Just stirring the ole political pot.... [Archive]

jeffg

03-30-04, 02:45 PM

Nah, not screaming, laughing because Politics and Media is such a funny topic. Essentially you pick and choose the facts that you wish to utlize and spin them to your needs. You use data that is "current" such as the GDP in 2001 compared to the one listed below, the cnn quote from oct of last year etc. Then use current quotes like the one from greenspan ( good use) and then you read that these are the "revised numbers" from the conf board forecast... and then you go to their site at see there chart http://www.conference-board.org/economics/stalk.cfm ( you get the 5.3 forecast number here, but look at 2005..but again this source the use appears to be forecast only)

Also on GDP/... this is of the 26th of march
March 26, 2004 (Close of Day)
Indicator Value
Inflation 1.69
GDP Growth 4.04
Unemployment 5.60

For the poverty rate. Seeing the ad uses figures from the census released in 92, lets use the census rate release in 2001
After falling for four straight years, the nation's poverty rate rose
from 11.3 percent in 2000 to 11.7 percent in 2001. Median household income
declined 2.2 percent in real terms from its 2000 level to $42,228 in 2001,
according to reports released today by the Commerce Department's Census
Bureau.

As far manufacturing
The employment index jumped to 56.3 in February, the highest level since December 1987, and an increase from January’s 52.9. Ore said that more and more factories are reporting hiring, though the activity has yet to show up in government employment statistics. Although the ISM and other surveys have shown an increase in jobs in the last two months, the government’s January payrolls survey showed a 38,000 decline in manufacturing jobs. The February U.S. payrolls report will be released March 5. Economists forecast a 125,000 job increase.
( the jobs in Feb was , after correcting for the past month 12,000)

According to the ISM report, the top two concerns of manufacturers are the rapid rise in energy prices and the growing steel shortage.
(and this doesnt count the burger flippers who now are counted as part of the mfg emplyee numbers... this change was instituted this year)

(some more facts they didnt include)
Debt - external: $862 billion [1st of 198]
(per $ GDP): $8.24 per $100 [152nd of 195]
(per capita): $2968.90 per person [26th of 198] (from the world bank)

Basically, are you hearing the message you want to hear? or willl people take the time to find out whwere those facts and figures came from?

GUTHOOKED

03-30-04, 06:43 PM

I always thought Bush was just a Democrat-lite anyway. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by GUTHOOKED (edited 03-30-2004).]

The Ole Man

03-30-04, 09:07 PM

Cheney did get a tidy little sum when he stepped down at Halliburton to run as VP--a $40 million dollar golden handshake. Pretty good investment by Halli--I just heard they now have $16 billion in US contracts in Iraq--none of which were bid out competitively btw. So far they've been caught overcharging for fuel deliveries--and meal deliveries. Meal deliveries?? Yep, they have a contract to deliver meals to many of the troops. Got their hand in the pie when they charged US (that's me'n you)for 143,000 meals--and only delivered 14,000. What a country!! And further news from the great US Empire--27,000 defense contractors have been found to be witholding taxes/sss payments from their employees and not submitting them to the IRS. $12 billion dollars worth so far. One contractor used the money to buy a yacht, a Florida home and several luxury cars. The Pentagon comments were--we don't talk to the IRS, so we don't have any idea who does and doesn't turn in their tax witholdings. On the local tax front--Ga Dept of Revenue says Ga has $1 billion in delinquent taxes outstanding. Perdue has had to cut state budgets twice already for around a $323 million shortfall. Unnecessary if just 1/3rd of the delinquent taxes were collected. Incredibly, Ga Dept of Revenue says they MIGHT be able to collect $100 million of the 1 billion owed--they're "working on it". A final note on American society---an enterprising fellow is now selling "My Pet Fat". A yellow silicone glob that looks like extracted fat cells. This comes in a "supermarket size" (football size) that you take along in your grocery cart as a visual reminder to not purchase fatty foods. The smaller "fastfood size" is for placing on your table at the local burger joint or on your vehicle seat in the drive-thru. Something new for the Christmas list.

[This message has been edited by The Ole Man (edited 03-30-2004).]

JOHNKIES

03-31-04, 09:42 AM

Fishmonger, I have to agree with you on this one: The US is not in Iraq to get the oil. The current White House wants to get the Iraqi oil fields working again, pumping oil and exporting it to generate revenues inside Iraq. And Iraq will need that money to pay for the reconstruction of their national infrastructure, oil production, roads, telecommunications, airports, factories, hospitals, you name it. And the only revenue generator Iraqis have is the oil.

Now guess who is going to do all that rebuilding since Iraq also has no major construction companies? Haliburton and other big-time Republican campaign contributors, that's who. These will probably also be no-bid deals and we will keep our thumb on the Iraqi government just long enough to lock in those contracts. The goal is make sure there is enough oil to pay American countries - and maybe a few select Brits - for their work.

It's all about the money.

Grady

03-31-04, 09:50 AM

And until there is enough oil, we'll pay them with U.S. tax dollars.

[This message has been edited by Grady (edited 03-31-2004).]

fishmonger

03-31-04, 02:34 PM

Just wondering: How many companies do you think are capable of handling projects of this size?

I work for a mechanical contractor, and know that every company is not necessarilycapable of doing every job. Also, regarding bidding jobs: A bid is only as good as 1)the info that you have before bid day, 2) a company's experience with similar work, 3) how much time is allowed to synthesize the available info into a coherent scope of work, and 4)the ability of the bid-taker to assess the bids on an even playing field, ie, are the bids "apples to apples". If some of these factors don't work, then jobs are often negotiated on a cost plus basis, time and materials basis, or a not to exceed basis. Of coarse, negotiated jobs happen most frequently between parties that are familiar with each other. Checks are instituted to track costs, etc, to ensure against gouging.

So, that means that realistically, there are maybe half a dozen companies in the world that could perform the work required in Iraq. And since the scope of work is obviously daunting, even virtually too large as to even be describable, it makes some sense that it was basically negotiated. And yes, Cheney is intimately familiar with Halliburton personnel and capabilities. And given that there is not a lot of down time for preparing bids, and assesing them, this is really the only way to get the rebuilding work done in Iraq. And checks of the work, and billing, have found decrepencies, as they are designed to do.

Another question: Would the left have been OK with a decision by Bush to bid out this work, assuming that nothing got done for a year while bids were being prepared? I think that there would be much wailing about the Iraqis not having electricity, water, sewers, etc. Bush would be accused of "not caring" for the welfare of the people.

FM

[This message has been edited by fishmonger (edited 03-31-2004).]

Bob M

03-31-04, 03:54 PM

jeffg

You are pretty good at the rumor hunting. Regarding folks proclivity to selectively listen to facts for the purposes of self-validation: You can lead a mule to water, but it's still a .... well you get the pictue.

The cost of energy is an issue that most folks have missed. Cheap energy was one of the drivers of the economy during the 1990's. With the dollars recent erosion in value, $30 a barrel isn't going to provide the purchasing power to oil producing nations that it once did. It's no surprise that OPEC just announced a reduction in production intending increase prices.

Thank you AA for; "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt."

Rocketroy

04-01-04, 02:01 PM

You nailed it Fishmonger! I too was a contractor in the Atlanta market for 35 yrs. and competed against many who could not perform......and my firm often was given substantial contracts,due to our size,reliabilty,and job time responses!The constraints......time!....... being a strong economic factor in final completion costs.....especially on the larger efforts! In my case,only money was involved,not loss of lives,as in the hugely complex and dangerous Iraqi situation,...... Imagine the cost of the Iraqi Bidding process: being strung out,as bids are evaluated; interrupted by public hearings,held on their "fairness" in meeting minority requirements,openness of the process,and of course being fairly distributed thru-out the supportive international community!...... being fair to such countries as: France,Germany,Russia,and No.Korea,come to mind! Imagine the results!...... Since there is economic ignorance in abundance,in this country,while convenient conspiracy theory comforts many,the threat of world dominance by Radical Muslim movements takes on extreme importance,calling for extreme measures Immediately! Not allowing for the " Love Of Process " advocates! Events have been imposed on this imperfect country,under attack,mostly because we enjoy an enviable existence,whereas most peoples do not! I firmly believe that a second 100 or longer idealogical war is under way,similar to the first 100 yr.war,and that our administration is acutely aware of the importance of decisively successful responses! Now, I will retire to the Habersham community bunker,built during an earlier threat to this Democracy,by the Communist countries....... having been built in the 1950,s........ where I will be safe from the incomings, that are sure to follow this post! Stay resolved,Americans!!!!! Regards Rocketroy of Clarkesville

------------------

Bob M

04-01-04, 02:36 PM

Agreed, that Atlanta government contracting incorporates some bizarre behavior. A lot of Federal contracting does too. A lot of that centers around 1.) attempts social engineering 2,) making sure that no price gouging is going on and 3.) the Pentagon's occasional efforts at over-designing specifications in weapons system RFP's.

I doubt that we'll have a contracting problem in Iraq regarding a mandated % of the work having to go to MWOB's. We might have some (more) problem(s) with price gouging and back door deals.

A little government oversight and openness isn’t a bad thing. It’s also a good idea too keep the BS deflectors in place when listening to histrionic news stories about massive corruption. It’s an election year after all.

Bob M

04-01-04, 03:00 PM

Rocketroy, you can probably come out of your bunker now.

I don't know about any Great Ideological War, but it is true that the U.S. has PO'd a lot of the Muslim community with its unquestioning support of Israeli antics in the occupied territories. We may as well be driving the tanks ourselves. This poisons the good that we do in the region and there is little hope in arguing with the devout, of any stripe.

Sadly, it is true: As we sow, so shall we reap.

04-01-04, 05:15 PM

The Haliburton debate gets so tiring.

Haliburton did actually bid on the contract. And yes they won the bid. After the war had started the contract was up for re-bid. However, during war time, when U.S. military contracts are up for re-bid, the contracts are instead extended because it does'nt make sense to switch contractors for services like logistical support during the middle of a war. Not exactly the most strategic move.

Haliburton has been supplying logistic support since before Bush Sr., and yes through the entire Clinton Admin. In fact, when Clinton was lobbing missels himself, guess who it was the Clinton Admin. extended its contract with; without a bid?
Its funy how none of the left was wetting its pants then.

------------------
KB

* >`{{~< (http://www.creekcaster.com)

JOHNKIES

04-01-04, 06:18 PM

KB: First, there was no bid for the current Halburton contracts supplying US armed forces in Iraq. Second, whatever Clinton did with Haliburton it was not to support a war effort initiated by his administration. Third, "middle of a war"? I thought Dubya stood on the deck of that carrier and said the war was over? And finally you are right in that the discussion over Haliburton is tiring - - let's look instead at Cheney's ties to Enron's CEO. ---JCK---

sangell

04-01-04, 07:02 PM

He did not declare the war over. He declared an end to the MAJOR conflicts in Iraq. Which has taken place. If you are going to twist words then find somewhere where people believe your twisted truths.

[This message has been edited by sangell (edited 04-01-2004).]

duane

04-01-04, 09:29 PM

Have any of you ever heard of the LOGCAP program? If you go to boortz.com, click on archives and type in Dec.1,2003, and scroll down to read about it,. very interesting. If someone could copy it here, many thanks, there is somethimg wrong with my computer, I can`t get to the site, very frustrating, I can look at some sites but not others, I`m about ready to put this thing through the wall!

Duane

fishmonger

04-02-04, 08:47 AM

...Enron CEO. And Martha Stewart decorates his house, he buys his clothes direct from 3rd world sweatshops, and travels in a captured alien spacecraft.

I am really glad that we have some leadership from the business world for a change, as opposed to the lawyers that Dems seem to love. Business is survival of the fittest, and lawyering is often survival of the slickest.

FM

JOHNKIES

04-02-04, 09:33 AM

Sangell - - you are correct, Dubya said "end of major conflict". So, what do you call what is going on now?

Bob M

04-02-04, 10:15 AM

FM,

The big emotional wailing about the plague of trial lawyers is another area where there is much less than meets the eye.

An analysis of legal actions taken in Georgia a few years back proved that there wasn't a big problem. Regardless of the lack of substance, the sound byte remains emotionally effective.

The politically connected don't need trial lawyers. They prefer to use lawyer-lobbyists and large political contributions. Unfortunately, I can't afford those and am therefore grateful that there is a rule of law with legal recourse. I would prefer to keep them, rather than depend on the whimsy of an aristocracy.

jeffg

04-02-04, 10:44 AM

Lets get rid of the lawyers so that the pesky public cant sue a major corporation for dumping its waste in the local water supply
Lets get rid of those pesky lawyers before they make our company stick to the laws mandated by the govt
Lets get rid of the lawyers because they may hurt our bottom line
Lets get rid of lawyers because the citizens have enough "protected" rights already.

I have to admit that I too am not a big fan of lawyers, but they do have their places.. heck for all you lawyers haters, guess Ted Olsen is now off the Wall of Fame for you all.... let alone Ken Starr....

lone wolf

04-02-04, 10:56 AM

I say let's just go and impeach ole'Bill again, surely he's still getting a few #*#* and lying about it. That way we can all just go fihin' http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif

sageboy

04-02-04, 11:12 AM

Actually I think Haliburton first provided logistical support for our military dating back to the Johnson administration.

And fishmonger, speaking of Martha Stewart, I understand that her tip of the day is:

"A little lemon and seltzer will remove those pesky ink stains after you've been fingerprinted." http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif

Thought this thread could use a little comic relief.

Bob

Grady

04-02-04, 06:24 PM

I guess we're lucky to have had a company as able and dedicated to the task as is Halliburton. With all the problems it has had with billing, cost estimates, following federal regs, kickbacks, etc., think of the mess we might be in if we had gone with a less reputable or able firm. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/politics/8314012.htm

[This message has been edited by Grady (edited 04-02-2004).]

fishmonger

04-02-04, 10:44 PM

I never said "get rid of all lawyers", I was implying that maybe a lawyer doesn't always make the best President. In 2004, that is certainly the case.

FM

Rocketroy

04-03-04, 07:07 AM

Grady, Et.Al. Out of my bunker this morning, since no incomings so far..... from my last pol. post..... thanks, guys! I,....am Never one to defend corruption anywhere!,but..... Grady,your description of how Halliburton is handling their difficult war zone contracts sounds very much like a description of "Guv.ment" on the Natl./State/local scene!A careful reading of your Miami Herald article..... which was very objective.... to their credit, reveals: a $300 million "review" level amount of money in question,out of $6 billion in contracts involved!.... Hardly a relatively staggering percentage,since, from my 35 year contracting experience,in the private/public sector.... this value typically represents the usual 5 per cent{sometimes 10 percent} retainage,generally considered reasonable,and held by the contract-issuing party until a final walk-thru inspection is done! Of course the Democrats are attributing everything,but the Iraqi dust storms to all involved with this administration! This One-man,s opinion supports that we are witnessing largely the result of faults inherent in managing HUGE establishments at work,{both private/& public with no real prospect of ever being manageable!}...... Fear this: As in the favorite cry by those in love with government: "Why they are out of control!" We all should hope that the conspiracy advocates never get this country under "control".......such thinking is extremely dangerous to freedom,as we enjoy it! Now, I shall don my Crap.... er. .... Flak Jacket, and return to the Habersham county bomb shelter..... to avoid ..... INCOMING! Let,s now string-em up, and hit the creeks! Regards,Rocketroy

------------------

Grady

04-03-04, 01:36 PM

Fair enough, Roy. Certainly we are talking about a huge underaking in reconstructing Iraq, and it would be foolish to think there would be no mistakes, overruns, etc. But there are allegations here that go beyond good-faith mistakes. There are allegations of kickbacks, bribes, etc. Two employees were forced to resign after being caught taking kickbacks. I read an article a few months ago that accused Halliburton of serving spoiled food to soldiers in dirty cafeterias (I'll try to find it.) Many believe the company knowingly overcharged for gasoline, despite its claims to the contrary. If it is acknowledged that it charged a dollar more per gallon than the going rate, questions should be asked, and answers demanded. A little oversight is a good thing!

Bob M

04-05-04, 11:17 AM

Roy, True regarding Haliburton drama being overblown. This is an election year and we're going to have to keep the BS deflectors in place. Much of the hulabaloo about Clinton was the same kind of tripe. OK so he had a girlfriend and was a lousy husband. Big deal. The few huge international construction companies do a little gouging and are involved in kickbacks. With some governments, no kickbacks means no contract. It doesn't make it right, but Haliburton is going to get singled out because of the election year and grief surrounding Iraq. Politics isn't a thinking person's game. Emotion sells.

Grady

04-05-04, 08:28 PM

The questions and concerns about Halliburton, Cheney, etc. didn't begin this year. And that ole "well, it's an election year" thing can cut both ways. Somebody on Hardball the other night trotted it out concerning Clarke's allegatons, and Matthews repsonded, "of course it's political, the question is, is it true."

Bob M

04-06-04, 07:08 AM

Grady, I agree with you in that we need to run the alegations down and prosecute as indicated. The point was that we'll have a lot of sensationalist hoo-ha along with it and we shouldn't get too distracted with the noise.

jeffg

04-06-04, 10:17 AM

If you really want to stir the political pot, then here is a question for you...
why does GW needs his VP to sit in with him so that they can jointly answer inquiries from the 9/11 commission??
He is such a straight shootin, stand up, war leader that he should be able to use those leadership abilities to speak to the commission alone...right???
(yeah I will get blasted for this one.. but gotta have some fun)

Grady

04-06-04, 11:36 AM

I wonder if Cheney will show off by drinking a glass of water while Bush moves his lips. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif

JOHNKIES

04-06-04, 01:00 PM

At the end of the day, the 09/11 Commission has to be about looking forward to help us avoid future attacks of this nature and to restructure the gathering and use of information among competing government agencies. This is our new global world of commerce, culture, and unfortunately, violence. But to look ahead, you have to look back to see where mistakes were made, identify problem areas, and make corrections. This is painful for those involved in government because they will have to take responsibilities for their mistakes. And that includes the Clinton administration, both Bush administrations, and the Reagan administration. As political entities, any admission of mistake is fuel for the fires of politics and we will have to see how they all stand up to the heat.

As for Bush and Cheney testifying together, that is curious if for no other reason than their strictly enforced separation since 09/11. I wonder why they decided to join for this session?

sangell

04-07-04, 08:04 PM

"Sangell - - you are correct, Dubya said "end of major conflict". So, what do you call what is going on now?"

The fact that you even ask that question only tells me that you really only want to twist things around to fit your agenda even more. It only proves to me that trying to actually discuss anything with you would be pointless.

In Bush I see a president who was confronted with the greatest national tragedy since Pearl Harbor (even though Pearl Harbor was mostly military and 9-11 was civilian) I see a man who said enough, we will not lay down while cowards try to kill us. I see a man who is doing his best to protect a country and doing a **** good job. I see a man who was not afraid to stand alone and confront those who would want to see us all dead. I am sure you see his actions as for political gain or for some agenda that remains unseen and luckily for you, in this country you have that right. In some ways I admire you for speaking your beliefs while I would expect your respect for my disagreement. Just keep this in mind, the people in Iraq that did not agree with what President Hussien was doing were exterminated!!!! Usually AFTER watching their families tortured and killed.
I have close family members that are currently serving in the military. It makes me sick when people like you make comments like you did in this post. What is going on now is NOT major combat!!!! Not even close! To be honest with you there really has not been any MAJOR combat in the war in Iraq. Our fine military basically took Bahgdad without a fight. What we have, for the most part, dealt with and are still dealing with are small bands of cowards JUST like the ones that killed so many on September 11th. People that will disquise themselves, pretend to be surrendering, blowing themselves and innocent bystanders up to attack us. Thats is what I call the events taking place now. Acts of cowards! Nothing more.
I know that what fuels a lot of you liberals is that you still can not deal with the fact that Bush won. Even after all the recounts, including the ones performed by the "liberal" press, he won. I have seen and heard all the "Best president ever elected by the surpreme courts!" All the courts did was NOT elect Gore. I mean you liberals got every ballot you possibly could get thrown out, thrown out. Including countless numbers of military ballots, indivdulas possibly still putting their lives on the line daily, thrown out. He still won. Fair and Honestly! The fact that because of this you still could not get behind a man trying to defend and protect you sickens me!

Now, from now one whatever you have to say about ANY president, be thankful you can say it without wispering and without having to hope and pray that you REALLY know the person you are telling it to.

I doubt any of this will mean anything to you, it will be easy for you to dismiss and twist around to make you feel better about your own beliefs. I just take comfort in the fact that there is no way this country as a whole is dumb enough to put Kerry in the Whitehouse. I mean other than you and Jane Fonda, who in their right mind will vote for this guy???????

Grady

04-07-04, 10:40 PM

From Harold Meyerson's column in today's Washington Post:

"The only unequivocally good policy option before the American people is to dump the president who got us into this mess, who had no trouble sending our young people to Iraq but who cannot steel himself to face the Sept. 11 commission alone."

Rocketroy

04-08-04, 09:01 AM

Morning Grady,Johnkies,& Jeff G.,Et.Al....... including Myerson of the Washington post: Consider the scene of your President,and your Vice president,being grilled on separate days,by this politically charged commission,searching for the "truth"...... many maybe,just maybe, eager to find discrepancies in responses! I can just see the brushes and tar buckets coming out before the press,in this election year,if 100%,word-for-word replies were not elicited! How dificult can it be to appreciate both appearing at the same time, in order to improve recall,when all decisions made by ANY president involve lengthy interchange with their team mates! Since there are a few lawyers on the commission,most seeking fairness,will understand the negotiated conditions.......Since I do not ascribe to conspiracy being involved with most human activity,the ebb & flow of GOOD/BAD events is not disturbing to me!As to Myerson,s "Steel" remark,...... He,like many glib commentators,cannot,and may never understand the importance of "Standing & Fighting"...... only: "Sitting & Writing!" We now have a pro-active defense policy president,now taking plenty of political hits,while delivering on his promise to seek out those who publically are dedicated to freedoms destruction,and assisting them,on their journey to their promised virgins......SICK!......Please pass the word,cause many in the press are only reading their on writings! NO-BODY ..... NO- BODY..... understands the extreme Muslim world,but this administration listens when. radicals say: KILL ALL AMERICANS WHEREVER THEY ARE!....Then,are going about doing it!Finally,how does this board feel about the arrogant Richard Clarke apologizing for our President and your country,for not heading off 9/11? If Clarke had the integrity,that he now shrouds himself in,and could not get the president to act before the strike as he 3 years later writes about...... and the conviction of his beliefs.......THEN would have been the time in early 2001, to SHOUT OUT!.... and publically expose the threat plans.....Whose most @ fault here?....... Thank goodness he was not Paul Revere! Finally/finally.....consider the brlliant strategy,of one side benefit of the Iraqi conflict: of course,never articulated...... of drawing many of the extremist of Muslim extremests,to a central point,around a central theme......and taking the battle to them effectively,......rather than waiting in a defensive mode....to their advantage!..... Costly in the short run..... brilliant militarily!..... Venting is healthy!...... now your turn! "Gone to the creek",...... Healthier!.... I,m Rocketroy of Clarkesville

------------------

Bob M

04-08-04, 09:16 AM

Really. Where is Ken Starr when you need him. Why leave this to novices?

jeffg

04-08-04, 10:05 AM

No problem dealing with bush winning.
]Hard timne dealing with the fact he hasnt budgeted for a war in this years budget and he is a war president.. last time he did this too and came up with 87 biollion as soon as the budget was passed
Problem with why again are we in Iraq? What is the reason this week? Where is OSAMA?
Problem with a No CHild Left bill that doesnt have the financial backing to make it even somewhat work and that the houston schools system it is based on passes students that should be held back or keeps kids on teh attendance list that dropped out
Problem that alot of our Allies no longer trust us.. i know that isnt a big deal to alot of people, but its always nice to have friends
Problem that women in afghanistan have no rights outside of Kabul.. and we liberated this country..
Problem our Ally Pakistan sold Nuke Tech to N.Korea, and Iran and all we get is " I am sorry" and the Pres still claims the doctor is a national hero
Problem we proimise AIDS money to the help the epdemic in Africa and back out of it since it may include teaching the people about using birth control other than abstinance
Problem: The Medicare bill and the true cost was suppressed until after it passed
Problem dealing with mountain top mining ( removing and dumping the top of a mtn into the nearest stream)
etc and so forth

Grady

04-08-04, 10:27 AM

Clarke's words:

"I also welcome the hearings because it is finally a forum where I can apologize to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11, to them who are here in the room, to those who are watching on television.

Your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. And I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter, because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask, once all the facts are out, for your understanding and for your forgiveness."

This is a personal apology. Nowhere does he say he is apologizing on behalf of the president or the government. He does say we, those in government including himself, failed. But it seems clear to me that he is speaking only for himself.

BLACK KNIGHT

04-08-04, 12:10 PM

Condoleeza Rice is knocking it out of the park on TV.

JOHNKIES

04-08-04, 01:47 PM

The 09/11 Commission is half Republican and half Democrat, so yes it is politically charged in both directions. As for Bush & Cheney, they have the opportunity to validate their actions and possibly come out the better. Might be quite the campaign item for them.

fishmonger

04-08-04, 02:25 PM

Grady,

The way I read it, and understood it as he said it, he was DEFINATELY speaking for the entire government. How could you possibly think otherwise?!? He started his "apology" with the words "Your government failed you, blah blah blah".

He is not in a position to speak for the government. Period.

FM

Rocketroy

04-08-04, 04:43 PM

Incoming Grady! .... BTW, Good try in support of Clarke,s showboating sympathy statement! Since the President and his administration is constitutionally mandated to provide the defense of this country,and "They",sure are one of "those" in government,I believe it reasonable,that his administration,is included in "Those" covered by this one man,s apology,for "those" he charges as responsible for 9/11 ...... for not detecting a shadow enemy threat;perhaps a tell all book is in order,to really fully expose such ineffiency!...... or was it obvious dereliction of duty {by "Those" in government?}......There must be a conspiracy out there somewhere that applies! How patriotic it would be,if Clarke decides to tell all,in a book,that he take a small amount of U.S.currency,from his advance,and pay for the personal apology ads you contend he is offering,which by the way,he perverted on my tax dollars time ...... in my opinion,as a crass promo.,for a book he is thinking of writing!...... Or so I,ve heard! Consider the way many feel,when any private or public figure steps up and attempts to speak for this diverse culture of some 280 million people,represented by elected officials...... Most grossly resent such arrogance,especially on such an emotionally charged element of our recent history.....It took diplomatic pressure on Japan & Germany almost 50 years to elicit an apology from those country,s governments,for their part in starting a HUGE war! Clarke wasted no time,but this country,s! Signed, " not a fan" Rocketroy of Clarkesville

------------------

fishnpreacher

04-08-04, 05:44 PM

When all the shoutin' is done and the smoke clears, I'm still proud to be an American. Osama took his best shot and failed. We did not crumble and fall like the stone and steel of the World Trade centers.
Saddam is gone-- good riddance. I still like hearing his words, "I want to negotiate." Negotiations are over.
Dr. Rice told it like it was, is and will be. God bless her.
And for those who want to know "Why Iraq?"
http://winemaking.jackkeller.net/whyiraq.asp

And we are definitely better off than if 14 more Floridians had voted for Gore.

Proud to be American
Proud to be a Bush supporter

------------------
If you go through life and miss me, you missed nothing. If you go through life and miss Jesus, you missed everything

Grady

04-08-04, 11:40 PM

Richard Clarke on Rice's testimony today:

And frankly, I think that Dr. Rice's testimony today, and she did a very good job, basically corroborates what I said. She said that the president received 40 warnings face to face from the director of central intelligence that a major al Qaeda attack was going to take place and she admitted that the president did not have a meeting on the subject, did not convene the Cabinet. She admitted that she didn't convene the Cabinet. And as some of the commissioners pointed out, this was in marked contrast to the way the government operated in December of 1999, when it had similar information and it successfully thwarted attacks

Jennings: Do you agree with her, and she said it repeatedly this morning, that the structural deficiencies, most notably in the relationship between the FBI and the CIA prevented and would have prevented any administration from doing a better job?

Clarke: No, I don't. We had meetings that I chaired two and three times a week where FBI and the CIA shared information. My deputy had a daily meeting where that took place. The problem was that there was information buried in FBI and the CIA that wasn't shaken out.

And by having the Cabinet members come to the White House every day in crisis mode and then go back to their departments and look for anything that is stop the attacks. You know, there may be structural problems within those agencies, but the way you overcome them in a crisis mode is by having the leaders of the agencies get together in the White House as a team in crisis mode.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/US/clarke_interview_transcript_040408-2.html

[This message has been edited by Grady (edited 04-08-2004).]

Bob M

04-09-04, 07:07 AM

FM, Clarke was apologizing for Clark. It translates more along the lines of 'Your government failed you and I apologize for my part in it.' It is not his place to apologize for the entire government, and even if he tried, the administration has disavowed Clark, which by extension would disavow any action or apology by Clark.

Condi Rice's testimony has not fared well in the UK, (where I'm marooned at the moment). The news channels are very quick to point out factual contradictions in her testimony, of which there were many. They tend to report more of the story behind the story here, instead of opting for the sound byte then moving on the advertisements for hemorrhoid preparation and hygiene spray.

It gets worse. The UK has been our staunchest ally in Iraq to date. If the US responds to the recent Iraq uprising in a manner similar to the Israeli’s methods in the Occupied Territories, then the Britt’s are probably out of there, as will be nearly everyone else, and we'll be left with our own Occupied Territories.
> If we show the same amount of staying power that we did in Afghanistan the first time around, then we will have created an enemy far worse than Saddam.
> If we stay and use 'Occupied Territory Tactics' then we will face a prolonged Israeli/Palestinian style conflict and become a world pariah.
> The Nuremberg trials established the penalty for genocide, as well they should.
> There are some middle courses, but they are not simple-minded and they will be very costly in terms of blood, money, and political prestige. Politicians tend to be averse to spending political prestige.

Things do not look good.

Windknot

04-09-04, 09:53 AM

Bob M - Don't eat the "bubble and squeek"!

Bob mentioned the British perception of America's family feud. I recommend http://www.economist.com/
as a good source for the British take on our activities on this side of the pond. It's still about the most objective news magazine you'll find in Europe. I used to subscribe to the magazine years ago, but enjoy it online now.

The Brits, in general, and the Economist, in particular, manage to find many more "cause and effect" relationships than we generally see in our publications regarding any one issue.
Don

fishmonger

04-09-04, 10:01 AM

Peter Jennings? Yeah, there is a real unbiased reporter, huh?

What we're seeing in Iraq right now are the final death throws of the status quo. Others in the region, notably Iran and Syria, see the writing on the wall. When freedom of choice and self-direction finally settles in in Iraq, the middle east will be forever changed. The change will be for the good of the people of the region, and indeed the rest of the world, but not good for the rulers, and their minions. A generation of the new ways will end the cycle of hopelessness that has genereated the seemingly endless supply of Islamic nutcase terrorists. When young people have some vision of a possible positive future, they will quit blowing themselves up to get at others. This end result is worth the price. The alternative is an all out clash of cultures, which I am confidant that the "west" would win, but at a MUCH more terrible price.

FM

Bob M

04-09-04, 10:16 AM

Windknot, thanks for the tip on The Economist.

'Bubble & squeek' is pretty good, as is 'Toad in the Hole'. I'm afraid I had to draw the line at 'black pudding' and 'spotted d###'. Good grief, I can't even bear to write the name in a post.

The Britt's do have a 'direct' reporting style as well. It's taken some acclimation to hearing a broadcast journalists say things like "I'm sure that scared them ####less". Their directness tends to push right through most forms of government-speak.

BLACK KNIGHT

04-09-04, 10:46 AM

Grady- Are you actually suggesting 9/11 could have been stopped if Bush had been
"more on the ball"? That there was a way to foresee the attacks, and that the steps to eliminate that threat would have been met with anything less than utter revolt by the public and media? That the public would have supported a pre-emptive, unilateral strike against Afghanistan and other terrorist sponsors before 9/11? We can't even get support for deposing a dictator whose Army fired every day for 10 years
upon allied aircraft enforcing a UN directive and the terms of ending the 1st Gulf War.
They had non-specific threat warnings- nobody could predict when, where, or how an attack might be played out. The plan was already in place. Maybe if FBI/CIA had done better jobs tracking their terrorist watch list things might have been different. But to blame the President and NSA is ludicrous beyond belief.
The whole blame game is really funny- I've come to learn from libs who HATE Bush that he's responsible for every ill of the known world, from boll weevils to dirty air, from AIDS to overcooked Grits. Sheesh.

sangell

04-09-04, 11:14 AM

I for one think the 9-11 hearings are for the most part a complete waste of time, money and resources. To me it seems like soo many want to find an AMERICAN to point their finger at and say "It was your fault!", "You did not protect us!" Those same people are the ones that are saying we should not be in Iraq, that Bush is a war-monger, etc. You can't have it both ways. Furthermore; in case you did not realize it. It was Muslim Extremists that caused those 3 planes to kill thousands of people on 9-11 not Bush, or even Clinton for that matter. While I think Clinton could have done more in the way of dealing with the Osama Bin Ladens of the world, I do not hold him accountable in any way for the events of 9-11. The people I feel are responsible are already dead. Those that planned and orchestrated the events hopefully shall join them very soon.

jeffg

04-09-04, 11:50 AM

Iran is a very interesting point and country that you brought up FM.. That country's population is @ 65% 25 yrs old or younger. The change is from within, but how many of these youths ( unemployment rate of is incredibly high for this gourp..i will search for exact number) continue to sit idle....and not take the anger they have at their Mullah leaders and direct it elsewhwere.
If you look at it, alot of the hatred directed at us is hatred that should have been directed at their own leaders, but those leaders hiding behind a veil of Religion re-directs that evil/hatred elsewhere... its happening in Saudi, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Egypt etc and so forth.
That is the cycle we need to somehow change and combat.. and soldiers, our soldiers, cant change that... it is a cultural thing and having our culture dictate to their culture that our culture is better than theirs doesnt help to resolve the issue either.
Personally I dont know if there is a definitive answer to that issue, let alone a solution.. yes I believe there are muliple things we can do, but they may add up to hitting the hornest nest and just getting stung. and Iran will be if not already Nuke capable makes them a tough opponent for us.. just look at our "negotiations" with N. Korea...
( non proliferation needs to be at the forefront of our foriegn relations it is i know but we need to hammer this home, and more us money, yep OUR tax money needs to be spent to secure and or/either remove or destroy the old soviet nuke installations, etc.. before the black market ends up supplying some wacko with the necessary means to scare every american living in anyy city...)

As far as the blame game.. any president in power is held responsible for the stuff that happens when he is in office.. for good or for ill.. that is just the nature of the beast, its been that way ever since Geo Washington, and will be that way for the rest of history..

[This message has been edited by jeffg (edited 04-09-2004).]

Grady

04-09-04, 12:00 PM

No one is saying the attack should have been prevented. What the evidence shows is that Bush, in the face of warnings from Clarke, Tenet and several foreign governments that SOMETHING was about to happen, did NOTHING. Rice said yesterday there was no "silver bullet" that could have stopped the attack. And someone on the commission responded, "that doesn't mean you don't load the gun." And that is the whole point. Maybe no matter what you do, you can't stop it. But the one thing that is sure is that you can't stop it by doing NOTHING.

Bob M

04-09-04, 01:42 PM

I'll go out on a limb here and say: Yes, the 9/11 hearings are a waste of time.

Obviously the Ken Starr investigations were a waste of time too. ....and a waste of $60 million dollars, which resulted in far fewer arrests and convictions then we had with either the Reagan or Bush Sr. administrations, plus the realization the Clinton had a girlfriend.

Unfortunately, these hearings are an artifact of politics and we can't have it both ways.

These hearings have been hard fought for by a dedicated group of widows of 9/11 victims. While I don’t think that anything meaningful will come from the hearings, I won’t begrudge the widows their hearings. They have lost enough, and this is little enough to give them.

BLACK KNIGHT

04-09-04, 06:53 PM

Grady - I predict SOMETHING is going to happen. What do YOU propose we do?

jeffg- While I agree the commander is always responsible for what happens on his shift that are under his control, and it it is his reaction to circumstances beyond his control that he is accountable for, not failure to read a crystal ball and tea leaves. People already bitch and moan about the security measures invoked AFTER we were attacked, can you imagine the revolt if Bush implemented such measures because SOMETHING might be going to happen.

Tom

04-09-04, 09:18 PM

I stand with BK....I also predict, Something is going to happen! What do we do? How do we prepare?
What we do is quit haggling about what did or didn't happen and support our troops to the limit until they get back home! Then, have at it!
Remember, we declared war against Germany...they didn't attack us!
Truman ordered us to Korea...they didn't attack us!
JFK, the saint of high office, involved us in Vietnam...they didn't attack us!
Clinton got us involved in Bosnia....I don't remember their forces attacking any U. S. possesions.
WE WERE ATTACKED BY THE OSSAMA AND HIS ILK AND FELT THREATENED BY IRAQ.

GregLS

04-09-04, 11:12 PM

DAAAAANG! Boys ya'll sure can stir a pot! http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gifLooks like that ole wooden spoon is close to being worn down to a nub!

I had no idea a little Dubya clip would get ya'll going this much!

Glad to see it and see that it has stayed civil and not gotten personal! Thanks Guys! Keep it up! http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif

Grady

04-10-04, 12:01 AM

I was speaking in general terms, BK. Poke around this sight and you will get some specifics of what the warnings were. As for what to do, Clarke spelled it out. You call meetings of the principals players and compare notes, then send the players back to their agencies to "shake the tree" to find out what folks know. If you have a threat, do you not take it seriously because you can't determine its exact nature?
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/9_11_warnings.html

And meanwhile, back at the ranch:
[URL=http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_04_04.php#002831]

[This message has been edited by Grady (edited 04-09-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Grady (edited 04-09-2004).]

Grady

04-10-04, 12:25 AM

And this just in:

Bush was warned in the Aug. 6 daily briefing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/10/politics/10PANE.html?hp

Rocketroy

04-10-04, 09:02 AM

And this just in! Actionable intelligence has been received by the administration, that some 1000 cells are in the final planning stages of an attack on the peace and well being of a large western city! Led by foreign elements,the number and location as yet not determined.....gangs of thugs are said to be financed and equipped,thru the trade in elicit drugs;trained in terror tactics,using kidnapping and intimidation to control the population.......often to the point of assassination of law enforcement and public officials! At this writing,only the when,where,and how are unknown creating the delimma of how,when and where to react against this intelligence!....... the 1,300,000th such: garnered since 1990,when previous administrations were first put on alert!From his office in the West Wing,virtual president Martin Sheen blasted the Los Angeles administration for not protecting the community and in not securing the 12,000 banks.....18,450 service stations,.... and 22,040 liquor stores against the intelligence indicating these potential "hit targets!" It has been circulated on the streets that several of these will be held up sometime in the next few weeks,and Sheen...... although not recommending any pre-emptive action against those cells,yet to be involved,urges Chief of police "Clarke" Kent..... AKA SUPERMAN,to negotiate,rather than create ill will in the nearby states. East Los Angeles residents are up in arms; calling the "Hood" sacred ground,not to be defiled,by Outsiders,intent on exploiting their natural resources! It is hoped by many,that a contingent of negotiators,led by Presidential candidate John Kerry,will be successful in putting an end to the crisis, created by this administrations neglect of the obvious need to protect this community! We,as citizens,should demand,at the least an apology,from those in power,for allowing this threat to develop! Now! I feel all fuzzy and safe! Regards, U-ALL.... From: Rocketroy of Clarkesville

------------------

vonchim

04-10-04, 12:16 PM

I think Clark is just saying that the Bush admin. didn't realize the importance of the danger as much as he did. And therefore didn't act on the info as urgently as he would have wished. Of course it was scary enough that John Ashcroft started using charter aircraft in the summer of 2001 because of "security issues". He is to testify this week.
Old news here. http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/WarOnTerror/NewPearlHarbor.asp

I posted awhile back some of the PNAC documents.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Read the Rebuilding Americas Defenses, one of their documents. I think the section on the middle east is interesting. http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

And if we didn't need the oil, it wouldn't be an issue.
Back to the very low creek, where hopefully the fish are biting.

[This message has been edited by vonchim (edited 04-10-2004).]

Bob M

04-11-04, 06:28 AM

'Something' may happen. Here is a curious theory:

Forget looking at the situation from 30,000 feet. Move back 300 miles and take a gander. As a species, humanity is doing exceptionally well. Our population has been doubling in size every 25 to 30 years, ever since an obscure German scientist figured out how to fix nitrogen to make chemical fertilizer. We number about 6 billion now and some estimates put the maximum sustainable human population at 10 to 12 billion.

Since we have eliminated many of our natural predators, our numbers can only be held in check by; disease, resource depletion, warfare, natural disaster, serendipity, or '(un)common sense'. Anyone familiar with what an overpopulation of a deer herd results in can probably hazard a guess of the risks.

This is nothing new and it has run in cycles for at least the last 5,000 years or so. When a human population is stressed, one tends to see in increase in nationalism and religion. This does a lot of good, in that they relieve the stress, though not always pleasantly.

These are the good years. Enjoy them.

Happy Easter.

Grady

04-19-04, 10:41 AM

Bob Woodward says that Bush conspired with a foreign country, Saudi Arabia, to manipulate U.S. gas prices and the upcoming election.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040418/pl_nm/oil_saudi_bush_dc_2

fishmonger

04-19-04, 01:24 PM

According to the article: "Bush has been under attack from Democrats in recent weeks for failing to halt rising domestic gasoline prices". So, now you're pissed off because he is trying to halt rising gasoline prices?

It just proves that he can do nothing that will please the ever-partisan Dems. It really appears that you guys have such a sorry candidate that the only thing that will get Kerry the White House this fall are developments that are bad for America in general, ie, poor economy, bad developments in Iraq, etc. It must be confusing rooting for bad stuff just so you can win.

"Anybody but Bush" is a lame strategery.

FM

Jah Live!

04-19-04, 02:44 PM

There are two statements in this article that completely discredit it's validity (in my mind).

"In an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes" about his new book "Plan of Attack" on the Bush administration's preparations for the Iraq war, Bob Woodward, a senior editor at the Washington Post, said Prince Bandar pledged the Saudi's would try to fine-tune oil prices to prime the U.S. economy for the election".

Once again, an "editor" of the liberal rag Washington Post, makes insinuations without stating any facts to back them up. All the while knowing that most readers of the Post will take the bait because "if it's in the newspaper, it must be true".

Let me guess how we all can find out if Bob Woodward is fabricating this NONissue.....BUY HIS BOOK!

What's so funny to me is that even in the face of certain liberaly slanted "news" media being exposed for what it is, they still keep at it. The sad part is that people actually sit at planning tables to come up with garbage like this.

Jah Live!

Tom

04-19-04, 03:10 PM

I believe that Mr. Woodruff's publisher is owned by the same corporation that owns CBS, so it seems "60 Minutes" is now a shill for that publisher's books and stable of authors.

Grady

04-19-04, 03:30 PM

Careful, guys. You don't want to use up all your ammo shooting messengers.

fishmonger

04-19-04, 04:25 PM

I thought that since you posted this message, that you agreed with it. What are YOUR thoughts?

FM

Jah Live!

04-19-04, 05:37 PM

I guess that tactical seeding of web links with pro Democratic rhetoric and usubstantiated inuendo's is just "delivering a message" now-a-days. LOL!

That's OK, there seems to be plenty of "ammo" out there, at least enough to spare a shot here.

Jah Live!

BLACK KNIGHT

04-19-04, 06:21 PM

As a few of our more liberal members like to point out, follow the money.

Bob M

04-19-04, 07:16 PM

Here is another point on logical errors. Political discourse tends to be rife with them.

There is a fallacy of relevance called Argumentum ad Hominem. It translates as ‘argument directed towards the man’. There are two flavors of this fallacy; a.) ‘abusive’ and b.) ‘circumstantial’.

It’s the ‘abusive’ version that shows up a lot on this thread. The fallacy arises when someone attempts to refute a position because the source is a ‘liberal rag’, or a ‘Dubya’ stance. In logical terms the source is irrelevant because it is the facts that matter. Both liberal rags and Dubya communicate a lot of truthful facts and reasonable conclusions.

This one is useful to keep in mind because it is one of the most common ones that the politicians use to influence us and obscure the facts. It is an amusing exercise to go through this thread and pick them out. There are a bunch of them. These fallacies are very easy to spot, once you see them for what they are.

Grady

04-19-04, 07:17 PM

I think it will not be easy for the administration to simply dismiss Woodward as a partisan hack looking for dollars. First, he has a good reputation as a credible reporter, (conservatives loved his last book on Bush)and, second, Bush himself gave Woordward access for this book. From the excerpts I have read, there are some things favorable to Bush, and some not. But this Saudi Arabia allegation seems explosive to me. I mean, the president of the United States discussing with a foreign government a way to manipulate a domestic election?? Do you guys think this would be okay? Or it it that it would be SO bad for Bush that it just can't be true?

fishmonger

04-19-04, 08:12 PM

It seems to me that candidates are always trying to manipulate the outcome of an election, that is, after all, the whole point of "the campaign". Granted, this manipulation is expected to be undertaken on domestic soil.

It does seem that this allegation is a bit trite. If everybody expects Bush to single handedly cause gas prices to drop, how do they expect him to do this, if he can not wield personal influence with parties that control, in some fashion, the price of gas? Is an action off limits to the Pres because the election is coming, and he may gain some benefit on election day? The President is traditionally held responsible for bad stuff, and reaps the benefits of good stuff, on election day. It is widely acknowledged that this is not fair on either count, but it has always been that way. No conspiracy is indicated by these developments.

FM

BLACK KNIGHT

04-19-04, 09:30 PM

It makes no sense that Bush would throttle back on the economy ala secret oil pricing a mere 7-8 months before the election, then open the "pipeline" in the fall. The economy doesn't shift on a dime, it takes time and momentum to get the type of economy that will benefit Bush in the fall. He benefits more from lower prices now, not later. That's a fact.

JOHNKIES

04-20-04, 09:32 AM

Hmmm. Let's see: Bush comes from the Texas oil patch, has the biggest campaign war chest ever assembled (how many are owed for all that money?), has a VP who holds secret meetings with energy & oil companies, and invades an oil rich country. No, no chance anyone using oil and oil prices to influence American voters. Our voters are way too smart for that. After all, 500,000 more of us voted for Gore than for Dubya. ---JCK---

fishmonger

04-20-04, 10:40 AM

Two words: Electoral College. All he had to do to get over the top was win his own state. Let it go, man...

Jah Live!

04-20-04, 10:42 AM

LOL! http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif

WOODWARD, SAUDIS, BUSH SAYS NO SECRET DEAL FOR LOWER OIL PRICES

Here we go now with more nonsense about the Bob Woodward book. If you've been listening to the media frenzy over Woodward's book since Sunday, you undoubtedly came away with the idea that the Saudis made a cozy little deal with Bush to lower the price of crude oil just before the election ... just to help Bush get reelected.

Not so.

Bob Woodward went on Larry King last night to set the record straight. "What I say in the book is that the Saudis hoped to keep oil prices low during the period before the election, because of its impact on the economy." Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan, also on the same program, said that characterization was accurate. He said he hoped that the oil prices would stay low because that benefits the U.S. economy as well as the international economy. He also said that every President since Carter asked him to keep the prices down.

Well ... there goes another big conspiracy theory.

Now ... let me tell you why the media and the Democrats tried to put this "there's a conspiracy between Bush and the Saudis to lower gas prices just before the election" story out there. Look at it this way. Democrats and their media fellow-travelers know that gas prices are going to go down before the election. The kids are back in school, vacations are over, driving is down which means that demand is down, and prices go down. The Democrats hoped to set the stage for this inevitable price reduction so that they could scream "See! The conspiracy is complete! Gas prices are down!"

Kerry, of course ever the opportunist, is running around proclaiming that the secret deal (of which there wasn't one) is outrageous and unacceptable. For his part, Woodward says "Kerry has taken this to the next level. This always gets caught in the political crossfire, and I'm trying to stick with what my reporting showed." What? The media...stick to the facts? Woodward should know better by now.

Oh, and by the way...if Bush were able to get secretly lower oil prices from the Saudis, wouldn't that be a good thing? Doesn't everybody want cheaper gas? Not if it benefits this administration at the same time, say the Bush-haters.

Bob M

04-20-04, 11:37 AM

I agree that the thought of Bush attempting to nefariously manipulate oil prices strains credibility. It would make more sense for Bush to be continuously trying to influence prices downward. ....well, with talk, brow beating, and influence anyway. Anyone can see what the budget & trade deficits and the US consuming 25% of the world’s energy production will do to oil prices over the long haul.

They only time that I might suspect a Bush attempt to manipulate the economy was by the bad-mouthing he gave it when he first took office. The assumption being that a little negative talk would push it down a bit further in the direction that it had began to head, give him a little political cover for a short term recession, and have him riding a crest of a recovery when he was up for reelection. I say 'suspect' because there is no way to prove it one way or another. ‘Suspect’ does not equate to ‘belief’.

I would not read too much into what ‘the duties of the President’ were when making assumptions as to what a President is up to. These are men, with all the weaknesses thereof. We’ve had enough doosies over the years to demonstrate what that can mean, and it isn’t likely that we are aware of the half of it.

bingo

04-20-04, 12:21 PM

If there is no collusion why wouldn't Scott McCellan just say so in this morning's press gaggle?
-------------------------------------------------------

QUESTION: Can you describe conversations between the White House and Prince Bandar about his essential promise to lower oil prices before the election?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you heard from Prince Bandar a few weeks ago about --

QUESTION: He didn’t talk specifically about the election.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- the most recent conversation that we had with him regarding oil prices. And he expressed his views out at the stakeout to you all that Saudi Arabia is committed to making sure prices remained in a range, I believe it’s $22 to $28 price per barrel of oil, and that they don’t want to do anything that would harm our consumers or harm our economy. So he made those comments at the stakeout and we’ve made our views very clear that prices should be determined by market forces, and that we are always in close contact with producers around the world on these issues to make sure that actions aren’t taken that harm our consumers or harm our economy.

QUESTION: There were no conversations specifically about the President’s reelection?

MR. McCLELLAN: You can ask Prince Bandar to --

QUESTION: But from the point -- I mean, conversations are obviously two ways.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- what his comments were. But the conversations we have are related to our long-held views that we have stated repeatedly publicly, that market forces should determine prices.

QUESTION: To follow up on that then, I would gather that the White House view is one of expectation that the Saudis would increase oil production between now and November.

MR. McCLELLAN: Our views are very well-known to Saudi Arabia. Prince Bandar made a commitment at the stakeout that I will let speak for itself. You all should look back to those remarks.

QUESTION: We’re missing the allegation here, which is that Prince Bandar and the Saudis have made a commitment to lower oil prices to help the President politically. Is that your --

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m not going to speak for Prince Bandar. You can direct those comments to him. I can tell you that what our views are and what he said at the stakeout is what we know his views are, as well.

QUESTION: Does the White House have any knowledge of such a commitment?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: Does the White House have any knowledge of such a commitment?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I’m not going to speak for Prince Bandar. You can direct those questions --

QUESTION: Is there a deal?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- I wouldn’t speculate one way or the other. You can direct those questions to him, but I’m telling you --

QUESTION: I’m not asking you to speculate either. Do you have knowledge of such a commitment?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m telling you what our views are and what we've stated, and I'm telling you what I do know, which is that our position is very clear when it comes to oil prices and what our views are. And Prince Bandar spoke to you all just a few weeks ago out at the stakeout after meeting with some White House officials and expressed --

QUESTION: So you have no knowledge of such a commitment?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and expressed their view. I'm not going to try to speak for Prince Bandar. You can direct those questions to him.

QUESTION: The President is confident that the American elections are not being manipulated by the world's largest oil producer?

MR. McCLELLAN: Our view is that the markets should determine --

QUESTION: The market doesn't. It's a cartel.

MR. McCLELLAN: But our view is that that's what -- that the markets should determine prices. And that's the view we make very clear to producers around the world, including our friends in OPEC

-----------------------------------------------------

Straight talk from straight shooters.

Drifter

04-20-04, 12:34 PM

Drifter firmly inserts tongue in cheek and reluctantly types:

I find it inconceivable that an administration that is so inept they couldn't put together the clues about 9 - 11 can now....surreptitiously fix the price of oil and manipulate the economy ....to aid Bush in his re-election bid. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif

MBA

04-20-04, 12:43 PM

So the plot thickens...

It seems that some would suggest one conspiracy theory in order to discredit another. The pot calling the kettle black? [I hope Omarrosa doesn't read that. I might be considered racist now http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif ]

Here is the transcript from 60 Minutes...

"Prince Bandar enjoys easy access to the Oval Office. His family and the Bush family are close. And Woodward told 60 Minutes that Bandar has promised the president that Saudi Arabia will lower oil prices in the months before the election -- to ensure the U.S. economy is strong on election day.

Woodward says that Bandar understood that economic conditions were key before a presidential election: “They’re [oil prices] high. And they could go down very quickly. That's the Saudi pledge. Certainly over the summer, or as we get closer to the election, they could increase production several million barrels a day and the price would drop significantly.” "

We're not talking about demand. The suggested price drop is driven by production supply. Conspiracy discredited.

As for Woodward denying the secret pact: I'm not convinced by the comments on Larry King. Does he come out and say flatly it is not true. No. What does the "next level" mean? Does it mean it's exaggerated and untrue or valid and worth of scrutiny?

I have an answer. That Woodward is trying to "stick to what [his]reporting showed" means that he does not want to draw any conclusions to the facts that he reported. In other words, he is being a good reporter and not trying to slant things one way or the other. He is leaving that for the politicians and the peanut gallery.

So the question still remains. Is the Bush Administration making deals with the Saudis to lower oil prices to influence the election? The suggestion that presidents try to lower oil prices is nothing new. They should be doing this every day. But what is troubling about this allegation is the timing. No other administration has ever been accused of trying to lower oil prices to coincide with an election. Contrary to some opinions, oil prices do have an immediate impact on the economy. They affect the CPI, CCI, and all transportation-related industries. It has a reciprocal effect on the media and consumer psychology (i.e.: now: gas prices significantly higher = economy bad, incumbent candidate doing nothing; later: gas prices significantly lower = economy good, incumbent candidate doing something). The camps are already drawn. The decision is in the swing states and among the fickle undecided voters. Anything can swing a voter one way or another. November is going to be a doozy!

MBA

04-20-04, 01:00 PM

Late to the dance but why not wait until everyone is good and punch drunk. It's much more fun then!

While the allegations are nothing more than that, I have to agree with Grady that the source is creditable and that he has received this level of respect because of a career of responsible reporting and being on the side of the truth in some of history's more unfavorable political accusations.

I don't hold President Bush up so high as to think that he is capable of no wrong. He is just as fallible as all the presidents before him. And if this turns out to be true...I have to disagree with some of my fellow fishermen…it is wrong. Wrong as wrong can be. The duty of the President is to act in the best interests of the citizens, not in the best interests of a reelection campaign. I’m sure some will say that in being reelected, he is serving the best interests of the citizens…Careful, though...it’s a very slippery slope from that point on.

Truthfully, I’m more concerned about the pre-Iraq War plan allegations. More and more people are starting to sing the same song.

Bob M

04-20-04, 04:48 PM

Oil prices being determined by 'market forces' is a political fantasy. OPEC is a cartel, not a market force.

This could have been a dire deed, or it could have been the lastest effort, in a long series of ploys, to nudge the cartel.

Not that I'd take Bush or any other politcian at his word, but there just isn't enough here to be conclusive in either direction.

Grady

04-21-04, 07:45 AM

Yet another former Bush insider, this one from EPA, blows the whistle.

“Yes. I'm saying this administration has decided to put the economic interests of the coal fired power plants ahead of the public interests in reducing air pollution.”
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4759864/

Jah Live!

04-21-04, 09:15 AM

Too funny...Grady lobs yet another anti-Bush "innuendo" grenade! What's even funnier is that his "ammo" always fizzles into a dud. I guess Grady's just trying to emulate his political party's strategy of making unsubstantiated accusations with the hopes that something may stick.

I can only imagine all the other message boards that you "visit" daily, just to throw as many "innuendo" grenades as you can. I'm sure it doesn't matter what kind of site it is, just so long as they have an "Off-topic Discussion" board.

Jah Live!

....waiting for the classic "Freedom of Speech" reply.

[This message has been edited by Jah Live! (edited 04-21-2004).]

fishmonger

04-21-04, 09:34 AM

Yawn. Not exactly a balanced presentation of the facts. I admit that I am not well versed in the facts of this story, but MSNBC did nothing to change that. Can you say "media bias"?

BTW, one specific example does not prove a trend. This processs may not work at all power plants, technically and/or financially. Sombody has to pay for the upgrades, either consumers, or shareholders.

Maybe we should all shut off our lights, air conditioners, and computers.

Maybe we should go all-nuclear? Zero emissions.

FM

Grady

04-26-04, 10:52 PM

What's 20 percent of 140 billion? That's how many of our tax dollars may be lost to corruption in Iraq, according to this study.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0423/dailyUpdate.html

fishmonger

04-28-04, 01:58 PM

Grady,

Since you seem to really enjoy finding and posting links to articles that support your politics, why don't you start yourself a little Weblog? Maybe you can be the next Drudge Report. Hell, you have even bored Jah Live! into non-response land.

FM

Bob M

04-29-04, 08:17 AM

Scrappleface: "News fairly unbalanced. We report. You decipher."
http://wwwscrappleface.com

You have to admire them for being honest about what they are doing. Similarly Neal Bortz is honest about the fact that he is in the entertainment business. There are a few that haven't a clue about what they are up to.
> Rush Limbaugh talking about 'high' morals.
> Ollie North, the convicted felon that beat the rap on a legal technicality, running for the U.S. Senate on a 'law and order' platform.

Politics can be hilarious.

fishmonger

04-29-04, 09:07 AM

I didn't think it was a rise, more like a refusal.

FM the Stocker

fishmonger

04-29-04, 09:07 AM

I didn't think it was a rise, more like a refusal.

FM the Stocker (with 10 thumbs)

[This message has been edited by fishmonger (edited 04-29-2004).]

JOHNKIES

04-29-04, 11:44 AM

Who says that dawg can't hunt?

Watch this flash movie at: http://www.justiceisduckblind.com/

THE EG

04-29-04, 12:20 PM

Under the category of "what were you thinkin'", I have to ask.

Greg,

you started this thread, right? http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif

Johnny

04-29-04, 01:34 PM

Dang! I was beginning to think that all the fish in the NGTO pond had wised up and quit rising to the Grady bait. Guess there was one left that couldn't resist.

Later,
Johnny

------------------
Johnny Johnson
Lilburn, GA

Johnny

04-29-04, 01:40 PM

From Scrappleface:

Kerry Slams 'Fat Cats' Who Fund His Campaign
(2004-04-21)

Democrat presidential hopeful John Forbes Kerry today took aim at "corporate fat cats who try to buy political influence" by raising money for Mr. Kerry's campaign.

"Wealthy elitists contributed much of the $57 million that my campaign took in over past three months," said Mr. Kerry. "They know that this money will inevitably influence my decisions when I'm president. I'll be biased toward my wealthy cronies. After all, look what happened to George Bush. How could I escape the same fate?"

Mr. Kerry called on the United Nations to limit campaign contributions from the wealthy.

"When I'm president, I'll work with Secretary-General Kofi Annan to create an international income tax on the obscenely rich--those who earn more than $125,000 per year," he said. "We need to send a message to these fat cats that they're no better than the ordinary, middle-class slobs who have nothing left to give to my campaign after they've paid their union dues and contributed to public broadcasting."

------------------
Johnny Johnson
Lilburn, GA

The Ole Man

04-30-04, 11:51 PM

"Double bubble, toil and trouble, fire burn and caldron bubble".
Mr. W.Shakespere

Greg--your pot's boiling over boy! You better leave the cooking to Brent and HoochRat next time.

Rocketroy

05-01-04, 07:57 AM

HE.HE.HE., Perhaps the Saudi,s 14,001 princes,including Bandar,were included in the many foreign leaders,that Kerry says support his candidacy!{13,003 of whom reportedly signed off on the oil price-control planning,while the rest were in Monaco investigating western corrupt values!} There is a great opportunity,being neglected by the Kerry campaign,in not appealing to the United Nations assembly for their endorsement...... someone give John a heads up! The UN: "Fair & balanced" You decide! From the bunker: Rocketroy,imbedded somewhere in beseiged Clarkesville! {SEND BEER!}

------------------

The Ole Man

05-01-04, 11:09 AM

UN fair and balanced?? I read an article in the local paper Thurs about the corruption in the UN's Iraqi oil for food program. Saddam was bribing French, Russian and UN oficials (maybe others)in order to continually get UN approval for increases in the number of barrels of oil Iraq could trade in the program (over US objections). He was handing out vouchers for barrels of Iraqi oil that could be traded on the market and provide one with instant riches. According to the article, the voucher bribes reached into the highest offices of the UN, and Russian and French governments. Prob explains a lot about W's problem with being unable to get any cooperation from Russia, France (maybe Germany) and the UN in assisting the US with Iraq. The probe into this corruption at the UN is just beginning. Will be interesting to see if it gets quietly swept under the rug.