Clarke Nullifies Republican War Plunder

[Whiskers]

It's not even about Bush any more. A corrupt system has been split wide open for intelligent Americans to realize what a terrible mistake it would be for Americans to re-hire this administration. The current government is far more efficient at consuming public resources than the last 41 administrations. Inflation is on the horizon.

I emailed Patty Murray (http://murray.senate.gov/) the senator of the state I live in, Washington State. I asked her to not support the war. I know of many others who did likewise. The Antique Sandwich shop is filled once in a while with various political perspectives. I didn't do that because I hated Bush. I thought Bush was amusing. But the business history and current facts make it known that there was some systemic buffoonery going on.

All that cash and the lives of innocents will have been spent on the recent Double Plus Good Campaign advertising. I want to get insulting and aggressive when I am exposed to people who can't grasp the simple principal that the whole world is getting ripped off. Companies want to own a genome. A government has proposed spending a Trillion dollars worth of Jumbo Jacks to go see if there are any new jobs at the Taco Bell on the other shore of the ocean they found. This is no endorsement of Kerry, Dean or the Clinton suckministration.

I urge anyone who shares my opinion to vote this administration out. Find one other person who shares your opinion. Motivate yourselves to actually doing what you may never have done before. Vote. We have got to get this butchering BBQ party out of The White House.

Germany and France are to be admired.

[PsychicWarVeteran]

I'm with you Berry. And I am confident Washington State will NOT go to Bush. I can feel it. You may not like Kerry, but I'm thinking he's our only hope at this point.

Here's a link to the Salon.com article for those who may have missed it:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...clarke_moveon/

[VonWeiner]

Great article Psychic!

[dlackey]

I agree that the administration has a number of problems and should probably lose their jobs, but the other side of the coin is that Clarke is a self-aggrandizing blowhard. He is just as likely lying and I have no use for anything he says.

[PsychicWarVeteran]

It's hard to know what to believe from any of these people who so high up in government, but it says a lot that Richard Clarke testified under oath, but Condi Rice refuses to.

[krunky]

Ah, one of the usual suspects with their "opposing" view. How many Bush insiders have to be wrong until you begin to at least "suspect" that everything is not hunky-dory with this administration? How much bending over backwards for corporate greed has to occur before you will doubt the benefit for the rest of us of these probably dangerous policies?

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

"Lifting the Shroud"
by Paul Krugman (of the New York Times)
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0323-04.htm

But something remarkable has been happening lately: more and more insiders are finding the courage to reveal the truth on issues ranging from mercury pollution ? yes, Virginia, polluters do write the regulations these days, and never mind the science ? to the war on terror.

It's important, when you read the inevitable attempts to impugn the character of the latest whistle-blower, to realize just how risky it is to reveal awkward truths about the Bush administration. When Gen. Eric Shinseki told Congress that postwar Iraq would require a large occupation force, that was the end of his military career. When Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV revealed that the 2003 State of the Union speech contained information known to be false, someone in the White House destroyed his wife's career by revealing that she was a C.I.A. operative. And we now know that Richard Foster, the Medicare system's chief actuary, was threatened with dismissal if he revealed to Congress the likely cost of the administration's prescription drug plan.

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

I'd Like A Tuna On White - Hold The Mercury!
by Arianna Huffington
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0325-07.htm

Of course, cooking up distorted scientific findings and dishing out political favors at the expense of the public good has become something of a blue plate special at the Bush White House.

So has allowing lobbyists extraordinary input on legislation and regulations affecting the industries they represent. In the case of the administration's proposed mercury rules, no less than a dozen paragraphs were directly lifted, often word for word, from memos prepared by lobbying and advocacy groups representing power and energy companies with a major financial stake in the outcome of the regulatory process.

But that's not the half of it. It turns out that two of the key EPA regulators overseeing the development of the mercury guidelines, Jeff Holmstead and William Wehrum, used to represent utility industry clients before Bush tapped them for high-ranking posts in the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation. They were both attorneys at Latham and Watkins - a high-powered D.C. law firm that's been lobbying the administration to adopt the less stringent mercury standards, and which authored one of the memos cribbed in the EPA proposal.

Here's a thought: Maybe the White House can save taxpayers some money and have Holmstead and Wehrum put back on the Latham and Watkins payroll, seeing how they continue to be such devoted company men. Call it the privatization of the EPA.

[Bill]

"Ah, one of the usual suspects with their "opposing" view. How many Bush insiders have to be wrong until you begin to at least "suspect" that everything is not hunky-dory with this administration?"

Here's another of the usual suspects ("I am Keyzer Soze"). What you have missed here and in 50 pages of the other thread along these lines is the initial logic leap that doesn't necessarily connect. And you can't deny it, becuase you have done it with me personally.

And that is this: Your premise is that when someone somewhere says something - anything - negative about the President or his administration it is gospel truth, and when someone somewhere says something - anything - positive about the President or his administration it is spin/lies/coverup (pick one). It doesn't work that way. It just isn't that black and white. I can't speak for anyone else here, but I have tried to concede those areas where there was no debate, becuase there are things about the President/Administration that are wrong. But there are some that are right, and you (and "your kind", to use your words) can't admit that. You just can't. And your reasons for it ("the environment!!!") don't justify the broad strokes and the subsequent slandering (in the non-legal sense) of entire groups, most of whom DON'T deserve your wrath.

What - rather, who - am I talking about? An agency like the EPA. Have you ever dealt directly with the EPA? Most - the vast majority - of the employees of the EPA are NOT politicos; they are honest, hardworking people who have elected to work the same number of hours for much less pay becuase they believe it means something. You know I am a lawyer; you don't know that I am also a register Professional Engineer in CT, and the first 10 years of my career was spent as an environmental project manager doing remedial cleanups at contaminated sites around the country. At one point, I was dealing with the EPA (and the corresponding state agencies) on a daily basis. They are, as a group, hard working, honest, and conservative to a fault. Ninety-eight times out of a hundred the standards are established with so many assumptions and factors of safety that the underlying science is almost meaningless. To say that any entity seeking to relax a standard is de facto in bed with corporations and anti-environment is so stupid as to be offensive.

A good example of this is PCBs. Everyone assumes PCB are evil, becuase they have been banned. Why? Becuase high doses of PCBs have, over long periods of time, caused tumors in mice. "There is no credible evidence that PCB exposure in the general environment, in fish, or even at very high levels in the workplace, has ever led to an increase in cancer risk." (See link below). "An examination of the bible of cancer causation, "Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention" by David Schottenfeld and Joseph F. Fraumeni Jr., reveals no reference whatsoever to PCB-containing fish (or any other source of PCBs) causing malignancy. This 1,500-page volume focuses on real human cancer risks, like tobacco use and overexposure to sunlight." Even the National Cancer Institute states that the institute knew of "no evidence" that eating fish from the Hudson River [a known site of PCB contamination] posed a human cancer risk." http://www.acsh.org/press/editorials/pcb121200.html

Further reading: "Study Finds Exposure to DDT and PCBs Does Not Increase Breast Cancer Risk" American Cancer Society Wednesday, 29 October 1997 (http://www.charitywire.com/charity6/02255.html)

Even this study (which argues against those above) concedes that it is the "heavier" PCBs that are found in tissue, human and fish, but that it is likely the "lighter" PCBs ("PCBs" is a term that covers about 200 different chemicals), which are likely to cause cancer. http://www.foxriverwatch.com/breast_...xin_intro.html

Here's a great quote: "While the American Health Foundation did not find a link between DDT, PCB, chlordane, or hexachlorobenzene and breast cancer, Debbie Basile, president of Babylon Breast Cancer Coalition, is certain that chemicals do contribute to breast cancer. She believes that scientists need to keep investigating other chemicals or combinations of chemicals." Thanks for playing, Debbie; we'll call you. http://imaginis.com/breasthealth/news/news12.05.00.asp

So, all these studies show that the link between PCBs and cancer are tenuous at best, but the EPA keeps pushing the issue with tighter and tighter PCB and dioxin (related to PCBs, and sometimes formed through the incomplete burning of PCBs) regulations. What were you saying about the EPA being in the back pocket of corporate America??

[Whiskers]

[Bill]

By the way, to preempt the flaming responses, I happen to agree with increasing mercury regulations and standards, and disagree with the administration efforts to make them more lenient. The cancer link isn't established, but the acute and chronic effects of mercury exposure coupled with the wide exposure pathways make it an issue of concern (for example, http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts46.html; http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/index.php?newsid=5803; http://monographs.iarc.fr/htdocs/mon...8/mono58-3.htm). My point in the previous response was simply that there is more to this than a simple equation:

"Environmental standards relaxed = corporate greed = Bush bad = We must vote for John Kerry".

It goes way beyond that, and not in the direction you are implying.

"In the case of the administration's proposed mercury rules, no less than a dozen paragraphs were directly lifted, often word for word, from memos prepared by lobbying and advocacy groups representing power and energy companies..." Krunky, you are certainly smart and savvy enough to realize that this happens everyday in both directions. The fact is stated here as if it were some hideous conspiracy, but in fact most (if not all) agency proposed rules (and the public responses to those rules) are drafted in this manner. Your using this as a indictment is like saying MIchael Moorcock read a book about Nazi Germany, used some of the information in a story of his, therefore he must be a Nazi. Or at least in bed with them. (I can use this analogy, with apologies to Mike, becuase he has made his position so clear here).

[ThanosShadowsage]

None of the above!

Anyone see that Richard Prior movie where he has to spend... what was it, 100,000 dollars in a month and leave no assets whatsoever (just the clothes on his back) or he doesn't get his real inheritance of 100 million dollars? (I may have fudged the numbers but the idea is still there) He ends up starting a political campaign for gov. of New York, using all of his own money. But he doesn't want the job, he just urges everyone to "Vote None of the Above." It was quite humorous.

Why can't the common man just do something like that? Politics are all about politics these days and not about actual values. I'm a "live on principals" kind of person... if you ask me there haven't been enough principals in politics. Basic principals like the basic freedoms of humanity, freedom of choice, freedom of speech, freedom to disapprove of the government. I think that an average person, even one with below average intelligence, can understand these values. And I think that if a charismatic independent candidate would run on these beliefs, then they would have a good chance, especially now, when Democrats and Republicans have failed so very badly.

Thanos

[krunky]

Fuck, Bill - get over yourself!

We are neither of us insiders - we see the drama unfolding by the shadows on the cave walls.

The difference between us is that I will take a conservative and cautious approach, and throw Junior the hell out of the white house if I can, rather than wait for some perfect solution to arrive to replace him.

You argue these issues as if we can in all cases have every necessary fact before us - and you know that generally we can't. We won't. That it's just not possible. While they are taking away our civil rights, they are simultaneously claiming privilege left and right - that's not the kind of govt. I want. I'd rather have a govt. where C. Rice would testify, rather than one where executive privilege is claimed as a stonewalling tactic. Balls to that!

I will vote for change, even an imperfect change is better than this status quo. And if it's not - I will vote for change again. What else have we got?

I have enough evidence that Junior is a complete asshole that nothing you can say will likely change my mind.

[krunky]

pluآ·tocآ·raآ·cy. noun
plural pluآ·tocآ·raآ·cies

1. Government by the wealthy.
2. A wealthy class that controls a government.
3. A government or state in which the wealthy rule.

Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition Copyright آ© 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V., further reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

[Bill]

From when? Looks like decades ago.
What was the meeting for? Peaceful meeting of allies? Negotiation between foes?
Was this a planned encounter or not? Did Rumsfeld intend to meet with Hussein directly?

The implication is clear though. Another case of "looks bad, therefore must be bad".

In September of 1938, Hitler met face-to-face with Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain of Great Britain, first at Berchtesgaden and then at Bad Godesberg. This led to the Munich Pact. http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/M/MunichP1a.asp

On more than one occasion, Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin met face-to-face at Yalta. Here is a picture of one of those meetings, if you can see it:
[img]D:\My Documents\My Pictures\WSCRtStn.jpg[/img]

Would you draw the same implications from these meetings? Well, no, becuase subsequent actions ruled them out. Like subsequent actions negate the implication here.

[Bill]

Krunky, I have to say, in all sincerity, that your last post (the one before the definition) is probably the most sense you have made to date. I know that sounds like a dig in disguise, but it's not. It is a full-on compliment. I don't agree with some of your views, but I CAN get behind what you are saying here. Why? Becuase there is no bullshit surrounding it. No one sided quotations, no references taken out of context, nothing.

I believe that part of the reason we are where we are - and that is, having to even have this argument - is that both sides, let's say yours and mine (although we actually agree on more than you will admit), have been making these prejudicial, one-sided arguments for too long and they have lost their teeth. This is indicative of large scale politics, if you think about it. You and I are proxies for a Presidential debate in todays politics (if we could swear and didn't have a time limit). Please understand this: I am not arguing with you to change your mind. I am not arguing with you to be difficult (although it seems that way). I am arguing with you becuase if we really want change we have to go beyond just attacking with facts. My point all along is that it isn't black and white and just presenting facts burns bandwidth.

Look past your contempt for and hatred of me. We both want something new in the White House. We both think that environmentally we could do a lot better in this country. We both want prosperity for the broadest number of our people (although we disagree how to get there). We both want an institutional support for those that can't provide for themselves (although we might disagree as to who qualifies).

These changes will never come incrementally. Changing one judge or even three isn't going to "reverse" the Legal Tender cases. Or abolish the income tax. Or solve the mercury issue. And I would argue that fighting this battle case-by-case you are always going to come up against a Bill that is going to have as many facts in his arsenal as you have in yours. And we are right back where we started. It negates who might REALLY be right or wrong. I know Berry meant well by posting that picture; he's a gentle person and I felt a little guilty responding to that. But all that stuff does is inflame, and changes NOTHING.

Can you at least see and understand my point, even if you don't agree with it?

[PsychicWarVeteran]

We both want something new in the White House.

Okay, Bill, then will you join us and vote for change? 8O Or do you honestly think Bush is the best choice and the change needs to come from somewhere else?

I'm not trolling here, Bill; I actually feel like we're getting somewhere...