Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe Los Angeles Times ran an eyebrow-raising story this morning about how Hillary Clinton is raising money from a highly unlikely source: New York's Chinatown.
"Dishwashers, waiters and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury," the paper reports. "In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000."
According to the article, powerful Chinese neighborhood associations pushed residents to donate to the Clinton camp. The source of many of these donations remains a mystery.
The Times examined the cases of more than 150 donors who provided checks to Clinton after fundraising events geared to the Chinese community. One-third of those donors could not be found using property, telephone or business records. Most have not registered to vote, according to public records.
Several dozen were described in financial reports as holding jobs -- including dishwasher, server or chef--that would normally make it difficult to donate amounts ranging from $500 to the legal maximum of $2,300 per election.
The Clinton campaign's response hardly puts the matter to rest. "In this instance, our own compliance process flagged a number of questionable donations and took the appropriate steps to be sure they were legally given," said Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson. "In cases where we couldn't confirm that, the money was returned."
The Edwards campaign was swift to react. "Clinton campaign contributions are raising eyebrows again," said Edward campaign manager David Bonior. "Many of their donors are not even registered to vote, and at least one denied even making any contribution at all."
The article--and the Clinton reaction--raises more questions than answers. Did officials in Chinatown invent the names and identities of campaign donors? If so, why? How involved was Chung Seto, Clinton's liaison to the Asian community and a former executive director of the New York State Democratic Party? How did the Clinton campaign verify the source of these donations? How many potentially illegal donations were eventually returned?
Share this article
News & Analysis »
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
RSS
Now, I'm sure in close order...
(A) HAPPY will be along to explain, once again, how Mr Berman "doesn't really mean it" and how "The Nation" "covers up stories about Hillary and phoney Chinese fund-raising".
and (B) FRANKGRITS to show up and explain how either (B-1) It's not true...(B-2) it's un-important....(B-3) it's been "explained")...or (B-4) how Hillary HAS to do that, "everybody does", and "so what?".
heheh
Posted by Mask at 10/19/2007 @ 4:28pm
well, now we know why she's a HSU-IN for the presidency.
My little China Girl
You shouldn't mess with me
I'll ruin everything you are
You know;
I'll give you television
I'll give you eyes of blue
I'll give you men who want to rule the world
--------------------------------------------
And when I get excited
My little China Girl says
Oh baby just you shut your mouth
She says ... sh-sh-shhh
david bowie
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/19/2007 @ 4:30pm
Posted by MASK 10/19/2007 @ 4:28pm
Forgot to mention how I'd introduce Al to this conversation...
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/19/2007 @ 4:34pm
Who the hell makes up this 50% majority of democrats who support this woman? Could that figure be as elusive as her Chinatown donors appear to be?
Posted by MATTMAN at 10/19/2007 @ 4:35pm
Yep.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/19/2007 @ 4:36pm
I'm finding less reasons to justify voting for her "just because she's a (the)democrat".
Posted by MATTMAN at 10/19/2007 @ 4:39pm
I think I'm having an impact....hehehe!
I read that LA Times article earlier today and THOUGHT ABOUT posting it here....but morning time is too precious....
While ain't original stuff or research, at least it's something a little bit more `shady' than some legit lobbying event in Manhattan! Keep it up, Mr. BERMAN, I'll show you the way.....but I'll be HAPPY to see you walk on your own two feet!
Posted by Happy at 10/19/2007 @ 4:42pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/19/2007 @ 4:34pm
S'okay. I haven't had time to mention...
1 day until the start of the "Gore Presidential Announcment Tour", which runs from the 20th until the 30th...with a possible encore concert on November 2nd, last day to register for the New Hampshire primary.
Posted by Mask at 10/19/2007 @ 5:04pm
How many more skeletons will fall out of the closet between now and halloween? (heh,heh)
Posted by davebarlett at 10/19/2007 @ 5:08pm
Posted by MASK 10/19/2007 @ 4:28pm
Forgot to mention how I'd introduce Al to this conversation...
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/19/2007 @ 4:34pm
I will help...ALGORE introduced the two of them together when he visited the Temple when he was the haerdest working VP ever..wasn't there something about shooping bags of cash donations from monks with vows of poverty?
As much crapp as I get here about my dealings with the Chinese..my deals are at least up and up and on paper..not cash paper....or paper bags.
Maybe Frank will say the cash is part of the fortune cookies after dinner....
Posted by JoMa at 10/19/2007 @ 5:30pm
How many more skeletons will fall out of the closet between now and halloween? (heh,heh)
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 10/19/2007 @ 5:08pm
Who will report them, besides Nation reporters, and who will read them besides Nation readers?
Posted by MATTMAN at 10/19/2007 @ 5:33pm
According to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, 37 percent of professional managers identify themselves as Republican or leaning Republican, down from 44 percent three years ago.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/19/2007 @ 5:42pm
JoMa,
You have to admit though that it is refreshing for politico's to admit when they make a mistake, no?
"I did not know that it was a fund-raiser. I knew it was a political event, and I knew there were finance people that were going to be present, and so that alone should have told me, 'This is inappropriate and this is a mistake; don't do this.' And I take responsibility for that. It was a mistake."--Gore on NBC's Today show, Jan. 24, 1997.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_controversies
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/19/2007 @ 5:50pm
Posted by MASK 10/19/2007 @ 5:04pm
Sorry guys, I accidentally pulled the chain attached to that disc-like object in my vest pocket, oops.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/19/2007 @ 5:52pm
Who the hell makes up this 50% majority of democrats who support this woman? Could that figure be as elusive as her Chinatown donors appear to be?
Hillary's "50%" poll numbers are based on hot air, as over 50% of the electorate are REALLY undecided!
Posted by Metteyya at 10/19/2007 @ 6:08pm
Posted by METTEYYA 10/19/2007 @ 6:08pm
I really try to avoid buying into conspiracy theories, but for fuck's sake, how in the world is she doing so well in the polls, given the left's general dissatisfaction with her and the political dynasty she represents? Where are these people? I don't know any of them. The closest I get to finding one, is the guy who says "gee, I guess I'll vote for her if I have to (instead of voting republican)".
Being that I live in a solid blue state anyway, I've decided to cast my "symbolic vote" for Dennis Kucinich...maybe Bill Richardson if Clinton gets the nomination.
Posted by MATTMAN at 10/19/2007 @ 6:22pm
Yeah MM,
Seems that other polls seem to show the 51% lead is soft, especially when Al steps into the pic:
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 12-14, 2007. N=927 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"If [see below] were the Democratic Party's candidate and [see below] were the Republican Party's candidate, who would you be more likely to vote for: [see below], the Democrat, or [see below], the Republican?" If unsure: "As of today, who do you lean more toward?" Names rotated
Date____________Giuliani (R)__Clinton (D)__Neither__Other__Unsure
10/12-14/07 _______47 ________49 _________3______-______1
9/7-9/07 __________46 ________50 _________3______-______1
Date____________Giuliani (R)__Gore (D)___Neither__Other__Unsure
10/12-14/07 _______46 ________52 _________2______-______1
*********
USA Today/Gallup Poll. Oct. 12-14, 2007. N=1,009 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Next, we'd like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news. As I read each name, please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people -- or if you have never heard of them. How about:
Al Gore
Date________Favorable__Unfavorable__Unsure
10/12-14/07_____58 _______37 _________5
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-New York)
10/12-14/07_____53 _______44 _________2
Rudolph Giuliani
Date________Favorable__Unfavorable__Unsure__Never Heard Of
10/12-14/07_____49 _______39 _________6 _______6
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Illinois)
10/12-14/07_____53 _______32 _________9 _______6
John Edwards (D-North Carolina)
10/12-14/07_____48 _______34 ________10 _______8
Next indicator-- tack-on the candidates' 'Unsure' and 'Never Heard Of' onto their 'Unfavorable'-- now who's still on top?
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/19/2007 @ 7:37pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/19/2007 @ 7:37pm
I like him too Hsub, and think he would be a shoe-in...if only he would just come out and run. I'm doubtful that he really ever will though.
I'm outta here. have a great weekend all.
Posted by MATTMAN at 10/19/2007 @ 7:52pm
No shame: Ari Berman just keeps coming back onto Hillary. He could use his vitrolic language barking at say Bush or Giuliani. That's where the filth piles.
Posted by Helen DAO at 10/19/2007 @ 8:55pm
Posted by HELEN DAO 10/19/2007 @ 8:55pm
Thou shalt not attack She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed, HELEN?
Posted by Mask at 10/19/2007 @ 9:13pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/19/2007 @ 9:25pm
yep. him and 289,999,997 other americans.
and the other 6 billion humans, as well.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/19/2007 @ 9:36pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/19/2007 @ 5:50pm
If you believe what ALGORE says then I suppose it would look refreshing, but if you are like most the US, we find him another politician...and his movie and books haven't instilled anything but more eye rolling from a number of us.
Posted by JoMa at 10/19/2007 @ 9:46pm
who knows? keep on diggin'
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/20/2007 @ 12:09am
but if you are like most the US, we find him another politician...
Posted by JOMA 10/19/2007 @ 9:46pm
JoMa can't read a poll? Or he was absent the day they went over %'s at is inferior pub school. (No, I really meant PUB school; not public...) The poll said 58% approve of Al Gore, only 37% don't... That beats all the other declared candidates.
So JoMa is part of the 37% 'majority'... and there is a 'moral' to this story?
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/20/2007 @ 01:19am
The only polls JoMa believes is on election day.
Posted by JoMa at 10/20/2007 @ 02:08am
Ah, the 'belief' in a 'majority moral'. Not the Rovian math or is it?
In any case, then you don't have a leg to stand on when commenting on any polls until after election day, except with the disclaimer of-- "I don't believe in anything I just said because I only believe in the last poll.'
So why not also wait until Al's last movie before you comment or also disclaim?
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/20/2007 @ 09:55am
Or you can't comment on anything at all until everything is over.
Er, see you on the other side...
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/20/2007 @ 10:01am
...if only he would just come out and run. I'm doubtful that he really ever will though.
Posted by MATTMAN 10/19/2007 @ 7:52pm
I posted this at '89' a couple of days ago:
Al Gore is now running for president
...
I believe Al Gore is now running for president. He is using these principles of disintermediation and democratic discussion to run the kind of 21st century campaign worthy of his visionary record. On Friday he held a news conference acknowledging his latest international honor, the Nobel Peace Prize. Toward the end, he stated
"I will be doing everything I can to try to understand how to best use the honor and recognition of this award as a way of speeding up the change in awareness and the change in urgency. It is truly a planetary emergency and we have to respond quickly."
Gore has stated in recent months that he is waiting to see if the Democratic candidates will give this issue the attention it deserves and that he isn't currently satisfied with what they have done.
Today, Gore launched his new version of Current (formerly current.tv, now current.com). Not only did he launch it, for the first time he added content. Today he took three major positions:
We should get out of Iraq as quickly as practicable;
Universal, single-payer health care for all Americans; and
The need for new protections for all Americans from governmental spying.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/15/13952/667
I believe a Gore run for president 2008 will give our congress the backbone it may have been lacking per little to no percieved dem leadership at the level Gore would give
This is also insightful:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=al_gore_and_the_gaffe_wars.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/20/2007 @ 10:18am
"..He is using these principles of disintermediation and democratic discussion to run the kind of 21st century campaign worthy of his visionary record. .."
Vision? He is a reactionary as far as the enviroment and is ready to run pellmell in a direction of his choosing despite many yelling , "Wait a minute..lets double examine this!!"
He ignores and will not debate those who disagree with his conclusions(probabnly because he is not a scientist)...especially something of this nature that is so big...the Earth!! He is willing to accept one side and not even hear the others protest..even schools and judges acknowledge ALGORES movie is more of a political statement than science...
We can't afford ALGOREs vision as a people or society...He is a fraud..
Bushfools, I know you adore all thisngs ALGORE and would follow him anywhere, but you must realize that an even greater majority has never been comfortable with him, even in his own party...
and I also do not think you comprehend what a gift ALGORE running would be to the Repubs..who can't seem to get some traction on their own these days..
You really should change your name GOREDFOOLED...:)
I like my new handle...and it only took Frankgrits 3 or 4 days to annouce he wasn't fooled by me and knew it was me all along...IMAGINE...4 days after a public announcement on 5 threads!! And he figured it out.
Posted by JoMa at 10/20/2007 @ 11:39am
This will destroy HSUB! In it's entirety:
beat the devil by Alexander Cockburn
The Real Al Gore
[from the November 5, 2007 issue]
Line up some of the more notorious Nobel Peace Prize recipients, such as Kissinger, and if you had to identify the biggest killer of all
it was probably Norman Borlaug, one of the architects of the Green Revolution, which unleashed displacement, malnutrition and death across the Third World. If the Kyoto Accords were ever implemented, and they never will be, the net impact on greenhouse gases--99.72 percent of them natural in origin--would be imperceptible, but the devastation to Third World economies and life expectancies would rival that caused by Borlaug's seed strains.
Already the hysteria about anthropogenic global warming stoked by Al Gore and the Big Lie gang writing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's press releases has done enormous damage to vital environmental cleanup, sidetracking attention and money from work on sewers, toxic waste sites, filthy smokestacks--not to mention the vast disaster of agricultural pollution. Two other consequences of the hysteria will be deadly. Biofuels will steal the meals of the Third World poor and put them in First World gas tanks. Nuclear power is the hysteria's prime beneficiary. As Peter Montague describes it in our current CounterPunch newsletter, "The long-awaited and much-advertised 'nuclear renaissance' actually got under way this fall." NRG Energy, a New Jersey company, applied for a license to build two nuclear power plants in Bay City, Texas--the first formal application for such a license in thirty years.
NRG can confidently await the green light for two reasons. Using the fakery over the supposed effects of man-made greenhouse gases from fossil fuels, the nuclear industry successfully lobbied to pass the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which provides four different kinds of subsidies for atomic power plants. The other shoe promptly dropped with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's sweeping revision of its procedures, drastically attenuating the approval process for new plants. As nuclear plants start to sprout like toadstools across the landscape, it is certainly appropriate to lay a large measure of the blame on Al Gore, who has been a shill for the nuclear industry ever since he came of age as a political harlot for the Oak Ridge Nuclear Laboratory in his home state of Tennessee.
For a Man of Peace, Gore has plenty of blood on his CV. Looking back through the 1980s, we find that on every relevant issue, whether it was supporting the contras or Reagan's bombing of Libya in 1986, shilling for the Pentagon's latest weapons systems, voting for nerve gas or backing the Reagan/Bush position on NATO deployments in Europe, Gore's hawkishness was unflagging. In the course of his career he voted for the neutron bomb, the B-2 bomber, the Trident II missile, the MX missile and the Midgetman. He also backed the mini-Star Wars plan. The defense contractors always loved Al, the same way the nuclear plant manufacturers do today.
When it came to Bush Senior's attack on Iraq, Gore's antics astounded even his hardened colleagues in the Senate as they debated the war resolution. Of course he had long since decided to vote aye on war, having been a hardliner on Iraq since 1988. But on January 12, 1991, he spun out his supposed travails in coming to this decision in prime-time posturing, speaking of his "heavy burden of conscience" and the lonely weeks "questioning, probing, searching for the truth." Saddam, he proclaimed, "has more troops than Hitler did in the early years of World War II." In the New York Times he wrote, "We can no more look forward to a constructive long-term relationship with Saddam Hussein than we could hope to housebreak a cobra" and that the Iraqi dictator is not "an acceptable part of the landscape."
In Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign Gore was told to earn his keep with constant pummeling of George Bush Senior for having been soft on Saddam. Gore duly crisscrossed the country yoking Saddam and Bush in fervid denunciation. "The cover-up of Bush's arming of Saddam was," Gore shouted, "bigger than Watergate ever was."
In January 1993 Vice President-elect Gore announced that there could never be normal relations with Iraq so long as Saddam remained in power. He reiterated the call for a coup, if not by the Iraqi military then by the CIA. Vice President Gore was then given authority in the Clinton Administration for Iraq policy. In this capacity he presided over the sanctions that led to the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, many of them children. The mid-1990s saw Gore as a major voice urging NATO's bombing of the Serbs. In his 2000 presidential campaign he publicly distanced himself from the Clinton Administration on Iraq policy, reiterating that Saddam had to fall and pledging support for Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress.
On May 27, 2000, Gore laid out his foreign policy and military strategy in a commencement speech at West Point. It was a neocon manifesto. He said he would pursue a more robust form of Clintonism, highlighted by quicker interventions, less diplomacy and more firepower against the "rogue states...that represent the emerging threat to our country." He called this approach "forward engagement," a phrase redolent of his fellow Peace Prize winner Kissinger's "constructive engagement," which meant backing brutes like Suharto, Somoza and Pinochet.
Gore also denounced George W. Bush's recent call for deep cuts in the US nuclear arsenal, cuts that Bush said the United States should consider making on its own. "Nuclear unilateralism will hinder, rather than help, arms control," Gore said. "Reductions alone don't guarantee stability.... If you're not careful, you could have a reduction of missiles and a more dangerous world."
Spoken like a Peace Prize winner!
Posted by Happy at 10/20/2007 @ 12:10pm
Something else picked up on the NET...this one by The Nation, apparently with some research rather than coat-tailing off of the LA Times.....(lengthy article, just first paragraph pasted here)....Hey, MASK, think TN heard my `smack downs'...and is responding????
------------------------------------
article | posted October 18, 2007 (November 5, 2007 issue)
Hillary's Mystery Money Men
Russ Baker & Adam Federman
For supplemental material on this article, go to www.realnews.org. Research support was provided by the Investigative Fund of The Nation Institute.
In the Clintons' pursuit of power, there is no such thing as a strange bedfellow. One recently exposed inamorata was Norman Hsu, the mysterious businessman from Hong Kong who brought in $850,000 to Hillary Clinton's campaign before being unmasked as a fugitive. Her campaign dismissed Hsu as someone who'd slipped through the cracks of an otherwise unimpeachable system for vetting donors, and perhaps he was. The same cannot be said for the notorious financier Alan Quasha, whose involvement with Clinton is at least as substantial--and still under wraps.....
Posted by Happy at 10/20/2007 @ 12:20pm
Posted by HAPPY 10/20/2007 @ 12:20pm
Sorry to interupt your self-congratulations, HAPPY, but...
weren't you the one COMPLAINING that "TN" was ignoring Hillary's fundraising and using that complaint as "evidence" that they supported her?!?!?
Now they do it, and instead of admitting you were wrong, and possibly TN ISN'T "in Hillary's camp"....you claim they're "responding to you"?
Do you have to grease your ears to get that big head through a doorway?!!??!
Posted by Mask at 10/20/2007 @ 1:44pm
Posted by HAPPY 10/20/2007 @ 12:10pm
Bwahahahahahah. Cut and pasted like a true reptile, er, repub new con disinformer.
So your argument is that Al wouldn't done more to stop a 9/11 from ever happening and also that Al was warning everyone about Raygun/Bush creation of a Saddam monster...
Oh don't forget to blame Al Gore for all the screw-ups by 12 years of reptilian controlled congress defunding oversight programs that created all the messes like: out of controlled NAFTA, MIC profiteering, K-street, repub perv's nailing young pages, bathroom stall and prostitute philandering, lying us to an unconstitutional war, lying us to unconstitutional torture, lying us to unconstitutional wire tapping, lying...
PS. Hope you didn't lose too much yesterday on the greed religion anniversary...
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/20/2007 @ 2:19pm
Nope, Al would've stopped 9/11 from ever happening in the first place-- not like your fearful 7-10 minute freeze AWOL boy hsuB.
But then again rewriting history is what reptiles do best isn't it:
On the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the story of what President Bush did on that day is significantly rewritten. In actual fact, when Chief of Staff Andrew Card told Bush about the second plane crash into the WTC, Bush continued to sit in a Florida elementary school classroom and hear a story about a pet goat for at least seven more minutes (see (9:06 a.m.-9:16 a.m.) September 11, 2001; (9:06 a.m.) September 11, 2001), as video footage later broadcast in the 2004 movie Fahrenheit 9/11 shows. But one year later, Card claims that after he told Bush about the second WTC crash, "it was only a matter of seconds" before Bush "excused himself very politely to the teacher and to the students, and he left the Florida classroom." [San Francisco Chronicle, 9/11/2002] In a different account, Card says, "Not that many seconds later the president excused himself from the classroom." [Newsweek, 9/9/2002] An interview with the classroom teacher claims that Bush left the class even before the second WTC crash: "The president bolted right out of here and told me: ‘Take over.'" When the second WTC crash occurred, she claims her students are watching television in a nearby media room. [New York Post, 9/12/2002]
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/20/2007 @ 2:32pm
Sorry to interupt your self-congratulations, HAPPY, but...
Posted by MASK 10/20/2007 @ 1:44pm
I'm a leader and always has been...ahead of the crowd! The Nation, in taking on Hillary on a more serious level, but NOT yet a critic of any substance, is clearly in the rear....way behind me or the WSJ! Whether you like it or not, I will take the bow for pushing The Nation to live up to its responsibility.....
HRC has been a candidate long before I `found' The Nation and it seems, you grew up here! IF you "Dont trust her!", sure seems you should've been doing what I have tried to do on in recent month, to get TN to take a much harder look at HRC! You are a more dangerous supporter of HRC than FRANKG and unfortunately, probably more effective! As a Repub, I'm far more objective in scanning the Dem candidates....you, as a Dem, just isn't convincing as anything-other-than a HRC hardcore! Sorry, that's just the way I see you!
Until I see TN actually endorsing someone other than HRC, most of its wrist-slapping of HRC is just that.....unless TN has NEVER endorsed anyone at the Primary stage! As I have said time and time again, talk is really cheap, endorsement is perhaps, the most meaningful of `talk'! You specialize in talk and can out-talk any of us here....in the workday real world where I thrive, talk means shit! Pulling the trigger to buy or sell as I do everyday, is REAL with REAL CONSEQUENCES!
Talk, as here, is for fun and games! Just like politicians.....all talk and precious little actions.....we are fortunate in that none of us are pandering for sheep's votes!
Posted by Happy at 10/20/2007 @ 4:48pm
Posted by HAPPY 10/20/2007 @ 4:48pm
HAPP, evidence of "TN"'s dislike of Hillary will always be brushed aside by you...just as any evidence that Iraq isn't going that hot, is.
You're not the kind of person whose mind will be changed...period.
Posted by Mask at 10/20/2007 @ 7:31pm
You're not the kind of person whose mind will be changed...period.
Posted by MASK 10/20/2007 @ 7:31pm
I am NOT easily persuaded by opinions, you got that right! Engineering types are just much more logical and fact-based.
Tell me, how many times have your leadership and YOU, told us the Iraq War is lost? It's pretty clear that the simple fact, one that we can agree on, that people are still dying in battles in Iraq is all you need to confirm LOST-ness! I need more than that!
Has the battle against AID been lost? I mean, we do agree folks are still dying from it. Cancer? Iliteracy?
Look at this another way....you think we will WIN the war on teen pregnancy by allowing unfettered access to teen abortions without parental knowledge, much less consent?
Posted by Happy at 10/21/2007 @ 12:31am
Posted by HAPPY 10/21/2007 @ 12:31am
Okay, HAPP...fair enough. So, you'll support ENDLESS money and time being spent on...
the War on Poverty? And if the results aren't exactly perfect, or even doing that great (you know, like a "pre-Surge" or even "post-Surge" Iraq)....you won't complain and will allow the proponents to keep dumping BILLIONS (even upto a TRILLION) into it?
Deal?
(why do I think not..???)
Posted by Mask at 10/21/2007 @ 08:04am
Deal?
(why do I think not..???)
Posted by MASK 10/21/2007 @ 08:04am
The reality is, there are "Deals" galore.....OUR Congress is, and has always been, fighting all of these battles, Iraq and Poverty....It's just a matter of how much is allocated to each battle, no? $500 Billion+ in Iraq has bought 6+ years of secure homeland (not including any Geo-benefits outside the US).....that is a FACT......vs. your `Opinion' that same sum spent fighting poverty could've eliminated it for the same 6+ years?
Posted by Happy at 10/21/2007 @ 11:18am
$500 Billion+ in Iraq has bought 6+ years of secure homeland
by Happy.
well, you had 225 years of a more or less secure homeland without ever having attacked iraq?
not including any Geo-benefits outside the US)
have you ever asked why 9/11 happened?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/21/2007 @ 2:10pm
have you ever asked why 9/11 happened?
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/21/2007 @ 2:10pm
Maybe Mr. Reagan, Bush `41 and Clinton fought the War on the cheap and either ignored or cut out from trouble spots too soon? Took easy way out by lobbing crusie missiles? Didn't take out Saddam in 1991?
Guess someday, there will be some Historical Society gathering during which they can decide the "why"! Thing is, even today, there are arguments over the "why"s of Pearl Harbor, the atomic bombings of Japan, The Bermuda Triangle, UFOs.....:)
Posted by Happy at 10/21/2007 @ 5:35pm