Record since 04-26-05
Win (275)
Place (78)
Show (16)
Out of the Money (68)
****************************
Freehold Raceway
Race # 11
Horse: SINBAD (Won)
Post Position: # 1
****************************
The Meadows
Race # 12
Horse: PEACE FOR LEE (Won)
Post Position: # 3
****************************
Woodbine
Race # 7
Horse: GREATEST IMAGE (Won)
Post Position: # 3
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Culture of Corruption: Republicans scurry to unload Dukester's dirty money
WASHINGTON (AP) — Some congressional Republicans, seeking to distance themselves from former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, are donating to charity political money that he gave them over the years.
.....
Among them are Reps. Richard Pombo of California, Jim Nussle of Iowa, Heather Wilson of New Mexico and Charles Dent of Pennsylvania; Sen. John Thune of South Dakota; Minnesota Senate candidate and Rep. Mark Kennedy; and Oregon congressional candidate Jim Feldkamp.
........
At least two Republicans said they were hanging onto Cunningham’s money — Rep. Katherine Harris, R-Fla., and Rep. George Radanovich, R-Calif. Both received $1,000 donations — Harris in 2004, Radanovich in 1994. Aides said the money was legally donated and received, and was spent.
Other lawmakers who have announced they had donated the money or planned to do so were Reps. Mary Bono of California, Jim Gerlach and Melissa Hart of Pennsylvania, Rob Simmons of Connecticut, Michael Ferguson of New Jersey, Jon Porter of Nevada, Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska and John Sullivan of Oklahoma.
.....
Among them are Reps. Richard Pombo of California, Jim Nussle of Iowa, Heather Wilson of New Mexico and Charles Dent of Pennsylvania; Sen. John Thune of South Dakota; Minnesota Senate candidate and Rep. Mark Kennedy; and Oregon congressional candidate Jim Feldkamp.
........
At least two Republicans said they were hanging onto Cunningham’s money — Rep. Katherine Harris, R-Fla., and Rep. George Radanovich, R-Calif. Both received $1,000 donations — Harris in 2004, Radanovich in 1994. Aides said the money was legally donated and received, and was spent.
Other lawmakers who have announced they had donated the money or planned to do so were Reps. Mary Bono of California, Jim Gerlach and Melissa Hart of Pennsylvania, Rob Simmons of Connecticut, Michael Ferguson of New Jersey, Jon Porter of Nevada, Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska and John Sullivan of Oklahoma.
Urge MSNBC to bring Chris Matthews back to reality
On the November 28 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews said of President Bush: "I like him. Everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs, maybe on the left." Since polls show that most Americans have an unfavorable view of the president, Matthews is labeling the majority of the populace "whack-jobs." This is only one of several recent examples of Matthews's habit of insulting those with whom he disagrees and of his fawning praise for Bush. Matthews's comments demonstrate his disconnect from the American public.
In recent weeks, Matthews has also said that Bush sometimes "glimmers" with "sunny nobility"; he praised a recent Bush speech as a "brilliant political move" -- before the speech was even delivered. Now he is calling the majority of Americans "whack-jobs" and deriding critics of the Iraq war as "carpers and complainers." Tell MSNBC that Matthews's comments -- coming from the supposedly neutral host of a prime-time news show -- are unacceptable.
Take Action! Click here to tell MSNBC that you are outraged by Chris Matthews's recent statements attacking the majority of the American public. (Please feel free to Cc "action-matthews@mediamatters.org" so we can receive your comments too!)
Resources:
Matthews: "Everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs"
Matthews: Bush sometimes "glimmers" with "sunny nobility"
Matthews praised Bush's "brilliant political move"; derided "carpers and complainers"
In recent weeks, Matthews has also said that Bush sometimes "glimmers" with "sunny nobility"; he praised a recent Bush speech as a "brilliant political move" -- before the speech was even delivered. Now he is calling the majority of Americans "whack-jobs" and deriding critics of the Iraq war as "carpers and complainers." Tell MSNBC that Matthews's comments -- coming from the supposedly neutral host of a prime-time news show -- are unacceptable.
Take Action! Click here to tell MSNBC that you are outraged by Chris Matthews's recent statements attacking the majority of the American public. (Please feel free to Cc "action-matthews@mediamatters.org" so we can receive your comments too!)
Resources:
Matthews: "Everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs"
Matthews: Bush sometimes "glimmers" with "sunny nobility"
Matthews praised Bush's "brilliant political move"; derided "carpers and complainers"
Lynne Cheney: Insists Her Husband Never Connected Saddam to 9/11
Yesterday, Lynne Cheney appeared on NPR’s Diane Rehm Show to offer an indefensible defense of her husband’s attempts to link Iraq to 9/11:
L. CHENEY: I don’t know of any leader – certainly the president or vice president has never said that Saddam Hussein was connected with 9/11.
REHM: But there have been connections made in speeches putting Saddam Hussein and Iraq adjacent to 9/11.
L. CHENEY: Well, I’ve seen Dick specifically say “no” to the question asked “is there a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11” because there isn’t a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. So, if your caller is troubled, I guess I would just like to know more specifics.
REHM: More specifics — you mean a quotation?
L. CHENEY: Sure. I mean the president nor the vice president has ever made that assertion because it isn’t true. There’s no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.
REHM: I think that a great many people perhaps have had the impression that that is something the President and vice president have done. Now whether, as you say, there is no explicit paragraph to be cited, I think our listeners are going to supply that.
L. CHENEY: Good. Because it sounds like a straw man. You know you set up something that someone supposedly said so that you can knock it down. But the president and vice president have been very clear – when asked specifically, that there was no connection.
************
In fact, when specifically asked about the link, Vice President Cheney did not play down — but rather played up — the connection. Here are the specifics:
* WHEN ASKED SPECIFICALLY ABOUT AN IRAQ - 9/11 LINK, CHENEY SAID IT WAS “PRETTY WELL CONFIRMED”:
RUSSERT: Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?
CHENEY: “Well, what we now have that’s developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that—it’s been pretty well confirmed that (9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta) did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.” (NBC, Meet The Press, 12/9/01)
* EVEN AFTER THE WAR BEGAN, WHEN SPECIFICALLY ASKED, CHENEY SUGGESTED THERE MIGHT BE AN IRAQ - 9/11 CONNECTION:
RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?
CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.
MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know.
(NBC, Meet the Press, 11/14/03)
* CHENEY SAID IRAQ WAS THE “GEOGRAPHIC BASE” FOR 9/11 HIJACKERS:
CHENEY: If we’re successful in Iraq, … we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.” (NBC, Meet The Press, 9/14/03)
Bob Herbert: Bush Hits Rewind
It's weird. It's like watching a computerized model of a president. Somebody programs George W. Bush, carefully embedding the information to be dispensed over the next several hours, and then he goes out and addresses the nation - as a computerized bundle of administration talking points.
"We will never back down," said Mr. Bush in his speech at the U.S. Naval Academy yesterday. "We will never give in. And we will never accept anything less than complete victory."
I don't think there were many people who believed him. Members of Mr. Bush's own party are nervously eyeing next year's Congressional elections. They would abandon Iraq in a heartbeat if it meant the difference between getting re-elected or having to hunt for a real job.
This war (which has already cost the lives of more than 2,100 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis) was cynically launched (it was never about Sept. 11) and incompetently fought (we have never sent enough troops or sufficient equipment), and will be brought to a close by people obsessed not with the security of the United States and the welfare of the troops, but with the political calendar.
"I will settle for nothing less than complete victory," said Mr. Bush. He then dutifully defined victory as follows:
"Victory will come when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their own citizens, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks on our nation."
Those were some of yesterday's talking points. Here's today's reality: the $6-billion-a-month U.S. military mission in Iraq is unsustainable, as is the political support for the war. There is now a virtual consensus that a significant American troop withdrawal will get under way in 2006.
Meanwhile, the Iraqi security forces are ill equipped, understaffed and widely infiltrated by private militia members and insurgents. In many ways, it's an amateurish operation.
As Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat who served in the 82nd Airborne, told reporters this week:
"Without an effective ministry that can keep track of soldiers and police, pay those soldiers and police, apply those soldiers and police and essentially provide the foundation, then you're going to have some tactically trained units, but they're not going to be a coherent or effective force."
Despite the rosy scenarios offered by President Bush, American-style democracy is nowhere in sight in Iraq. Among other things, the evidence of horrific human rights abuses by Iraqi forces allied with us - including kidnappings, torture and murders - is increasing.
In short, the picture in Iraq is not a pretty one, and there is no indication that substantial improvements are coming soon.
If the president gets any of this, you couldn't tell it by his appearance yesterday. He stuck to his talking points. "To all who wear the uniform," he said, "I make you this pledge: America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your commander in chief."
We may not cut and run in Iraq, but with the G.O.P. sweating out next year's elections, the plans are already under way for American forces by the tens of thousands to cut and speed-walk toward the exits. Mr. Bush could have been honest about this yesterday, but he chose not to be.
If the administration does not address this inevitable pullout, or pullback, seriously, it will be conducted as incompetently as the post-invasion operation.
The inevitable drawdown of U.S. forces is hardly a secret. In addition to the political pressures coming from the G.O.P., there's the fact that we don't have enough people in the military - and can't entice enough people into the military - to back up the president's blithe promises.
Senator Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat, said in an op-ed article in The Washington Post that it was likely that 50,000 troops would be redeployed out of Iraq by the end of next year and "a significant number" of the remainder in 2007.
A president who's little more than a bundle of talking points cannot possibly maintain the long-term trust and confidence of the public. There's a disturbing remoteness to President Bush that seems especially odd in a politician who was selected by his party because of his supposed ability to project warmth and the kind of fundamental authenticity that his Democratic opponents lacked.
"We will never back down," said Mr. Bush in his speech at the U.S. Naval Academy yesterday. "We will never give in. And we will never accept anything less than complete victory."
I don't think there were many people who believed him. Members of Mr. Bush's own party are nervously eyeing next year's Congressional elections. They would abandon Iraq in a heartbeat if it meant the difference between getting re-elected or having to hunt for a real job.
This war (which has already cost the lives of more than 2,100 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis) was cynically launched (it was never about Sept. 11) and incompetently fought (we have never sent enough troops or sufficient equipment), and will be brought to a close by people obsessed not with the security of the United States and the welfare of the troops, but with the political calendar.
"I will settle for nothing less than complete victory," said Mr. Bush. He then dutifully defined victory as follows:
"Victory will come when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their own citizens, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks on our nation."
Those were some of yesterday's talking points. Here's today's reality: the $6-billion-a-month U.S. military mission in Iraq is unsustainable, as is the political support for the war. There is now a virtual consensus that a significant American troop withdrawal will get under way in 2006.
Meanwhile, the Iraqi security forces are ill equipped, understaffed and widely infiltrated by private militia members and insurgents. In many ways, it's an amateurish operation.
As Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat who served in the 82nd Airborne, told reporters this week:
"Without an effective ministry that can keep track of soldiers and police, pay those soldiers and police, apply those soldiers and police and essentially provide the foundation, then you're going to have some tactically trained units, but they're not going to be a coherent or effective force."
Despite the rosy scenarios offered by President Bush, American-style democracy is nowhere in sight in Iraq. Among other things, the evidence of horrific human rights abuses by Iraqi forces allied with us - including kidnappings, torture and murders - is increasing.
In short, the picture in Iraq is not a pretty one, and there is no indication that substantial improvements are coming soon.
If the president gets any of this, you couldn't tell it by his appearance yesterday. He stuck to his talking points. "To all who wear the uniform," he said, "I make you this pledge: America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your commander in chief."
We may not cut and run in Iraq, but with the G.O.P. sweating out next year's elections, the plans are already under way for American forces by the tens of thousands to cut and speed-walk toward the exits. Mr. Bush could have been honest about this yesterday, but he chose not to be.
If the administration does not address this inevitable pullout, or pullback, seriously, it will be conducted as incompetently as the post-invasion operation.
The inevitable drawdown of U.S. forces is hardly a secret. In addition to the political pressures coming from the G.O.P., there's the fact that we don't have enough people in the military - and can't entice enough people into the military - to back up the president's blithe promises.
Senator Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat, said in an op-ed article in The Washington Post that it was likely that 50,000 troops would be redeployed out of Iraq by the end of next year and "a significant number" of the remainder in 2007.
A president who's little more than a bundle of talking points cannot possibly maintain the long-term trust and confidence of the public. There's a disturbing remoteness to President Bush that seems especially odd in a politician who was selected by his party because of his supposed ability to project warmth and the kind of fundamental authenticity that his Democratic opponents lacked.
Weldon rips 9/11 commission over intelligence failures
MARPLE - Still wearing his makeup from an appearance on CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight," U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon, R-7, of Thornbury, told a packed house at the township library Tuesday evening about his concerns regarding the 9/11 Commission.
The congressman said the military intelligence unit Able Danger identified four Sept. 11 hijackers in 2000, more than a year before the attacks. He said the commission, charged with investigating intelligence failures, deliberately excluded the input from its July 2004 final report. Members of the commission have repeatedly denied the claims.
"I am convinced this is a bigger cover-up than Watergate," said Weldon. "More than 3,000 people were slaughtered and it deliberately kept the story from being part of its report because it would have embarrassed some of its members."
Weldon, vice-chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, outlined the details in his latest book, "Countdown to Terror." The volume tells of a series of meetings with "Ali," an Iranian who correctly predicted five incidents before particulars about them were made public.
"The CIA thought he got the information from open sources, but I gave them the details one week to three months before the events happened," said Weldon. "The information was not made public by any source in the world before I gave it to the CIA."
Earlier this month, Weldon also sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld requesting he allow former participants in Able Danger to testify in open congressional hearings. The correspondence had 246 bipartisan signatures, including those of senior members and leadership on both sides of the aisle
The congressman said the military intelligence unit Able Danger identified four Sept. 11 hijackers in 2000, more than a year before the attacks. He said the commission, charged with investigating intelligence failures, deliberately excluded the input from its July 2004 final report. Members of the commission have repeatedly denied the claims.
"I am convinced this is a bigger cover-up than Watergate," said Weldon. "More than 3,000 people were slaughtered and it deliberately kept the story from being part of its report because it would have embarrassed some of its members."
Weldon, vice-chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, outlined the details in his latest book, "Countdown to Terror." The volume tells of a series of meetings with "Ali," an Iranian who correctly predicted five incidents before particulars about them were made public.
"The CIA thought he got the information from open sources, but I gave them the details one week to three months before the events happened," said Weldon. "The information was not made public by any source in the world before I gave it to the CIA."
Earlier this month, Weldon also sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld requesting he allow former participants in Able Danger to testify in open congressional hearings. The correspondence had 246 bipartisan signatures, including those of senior members and leadership on both sides of the aisle
Harness Racing Picks for 12-01-05
Record since 04-26-05
Win (272)
Place (78)
Show (16)
Out of the Money (68)
****************************
Freehold Raceway
Race # 11
Horse: SINBAD
Post Position: # 1
****************************
The Meadows
Race # 12
Horse: PEACE FOR LEE
Post Position: # 3
****************************
Woodbine
Race # 7
Horse: GREATEST IMAGE
Post Position: # 3
Win (272)
Place (78)
Show (16)
Out of the Money (68)
****************************
Freehold Raceway
Race # 11
Horse: SINBAD
Post Position: # 1
****************************
The Meadows
Race # 12
Horse: PEACE FOR LEE
Post Position: # 3
****************************
Woodbine
Race # 7
Horse: GREATEST IMAGE
Post Position: # 3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)