Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (257520)	5/22/2002 12:34:36 AM
From: bonnuss_in_austin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

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