Cool! (Nailing the Cowboy Dictator) ...
I just got on-line and have missed the days' news except for the fact that the market ain't buying -gg- pun intended -- much of anything from any 'authority figures' of any ilk these days, is it?
Will look 'post-haste' -g- for links to German protests ... you posted some, didn't you?
ALSO: Truthout's latest message contains some excellent material, including this:
White House Stonewall: Day 88
truthout.org
Public and Republicans Are Frustrated and Confused By White House
Secrecy*
Today's Washington Post notes that Democrats, Republicans and the
American public are becoming increasingly critical of the White House's
penchant for secrecy. While Bush attempted to deflect criticism for his
administration's latest stonewall -- refusal to satisfy a request for all intelligence
information Bush had before the September 11th attacks -- onto Democrats,
conservative pundit Robert Novak said it was the White House's own "passion
for secrecy" that provoked a negative public reaction.
Taking note of the Bush administration's attempts to accuse Democrats of playing politics,
Businessweek columnist Howard Gleckman said, "top White House officials
came very close to accusing members of Congress of disloyalty for questioning
what the President knew and when he knew it. * If you read what lawmakers
actually said following revelations of early (and of course, nonspecific) warnings
of a terrorist threat, their remarks seem pretty timid. *
Yet, the White House
has tried to portray such milquetoast questions as unpatriotic partisan
attacks."
BIA REMARK: Dan Rather evidently recently stated that journalists felt they'd be labelled as unpatriotic until now by asking the necessary questions re what Bush/Cheney knew pre-9/11... until now...LOL. Excellent. This 'dog don't hunt no more.'
Meanwhile, former Bush campaign adviser Ed Gillespie was at a loss to explain Bush's motive behind holding back the intelligence information and said, "It may take a while to explain it." [BIA: LMAO. I'll bet it will.]
According to the Washington Post, "By declining to share information in public or with Congress, it gives the impression it is covering something up when the information inevitably dribbles out -- thus provoking congressional hostility and disproportionate media attention."
Links to stories:
washingtonpost.com
businessweek.com
And -----------------------------------------------------------
Pitt Met with Executives of Corporations Being Investigated by SEC*
The same White House that defended the communications between
Thomas White and Enron executives defended Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) Chairman Harvey Pitt's meetings with heads of corporations
that were under investigation by the SEC. Despite advice from SEC staff
attorneys against the meetings, Pitt met with company heads of KPMG (who
Pitt formerly represented and is under investigation for improper accounting for
Xerox); the CEO of Xerox; and Donald Trump (before an SEC settlement had
been reached on misleading earning statements). White House spokeswoman
Anne Womack defended Pitt's performance as SEC chairman and claimed that
Pitt had adhered to ethics rules. A spokesman for Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-LA),
chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said, "These types
of meetings clearly are inappropriate, but we take Mr. Pitt's word that it won't
happen again. If it does, he won't find much political cover here on Capitol Hill."
Link to story: dfw.com
Print This Story E-mail This Story
© : t r u t h o u t 2002 |
