| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/4 |
| 2002/11/27 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:26649 Activity:very high |
11/26 In 2000 I thought he was a 4 faced lying sack of ego maniacal shit.
Now I just feel sorry for him. I think he's lost it.
http://www2.observer.com/observer/pages/frontpage1.asp
\_ If I were Mike Judge, i'd have my lawyers send that guy a letter.
His scketch of Gore looks *exactly* like Butthead.
\_ Well he's a bit misguided; he sees some sort of far-reaching
plot in the media when, with very very few precious exceptions,
it's all just shit geared towards idiots. Never ascribe to
malice or stupidity what can be explained by raw sewage. -John
\_ yeah, it's pretty funny how the right thinks the media are
part of a giant leftist conspiracy and the left think it's
a giant right-wing conspircacy...while the executives
who control the media know it's just a conspiracy to make them
lots of money.
\_ No one with a grain of sense believes in the "liberal media"
myth. He's very right about the machine of foxnews. It
amazes me that anybody actually watches it. --scotsman
\_ Oh, so the surveys that show that 90% of journalists vote
Democrat are a myth, eh?
\_ If you watch ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN and it doesn't offend you and
you're voting left then maybe it doesn't offend you because
they have the same politics you do? I vote right and find
all of them sickening. I understand that when I listen to
Rush he has an agenda. He makes it clear he's biased and
doesn't claim to be unbiased. When I used to watch the
3-letters news it was clear they had a bias but were
unwilling or unable to cop to it possibly because they
really honestly think they're fair and even handed even
though they're clearly not.
\_ Actually, what upsets me is that in the attempt to be
unbiased, the quite probably liberal-minded reporters
leave stuff out that should be said (albeit in an
editorial rather than a report, but when was the last
time you saw editorial or simply an attempt at historical
context on any newscast). --scotsman
\_ I don't trust the newsmedia to provide a historic
context to anything. They're not historians. They
are commercial providers of current information and
nothing more.
\_ maybe they are being fair, and the right-wingers just
have agendas that sound ridiculous when they're
reported fairly. -tom
\_ maybe, or maybe you've been drinking your own
lemonade for too long.
\_ The RNC has been crying "left-wing media bias" for 20 years.
Turnabout is fair play.
\_ It's not turnabout. The media has been left wing for far more
than 20 years. Just what the world didn't need is hiding behind
more false moral equivalency.
\_ And from my perspective, the media has been pro-business
and corporate run and controlled for much longer than that.
So it really matters where you are looking at it from.
\_ Scaife and others have spent hundreds of millions smearing him
and Clinton. He is telling the truth:
http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-clintonrightwingconspiracy.html
\_ Scaife hasn't spent hundreds of anything. And even if he and
mysterious 'others' did, that's still nothing next to the 24x7
value provided by the 3letter networks for decades without any
counterpoint until now. Gore is just upset the Right can
finally get their message out. He think it's unfair. Boo hoo.
I had to stop reading your link after laughing my ass off in the
summary paragraph: "One of the machine's most important leaders
is Richard Mellon Scaife, the billionaire who is financing
nearly all the scandals that engulf President Clinton." Did
Scaife buy the Blue Dress(tm) or The Cigar(c)? *laugh*
\_ Scaife has contributed millions. Your denying it does
not strengthen your case. |
| 4/4 |
|
| www2.observer.com/observer/pages/frontpage1.asp Rices interview will not be held under oath, and the results of the interview are not to be made public. But as the Bush administration fights to limit the scope and time allotted to the independent commission investigating a broad array of failures leading up to and during the terrorist attacks of Sept. Kerrey is emerging as a strong antagonist to their efforts to contain the political damage. Kerrey, the commissions unlikely new spitfire, told The Observer he would lobby the comission to request sworn, public testimony from Bushs embittered national security advisor. But with the independent 9/11 commission spinning out of the White Houses control, the fight by Republicans against the panels request for an extension of its deadline may hurt the Bush administration more than it will help it, according to Mr. Kerrey also revealed to this writer that the scope of the 9/11 commission will take in "about half of what the President was doing in the pre-9/11 situation in Iraq. Kerrey is dismayed by the Presidents decision this week to create another commission to examine the intelligence failures in assessing Iraqs alleged weapons of mass destruction before the war. Its a mission that overlaps with investigations the 9/11 panel is already doing, he claims. The question is: Did they continue the anti-terrorism effort? The 9/11 commission didnt even get fully staffed or adequately funded for its first six monthsand still has several hundred more interviews to do to complete its investigationthe consensus of the commissioners is that they need at least another two months to complete a thorough investigation. House Speaker Dennis Hastert has insisted that the commission "live within the current deadline," which is the end of May. The Family Steering Committee is adamant about wanting a six-month extensionthe very length that Senate Republicans, according to Mr. Breitweiser said they were promised a public hearing on all 12 topics in the commissions mandate. When George Bush replaced Henry Kissinger, his first choice as chairman of the 9/11 commission, with New Jerseys former Republican governor, the White House may have thought that the mild-mannered, aristocratic Mr. The White House may be relying on its five Republican appointees to the commission to ease over the rough patches for the President. But having been dissed, crawfished, starved for funds and now denied access even to the notes made by four commission members chosen to see a key Presidential briefingthe one at which Mr. Bush learned, five weeks before 9/11, that Osama bin Laden and his terrorists were an imminent threatat least some of the commissioners feel insulted. They must all know that someday they will be questioned, perhaps by their grandchildren, about conspiracy theories certain to spring forth from the murk of facts selectively plucked by agencies and officials under the umbrella of a nervous Bush White House. Among the 10 white faces arrayed on a raised dais in a Senate hearing room last week, only one belonged to a woman: Jamie Gorelick. A former deputy attorney general of the United States under President Clinton, Ms. Gorelicks dimpled smile, casual turtlenecks and cocoa-warm voice obscure the steel core of a corporate litigator. When a passenger going through security during this high state of alert set off the magnetometer, were inspectors directed to open the carry-on bag for inspection? That explains why the passenger-screening program was a failure, despite having flagged five of the hijackers when they or their hand luggage set off the magnetometers. So the security screeners ran the five men through a second, less sensitive computerized magnetometer and hand-wanded thembut they never opened their carry-ons. Thus the hijackers on three of the four planes all managed to smuggle on bombs (whether real or fake) and compressed chemical sprays. Commissioners became exasperated as one official after another pleaded ignorance of any "specific or credible" threats of terrorism in this country. That catastrophe had been averted by a female Customs agent, Deanna Dean, one of the many women warriors who rose to the occasion and risked their jobs, if not their lives, in the cause of fighting a war on terrorism before the American government declared it. Kerreynow silver-haired but still surly-lippedbrought new fire and outrage to the commissions first hard-hitting hearings last week. The possibility of a terrorist strike on our soil was obvious. You people ought to be coming to the microphone and saying, We failed miserably, and it cost us like hell. Kerrey, though new to the issues, has shown a keen interest in the same vital but minutely detailed questions that have bothered the families of 9/11 victims for over two years nowquestions that are still unanswered. It remains to be seen, so early in his tenure, whether Mr. Kerrey will be capable of mastering the thousands of pages of documents and monitoring the selection of interviews that are so important to the commissions success. Part of the problem, family members say, is that the witnesses that come before the commission appear to be cherrypicked to provide testimony that paints a rosier picture of the Bush administrations intelligence operations before Sept. Nevertheless, as the commission gets angrier, its becoming a serious thorn in the side of the administrationespecially in an election year hypercharged with security and intelligence concerns. While things heat up, it is difficult for the Four Moms to take much comfort. An essential part of the healing process after a trauma of this proportion is getting at the truth, however unpleasant. As the Four Moms watched the January hearings on C-Span, they saw proof of the power of a public airing of the evidence. They have to understand that part of their job is to restore the faith in government. |
| www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-clintonrightwingconspiracy.html -> mirrors.korpios.org/resurgent/L-clintonrightwingconspiracy.html Myth: Theres no "vast right wing conspiracy" to get Clinton. Fact: Richard Mellon Scaife and the Republican Establishment have poured millions into the effort. JPG Summary: In the mid-70s, conservative corporations, foundations and politicians organized to reclaim power after 40 years of Democratic government. The result of this well-funded political and media machine was the Reagan Revolution, culminating in Republic control of Congress in 1994. One of the machines most important leaders is Richard Mellon Scaife, the billionaire who is financing nearly all the scandals that engulf President Clinton. JPG Argument: In January 1998, a scandal broke in which President Bill Clinton was accused of having an extramarital affair with a 22-year old White House intern Monica Lewinsky. The scandal was delivered by the usual suspects: conservative corporations and foundations behind the scenes. First Lady Hillary Clinton shortly thereafter told NBCs Today Show: "For anybody willing to find it, and write about it, and explain it, is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for President. A few journalists have kind of caught on to it and explained it, but it has not yet been fully revealed to the American public. Prior to 1975, the Republicans were in disarray, reeling from the radical reforms of the 60s and four decades of liberal government. That changed in 1975, when conservative corporations, foundations and politicians came together and organized a highly coordinated, cooperative, and centrally planned movement to regain power. Every organization has secret, strategic plans to gain power, whether it is a political party seeking a majority in Congress or a private business competing in the marketplace. The only noteworthy fact about Republican efforts since 1975 is that they have been extraordinarily successful. The Rise of the New Right By the mid-70s, conservatives had established several foundations that poured millions of dollars into the New Right movement. By 1994 the most active foundations were: * Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation * Carthage Foundation * Earhart Foundation * Charles G. Olin Foundation * Henry Salvatori Foundation * Sarah Scaife Foundation * Smith Richardson Foundation Between 1992 and 1994, these foundations gave $210 million to conservative causes. It includes right-wing departments and chairs in the nations top universities, think tanks, public relations firms, media companies, fake grassroots organizations that pressure Congress (irreverently known as "Astroturf" movements), "Roll-out-the-vote" machines, pollsters, fax networks, lobbyist organizations, economic seminars for the nations judges, and more. And because corporations are the richest sector of society, their greater financing overwhelms similar efforts by Democrats. By 1992, corporations formed 67 percent of all Political Action Committees (the lobbyist organizations that bribe our government), and they donated 79 percent of all campaign contributions to political parties. In two landmark elections -- 1980 and 1994 -- corporations gave heavily and one-sidedly to Republicans, turning one or both houses of Congress over to the GOP. Democratic incumbents were shocked by the threat of being rolled completely out of power, so they quietly shifted to the right on economic issues, even though they continued a public faade of liberalism. Corporations went ahead and donated to Democratic incumbents in all other elections, but only as long as they abandoned the interests of workers, consumers, minorities and the poor. As expected, the new pro-corporate Congress passed laws favoring the rich: between 1975 and 1992, the amount of national household wealth owned by the richest 1 percent soared from 22 to 42 percent. The Cold War ended in 1991, depriving conservatives of their traditional enemy, the Soviet Union. But a new target for their hatred emerged in 1992 with the election of a Democratic president, Bill Clinton. The right wasted little time re-aiming their antagonism from the external to the internal enemy. The Scaife Contribution Richard Mellon Scaife is a Pittsburgh billionaire who inherited his fortune from the Mellon oil and banking empire. Today he owns the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and oversees the Sarah Scaife, Carthage and Allegheny Foundations. Over the years, Scaife has funded hundreds of high-profile projects that promote the corporate and conservative agenda. Scaifes money helped create GOPAC, the vehicle that Newt Gingrich used to finance, control and promote Republican candidates in their takeover of Congress in 1994. In fact, Newt admits that Scaife money laid the basis for modern conservatism. These think tanks disseminate corporate propaganda and policy proposals (dressed up as "studies" and "analysis") for the media and the various branches of government. In 1981, the Heritage Foundation published its famous Mandate for Leadership, and President Reagan adopted two-thirds of its suggestions in his first year alone. Real academics view think-tank studies as shoddy and often deceptive, but the studies appear sufficiently scholarly and technical to fool lay people. Think tanks cannot reshape the public debate simply by conducting studies, however; Right-wing foundations therefore finance numerous media and PR firms. He gave $675,000 to Accuracy in Media, which attempts to prove liberal bias in the media. But Scaifes money is hardly limited to propaganda mills. Academia has traditionally been a bastion of liberalism, and Scaifes and other right-wing foundations have been trying to make conservative inroads to the nations most prestigious universities. They do so by creating departments promoting conservative theories, staffed by conservative scholars. Scaife has given nearly $13 million over the last 36 years to Pepperdine University alone. Hes also donated enormous sums to Columbia, Carnegie Mellon, Duquesne, George Mason, John Hopkins, MIT, New York University, Rochester, Smith College, Southwest Missouri State, Stanford, Tufts, the University of Chicago, the University of Pittsburgh, the University of South Carolina and the University of Virginia. Most of these departments and chairs do not exist of their own scholarly merit, naturally produced by academic trends. They are merely purchased into existence by Corporate America. Scaifes scandals Scaife also funds projects that create legal and political trouble for his enemies. In 1997, Scaife donated $550,000 to Judicial Watch, whose director, Larry Klayman, has filed 18 lawsuits against the Clinton Administration. This money went to create the "Arkansas Project," a massive investigation trying to dig up dirt on Clintons past. The Arkansas Project gained notoriety when it was revealed that David Hale, the only Whitewater witness who claimed personal knowledge of Clintons wrong-doing, had been paid at least $5,000 by Parker Dozhier, one of operatives of the Arkansas Project. Parkers girlfriend and her 17-year old son both claim they saw Parker give Scaife-money to Hale on numerous occasions. In fact, one IWF pundit, Ann Coulter, heard at least one of the Linda Tripp tapes before it even reached Ken Starr. This proved that she was deeply involved with the Paula Jones camp (who received the tapes first), even though she was pretending to be an objective commentator on the scandal in the media. Starrs conflicts of interest are almost too numerous to mention. Early on, Starr had been given an open-ended job offer as the dean of Pepperdine Universitys Schools of Law and Public Policy. At first, Starr planned to accept the job after finishing his investigation. But it turns out this school is a heavy recipient of Scaife money, and the resulting media scandal finally convinced Starr to refuse the job. But the appearance of Scaife attempting to pay off Starr for getting Clinton lingers. Between 1988 and 1996, Scaife gave $3 million to the conservative Washington Legal Foundation, where Starr sits on the board. Scaife also gave $920,000 to the Federalist Society, a conservative legal organization where Starr is a member. Scaife donated $650,000... |