Mission accomplished

[Raptor]

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 15 May 2006 13:32:24 -0700, "Bill C" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> IMO there's more than enough outright fraud, bribery, and corruption
>> in just this sector alone to put a shitload of the administration in
>> jail over.
>
> LOL. No one is going to do any such thing. You don't live in the
> fantasy world where you think the Republicans are more corrupt than
> the Democrats, do you? I'd love to see an audit of the Big Dig in
> Boston that's gone from $2.2 billion to $14 billion. I'm sure there
> are lots of Democrats and their supportes lining their pockets with
> cash.
>
> Did you know that the House has a truce on where no one will file
> ethics violations against anyone else?

To some extent, the old saying about power corrupting is true. If the
Dems were to achieve control of both houses & the presidency, it would
be only a matter of time before a major scandal erupted.

The best government is divided. Give me Dems in control of any two of
the presidency, house and senate, and I'm happy. Actually, it would
be nice to have complete Dem control for one term, to pull the
government back from the direction six years of all-Republican control
has taken it.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>, Stu Fleming <[email protected]> wrote:

> Howard Kveck wrote:

> > You're welcome to think of it as "meaningless", Jack, but the Democrats
> > with subpoena power is exactly why the White House is going to pull out all
> > the stops in an effort to prevent the loss of even one branch of Congress.
> >
>
> Hmmm, I'm not sure. A conspiracy theorist would be asking: who is in
> line for succession as President if Bush is successfully impeached?
> (and is it the same person who set him up to launch an illegal domestic
> spying program?)

Good lord, Alberto Gonzalez and John Yoo aren't in the line of succession, are
they?

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
Jack Hollis <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 14 May 2006 15:26:27 -0700, Howard Kveck
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >You're welcome to think of it as "meaningless", Jack, but the Democrats with
> >subpoena power is exactly why the White House is going to pull out all the
> >stops in
> >an effort to prevent the loss of even one branch of Congress.
>
>
> Basically, both parties pull out all the stops for every election.

Based on many things I've been seeing in the last few weeks, I'd say the GOP is
going to make any previous campaign look like a walk in the park. Rove has
threatened even some Republicans with no support or even support of opposing
Republican candidates if they get out of line.

> My prediction, if the Dems get control of the House and start a lot of
> investigations of Bush, they will lose in the end. I remember the
> Iran/Contra investigations aimed at Reagan. There stood Oliver North
> making all the petty politicians look pale by comparison, Bush won the
> WH and Reagan is now regarded as one of America's great Presidents.

I'm well aware that many people think that Ollie North made the people running
the hearings look silly, but the guy did break the law in a big way. He sold arms to
a country that was decidedly not our friend at the time. Hopefully some lessons were
learned, such as not giving everyone immunity... As for Bush 41's win, well, two
words: Mike Dukakis. He's probably a great guy, but they ran a terrible campaign and
Bush (with Lee Atwater, certainly one of Rove's forerunners) exploited every mistake.

Anyway, I think you're being rather nonchalant about the GOP's chances,
considering the polls lately. Bush is at 29% for job approval, the Republicans are
trailing very badly when people are asked about who should be running Congress and
even when asked who would do a better job on national security. You've even said
recently that the Republicans own that issue. Perhaps not for the moment...

> Besides, what are they going to investigate that hasn't been beaten to
> death?

They could actually finish a few of the investigations that are stalled, such as
the second part of the intelligence failures after 9-11. Perhaps looking into just
how badly the NSA is really abusing the constitution...

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Jack Hollis]

On Mon, 15 May 2006 22:49:55 -0700, Howard Kveck
<[email protected]> wrote:

>He sold arms to
>a country that was decidedly not our friend at the time.

Actually, the arms sales were to the Contras. They were fighting the
Sandanistas who were the communists in control of Nicaragua.

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]
>,
Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:

> Anyway, I think you're being rather nonchalant about the GOP's chances,
> considering the polls lately. Bush is at 29% for job approval, the Republicans are
> trailing very badly when people are asked about who should be running Congress and
> even when asked who would do a better job on national security. You've even said
> recently that the Republicans own that issue. Perhaps not for the moment...

Q: What do they call people who bet money on published
results from public opinion polls?
A: Marks.

Poll results are owned by the people who pay for them.
They publish exactly what they please, and bury the rest.
What the owners of the poll results infer has nothing to
do with what you infer from the numbers they choose to
publish.

--
Michael Press

 

[[email protected]]

Jack Hollis wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >He sold arms to
> >a country that was decidedly not our friend at the time.
>
> Actually, the arms sales were to the Contras. They were fighting the
> Sandanistas who were the communists in control of Nicaragua.

No, they _sold_ arms to Iran to get off-the-books funds to buy
weapons to _give_ to the Contras. That is why it was called
the Iran-Contra scandal. Also why when the deal was revealed,
everyone, including all my lefty pals at the time, fell off their
chairs. It was so far out that even we hadn't considered the
ketchup-as-a-vegetable Reagan Admin capable of such a thing.
Iran was not considered our friend at the time. Because Iraq
was fighting Iran, Iraq was our friend at the time. You can't tell
the players without a scorecard ...

 

[Jack Hollis]

On Mon, 15 May 2006 22:49:55 -0700, Howard Kveck
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Anyway, I think you're being rather nonchalant about the GOP's chances,
>considering the polls lately. Bush is at 29% for job approval, the Republicans are
>trailing very badly when people are asked about who should be running Congress and
>even when asked who would do a better job on national security. You've even said
>recently that the Republicans own that issue. Perhaps not for the moment...


Bush's polls are not very important in the Congressional elections.

What it really comes down to is how many seats are in play. In play
means that the incumbant is not running. Incumbent Congressmen have a
very high probability of reelection. There are 28 open seats of which
19 are held by Republicans and 9 by Democrats. So it comes down to
can the Dems hold all 9 of their empty seats and pick up 16 of the the
28 Republican seats. It's a tall order. Obviously the Republicans
have morer seats in play so they should lose some seats but I'm not
sure that it will be enough for them to lose control.

Obviously, the Dems are talking like it's a sure thing that they will
take over the House, but they've been saying that since 1996.

Picking up 6 seats in the Senate is not going to happen.

 

[Jack Hollis]

On 16 May 2006 10:02:54 -0700, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> >He sold arms to
>> >a country that was decidedly not our friend at the time.
>>
>> Actually, the arms sales were to the Contras. They were fighting the
>> Sandanistas who were the communists in control of Nicaragua.
>
>No, they _sold_ arms to Iran to get off-the-books funds to buy
>weapons to _give_ to the Contras. That is why it was called
>the Iran-Contra scandal.

You're confused. The "crime" that Oliver North was involved in was
the sale of weapons to the Contras. The money for the weapons came
from the proceeds of a deal to provide Iran with badly needed parts
for their war with Iraq.

The deal with Iran was not illegal in any respect. However, providing
weapons to the Contras was, because Congress had explicitly banned
such activity.

 

[Robert Chung]

Jack Hollis wrote:

> Bush's polls are not very important in the Congressional elections.

Perhaps it won't be this time, but the evidence is that it has been a
reasonably good predictor in the past.

 

[Stu Fleming]

Jack Hollis wrote:

> You're confused. The "crime" that Oliver North was involved in was
> the sale of weapons to the Contras. The money for the weapons came
> from the proceeds of a deal to provide Iran with badly needed parts
> for their war with Iraq.
>
> The deal with Iran was not illegal in any respect. However, providing
> weapons to the Contras was, because Congress had explicitly banned
> such activity.

Now I have to go and look some stuff up (as opposed to experiencing
history first hand as it happened).

The weapons (as such) were sold to Iran. the profits went to the
Contras. The arms deal with Iran may not have been illegal. The
channelling of profits to the Contras breached the Boland Amendment
(providing material support to a communist orgaization - which may
itself not have been legal).

Tom, any comments? Were you selling arms to any Middle East countries
around the same time?

 

[Robert Chung]

Jack Hollis wrote:

> You're confused. [...] The money [...] came
> from the proceeds of a deal to provide Iran with badly needed parts
> for their war with Iraq.

Those "badly needed parts" sold to Iran? If memory serves, they included
things like anti-tank missiles. We generally refer to those as "arms."

 

[[email protected]]

Jack Hollis wrote:

> >> >He sold arms to
> >> >a country that was decidedly not our friend at the time.
> >>
> >> Actually, the arms sales were to the Contras. They were fighting the
> >> Sandanistas who were the communists in control of Nicaragua.
> >
> >No, they _sold_ arms to Iran to get off-the-books funds to buy
> >weapons to _give_ to the Contras. That is why it was called
> >the Iran-Contra scandal.
>
> You're confused. The "crime" that Oliver North was involved in was
> the sale of weapons to the Contras. The money for the weapons came
> from the proceeds of a deal to provide Iran with badly needed parts
> for their war with Iraq.

I didn't say the selling of arms (missiles, not just spare parts) to
Iran was illegal. Howard may have implied that, but I just pointed out
that "He sold arms to a country that was decidedly not our friend at
the time" was true.

> The deal with Iran was not illegal in any respect. However, providing
> weapons to the Contras was, because Congress had explicitly banned
> such activity.

"When the President does it, that means it is not illegal." The
selling of arms to Iran may not have been illegal, but it stank to
high heaven, and that's the major reason it was secret. You can't
really separate the selling of arms to Iran and the providing of
weapons to the Contras, since one was done explicitly to support
the other. "Money is fungible," as some Congressman said to North:
he had put money from two sources (I think the arms sales and the
Sultan of Brunei) into the same secret bank account, but he claimed
the money that he took out for the Contras was only the Sultan's
money and not the Iran money, as if each bill had a little mark of
origin on it.

 

[[email protected]]

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Arguably another difference is that Nixon, whatever you think
> >of his moral fiber, was possibly mostly competent; it may be
> >unfair to compare a third rate burglary to a third rate presidency.
>
> The Nixon presidency was far from incompetent and Nixon was far from
> stupid. Republicans like to call their opponents unpatriotic and the
> Democrats like to call their opponents stupid. It appears that the
> Democrats do worse when they start to believe themselves than the
> Republicans.

To be clear, I called GWB incompetent, but not stupid. I don't think
he's stupid. I think he lacks the capacity for self-criticism, which
is worse.

In other news, an RBR regular who may not agree with me has
been quoted as an authority on disasters and the responsibility
of the captain:

<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/weekinreview/14basicB.html>

"'Poseidon' is good clean fun, but it's not likely to happen," said
Dr. William Asher, principal oceanographer at the applied physics
laboratory at the University of Washington. ...
With extreme conditions, a freak event could happen, Dr. Asher
conceded. But with modern technology, even a good old-fashioned
Titanic-like collision with an iceberg is highly unlikely. "You can't
run your ship into an iceberg anymore, the radar is just too good,"
he said. "It would have to [be] manned by a complete idiot."

I think it's clear Bill is not really talking about cheesy disaster
movies. This thread must have been at the back of his mind.

Ben
RBR deputy internet stalker (assistant to heather)

 

[Tim Lines]

Stu Fleming wrote:
> Jack Hollis wrote:
>
>> You're confused. The "crime" that Oliver North was involved in was
>> the sale of weapons to the Contras. The money for the weapons came
>> from the proceeds of a deal to provide Iran with badly needed parts
>> for their war with Iraq.
>>
>> The deal with Iran was not illegal in any respect. However, providing
>> weapons to the Contras was, because Congress had explicitly banned
>> such activity.
>
>
> Now I have to go and look some stuff up (as opposed to experiencing
> history first hand as it happened).
>
> The weapons (as such) were sold to Iran. the profits went to the
> Contras. The arms deal with Iran may not have been illegal. The
> channelling of profits to the Contras breached the Boland Amendment
> (providing material support to a communist orgaization - which may
> itself not have been legal).
>
> Tom, any comments? Were you selling arms to any Middle East countries
> around the same time?

Tom was only tangentially involved. I, however, used to be the
Ayatollah Khomeini. I can validate that your version of the story is
essentially correct.

 

[Bill C]

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 15 May 2006 13:32:24 -0700, "Bill C" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > IMO there's more than enough outright fraud, bribery, and corruption
> >in just this sector alone to put a shitload of the administration in
> >jail over.
>
> LOL. No one is going to do any such thing. You don't live in the
> fantasy world where you think the Republicans are more corrupt than
> the Democrats, do you? I'd love to see an audit of the Big Dig in
> Boston that's gone from $2.2 billion to $14 billion. I'm sure there
> are lots of Democrats and their supportes lining their pockets with
> cash.
>
> Did you know that the House has a truce on where no one will file
> ethics violations against anyone else?

Yeah, and I could give you some interesting insight into the "Big Dig"
a former state rep and family friend was the first PR director for that
mess. He quit with serious ulcers after all the **** started to break
publicly.
Bill C

 

[Bill C]

[email protected] wrote:

>
> Ben
> RBR deputy internet stalker (assistant to heather)
How'd you manage to work yourself into that position? I thought there
was a major waiting list around here for those who wanted to "assist"
heather.
Gonna be some jealous people out here.
Bill C

 

[Jack Hollis]

On 16 May 2006 14:03:25 -0700, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> The deal with Iran was not illegal in any respect. However, providing
>> weapons to the Contras was, because Congress had explicitly banned
>> such activity.
>
>"When the President does it, that means it is not illegal." The
>selling of arms to Iran may not have been illegal, but it stank to
>high heaven, and that's the major reason it was secret. You can't
>really separate the selling of arms to Iran and the providing of
>weapons to the Contras, since one was done explicitly to support
>the other.


If the President wanted to authorize arms sales to Iran, that was well
within his prerogative. Of course, he explicitly said on a number of
occasions, that he would not do that. However, misleading the
American public is not a crime.

I'm not sure that one was done to support the other. The arms sale to
Iran was done in the hope of improving US Iranian relations. That was
the time when Rafsanjani had risen to power and I think the Reagan
wanted to see if he was a man they could deal with. It didn't work,
but it was worth a try.

Reports were that it was the Israelis who came up with the idea to
divert the money to the Contras. BTW, the Boland Amendment, was
probably unconstitutional. Oliver North was convicted of lying to
Congress and not violating the Boland Amendment. North's convictions
were overturned on appeal.

All in all, nothing remarkable ever came of the whole Iran/Contra
affair except to make a national hero out of Oliver North and make the
Congress look bad.

 

[h squared]

[email protected] wrote:

> In other news, an RBR regular who may not agree with me has
> been quoted as an authority on disasters and the responsibility
> of the captain:
>
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/weekinreview/14basicB.html>
>
> "'Poseidon' is good clean fun, but it's not likely to happen," said
> Dr. William Asher, principal oceanographer at the applied physics
> laboratory at the University of Washington. ...
> With extreme conditions, a freak event could happen, Dr. Asher
> conceded. But with modern technology, even a good old-fashioned
> Titanic-like collision with an iceberg is highly unlikely. "You can't
> run your ship into an iceberg anymore, the radar is just too good,"
> he said. "It would have to [be] manned by a complete idiot."
>
> I think it's clear Bill is not really talking about cheesy disaster
> movies. This thread must have been at the back of his mind.
>
> Ben
> RBR deputy internet stalker (assistant to heather)

were you just reading the nytimes and stumbled across that? that must
have been a little freaky to say the least! or were you secretly and
obsessively googling bill's posts and so learned about it that way? you
can only be my assistant in stalking if it was the latter. the pay is
one cadbury bar every three weeks.
welcome, er, aboard,
heather

 

[h squared]

Bill C wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>Ben
>>RBR deputy internet stalker (assistant to heather)
>
> How'd you manage to work yourself into that position?

i knew my chocolate would be safe with him around??

> I thought there
> was a major waiting list around here for those who wanted to "assist"
> heather.
> Gonna be some jealous people out here.
> Bill C
>

lol, you're nice, but poor bill (asher)- here it is, his moment of rbr
fame (for what that's worth) and he's "overshadowed" by the event of
someone becoming my assistant.

heather

 

[William Asher]

h squared <[email protected]> wrote in news:U-
[email protected]:

<snip>
>
> lol, you're nice, but poor bill (asher)- here it is, his moment of rbr
> fame (for what that's worth) and he's "overshadowed" by the event of
> someone becoming my assistant.
>

no it's cool. i'm more afraid someone is going to start arguing with me
whether you could have an i.q. above a pineapple and the best radar money
can buy and still run the QEII into a big iceberg.

--
Bill Asher