http://www.camera.org/index.as…..rticle=148

Four part series on “alleged” Israeli spying on Fox News just after 9/11

A must watch

Comverse Insofy and Amdocs
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/articl
e7545.htm

The link for this four part series is not working any longer at Information Clearing House but is working at You tube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fm0_7jVqcE

BigMitch @ 106

Interestingly, when Gore was VP the talk of the town was how this was a new model of the office of VP. He was tasked with important initiatives, unlike Quayle or even Poppy. Agnew had his own program, but that’s a different story.

But, as far as we know, as far as I know, benign and even beneficent.

Whitehouse as President. Like the idea

A must watch

Comverse Insofy and Amdocs
http://www.informationclearing…..le7545.htm

Biodun @ 72

MoDo today on her sister, W, and Cheney:

(NYTimes link behind TimesSelect firewall.)

I found THIS portion of Dowd’s column [quoting her Republican sister] particularly interesting.

“We are spending billions on this war, and yet veterans and their children are practically getting nothing. I’m no longer a Republican. I’m an American, and I will cast my vote for the person I believe will start the process to get out of Iraq — unless, of course, it’s Hillary.”

It’s a point I’ve been trying to make with Hillary supporters: other Democratic candidates will attract voters like this AND won’t motivate voters to come out and vote against them.

I completely agree. What is worrisome about both Hillary and Obama is that they each have one strike (sexism or racism) against them to start with. Plus Hillary is so polarizing that she is even polarizing us! I would so much prefer a candidate such as Chris Dodd, without so much baggage to begin with. Because democrats HAVE to win this next election.

MoDo today on her sister, W, and Cheney:

For me, one of the most amazing reversals brought about by W.’s reign of error is this: He may have turned my sister into a Democrat.

(snip)

She once told a reporter that she couldn’t totally choose W. over me because she knew if she were dying “he won’t come and hold my hand, and I know Maureen will.” So imagine my surprise when she started talking about voting for Barack Obama or John Edwards, if they stop “pussyfooting” around Hillary.

“W.’s loyalty to Cheney has hurt his presidency,” she says sadly. “When Cheney picked himself as vice president, W. should have said, ‘Bug off.’ He could have made his own banquet instead of choosing leftovers.”

(NYTimes link behind TimesSelect firewall.)

I found THIS portion of Dowd’s column [quoting her Republican sister] particularly interesting.

“We are spending billions on this war, and yet veterans and their children are practically getting nothing. I’m no longer a Republican. I’m an American, and I will cast my vote for the person I believe will start the process to get out of Iraq — unless, of course, it’s Hillary.”

It’s a point I’ve been trying to make with Hillary supporters: other Democratic candidates will attract voters like this AND won’t motivate voters to come out and vote against them.

Sojourner @ 68

What I would like to understand is why, WHY, Chimpy, who claims to be the Deciderer, would allow Cheney the power and information that he has. What does Cheney have on the Chimp?

Someone mentioned a coup d’etat — and I believe that it has already transpired. This is scary stuff!

I think it’s because Chimpy is just SO damn lazy!!! He’s never worked in his entire life, and he’s certainly not going to start now. He just wants to strut around, pounding his chest and claiming he’s the “decider,” and smirk that nasty smirk.

MauiMom – BINGO!

What I would like to understand is why, WHY, Chimpy, who claims to be the Deciderer, would allow Cheney the power and information that he has. What does Cheney have on the Chimp?

Someone mentioned a coup d’etat — and I believe that it has already transpired. This is scary stuff!

I think it’s because Chimpy is just SO damn lazy!!! He’s never worked in his entire life, and he’s certainly not going to start now. He just wants to strut around, pounding his chest and claiming he’s the “decider,” and smirk that nasty smirk.

And that’s the point, Mrs. Clinton is NOT the horse for progressive Democrats or non-corporatist Democrats…she is the horse of the corporate oligarchy and her election to the presidency would be worse than any of the monkeys now runnin’ on the Republican side (why do ya think the oligarchy has conceded the White House to the Dems?)

It can’t be pointed out often enough, can it? Neo-conservatives, who lied this country into the terrible quagmire of Iraq, viewed this as only a first step in creative destruction of the Middle East. Neo-conservatives are not blinded by the totemic power of the letter (D), they will use whoever is in power. Hillary Clinton’s likely choice for Sec of State, Richard Holbrook, says:

“She is probably more assertive and willing to use force than her husband,” says Holbrooke, a former adviser to Bill Clinton.”

as she has clearly indicated, with the veiled threat that “all options are on the table” in regards to Iran, a country that hasn’t invaded anybody for the last 50 years, at least.

for those who cling to the notion that a vote for anything other than the “least-worst” is a vote down the toilet, isn’t a vote down the toilet better than supporting someone who might, as President, be the first to use nuclear weapons against a country that poses no threat to the USA?

Here’s Clinton’s pal Holbrooke chumming it with paul Wolfowitz:

from “Hillary’s Neo-con” over at http://counterpunch.org/frank07252007.html

“In an unguarded moment just before the 2000 election, Richard Holbrooke opened a foreign policy speech with a fawning tribute to his host, Paul Wolfowitz, who was then the dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington,” reported First of the Month following the terrorist attacks in 2001.

The article continued: “Holbrooke, a senior adviser to Al Gore, was acutely aware that either he or Wolfowitz would be playing important roles in next administration. Looking perhaps to assure the world of the continuity of US foreign policy, he told his audience that Wolfowitz’s ‘recent activities illustrate something that’s very important about American foreign policy in an election year, and that is the degree to which there are still common themes between the parties.’