Just Saying

Mineola, NY

#1708 Apr 25, 2013
ILAL wrote:
<quoted text>
Fox News?
That's the channel for dummies, you know you can't put stock into anything they spew.
They're dysfunctional cluelessness.
So what's the channel for smart guys like you? CNN? MSNBC? Come on, educate us!
Teddy R

Houston, TX

#1709 Apr 26, 2013
"Barack Obama was elected president in 2008 because he was not George W. Bush. In fact, he was elected because he was the farthest thing possible from Mr. Bush. On some level he knew this, which is why every time he got in trouble he'd say Bush's name. It's all his fault, you have no idea the mess I inherited. As long as Mr. Bush's memory was hovering like Boo Radley in the shadows, Mr. Obama would be OK."

"This week something changed. George W. Bush is back, for the unveiling of his presidential library. His numbers are dramatically up. You know why? Because he's the farthest thing from Barack Obama."

"Obama fatigue has opened the way to Bush affection."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788...
Teddy R

Houston, TX

#1710 Apr 26, 2013
"Shortly after Barack Obama was elected in 2008, a fellow reporter who’d covered President George W. Bush all eight years told me she’d had enough of the travel and stress and strain of the White House beat, that she was moving on."

"We reminisced about all the places we’d been, all the crazy days and wild nights, all the history we’d seen — first hand. Just before we said our goodbyes, I asked her if she’d miss covering President Obama."

'“Not at all. He’s an inch deep. Bush is a bottomless chasm, a deep, mysterious, emotional, profound man. Obama is all surface — shallow, obvious, robotic, and, frankly, not nearly as smart as he thinks. Bush was the one.”'

"Her words, so succinct, have stuck with me ever since. By the way, she’s a hardcore Democrat."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/...
ZCs

Bronx, NY

#1711 Apr 27, 2013
An Ode to Bush

Of Thursday's dedication of the George W. Bush presidential library, NPR headlines an article that details how President "Obama's Bush Library Speech Leaves Iraq And More Unspoken."

Most Americans of both parties have, over the years, appeared to have adopted the attitude that the stolen election of 2000 is something the nation has gotten over. But it's hard not to underscore that the George W. Bush presidential library is really a fraud.

After all, Bush was never elected president. On the 10th anniversary of his anointment by the Supreme Court, and particularly by the stay of the Florida state-mandated recount by Antonin Scalia – a long-time buddy of Dick Cheney and rabid right wing partisan. In 2010, Eric Alterman recounted just some of the machinations that led to an election that was stolen even before the votes were cast (which was done with a number of voter suppression strategies, including the purging of tens of thousands of largely minority voters in Florida done by a firm called ChoicePoint) on the tenth anniversary of the legalized putsch.

The coup was openly revealed in Scalia's infamous stay of a state-mandated recount (Bush, by the way, as governor of Texas signed a bill that would have made a recount in Florida automatic if the vote were as close in Texas as it officially was in the Sunshine State) when he stated that a recount "threatens irreperable harm to [Bush] and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election." In short, Scalia is saying that if Bush lost after a recount it would hurt his reputation as president since the Supreme Court would install him in the White House no matter what the voters decided in Florida.(Remember that Al Gore won the national popular vote by more than 540,000 votes.)
ZCs

Bronx, NY

#1712 Apr 27, 2013
An Ode to Bush

WHAT IF...Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld had done nothing, and allowed Richard Clarke & Company to continue their pursuit of Osama bin Laden? What if Bush had paid attention to those warnings (as Clinton did)? 9-11 might well have been averted.

WHAT IF...Bush had valued what he inherited -- a balanced budget -- and DONE NOTHING. No massive tax cuts benefiting the top 1/10th of 1 percent. No massive deficits. 8 years -- budget still balanced, instead of trillions in new debt and a tax code designed to make the government untenable without savaging the social safety net.

WHAT IF...Bush had treated FEMA as a serious agency with a vital role to play in national emergencies? What if he'd appointed a serious administrator, instead of an incompetent crony bent on looting the agency and wrecking its ability to function properly? Katrina might have turned out quite differently.

WHAT IF...Bush had hadn't worked overtime to destroy the regulation of financial markets? What if he'd DONE NOTHING, and let regulatory agencies do their proper work? The financial crash of 2007-8 might never have happened.

WHAT IF...most importantly...Bush/Cheney/Rums feld hadn't conjured stove-piped "intel" to stampede us into war after 9-11? No trillion dollar wars, shoveled onto the spiraling national debt...no thousands of American soldiers killed...no hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed...no Abu Ghraib...no disillusionment of the American public in our ability to fight and win wars...
ZCs

Bronx, NY

#1713 Apr 27, 2013
An Ode to Bush

It is a well-known syndrome in alcoholic and/or abusive families that the child runs to the abusive parent, and makes excuses for him or her. In fact there are a whole set of syndromes afflicting the poor adults who lived through that horror as children.

The fawning interviews attending the opening of the George W. Bush presidential library, for the least bookish of all our presidents, struck me as having a lot of resemblance to those syndromes. America has a problem holding its high elected officials to account. A republic as the founding generation envisaged it is a collective of equals. We have no king, no one who is above the law. Some of us serve the public through elective office for a while. If we do it honorably we get thanks. If we do it dishonorably, we should be tried for our crimes or at the very least suffer opprobrium in polite society. The emergence of the imperial presidency in the twentieth century and until now is an affront to those republican values, a descent into empire and monarchy and lack of accountability. For ex-presidents everything is forgiven over time. We named the airport in our national capital for a man who sold weapons stolen from Pentagon warehouses to Ayatollah Khomeini at at time the latter was on a terror watch list, and used the black money thus gained to support right wing death squads in Central America. We let a war criminal pronounce himself comfortable with his crimes against humanity.

1. Adult constituents of abusive ex-presidents lie when it would be just as easy to tell the truth. They have to constantly make excuses for the criminal behavior of their ex-president. For instance, it is often alleged that all international intelligence agencies agreed with the Bush administration that Iraq had ‘weapons mass destruction.’ But the French did not, and the Germans had serious questions. It is not true, just a lie that we are forced to tell in order to protect an war-addicted president. Likewise, they often maintain that WMD actually was found in Iraq (wrong) or that it was moved to Syria (not true) or that Saddam Hussein was tied to al-Qaeda (false). Or they may downplay the number of Iraqis killed as a result of the illegal US invasion.
ZCs

Brooklyn, NY

#1715 May 2, 2013
An Ode to Bush.

George W. Bush presided over an international network of torture chambers and, with the help of a compliant Congress and press, launched a war of aggression that killed hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. However, instead of the bloody details of his time in office being recounted at a war crimes tribunal, the former president has been able to bank on his imperial privilege – and a network of rich corporate donors that he made richer while in office – to tell his version of history at a library in Texas being opened in his name.

Kill a few, they call you a murderer. Kill tens of thousands, they give you $500 million for a granite vanity project and a glossy 30-page supplement in the local paper.

Before getting into that, some facts. According to the US government, more than 100,000 people died following the 2003 invasion of Iraq; of that number, 4,486 were members of the US military. So far, the wars started by Bush and continued by his heir, Barack Obama, have cost upwards of $3.1 trillion. That’s money that could have been spent saving lives and building things, not ending and destroying them.

But that’s not going to be the narrative at the George W. Bush Presidential Library, opening this week in Dallas, Texas. No, that’s going to be: 9/11, 9/11, 9/11 (see also: 9/11).

Called the "Day of Fire," a main attraction at the new library will be a display on the events of September 11, 2001, where "video images from the attacks flash around a twisted metal beam recovered from the wreckage of the World Trade Center," according to the Associated Press.

"It's very emotional and very profound," Bush explained in an interview. "One of the reasons it has to be is because memories are fading rapidly and the profound impact of that attack is becoming dim with time." That is to say, the former president has a keen interest in fanning the embers of outrage over the killing of nearly 3,000 Americans more than a decade ago lest the world view him poorly for the dozens of 9/11s he perpetrated not just on Iraq, but Afghanistan. Never forget the harm done to us or you just might remember the harm we inflicted on others.

The corporate media doesn't want you to remember those depressing and damning details either. In a supplement that reads as a paid advertisement, The Dallas Morning News calls Bush's new library, "A place to learn," featuring a silky soft interview with the former first lady, Laura Bush, and an editorial that states that her husband "stands out as a leader whose convictions guided him."
Just Saying

Mineola, NY

#1716 May 2, 2013
ZCs wrote:
An Ode to Bush
Of Thursday's dedication of the George W. Bush presidential library, NPR headlines an article that details how President "Obama's Bush Library Speech Leaves Iraq And More Unspoken."
Most Americans of both parties have, over the years, appeared to have adopted the attitude that the stolen election of 2000 is something the nation has gotten over. But it's hard not to underscore that the George W. Bush presidential library is really a fraud.
After all, Bush was never elected president. On the 10th anniversary of his anointment by the Supreme Court, and particularly by the stay of the Florida state-mandated recount by Antonin Scalia – a long-time buddy of Dick Cheney and rabid right wing partisan. In 2010, Eric Alterman recounted just some of the machinations that led to an election that was stolen even before the votes were cast (which was done with a number of voter suppression strategies, including the purging of tens of thousands of largely minority voters in Florida done by a firm called ChoicePoint) on the tenth anniversary of the legalized putsch.
The coup was openly revealed in Scalia's infamous stay of a state-mandated recount (Bush, by the way, as governor of Texas signed a bill that would have made a recount in Florida automatic if the vote were as close in Texas as it officially was in the Sunshine State) when he stated that a recount "threatens irreperable harm to [Bush] and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election." In short, Scalia is saying that if Bush lost after a recount it would hurt his reputation as president since the Supreme Court would install him in the White House no matter what the voters decided in Florida.(Remember that Al Gore won the national popular vote by more than 540,000 votes.)
Yet the NY Times and other liberal papers (who certainly weren't fans of Bush or the Republicans) conducted an exhaustive investigation after the election, and found that Bush won legitimately anyway, despite all the distraction about the court rulings. Look it up yourself, if you dare,
ZCs

Bronx, NY

#1717 May 8, 2013
An Ode to Bush.....

What do these numbers and countries mean?

In 2002 Karachi, Pakistan; 2004, Uzbekistan; 2004, Saudi Arabia; 2006, Syria; 2007, Athens; 2008, Serbia; 2008, Yemen.

No, it's not a puzzle, but given the current nature of our political discourse, the story behind it will no doubt puzzle you.

Listed above are the years and countries where United States' Embassies were attacked under our previous commander-in-chief, George W. Bush. I found this to be quite revealing given the all out "hair on fire" witch hunt that is currently taking place amongst conservative pundits and Republicans in Congress over the embassy attack in Benghazi, Libya last year. Now, I will be the first to say that even one person killed in an attack on our embassies is too many, but the fact that seven (count 'em SEVEN!) embassies were attacked and many people killed under the previous Republican administration and we heard nary a word of dismay is more than puzzling, it's downright unbelievable!

Now where does the Republican hero of heroes stand on the attack meter? There were three embassy attacks during Ronald Reagan's presidency, two in 1983 - Beirut (more than 60 killed including 17 Americans) and Kuwait - and one in 1987 in Italy.

In fact, history shows that each of the presidents of the past few decades have had to deal with embassy attacks and bombings. For some reason, I don't ever recall there being so much unrest following an attack as there is now under President Obama.

I guess what really sent me reeling was today when I read about Mike Huckabee's well-crafted remarks on the radio that "Benghazi will be Obama's Watergate" and "this President will not fill out his full term". Excuse me? Let me get this straight. Not only did 9/11 happen on Bush's watch, but seven embassy attacks and Obama is the one that will be ousted? Huckabee claimed that the so-called Benghazi "cover-up" was worse than Watergate "because no one died." Well, I have one question for Mr. Huckabee: How many people died because of the Iraq War "weapons of mass destruction" cover-up? How many American soldiers gave their lives for a war of choice built on exaggeration, manipulation and outright lies? Is that worse than Watergate?

But see, we can't mention that because Bush "kept us safe" remember? Sorry, but if you think that's safe then I have a bridge in San Francisco I want to sell you.

I agree that there may still be some questions that need to be answered regarding the attacks in Benghazi and the families of those who died who have questions deserve to have their questions answered. However, the level of vitriol that is coming out of the Right because of these attacks is undeniably partisan and disgusting.

What's even more outrageous is that absolutely no one is discussing the fact that it was the House Republicans who cut $300 million from the Obama administration's US embassy security budget not long before the embassy attack in Benghazi took place. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), who is one of the Republicans bravely leading the Benghazi charge, didn't seem too concerned about the embassy in Libya last year when he made the following statement on CNN in an interview with Soledad O'Brien.
Just Saying

Mineola, NY

#1718 May 9, 2013
ZCs wrote:
An Ode to Bush.....
What do these numbers and countries mean?
In 2002 Karachi, Pakistan; 2004, Uzbekistan; 2004, Saudi Arabia; 2006, Syria; 2007, Athens; 2008, Serbia; 2008, Yemen.
No, it's not a puzzle, but given the current nature of our political discourse, the story behind it will no doubt puzzle you.
Listed above are the years and countries where United States' Embassies were attacked under our previous commander-in-chief, George W. Bush. I found this to be quite revealing given the all out "hair on fire" witch hunt that is currently taking place amongst conservative pundits and Republicans in Congress over the embassy attack in Benghazi, Libya last year. Now, I will be the first to say that even one person killed in an attack on our embassies is too many, but the fact that seven (count 'em SEVEN!) embassies were attacked and many people killed under the previous Republican administration and we heard nary a word of dismay is more than puzzling, it's downright unbelievable!
Now where does the Republican hero of heroes stand on the attack meter? There were three embassy attacks during Ronald Reagan's presidency, two in 1983 - Beirut (more than 60 killed including 17 Americans) and Kuwait - and one in 1987 in Italy.
In fact, history shows that each of the presidents of the past few decades have had to deal with embassy attacks and bombings. For some reason, I don't ever recall there being so much unrest following an attack as there is now under President Obama.
I guess what really sent me reeling was today when I read about Mike Huckabee's well-crafted remarks on the radio that "Benghazi will be Obama's Watergate" and "this President will not fill out his full term". Excuse me? Let me get this straight. Not only did 9/11 happen on Bush's watch, but seven embassy attacks and Obama is the one that will be ousted? Huckabee claimed that the so-called Benghazi "cover-up" was worse than Watergate "because no one died." Well, I have one question for Mr. Huckabee: How many people died because of the Iraq War "weapons of mass destruction" cover-up? How many American soldiers gave their lives for a war of choice built on exaggeration, manipulation and outright lies? Is that worse than Watergate?
But see, we can't mention that because Bush "kept us safe" remember? Sorry, but if you think that's safe then I have a bridge in San Francisco I want to sell you.
I agree that there may still be some questions that need to be answered regarding the attacks in Benghazi and the families of those who died who have questions deserve to have their questions answered. However, the level of vitriol that is coming out of the Right because of these attacks is undeniably partisan and disgusting.
What's even more outrageous is that absolutely no one is discussing the fact that it was the House Republicans who cut $300 million from the Obama administration's US embassy security budget not long before the embassy attack in Benghazi took place. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), who is one of the Republicans bravely leading the Benghazi charge, didn't seem too concerned about the embassy in Libya last year when he made the following statement on CNN in an interview with Soledad O'Brien.
How many of those previous attacks occurred over a period of 9 hours, in which calls for help were ignored by the Administration? Most of them were hit and run bombings and shootings, which were over in minutes. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Just Saying

Mineola, NY

#1719 May 9, 2013
ZCs wrote:
An Ode to Bush.....
What do these numbers and countries mean?
In 2002 Karachi, Pakistan; 2004, Uzbekistan; 2004, Saudi Arabia; 2006, Syria; 2007, Athens; 2008, Serbia; 2008, Yemen.
No, it's not a puzzle, but given the current nature of our political discourse, the story behind it will no doubt puzzle you.
Listed above are the years and countries where United States' Embassies were attacked under our previous commander-in-chief, George W. Bush. I found this to be quite revealing given the all out "hair on fire" witch hunt that is currently taking place amongst conservative pundits and Republicans in Congress over the embassy attack in Benghazi, Libya last year. Now, I will be the first to say that even one person killed in an attack on our embassies is too many, but the fact that seven (count 'em SEVEN!) embassies were attacked and many people killed under the previous Republican administration and we heard nary a word of dismay is more than puzzling, it's downright unbelievable!
Now where does the Republican hero of heroes stand on the attack meter? There were three embassy attacks during Ronald Reagan's presidency, two in 1983 - Beirut (more than 60 killed including 17 Americans) and Kuwait - and one in 1987 in Italy.
In fact, history shows that each of the presidents of the past few decades have had to deal with embassy attacks and bombings. For some reason, I don't ever recall there being so much unrest following an attack as there is now under President Obama.
I guess what really sent me reeling was today when I read about Mike Huckabee's well-crafted remarks on the radio that "Benghazi will be Obama's Watergate" and "this President will not fill out his full term". Excuse me? Let me get this straight. Not only did 9/11 happen on Bush's watch, but seven embassy attacks and Obama is the one that will be ousted? Huckabee claimed that the so-called Benghazi "cover-up" was worse than Watergate "because no one died." Well, I have one question for Mr. Huckabee: How many people died because of the Iraq War "weapons of mass destruction" cover-up? How many American soldiers gave their lives for a war of choice built on exaggeration, manipulation and outright lies? Is that worse than Watergate?
But see, we can't mention that because Bush "kept us safe" remember? Sorry, but if you think that's safe then I have a bridge in San Francisco I want to sell you.
I agree that there may still be some questions that need to be answered regarding the attacks in Benghazi and the families of those who died who have questions deserve to have their questions answered. However, the level of vitriol that is coming out of the Right because of these attacks is undeniably partisan and disgusting.
What's even more outrageous is that absolutely no one is discussing the fact that it was the House Republicans who cut $300 million from the Obama administration's US embassy security budget not long before the embassy attack in Benghazi took place. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), who is one of the Republicans bravely leading the Benghazi charge, didn't seem too concerned about the embassy in Libya last year when he made the following statement on CNN in an interview with Soledad O'Brien.
You're comparing apples and oranges. Those previous attacks were hit and run bombings and shootings, which were over in minutes. Benghazi involved attacks over 9 hours, on a facility that was the subject of previous warnings about it's vulnerability, and where urgent calls for help were ignored.
ILAL

Bronx, NY

#1720 May 9, 2013
ZCs wrote:
An Ode to Bush.....
What do these numbers and countries mean?
In 2002 Karachi, Pakistan; 2004, Uzbekistan; 2004, Saudi Arabia; 2006, Syria; 2007, Athens; 2008, Serbia; 2008, Yemen.
No, it's not a puzzle, but given the current nature of our political discourse, the story behind it will no doubt puzzle you.
Listed above are the years and countries where United States' Embassies were attacked under our previous commander-in-chief, George W. Bush. I found this to be quite revealing given the all out "hair on fire" witch hunt that is currently taking place amongst conservative pundits and Republicans in Congress over the embassy attack in Benghazi, Libya last year. Now, I will be the first to say that even one person killed in an attack on our embassies is too many, but the fact that seven (count 'em SEVEN!) embassies were attacked and many people killed under the previous Republican administration and we heard nary a word of dismay is more than puzzling, it's downright unbelievable!
Now where does the Republican hero of heroes stand on the attack meter? There were three embassy attacks during Ronald Reagan's presidency, two in 1983 - Beirut (more than 60 killed including 17 Americans) and Kuwait - and one in 1987 in Italy.
In fact, history shows that each of the presidents of the past few decades have had to deal with embassy attacks and bombings. For some reason, I don't ever recall there being so much unrest following an attack as there is now under President Obama.
I guess what really sent me reeling was today when I read about Mike Huckabee's well-crafted remarks on the radio that "Benghazi will be Obama's Watergate" and "this President will not fill out his full term". Excuse me? Let me get this straight. Not only did 9/11 happen on Bush's watch, but seven embassy attacks and Obama is the one that will be ousted? Huckabee claimed that the so-called Benghazi "cover-up" was worse than Watergate "because no one died." Well, I have one question for Mr. Huckabee: How many people died because of the Iraq War "weapons of mass destruction" cover-up? How many American soldiers gave their lives for a war of choice built on exaggeration, manipulation and outright lies? Is that worse than Watergate?
But see, we can't mention that because Bush "kept us safe" remember? Sorry, but if you think that's safe then I have a bridge in San Francisco I want to sell you.
I agree that there may still be some questions that need to be answered regarding the attacks in Benghazi and the families of those who died who have questions deserve to have their questions answered. However, the level of vitriol that is coming out of the Right because of these attacks is undeniably partisan and disgusting.
What's even more outrageous is that absolutely no one is discussing the fact that it was the House Republicans who cut $300 million from the Obama administration's US embassy security budget not long before the embassy attack in Benghazi took place. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), who is one of the Republicans bravely leading the Benghazi charge, didn't seem too concerned about the embassy in Libya last year when he made the following statement on CNN in an interview with Soledad O'Brien.
Excellent post.
ILAL

Bronx, NY

#1721 May 9, 2013
ZCs wrote:
An Ode to Bush
It is a well-known syndrome in alcoholic and/or abusive families that the child runs to the abusive parent, and makes excuses for him or her. In fact there are a whole set of syndromes afflicting the poor adults who lived through that horror as children.
The fawning interviews attending the opening of the George W. Bush presidential library, for the least bookish of all our presidents, struck me as having a lot of resemblance to those syndromes. America has a problem holding its high elected officials to account. A republic as the founding generation envisaged it is a collective of equals. We have no king, no one who is above the law. Some of us serve the public through elective office for a while. If we do it honorably we get thanks. If we do it dishonorably, we should be tried for our crimes or at the very least suffer opprobrium in polite society. The emergence of the imperial presidency in the twentieth century and until now is an affront to those republican values, a descent into empire and monarchy and lack of accountability. For ex-presidents everything is forgiven over time. We named the airport in our national capital for a man who sold weapons stolen from Pentagon warehouses to Ayatollah Khomeini at at time the latter was on a terror watch list, and used the black money thus gained to support right wing death squads in Central America. We let a war criminal pronounce himself comfortable with his crimes against humanity.
1. Adult constituents of abusive ex-presidents lie when it would be just as easy to tell the truth. They have to constantly make excuses for the criminal behavior of their ex-president. For instance, it is often alleged that all international intelligence agencies agreed with the Bush administration that Iraq had ‘weapons mass destruction.’ But the French did not, and the Germans had serious questions. It is not true, just a lie that we are forced to tell in order to protect an war-addicted president. Likewise, they often maintain that WMD actually was found in Iraq (wrong) or that it was moved to Syria (not true) or that Saddam Hussein was tied to al-Qaeda (false). Or they may downplay the number of Iraqis killed as a result of the illegal US invasion.
Once again, Excellent post.
ILAL

Bronx, NY

#1722 May 9, 2013
ZCs wrote:
An Ode to Bush
WHAT IF...Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld had done nothing, and allowed Richard Clarke & Company to continue their pursuit of Osama bin Laden? What if Bush had paid attention to those warnings (as Clinton did)? 9-11 might well have been averted.
WHAT IF...Bush had valued what he inherited -- a balanced budget -- and DONE NOTHING. No massive tax cuts benefiting the top 1/10th of 1 percent. No massive deficits. 8 years -- budget still balanced, instead of trillions in new debt and a tax code designed to make the government untenable without savaging the social safety net.
WHAT IF...Bush had treated FEMA as a serious agency with a vital role to play in national emergencies? What if he'd appointed a serious administrator, instead of an incompetent crony bent on looting the agency and wrecking its ability to function properly? Katrina might have turned out quite differently.
WHAT IF...Bush had hadn't worked overtime to destroy the regulation of financial markets? What if he'd DONE NOTHING, and let regulatory agencies do their proper work? The financial crash of 2007-8 might never have happened.
WHAT IF...most importantly...Bush/Cheney/Rums feld hadn't conjured stove-piped "intel" to stampede us into war after 9-11? No trillion dollar wars, shoveled onto the spiraling national debt...no thousands of American soldiers killed...no hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed...no Abu Ghraib...no disillusionment of the American public in our ability to fight and win wars...
Maybe some of the problems facing the country today wouldn't have taken place.
ZCs

Bronx, NY

#1724 May 18, 2013
AN ODE TO BUSH

Georgetown University professor and MSNBC contributor Michael Eric Dyson revealed on MSNBC’s Now on Wednesday that he has been the target of political intimidation by the Internal Revenue Service during the administration of President George W. Bush. Dyson claimed that, after criticizing Bush on television for his government’s response to Hurricane Katrina, he was audited for five consecutive years by the IRS.

In a discussion about the unfolding scandal in which IRS agents are implicated in forcing conservative groups to undergo more scrutiny in requests for tax-exempt status than liberal groups, the MSNBC panel agreed that added scrutiny across the board would be welcome.

The conversation shifted to the scandal surrounding the Justice Department’s unilateral seizure of telephone records from the Associated Press.
Sandman

Bronx, NY

#1725 May 20, 2013
ZCs wrote:
AN ODE TO BUSH
Georgetown University professor and MSNBC contributor Michael Eric Dyson revealed on MSNBC’s Now on Wednesday that he has been the target of political intimidation by the Internal Revenue Service during the administration of President George W. Bush. Dyson claimed that, after criticizing Bush on television for his government’s response to Hurricane Katrina, he was audited for five consecutive years by the IRS.
In a discussion about the unfolding scandal in which IRS agents are implicated in forcing conservative groups to undergo more scrutiny in requests for tax-exempt status than liberal groups, the MSNBC panel agreed that added scrutiny across the board would be welcome.
The conversation shifted to the scandal surrounding the Justice Department’s unilateral seizure of telephone records from the Associated Press.
Ahhhhh, the hypocrisy of those silly Republicans.
You didn't hear a peep out of those fruit loops when the NAACP was audited from 2004 - 2006 after then NAACP President, Julian Bond criticized GWB for getting American into an unjust war with Iraq based on lies of Iraq having WMD's.
The Republicans are hypocrites and two bit phonies because they have nothing to run on in the mid term elections of 2014.
Carl Spackler

AOL

#1726 May 20, 2013
Sandman wrote:
<quoted text>Ahhhhh, the hypocrisy of those silly Republicans.
You didn't hear a peep out of those fruit loops when the NAACP was audited from 2004 - 2006 after then NAACP President, Julian Bond criticized GWB for getting American into an unjust war with Iraq based on lies of Iraq having WMD's.
The Republicans are hypocrites and two bit phonies because they have nothing to run on in the mid term elections of 2014.
Can I ask you something Sandy ? You've been acting psychotically latey. What the hell....why ?
Sandman

Bronx, NY

#1727 May 20, 2013
Carl Spackler wrote:
<quoted text>
Can I ask you something Sandy ? You've been acting psychotically latey. What the hell....why ?
You're acting very stupid lately..........Why?

What's your major malfunction?
Small penis?

Flabby muscles?

Pot belly?

Can't get a date?

People think you're silly?

Whatever it is, you need to address it ASAP.
ZCs

Brooklyn, NY

#1728 May 21, 2013
An Ode to BUSH

There have been nine public hearings and countless hours of commentary about the so-called Benghazi “cover-up”– really some bureaucratic back-and-forth about “talking points” for a second-tier official’s appearance on TV. But none of the outraged members of Congress or the news media seems to have any idea what a real cover-up looks like.

In 2011, I gained access to files at the George H.W. Bush library in College Station, Texas, showing how Bush’s White House reacted to allegations in 1991 that he had joined in an operation in 1980 to sabotage President Jimmy Carter’s negotiations to free 52 American hostages then held in Iran.

What those files revealed was how to run a cover-up! Its framework was set on Nov. 6, 1991, by White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray, who explained to an inter-agency strategy session how to contain and frustrate a congressional investigation into the so-called October Surprise case. The explicit goal was to insure the scandal would not hurt President Bush’s reelection hopes in 1992.

Gray’s strategy session followed by two days the White House receiving evidence from the State Department that a key fact in the October Surprise allegations had been verified. Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign director, William Casey, indeed had traveled on a mysterious trip to Madrid, just as one of the central witnesses had claimed.

The confirmation was passed along by State Department legal adviser Edwin D. Williamson, who said that among the State Department “material potentially relevant to the October Surprise allegations [was] a cable from the Madrid embassy indicating that Bill Casey was in town, for purposes unknown.” Associate White House counsel Chester Paul Beach Jr. Beach noted Williamson’s information in a “memorandum for record” dated Nov. 4, 1991.
ZCs

Brooklyn, NY

#1729 Jun 1, 2013
An Ode to Bush

Fox News had a gotcha moment go wrong, when Sen. Dick Durbin explained why Karl Rove deserves to be investigated by the IRS.

Transcript via Fox News Sunday:

WALLACE: Senator Durbin, I want to pick up on this culture. Starting in 2010, a number of Democratic senators — Democrat senators — sent letters to the IRS asking them to investigate various groups that they said were seeking tax-exempt status, but were improperly involved in politics. Now, in October 2010, you sent a letter to the IRS in which you talked about going after groups.

But you only mentioned one specifically by name and I want to put this up from the October 2010 letter that you wrote to the IRS,“One organization whose activities appear to be inconsistent with the tax status is Crossroads GPS.” That, of course, a group co-founded by Karl Rove.

Question, Senator — why single out Crossroads when you did not mention one single liberal group, and there were a bunch that were applying for that exempt-status exactly that point, with the name “progress” in their names?

DURBIN: I can just tell you flat out why I did it, because that Crossroads organization was boasting about the money they were raising as a 501(c)(4).

Let’s get back to the basics. Citizens United really unleashed hundreds, if not thousands, of organizations seeking tax-exempt statuses to play in political campaigns. The law we wrote as Congress said that they had to exclusively be engaged in social welfare and not politics and campaigning.

And so, here is the IRS trying to decide whether or not these organizations really comply with the law. Crossroads was exhibit A. They were boastful about how much the money they were going to raise and beat Democrats.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

New York Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
2 NYPD cops shot a execution stylea in Brooklyn 4 min games2girls2 85
jets talk back (Dec '07) 6 min YANKEES 4 LIFE 10,019
Run,Run, Run, The Republicans are Coming! (Jan '11) 9 min talking about crazy 1,666
Protesters to NYPD: We want dead cops 10 min games2girls2 33
The Three R's: Reichwing Republican Rants (Sep '10) 13 min talking about crazy 1,349
OBAMA is the BEST PRESIDENT EVER (Nov '10) 14 min Bloody Bill Anderson 16,672
Rev. Al Sharpton to meet with Sony Pictures on ... 27 min keeping it real 24
Eric Garner Murdered by Cop 1 hr right back at them 338
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 3 hr Paul Yanks 311,591

New York News Video

New York Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

New York People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

New York News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in New York

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:04 pm PST

Bleacher Report 4:04PM
Highlights, Recap for Pats vs. Jets
NBC Sports 4:20 PM
Today in the NFL: Jets miss opportunity to beat Patriots
NBC Sports 4:26 PM
Giants help Tom Coughlin's cause with third straight win
NFL 4:37 PM
Odell Beckham stars again as Giants beat up Rams
Yahoo! Sports 4:46 PM
Rookie Beckham leads Giants past Rams 37-27