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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (61037)	7/17/2007 11:47:54 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

In such a postmodern election, it will not be the issues or candidates' platforms or biographies that will matter so much as that shining image on the magazine cover of what America can be. How the media will cast the 2008 election race Betsy's Page In a column looking at Newsweek's third cover story on Barack Obama since 2004, Brent Bozell touches on what will surely be the mainstream media's approach to the general election. <<< The 2008 presidential campaign could be one of the most critical in recent history. As things now stand, it could also be one of the most tiresome. Nowhere is media snobbishness more evident than when the big picture begins with the snide liberal elitist take on America: Is the country "ready" to elect a black like Barack Obama or a woman like Hillary Clinton? If Americans reject the icons of liberalism and vote Republican, apparently they will be proving the country is stuffed with benighted bigots who refuse to "expand America's sense of possibility." Those gauzy words came from Newsweek in its Barack-and-Hillary cover at the end of 2006. Obama's back on the cover of Newsweek again for the July 16 edition, photographed in black and white, with another question from left field: Will Obama be black enough for blacks and yet conciliatory enough for whites? >>> If the Democratic candidate is either Hillary or Obama, the contest will not be between one set of ideas for the country and another. Oh, no. The media will cast it as a contest between those who are progressive enough to accept the idea of a woman or black president and those who are so hidebound and racist that the mere idea of such a leader will send them over to the Republicans. They will be fighting for an image of an America that they want to be and Hillary or Obama will just be the symbols of that image. Voting for Obama will be seen as a "Get out of racism free" card that people can wave to demonstrate that they are fair-minded non-racists who want a better America by putting our racist past behind us. And voting for the Republican will, of course, be limited to those who still hug that past. And if the Democratic ticket should be, joy of all joys, a Hillary-Barack combo, expect that dramatic plotline to be intensified even more. And don't underestimate that storyline's appeal on the undecided voter. In such a postmodern election, it will not be the issues or candidates' platforms or biographies that will matter so much as that shining image on the magazine cover of what America can be. Ugh. betsyspage.blogspot.com pittsburghlive.com

To: Sully- who wrote (61037)	7/18/2007 6:29:08 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

I don't see any way to understand those statements other than as an acknowledgement that Galloway was on Saddam's payroll.... .... This latest revelation ought to silence Galloway's defenders once and for all, but given their historic obliviousness to evidence, it probably won't. Caught Red-Handed Power Line We have followed, from time to time, the loathesome career of George Galloway, formerly Saddam Hussein's chief shill in the West, more recently a defender of terrorists, hero to Western leftists, and cat impersonator. His downward spiral continues: this morning, a Parliamentary committee released a report recommending that Galloway be suspended from Parliament for a month for concealing the fact that his "Mariam appeal," an alleged charity, was funded in part by Saddam Hussein. Galloway, true to form, tried to obscure the issue at hand by claiming that he deserves to be awarded a medal, not suspended from the House of Commons. The report is available at the link below. This represents, I believe, the fourth official inquiry that has found misconduct of some kind on Galloway's part in connection with Saddam's oil-for-food program. There hasn't really been any doubt for some time about the fact that Galloway took money from Saddam in return for defending the tyrant; money from oil-for-food kickbacks has been traced not just to the Mariam Appeal, but to Galloway's wife's bank accounts. But the most interesting aspect of the Parliamentary committee's report is that it appended a translation of the minutes of a meeting between Galloway and Saddam Hussein in 2002. At its conclusion, the transcript contains an exchange in which Galloway acknowledges that he has performed services for Saddam and has been paid for those services, but notes that his payments have been delayed and reduced by pressures which the oil-for-food program was then under. The Parliamentary committee worked closely with Norm Coleman's Senate Subcommittee on Investigations; Norm deserves a great deal of credit for focusing attention on Galloway's misdeeds and sharing documentary evidence that it accumulated with the Parliamentary committee and others. This latest revelation ought to silence Galloway's defenders once and for all, but given their historic obliviousness to evidence, it probably won't. UPDATE: Here is the key language from Galloway's meeting with Saddam Hussein and Tariq Aziz in August 2002: <<< Finally, may I say that our work has been going on for years and I believe that Your Excellency is aware of the results which we have achieved. Mr Tariq Aziz has helped us with his contacts and has used his influence to facilitate our job and facilitate the mechanism by which we have been able to obtain the funding necessary to finance our activities. But, we are now suffering from the problem of the price of oil which has resulted in a reduction in our income and delay in receiving our dues. >>> I don't see any way to understand those statements other than as an acknowledgement that Galloway was on Saddam's payroll. To comment on this post, go here. plnewsforum.com powerlineblog.com powerlineblog.com timesonline.co.uk publications.parliament.uk

To: Sully- who wrote (61037)	7/19/2007 8:52:57 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

No doubt, the far left's once-fervent appreciation of Galloway's bombast is more muted these days. They may not like to admit it, but their favorite loon seems to have been no more than a mouthpiece-for-hire. GEORGE GALLOWAY, PAID PUPPET NEW YORK POST Editorial July 19, 2007 -- U.S. senators can be forgiven a smirk or two over the news that Britain's House of Commons has suspended malignant left-wing legislator George Galloway for 18 days. Newly uncovered documents suggest Galloway lied to his colleagues when he denied being on Saddam Hussein's Oil-for-Food payroll. Indeed, they show that, in the months before Iraq war, he personally thanked Saddam for the money he'd gotten and offered to help the Butcher of Baghdad set up an English-language satellite-TV channel. Scotland Yard is reportedly weighing a criminal probe. Back in 2005, Galloway staged a flamboyant performance when he testified (stonewalled is more like it) before the Senate Permanent Committee on Investigations. He denied any connection to Iraqi funding, denounced the hearing as "the mother of all smokescreens" and launched into a tirade against the war. Actually, the British Parliament's decision only confirms what's been obvious for some time: In his report on the Oil-for-Food scandal, investigator Paul Volcker concluded that Galloway was on Saddam's payroll, illegally pocketing $270,000. Last month, a British charity put the figure at $376,000. No doubt, the far left's once-fervent appreciation of Galloway's bombast is more muted these days. They may not like to admit it, but their favorite loon seems to have been no more than a mouthpiece-for-hire. nypost.com