Now, Pelosi is even warming up her rhetoric for summer using the tried-and-failed, Democrat style of flip-flopping.
According to Roll Call, writing in February to members of the Democrat caucus, Pelosi andthe four elected leaders of theDemocratic Caucus ... urged Members to continue a drumbeat of criticism of theprogram, which went into effect on Jan. 1. 'We ask you to use the upcoming February District Work Period and the following weeks to hold town meetings, visits to senior centers, and other public events to drive this message home,' the leaders wrote. (Roll Call, 2/13/06)
Yesterday in a massive course alteration and in the face of positive polling, Pelosi said that Democrats have been out across the country encouraging seniors to sign up for a prescription drug plan by May 15th. (Pelosi Statement, 5/9/06)
If Nancy Pelosi thinks the Medicare prescription drug program should be criticized in February, why is she saying in May that Democrats are encouraging seniors to sign up for the program, National Republican Congressional Committee Communications Director Carl Forti asked.
Nancy Pelosi is flailing in her attempts to call the prescription drug benefit a program that is 'borne of corruption,' because she knows millions of Americans are in fact saving money, so instead she s taken to her tired routine of playing politics with America s seniors, Forti added, in reference to Pelosi s Sunday appearance on NBC s Meet the Press.
2.
Pelosi and Reid Flip Flop on Implementation of all 9/11 Commission Recommendations
Despite the fact they voted against many of the most important recommendations of the 9/11 Commission over the last few years, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid made the implementation of all their recommendations one of their more prominent campaign promises this year...
Well, now that they've won, promises don't mean a thing, and Speaker-elect Pelosi, in response to a reporter's question, now says you can't do them all.
REPORTER: But your promise though was to enact all of the 9/11 recommendations.
PELOSI: What I am saying to you is that they presented several different options and with the goals they have in mind, we have come up with this proposal which removes the barriers between the house appropriators and authorizers, makes the oversight stronger and makes the American people safer, so if they are giving you different alternatives, implicit in that is that you can't do them all. They're already breaking promises... Should we have expected anything else from them?
3.
Hillary Flip Flops on Ethanol
Following in the footsteps of Democrat presidential hopefuls, Hillary Clinton has “Flip Flopped” on an issue that will play a significant part in the 2008 elections. She is now for ethanol fuel, but she voted against it in June of last year. She failed to learn from Senator Kerry that Flip Flops no longer go unnoticed by voters.
She spoke at the National Press Club and announced her energy plan for the nation. In addition to several user tips like checking tire pressure etc., she espoused the development of ethanol for motor fuel. She suggested that we put a billion dollars from the strategic energy fund into research aimed at unlocking the full potential of ethanol. She also wants to expand loan guarantees to help the first one billion gallons of ethanol capacity come online. She proposes that we have ethanol pumps at 50% of gas stations nationwide by 2015 and a hundred percent by 2025.
This is all well and good, but how could she make 180 degree turn from last June when she voted against ensuring that ethanol is treated like all other motor vehicle fuels and that taxpayers and local governments do not have to pay for environmental damage caused by ethanol? The answer is simple, she has flip flopped in order to better her position in Iowa , whose caucus is a crucial start in the primary process in Presidential elections. In the age of instant information, candidates who change their position with the political winds should take note that their voting record is available to anyone with internet access. Read the how the votes fell at U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 1st Session.
4.
Hillary Flip-Flops on Immigration
Democrats flip-flop on a regular basis, and in the age of instant information it is becoming increasingly difficult to pull it off. Kerry tripped over his own statements on his way to defeat in 2004, and Hillary Clinton is well on her way to following in his footsteps.
In an attempt to appear hawkish on immigration in 2003 she said that she was adamantly against illegal immigration:
I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants, Clinton said in a Feb. 2003 radio interview.
Clinton said the U.S. might have to move towards an ID system even for citizens in order to combat illegal border crossings, or implement at least a visa ID, some kind of an entry and exit ID. Story
She has now come out is in favor of citizenship for illegal aliens and claimed that Republicans want to impose a “police state”. In typical Democrat fashion, she is adjusting her position according to the direction in which she believes the winds of politics are blowing:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a potential White House candidate in 2008, said Wednesday some Republicans are trying to create a police state to round up illegal immigrants. Newsmax
This is similar to the strong position she has taken on the Dubai ports deal. She is adamantly against and Arab company running a handful of terminals at our ports, but is also adamantly against racial profiling. Playing both sides of the fence is classic Clintonian politics and a tactic she probably learned from her charismatic husband.
5. Reid Ticket Flip-Flop
The Associated Press reports that Senator Harry Reid has reversed course, and his office acknowledged Wednesday night he misstated the ethics rules governing his acceptance of free boxing tickets and has decided to avoid taking such gifts in the future.
The Nevada senator still believes it was entirely permissible for him to accept ringside seats for three professional boxing matches in 2004 and 2005 from the Nevada Athletic Commission but has nonetheless decided to avoid doing so in the future, his office said.
In light of questions that have been raised about the practice, Senator Reid will not accept these kinds of credentials in the future in order to avoid even the faintest appearance of impropriety, spokesman Jim Manley said.
The announcement came after The Associated Press confronted Reid's office early Wednesday with conclusions from several ethics experts that the Senate leader misstated congressional ethics rules in trying to defend his actions.
According to Reid, it was perfectly okay for him to accept the free gifts because they were from his home state.
6. Pelosi - Murtha
Pelosi, in a letter distributed Sunday to newly elected House Democrats, wrote that Murtha's outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq helped change the electoral campaign for the House this fall. Murtha began calling for a U.S. pullout from Iraq a year ago, and his open opposition to the war made him a focus of intense criticism from Republicans and the White House.
(SNIP)
Pelosi added: Your strong voice for national security, the war on terror and Iraq provides genuine leadership for our party, and I count on you to continue to lead on these vital issues. For this and for all you have done for Democrats in the past and especially this last year, I am pleased to support your candidacy for Majority Leader for the 110th Congress.
Here is a few interesting points about Murtha on National Security.
Murtha on Homeland Security:
Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
Voted NO on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
Voted NO on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. (Oct 2004)
Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
Rated 44% by SANE, indicating a mixed record on military issues. (Dec 2003)
So far, doesn't seem Murtha has shown a strong voice on Security for America. Then again, Pelosi doesn't have to tell the truth, does she? After all, she doesn't even think Iraq is a war... she thinks it is a situation!!!!!
Since it has been reported that al-Qaeda has been trying to enter our country via the Mexican border, lets also take a look at Murtha's record on immigration, shall we?
Voted NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
To be VERY clear here, al-Qaeda has already informed us that they have smuggled materials across the Mexican border, this was reported on Nov. 2006.
A NEWSCHANNEL 5 investigation reveals what the feds don't want you to know. Suspected terrorists are hiding inside the U.S. and they got here by sneaking across the Mexican border.
What we've been reporting for more than a year has been confirmed by a government report just released. (Click here to download the report.)
And a brand new interview by Pakistani investigative reporter Hamid Mir is bringing in more information. Mir has interviewed some of America's most dangerous terrorist enemies.
This time the Al Qaeda commander he talked to gave a grim warning that another attack on America is coming very soon.
We can attack America anytime, says Abu Dawood during the interview. He also told the reporter that Muslims must leave America.
Murtha also flip flops about as much as John Kerry does.
Murtha voted for the 10 October 2002 resolution that as a last resort authorized the use of force against Iraq. However, he later began expressing doubts about the war. On 17 March 2004, when Republicans offered a “War in Iraq Anniversary Resolution” that “affirms that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq, when JD Hayworth called for a recorded vote, Murtha then voted against it.
Still, in early 2005 Murtha argued against the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. “A premature withdrawal of our troops based on a political timetable could rapidly devolve into a civil war which would leave America’s foreign policy in disarray as countries question not only America’s judgment but also its perseverance”, he stated
On 17 November 2005, he touched off a firestorm when he called for the redeployment of U.S. troops in Iraq, saying, The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily.
I guess liberal political opinion flip flops according to what political season it is.
During debate on adopting the rule for the resolution, Congresswoman Jean Schmidt, a Republican from Ohio, made a statement attributed to Danny Bubp, an Ohio state Representative and Marine Corps reservist, “He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do.
7.
|
 |
( 8/10/2004 ) CNN quoted the San Francisco Democrat today in saying she didn't support the nomination: But I will say what I said before is that there shouldn't - a person should not be the director of central intelligence who's acted in a very political way when we're dealing with the safety of the American people. Intelligence has to be the gathering and analysis and dissemination of information, of intelligence, without any political, any politics involved at all. Sorry, Nancy. The Republican National Committee has unearthed this from June 5, in the Chattanooga Times Free Press: If Goss is nominated for the post, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said that she would support him. Pelosi worked closely with Goss during the congressional investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks. Whoever replaces Tenet needs to be independent of political pressure, Pelosi said. Goss, who worked for the CIA before becoming a congressman in 1988, has shown that ability as chairman of the House Intelligence panel, she added.
8.
Kennedy Flip-Flops on Quizzing High Court Nominees
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
July 28, 2005
(CNSNews.com) - Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts will be expected to answer fully any questions about his views on controversial issues that could come before the court in the future, according to Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). But, during the 1967 confirmation debate over future Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kennedy argued that Supreme Court nominees should defer any comments on such matters.
In his June 20, floor speech responding to President Bush's nomination of Roberts to the Supreme Court, Kennedy argued that senators must not fail in our duty to the American people to responsibly examine Judge Roberts' legal views.
Kennedy listed a number of issues, including workers' rights, health care and environmental regulations, that he considers important.
Each of these issues, and many others, [have] been addressed by the Supreme Court in recent years, Kennedy said. In many of these cases, the Court was narrowly divided, and these issues are likely to be the subject of future Court decisions in the years to come.
The Massachusetts Democrat said he is troubled by Roberts' strict interpretation of the Constitution's commerce clause and added that other aspects of Judge Roberts' record also raise important questions about his commitment to individual rights.
Because Judge Roberts has written relatively few opinions in his brief tenure as a judge, his views on a wide variety of vital issues are still unknown, Kennedy charged. What little we know about his views and values lends even greater importance and urgency to his responsibility to provide the Senate and the American people with clear answers.
Kennedy listed examples of conservative positions Roberts had argued on behalf of both private clients and as the principle deputy solicitor general for the administration of President George H. W. Bush.
Judge Roberts represented clients in each of these cases, but we have a duty to ask where he stands on these issues, Kennedy continued. I join my colleagues in the hope that the process will proceed with dignity. But the nominee will be expected to answer fully, so that the American people will know whether Judge Roberts will uphold their rights. See Video
During the 1967 confirmation debate over the nomination of then-Solicitor General Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, however, Kennedy held a different view about the types of questions the nominee should be required to answer. Film footage obtained by Cybercast News Service shows Kennedy's response to the prospect of senators asking Marshall questions about how he might rule in future cases.
We have to respect that any nominee to the Supreme Court would have to defer any comments on any matters, which are either before the court or very likely to be before the court, Kennedy said during a 1967 press conference. This has been a procedure which has been followed in the past and is one which I think is based upon sound legal precedent. See Video
Marshall was serving President Lyndon Johnson as solicitor general when he was nominated in the summer of 1967. Prior to that, he had been an attorney for the NAACP, and had successfully argued the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court case that racially integrated the nation's public schools. Marshall's nomination was opposed by Southern Democrats who feared his confirmation would further the cause of racial equality in the United States, but he was confirmed by a vote of 69 to 11 on Aug. 30, 1967.
Multiple calls to Sen. Kennedy's office seeking comment for this report were not returned.
9. noted back on the 10th about how Democrats were playing political games with the Iraq war by being before the suggested ’surge’ in troops in Iraq before they were against it. Well guess what? Add another Democrat to the game players: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes. Via the Washington Times:
On Dec. 5, Newsweek magazine touted an interview with then-incoming House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes as an “exclusive.” And for good reason.
“In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq,” the story began, Mr. Reyes “said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a ’stepped up effort to dismantle the militias.’ ”
“We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq,” the Texas Democrat said to the surprise of many, “I would say 20,000 to 30,000.”
Then came President Bush’s expected announcement last week, virtually matching Mr. Reyes’ recommendation and argument word-for-word — albeit the president proposed only 21,500 troops.
Wouldn’t you know, hours after Mr. Bush announced his proposal, Mr. Reyes told the El Paso Times that such a troop buildup was unthinkable.
“We don’t have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level,” he said.
The chairman’s “double-talk” did not go unnoticed. Among others, Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, says such blatant “hypocrisy” undermines both national security and the war on terrorism.
Indeed.
And just in case anyone doubts the validity of the WashTimes story about this, here’s that Dec. 5 Newsweek story on Reyes:
Dec. 5. 2006 - In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a stepped up effort to “dismantle the militias.”
The soft-spoken Texas Democrat was an early opponent of the Iraq war and voted against the October 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to invade that country. That dovish record got prominently cited last week when Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi chose Reyes as the new head of the intelligence panel.
But in an interview with NEWSWEEK on Tuesday, Reyes pointedly distanced himself from many of his Democratic colleagues who have called for fixed timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Coming on the eve of tomorrow’s recommendations from the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission, Reyes’s comments were immediately cited by some Iraq war analysts as fresh evidence that the intense debate over U.S. policy may be more fluid than many have expected.
“We’re not going to have stability in Iraq until we eliminate those militias, those private armies,” Reyes said. “We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq … We certainly can’t leave Iraq and run the risk that it becomes [like] Afghanistan” was before the 2001 invasion by the United States.
[…]
When asked how many additional troops he envisioned sending to Iraq, Reyes replied: “I would say 20,000 to 30,000—for the specific purpose of making sure those militias are dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military.”
[…]
Reyes added that he was “very clear” about his position to Pelosi when she chose him over two rivals—Rep. Jane Harman of California and Rep. Alcee Hastings—to head the critical intelligence post. One widely cited reason that Harman, a moderate Democrat who supported the war, didn’t get the nod from Pelosi is that the Speaker-designate wanted somebody who would be more aggressive in standing up to the Bush White House—which Reyes promises to be on other issues like domestic wiretapping and CIA secret prisons.
But when asked what he told Pelosi about his thinking on Iraq, Reyes replied: “What I said was, we can’t afford to leave there. And anybody who says, we are going pull out our troops immediately, is being dishonest … We’re all interested in getting out of Iraq. That’s a common goal. How we do it, I think, is the tough part. There are those that say, they don’t care what Iraq looks like once we leave there. Let’s just leave there. And I argue against that. I don’t think that’s responsible. And I think it plays right into the hands of Syria and Iran.”
Here’s Reyes’ flip flop, as reported in the El Paso Times on 1/11/07:
President Bush’s announcement Wednesday evening that he would send about 21,500 more soldiers and Marines to Iraq drew a mixed reaction from El Paso residents, and local officials said they weren’t aware he planned to use Fort Bliss Patriot missile units to defend U.S. allies in the region.
Bush had been expected to announce that he would send a “surge” of troops to Baghdad and to Al Anbar Province in an effort to stop sectarian violence and control the al-Quaida insurgency so the country’s fledgling government can establish itself.
“We don’t have the capability to escalate even to this minimal level,” said U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, referring to the availability of troops. “The president has not changed direction, but is simply changing tactics.”
Reyes, who met with Bush on Tuesday to review the plan, said sending more troops removes any incentive the Iraqi government had to take responsibility for the safety of its own citizens. He added that Bush was continuing his “go-it-alone” approach, rather than trying to find diplomatic solutions.
I wrote this in my intial post on Dem flip flops on the surge, and I believe it’s worth repeating today:
They simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth, nor can they be trusted to be in the driver’s seat in a time of war. That these shameless, dishonest, disingenuous, anti-war, cut and run, stuck-in-Vietnam clowns are going to be micromanaging the President’s every move over the next two years on the war on terror is a travesty of epic proportions, and is already proving to be disastrous.
10. Dems Flip Flop on Iraq War
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_CepS8u9wQ
A little light listening and watching.
11.
The 16 August 2005 Washington Times has an editorial that digs deeper into two prominent Democrats with aspirations for 2008: New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-New Arkansas). In Border-control Democrats and President Bush the editors summarize many of the sneaky backtracks and politicking that these two have employed on this crucial national security and economic issue. The opening paragraph alone summarizes the piece perfectly:
Democratic hopefuls for 2008 are sensing how vulnerable President Bush is on border control. The latest sign: New Mexico's politically shrewd governor, Bill Richardson, has made a partial about-face on the issue — at least in words — and is throwing money and attention at his state's southern border. If he makes a national comeback from the Energy Department security scandals that all but ruined his reputation in the final years of the Clinton administration, it will owe in part to a seeming shift on border control that mirrors the one that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton made in December and then reneged upon.
The editors then go on to dispel any doubts of the disingenuousness of their rightward tack on immigration and border control by chronicling their flip-flops. Granted: President Bush has been impotent on border security and weak on immigration — one can only assume because he is playing to his Hispanic voter base. So, I grant Bush no amnesty there. But at least he's consistently frustrating on the issue. Richardson and Clinton, however, have been all over the place, but of course pretend that they haven't. (I guess they just assume the American electorate are too stupid to follow their shenanigans… after all, they have election 2004 as precident that at least 48% of the nation could believe anyone, even an alleged war hero.)
Here are some examples of duplicity from The Washington Times regarding Richardson:
In 1996, as a New Mexico congressman, he voted against increases in border-control expenditures and against a work-verification program to discourage the hiring of illegals. His last few years as New Mexico governor have been more of the same. …As the state Minuteman leader, Clifford Alford, put it to local reporters last week, Mr. Richardson has never done anything to secure the border and he's not doing anything now.
This year Mr. Richardson began changing his tune. In March, he appeared on Fox News Sunday with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and called for tough law enforcement, more border guards, a crackdown on illegal smuggling, better detection of those that overstay their visas, stolen/lost passports.
Last week, after a tour of border areas, Mr. Richardson declared a state of emergency in four counties abutting Mexico, citing growing border-area violence, property damage, drug smuggling and problems with illegals crossing the border. He then invited Chris Simcox, a Minuteman leader, to discuss border control — something Mr. Bush has not done and probably cannot do, having labeled them vigilantes in March — and called on Mexico to bulldoze Las Chepas, a staging ground for illegals and smugglers.
As regards Hillary, the editors refer to her comment last December that [I do] not think that we have protected our borders or our ports… we can do more and we can do better — I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants… People have to stop employing illegal immigrants, and then observe:
Since then, Mrs. Clinton has turned back toward left-liberal orthodoxy. Last month, she gave a fawning speech to the National Council of La Raza in which she endorsed the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minorities (DREAM) Act, which would guarantee illegals in-state college-tuition rates and also grant amnesty to tens of thousands of illegals who graduate from U.S. high schools. The border-control hawkishness had vanished.
|
12. Massive Al-Qaeda Iraq flip flop
Today's lesson on How to Beat the Liberals with Facts about Iraq and Al Qaeda focuses on the hypocrisy of the Democrats. The Bush Administration was not the only politicos to link Al Qaeda and Iraq. But to listen to these very same Dems today, you would think otherwise. **Keep in mind that there is quite a difference in claiming ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda versus Iraq in cahoots with Al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks. The ties between the two terrorist organizations is the issue in question.**
How many times have we heard the KOS kissing former presidential candidate, Gen. Wesley Clark, claim no connection to Iraq and Al Qaeda? But what did Wesley say in 2002???
Tape Shows General Clark Linking Iraq and Al Qaeda
NY Times ^ Jan. 12, 2004 EDWARD WYATT
MANCHESTER, N.H., Jan. 11 — Less than a year before he entered the race for the Democratic nomination for president, Gen. Wesley K. Clark said that he believed there was a connection between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda.
The statement by General Clark in October 2002 as he endorsed a New Hampshire candidate for Congress is a sign of how the general's position on Iraq seems to have changed over time, though he insists his position has been consistent.
Certainly there's a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, he said in 2002. It doesn't surprise me at all that they would be talking to Al Qaeda, that there would be some Al Qaeda there or that Saddam Hussein might even be, you know, discussing gee, I wonder since I don't have any scuds and since the Americans are coming at me, I wonder if I could take advantage of Al Qaeda? How would I do it? Is it worth the risk? What could they do for me?
SNIP
In an interview, General Clark said his more recent remarks were not inconsistent with what he said in 2002. In those remarks, he said, he was trying to explain that based on his knowledge of how the intelligence community works, low-level contacts almost certainly existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda, But, he said, that does not mean that Iraq had anything to do with the Sept. 11 attacks.
********************
President Bush was not the first President to claim ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The slick one from Arkansas was numero uno...
Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam
By Rowan Scarborough THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements...
In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan...
The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists...
To justify the Sudanese plant as a target, Clinton aides said it was involved in the production of deadly VX nerve gas. Officials further determined that bin Laden owned a stake in the operation and that its manager had traveled to Baghdad to learn bomb-making techniques from Saddam's weapons scientists.
*************************
Clinton White House Saw Saddam-Osama Connection
NewsMax ^ 7/12/04 Jon E. Dougherty
...The U.S. attorney involved in preparing that indictment, Patrick Fitzgerald, told the federal 9/11 commission the intelligence surrounding the indictment came from one Jamal al Fadl, a former high-ranking al-Qaeda leader who, before the Sept. 11 attacks, gave the U.S. its first real look at the terrorist organization.
Fadl said an associate of bin Laden's, Mamdouh Mahmud Salim (Abu Hajer al Iraqi) tried to reach a sort of agreement where they wouldn't work against each other -- sort of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' -- and that there were indications that within Sudan when al Qaeda was there, which al-Qaeda left in the summer of '96, or the spring of '96, there were efforts to work on jointly acquiring weapons.
Within several months, al-Qaeda bombed a pair of U.S. embassies in East Africa. In retaliation, Bill Clinton used an Iraq-al-Qaeda connection, Hayes said, when he ordered the cruise missile attack on the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
On Aug. 24, 1998, a senior intelligence official was made available by the administration and cited strong ties between the plant and Iraq as the basis for the attack.
SNIP
A day later Thomas Pickering, undersecretary of state for political affairs and one of only a few officials involved in planning the al Shifa strike, confirmed an Iraq-Sudan (and, by proxy, al-Qaeda) connection: We see evidence that we think is quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq. In fact, al Shifa officials, early in the company's history, we believe were in with Iraqi individuals associated with Iraq's VX program.
U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson (now the governor of New Mexico) made an appearance on CNN, where he talked of direct evidence of ties between Osama bin Laden and Sudan's Military Industrial Corporation.
You combine that with Sudan support for terrorism, their connections with Iraq on VX, and you combine that, also, with the chemical precursor issue, and Sudan's leadership support for Osama bin Laden, and you've got a pretty clear-cut case.
Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security advisor, penned an op-ed for the Washington Times on Oct. 16, 1998. In it he asserted the administration had physical evidence indicating that al Shifa was the site of chemical weapons activity.
Other products were made at al Shifa, he continued. But we have seen such dual-use plants before -- in Iraq. And, indeed, we have information that Iraq has assisted chemical weapons activity in Sudan.
Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism czar for both Clinton and Bush who, in a recent book, laid most of the blame for 9/11 at the feet of the current administration, told the Washington Post in a Jan. 23, 1999 interview the U.S. was sure Iraq was behind the VX precursor being manufactured at the al Shifa plant.
The Post reported: Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at al Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to al Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts, and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.
*****************************
Dems connected Iraq, al-Qaida
By Charles D. Ganske 7/5/04
Yet, Clinton's Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, in his recent testimony before the 9/11 Commission, insisted that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program. For the Iraqis not to have known bin Laden was a major investor in the El Shifa plant seems to be quite a stretch.
*******************************
The final nail in the coffin was signed by many of the Lefties that now claim voting for the war in Iraq was a mistake... You know, people like John Kerry, John Murtha...
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
[[Page 116 STAT. 1498]] Public Law 107-243107th Congress
Joint Resolution To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
<>
...Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;...
My my my... how things change when a Republican is President. It was completely believable and promoted by Democrats when Clinton was in office. Yet the only action Clinton took was bombing the pharmaceutical factory at Al Shifa. President Bush's actions have deposed the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. His only mistake - he is a Republican.
13.
BEN NELSON:
Immigration Hardliner? Or Lobbyist for Meatpackers?
NEGOP Questions Democrat Ben Nelson’s Immigration Flip-Flop
***
Lincoln, Neb. – The Nebraska GOP called on Democrat Senator Ben Nelson today to come clean on his apparent flip-flop on federal immigration policy. Nelson announced plans to introduce legislation addressing illegal immigration.
In 1999, former Governor and soon to be candidate for United States Senate Ben Nelson acted as a lobbyist for the meatpacking industry in a dispute with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). INS was subpoenaing employee records at meatpacking plants across the state, investigating document discrepancies.
- “Former Gov. Ben Nelson says the crackdown on undocumented workers in Nebraska meatpacking plants is detrimental to Nebraska.” (Nelson critical of Operation Vanguard, Calls it Detrimental; Grand Island Independent; Thursday, June 3, 1999)
- Nelson said he thinks the INS should start a separate program that would allow temporary visas for undocumented workers. (Associated Press, “Nelson says INS operation draining state’s labor pool”; 6/4/99)
- [Nelson] said he has been approached by several meatpacking companies, asking for his help in developing a pilot program that would make temporary visas available to undocumented employees. “We need to find more ways to employ people rather than limit them,” Nelson said. (The Grand Island Independent, 6/3/99).
“The issue in this instance is consistency and leadership. In 1999, the year before his Senate race, Ben Nelson lobbied for meatpackers – advocating for programs to permit the importation of foreign workers into permanent US jobs. In 2005, the year before his Senate race, Ben Nelson feigns concern about border security,” said Executive Director Jessica Moenning. “Ben Nelson changes what he thinks from one term to the next based on who he’s lobbying for or what a poll says - that is NOT leadership.”
“Nebraska needs a leader who will say what he means and mean what he says, not someone who changes his position if a focus group says so. Ben Nelson owes the voters of Nebraska an explanation for his flip-flop.”
I don't know. Where were you back then??
I was aware because a friend of mine is from Iraq and his mother was a Kurd and was killed. He and his brother had been schooled here and they were working here. His father is still there. I have lost contact with him, the friend. He moved to CA and we just lost touch. I would imagine that his father is probably dead. We worked together in the 80s. I know Mavis Leno (Jay's wife) has been working for Afghanistan women for years. She probably knew and cared a lot and I am sure that the people who did know cared quite a lot a well. I really can't tell you where everyone else was. I would guess most Americans were in the same state of mind about Iraq that they are today in respect to every other poverty-ridden, despot-ravaging, corrupt country, state or region, Asia, Africa, South America...We(some of us) care about Iraq because it has been brought to our attention for the first time, Iraq that is. You will find no dearth of man's inhumanity to man in any corner of this planet you look. Whoever you are, you may or may not know that I am a complete and total pacifist. I can think of no good reason for war...really...but since we've got it, my priority is to end the carnage for both sides ASAP.
Right back at ya..lol nm
nm
your back
I agree. It would be very traumatizing to the child to be hauled around and raised by a succession of nannies. The child's needs come before her political ambition.
right back at ya...
DIdn't see anything there about God Dam* America for starters. More to follow.
No, sam's right. I can't back it up but I
remember that being on the news almost every night for weeks when Clinton revealed his budget.
WELCOME BACK SAM!!!!! nm
nm.
Yes I did, quite a while back. nm
.
It is always back to that with you and I never
once mentioned anything about her being experienced or not. Yes, she has as much experience as an executive as the rest of them. The point is, it is wasteful.
What truly bothers me is that no matter what anyone says about her, be it justified or not you are always in her defense. Can you admit that she has done wrong? I'm for the other side and can see the not so great about them.
Has Sam still not come back?
I know some of you don't like her, but I sure hope everything is okay!
I think he/she was back
a few days ago when the posting went wild. Looked to me like him/herself was posting and answering his/her own posts. JMO.
Welcome back Sam!
How is the hand? Hope you are doing well!
We could go back and forth on this all day. s/m
I find McCain/Palin between them not to have enough COMMON SENSE to fill a thimble. So let's just agree to disagree.
Right back at ya....
Why aren't YOU listening? If I hear any more about Joe the non-plumber, I'm going to puke. That was a Republican plant if ever I saw one. "Joe" got the answer he was programmed to get and they took it and ran with it. If you are listening, Obama is NOT proposing to tax people who's GROSS income is $250,000!!!
I do agree with you. I have long been in favor of a flat rate tax. No deductions, no exceptions. If you make a dollar you owe a dime or whatever. That will NEVER fly because the politicians are ALL about protecting the wealthy. AND that includes McCain AND Obama.
Welcome back, sam.....sm
Your presence on this board has been acutely missed over the last couple of days.
I guess some of us have an actual life, huh? ;o)
Just got back myself...sm
We have a small polling place as well and a VERY small town/precinct. Still, I stood in line for probably 30 minutes or more.
Our county decided this year, in view of the push for early voting, that they would try decentralized (for lack of a better word) early voting. In other words, early voting had always taken place only at the county courthouse, but this year they set up satellite voting polls in various locations for 1 day of early voting in addition to the regular early voting at the courthouse. In our precinct, we had 169 early voters.
Well, enough of the small-town voting news...LOL. I hope that everyone (not just on this board) is able to get out to the polls today and cast their ballot for the persons of their choice. The next few days will definitely be interesting ones.
Will you be going back over
x
Hey BB..... Welcome back! sm
Hope you had a nice long holiday with much reading time! ;o)
|
