Jack Abramoff and the Politics of 2006

By any serious definition of the word, Republican super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff is a rat. His decision to enter guilty pleas Tuesday to three felony counts of defrauding his own clients merely added a personal acknowledgement of the fact to the official record. Frank Clemente, the director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch, summed things up succinctly, and accurately, when he said Tuesday: "Make no mistake about it: Abramoff is a crook."

In Washington, more so than in most places, it remains true that there is no honor among thieves -- nor among rats.

So the notion that Abramoff will now rat out his former associates, including Republican members of the House and Senate, is not a particularly difficult one to comprehend -- even for conservatives commentators who are generally unwilling to admit even the slightest signs of shakiness in the Republican infrastructure. Radio ranter Rush Limbaugh was already warning his listeners on Tuesday about the "A-bomb" that is expected to explode when Abramoff starts cooperating with Justice Department investigations of members of Congress. Limbaugh suggested that the scandal will become "a modern-day version of term limits" that potentially could do more damage to Republicans than the increasingly widespread public discontent with the unwavering support most GOP members of Congress have given to the Bush administration's failed Iraq policies.

There is no question that the potential for damage to GOP political prospects from the Abramoff scandal -- with its deliciously detailed evidence of bribery, influence peddling, pay-to-play politics and sweeping abuses of the public trust -- is great. Between 2001 and 2004, close to 220 members of Congress collected more than $1.7 million in political contributions from Abramoff and the lobbyist's associates and clients. More than 200 of those members still serve in the House, and the vast majority of them are Republicans.

But the difference between the potential that fallout from the scandal could loosen the GOP's grip on the House and Senate and the reality of a transforming "throw-the-bums-out" vote in 2006 remains significant. While Clemente says that the scandal "is likely to take down a number of members of Congress and members of their staffs," the precise number has yet to be established. And if it is limited merely to those members of Congress that Abramoff's testimony places in the prosecutorial crosshairs, then both chambers could well remain in Republican hands.

To be sure, some of the members of Congress who have been most closely linked with Abramoff, a former elected chairman of the College Republicans who counts among his longtime associates people like Americans for Tax Reform founder Grover Norquist and former Christian Coalition chief Ralph Reed, will have a very hard time getting reelected -- if they even choose to run.

That list is topped by former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, whose onetime aide, Michael Scanlon, was Abramoff's primary partner in crime. Like Abramoff, Scanlon is cooperating with the investigation and it is hard to imagine that DeLay's name won't be among the first to come up. Already under indictment for campaign abuses in Texas, DeLay faces a serious challenge from former Democratic Representative Nick Lampson, who this week filed the necessary paperwork to make the race. Lampson's campaigning as a bipartisan reformer in a district that is now one of the more competitive in Texas, and the Abramoff scandal will give him a great deal of ammunition.

Even more vulnerable than DeLay at this point is Ohio Republican Bob Ney, who for some time has been identified as "Representative No. 1" in the Abramoff investigation. Ney is in big trouble. The chairman of the House Administration Committee, he already stands accused of accepting overseas trips, gifts and hefty campaign donations from Abramoff, allegedly in exchange for using his position to advance the interests of the Indian tribes and casinos that were among the lobbyist's big-ticket clients. If Abramoff lays out the dirty details of his relationship with Ney, Republicans will start pushing for the congressman to drop his reelection bid.

Montana Senator Conrad Burns, who accepted $150,000 in campaign contributions from the lobbyist's operation and helped an Abramoff client score a $3 million federal grant, is the most vulnerable senator. Burns has just announced that he will return the money he took from Abramoff and the lobbyist's clients and associates, but that's not going to be enough to get the senator off the hook legally -- or politically. Up for reelection this year, he has suffered a damaging drop in the polls since details of the scandal have begun to dominate media in Montana, which was already trending in a Democratic direction before the scandal surfaced.

Several other prominent Republicans are now likely, because of their associations with Abramoff, to face more serious challenges in 2006 than had previously been expected. They include: House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, who collected more than $100,000 in campaign contributions from Abramoff's firm and clients between 2001 and 2004 and in 2003 urged Interior Secretary Gail Norton to favor the lobbyist's clients in an Indian-gaming dispute; House Majority Leader Roy Blunt, R-Missouri, who accepted more than $10,000 from Abramoff's firm and clients between 2001 and 2004, and who intervened at least three times in matters involving those clients; and California Representative Dana Rohrabacher, who accepted thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Abramoff and turned up as a financial reference for the lobbyist's purchase of a casino cruise line. Dozens of Republican House members, including vulnerable incumbents such as Connecticut's Bob Simmons, have banked direct contributions from Abramoff.

The extent to which the Abramoff scandal is of political significance in 2006 will depend on just how many of those members who accepted contributions from the lobbyist and his associates and clients are implicated in the Justice Department investigation. If the numbers move into the double digits, this scandal could pose a genuine threat to GOP control of the House. But it is important to remember that there are Democrats who have Abramoff problems, as well, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, who appears to have collected more than $65,000 in Abramoff-linked contributions between 2001 and 2004.

If a desire to protect Reid and other Democratic recipients of the lobbyist's largesse causes the opposition party to pull its punches, Democrats will gain no more ground as a result of this scandal than it did from the Enron imbroglio. Thus, the ultimate question does not boil down to what Abramoff will reveal. Rather, it is this: Will Democrats hold every member of Congress who has been implicated to account. If Democrats are smart, they will recognize that this is, at its core, a Republican scandal. And they will say: Throw all the bums out -- just as Republican Newt Gingrich did in the early 1990s when several Republican House members were linked with scandals that generally involved Democrats. Only by being genuine in their commitment to clean up Congress will Democrats turn the Abramoff scandal fully to their advantage. And, as everyone in Washington knows, it has been a long time since Democrats were that genuine -- or that smart politically.

Comments (246)

1. What's good for the goose is good for the gander - if they're dirty, throw the book at anybody who dealt with Abramoff. If the Dems choose not to pursue this because it affects some of their own, then that might be the nail in the coffin for the Democratic party.

   Posted by Turk33 at 01/03/2006 @ 5:57pm

2. I wouldn't take such pleasure in seeing these power-mad and greedy Republicans taken down if they hadn't strutted and preened their moral superiority and done everything they could to keep the tax cuts and let the Social Programs go down the drain. Let the indictments begin.

   Pass the popcorn.

   Posted by MizLiz at 01/03/2006 @ 6:07pm

3. Turk - I am with you all the way bro. If the Dems shrink from this to protect a handful of their own, bye-bye credibility. High time for people with principles to let their voices be heard.

   Posted by Hman23 at 01/03/2006 @ 6:10pm

4. Apart from it being the right thing, it would be politically stupid for Democrats to try and hush this thing. While Republicans are polling terribly right now, Democrats in Congress are not exactly getting a resounding stamp of approval. If Dems act timidly, most will just view this a "business as usual" and continue to lump all of Congress together.

   Posted by Hman23 at 01/03/2006 @ 6:13pm

5. There was a list on the web with all the congresspeople currently ensnared by Abramoff. yes, there were some Democrats, but they were vastly outnumbered by Republicans. I'd love to see them all lose their offices and do jail time, but that's too much to hope for. Plenty of slick DC lawyers for all of them.

   Posted by MizLiz at 01/03/2006 @ 6:14pm

6. AUDIO is going to wonder why I'm like the 9th poster...hehe.

   "at its core a Republican Scandal"? Think we know what THAT means....means the 2-5 Dems involved will be called "DINOs".

   Bust em all and let the chips fall where they may...but the moment the Right starts mentioning those Dems involved, its "core" isnt going to matter much.

   Posted by Mask at 01/03/2006 @ 6:17pm

7. For years now, I have been reading here and there about the "K Street Project," in which House Republicans led by Delay were seeking to impose rules on the lobbying community. Lobbying firms had to hire only republican lobbyists and had to give only to republicans. Now that this rat is singing, all I hear is that this lobbying is a bi-partisan phenomenon. I'll wait and see who the Justice Dept. thinks it can indict before I get to excited about any demos in this mix.

   Posted by BBatten at 01/03/2006 @ 6:27pm

8. Up next:

   Peter Lance on Lou Dobbs tonight Lou Dobbs Tonight Tuesday, January 3, 2005

   Emmy Award-winning investigative journalist Peter Lance sits down with Lou to share the latest information on Able Danger, the pre-9/11 intelligence controversy.

   Posted by plunger at 01/03/2006 @ 6:48pm

9. It's all so predictable and depressing. So many advances in human civilization and still politicians are the biggest shitpiles on earth.

   TJ's new application for filing as a candidate for any office: First, explain IN YOUR OWN WORDS why you wish this office and what you plan to do while in office. A single soundbite or talking point will result in a trip to the shredder for your application. The applications will remain on file and your career will be monitored. Should you wish to propose or support legislation that conflicts with the goals in your application, you will be subjected to a recall vote after a 30 period allowing you to explain your decision. Incumbents running for re-election must complete a new application.

   Added to this will be the institution of caps on fund raising and campaign expenses, based on the office sought. Any descrepancy or unexplained income or expense will result in the loss of the office or, if discovered during a campaign, a trip to the shredder for the application.

   Just how much payola was directed at the judges who determined that monetary donations to political campaigns are protected by the First Amendment? (or as the good folks at The Cato Institute--who names an "institute" for Clouseau's manservant anyway?--"the very basis of a democratic political system").

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/03/2006 @ 7:00pm

10. SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: This warrant-less eavesdropping program is not authorized by the PATRIOT Act, it's not authorized by any act of Congress, and it's not overseen by any court. According to the reports it's being conducted under a secret presidential order, based on secret legal opinions by the same Justice Department, lawyers, the same ones who argued secretly that the President could order the use of torture. Mr. President, it is time to have some checks and balances in this country. We are a democracy. We are a democracy. Let's have checks and balances, not secret orders and secret courts and secret torture, and on and on.

    Posted by plunger at 01/03/2006 @ 7:09pm

11. While The Nation is taking a not so subtle delight in the downfall of a key member of the GOP machine, I hope it takes the time to continue to look into important non-political stories. I have not followed the WV mine story as closely as I would have liked, but I can't help wonder just how many worker safety issues related to this mine need to be brought to the light of day. Mining is a completely awful job, but one on which this country relies--certainly miners deserve as much protection as possible.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/03/2006 @ 7:23pm

12. This Abramoff thing is going to get real ugly if they ever let it get into the Northern Marianas part of it. You're going to see a bunch of "pro-life" Senators and Congresspersons involved with defending a system in which women were forced into the sex trade and then forced to have an abortion of they got pregnant. It ain't pretty folks.

    Posted by BBatten at 01/03/2006 @ 7:25pm

13. And, let's not forget that Abramoff and his partner Scanlon hired a couple of members of the Gambino family to provide "catering and security" for their Suncruise boats. There is no record of any catering being delivered, but a guy who Abramoff and his partner were having a dispute with was killed gangland fashion last year in Florida. The two hitmen are now in custody and charged with murder.

    Posted by BBatten at 01/03/2006 @ 7:28pm

14. There is absolutely ZERO evidence, that Jack Abramoff EVER knowingly violated any laws. Period. Jack Abramoff is a good, successful, conservative American businessman, who is being attacked for partisan reasons.

    Just a joke -

    Democrats didnt stand up during the S&L scandal, look where it got us today. The Democrats who took money from Jack are damaged goods, they been Jacked, sccreew 'em.

    Posted by reidsucks at 01/03/2006 @ 7:31pm

15. In 1994, the story was Democratic corruption after having controlled the House for 40 years. In 2006, after 12 years of crony-capitalist Republicans running the House like a personal piggy bank, the story is evidently that corruption is bi-partisan. Well, that's the "liberal media" for you.

    Posted by BBatten at 01/03/2006 @ 7:32pm

16. TJBehrens1, for the purpose of this discussion, I think the question is where did Mining corporation money go in Congress, who took their money, and was there any mine saftey legislation in front of those Congresspersons. Did elected representatives kill saftey legislation because of Mining corporation money and did that have anything to do with this accident?

    Posted by BBatten at 01/03/2006 @ 7:40pm

17. "94% want lobbying completely outlawed"

    Up until the late 1880's, it was illegal for any corporation to give money to any political campaign.

    Posted by BBatten at 01/03/2006 @ 7:42pm

18. If only individuals could contribute to a political campaign and there was a limit of, say, $5,000 any individual could give total in a given year, there would be radical changes immediately. To do this, we would have to agree that money is property, not speech and that corporations are a business construct, not individuals.

    Posted by BBatten at 01/03/2006 @ 7:49pm

19. Rese, let's not muddy the waters too much here. What this is about is corporations using bag men we call "lobbyists" to buy the votes of elected representatives. We can make this kind of activity illegal if we really want to. It's also about wire fraud, murder for hire, perjury and obstruction of justice, which are already illegal.

    Posted by BBatten at 01/03/2006 @ 7:56pm

20. Nichols' hope of holding all to account, Repugs and Dems, will not be realized. The Dems, as usual, will cave in and crawl under the tables, letting yet another in an endless series of opportunites to save this country go down the toilet.

    But Hillary is still working on the flag-burning bill. Thank God.

    Posted by opeluboy at 01/03/2006 @ 7:56pm

21. I'll paste this and recede back into the darkness (actually, go to dinner):

    "The maximum penalty for a mining safety violation is $60,000, and most serious violations carry fines in thousands of dollars.

    "'I don't think that's particularly out of the ordinary,' Bruce Watzman, vice president for safety and health at the National Mining Association, said of the number of citations against the Sago Mine [200 last year]. 'When you have more severe violations, you're going to see increasing monetary penalties.'

    So...a financial slap on the wrist or the risk of working class lives? Pretty much a wash, I guess.

    That's it! I'm gone! Abramoff is a dick!

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/03/2006 @ 7:57pm

22. Abramoff of course is counting on a pardon from Bush. Maybe not right away but there's way too much that Abramoff knows that will out a lot of congressmen, not all of them Republicans.

    And that's one of the main differences between the Democrats and Republicans because Democrats have yet to frame their arguments or ideas in a way that connects with the public and ultimately with the voters. Republicans have the upper hand simply because Bush can spend the rest of 2006 right up until November screeching about how his surveillance program was disclosed and accuse Democrats of being traitors and unpatriotic. Never mind that Rove, Libby, Cheney and Bush's current National Security Advisor, Stephen Hadley all had knowledge of the leak of CIA undercover agent Valerie Plame's identity. Even Robert Novak, the first person to reveal her name to the public has stated recently that he is sure that Bush knew who the leaker was over two years ago.

    But where is that investigation now? Has federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald been told in no uncertain terms that he must keep a lid on any damaging information against the Bush administration at least until after the November 2006 elections? It wouldn't surprise me at all if that is the case. After all, had the New York Times not sat on the story that Bush was illegally spying on American citizens, effectively compiling a list of his political opponents (Democrats), Bush would not be president today.

    Instead, enough people are outraged over this warrantless, secret spying on ordinary Americans which is a violation of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protections against "unreasonable searches and seizures and no warrants shall be issued but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation."

    There is little anyone can do about the lockstep, sheep-minded Republican loyalists, and especially the so-called "moral values" Religious Right, but there are enough people in this country who would not have voted for Bush if they knew he was conducting his clandestine watch list against American citizens.

    There is no question at all that Bush is a despot and a tyrant who believes he has the authority to supersede and circumvent the laws of the land. If Democrats can't drive that message home then they will not win in November, especially once Karl Rove sics the Swift Boat smear mob onto every Democrat candidate running against Republican incumbents or opponents.

    In my opinion though, Stepford Democrat Nancy Pelosi or Walter Mitty Harry Reid are not strong enough opposition leaders to counter the vicious smear tactics that Republican hit men and attack dogs have honed to a fine art.

    It is still not too late to take on the enormity of corruption and depravity of the crime-riddled Republican Party and Bush's proxies, the fanatical Religious Right and the equally insidious Swift Boat anti-Constitutionalists.

    But if more newspaper editors like the New York Times' Bill Keller continue to be shills for this Bush totalitarian government then we will lose more than an election. We will have lost democracy and individual freedoms for the remainder of Bush's tenure and perhaps beyond.

    Posted by richard38 at 01/03/2006 @ 8:00pm

23. TJ, as long as the National Mining Association can give elected representatives money, there will be no meaningful safety reform. This is a perfect example of how corporate power has poisoned our system. A system which is designed to "promote the general welfare" of the people would, of course, have meaningful penalties for corporations which didn't protect their workers. No citizen would disagree that the safety of the miners should be the number one thing. Only the corporation would disagree and that's why we need to regulate corporations.

    Posted by BBatten at 01/03/2006 @ 8:02pm

24. Rese:

    By All Means...Let's Muddy The Water!!!

    Get a clue folks...EVERYTHING is connected...EVERYTHING!!!

    This is the biggest goddamn conspiracy ever conceived on planet earth, and the coconspirators are having some sleepless nights wondering which shoe is going to drop next. There aren't enough COINCIDENCE THEORIES on earth to explain all of these connections away.

    Ken Lay under oath. Jack Abramoff under oath. Scooter Libby under oath. Karl Rove under oath. Tom DeLay under oath.

    Who gets to ask the questions?

    The entire truth of 9/11 and EVERYTHING that followed is known by these individuals.

    Don't you DARE say that now is not the time to focus on 9/11. EVERYTHING ties directly to 9/11. These are crimes of POWER. Power was derived directly as a result of 9/11. The ONLY way to break the Facist Coup is to expose 9/11.

    Dov Zakheim under oath. Ari Fleisher under oath. Douglas Feith under oath. Michael Chertoff under oath. Paul Wolfowith under oath. Richard Pearle under oath. Larry Silverstein under oath. John Bolton under oath. Dick Cheney under oath. George Tenant under oath. Condi Rice under oath. Donald Rumsfeld under oath. George Bush Senior under oath.

    Let's play DOMINOS!

    Posted by plunger at 01/03/2006 @ 8:16pm

25. AUDIO is going to wonder why I'm like the 9th poster...hehe.

    "at its core a Republican Scandal"? Think we know what THAT means....means the 2-5 Dems involved will be called "DINOs".

    Bust em all and let the chips fall where they may...but the moment the Right starts mentioning those Dems involved, its "core" isnt going to matter much.

    Posted by MASK 01/03/2006 @ 6:17pm | ignore this person

    mask, usually your posts are among the more lucid to be found here, but i can't figure out what your saying on this one.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/03/2006 @ 8:19pm

26. A complex mind. All great criminals have that. -- Sherlock Holmes

    To which I add: as the size of the participant group and complexity of the plot increase, with a growing number of deceptions to be coordinated, the chance for error enabling discovery of the perpetrators increases accordingly. -- Michael Wright

    http://members.aol.com/mpwright9/sting.html

    Posted by plunger at 01/03/2006 @ 8:25pm

27. Rese/Plunger scrollers unite! There's no need for any conspiracy theory here. Read up on the K Street Project. A plan to take over the US government and circumvent the electoral process, hidden in plain sight.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=K_Street_Project

    Lobbying is legalized corruption. May the conviction of several major GOP apparatchiks be the death of it.

    And if you can stand it, look up the recent history of the mining company that owns the hole those poor guys are stuck in. Got into the business a couple years ago when energy prices went up.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 01/03/2006 @ 8:39pm

28. This is a lot more serious than bribery. We're talking RICO and murder-for-hire.

    The details are here:

    http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9506465/

    http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20060103_ABRAMOFF_GRAPHIC.p df

    Posted by plunger at 01/03/2006 @ 8:46pm

29. In the past, it was considered to be normal when we got a US senator with "corps in his car's trunk". Now, welcome to the world of "morale clarity", "black and white only", the world of Abramoff, Delay and the likes. Who are we to be ruled by those despicable, roten characters? Now you realize how right Howard Dean was: "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for".

    Posted by HelenDAO at 01/03/2006 @ 9:06pm

30. Dear John

    Now might be a good time to take up a collection for poor poor Jack using the money to send him a sporty new jump suit, black and white stripes,

    with this tag printed on the back

    Take That... Rat

    Posted by Will C. at 01/03/2006 @ 9:35pm

31. HEY RESE

    could u provide me with an internet source list for your postings of the ten or less most important sites? i'm not being hostile here, but every once in a while a conspiracy theory reaches out and grabs me. usually i get all excited, delve into it myself, then find fatal holes and proudly proclaim to all with whom i have discussed my crazy obsession how foolish i was and what evidence/logic eventually led me to that conclusion.

    thusfar the only conspiracies/crazy ideas in which i have maintained significant credibility are -people in the us gov were involved in killing jfk -most of what david brock discusses in his book, The Republican Noise Machine -fdr may have passively conspired to allow pearl harbor to take place in order to (rightly, i would argue) involve us in ww2

    well, thats all i can think of.

    conpiracy/crazy talk i've investigated and firmly believe to be bullshit - grey aliens and ufo's from outer space - liberal bias in the media - the extremes of clintonian witch huntery - that english professor's hypothesis that the south pole was recently largely free of ice and home to some kind of atlantis (but it was still a way cool idea...lol) -that deal about a cabal of powerful jews in new york manipulating the world like their puppetry - lots of other things...

    but please give me a concise listing of your best sources, rese. i know u have included them throghout your posts, and perhaps i've missed an "essential rese bibliography" type post somewhere, but i'm up for another thrilling conspiracy quest, so could u hit me with a top ten to get started?

    thanks

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/03/2006 @ 10:16pm

32. FRANKGRITS

    that pasting was way cool

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/03/2006 @ 10:25pm

33. Ibbleblibble please don't encourage Rese;

    and as for Mask - who has been outed as a Republican operative who scouts liberal blogs. Be careful Mask, if you keep hanging around liberal blogs you may find yourself swept up in a Brokeback Mountain moment.

    a Dino is a "Democrat in Name Only" hee hee!

    Posted by audiojoebob at 01/03/2006 @ 10:26pm

34. Gotcha audiojoebob

    but i don't think lack of encouragement will stop rese...

    besides, whether its bullshit or not it would make a great movie - oliver stone, can u make another movie thats at least 10 times better than Alexander? lol

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/03/2006 @ 10:30pm

35. I didn't know any regulars had yet to put Rese on their "ignore" list. Guess your computers can handle more megabytage than mine.

    As for Mask, he's a cutie pie, smoking his pipe, sniftering his cognac, and lofting harmless witticisms and detached queries for our amusement. Any non-liberal who can express himself without Jesus, snarling hatred of those outside his yacht club, or mentions of oral sex is okay in my book.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/03/2006 @ 10:34pm

36. TJBEHRENS

    dont know if i qualify as a reg, but i think i'll ignore rese when i want to see what others have posted and unignore him when i'm in one of my wierdly bored turns.

    i avoid ignoring anyone as a rule, though the lengths of rese's posts sometimes kind of crank me...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/03/2006 @ 10:45pm

37. but back to the abramoff thing...(oh yeah!)

    is this as big as it looks? i agree with others, if some dinos get culled, so much the better for the herd...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/03/2006 @ 10:49pm

38. Abramoff is scum. He compromised the lives of his kids wih his doings. What a piece of shit. A friendly reminder to GOP dirtbags, you just might be child-abusers also. Let us all see.

    Fondest,

    Bloppy

    Posted by bloppy at 01/03/2006 @ 11:05pm

39. how did he compromise the lives of his kids? what am i missing here?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/03/2006 @ 11:14pm

40. FRANKGRITS:

    I think that a Constitutional amendment should be forthcoming which would place severe restrictions on lobbying. Congressmen should be given mandatory life sentences with no chance of parole for accepting a bribe in return for favorable legislation for a lobbyist. It's time to take the government back from the criminals and put it back into the hands of the people.

    You're on the right track.

    Another thought: any member of congress, either house, who voted for a bill (s)he hadn't read should lose his/her job. Hard to enforce, though.

    Any non-germane amendment hidden in a massive spending bill that has to pass or the government shuts down should be able to be removed line-item, by the opposition, just on basic principle.

    The whole congressional system is riven with built-in corruption. It's a cynical, dirty game, and they smirk about it.

    If only the people would demand better, imagine the improvement!

    But the people themselves are corrupt, at work, at home, and at the voting booth.

    Posted by ProudPrimate at 01/03/2006 @ 11:30pm

41. The above is off topic but needs to be read by everyone possible.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/03/2006 @ 10:14pm

    No my friend

    Your post is the topic

    Posted by Will C. at 01/03/2006 @ 11:33pm

42. Frank

    re:"A couple of months ago, Rush Limbaugh was defending Abramoff and Delay"

    Probably due to the narcotics!

    As to doing away with lobbying....I'm pretty much for that one. Plus we oughta roll in some serious campaign finance reform. Howzabout no contribution over...like $100, NO corporate contribution at all of any kind, and no personal funds...unless they want to pool it all and share it equally among all eligible candidates. Get rid of this whole old-rich-white boys club. Lets get old school too, and have some real debates for a change. If a candidate doesn't want to answer a question...shut him/her up and move on or something.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 01/03/2006 @ 11:42pm

43. Frankgrits

    A Life Wasted / Paul Schroeder. Great post. Where was the letter published.

    Posted by audiojoebob at 01/03/2006 @ 11:47pm

44. For those that skipped over Rese's long paste on page 1, the gist of it is this:

    The Toronto Star of September 20, 2002 reported that members of al Qaida were arrested in Buffalo, New York, for participation in a money laundering scheme centered at the Casino Niagara.

    We have excellent reason to suspect that a similar scheme prompted Mohammed Atta to hop aboard Jack Abramoff's SunCruz ship.

    If -- and based on the current state of evidence, we must stress the word "if" -- if further evidence links Mohammed Atta to G.O.P.-friendly shady operators, then many lingering questions may find an answer. Among those questions: Why was the ABLE DANGER team told to steer clear of Atta?

    If that isn't clear enough, here's a more succinct statement, from a piece on the web at MadCow: [madcowprod.com]

    One of the most amazing thing about this most amazing scandal--hundreds of millions in slush funds beats Oval Office blowjobs by a mile--is that some of the same names in the Abramoff scandal also surface in connection with Mohamed Atta's.

    Less than a week before the 9.11 attack, for example, Atta and several other hijackers made a still-unexplained visit onboard one of Abramoff's casino boats.

    Posted by ProudPrimate at 01/03/2006 @ 11:47pm

45. Any non-germane amendment hidden in a massive spending bill that has to pass or the government shuts down should be able to be removed line-item, by the opposition, just on basic principle.

    If only the people would demand better, imagine the improvement!

    Posted by PROUDPRIMATE 01/03/2006 @ 11:30pm

    Isn't it a sad thing when all we want is for our most important representatives to just do their goddamn jobs?! Just do what is right, explain it to us clearly, and steer clear of the all the crap that is in the air of DC...

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/03/2006 @ 11:49pm

46. IBBLEBLIBBLE --

    If you've got 22 minutes to watch a free video, I think you'll be surprised how convincing this evidence is:

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/180305groundzero.htm

    Posted by ProudPrimate at 01/03/2006 @ 11:51pm

47. Proudprimate

    will do manana. buenas noches.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/03/2006 @ 11:56pm

48. g'night --

    I'm headin in myself

    Posted by ProudPrimate at 01/03/2006 @ 11:57pm

49. .

    HOW TO SHUT DOWN CRIMINAL POLITICS

    The really culprit behind all these scandals, is not being touched.

    Mr. Big gets away with it year after year. This is is the scoundrel who makes all the corruption possible.

    If Mr. Big were closed down then the Abramoffs and all the other bribers and most lobbyists would be out of business

    If you want to know who Mr. Big is, and how Mr. Big can be put away for good, and how the shameful buying of Congress can be ended, then CLICK HERE.

    .

    Posted by nacl at 01/04/2006 @ 12:02am

50. "As to the guns, leave aside for the moment that Abramoff's old College Republican National Committee pals from years ago, future Christian Coalition honcho Ralph Reed and future "tax reformer" Grover Norquist, are intimately linked to Abramoff's Indian-money schemes. Or that Norquist, who has grown powerful since the 1994 GOP conquest of Congress, is a National Rifle Association honcho -- and a member of the Fifty Caliber Shooters Association. An Abramoff scheme that may not be related to Norquist funneled the tribes' money to Jack's friend Shmuel in Israel, who trains Jews to hunt what he calls Arab "rats." During the constant struggle by Abramoff, a fanatically pro-Israel Orthodox Jew, to make all these money transfers legit, one of the September 2002 e-mails from an Abramoff assistant to Jack relays this request from Shmuel:

    He did suggest that he could write some kind of letter with his Sniper Workshop Logo and letterhead. It is an "educational" entity of sorts.

    To which Abramoff e-mailed back:

    No, don't do that. I don't want a sniper letterhead.

    Good thinking, Jack. One of the high concepts of Wampumgate -- it's a shell game, but I'm still open to other names -- is that lobbyists like Abramoff got tribes to set up casinos, and then the gamblers (i.e., suckers) from all over America poured money into said casinos, and the tribes sent millions to Abramoff and his crew, who used it to pay not only for the food, golf, and foreign travel of sanctimonious Christians and supposed anti-tax "conservatives" but also for the training of Jewish snipers in Israel."

    Ja ck Abramoff [villagevoice.com]

    The big sting [members.aol.com]

    What is really going on in Iraq, read between the lines [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by WORLDNEWS at 01/04/2006 @ 12:43am

51. I would be happy just to see Delay's political career ruined, if he avoids jail. By the way, another Democrat Senator besides Reid that received Abramoff slush money is Patty Murray from my own state of Washington. Abramoff wanted to grease some of the influential Demos, and Murray is chair of the Senatorial Campaign Committee. (She controls campaign money.) So the Demos may be silent mice on this one, like the savings and loan collapse. If you think the Demos are virgin heroes, you are very naiive.

    Posted by philbq at 01/04/2006 @ 01:23am

52. To All, Ibbel/Frankgits

    It should be known, that there are many parents of fallen Soldiers who do NOT agree with Mr. Schroeder or cindy Sheehan, I wonder if their opinions hold as much weight as Cindy Sheehan's or Mr. Schroeder's, here is a mere sampling:

    Lynn Kelly,

    "I don't agree" with Sheehan's views, said Lynn Kelly of Pitman, whose son, Marine Cpl. Sean P. Kelly, was killed in a helicopter crash in Iraq in January.

    "I wouldn't say, 'Bush, you killed my son.' I don't agree with that," said Kelly.

    "I think we had to do something and I believe that ultimately, I was one of the few that had to make the ultimate sacrifice, which isn't fair, in my eyes," she said.

    "But I don't believe that Mr. Bush was the one that pulled the trigger," said Kelly.

    Or Linda Ryan:

    Marine Cpl. Marc T. Ryan, of Gloucester City, was killed in an explosion in Ramadi, Iraq in November.

    "I would tell Cindy Sheehan that, as one mother to another, I do realize your loss is your loss and there's nothing you can do to heal from it," said the corporal's mother, Linda Ryan.

    "George Bush didn't kill her son, it's the evildoers who have no value of life who killed her son. Her son made a decision to join the Armed Forces and defend our country, knowing that, at any time, war could come about," Ryan said.

    She said she's been on the end of those kinds of conversations several times. Recently, when she took her dog in for medical treatment, the veterinarian, despite seeing Ryan's memory bracelet and the necklace bearing a portrait of her son, started telling her how much she hates George Bush.

    "I've decided I'm just going to say, 'I realize you have your opinions, but it aches me, it's heart-wrenching for me'," said Ryan.

    "George Bush was my son's commander-in-chief. My son, Marc, totally believed in what he was doing," she said.

    Or Thomas Zapp:

    Among those attending the pro-Bush rally was Thomas Zapp, of Richmond, Texas, whose 20-year-old son, Marine Lance Cpl. T.J. Zapp, was killed by a bomb in Iraq on Nov. 8, 2004.

    Zapp said that it was unfair for Sheehan to demand a second meeting with the president when many parents of slain GIs, like himself, have not even had a single meeting.

    "I have not met with President Bush," he told the Tribune-Herald. "Why should she get to meet with President Bush again?"

    "I firmly believe our president is sincere with what we have to do and I believe that he's under enormous pressure and he's doing the best he can. I'm here to support him," Zapp added.

    Or Jim Boskovitch:

    A bagpiper played "Amazing Grace" as city and religious leaders paid tribute in Cleveland today to the 16 Ohio Marines killed in Iraq in the past week.

    Hundreds of people turned out for the downtown vigil over the lunch hour.

    Jim Boskovitch is the father of Corporal Jeff Boskovitch, one of five Marine snipers killed on Monday [8 August]. He says his family came to the vigil to support the troops still in Iraq.

    Or Robert Hoffman:

    Motorcycles roared their engines Saturday to herald the funeral procession of Marine Sgt. Justin Hoffman, one of 14 Marines killed last week in the deadliest roadside bombing since U.S. troops invaded Iraq...

    "'Freedom is not free' is a phrase we hear every day, but few of us understand what it means," Robert Hoffman said Saturday at his son's funeral in Powell, another Columbus suburb. "Justin and the Lima Company understood. They gave up their lives for it."

    Or James and William McNaughton:

    In a day of extraordinary pageantry and sadness, the funeral in Lake Ronkonkoma for James McNaughton - an Army reservist and New York City police officer killed in Iraq - was marked by thousands...…

    McNaughton's uncle, James McNaughton - the man for whom the fallen soldier was named - stood at the lectern to describe the code by which his nephew and godson lived, which he called "the ideal of the gentleman warrior."

    "They deserve our grateful respect," McNaughton said. "They are our modern samurai."

    At the close of the service, the soldier's father, William McNaughton, stood beside his son's coffin and offered a brief eulogy and thank-you to the congregation.

    "Most people don't know what the word samurai means. It means to serve," he said. "He's been serving his whole life. He's been carrying a gun since he was 18."

    Or Kelly Matias:

    Lance Cpl. Evenor C. Herrera adopted the United States as his country and Wednesday perished while serving it.

    "He was very proud to be in the Marines," cousin Kelly Matias said. "He adopted this country as his own. He was willing to die for the peace here."

    Posted by CPT at 01/04/2006 @ 07:59am

53. What if news reporters reported news? What if newspapers from the Washington Post to the Hicksville Gazette simply told the truth, with headlines that "Bush lied yesterday, when he said ..." and "Cheney is a pathological liar"? What if the nightly news was designed to make current events understood, instead of obfuscated?

    What if Dick Cheney had a conscience? What if Donald Rumsfeld was an honest man? What if Condoleezza Rice was black? How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? One could grow delirious, asking so many nonsensical questions.

    What if Rush Limbaugh was wired to a 220v electrical connection, and given a hair-raising shock every time he lied on his national radio show? Do you think he could make it from one commercial break to the next without half a dozen juicy jolts?

    What if the Drug Czar told the truth about marijuana, instead of exaggerating its dangers?

    Think of it as an episode of The Twilight Zone. See the signpost up ahead?

    Imagine, if you will, that the American military's recruiting officers told the truth to high school children. What if recruits were told, straight out and in plain English, that they wouldn't be defending America -- they'd just be occupying foreign countries, risking death or disfigurement for causes that American leaders couldn't explain without lies?

    And as long as we're daydreaming, let's daydream big. Imagine if, instead of whispers and conspiracy theories, all of the government's secret files were simply opened for public perusal. No more filing "Freedom of Information Act" forms, because our government had no more secrets from its people. No more wondering who killed JFK, RFK, MLK, or Biggie Smalls. No more stonewalling about what happened on September 11, 2001.

    What if our leaders took charbroiled horseshit off the menu, and gave us the truth instead? What if we had an open, honest government, with White House press releases full of facts instead of fiction? Wouldn't that be something? Imagine, the truth would be out there -- the plain facts of the matter, about everything from "morning after" birth control to toppled governments and assassinated leaders all around the world.

    How furious would your average American be, to discover that everything we the people had been told, everything we'd thought we'd known all our lives, was a mountain of lies, half-lies, three-quarter-lies, "national security" lies, lies we knew were lies, lies we suspected, lies we'd swallowed, lies we'd told ourselves, and lies we'd told each other?

    What would Americans do, if we finally knew the truth? Would Americans be angry, furious? Would we take to the streets, ready to tar and feather the liars? Would we demand truth and justice as the American way?

    The tragedy is, we already know the truth, because the liars aren't very good at lying. They've left the truth pretty obvious, and all of us know the answers, really, to most of the questions asked above. We already know with absolute certainty we've been lied to, about virtually everything.

    There's only one pertinent question that really remains unanswered, and it's the only question that matters: What are we going to do about it?

    http://www.unknownnews.org/051230a-hh.html

    Posted by plunger at 01/04/2006 @ 08:04am

54. What it all of these roads lead back to AIPAC? What if the money laundering done through Sun Cruz Casinos was on behalf of Israel?

    What if Atta was a Mossad Agent, or was acting under the watchful direction of the Mossad, even unwittingly? What if Sun Cruz gave cash to Atta to support his team's operations in Florida? What if Abramoff is a tool of AIPAC/Israel? Then what? What if it was all done in concert with the CABAL within our own US Government, as now appears to be the case? Then What? Everything ties back to 9/11...EVERYTHING.

    http://www.madcowprod.com/06202005.html

    June 21, 2005 -Venice, FL. by Daniel Hopsicker

    While Abramoff's Indian gaming troubles may be getting the most publicity, his other major 'area of concern' is where the real scandal resides. Involvement with Mob-run casino boats may turn out to be a faux pas, even for Republicans.

    Less than a week before the 9.11 attack, Atta and several other hijackers were aboard one of Abramoff's casino boats. What no one seems able to answer is this:

    What possible thrill could gambling offer men getting ready to die in less than a week? To this date, their Sept 5 visit to a gambling vessel overrun with retirees remains unexplained.

    ‘Islamic fundamentalist' Atta may have felt right at home in the world of fast cash and unlicensed gambling boat ‘cruises to nowhere' of Republican lobbyist (and observant Jew) Jack Abramoff. He would almost certainly have been comfortable with the "gangland-style hit straight out of ‘Goodfellas" that cemented Abramoff's prominent position in that industry.

    Two SunCruz executives, Jack Abramoff and Ben Waldman, are walking examples of the strange alliance between the family-values party and the gambling industry. Both men have strong ties to Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, which is adamantly opposed to gambling; Waldman was Robertson top aide in the televangelist's run for the presidency.

    Abramoff, who perhaps wisely only took the title of vice president (less heat) has been connected to the Christian right since a student at Brandeis University, where as head of the College Republicans he enlisted Top Christian Ralph Reed as his top deputy. The two have remained close friends ever since.

    A man named Adam Kidan became Sun Cruz's new chairman. Kidan's mother had been murdered in a gangland-style hit in New York. Madonna's one-time boyfriend and South Beach restaurateur Chris Paciello, was eventually convicted in the case.

    The Seminole Tribe of Florida led the way in parlaying mom-and-pop bingo parlors into today's $19 billion a year Indian casino industry. Along with legendary Chief James Billie (Wrestles with Alligators) Rob Tiller was a seminal figure in this growth.

    Tiller is also a South Florida aviation insider and former business partner of terror flight school owner and secretive financier Wally Hilliard. He even met Atta and Marwan one day after a meeting with Hilliard, he says, with whom he was working on an airline start-up called Havana Air.

    Small world.

    A week before Gus Boulis was murdered, Tiller was called to take a meeting with him. Tiller says Boulis was scared. Boulis hadn't wanted to sell.

    Now he was worried he'd be whacked.

    "He called me to a meeting at the Ocean Reef Club. Very snooty. You cant even land there without permission. I flew my airplane down to meet him," Tiller recalled.

    "He said, ‘I want out. People think I make a lot more money than I really do. I don't need the headache anymore. I want to sell my casino boats to the Seminoles.'"

    What was Tiller's response? "I said, ‘Gus you're sure rocking a lot of people's boats here.'"

    "A couple days later, I hear he's been blown apart dead. See, Gus wanted to muscle his way into the casino business in a real bad way. His Miami subs were everywhere. He was using them to launder money, big-time, for somebody."

    Who might that be? Even asking the question brings a shiver.

    He wrote a check?

    At the time Boulis was murdered, suspicion focused on company chairman Adam Kidan, also an active Republican and campaign contributor. He had been in Israel at the time of the murder. His alibi held.

    But then news surfaced that just before Boulis' death Kidan had written at least $30,000 in checks to a reputed Mob enforcer named Anthony Moscatiello, a one-time associate of crime boss John Gotti.

    A man in a BMW was driving down a quiet side street after an evening meeting at his Fort Lauderdale office when a car slowed to a stop in front of him. A second car boxed the BMW in from behind, then a dark Mustang appeared from the opposite direction. The Mustang's driver pulled alongside and pumped three hollow-point bullets into the BMW driver's chest.

    "Boulis was murdered in the exact same way as Don Aronow, Bush's other partner," he stated.

    Bush's other partner? The question hung in the air.

    "Something is really going down bad here," Tiller stated. "Don Aronow. Gus. Jim Shore…All tied in to Bush."

    Less than two months later, Sun Cruz announced plans to move a 150-foot, $10-million floating casino to the Northern Marianas.

    Almost every article we'd read cites Abramoff & Delay's interest in the Marianas being sweat-shop related. Meaning they're in favor of them. Their primary focus wasn't sweatshops. It was gambling.

    When NBC's Dateline did a story recently about sources of terrorist funding right here in the U.S., they made bold to announce "the emerging threat of a new alliance between al Qaeda and common criminals."

    In truth, the idea that Mohamed Atta and his henchmen needed help from an outside organization while they were in the U.S. was easy to understand... Logistical support is difficult to arrange from caves.

    Still, the FBI stepped in and quickly put a kibosh on that kind of talk… "Government sources now say that the investigation so far suggests the 19 had ‘no major help' in the United States," said a story in the Washington Post which came out soon after Blair's alarming faux pas.

    "The 19 hijackers who carried out the worst act of terror ever to occur on U.S. soil worked with little outside help as a single, integrated group," the Post reported.

    Posted by plunger at 01/04/2006 @ 08:24am

55. Plunger

    That is some world you live in.

    Posted by CPT at 01/04/2006 @ 08:26am

56. CPT:

    What is your theory behind Atta's visit to one of Abramoff's casino ships in the days preceeding 9/11? Coincidence?

    Posted by plunger at 01/04/2006 @ 08:34am

57. OH SHIT! ---It is just as I thought...so much of the Abramoff slime money went to Demoocrats that the Republicans are innoculated from political attacks. Large sums went to the Democratic Senatorial Committee(run by Demo Sen. Patty Murray from my state of Washington),the Democratic House Election Committee,the Democratic National Committee(the Politburo), Harry Reid-Minority Leader, and several Demo senators. Just like in the savings-and-loan collapse scam, the Democrats have gotten so deep into the slime that they can't attack the Republicans. I'll say it again...the Democratic Party is useless, and should go the way of the dinosaur.

    Posted by philbq at 01/04/2006 @ 08:44am

58. Plunger,CPT, et all---Can you stay on topic? Plunger, I like your stuff, but you are completely irrelevant to the subject. These blogs cannot just degenerate into chaos all the time. If it does, all the thinking serious people will leave. (Many already have) The subject is the Abramoff scandal. Comment on that or shut up.

    Posted by philbq at 01/04/2006 @ 08:51am

59. Abramoff, AIPAC, Plame

    All three scandals are connected. These are all just pieces (evidence) of the grandest power-grab conspiracy ever conceived. The coconspirators include the Christian Coalition (unwitting dupes), AIPAC/ISRAEL/Zionists (THE CABAL) and Big Oil.

    http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/358

    Abramoff and Friends

    Abramoff and business partner Adam Kidan were indicted by a federal grand jury in Fort Lauderdale on August 11 on several counts of wire fraud and conspiracy related to their purchase of a Florida-based gambling boats business. Already at the center of a growing controversy over money he received while representing Indian casino interests, Abramoff's latest legal troubles involve allegedly fraudulent wire transfers he and Kidan used to purchase the SunCruz gambling business from Florida businessman Konstantinos Boulis. Boulis, who made millions on a chain of Florida sandwich shops, was shot to death in February 2001, shortly after his relations with Kidan and Abramoff soured. According to the Washington Post (August 12, 2005), Kidan hired Anthony Moscatiello, an associate of the Gambino crime family, in late 2000, just a few months before Boulis was shot three times in the chest with hollow-point bullets.

    To help seal the SunCruz deal, reports the Post, Abramoff "leveraged his connections with members of Congress," including Rep. Tom Delay (R-Texas), who reportedly gave Boulis a flag that had once flown over the Capitol. Abramoff also took his lead financier for the deal to a Delay fundraising event, listed Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) as a reference on his loan application, and wined and dined Delay aides on SunCruz jets and gambling boats. Also chipping in was Rep. Robert Ney who, at the urging of Abramoff associate Michael Scanlon, criticized Boulis and praised Kidan in the Congressional Record.

    Both Ney and Delay--as well Senators David Vitters and Conrad Burns--have been mentioned in connection with the Abramoff-Indian casinos scandal, which is the focus of congressional and federal investigations. Abramoff (along with erstwhile partner Scanlon, a former Delay aide) is accused of misusing tens of millions of dollars in lobbying fees from Indian clients, who Abramoff once described as "morons" and "monkeys."

    Although the Abramoff scandals don't appear to touch administration insiders, his shady dealings have brought unwanted attention to a number of influential Bush supporters and Christian conservatives. Reported the Boston Globe in early June: "Among the prominent figures who have come under the scrutiny of Senate and federal investigators are [Grover] Norquist, whose organization received $1.5 million from tribes and fought a tax on Indian casinos [and] Ralph Reed, the former director of the Christian Coalition who allegedly used some money from Indian gaming tribes to fund his efforts to close down rival casinos and lotteries."

    L'Affaire AIPAC

    On August 9, the Justice Department announced the indictment of two former AIPAC analysts, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, in connection with the investigation of Larry Franklin, the Pentagon official accused of disclosing classified information about U.S. forces in Iraq. According to the indictment, the two AIPAC analysts received and passed on to a foreign power (meaning Israel, though the indictment doesn't specify) and to reporters classified "national defense information."

    At the center of the AIPAC case is the effort by Franklin, a rapidly anti-Iran Pentagon analyst, to push the United States to take a stronger stance against the Islamic Republic. To do this, Franklin passed classified information about U.S. policies and supposed threats in the region to the AIPAC experts, who in turn informed Israeli officials and a Washington Post reporter. Franklin apparently hoped that AIPAC could use its weight both in Israel and in the Beltway to get the administration to adopt a hardline.

    Rosen and Weissman, according to the indictment, had been under investigation since as early as 1999 for attempting to influence U.S. government officials and use their contacts to acquire sensitive information. The indictment mentions a second U.S. government official, referred to as "USGO-2," who is alleged to have given classified information to Rosen in 2002. According to the Washington Post (August 18, 2005), people familiar with the investigation have identified this official as David Satterfield, currently the second-highest ranking diplomat at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. The indictment does not say whether charges are to be brought against Satterfield. Two other U.S. officials, "USGO-1" and "DOD-B," are alleged in the indictment to have given information to the AIPAC analysts, though their identities remain unknown as of this writing.

    Franklin, who worked under former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, was close to a number of influential neoconservatives in and outside the administration, including Richard Rhodes, head of the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment, and Michael Ledeen, an American Enterprise Institute scholar who arranged a meeting between Franklin, several Iranian dissidents, and the Iranian arms merchant Manucher Ghorbanifar. During the meeting, which took place in Rome in 2001 and included both Rhodes and Ledeen, the dissidents apparently gave information to Franklin about Iranian threats to U.S. troops.

    Although Franklin's neoconservative associates are apparently not under investigation, the indictment seems to leave open the possibility that more charges will be brought in the future. Some leftist pundits, like Robert Dreyfuss, who has closely followed the neoconservatives, think that the FBI could eventually broaden the scope of its investigation to include several others members of Franklin's "network." Wrote Dreyfuss in his Tompaine.com blog: "It is clear that by probing the details of the case, the FBI has got hold of a dangerous loose end of a much larger story. By pulling on that string hard enough, the FBI and the Justice Department might just unravel that larger story, which is beginning to look more and more like it involves the same nexus of Pentagon civilians, White House functionaries, and American Enterprise Institute officials who thumped the drums of war in Iraq in 2001-2003 and who are now trying to whip up an anti-Iranian frenzy."

    PlameGate redux

    Listening to the TV pundits, one would think that the alleged effort by administration figures, in particular Karl Rove and I. Lewis Libby, to disclose the identity of Valerie Plame--the CIA agent whose husband, Joseph Wilson, refuted Bush administration claims that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger--did not reach the level of criminal offense. But according to a widely circulated analysis published last week on the TomDispatch blog, a careful review of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protections Act shows how practicable it would be to bring up charges against Rove. The author of the analysis, Elizabeth de la Vega, a retired federal prosecutor, highlights Rove's now infamous July 2003 conversation with reporter Matt Cooper, during which Rove is alleged to have identified Plame.

    Contrary to widespread belief, writes de la Vega, prosecutions under this law are not "nearly impossible." More importantly, she says, based on the little evidence publicly known about the case, Rove's actions arguably satisfy all of the elements set forth in the law, including that he had authorized access to classified information identifying a covert agent, he "intentionally disclosed" this information to someone not authorized to receive it, he knew that the information he was disclosing was sufficient to identify the agent, and he was aware that the government was taking action to conceal the agent's intelligence position.

    She concludes: " Whether charges will be brought under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or, if they were, what a jury would decide, we cannot possibly know. But we do know that it is not a law under which guilt is nearly impossible to prove--as the pundits, citing each other, have led us to believe. It also bears mentioning that experienced prosecutors never underestimate juries. Most juries are like the special grand jury described by Matt Cooper: thorough, highly-engaged people who are absolutely committed to applying the law only to the evidence they have heard in court as they are instructed to do. They are not easily fooled. They have common sense. And they are firmly rooted in the reality-based community."

    As with the AIPAC case, some commentators speculate that the Plame affair could turn into a much more widespread scandal, one that could at the very least reveal the extent to which administration figures were willing to go to mislead the public in their drive toward war. As commentator Jim Lobe wrote in a mid-July editorial: "The case may … prove to be one more string--albeit a very central one--that, if pulled with sufficient determination, could well unravel a very tangled ball of yarn, and one that would confirm recent revelations in the British press--the so-called Downing Street memo--that the Bush administration was ‘fixing the facts' about the alleged threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in order to grease the rails to war."

    Posted by plunger at 01/04/2006 @ 08:51am

60. Philbq:

    Identify the areas that your are positive Abramoff was not tied to so we can avoid discussing in in this thread. Not trying to be a wise ass, but it is my contention that everything connects to everything else.

    Posted by plunger at 01/04/2006 @ 08:54am

61. CPT

    u know, in the american civil war some 2-300,000 brave young southern white men died to defend an aristocratic agrarian elite's right to continue to exploit them almost as thoroughly as were exploited african slaves. and now, 170+ years later in many parts of the south, many descendants of these exploited poor whites still angrily defend the sanctity of their revered ancesters (usually ascribing a much higher socio-economic status to said poor white schmuk than reality admits). some people will trust their leaders no matter how much said leaders wickedly and selfishly send their children to their deaths. i, however, avoid, as a matter of decency, discussing such topics with relatives of the deceased unless they show a willingness to talk.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/04/2006 @ 08:55am

62. IBBLE

    What I was saying was....that after disparaging Democrats who would "play down" the Abramoff Scandal (to save those Dems involved), Mr Nichols did the SAME thing, when he called it a "Republican scandal at its core".

    Bust ANYBODY who was in on it....but when some Dem names turn up, I guarentee that it won't just be the "Beltway Dems" trying to play it down, but a lot of the Left who want Republicans to be "sole owners " of the scandal and will give those Dems a pass or a slap on the wrist (rhetorically).

    BTW, AUDIO...

    How have I been "outed as a Republican operative"....except in your mind?

    Posted by Mask at 01/04/2006 @ 09:11am

63. I guarentee that it won't just be the "Beltway Dems" trying to play it down, but a lot of the Left who want Republicans to be "sole owners " of the scandal and will give those Dems a pass or a slap on the wrist (rhetorically).

    Posted by MASK 01/04/2006 @ 09:11am

    This guarantee depends on how you define "the Left". In fact, this might be a good filter: if anyone can possibly defend the Dems who are as dirty in this scandal as anyone in the GOP, that person cannot legitimately claim to stand for (stifle laughter here, but I'm serious) the squeaky clean ethics demanded by the Left.

    Looking forward to a decade in which our national politicians are not a disgrace. Perhaps if our genetic engineers succeed in unlocking the code to immortality...

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/04/2006 @ 09:55am

64. You're going to need a Programme to keep the players straight...

    Ken Lay, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Karl Rove, David Safavian, Scooter Libby, Duke Cunningham, Grover Norquist, Ralph Reed, Jack Abramoff, Larry Franklin.

    Jack Abramoff, Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist came together as a power in the College Republicans during the Reagan years. Blackwell, Rove, Atwater, and many others powerful operatives and strategists had cut their teeth there, as well, but these guys came in at the beginning of the heady Reagan years and they were fueled by the belief that they were on the permanent winning side of history. The triumverate of Norquist, Abramoff and Reed is legendary --- and they are all implicated in the burgeoning Jack Abramoff/Tom DeLay scandal.

    They have come to represent the three most important wings of the modern conservative movement --- the Christian Right (Reed), the movement ideologues (Norquist) and the big money boys (Abramoff.) They are the Republican party. And they are all corrupt.

    Reed is a total phony. I had long assumed, as most people probably did, that he came up through the Christian Right, a conservative Christian who got into politics through religion. He sure does look the part, doesn't he? This, of course, is not true. He wasn't "born again" until 1983, long after he had committed himself to Republican politics and proved himself to be a ruthless, unprincipled operative. He helped to create the Christian Coalition, it didn't create him. In fact, the Christian Right doesn't really exist independently of the Party, it is a wholly owned subsidiary, consciously created and nurtured as a Republican voting block.

    Norquist more than anyone else has ensured through carefully constructed alliances that movement ideologues like himself peppered the Republican power structure to the extent that over time, they have come to define it. This is why people like John Bolton, who has no more business being a diplomat than the Rude Pundit does, have become mainstream Republicans, even though they are clearly radical. He has made sure that Republicans are interdependent on each other through money and influence and that the money and influence flow through him and his allies.

    Norquist is the truest of true believers, but he understands the importance of certain other inducements to keep people in line. Tom DeLay and Norquist created the K Street project and it's been a rousing success. Abramoff and DeLay were the guys who offered those needed inducements when true belief and solidarity weren't enough. Delay wielded the hammer and Abramoff (among others) offered the goodies. This is how they hold the GOP majority together. Ask Nick Smith how that works.

    It's not surprising that Abramoff is the weak link in this. He was the front man back in the college republican days, but he doesn't seem to have been a real strategist in the way that Reed, with his ruthless single mindedness was or Norquist with his long term Soviet style political vision.

    One former Washington Times staffer told me that Abramoff's practice invited his family to watch the circus and a Bruce Springsteen concert from its box at the MCI Center. (By my count, six Washington Times editors and writers attended Abramoff trips.)

    Abramoff came back to Washington when his pals came to power in 1994. They suddenly had it all; their triumphant public leader, Newt Gingrich, was even considering a run for the presidency in 1996. (The ever humble Newt was quoted as saying, "Am I going to have to get into this thing?") This was the time to put into place their plans for a permanent Republican establishment ("personnel is policy"), with the power of big money behind them. The problem is that Abramoff got greedy, and so did his little college republican friends. Both Norquist and Reed have been named in the various scandals, right along with Delay.

    http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_05_08_digbysblog_archive.html#111575 200036679925

    Posted by plunger at 01/04/2006 @ 09:55am

65. Frankgrits:

    Once things had begun to go horribly wrong in Iraq, and the insurgency was on the rise and the French UN representative had been killed in a highly-targeted bombing (leading to the withdrawal of the UN from the Iraqi theater) and you could just tell things were going to get bogged down due to lack of sufficient man power and the absence of an exit strategy...I was told the following by someone from the inside who actually knew the strategic plan:

    "All of this...everything that you see happening in Iraq is going according to plan...they are right on-plan."

    I was dumbfounded, but it opened my eyes to the broader strategic goals. There is no exit strategy because there is never going to be an exit...never. There is a quagmire because the plan called for one.

    Look at the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Peace has never been the goal - only constant war, and incremental territory acquisition. The more Israel is framed as the victim, the more it serves their long term agenda.

    We are now using their playbook - to the letter.

    False Flag Terrorism is a tactic.

    Victory In Iraq is not the goal.

    That's yet another piece of the BIG LIE.

    Posted by plunger at 01/04/2006 @ 10:06am

66. TJ

    If Harry Reid looks like he's deeply involved with Abramoff....both he, the D.C. Dems, the Media, and maybe even a few "Nation" editors, will drop the idea of "throwing those involved in jail" and suddenly it will be "we need new Campaign Fincance Reform and/or lobbying laws".

    IOW, one BIG Democrat....and the push will be for "new laws", not punishing those guilty, since it will involve a big-shot Dem.

    Posted by Mask at 01/04/2006 @ 10:08am

67. PPRIMATE

    Wow! I have previously scrolled through a couple "X-file / 9-11" sites, but that video clip was well done. I had heard about the "pull" of WTC7, but hadn't seen the Silverstein clip. I mean...WTF...the only way it could have been "pulled" is if the explosives are already inside. No one is going to go traipsing thru a burning building setting up a charge matrix. The fundamental meaning then is, if that is indeed the case, what else is true. Also, being in the geologic sciences, I was too aware of the seismic records, and to see the "squibs", and hear the witnesses....its pretty damning.

    It really does look like a "Reichstag" event...Jeez, has it really come to this?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 01/04/2006 @ 10:12am

68. Mask:

    Once again, you are wrong.

    Last night a poll taken on Lou Dobbs indicated that 93% of respondents were in favor of outlawing political lobbying entirely.

    American's know for a fact that the lobbyists have been working at cross-purposes to the best interests of the American People. This requires no explanation or deep analysis. ANYONE caught with their hand in the Abramoff cookie jar will be viewed with equal scorn.

    This is an American tragedy which happens to have been enabled by the power consolidated on the backs of 3,000 souls ho died on 9/11. The power consolidation is within the Republican party. They will rightly receive the vast majority of the blame.

    Accept it.

    Posted by plunger at 01/04/2006 @ 10:13am

69. Plunger - You are right that we all know politicians lie. Too many people shrug their shoulders, saying it doesn't matter to them. A woman the other day told me that Bush can listen to her phone conversations all he wants, because she doesn't do anything wrong. A solid majority of human beings can apparently be herded with alacrity. Asking them to think for themselves is foolish - they don't know what thinking critically entails.

    Scandal and corruption are nothing new in ruling institutions. New rules won't matter. Bureacracy cannot solve basic moral issues.

    Do I know the answer? Don't I wish. I would start with basic changes in the education system. Change the premise from Teaching to Learning. The straightjacket rules of state requirements hobble the classroom environment.

    Posted by tmag at 01/04/2006 @ 10:14am

70. I share a good portion of your cynicism, MASK. As the story spreads, I wonder who is going to lead the charge in this investigation. The Justice Department? An Independent Prosecutor? Slim pickin's in the "above reproach" department in Washington, DC.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/04/2006 @ 10:14am

71. Plunger,

    I've watched plenty enough of Lou Dobbs to know how his polls work. Ask a question, follow the question with stories and interviews to make clear what Lou's opinion of the poll question is, and then reveal--shock of shocks--that the majority of viewers of Lou Dobbs agree with Lou Dobbs. This is not to indicate that I don't, in many cases, also agree with Lou Dobbs. But his polls are worthless.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/04/2006 @ 10:16am

72. LEFTOF

    Might as well just "skip ahead" and start reading about the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and about David Rockefeller at www.theycontrolyourminds.com!

    Posted by Mask at 01/04/2006 @ 10:18am

73. Tjbehrens1:

    I totally concur with your assessment of any poll Dobbs does. It's no more reliable than say, a Rasmussen poll - but as you indicated, Dobbs even has the benefit of airing a compelling video clip that serves to influence the outcome of his subsequent polls.

    All that said, if we could find a truly independent pollster to ask the simple question, "Should all political lobbying organizations be banned" - I doubt the results would be all that much different than Dobbs poll reflects.

    NOBODY in America can identify how they benefit from this corruption, except those who are in the influence-for-profit game.

    Posted by plunger at 01/04/2006 @ 10:19am

74. TJ

    I just find it odd that suddenly the Left thinks that Washington Democrats are going to "clean their own house as well as the Republican's", if Reid is found to be as involved as Delay, Reed, Norquist, etc.

    It's a pretty bad trap for them....if they "cut Reid loose" and force him to step down, then they risk ANY chance of re-taking the Senate, plus it becomes a "both sides doing it" thing.

    But if they defend Reid, then the same defenses can be used by Republicans involved and it becomes a "both sides doing it, but it's really not THEIR fault, we need new laws" thing.

    Posted by Mask at 01/04/2006 @ 10:22am

75. Mask:

    What is your explanantion for how Silverstein managed to will his building 7 into falling (absent explosives) within an hour of telling firefighters to "pull it?"

    Getting a massive sky scraper to fall on command is quite a feat, wouldn't you say?

    Explain it with facts and links - not theories or rhetoric.

    Posted by plunger at 01/04/2006 @ 10:31am

76. Leftofcenter:

    Welcome to the land of those who question everything they are told.

    Posted by plunger at 01/04/2006 @ 10:32am

77. TJ,:"Perhaps if our genetic engineers succeed in unlocking the code to immortality...

    I know this was a throwaway line, but it is nonsense just the same. immortality would be the worst fate to befall mankind. I like it just the way it is, every 100 years, ALL new people.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2006 @ 10:33am

78. IBBEL

    Those Southern white males may have, however, many of those men did NOT see it that way. To many and this is bore out thru many civil war vet memoirs and letters to their homes at the time. They fully beleived they were fighting for their "rights," being the right to live the way they saw fit, without interference from Washington. And they were not oblivious to what the interests of the rich plantation owners were either. To them, they were not fighting for the rich plantation owners they were fighting for themselves, to be free of, what was percieved at the time, of an oppressive out of control Lincoln administration.

    Posted by CPT at 01/04/2006 @ 10:35am

79. Leftof:

    The "Dancing Israelis" caught on 9/11 were working for Urban Moving. Bomb sniffing dogs brought to the scene reacted positively to explovsive residue within their van.

    Any chance that was Thermite?

    Any chance these guys were employed to help Zimm Shipping (50% owned by the government of Israel) move out of the WTC in the weeks preceeding 9/11?

    The owner of Urban Moving fled to Israel in the middle of the night.

    Posted by plunger at 01/04/2006 @ 10:36am

80. Did Abramoff know Atta?

    Posted by plunger at 01/04/2006 @ 10:37am

81. 12 miners dead. It boggles the mind that Appalachia has to know this kind of pain again. It is appalling, and I'm tired of the "objective" tone we take with this sort of thing. It can happen anywhere. Anyone who knows the way companies skate around safety issues in even light industry these days ought to be insensed. And the bastards get away with it, because work that pays halfway decent is getting so bloody hard to find.

    When I was a boy, living on the streets of towns on the west coast, we'd take day labor and tolerate anything in order to get a few hours in and maybe rent a room in an sro. No one wanted to live like that, but if you found yourself in that place, there wasn't a whole lot you could do. Isn't it interesting, though, that the better the capitalist economy does, the worse the conditons the workforce has to put up with. People will say, well, that's mining, it's a risk they knew they were taking. But the reality of the matter is that the industry has been allowed to get away with increasing encroachments against safety, just like the old days, and that's why mining incidents like this occur a lot more often then they were happening thirty years ago.

    I hope these ghouls are proud of themselves.

    Posted by Legba at 01/04/2006 @ 10:58am

82. PHILBQ/FRANKGITS

    To stay on topic

    I personally do not like the current system of lobbying, but how do you outlaw that?

    The slippery constitutional question is if you outlaw lobbying does that also mean the other interests groups will not have the ability to petition their elected representitives? Example public interests groups or non-profit groups or whatever you call them. There are many lobby groups who petition for some fairly worthy causes, even if I disagree with them, do we outlaw them too?

    I mean do you just outlaw one set of lobbyists? That would NOT hold up in the courts.

    Now again, I do not like the current lobying system, but how do you realistically forbid them to do it, in a way that does NOT violate the First Amendment right to petition the govt?

    Realistically the argument that you only forbid rich corporations and not others, from lobbying would not hold up in any court, I would think

    Posted by CPT at 01/04/2006 @ 11:04am

83. MasK

    No "Elders of Zion" or tin foil hats for me thanks.

    But can YOU explain how WTC7 fell down based on a minor fire? There is no reasonable explanation that I have seen, which leaves a number of "less reasonable" ones.

    Or for that matter how you explain three buildings underwent what seem to be "controlled implosions" from three completely different sets of stressors, or that steel supports defied the laws of physics in these three building (as addressed by the architect, civil engineers and fire engineers) by melting at temperatures well below the required temperatures?

    Can you explain why, at the very least, that the steel girder remnants were not examined for manufacturing defects or installation irregularities, but instead were disposed of as fast as possible. Doesn't seem at all odd to you? (Of course, maybe the Rockefeller mind control device already has you in its evil grip! Guess I'd better start tin-foiling the inside of my baseball cap!)

    Posted by leftofcenter at 01/04/2006 @ 11:06am

84. LEGBA

    How about waiting for the investigation to make broad sweeping generalizations?

    Posted by CPT at 01/04/2006 @ 11:10am

85. CPT - civil war buff, eh?

    MASK - like i said - for me, if "lefties" get caught, i say thin the herd....

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/04/2006 @ 11:12am

86. LEFTOF

    The whole theory of the "controlled demolition" is based on the numerous false assumptions of ONE Brigham Young physics professor (for more on how even a "professor" can be wrong...just check out the creationist websites and all the "professors" they quote on how "evolution is impossible").

    Want to go down this road...knock yourself out. But be warned, it doesn't just END at the FIRST theory...then the "others" start to play into it as well....missing Israelis from the WTC, remote controlled airliners, Barbara Olson and the crew and passengers of American Flight 77 living in a CIA camp in Australia.

    Just ask those who started off with "UFOs are real and alien ships", went to Roswell, and ended up thinking that "Greys from Zeta II Reticuli have replaced our leaders with themselves".

    As a green Muppet once said "If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will..."

    Posted by Mask at 01/04/2006 @ 11:19am

87. CPT,

    Maybe you should head down there to offer the fatherless children of those miners a chance at a free disfigurement, maiming or even more psychological damage by joining the ranks of droids like you who swallow lies wholeheartedly to prove their patriotism while fighting for their cowardly masters.

    Posted by chimichenga at 01/04/2006 @ 11:19am

88. IBBLE

    You're an honest broker....but I'm not so sure the MSM or the Beltway Dems will be. If Harry looks threatened, they'll just "lump it" and let him AND the "Abramoff Republicans" off the hook!

    Posted by Mask at 01/04/2006 @ 11:19am

89. LEFTOCENTER

    In all seriousness, I am no engineer, however, wouldnt you say a large plane, 747 filled with highly flammable aviation gasoline flying at around 400-500 miles per hour, smashing into one of the tallest buildings in the world would have some kind of negative effect?

    Tall buildings are not designed to absorb such an impact, that I know of, I actually can understand, to a certain extent, why this rumor has gotten so much traction, but I think the definitive factor is the IMPACT of the plane against a stationary object, especially a 1200 ft high building.

    People in the building all said the building shook mightilty when the plane impacted. Again no engineer, but that could NOT have been good for the building

    Posted by CPT at 01/04/2006 @ 11:20am

90. MASK and gang:

    No shit both sides are doing the same thing, all politicians in the US are wolves of the same litter, money is the only party that matters. The dollar destroyed democracy long ago, so any attempt of one side to hide its own warts by embarking on some kind of comparative analysis focusing on the faults of the other is pointless. They're all guilty, and the mindless voters are the unindicted co-conspirators for believing their masters' explanations of the way the world functions while paying more attention to tabloids than the realities around them.

    Posted by chimichenga at 01/04/2006 @ 11:27am

91. CPT/PhilBQ/Frank

    re: outlawing lobbying....sure anyone should be able to lobby / argue for various interests. However, they should NOT be able to do it with a check in their hand. That is where the problems and improprieties come in.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 01/04/2006 @ 11:28am

92. LEFTOF

    The whole theory of the "controlled demolition" is based on the numerous false assumptions of ONE Brigham Young physics professor (for more on how even a "professor" can be wrong...just check out the creationist websites and all the "professors" they quote on how "evolution is impossible").

    Want to go down this road...knock yourself out. But be warned, it doesn't just END at the FIRST theory...then the "others" start to play into it as well....missing Israelis from the WTC, remote controlled airliners, Barbara Olson and the crew and passengers of American Flight 77 living in a CIA camp in Australia.

    Just ask those who started off with "UFOs are real and alien ships", went to Roswell, and ended up thinking that "Greys from Zeta II Reticuli have replaced our leaders with themselves".

    As a green Muppet once said "If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will..."

    Posted by MASK 01/04/2006 @ 11:19am | ignore this person

    Mask reveals himself to be both Jewish, and a paid tool of the ADL, all in one posting.

    You got in nearly every one of the props from the ADL handbook, but I'm a little disappointed you left out the accusation of "anti-Semitism" and the word "Conspiracy" - though the implication was surely there.

    These are the tactics of the guilty - to shout down dissent and interfere with the learnings of the curious by painting them with the "Tin Foil Hat Conspiracy Freak" brush.

    This is a tried and true tactic of the ADL's disinformation program. It's Mask's full time job.

    Posted by plunger at 01/04/2006 @ 11:30am

93. LEFTOFCENTER:

    Precisely. This argument of freedom of speech with regards to political contributions is one of the most obviously partisan and plutocratic I have ever heard. The bottom line is, when you remove money from the political process, you open up the pprocess to everyone, regardless of their bankroll. That is a move toward MORE democracy, not less, as the current system is designed.

    Posted by jorcheim at 01/04/2006 @ 11:31am

94. CHIMICH

    What did I say? I said lets wait and find out the TRUTH of what happened. Not given in to wild, unsubstanitated accusations, that serve no purpose, other than to feed the agendas of people like yourself. Who are not REALLY interested in the truth but in the appearence of wrong doing, but by wrapping yourself in the flag of the "common man" theme, you seek to use that suffering to feed wild quasi-socialists agendas.

    Why do you want to stifle the TRUTH in favor of some theory that fits your ideological beliefs?

    If the mining company did something wrong, investigate what EXACTLY happened so that it never happens again. If they were negligent, then take the appropiate measures against them. Let justice be done.

    Posted by CPT at 01/04/2006 @ 11:32am

95. CPT (and others), the question of whether the WTC collapse could have been caused by the impact of an airliner CAN be answered if a suitable computer model is designed to simulate the scenario. (We design and test nuclear weapons this way.) The problem is that such things are expensive, and no one with access to such resources is free of all liability for what such an investigation might reveal. So we'll be stuck with amateur speculation, I'm afraid.

    Now, as to lobbying by corporations, that IS an issue that can be addressed. Corporate law is highly developed. There is certainly an effective way to apply limits. Again, the question is whether anyone with sufficient power is willing do do so.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 01/04/2006 @ 11:40am

96. Jorcheim:

    It has long been my contention that the medium of television holds the answer to the political mess. Taking all money out of politics means costing the television networks millions in lost revenues which normally flowed to them via political advertising. PERFECT! Let's do it! Then they will actually be in a position to focus their news rooms on exposing political corruption, rather than profitting from it.

    Remember when you were growing up and you'd hear your local station signing off the air for the night prior to the "Test Pattern" coming on the screen that "this station is operating under a license that requires it to operate in the best interest of the people" or something to that effect?

    The founding premise of the FCC was that television was intended to serve the public good.

    We need to get our medium back! Five free channels available for public dabate - no advertising required - no money in the system.

    We the people OWN the airwaves..let's use them.

    Posted by plunger at 01/04/2006 @ 11:40am

97. CPT

    Not arguing that an impact would not have an effect. However, as there is video of people standing in the gaping holes ~15min post impact, it obviously wasn't very hot for very long. I am no engineer either, but I am a scientist...the laws of physics do not randomly change to fit events, which is what the official story would have us believe. (Jet fuel just plain doesn't burn hot enough)

    Also, one of the towers was hit obliquely...meaning that any structural failure should have been asymmetric, ie: the top portion should have fallen away towards the weak side...it did not. Both buildings fell almost entirely within their footprints. Physics would seem to dictate that two different sets of stress should not yield the same result.

    Besides, an interview with the architect indicates that this sort of impact was EXACTLY the kind of force the buidling was designed to take. This disparity does beg the question...why wasn't the metal kept for independent analysis (fatigue, wrong specs, whatever....)

    WTC7 housed DOD and CIA offices....woulda though any office space they rent would be in a "tougher" building...the hotel on the other side of the street didn't "fall down." (Yeah..why DID that one fall down?)

    Posted by leftofcenter at 01/04/2006 @ 11:42am

98. myparadign:

    Leaving aside the issue of the Twin Towers, little can explain Mr. Silverstein's ability to drop Building 7 with words alone.

    Posted by plunger at 01/04/2006 @ 11:42am

99. CPT (Ass Clown Maximus)

    I'm not questioning the cause of the accident, I don't care. It's a risky vocation, just ask any miner, especially one in China. I'm not stifling anything, it is you who are misconstruing once again by using that lame-brain tactic of hurling labels like "socialist" at people who disagree with you because they happen to have a mind of their own. I don't blame anyone for the mine accident, I just thought you might be able to cash in on someone else's misfortune, which is what you do on a regular basis - exploit and deceive the underprivileged, those who've fallen through the cracks, all those who've never captured their American Dream. You peddle reprogramming, classes in torture, psychosis and death trips masquerading as noble acts of courage, humanitarian escapades, American manhood, world travel, patriotic conquest, defense of the homeland and all that bullshit. I mean, to deny that the kids of those poor miners are as desperate as ever (and hence prime for a tour as a paid assassin in an American-made inferno) is to stifle the truth. You know damn well that poverty and misfortune are both a boon for your business.

    Posted by chimichenga at 01/04/2006 @ 11:44am

100. Jor

     Idea on lobbying ought to work hand-in-hand with campaign reform. It is not a gov't "Of the people, for the people", but is a "rich-old-white-boys club" by and large. I posted one to Frank upthread a mite on this thought...

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/04/2006 @ 11:45am

101. LEFT/JORCHIEM

     Ok, we take ALL political contributions out of the equation, what do we replace it with, govt funded election campaigns? Where the money is equally disbursed to all groups seeking the office? That might work, I could even get behind that.

     But if you give guys like Nader matching funds that equal what you would give the Dems or Reps, then you would have to give the same to other groups, like the David Dukes.

     Forget Presidential office, lets say its a Senate seat, do we give matching funds to a Neo-Nazi group? Because they happened to concetrate in a small state where their votes can impact this?

     All i am saying, is that it is not so easy.

     Posted by CPT at 01/04/2006 @ 11:45am

102. There are a few Democrats involved here, its true. But while a lot of you seem to be focusing on those few- You want America to ignore the fact that Abramoff gave over $100,000 to Bush, was a "Pioneer" contributor. He never gave a penny of his own money to Democrats. He is a Republican crook, not a Democratic one, no matter how you guys try to lie and spin it. He was deeply involved with Delay, the biggest Criminal politician in Texas. He was deeply involved with the Republican K street propaganda and lobbying machine. I hope that 100% of the politicians involved with Abramoff go down; Democrats as well as Republicans. If some of you hypocrites had any scruples- you would be able to denounce obvious crooks like Ney and Delay - instead of just trying to wipe the blood on Republican's hands on the shirts of the Democrats next to them. If every crooked politicians' involvement with Abramoff were exposed - you know : 90% ARE Republicans. I am not crazy enough to believe, with Shills like Chris Matthews and msm trying to spin away from the facts (just like a lot of you here)that any of these scumbags will pay a price. But, as someone who does hope for less corruption in Washington, not more- I can hope. Until we all take this Corruption and Graft seriously and not as something that you Republicans expect- We will continue to have these problems. Zero Tolerance for this type of illegal activity and some heavy prison terms would be a great start. But I already know you Repubs are against all that. The only way you guys can win is by throwing cash at your problems, and buy your way into office and out of trouble, you need a ton of it. Therefore, you guys will keep defending your partys' illegalities. You reap what you sow.

     Posted by Fade at 01/04/2006 @ 11:47am

103. RESE:

     It's been said before, but you really need to change your adovacy style here. Cutting-and-pasting miles of type will not get you far. I do not object to what underlies it, just your tactics. Burying everyone in paper will only get you ignored - most people will scroll through. Take a cue from Plunger who does it a bit better - he sometimes has long posts, but offers his own words as well and entertains dialogue from others.

     Try making a summary paragraph or two yourself, and provide a link or use a brief excerpt. If people are interested, they will read the link. I often do, but not when it is buried in a several pages of posts.

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/04/2006 @ 11:51am

104. LEFT

     In reference to the WTC collapse, you raise an interesting question, that i will look up at another time, but still very skeptical

     Posted by CPT at 01/04/2006 @ 11:53am

105. CPT / LEFT / JOR

     If they get enough votes to get on the ticket, they should have access to the exact same resources regardless of how much you or I like them. If we end up with a state that has a nut-job rep voted in, it is unlikely they will be very effective and will get voted out next electoral cycle (unless they F-up so bad they get recalled or impeached or thrown in jail)

     In other words, we get a bad apple now and then anyways, it isn't going to change things that much other than enrich the political arena with more diverse perspectives. This is a good thing.

     Could you imagine a 4-way Presidential debate...a real debate? We oughta go back to the "old-school" POTUS election...straight popular vote, the VP is the runner up. That'll get some diversity and checks/balance in the WH!

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/04/2006 @ 11:56am

106. One thing I read about the WTC collapse that intrigues me is that there were no large chunks of concrete. The concrete pulverized. All that survived the collapse was steel and paper.

     Posted by tmag at 01/04/2006 @ 11:57am

107. oops...dunno why I got myself in the addressing of that last one (Doh!)

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/04/2006 @ 11:58am

108. Right on FADE. It is no remedy to justify the Repubs actions by pointing out a few examples of the same actions committed by the other side, which is only the "other side" in name. I mean, the best way to promote healthy government is to PRACTICE HEALTHY GOVERNMENT (though this will never happen). Are there any good examples left in the world? I mean, I realize that dishonesty often leads to success, and that success justifies the means that make it possible, but surely we must allow a few good examples to shine, instead of always punishing or smearing them, otherwise things will indeed never change and corruption will be goddess of Washington.

     Posted by chimichenga at 01/04/2006 @ 12:01pm

109. TMAG

     Somewhere upthread is a link someone left to a 20 min vid clip (hope you have broadband) The pulverizing is a function of the free-fall velocity of a constrained collapse. This seems to indicate a near complete lack of internal resistance to the fall. The falling force of the three buildings just flat could not be so internally symmetric, and every real scientist who looks at the evidence agrees (a shame no evidence was kept / or examined for metal fatigue, bomb residue, etc.)

     Also a bit odd that the tapes of firefighter's radio conversations (aside from a few previously released clips) are deemd "classified" for Nat'l Security reasons?

     Something does smell a bit fishy here...and it ain't the East River!

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/04/2006 @ 12:05pm

110. Bush connection to Abramoff (charities benefitting from criminality?):

     http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/lobbyist_fraud;_ylt=Ag5jrZVXR0Rl4gkX1YrI1J0Xr 7sF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

     Posted by plunger at 01/04/2006 @ 12:14pm

111. CPT:

     Why do you assume that you have to 'replace' the funds from corporations with anything? So a campaign is run on $200,000 instead of $20,000,000. Big deal.

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/04/2006 @ 12:15pm

112. Chimi, nice demolition job on CPT.

     anyone who posts mile long diatribes gets ignored, period, who has the time to scroll past that. I have repeatedly asked the Nation, our gracious hosts to block overlong posts, no response.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2006 @ 12:16pm

113. Nice post Plunger.

     Rese, this is what I am talking about.

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/04/2006 @ 12:16pm

114. CHIMICH (CHIMICHENGA)

     "I don't blame anyone for the mine accident, I just thought you might be able to cash in on someone else's misfortune, which is what you do on a regular basis - exploit and deceive the underprivileged, those who've fallen through the cracks, all those who've never captured their American Dream. You peddle reprogramming, classes in torture, psychosis and death trips masquerading as noble acts of courage, humanitarian escapades, American manhood, world travel, patriotic conquest, defense of the homeland and all that bullshit. I mean, to deny that the kids of those poor miners are as desperate as ever (and hence prime for a tour as a paid assassin in an American-made inferno) is to stifle the truth. You know damn well that poverty and misfortune are both a boon for your business."

     So what are saying your not a fan?

     "You peddle reprogramming, classes in torture, psychosis and death trips masquerading as noble acts of courage, humanitarian escapades, American manhood, world travel, patriotic conquest, defense of the homeland and all that bullshit"

     You need to have a minimum of 3 years time in the Army to qualify for those programs, initial enlistees are not eligible, also put in a DA form 4187, undergo a mental and psychological check in order to apply to go to our torture schools, not to mention a complete physical.

     And when or if you get approval to go to the school, you then need to sign a wavier form. Stating that you are aware that the school is authorized to break one non-vital bone , being defined as a bone not protecting an organ, on at least one limb. And that you will be fed one meal a day, and that bruising is also authorized, limited to face and limbs. After all in order to learn how to torture, one must experience it, in order to better get a sense on when and where to apply pressure.

     You got that?

     Posted by CPT at 01/04/2006 @ 12:19pm

115. Left - Thank you for the info. I don't feel competent to make a guess as to what really happened on 9/11, but I sure have a lot of questions. Given the enormity of the event's impact, you'd think Someone would be forced to answer them.

     Blueprints? War games? Prohibited access? Instant answers?

     Then you get to stuff like Sibel Edmonds.

     It makes for a great read, but it's hard to evaluate it all.

     Posted by tmag at 01/04/2006 @ 12:23pm

116. HMAN23

     I agree, but do you give the same to every joe blow who wants to "run," forget the Presidency, how about the Senate, or a Congressional seat? not to mention state and local elections. I mean do we want to give matching unit funds to a group of neo-nazis who moved to a small state so that they can get effect an election.

     I mean, after all, if you get stop contributions from one source, you have to stop them for all sources, right? Otherwise, that law could never hold up in court.

     Posted by CPT at 01/04/2006 @ 12:25pm

117. I consider Rese's posts to be a resource library. Even if you choose not to read them immediately, if you're ever looking for some information pertaining to any particular scandal, it's here in the archives. I think he and I use slightly differing tactics to accomplish a common goal. Namely - put the information right under the noses of mainstream journalists and see how long they ignore the evidence. At some point, it will become common knowledge among ALL journalists that they have become part of a conspiracy-of-silence with respect to any matters pertaining to 9/11 and/or Israel.

     When is the last time the main stream media reported on Israel doing anything wrong? Do you know that Israel's pull-out from Gaza was merely a ploy, and that they are now going right back in? Do you know how many billion of our taxpayer dollars went into paying for that pullout?

     At some point, one major journalist will have the balls to write what all of them have learned is true, and then another, and then another. The tide is turning. Thank you for your tireless research, Rese. As to style...I'm really not concerned. We've got a Republic to save, and you've got to break a few eggs if you want to make an omelette.

     People are fighting and dying every day - for a lie.

     Is scrolling such a high price to pay to ignore the truth?

     Here's an idea...read every word.

     Posted by plunger at 01/04/2006 @ 12:29pm

118. Plunger, I see your point. I am not saying to dismiss ideas out of hand, just that this is not the medium for data dumps of the size Rese posts. Keep it streamlined, open with a main contention, and people will pay attention - otherwise it reads like the ramblings of a lunatic.

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/04/2006 @ 12:41pm

119. CPT,

     LOC has already answered your twice asked question. I'll answer it too. I don't care who wins in a fair race. If the people want to elect a whacko (that isn't a criminal) then why the hell would I care. That is the power of democracy....the populace knows better than any one individual what is good for the nation.

     Take the money out of politics by severely limiting the amount to be spent and you'd have an elected government run by a bunch of well meaning, patriotic, do-gooder, statespeople instead of by power and money hungry elitist dick heads who are entirely controlled by union and corporate interests that financed their ego.

     Posted by colmes at 01/04/2006 @ 12:44pm

120. I understand, and as you can see, I employ a different style, though I've been accused of overly long posts too, so I'm in no position to criticize the style of others.

     When you're trying to explain the world's largest conspiracy, it's difficult be both effective and brief.

     Posted by plunger at 01/04/2006 @ 12:45pm

121. CPT:

     Agreed that some work would need to go into it, but you do not think it could be hammered out? I do not think the necessary end result of limiting financial contributions from lobbyists is pure public financing of elections.

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/04/2006 @ 12:46pm

122. .

     LEGBA 01/04 @ 10:58am

     12 miners dead. It boggles the mind that Appalachia has to know this kind of pain again. It is appalling, and I'm tired of the "objective" tone we take with this sort of thing.

     That is right. These are times that boggle mens minds. Enough of this "objective" tone. What is wrong with hyperbole and hysteria? Just think, when tens of thousands of men work deep underground at the end of thousands of feet of tunnel, amid heavy machinery and poisonous fumes, there can be an accident. This has never happened before. It is a crime, it is a conspiracy, it is one more sign of the inept and criminal nature of the administration.

     The coal mines must be closed down. They are just too dangerous. A coal miner died in Kentucky on 31 Dec 05. And hundreds show symptoms in connection with black lung disease every year. Shut down the entire industry. After all the nuclear industry was brought to a halt following the Three Mile Island disaster, which did not cause a single death.

     But the real question, the important question, the question the nation wants to know, yet which the Wall Street controlled media suppresses is, where was Bush? Did he lift so much as a finger? He is said to have shrugged his shoulder. He gave a snide little snicker upon the story being reported. He held his hand in front of his face to mask his happiness.

     BTW, An Urban Mover van was seen on a West Virginia highway only hours before the so called "accident." It is reported that the police are again looking for laughing Israelis.

     Posted by nacl at 01/04/2006 @ 12:50pm

123. CPT:

     One idea would be to cap how much any candidate can spend (whether the money was collected privately or through public financing) - like a salary cap in sports. This cap could be adjusted depending on the office. This would lessen the effect of rich candidates being able to personally outspend opponents. As far as qualifying for a public funds option, rules could be established to guard against illegitimate fringe groups (like previous electoral success for a party at a certain level).

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/04/2006 @ 12:51pm

124. I hear you Plunger. Keep up the good fight. Take what I say to Rese more as a mere suggestion for improving advocacy rather than a damning criticism.

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/04/2006 @ 12:54pm

125. HMAN23:

     I never took it any other way. Thanks for your kind words.

     Posted by plunger at 01/04/2006 @ 12:58pm

126. NACL:

     Making light of the ACTUAL EVENTS of 9/11 is in exceptionally bad taste - and does not serve the memory of those who died that day, or their family members who struggle to make sense of it all (to say nothing of those who enlisted in the armed services in the immediate aftermath under the false assumption that there was in fact an enemy that could be defeated by their participation in a standing army).

     If you know the truth of the events of that day - by all means, share it.

     If you have no evidence to refute the FBI and Police and Main Stream Media Reports (including Israeli Newspapers) regarding the incident referred to as the "Dancing Israelis" - why not accept it as fact?

     Because then you would have to defend their actions, right? And you'd have to defend the Bush Administration's coverup of these activities and quiet deportation of these Mossad Agents, right?

     Give ANY plausible explanation for the story of the Dancing Israelis. I'd demand that you provide links to support your contention, but I can tell you for a fact that no such stories exist.

     IT HAPPENED. Prove it didn't.

     You have joined a long list of individuals who choose to make light of the story of the Dancing Israelis, whose participation in the events of 9/11 is classified, however not a one of you has EVER provided any news account contradicting the police reports, DEA report, FBI accounts and Mainstream News Accounts.

     What is your agenda? Clearly it is not the truth.

     Posted by plunger at 01/04/2006 @ 1:09pm

127. One problem we have in this country is our reliance on two parties. This makes lobbying way too easy. If the political system were more diverse, the money flow would be more difficult. Look at our newly formed democracy in Iraq. The media frames the elections in terms of ethnic groups, but each group is not defined by a lone party--each has at least two.

     chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/01/whos-who-of-iraqi-political-parties.html

     One wonders what the trigger points have been in the ever close relationship between the Dems and the GOP on corporate issues. Did the money start to flow more vigorously so the Dems decided to get their take? Or was the majority of the Dem rhetoric just aired to appease their base while they reached to the lobbyists with both palms up?

     In the aftermath of this scandal, one wonders what a third party might be able to achieve if it could say with a straight face and with open books that it would not allow money and lobbyists to affect the way in which legislation and regulation are created. I know it's a dream, but that somebody needs to give it a chance and fast. The window on this will be open for only a second.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/04/2006 @ 1:17pm

128. Cheney strongly defends eavesdropping Wed Jan 4, 2006 12:30 PM ET169

     http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID =2006-01-04T173007Z_01_SIB457070_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-CHENEY.xml

     Posted by plunger at 01/04/2006 @ 1:24pm

129. we tried the third party thing with Nader in 2000, result? well you know. which is not to say that it would not be beneficial. the greens in germany for instance, it took them decades to become a force, but then germany had numerous parties all along.

     in coalition governments the small parties can cause plenty of mischief, take the extreme religious party, the Shas, in israel, because they are needed to form a coalition they can hold out and thus have more clout than their numbers would warrant.

     if you want to get the big money out of politics, one factor that needs to be addressed: most campaign money goes to buy TV ads.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2006 @ 1:28pm

130. Cato who?

     Marcus Porcius Cato "Uticensis" (also known as Cato the Younger) was many things, including the adamantine foe of the triumvirs Pompey, Caesar, and Crassus and the man whose undying enmity to Caesar in the Civil War led him to commit particularly violent suicide rather than give Caesar the pleasure of pardoning him in defeat. Austere, humorless, puritanical, incapable of compromise, he was a fanatic in defense of liberty and the Republic. Cato was deeply admired by Americans in the Revolutionary period; Addison's play Cato, in which Cato defies the tyrant Caesar in verse, was a favorite of George Washington.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2006 @ 1:34pm

131. Johannesrolf,

     On Katrina's current blog she cites statistics indicating that significantly more money is spent in lobbying than in campaigning. While campaign contributions are ugly to consider, the money for lobbying is where the real action is. And it is made easy because there is no density of parties, no opportunity for small groups to form coalitions that can often make official bribery more difficult for the lobbyists.

     Such a big country and diverse country. I am sure that there is a solid 25% of this country that is hardcore Republican/Conservative, meaning that they have uniformly conservative views and actively vote on those views. But given the relatively close elections and the fact that a sizeable percentage of our eligible voters choose to participate in the system, I can't help but think that many are not seeing their views represented to a point that they will make the effort to get to the polling station.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/04/2006 @ 1:50pm

132. TMAG

     agreed....I can't say with any certainty what happened...and there is a lot of info. That is why I try and focus on the data, and view the plethora of circumstances in light of the data. I can't say with certainy what DID happen, but I can be pretty certain that the offical explanations are largely non- (or at best loosely)-factual.

     Johann

     Actually the most successful third party bid was old Perot. He showed that with enough private money, anyone can run for POTUS. He bought his way onto their playing field. However, this is the antithesis of the model we should aspire to.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/04/2006 @ 2:14pm

133. HMAN23

     One idea would be to cap how much any candidate can spend (whether the money was collected privately or through public financing) - like a salary cap in sports. This cap could be adjusted depending on the office. This would lessen the effect of rich candidates being able to personally outspend opponents. As far as qualifying for a public funds option, rules could be established to guard against illegitimate fringe groups (like previous electoral success for a party at a certain level).

     Posted by HMAN23 01/04/2006 @ 12:51am | ignore this person

     That is certainly a workable proposition. Hell, everyone could support that.

     Posted by CPT at 01/04/2006 @ 2:48pm

134. Lefty, you are of course correct, but the effect of his candidacy was not as dramatic as in 2000, in my opinion

     it is still correct that most campaign money goes to TV advertising

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2006 @ 2:53pm

135. It's a pretty bad trap for them....if they "cut Reid loose" and force him to step down, then they risk ANY chance of re-taking the Senate, plus it becomes a "both sides doing it" thing.

     Posted by MASK 01/04/2006 @ 10:22am

     You would have to explain the mechanism where the political party that cleans it's own house suddenly risks losing face with the electorate.

     If Harry Reid is guilty then his ass needs to go down and go down loudly.

     It would make a nice contrast to you yappy dogs that will defend your guy to the death regardless of how heinous the crime.

     Posted by Will C. at 01/04/2006 @ 2:55pm

136. good point Will, they expect us to be as amoral as they are. I for one welcome the cleaning out of corruption regardless of party affiliation. that anyone would react differently is the crying shame here. where is the outrage?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2006 @ 3:00pm

137. WILL

     by forcing Reid to step down, they would A. lose a senior Democrat, possibly even the Nevada seat....and B. admit that the corruption is NOT limited to the Republicans.

     Imagine the ads "We Democrats will restore clean government..." and then the counter-ad by the Repubs "Dems claim they'll restore clean government...yet their LEADER in the Senate took *****"....a wash.

     Denial and defense of Reid is more likely. The "hint" that its a "Republican scandal" can be maintained, even if the "Reid Defense" gets a lot of Republicans off-the-hook.

     Posted by Mask at 01/04/2006 @ 3:01pm

138. Hey wait a minute......is it now illegal / scandalous to accept campaign contributions? Did Reid do any more than that?

     The scandal is that certain House / Senate members accepted personal gifts, trips family members with fake jobs to boost income (Delay et al) which is illegal or they accepted campaign contributions with an explicit or strongly implicit quid pro quo objective.

     The day it's scandalous to accept campign contributions without a price tag attached is the day I'll say allejuyah....never in my lifetime!

     Posted by colmes at 01/04/2006 @ 3:07pm

139. by forcing Reid to step down, they would A. lose a senior Democrat, possibly even the Nevada seat....and B. admit that the corruption is NOT limited to the Republicans.

     Posted by MASK 01/04/2006 @ 3:01pm

     They would also be illustrating that cleaning house WAS limited to the Democrats.

     Damn I like that all caps distinction.

     It's cool

     Posted by Will C. at 01/04/2006 @ 3:08pm

140. where is the outrage?

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/04/2006 @ 3:00pm

     you won't find it in MASK. He's to busy playing games.

     Posted by Will C. at 01/04/2006 @ 3:10pm

141. good point Will, they expect us to be as amoral as they are. I for one welcome the cleaning out of corruption regardless of party affiliation. that anyone would react differently is the crying shame here. where is the outrage?

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/04/2006 @ 3:00pm | ignore this person

     I agree. Any Senator or Representative that is guilty of wrongdoing should be booted and persecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Furthermore, I'm a little disappointed with all the people focusing on the importance of Democrats leading the charge against corruption. This should not be a political issue. It should be an American issue and all Americans should rise up as one and shout "enough." That we view this as primarily a political issue is further evidence of the extreme polarization and politicization in this country. Will there be political consequences of this scandal...yes. Should politics be the focus...no. These are our elected representatives and they need to serve the interests of the American people...that is the issue.

     Posted by MeanGreen at 01/04/2006 @ 3:14pm

142. You go away for a while and this site just begins to look like an Art Bell blog. Add a little bit of Frankgrits weekly I hate Bush/Limbaugh, Chimi's consistent America is Evil, and the rest with their chorus of kill the evil conservatives and we will have a progressive heaven on earth.

     I did find that TJBehrens is acting awfully logical and it has to be a real first for me to agree completely with several of Philbq's posts.

     I do wish that Rese and Plunger would shorten up as many have suggested. Most of all though, I wish they would write their Anti-Jewish hate remarks somewhere else. I am surprised the Nation doesn't take some kind of stand on the anti-semitism.

     BTW, for those absorbed in the Abramoff Scandal, tell me what Tom Daschle, his wife

     Every other Monday, top Democratic lobbyists meet in a Capitol Hill conference room with the Senate's highest-ranking Democratic staffers.

     Every other Tuesday, Republican lobbyists from stand-alone lobbying firms meet with Republican senators, also on the Hill.

     Every other Wednesday, Republican lobbyists from trade associations meet with a different set of Republican senators.

     And every Friday at noon, about 20 Democratic lobbyists meet with the chief of staff of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), at Pelosi's Capitol office.

     http://www.fairelections.us/article.php?id=227 [url]

     trouble with link? try this

     http://www.fairelections.us/article.php?id=227

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR200507 2601562.html

     Election to Congress used to be an end in itself. Now, for nearly half of federal lawmakers, it is a steppingstone to a second career: lobbying.

     A new study has found that 43 percent of the 198 House and Senate members who left government to join private life since 1998 have registered to lobby. Of the 36 senators who left during that period, half have joined the lobbying ranks.

     http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/072705N.shtml

     The following is from a 1998 NY Times series on K Street and the draw of former Congressmen from both parties. What you have is not so much a Republican problem but a 40 year buildup of an industry created by the members of Congress and Administrations in both parties to serve themselves.

     http://menic.utexas.edu/~bennett/__310/K'Street.htm#Senate%20Dem

     Posted by love liberty at 01/04/2006 @ 3:24pm

143. Warning: The following post defends lobbying.

     There, that disclaimer should allow those who are quick with the "ignore" button to do as they please ;-)

     Seriously though, I have seen many posts arguing for the end of lobbying, but none defending it. This is surprising because lobbying (when done ethically and legally) is actually in the best interest of the public most of the time. The idea behind lobbying is that our elected officials do not have the resources or abilities to be aware of every important issue. Thus, the lobbyist is responsible for creating awareness and educating our officials about proposed solutions to our problems.

     I believe that, if done properly, this serves the public because it creates a clear method of "petitioning congress for a redress of grievances" that is both effective and efficient. Lobbyists can (and often do) represent the "average (politically uninterested) American" directly by advancing issues of importance supported by organizations to which the average American belongs or donates. Further, lobbyists provide Congress with expert information and opinion while voicing the concerns of workers. Anyone belongign to a sizable union, trade organization, professional organization, etc. is having their professional opinion about important occupational issues voiced to Congress. How many people actively contact elected officials regularly and frequently to make them aware of important problems and potential solutions?

     I think it is clear that there is corruption in lobbying, but if you think that lobbyists and special interest groups are inherently evil and should be done away with, then you've been listening to blowhard idiots (e.g. Limbaugh) for too long.

     Posted by MeanGreen at 01/04/2006 @ 3:30pm

144. Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/04/2006 @ 3:24pm

     Liberty!

     Please tell us you are aware that Tom Daschle isn't in the senate anymore.

     You are aware of that right?

     Posted by Will C. at 01/04/2006 @ 3:31pm

145. Posted by MEANGREEN 01/04/2006 @ 3:30pm

     You're right lobbying is an extension of our first amendment rights.

     Bribery, on the otherhand, isn't.

     If they had the political will, it would be very easy for congress to exclude it's members from taking any favors from lobbyists.

     The two houses have the enmerated power of setting their own rules.

     Posted by Will C. at 01/04/2006 @ 3:35pm

146. Liberty!

     Please tell us you are aware that Tom Daschle isn't in the senate anymore.

     You are aware of that right?

     Posted by WILL C. 01/04/2006 @ 3:31pm

     Of course, that is why I brought up the fact that he is now a lobbyist himself. Although in rereading my post I see I left an incomplete sentence on Daschle.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/04/2006 @ 3:39pm

147. Will C. I completely agree that lobbying reform is needed. Perhaps, as suggested on Katrina's blog, this scandal will provide the type of impetus needed to see the passage of the bills proposed by Feingold and Meehan.

     Posted by MeanGreen at 01/04/2006 @ 3:39pm

148. Of course, that is why I brought up the fact that he is now a lobbyist himself. Although in rereading my post I see I left an incomplete sentence on Daschle.

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/04/2006 @ 3:39pm

     That's funny, because it sounded like you were implying that because everyone else does it, it's A-OK

     Posted by Will C. at 01/04/2006 @ 3:40pm

149. I myself am not against Lobbying per se. What is probably reasonable is to enforce the laws on lawmakers accepting unreasonable gifts (ie, trips to golf resorts, cruises, etc), and a 5 year prohibition for any former member of Congress to enter a Lobbying firm. Furthermore, Staff members or former Cabinet Members of an Administration should have the same 5 year exclusion (but should be 5 years after the Administration ends, which could be much longer in reality if a 2 term presidency).

     Posted by love liberty at 01/04/2006 @ 3:44pm

150. Posted by MEANGREEN 01/04/2006 @ 3:39pm

     It would be nice. But if you remenber the Rebuplicans signed a contract with america which gave us all a warm fuzzy thatthey would end corruption in washington.

     We've now seen that their contracts, like their word, aren't worth shit.

     But... I always hold out hope. If Abramoff makes a big enough bang so that people turn their heads to washington and insist on something different, we might just get some real change for a change.

     Posted by Will C. at 01/04/2006 @ 3:45pm

151. Will C,

     to expand on my several postings on this subject and your question, as noted I am not against lobbying per se.

     I think that given the complexities of legislation proposed yearly in Congress, there is a place for everyone from corporate, labor union, non-profits, environmental, faith based, states themselves, etc. to provide input to Congress and their staffs who are considering legislation.

     Indeed, there is a real air of democracy in this theory. What is needed is enforcement of existing laws and some modification where needed to keep the corrupting influences from destroying the good.

     As I noted in post @3:44pm, there should be more restrictions on Congressional members, their staff, and Administration officials from participation in lobbying.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/04/2006 @ 3:50pm

152. Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/04/2006 @ 3:44pm

     Good ideas for reform. I think they are worth trying. Now, if we can only get enough government officials (state and federal) to agree we'll be in good shape.

     Perhaps we should hire a lobbyist and hold a all-expenses paid convention in Fiji ;-)

     Posted by MeanGreen at 01/04/2006 @ 3:51pm

153. Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/04/2006 @ 3:44pm

     Then why five years? If you really want to end the bullshit why not just put a permanent ban on former staffers and legislators becoming paid lobbyists. That cuts the chain clear through. And, they are still free to petition their congressman on an amateur basis just like the rest of us.

     Posted by Will C. at 01/04/2006 @ 3:52pm

154. Will C,

     Also, Meangreen is correct and you are wrong. There is nothing in the Republican Contract with America about ending corruption in Washington.

     http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html

     Posted by love liberty at 01/04/2006 @ 3:53pm

155. Then why five years? If you really want to end the bullshit why not just put a permanent ban on former staffers and legislators becoming paid lobbyists. That cuts the chain clear through. And, they are still free to petition their congressman on an amateur basis just like the rest of us.

     Posted by WILL C. 01/04/2006 @ 3:52pm

     I think permanent is too restrictive on a free society (I thought that was something liberals endorsed-not restricting a free society?).

     Also, I was using a technique employed by corporate America with "Non-Compete" clauses in hiring agreements. I think the principles work in a similar fashion and yet maintain the future opportunities for individuals that are the hallmark of the American free enterprise system.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/04/2006 @ 3:56pm

156. Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/04/2006 @ 3:53pm

     Sorry, I must have misinterpreted this one

     SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;

     http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html

     Posted by Will C. at 01/04/2006 @ 3:57pm

157. I don't know much about the Contract with America (and don't care to read about it), but what I do know is that I agree that it would be to restrictive of personal liberties to have a lifetime ban on lobbying by former government officials. However, I would consider it if a shorter term ban was tried first and found to not produce the desired results.

     I like the idea about an auditing firm. Can we still get some of the Arthur-Anderson folks? ;-)

     Posted by MeanGreen at 01/04/2006 @ 4:02pm

158. I think permanent is too restrictive on a free society (I thought that was something liberals endorsed-not restricting a free society?).

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/04/2006 @ 3:56pm

     No one puts a gun to your head and makes you be a congressman. No one puts a gun to your head and makes you be a staffer.

     If we change the rules to include a permanent ban on paid lobbying for the aforementioned, it gives people a decision to make: one, or the other.

     All of us make that choice every day.

     Posted by Will C. at 01/04/2006 @ 4:02pm

159. LL:

     There is nothing in the Republican Contract with America about ending corruption in Washington.

     Uhh, except the preamble (my emphasis in bold):

     REPUBLICAN CONTRACT WITH AMERICA

     As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives. That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print.

     This year's election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.

     Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act "with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right." To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.

     On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government: ...

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/04/2006 @ 4:27pm

160. Will C:

     Nice to be pairing up with you again against LL.

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/04/2006 @ 4:29pm

161. WILL

     YES...they would make themselves the "true party of reform and cleaning up government"...but they'd first have to do a FULL mea culpa and tell everybody how the guy that's been their Leader in the Senate for the last 2 years is a CROOK....that likely?

     Hasn't been a Democrat yet that has admitted that any policy has been wrong of theirs, and the worst thing they'll say about a fellow Dem is "It was his personal life and he shouldn't have done it with that young girl" (hehe)

     But the odds they put Harry out to dry are pretty slim...especially since he ISN'T going to "go quietly".

     Like many on the Left, including apparently Ms vanden Heuval and Mr Nichols, they want this to be a "Republicans only scandal" but are willing to risk the GOP "getting away with it", before risking one of their own.

     Posted by Mask at 01/04/2006 @ 4:32pm

162. Like many on the Left, including apparently Ms vanden Heuval and Mr Nichols, they want this to be a "Republicans only scandal" but are willing to risk the GOP "getting away with it", before risking one of their own.

     Posted by MASK 01/04/2006 @ 4:32pm | ignore this person

     Hence the great problem with political parties. If only we had listened to the advice of George Washington.

     Posted by MeanGreen at 01/04/2006 @ 4:35pm

163. Hold it a sec Mask.

     Reid a crook? What is it exactly that he is accused of beyond accepting contributions? Is there a quid pro quo anywhere there?

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/04/2006 @ 4:37pm

164. HM,

     For the most part and for approx 50% of Americans, the Republicans have achieved many of the goals of the Contract with America. Much of what is discussed in terms of values and faith and trust was a signal to conservative Christians to bring God back into our lives and our decision making.

     The fact that some people appear to have violated the public trust does not take away from the effort.

     I don't quit visiting a particular food chain if I have a bad experience with one location.

     Also, until the facts come out, what is being most loudly and shrilly pitched by the MSM and left wing sites like the Nation is activity that is completely legal. It is legal within campaign funding limits for Lobbyists to contribute to political campaigns uncluding members of Congress.

     Abramoff himself appears to be a sleaze and a crook, but that does not necessarily translate into illegal activity by either Republicans or Democrats in accepting money from Abramoff and/or his clients.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/04/2006 @ 4:45pm

165. BTW Will C,

     Item 2 on the audit had to do primarily with the previous Democratic scandals on the Congressional stamp scandal, and the House Banking scandal (Dems writing bad checks to the Congressional Bank) to name two.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/04/2006 @ 4:48pm

166. YES...they would make themselves the "true party of reform and cleaning up government"...but they'd first have to do a FULL mea culpa and tell everybody how the guy that's been their Leader in the Senate for the last 2 years is a CROOK....that likely?

     Posted by MASK 01/04/2006 @ 4:32pm

     If they truely are honest men and women then yes it is likely.

     If they are not, then we are all fucked.

     And Mask, you're slowing down. It took you way to many posts to drag former president clinton into the debate.

     he's just ending the first year of his second illegal term.

     He should be impeached

     Posted by Will C. at 01/04/2006 @ 5:06pm

167. LL:

     You are going off on a different point now. You said simply that the Contract had nothing to do with ending corruption in Washington - which is flatly untrue. Religious faith and values may have been part of it - but so was "scandal and disgrace."

     As far as people in Congress only accepting contributions without a quid pro quo, I would agree with you if that is all that happened. From what I have read so far, though, I do not think that is the only behavior that is going to come out (at least for Delay, Ney, and some others mentioned).

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/04/2006 @ 5:09pm

168. Item 2 on the audit had to do primarily with the previous Democratic scandals on the Congressional stamp scandal, and the House Banking scandal (Dems writing bad checks to the Congressional Bank) to name two.

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/04/2006 @ 4:48pm

     Liberty!

     Interesting read on clause 2 in the contract:

     SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;

     You see when the republicans put that clause into their contract with America, I was crazy enough to believe they were making promises about their future behavior.

     Call me wacky

     Posted by Will C. at 01/04/2006 @ 5:12pm

169. Also, until the facts come out, what is being most loudly and shrilly pitched by the MSM and left wing sites like the Nation is activity that is completely legal. It is legal within campaign funding limits for Lobbyists to contribute to political campaigns including members of Congress.

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/04/2006 @ 4:45pm

     If it was legal, Jack would have pleaded innocent.

     But he pled guilty.

     And was he loud and shrill

     They had to clear the room

     Posted by Will C. at 01/04/2006 @ 5:18pm

170. If it was legal, Jack would have pleaded innocent.

     But he pled guilty.

     And was he loud and shrill

     They had to clear the room

     Posted by WILL C. 01/04/2006 @ 5:18pm

     Perhaps you ought to read the charges. It is not illegal for a lobbyist to contribute to a campaign. It is illegal to make personal gifts to Congressmen (which he is charged with).

     The biggest charges in the federal indictment are for fraud against his clients, the charge of illegal personal gifts to Congressmen, the families and staffers, and hiring staffers within one year of their working for a member of Congress (current law is 2 years).

     http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/060103-abramoff-informat ion.pdf

     the link may not work but is located at msnbc.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/04/2006 @ 5:30pm

171. LL:

     Right it is not illegal for a lobbyist to contribute to a campaign. I did not read that into Will C's point. The MSM and us at left wing sites are not focused on this, but the influence peddling that seems to have accompanied the contributions and gifts.

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/04/2006 @ 6:03pm

172. .

     PLUNGER 01/04 @ 2:59pm

     Making light of the ACTUAL EVENTS of 9/11 is in exceptionally bad taste - and does not serve the memory of those who died that day, or their family members who struggle to make sense of it all (to say nothing of those who enlisted in the armed services in the immediate aftermath under the false assumption that there was in fact an enemy that could be defeated by their participation in a standing army).

     If you know the truth of the events of that day - by all means, share it.

     First of all, you cowardly sack of bile and piss, I gave you a chance at an exchange, on fair terms, but you ran away.

     Now you come like a rat dragging your wet, obscenely swaying stomach over the above vomit, and sanctimoniously offer this:

     If you have no evidence to refute the FBI and Police and Main Stream Media Reports (including Israeli Newspapers) regarding the incident referred to as the "Dancing Israelis" - why not accept it as fact?

     What you have are tons of lunacy and lies from the left and right radical swill buckets you live on. I know, regardless of what I'll say you'll spew torrents of garbage after it.

     But let it be said, back in 2002 a U.S. Justice Department spokeswoman, Susan Dryden called your charges, unsupported by any data. An FBI spokesman told Reuters, the laughing Israelis were a "bogus story." [iht.com] He said: "There wasn't a spy ring."

     So long. Should I want you, I'll rattle your cage.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/04/2006 @ 6:05pm

173. Perhaps you ought to read the charges. It is not illegal for a lobbyist to contribute to a campaign. It is illegal to make personal gifts to Congressmen (which he is charged with).

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/04/2006 @ 5:30pm

     It's also illegal to take them, with a few exceptions (and my highlight isn't one of them)

     House rules

     http://www.house.gov/ethics/m_giftrulelobbyists.htm

     Violations of the limits of the gift rule by a Member or staff person may result in the initiation of formal disciplinary proceedings.11 Gifts of the nature discussed in this memorandum are of particular concern, as one of the overriding purposes of the gift rule approved by the House in 1995 was to curtail the acceptance of meals and entertainment or recreational activities from lobbyists and others having business before the House. Members and staff should also be aware that in certain specific circumstances – for example, where a gift appears to be tied to an official action – acceptance of gifts from such persons may be a basis for the initiation of a criminal prosecution by the Justice Department.12

     And that takes us to bribery, the charge that has lots of congressmen sweating

     Liberty, it's always good to see your moral relativism.

     Keep on truckin baby

     Posted by Will C. at 01/04/2006 @ 6:21pm

174. Will C.

     What is it with your repeated tactic of making an argument to refute something I didn't say? Where is my moral relativism? I agree with the bribery issue.

     My point towards you came from a false statement you made

     Also, until the facts come out, what is being most loudly and shrilly pitched by the MSM and left wing sites like the Nation is activity that is completely legal. It is legal within campaign funding limits for Lobbyists to contribute to political campaigns including members of Congress.

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/04/2006 @ 4:45pm

     If it was legal, Jack would have pleaded innocent.

     But he pled guilty.

     And was he loud and shrill

     They had to clear the room

     Posted by WILL C. 01/04/2006 @ 5:18pm

     My comment was about all the commentary about Congress members who are listed in the media as having received campaign contributions from Abramoff, his business, or his clients. Those contributions are legal, but because of the ties, members of congress are sending them back.

     You claimed in the post I show here, that the campaign contributions are illegal because he plead guilty. I directed you to the actual charges which do not list the campaign contributions as an indictable offense. (Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/04/2006 @ 5:30pm)

     Again, where is the moral relativism?

     Posted by love liberty at 01/04/2006 @ 7:42pm

175. Again, where is the moral relativism?

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/04/2006 @ 7:42pm

     It's in this statement here

     Also, until the facts come out, what is being most loudly and shrilly pitched by the MSM and left wing sites like the Nation is activity that is completely legal. It is legal within campaign funding limits for Lobbyists to contribute to political campaigns uncluding members of Congress.

     You're changing the subject. This in itself is a form of lying. The media isn't talking about campaign contributions, it's talking about bribery. It amazes me that you can characterize what they are saying as loud and shrill when you don't seem to know what they are actually talking about.

     Oh, and there's that disregard of yours to the revelation that yes jack is indicted for making personal gifts to congressmen but also yes it is illegal for congressmen to accept them if it's in exchange for legislation.

     But you left that out of the chain of evidence you presented in the quoted post above.

     Sorry Liberty, but you're not willing to be honest and upfront about this issue. You are obscuring.

     Any other questions big guy?

     Posted by Will C. at 01/04/2006 @ 8:26pm

176. If anyone is interested, I destroyed any credibility that NACL may have had over on the Katrina thread on the same topic. I'll spare you the double posting here.

     If you click on the link that he provided above and take the time to read the story, you will see that the vast majority of the article contradicts his position. Additionally, the government admits to a DEA report detailing the actual Israeli Spy Ring, which I provide a link to on the other thread...all of which leaves NACL looking quite ridiculous.

     If anyone has any ACTUAL proof the the Dancing Israeli story is bogus and never happened, please provide a link.

     Posted by plunger at 01/04/2006 @ 8:35pm

177. while the house banking scandal involved mostly dems, repubs too were involved, this new scandal seems to be the opposite. the results will be the same, many people losing their seats, and a new congressional majority

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2006 @ 8:36pm

178. Perhaps MASK and NACL can combine their collective wisdom to come up with just one link that actually refutes the story of the Dancing Israelis. So far neither has been capable of it on their own.

     Posted by plunger at 01/04/2006 @ 8:37pm

179. Can we come up with a different name for the "Dancing Israelis" story? I can't help think about a Jewish engagement party I attended about 10 years ago. The dancing was the most lively and downright fun I have ever seen at a family party. Are we sure there wasn't a wedding taking place on 9/11?

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/04/2006 @ 8:46pm

180. 11 israeli's leaping

     4 airplanes

     2 trade towers

     and a terrorist that george can't catch

     Posted by Will C. at 01/04/2006 @ 8:49pm

181. feel free to fill in the rest

     Posted by Will C. at 01/04/2006 @ 8:50pm

182. CPT:

     LEFTOFCENTER basically said what I was going to say. In our present system, if a candidate meets certain minimum requirements (5% of the overall votes for a national election), he or she gets matching funds. While I disagree with the concept of matching funds on principle, it brings up an interesting point.

     Elections are supposed to be battles over ideas, not wealth. When you give everyone who meets certain basic requirements the same "war chest", along with requiring equal time for all qualified candidates, you are left with a truly democratic environment in which the ideas of MANY candidates gets heard, not just the talking points of 2.

     On a side issue, in 1996, the League of Women Voters lost their oversight of presidential debates in favor of a "bipartisan" commitee. Notice it is not a "nonpartisan" commission. Hence since 1996, there have only been 2 real candidates allowed to "debate" (if you want to call it that). Perot was the impetus for this, since he was bankrolling his own candidacy, he was not beholden to anyone but his own conscience. It's sort of like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as it relates to politics. I think everyone can agree that limiting the debate to only 2 candidates is contrary to democratic ideals, especially when there are more than 2 qualified candidates.

     The reason 3rd party candidates and movements have not had the opportunity to flourish as of late (if ever) is due to the fact that they are effectively locked out of the process. I for one don't have a problem with someone like David Duke being heard, if he meets certain minimum requiremnts for candidacy. Let his ideas be considered and weighed. I personally have more faith in peoiple than to assume that the government (or corporate America) can do a better job of determining how to run this country than the people who vote. But the people who vote deserve a legitimate chance tgo hear more than one set of ideas.

     When I lived in Germany, I heard a friend of mine make a tongue-in-cheek comment about the US. We have the honor of being the only western republic who has one party with 2 right wings.

     Amen.

     Posted by jorcheim at 01/04/2006 @ 9:04pm

183. Jorchy, sad but true. also true that Nader was right, also true that without Nader in the race, it would have been much harder to steal the election.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2006 @ 9:10pm

184. TJ, you should see the dancing rabbis. here they have these jewish telethons, sans Jerry Lewis, and yes, the dancing is a sight to behold.

     historical footnote, in the renaissance the dancing nasters were generally jews

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2006 @ 9:25pm

185. JOHANNESROLF:

     True that Nader being in the race in 2000 in fact made it easier to steal the election... however, I still maintain that Nader's being in the race did not cost Gore the election. Gore cost Gore the election, for being a pansy and not fighting for legitimacy and legality in the recount process.

     Posted by jorcheim at 01/04/2006 @ 9:29pm

186. well, Gore did get a lot more votes, but the election was stolen in Florida, by sheer coincidence a state where Bush's brother was and is governor.

     but you are of course right, it should never even have been close.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2006 @ 9:37pm

187. dancing masters. when encountering a misspelling, check the keyboard, if the correct letter is adjacent, it's a typo, if not, the blockhead probably doesn't know how it is spelled, which is often the case with the foam at the mouth righties

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/04/2006 @ 9:39pm

188. A professional politician is a professionally dishonorable man. In order to get anywhere near high office he has to make so many compromises and submit to so many humiliations that he becomes indistinguishable from a streetwalker.

     H.L. Mencken

     Posted by vano at 01/04/2006 @ 9:40pm

189. Normally, I'd be all over the invitation to engage in word play with respect to the story of the Dancing Israelis. But, from my perspective - it is THE smoking gun of 9/11, and I'm just not inclined to do anything other that prove it.

     This is deadly serious. Our Republic is in serious danger as a direct result of 9/11 - and the culprits clearly were NOT tied to anyone named Osama.

     The truth of 9/11 is so offensive, none of us dare admit it - even to ourselves.

     Put Cheney under oath. He knows.

     Posted by plunger at 01/04/2006 @ 9:55pm

190. http://www.911truestory.com/

     Posted by plunger at 01/04/2006 @ 9:59pm

191. Posted by plunger at 01/04/2006 @ 9:59pm

192. I'm slipping off topic again (gotta get back on the Ritalin, I suppose), but watching the justifiably pissed off families and friends of the dead miners reminded me that, though racism continues in this country, the real tragedy of the political corruption in this country is that those morons who slime their way to Congress and the White House haven't the slightest regard for the working poor in this country. Hurricane Katrina exposed the poor, black underbelly of this country's stylish yet decidedly trashy Gulf Coast fantasy land. Sago has exposed the disregard that either the mining corporations or the government has for those brave enough or desperate enough to take the job.

     Doing a little googling last night on the esteemed Robert Byrd on all the pork he brings to West Virginny, I found many instances of his fighting for pensions and other benefits for the miners. But safety? Maybe he's fought for that, but I couldn't find it. I wonder just how far he'd be willing to fight the mining companies to make sure they provide jobs AND workplaces which, at a minimum, don't kill their employees.

     I'm ready. Ready to just wipe out the whole bunch. I want an Inquisition in which each member of the House and Senate must come before me and justify themselves--not just their job performances, but their very citizenship. I hear we've got a privately funded space shuttle ready. Let's load 'em up on a one-way ticket and get this country back to its promise.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/04/2006 @ 10:32pm

193. NACL

     Arguing with a paranoid is a waste of your time and his.

     The "9/11 Conspiracy Theory" is like a religion to guys like RESE and PLUNGER. You'd have more luck trying to argue against the Resurrection with a Christian.

     Posted by Mask at 01/04/2006 @ 10:47pm

194. MASK,

     Since we're offering advice...offering advice to a paranoid about how to argue with a paranoid is a waste of your time and his/hers (still convinced that NACL is really Barbara Bush).

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/04/2006 @ 11:01pm

195. TJB

     re: "working poor"...couldn't agree more. The economic stratification of society is not truly reflective of the societal value of those working on the current "lower rungs". Very "1984". Don't have any solution short of revolution I guess....just a comment.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/05/2006 @ 12:45am

196. IBBLEBLIBBLE --

     If you've got 22 minutes to watch a free video, I think you'll be surprised how convincing this evidence is:

     http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/180305groundzero.htm

     Posted by PROUDPRIMATE 01/03/2006 @ 11:51pm | ignore this person

     primate - that website is a gateway to some truly crazy crap...that said, i have again exceeded my bedtime. discordianism...lol

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/05/2006 @ 12:58am

197. crazy but fun...too much fun...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/05/2006 @ 12:59am

198. The Afghanistan drug trade and world history comes back. [judicial-inc.biz]

     Dancing Israelis and Mossad confirmed in area prior to nine-eleven. [whatreallyhappened.com]

     Wall Street & K-Street Terrorism: Greenberg and Larry Silverstein made a deal with Insurance September 10 2001. [tinyurl.com]

     Zionists,also known as neocons have confessed war-crime against Germany just like Nazis against Jews. [tinyurl.com]

     Real history no longer repressable, what is behind the glass? [marxists.de]

     Who is Jack Abramoff doing favors for in Israel? [bewareofthis.info]

     Posted by WORLDNEWS at 01/05/2006 @ 04:02am

199. One recent example of the use of the word Cabal came in an accusation by former Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, who claimed that the Bush administration's foreign policy is run by a "Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal" demonstrating evil intent.

     CABAL

     The term cabal derives from Kabbalah (which has numerous spelling variations), the mystical interpretation of the Hebrew scripture, and originally meant either an occult doctrine or a secret.

     : the artifices and intrigues of a group of persons secretly united to bring about an overturn or usurpation especially in public affairs; also : a group engaged in such artifices and intrigues synonym see PLOT

     PLOT:

     : a secret plan for accomplishing a usually evil or unlawful end

     USURP:

     Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French usurper, from Latin usurpare to take possession of without legal claim

     1 a : to seize and hold (as office, place, or powers) in possession by force or without right

     b : to take or make use of without right

     2 : to take the place of by or as if by force

     Posted by plunger at 01/05/2006 @ 05:57am

200. Rese - either shorten your posts by a factor of 10, or start your own blog.

     Posted by Albanius at 01/05/2006 @ 10:32am

201. NACL

     Arguing with a paranoid is a waste of your time and his.

     The "9/11 Conspiracy Theory" is like a religion to guys like RESE and PLUNGER. You'd have more luck trying to argue against the Resurrection with a Christian.

     Posted by MASK 01/04/2006 @ 10:47pm | ignore this person

     these conspiracy theories are quite seductive. i dont say they are all crap though - every myth/legend has a kernal of reality inside. with some that kernal is bigger than others. on the one hand to assume that every closed door and set of circumstances is an indication of some murky conspiracy is absurd. on the other hand to assume the opposite is pollyanish. the assumption that the existance of sinister, manipulative elites in this country is nothing more than paranoid delusion is, in my opinion, every bit as dangerous and ridiculous as the assumption that conspiracies lurk behind every closed door meeting and set of strange circumstances.

     ie: dont trust your leaders, even if you voted for them. if i were an elected official i would expect my constituants to question my motives, actions and words. all the time. power corrupts.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/05/2006 @ 10:51am

202. Rese - either shorten your posts by a factor of 10, or start your own blog.

     Posted by ALBANIUS 01/05/2006 @ 10:32am | ignore this person

     albanius, put rese on your ignore list and, from time to time unignore him, to see whats up. his postings are thought provoking if way too freakin long. i enjoy reading them when in the mood, but they get in the way of reading what others have to say. nice compromise, i think.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/05/2006 @ 10:55am

203. 9/11 NEVER could have occured without implementation of a conspiracy. Who were the coconspirators? That is the ONLY unanswered question.

     Why does that word bother everyone so much?

     Scooter Libby is charged with Conspiracy.

     The most wacky position you could possibly take with respect to 9/11 is that there was no conspiracy to pull it off.

     THAT is the truly ridiculous concept.

     Posted by plunger at 01/05/2006 @ 11:03am

204. 2 FULL blank pages ....

     RESE and/or PLUNGER must be cut&pasting again....hehe!

     Posted by Mask at 01/05/2006 @ 12:12pm

205. oh off topic again, but anyone see bill rielly/david letterman encounter?

     well, not hearing too much about abramoff on msm, though it still managed to get some brief coverage in spite of the coal miner's tragedy (on whichever msm evening news i was blankly staring at last night).

     ok, not to disparage the bereaved families of the deceased miners, but does this story really merit the 10+/- minutes of the msm's coverage and at least that much on the morning moron news magazines? i wonder if issues of mine safety will be brought up now...well, at least no dinged out runaway brides on the prowl...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/05/2006 @ 1:57pm

206. IBBLE,

     That's the thing about the MSM right now. There more fascinated with their own inability to get the story straight than they are with uncovering what went wrong and how it could have been prevented. There are some interesting details here:

     A West Virginia Parable [counterpunch.com]

     including some general information about workplace safety in this country (over 5,000 died in the workplace in 2004!).

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/05/2006 @ 2:07pm

207. You're changing the subject. This in itself is a form of lying. The media isn't talking about campaign contributions, it's talking about bribery. It amazes me that you can characterize what they are saying as loud and shrill when you don't seem to know what they are actually talking about.

     Oh, and there's that disregard of yours to the revelation that yes jack is indicted for making personal gifts to congressmen but also yes it is illegal for congressmen to accept them if it's in exchange for legislation.

     But you left that out of the chain of evidence you presented in the quoted post above.

     Sorry Liberty, but you're not willing to be honest and upfront about this issue. You are obscuring. Any other questions big guy?

     Posted by WILL C. 01/04/2006 @ 8:26pm

     Yes, Will,

     I stand by my statements. I have also repeatedly stated, that where a Congressmen is found to have taken bribes, it is illegal and they should be prosecuted. No conservative has stated otherwise. As noted in the following articles, every MSM, cable news, and newspaper is doing articles on who received campaign contributions, those who are returning funds, and who isn't.

     Bush, lawmakers returning Abramoff donations Move follows lobbyist's guilty plea in corruption investigation

     http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10723902/from/RS.3/

     Abramoff Pleads Guilty to 3 Counts

     Lobbyist to Testify About Lawmakers In Corruption Probe By Susan Schmidt and James V. Grimaldi Washington Post Staff Writers

     Wednesday, January 4, 2006; Page A01

     Jack Abramoff, the once-powerful lobbyist at the center of a wide-ranging public corruption investigation, pleaded guilty yesterday to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials in a deal that requires him to provide evidence about members of Congress. The plea deal could have enormous legal and political consequences for the lawmakers on whom Abramoff lavished luxury trips, skybox fundraisers, campaign contributions, jobs for their spouses, and meals at Signatures, the lobbyist's upscale restaurant.

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/03/AR200601 0300474.html

     Posted by love liberty at 01/05/2006 @ 3:23pm

208. TJB,

     I think we all would agree that reducing workplace deaths and injuries is a desirable goal. What is needed is some perspective.

     Between 1928 and 1970, workplace deaths were reduced by 70%

     Between 1970 and 1996 workplace deaths were reduced again by 50%

     The 2004 Bureau of Labor Statistics data indicates that the leading cause of workplace fatalities was transportation accidents= 43%

     Workplace violence and falls both were second at 14%

     A key sub indicator in the data is the incident of death from non-native born latino workers, especially in the construction industry.

     Their figures for workplace deaths has more than doubled since 1992. This figure is relational to the continued illegal immigration coming from Mexico and the use in the Construction industry of these poorly trained illegals.

     Overall, I just don't think this is a priority issue. Every death is one too many, but there are other areas where we can reduce unnecessary deaths.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/05/2006 @ 3:32pm

209. TJ

     "The Orlando Sentinel, jubilant that Disney pays off once again: "Orlando in Line for Terror Grant." The San Francisco Chronicle, in disbelief over the rule that twelve Bay Area cities must compete for one grant: "

     well, lets see....orlando...in florida...florida...jebbushstealelectionland...SF....landoffruitsandnuts whodontvotebush...gays...resistingmilitaryrecruiters....

     looks like another excellent opp for bush and gang to "get back" at places who dare not like him and support his policy...

     and how dare these hypocritical bastards blather about "patriotism" and putting country above party when none since andrew jackson have demonstrated such a spoils system mentality for their cronies, and none since nixon have shown such vindictiveness to their enemies.

     impeachment and jail are way too good for them.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/05/2006 @ 3:32pm

210. Couldn't resist pasting this post from the other blog, penned by a newcomer who sees through the bullshit of the wingers here ranting and raving all the time, especially the Asshole Supreme, LL:

     i discovered this spot just three weeks ago. it has been extremely enlightening. it is obvious by the posts why this country is in the situation it's in. i'm amazed by the intelligence and the amount of work some people do to increase their intelligence. looking at the blogs of the neocons, they only spew only shallow repetitions of the fox news liberal media. they obviously do not try to think for themselves. LL is a crazed pathological liar--he needs people in his "ministry" to pay for his gas, but now suddenly his wife is a high ranking corporate exec. he is a "minister" who wants bush to find, stop and "ESPECIALLY" kill the terrorists and he uses vulgar sexual analogies to attack the lefties. some minister, huh? when NACL gets upset, he sounds like some hard core porn site. i'm sure lefties are worried about the terrorists, we just don't want a country consumed, controlled and run by fear. as for the enviornment, i'm sure no one is worried that it's going to kill us tomorrow. we're just thinking of the next seven generations. that's never been much of a consideration here. so, ya, we are rotting from the inside out. and the empire is in it's last years.

     Posted by LOVELOKI 01/05/2006 @ 12:34am

     Posted by chimichenga at 01/05/2006 @ 3:47pm

211. IBBLE--

     "oh off topic again, but anyone see bill rielly/david letterman encounter?"

     I saw it--Letterman made O'Rielly look like a wee little man. The way Dave brushed aside O'Reilly's ridiculous anecdotal evidence on the War On Christmas was hilarious. After Letterman said that 60% of O'Reilly's show is crap, the spin master was speechless.

     Posted by rain man at 01/05/2006 @ 4:12pm

212. Starting to regret putting PLUNGER on my "Ignore List"...

     this was his best post yet-

     Posted by PLUNGER 01/04/2006 @ 9:59pm

     Posted by Mask at 01/05/2006 @ 4:22pm

213. Plunger

     Mask's comment above prompted me to also "unignore you" (sorry)...gotta give props where props are due though. Your post of PLUNGER 01/04/2006 @ 11:40am defintely puts you back into the real world in my book. Keep up the good work!

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/05/2006 @ 4:53pm

214. LL:

     I cannot believe you are still arguing this point with Will. In addition to reporting on who received contributions (which the MSM obviously is doing), the media is also making clear that the real issue regards the bribery/political favors angle. The second article you posted even mentions it. Maybe I am missing your point, but why do you keep hanging your hat on such ridiculous assertions?

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/05/2006 @ 5:51pm

215. HM,

     Because in watching the MSM, their entire focus seems to be on who received contributions from Abramoff. The discussion as to bribery is nearly always a secondary point.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/05/2006 @ 6:15pm

216. Letterman was mistaken, 100% of what O'Reilly says is crap, but it is somewhat gratifying to see this slime put in his place

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/05/2006 @ 6:28pm

217. Lovey's post looks just as good the second time around

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/05/2006 @ 6:33pm

218. LL:

     Well, in the past two days, much of the news has been about politicans returning contributions, so I can see where contributions would be discussed. But, the bribes is the story, and will be the story.

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/05/2006 @ 6:49pm

219. Frank

     Only finding Dubya's "Words of Mass Deception"....close enough for them tho I suppose!

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/05/2006 @ 7:39pm

220. I've been away from the chat for awhile. Can anyone tell me if anyone found any WMD's in Iraq yet?

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/05/2006 @ 7:27pm | ignore this person

     frankgrits - u cannot have been away from here for much more than 24-36 hours!!!! lol - welcome back ullyses...your kingdom awaits.

     u see the letterman/o'rielly thing? excerpt at www.prisonplanet.com. u might like it.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/05/2006 @ 7:41pm

221. I stand by my statements. I have also repeatedly stated, that where a Congressmen is found to have taken bribes, it is illegal and they should be prosecuted. No conservative has stated otherwise. As noted in the following articles, every MSM, cable news, and newspaper is doing articles on who received campaign contributions, those who are returning funds, and who isn't.

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY01/05/2006 @ 3:23pm

     Sure liberty. And on two threads dicussing a sleazy republican Lobbyist, you want to talk about Tom Daschle, legal campaign contributions, global warming, premature ejaculation.

     and now workplace accidents.

     You're starting to sound like Tricky Dick in his final days.

     Posted by Will C. at 01/05/2006 @ 7:47pm

222. but you are the party of Nixon

     Posted by Will C. at 01/05/2006 @ 7:47pm

223. I've been away from the chat for awhile. Can anyone tell me if anyone found any WMD's in Iraq yet?

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/05/2006 @ 7:27pm

     No, but they found a can of "Big Hairy Spider" killer rolling around under Gee Dubyas bed

     Posted by Will C. at 01/05/2006 @ 7:49pm

224. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/05/2006 @ 7:52pm

     But if Gee Dubya is under the desk

     Is Dick in the chair?

     Inquiring minds want to know

     Posted by Will C. at 01/05/2006 @ 7:54pm

225. LOVE LIBERTY:

     I still find it rather interesting (and not the least bit hypocritical) that you were so willing to let the dogs loose to find out all the dirt about Clinton, yet your outrage regarding Bush, Cheney, et al. is strangely absent, or at least lacking volume.

     To ALL:

     This whole situation SHOULD be more than just the typical "throw the bums out" skreed which comes up about once a decade. As a ntion and a political system, we truly should use this opportunity to scrutinize the entire aedifice, and how it fosters such behavior, instead of individual actions by the most egregious perpetrators. Sadly, nothing of the sort will occur.

     Posted by jorcheim at 01/05/2006 @ 8:25pm

226. By the way, in case you missed it, LL, that was sarcasm.

     Posted by jorcheim at 01/05/2006 @ 8:31pm

227. FRANKGRITS:

     It's not a matter of considering them intelligent. It's a matter of actually marketing them as legitimate commentators and providing them with a steady outlet for their cockamamie and obtuse portrayals of anyone with whom they disagree that is the problem. We really should bring back the fairness rule for broadcast media. The elimination of that sounded the deathknell for any semblance of objectivity and nonpartisanship.

     Posted by jorcheim at 01/05/2006 @ 8:35pm

228. Frank, you are so right, this misbegotten war will always be story one.I have been calling it a civil war for some time,

     but don't slander the Bronx, new york has had the lowest crime rate since '63, we are told , and that includes the Bronx, a lovely borough, containing among others NYC's largest park, botanical gardens, one of the world's best zoos,a swell beach, as well as being the birthplace of hip hop and break dancing

     .the latter two might not seem such accomplishments to some, but ask your 15 year old.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/05/2006 @ 8:46pm

229. it is not stifling free speech to call a lie a lie and to condemn liars.

     the press has done untold damage when they have, in the interest of fairness, placed the lie next to the truth, giving it an undeserved platform

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/05/2006 @ 8:48pm

230. FRANKGRITS:

     Easy. A true equal time fairness law. That would fix a lot of the problems.

     Posted by jorcheim at 01/05/2006 @ 8:54pm

231. Frank:"Will bush acknowledge his failure in his state of the union address?

     what have you been smoking?(this is a rhetorical question, unless you have something really good, like BC bud)

     really, this will never, ever, never, ever happen.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/05/2006 @ 9:12pm

232. Frankie, of course not, I realized it was a rhetorical flourish, but I did want to let everyone else know, and damn, I did forget about Yankee stadium, we also have sweet Little Italy there, I have lived in Manhattan for nearly 40 years, but if I ever move again it will likely be to the Bronx, which is far cheaper

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/05/2006 @ 9:15pm

233. Frankg, Johanne

     Perhaps you and others can explain to me why you like living in big cities. I have been to NY and Boston on numerous occasions but I don't see the attraction. I like the country. Yes this conservative prefers nature to cities.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/05/2006 @ 11:44pm

234. I'm with you, LL. I love to visit cities for the culture and food, but more than a few days and I want out.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/05/2006 @ 11:49pm

235. well, i've been doing some light digging into plunger/rese stuff. i encourage others here to do the same...

     although some of rese's assertions strike me as a bit bizare (to be polite), much, after contemplation, is not so implausible. plunger's postings seem more plausible still. check out the 22min video clip located at www.prisonplanet.com then start digging yourself. (the website itself is a fascinating place, home to plausible and "a bit out there" stuff as well). perhaps my sanity is slipping, but every day i become more and more convinced that the real enemy is not foriegn terrorists, but certain well heeled and connected domestic and foriegn elites. i know it sounds crazy, but think...if u were in a position to plan something wicked, insane, and impossible to believe, would not those who question the official line be seen as wicked, insane, and impossible to believe if they had uncovered that which is wicked, insane, and impossible to believe - but real?

     i have not made up my mind on this yet, but what seemed lunacy so recently now, to my dismay, does not seem so loony...

     and think...

     we no longer have an independent, dispersed, rigorously fact checking media. we have a conglomerized media owned by the very same plutocrats that make up the general corporate community of whom bush and his neocon commisars are members. they have a vested interst in not reporting that which could hurt themselves, as members of the same.

     when i was younger i thought most people were decent. the more i live, the more i see how many are not.

     these neocons really are evil. not in a funny, cutesy, passive way, either. they are proactively evil and nothing is beyond them, i believe, in respect to their will to seize and maintain power, nothing that can be covered up, at least. and when the msm is their privately owned propaganda organ, and the only source of news for the masses of pop culturally lobotomized triviaddicts is the msm, well...what can "they" not get away with?

     which nazi (hitler imself?) said something to the order of, the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it? is our country what we think it is? is it really on the side of good, or are wicked, ruthless, and powerful people taking avantage of the peasant's naive decency in order to send them willingly to fight and die for evil? would not be the first time in history such has occured.

     anyone ever read burgess' empire of the wicked?

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/06/2006 @ 12:42am

236. LL-- "Perhaps you and others can explain to me why you like living in big cities. I have been to NY and Boston on numerous occasions but I don't see the attraction. I like the country. Yes this conservative prefers nature to cities."

     I live in a big city--I love the energy. I love seeing the image of God in the diversity of so many humans. To me, the country is a great place to relax, collect your thoughts--but God's greatest work is found in human beings, with the largest collections found in big cities. But that's just my opinion...

     Posted by rain man at 01/06/2006 @ 01:17am

237. Perhaps you and others can explain to me why you like living in big cities.

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/05/2006 @ 11:44pm

     I like people.

     They matter to me.

     Posted by Will C. at 01/06/2006 @ 01:45am

238. Shoot, man, I'll take Harlem and the Bronx over places like Fairbanks, Alaska and Fabens, Texas, anytime. The only reason I don't live in NYC anymore is that the pace is so exacting and the environment is so toxic. But the people, man, the people of NYC are some of the nicest I've met anywhere in this country. Certainly a lot warmer and more direct than folks in Seattle, Washington, where I live now. But I try to get a New York fix as often as I can. Most of the folks in the urban centers of the east are dynamite. No nonsense. Great people.

     Posted by Legba at 01/06/2006 @ 02:13am

239. why do I live in the "big apple"? well it's for the people,

     in my 40 years here I have had the good fortune to move in many and varied circles, have had the honor and privilege of meeting and working for several certified geniusses(sic), and have myself grown from an immigrant teenager to a respected and well known, in my field, professional.

     during this long time I have waitered in a fast food restaurant, Chock full o nuts, somewhat like an urban McDonalds, been an office boy at the Ford foundation, sold expensive clothing, drove a cab, worked as an actor, been involved in setting up public access TV networks, studied and videotaped modern dance companies, as well as opera companies and theatre companies.

     I live in a pre-war two bedroom apartment, way uptown, that has more space than many private houses, and is relatively cheap, the indian restaurant, the pizza parlor and the supermarket are one block away, I am 40 minutes away by subway from every part of manhattan.

     I live in the cultural capital of the world, am surrounded by the best museums and art galleries, broadway theaters, worldclass universities, some of which are my clients, a library system unmatched, also a client, I can take my inflatable canoe on the bus to waters edge, and paddle to my heart's content, take a train to miles and miles of spectacular beaches.

     Oh well, forgive the bragging, but I love it here, and as much as I like to visit other places, I cannot imagine living anywhere else.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/06/2006 @ 09:28am

240. apropos the big lie:

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/06/2006 @ 09:30am

241. LL:

     I live in Boston. I am not surprised you prefer the country to cities. It is probably easier for you to maintain your social and political beliefs in an area with a smaller and more homogenous population. Less rocking the boat and more conformity.

     Take one issue: gay marriage. I wouldn't be surprised to find that people who live in smaller rural communities are more against it than those of us who live in cities. Opponents of gay marriage cite to tradition and how gay marriage somehow threatens the sanctity of straight marriages. But, if you live in a small town where most gays are still in the closet, there is little basis for this argument. In a city, openly gay people are your neighbors and co-workers. Some even raise children together. And in my city, they get married. And you know what? Even people who initially were opposed have had a few years with it, and the sky did not fall - their straight marriage is right where it was before. So, the arguments against gay marriage do not hold as much sway in a diverse city as they might in a country town of 1000 people.

     Several months ago, you commented that those of us who live in Eastern urban areas need to visit small towns in the Heartland (or something along those lines) to experience the "real world" as if NYC, Boston, SF, LA, and the like, are in some corner of fantasy land. I have no idea what the "real world" really is, and think such a label is a personal view. But, I do think it odd that you think a small country town represents the "real world" more than a large city with whites, blacks, Latinos, Asians, Europeans, straights, gays, capitalists, socialists, communists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics, blue-collar workers, white-collar workers, academics, artists, and other varieties of people all living together in one community.

     I think a person's world who lives in Plano, Texas is just as "real" as my world in Boston, but is certainly is not as "worldly."

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/06/2006 @ 11:27am

242. Johann

     Hitler c1925 "...in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility..."

     GW Bush c2004 "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

     Pogo (Walt Kelley) c1972 "We have met the enemy and he is us."

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/06/2006 @ 11:30am

243. thanks for the many interesting comments on living in the city.

     I like to be able to see the stars at night, to listen to and watch the hawks and owls that live on my property in the trees. To watch the family of rabbits that feed on vegetation on our property (and even the way my dog hopelessly chases them). I like that my wife and I can go skinny dipping in our pool with no worry of anyone watching us.

     I like that I can go to the city to great restaurants or see a play if I want without having to live there.

     I think these things are formed in our psyche by our family upbringing (sometimes in the reverse), our own personalities, and how much we need the social environment to bring us personal satisfaction.

     I think this is a far better measure of diversity than race or religion or ethnicity, because you can be different in those respects and still fall into being either a city or country person.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/06/2006 @ 12:19pm

244. Just out of curiosity LL - where is your hometown?

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/06/2006 @ 12:42pm

245. Hman, yeah Boston, nicely put

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/06/2006 @ 1:34pm

246. Just out of curiosity LL - where is your hometown?

     Posted by HMAN23 01/06/2006 @ 12:42am

     HM,

     I was born in East LA (LOL-but true). We lived however about 30 miles east of Los Angeles until I was 10 then moved to Orange County. Lived also for a couple of years with my grandparents just outside of Detroit.

     My current domicile is divided between a town known as Moreno Valley (about 60 miles southeast of LA) and a little place in the furthest northern outreaches of Las Vegas (about 30 miles north).

     Posted by love liberty at 01/06/2006 @ 2:07pm