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: Knighty Tin who wrote (549701)	3/8/2004 5:27:03 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

use leading demohack demonut newspapers like nytimes and washingtonpost as sources

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (549701)	3/8/2004 6:11:48 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

9/11 -- LET THE TRUTH BE HEARD! URGENT ACTION!! 911 MASS PHONE, FAX, EMAIL CAMPAIGN - Please FWD!! This announcement is from the 9/11 Visibility Project: septembereleventh.org A) Please send this email to your contact lists, and urge them to forward this email, using contact numbers listed below and also at tomflocco.com, septembereleventh.org and other 911 sites--and beginning ON MONDAY--contact Hastert, Pelosi, Frist, Daschle, Kean, and Kerry--the six individuals with power, control and microphone to influence public 911 testimony under oath by high government officials like Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Myers, etc. We believe citizen pressure will win out regarding public testimony by Mr. Bush, since President Clinton has been interrogated publicly and under oath by career prosecutors. B) The next 7-10 days will likely determine the outcome of the public testimony issue. Those wishing to support this effort, please contact Bill Douglas (wtcqd2000@aol.com) to let him know approximate times and days of contact so he can make a spread-sheet regarding hours of the day between 9:00 am and 6:00 pm Monday through Friday to maximize impact of the contacts. Please contact me at TomFlocco@cs.com for feedback regarding all important statements from staff members receiving your calls, etc. We are particularly interested in finding out whether they are receiving contacts, how many, how busy it has been, etc....ask questions like "Did you receive my fax (or email) yet?"......"Does the Speaker/Leader understand this issue?......Has anyone else contacted him about this issue?....i.e. We want to find out what effect we are having. (PHONE-FAX-EMAIL CONTACTS ARE LISTED AT BOTTOM) *************************************************************** THE MASS EMAIL/PHONE/FAX MESSAGE TO SEND TO THE 6 CONTACTS: ************************************************************* We request to know why President Bush is allowed to dictate to the 9-11 Commission whether he will testify, how long he will testify, to whom he will testify, and why he refuses to testify under oath. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE, AMERICANS WILL NEVER ACCEPT THIS COMMISSION'S FINDING UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. WHY ARE THE U.S. MEDIA/CONGRESS/THE 9-11 COMMISSION NOT PROBING MORE ON BUSH'S ONGOING OBSTRUCTION OF THE 9-11 INVESTIGATIONS? QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED FROM THE 9-11 FAMILY STEERING COMMITTEE Before an audience of the American people, the Commission must ask President Bush in sworn testimony, the following questions: 1. As Commander-in-Chief on the morning of 9/11, why didn’t you return immediately to Washington, D.C. or the National Military Command Center once you became aware that America was under attack? At specifically what time did you become aware that America was under attack? Who informed you of this fact? 2. On the morning of 9/11, who was in charge of our country while you were away from the National Military Command Center? Were you informed or consulted about all decisions made in your absence? 3. What defensive action did you personally order to protect our nation during the crisis on September 11th? What time were these orders given, and to whom? What orders were carried out? What was the result of such orders? Were any such orders not carried out? 4. In your opinion, why was our nation so utterly unprepared for an attack on our own soil? 5. U.S. Navy Captain Deborah Loewer, the Director of the White House Situation Room, informed you of the first airliner hitting Tower One of the World Trade Center before you entered the Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida. Please explain the reason why you decided to continue with the scheduled classroom visit, fifteen minutes after learning the first hijacked airliner had hit the World Trade Center. 6. Is it normal procedure for the Director of the White House Situation Room to travel with you? If so, please cite any prior examples of when this occurred. If not normal procedure, please explain the circumstances that led to the Director of the White House Situation Room being asked to accompany you to Florida during the week of September 11th. 7. What plan of action caused you to remain seated after Andrew Card informed you that a second airliner had hit the second tower of the World Trade Center and America was clearly under attack? Approximately how long did you remain in the classroom after Card’s message? 8. At what time were you made aware that other planes were hijacked in addition to Flight 11 and Flight 175? Who notified you? What was your course of action as Commander-in-Chief of the United States? 9. Beginning with the transition period between the Clinton administration and your own, and ending on 9/11/01, specifically what information (either verbal or written) about terrorists, possible attacks and targets, did you receive from any source? This would include briefings or communications from: a. Out-going Clinton officials b. CIA, FBI, NSA, DoD and other intelligence agencies c. Foreign intelligence, governments, dignitaries or envoys d. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice e. Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar 10. Specifically, what did you learn from the August 6, 2001, PDB about the terrorist threat that was facing our nation? Did you request any follow-up action to take place? Did you request any further report be developed and/or prepared? 11. As Commander-in-Chief, from May 1, 2001 until September 11, 2001, did you receive any information from any intelligence agency official or agent that UBL [bin Laden] was planning to attack this nation on its own soil using airplanes as weapons, targeting New York City landmarks during the week of September 11, 2001 or on the actual day of September 11, 2001? 12. What defensive measures did you take in response to pre-9/11 warnings from eleven nations about a terrorist attack, many of which cited an attack in the continental United States? Did you prepare any directives in response to these actions? If so, with what results? 13. As Commander-in-Chief from May 1, 2001 until September 11, 2001, did you or any agent of the United States government carry out any negotiations or talks with UBL, an agent of UBL, or al-Qaeda? During that same period, did you or any agent of the United States government carry out any negotiations or talks with any foreign government, its agents, or officials regarding UBL? If so, what resulted? 14. Your schedule for September 11, 2001 was in the public domain since September 7, 2001. The Emma E. Booker School is only five miles from the Bradenton Airport, so you, and therefore the children in the classroom, might have been a target for the terrorists on 9/11. What was the intention of the Secret Service in allowing you to remain in the Emma E. Booker Elementary School, even though they were aware America was under attack? 15. Please explain why you remained at the Sarasota, Florida, Elementary School for a press conference after you had finished listening to the children read, when as a terrorist target, your presence potentially jeopardized the lives of the children? 16. What was the purpose of the several stops of Air Force One on September 11th? Was Air Force One at any time during the day of September 11th a target of the terrorists? Was Air Force One’s code ever breached on September 11th? 17. Was there a reason for Air Force One lifting off without a military escort, even after ample time had elapsed to allow military jets to arrive? 18. What prompted your refusal to release the information regarding foreign sponsorship of the terrorists, as illustrated in the inaccessible 28 redacted pages in the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry Report? What actions have you personally taken since 9/11 to thwart foreign sponsorship of terrorism? 19. Who approved the flight of the bin Laden family out of the United States when all commercial flights were grounded, when there was time for only minimal questioning by the FBI, and especially, when two of those same individuals had links to WAMY, a charity suspected of funding terrorism? Why were bin Laden family members granted that special privilege--a privilege not available to American families whose loved ones were killed on 9/11? 20. Please explain why no one in any level of our government has yet been held accountable for the countless failures leading up to and on 9/11? 21. Please comment on the fact that UBL’s profile on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Fugitives poster does not include the 9/11 attacks. To your knowledge, when was the last time any agent of our government had contact with UBL? If prior to 9/11, specifically what was the date of that contact and what was the context of said meeting. 22. Do you continue to maintain that Saddam Hussein was linked to al Qaeda? What proof do you have of any connection between al-Qaeda and the Hussein regime? 23. Which individuals, governments, agencies, institutions, or groups may have benefited from the attacks of 9/11? Please state specifically how you think they have benefited. The Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Independent Commission 911independentcommission.org>/ *************************************************************** *************************************************************** CONTACT NUMBERS: HOUSE SPEAKER J. DENNIS HASTERT Speaker's Office Phone: 202-225-0600 / Email: dhastert@mail.house.gov D.C. House Office Phone: 202-225-2976 / Fax: 202-225-0697 Batavia District Office Phone: 630-406-1114 / Fax: 630-406-1808 Dixon Regional Office Phone: 815-288-0680 / Fax: 815-288-0743 Geneseo Regional Office Phone: 309-944-3558 HOUSE MINORITY LEADER NANCY PELOSI Minority Leader's Office Phone: 202-225-0100 / Email: sf.nancy@mail.house.gov D.C. House Office Phone: 202-225-4965 / Fax: 202-225-8259 San Francisco District Office Phone: 415-556-4862 SENATE MAJORITY LEADER BILL FRIST Majority Leader's Office Phone: 202-224-3135 D.C. Senate Office Phone: 202-224-3344 / Fax: 202-228-1264 Nashville District Office Phone: 615-352-9411 / Fax: 615-352-9985 Memphis District Office Phone: 901-683-1910 Knoxville District Office Phone: 865-602-7977 Chattanooga District Office Phone: 423-756-2757 Jackson District Office Phone: 731-424-9655 Kingsport District Office Phone: 423-323-1252 SENATE MINORITY LEADER TOM DASCHLE Minority Leader's Office Phone: 202-224-5556 D.C. Senate Office Phone: 202-224-2321 / Fax: 202-224-6603 Aberdeen District Office: 605-225-8823 Rapid City District Office: 605-348-7551 Sioux Falls District Office: 605-334-9596 9-11 NATIONAL COMMISSION CHAIRMAN THOMAS H. KEAN President of Drew University, Thomas H. Kean Phone: 973/408-3100 / Email: cadm@drew.edu / Fax: 973-408-3068 Fax: 973-408-3242 / Fax: 973-408-3242 9-11 Commission: Tel: (202) 331-4060 Fax: (202) 296-5545 info@9-11Commission.gov New York Office Tel: (212) 264-1505 Fax: (212) 264-1595 DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE JOHN F. KERRY John Kerry for President, Inc. Campaign Phone: 202-548-6800 / Fax: 202-548-6801 / Email: info@johnkerry.com D.C. Senate Office Phone: 202-224-2742 / Fax: 202-224-8525 Boston District Office: 617-565-8519 Springfield District Office: 413-785-4610 Worcester District Office: 508-831-7380 Fall River District Office: 508-677-0522 *************************************** __________________________________

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (549701)	3/9/2004 9:17:14 AM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

John Kerry: Man of the Special Interests By Mark Landsbaum FrontPageMagazine.com \| March 9, 2004 Even as John Kerry prepared to position himself before a national electorate as the arch enemy of “special interests,” he was exposed for receiving more campaign cash from lobbyists than any senator over the past 15 years. Since 1989 Kerry has received $638,358, according to a study by the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-profit organization that analyzes Federal Election Commission campaign records. Add to that reports that Kerry’s largest contributor, the Boston law firm of Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Golovsky and Popeo, represents telecommunications interests and that he has carried its legislative water while interceding with government agencies on its clients’ behalf. And that Kerry sought SEC help for a woman with ties to the Chinese military and got a fund-raiser in return. And that Kerry supported a contracting loophole for American International Group insurance company, which repaid him with donations. And that Kerry recommended individuals for positions at federal home loan banks just before or after they gave him political contributions. Were these interests not special? It is becoming increasingly clear that Kerry, the self-described enemy of special interests, hypocritically has been lapping at the special-interest trough himself, and in no small way. To those unfamiliar with the Massachusetts Democrat, it may appear curious that Kerry claims to be one thing, but actually is the opposite. But those familiar with the flip-flopping leading Democratic presidential candidate aren’t surprised. It’s perfectly in sync with Kerry’s say-one-thing-do-another track record. After all, Kerry touts himself as a veteran who fought for his country in the Vietnam War, but he made his public debut as leader of a veterans’ group protesting that same war, and even labeled his fellow GIs as murderers, rapists and torturers. Three decades later Kerry voted to go to war in Iraq, but then voted against funding the war. Kerry insists he has always supported the military, but he has voted against nearly two dozen major weapons systems appropriations, weapons integral in the U.S. victories in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not surprisingly, Kerry’s latest anti-trade position also is a reversal. In 1993 Kerry voted for NAFTA, but has since said he wants a 120-day review of all trade pacts, and draconian measures to curb what he calls “Benedict Arnold” CEOs, as if it’s suddenly treasonous to do business in other nations to benefit U.S. stockholders and customers. Consistency is not Kerry’s strong suit. Playing both sides of an issue for gain is. “Our position is that the American people are going to discover that John Kerry has a long, long list of issues where his record doesn’t match his rhetoric,” said Kevin Madden, Bush-Cheney 2004 spokesman. The short-term political upshot is that Kerry’s claim to be the anti-special interest candidate is neutralized somewhat, potentially robbing him of one of the stars on his resume to distinguish him from President George W. Bush. The Kerry campaign predictably complained that he is not a tool of “special interests,” and indeed that he has refused contributions from Political Action Committees, which is true. But that simply fogs the picture. There are two things going on in the Kerry campaign’s disingenuous defense and opportunistic offense. First, Kerry wants to be the one to define which interests are “special,” while dismissing interests as not so “special” when they happen to be aligned with him. Are the ACLU, the AFL-CIO, the People for the American Way, the Sierra Club, for that matter the entire complex of environmentalists’ lobbies, abortion backers, trial lawyers and other assorted Democratic constituent factions some how not “special interests”? What then? Generic interests? Indeed, the Democrat’s sacred cow, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance “reform” law, has resulted in piles of cash being channeled through what can only be called “special interest” groups that are now prohibited from giving directly to political parties. These are groups such as the radical leftist MoveOn.org, and America Coming Together, a pro-Democratic Party organization run by labor, environmental and abortion rights activists armed with pledges of $55 million. Are they not “special interests”? Will Kerry disavow such interest groups and urge them not to spend money on anti-Bush ads? Or will John Kerry be the sole determiner of what constitutes “special interests”? While the voting public may not notice such sleight of hand, it isn’t lost on political observers across the spectrum. George Will wrote that it’s hardly cricket for Kerry to claim he’s opposed to special interests influence peddling while being financially supported by outfits like the NEA and AFL-CIO. “Is ‘special’ a synonym for ‘conservative’?” Will asked. The New Republic’s Peter Beinart acknowledged “…virtually every governor or member of Congress which is to say, virtually every presidential candidate, has raised money from people with an interest in legislation and at some time or another has written a letter, or voted for a bill, on their behalf.” Moreover, Beinart conceded, “Kerry has occasionally helped out his financial backers, sometimes at the public’s expense.” The truth is a case can be made that Kerry is very much a kept-man by his own interest groups, despite his desire to cast President George W. Bush as the one beholden to “special interests.” Kerry clearly had hoped for a pre-emptive attack that would have pinned the derogatory label of “special interest” candidate on President Bush. But the label turned out to be just as easily applied to him. He not only accepts special interest money, he leads the pack in the Senate in lobbyists’ cash. It is as Brown University political science professor Darrell West observed: “Every politician has to raise money and so every candidate is dependent upon some type of special interest.” The second thing going on is Kerry’s method of operation, which is ironically rooted in the philosophy of pre-emptive attacks. This is ironic not only because Kerry was pre-empted on the special interest issue, but also because he has for months criticized the Bush Administration’s military pre-emptive attack on Iraq. The President’s plan of pre-emption, the Kerry camp would have you believe, was improper, presumably because it would be better for the United States to have waited for another skyscraper to be devastated by terrorists financed, armed or otherwise backed by Iraq’s blood-thirsty dictator. Kerry finds pre-emption distasteful when directed at murderous despots like Saddam Hussein. But it is his operating method of choice in politics. For example, the Kerry attack on President Bush’s National Guard service clearly was intended to pre-empt the anticipated attack by Bush on Kerry’s anti-war and anti-military record. Likewise, Kerry hoped to pre-empt the debate over what constitutes a “special interest” by defining the phrase to exempt his situation, and condemn the president’s. Political campaigns can turn more on tactics and public perceptions than on facts, which explains both things that are going on in Kerry’s camp. It would be refreshing to strip away the buzz words – words like “special interest” – to reveal instead exactly who is beholding to whom insofar as that can be determined by political campaign giving. A little truth in advertising is called for. The same integrity demanded of tooth paste commercials would serve the voting public far better than a war of nebulous buzz words, especially when the words’ meanings hinge on who speaks first and loudest. Speaking of commercials, the Republican National Committee immediately pounced on the Kerry-lobbyists connection with a scathing ad on the RNC website harpooning Kerry’s double talk about “special interests.” Democrats naturally complained that it is President Bush rather than Kerry who is the “special interest” candidate. But they missed the point. The Republican ad was not complaining – at least not yet – about Kerry receiving special interest funding. The complaint was that despite receiving special interest cash, Kerry claims to be the anti-special interest candidate. It’s the lie, not the subject of the lie that was the point. The question ultimately may (and perhaps should) come down to which “special interest” camp voters prefer to have their candidate. But first things first. Will John Kerry concede that the groups he receives millions of dollars from are “special interests” in their own right? Or will the pot continue to call the kettle black? If this “special interest” flap accomplished anything, it highlighted once again Kerry’s duplicitous nature. As President Bush’s campaign manager Ken Mehlman put it, Kerry is a candidate “who says one thing and does another.”