SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (45692)10/23/2005 8:00:34 PM
From: steve harris  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284
 
What plans? Someone last week started to yank some of the pork out of the transportation bill and your liberal pigs with Osama mama leading the pack had a hissy fit!

The dems dont have any plans or you would post them here. No different than the lies you post daily with no links to back them up. Just another liar like your girlfriend chino...
Message 21640027



To: American Spirit who wrote (45692)10/24/2005 3:52:22 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284
 
Letters Show Frist Notified Of Stocks in 'Blind' Trusts
__________________________________________

Documents Contradict Comments on Holdings

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 24, 2005; Page A01

washingtonpost.com

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) was given considerable information about his stake in his family's hospital company, according to records that are at odds with his past statements that he did not know what was in his stock holdings.

Managers of the trusts that Frist once described as "totally blind," regularly informed him when they added new shares of HCA Inc. or other assets to his holdings, according to the documents.

Since 2001, the trustees have written to Frist and the Senate 15 times detailing the sale of assets from or the contribution of assets to trusts of Frist and his family. The letters included notice of the addition of HCA shares worth $500,000 to $1 million in 2001 and HCA stock worth $750,000 to $1.5 million in 2002. The trust agreements require the trustees to inform Frist and the Senate whenever assets are added or sold.

The letters seem to undermine one of the major arguments the senator has used throughout his political career to rebut criticism of his ownership in HCA: that the stock was held in blind trusts beyond his control and that he had little idea of the extent of those holdings.

The extent of Frist's knowledge of the inner workings of his trusts and his family's health care company is related to a recently launched federal investigation of possible insider trading involving the liquidation this summer of Frist's HCA stock. Within weeks of Frist's decision to sell his holdings in June, HCA shares fell sharply because of a weak earnings report. Frist has said he possessed only publicly available and not "insider" information about the company when he directed the sale and, therefore, did nothing wrong.

Last week, Frist told reporters that he is "absolutely confident in the outcome" of the inquiries by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission because he "acted properly at every point." He declined to address specifics about the investigations but said he is providing information as quickly and fully as possible.

Frist, a heart-surgeon-turned-politician, has been actively involved in shaping national health care legislation, including passage of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, while maintaining a major financial interest in his family-founded health care business.

Two watchdog organizations -- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights -- filed complaints with the Senate Select Committee on Ethics this yearcharging Frist with having a conflict of interest and questioning why he sold his shares after a decade of saying he did not need to.

Frist and his family have a dozen federal trust accounts, which are essentially piles of stock controlled by professional money managers. Under the terms of his "qualified" trust agreements set up in 2000, Frist is barred from contacting the managers except under specific circumstances. The managers, however, are required to contact him when the funds they control undergo certain changes -- an arrangement similar to those of several other senators.

In January 2003, after winning election as majority leader, Frist was asked on CNBC whether his HCA holdings made it difficult for him to push for changes in Medicare, a federal health program for seniors that added to the hospital company's revenue.

"I think really for our viewers it should be understood that I put this into a blind trust," Frist replied. "So as far as I know, I own no HCA stock." He added that the trust was "totally blind. I have no control."

Two weeks before that interview, M. Kirk Scobey Jr., a Frist trustee, informed the senator in writing that one of his trusts had received HCA stock valued at between $15,000 and $50,000.

"He [Frist] could have been more exact in his comments," said Bob Stevenson, spokesman for Frist. Stevenson added that Frist might better have said he did not know to what extent he owned HCA shares.

Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, said she was surprised that Frist had ever claimed before this summer's liquidation that he might have owned no HCA stock. "Did he say that? What was he thinking of?" she asked. "How did he know to tell the trustee to sell it [his HCA stake] if he didn't know that he had it in the first place?"

Disclosures by the trustees to the Senate and to Frist indicate that Frist and his family probably owned a great deal of HCA stock at the time. When Frist's federal trusts were created in late 2000, the trustees disclosed that one trust alone contained between $5 million and $25 million in HCA shares and that each of seven other trusts held more than $1 million of the stock.

Frist was notified in November 2002 that 14,781 HCA shares had been sold from one of his trusts. But he was not told that all of his HCA shares had been disposed of until this summer -- after he had directed his trustees to sell them all, the documents show.

Questions about his HCA holdings have been a staple of Frist's public life. The Nashville-based company, the country's largest chain of for-profit hospitals, was founded in 1968 by Frist's father, Thomas F. Frist, his brother, Thomas F. Frist Jr., and Jack C. Massey, the former owner of Kentucky Fried Chicken. Its stock made up the majority of Frist's wealth and was used to help him secure some of the financing for his first Senate campaign.

During his first run for the Senate in 1994, Frist was accused of having a "mammoth conflict of interest" by his Democratic opponent, then-Sen. Jim Sasser. Frist promised to put his HCA stock in a blind trust to avoid the problem.

This year, as he contemplated a bid for the White House in 2008 and worried about the appearance of conflicts, Frist abruptly changed tactics, aides said. Rather than defend his stock held in trust, he asked his trustees to sell all his HCA shares.

Stevenson said Frist's concerns involved the perception of a conflict rather than any real conflict of interest. In 1997 and 1999, the ethics committee cleared Frist to participate in Senate debates involving Medicare and health maintenance organizations despite his "substantial" holdings in HCA. The committee did not take into account whether Frist's holdings were in blind trusts in reaching its decisions.

Frist said last week he was not required to set up a blind trust after he went to the Senate, but he wanted to "apply the highest ethical standards I possibly could. I thought, why not raise the bar, why not do a good deed . . . and avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest."

Senate rules prohibit any lawmaker with a blind trust from contacting his trustees unless the ownership of an asset poses a potential conflict of interest "due to the subsequent assumption of duties" by the lawmaker. The lawmaker can then ask the trustees to dispose of the asset.

Frist did not take on any new duties this year. But a Frist adviser said the senator had been thinking about selling his HCA stake from the time he was elected majority leader in 2002. Frist had not known that he could sell his shares until this spring, the adviser asserted, and so went ahead with the sale based on his nearly three-year-old wish.



To: American Spirit who wrote (45692)10/24/2005 6:05:24 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284
 
Bush Told White House 'Hip-Deep' in Plame Scandal and Cover Up

By DOUG THOMPSON

Oct 24, 2005, 04:20

Senior White House officials over the weekend warned President George W. Bush to “prepare for the worst” in the ever-deepening Valerie Plame scandal, laying out a scenario that includes indictments of top officials and detailing a direct involvement by the Administration in a concentrated effort to destroy the credibility of Ambassador Joseph Wilson and then conceal the actions from investigators.

Chief of Staff Andrew Card cancelled a weekend schedule of appearances and events to spend the weekend with Bush at Camp David and deliver the bad news personally, White House insiders tell Capitol Hill Blue.

With indictments expected against Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Richard Cheney’s chief of staff, and possibly White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, Card told Bush that both will have to resign if the administration is to salvage any chance of recovering from the scandal.

“We’re hip deep in this and the sharks are circling,” Card told the President.

According to multiple White House sources, Card laid out a detailed scenario of White House involvement in a staff-directed campaign to destroy administration critic Wilson. That scenario includes:

A concentrated effort directed by Libby to monitor Wilson’s travel, speeches and activities and develop talking points to attack his credibility and plant false stories about the Ambassador’s activities, statements and motives. Libby’s plan included “outing” Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, a covert CIA operative. Card told Bush he believes Vice President Cheney was aware of Libby's activities.

Approval of the program by Rove who helped spread the information to “administration-friendly” reporters, including conservative columnist Robert Novak and New York Times reporter Judith Miller who has since publicly admitted helping spread false administration-based information claiming the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, a claim now discredited.

Attempts by White House personnel to cover up administration involvement in the Plame affair, including Rove-directed public statements by press spokesman Scott McClellan claiming “no White House official is involved” in the leaking of Plame’s name.

“As usual, it’s not the act itself but the cover up that brings someone down,” says retired political science professor George Harleigh, who worked in the Nixon administration. “It’s a sad lesson that those in power never learn.”

Indeed, indictments the grand jury convened by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald are expected to hand down focus more on the cover-up than the actual leaking of Plame’s name to the press, sources close to the investigation say.

With pressure mounting against the White House, even Republicans are looking for ways to distance themselves from the growing scandals surrounding the Bush administration. GOP campaign consultants are advising elected officials and candidates for public office to call for resignation of anyone indicted in the scandal.

Virginia GOP Sen. George Allen, a Bush loyalist, told NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday that any administration official indicted in the scandal should resign.

“I think they will step down if they're indicted,” Allen said.

In another development, New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller admits his newspaper aided and abetted the Bush administration’s false claims of existence of weapons of mass destructions in Iraq.

“I wish we had dealt with the controversy over our coverage of WMD as soon as I became executive editor,” Keller said in a memo to Times reporters and editors. “By waiting a year to own up to our mistakes, we allowed the anger inside and outside the paper to fester… If we had lanced the WMD boil earlier, we might have damped any suspicion that THIS time, the paper was putting the defense of a reporter above the duty to its readers.”

Keller admitted reporter Judith Miller has been an administration pawn in the Plame affair.

“Until Fitzgerald came after her, I didn’t know that Judy had been one of the reporters on the receiving end of the anti-Wilson whisper campaign,” he said. “But in this case I missed what should have been significant alarm bells.”

Criag Pyes, a reporter who worked with Miller on other stories, told Times editors in an internal memo that she should not be trusted.

“I do not trust her work, her judgment, or her conduct,” Pyes wrote. “She is an advocate, and her actions threaten the integrity of the enterprise, and of everyone who works with her.” In the memo, Pyes said Miller took “dictation from government sources” and tried to “stampede it into the paper.”

“That charge resonates today, of course, because that’s exactly what people suspect Miller did with her inaccurate WMD reporting in the run up to the Iraq war,” says Douglas McCollam, a lawyer, former Washington correspondent for American Lawyer, and contributing editor to Columbia Journalism Review. “Miller’s sources weren’t just wrong, they spun her dizzy and in the process badly damaged the credibility of America’s best and most important newspaper.”

Times columnist Maureen Dowd says Miller was a stooge for those who wanted to sell the Iraq war to a gullible public.

“Judy's stories about WMD fit too perfectly with the White House's case for war,” Dowd wrote in her Times column Saturday. “She was close to Ahmad Chalabi, the con man who was conning the neocons to knock out Saddam so he could get his hands on Iraq, and I worried that she was playing a leading role in the dangerous echo chamber that former Senator Bob Graham dubbed ‘incestuous amplification.’ Using Iraqi defectors and exiles, Mr. Chalabi planted bogus stories with Judy and other credulous journalists.”

Concludes Dowd on Miller: “She never knew when to quit. That was her talent and her flaw. Sorely in need of a tight editorial leash, she was kept on no leash at all, and that has hurt this paper and its trust with readers. She more than earned her sobriquet ‘Miss Run Amok.’”

In another ominous sign, special prosecutor Fitzgerald set up a web site for the investigation just a week before his investigation is slated to end.

“You don't open up a Web site if you're ready to shut down an investigation," former attorney general Richard Thornburgh said on CNN's Late Edition.

Thornburgh also said indictments that deal with a cover up are “serious business.”

“If there is false testimony given or there's an attempt to corrupt any of the witnesses or evidence that is presented to the grand jury, that's a very serious offense because it undermines the integrity of the whole rule of law and investigatory process,” he said.

capitolhillblue.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (45692)10/24/2005 6:15:25 AM
From: tonto  Respond to of 93284
 
LOLOL, you are either the dumbest liar on the internet, (which I believe has been shown) or you are brainwashed by the DNC. Which one is it?

Democrats have better, more honest plans for every issue we face as a country.



To: American Spirit who wrote (45692)10/24/2005 7:00:09 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 93284
 
Media, Democrats Complicit in Rush to War

by Patrick J. Buchanan

While President Bush and his War Cabinet bear full moral responsibility for Iraq, they could not have taken us to war without the complicity of the "adversary press" and "loyal opposition."

Today, this town is salivating over the prospect that Karl Rove and "Scooter" Libby will be indicted for outing Joe Wilson's wife as a CIA operative. Thirty months ago, many of those anxious to see the White House brought down were hauling its water. Consider the role played by our newspaper of record, The New York Times.

To stampede us into a war neoconservatives had been plotting for a decade, Douglas Feith, the Pentagon's No. 3, set up an Office of Special Plans. Its role: Cherry-pick the intel that Saddam was acquiring weapons of mass destruction and was hell-bent on using them on the United States. Then, stove-pipe the hot stuff to the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) and ignore the contradictory evidence.

A primary source of the hot Intel about poison gas vans and nuclear bomb programs was a tight-knit exile group led by Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress and neocon-Pentagon favorite to lead the new Iraq.

But once the hyped Intel suggesting Saddam was an imminent and mortal threat had been extracted, the WHIG needed to run it through a media centrifuge to convert it into hard news.

Enter Judy Miller, self-styled "Miss Run Amok" and the go-to girl for the War Party. Miller took the cherry-picked Intel and planted it on page one, enabling War Party propagandists to hit the TV talk-show circuit and reference ominous stories in The New York Times about how imminent a threat Saddam had become.

These propagandists were parroting their own pre-cooked intel, but it now had the imprimatur of the Times. The White House had seduced the good Gray Lady of 43rd Street into turning tricks for war.

While the Times has played this role before, it was usually in leftist causes. In the early 1930s, Walter Duranty got a Pulitzer for covering up Stalin's starvation of the Ukrainians. In the late 1950s, Herbert Matthews used the Times' front page to introduce Fidel Castro to the world as the "Robin Hood of the Sierra Maestra." And who can forget the Times columnists who assured us how much better off the Cambodian people would be under the benevolent rule of Pol Pot?

But the indispensable enablers of war are the New Democrats and potential presidential nominees, Sens. Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Biden, and Bayh. Fearful that Bush and Rove would use their refusal to authorize war in October 2002 to impeach Democrats' patriotism, they voted to give him a blank check for war. Six months later, Bush cashed it.

The Democratic Senate could have slowed the stampede. And if it could not have stopped it, it might at least have gotten answers to crucial questions. How many troops would be needed? What was the probability of guerrilla war? What was our exit strategy? Instead, the Senate surrendered the war powers the Founding Fathers reserved for Congress to the president and abdicated its constitutional duty.

And what of the punditocracy, which cheer-led us into war? Did they serve their country, or did they service the king and his courtiers by reciting such fairy tales as Mohammed Atta's secret meeting in Prague with his Iraqi controllers?

In the run-up to war, from left, center and right, voices were asking exactly what threat Saddam posed to America.

His nation had been crushed in six weeks and his army routed in 100 hours in Desert Storm. His weapons factories had been demolished. Terrified of U.S. retaliation, he had not used one WMD. The United Nations had rummaged through Iraq and destroyed other WMD and their factories. He had not imported a tank, plane, or gun in 12 years. Mohamed ElBaradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency had scoured Iraq and found nothing. Saddam had invited the CIA in to have a look.

Though 40,000 U.S.-British sorties had been flown over Iraq since 1991, he had been unable to shoot down a single plane. There was no evidence he or his regime had any role in 9/11, any connection to the anthrax attack, any tie to al-Qaeda, or committed any act of terror against us.

Why, then, was it necessary to go to war?

Whatever the sins of the WHIG in savaging critics, however, at least most of them believed in this war. But what is to be said for those who transmitted to a trusting public what they had to know or at least suspect were propaganda fabrications to dupe the people into sending their sons and daughters to fight and die in an unnecessary war? This is the greater scandal. This is the real scandal.

antiwar.com