Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Fiscal Discipline Not on Agenda for Democrats

By Dan Balz
It's too bad there won't be a Democratic debate in North Carolina this weekend. Thanks to the good work of my colleague Ruth Marcus and an editorial in Friday's Washington Post, there would be plenty of questions for both Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton about how they plan to prevent blowing a new hole in the federal deficit.

The Democratic race has featured much talk about new initiatives for expanding health-care coverage, paying for rising college tuition costs, creating jobs, providing displaced workers new skills, investing in alternative energies and giving tax cuts to middle-class families.

For the first time, The Post editorial page added up the cost of these promises. They amount to about $330 billion annually for Obama and about $265 billion annually for Clinton. Roll in the cost of rolling back President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and some other tax changes and the budgetary gap is instantly clear.

The candidates' spending promises have come despite assurances, particularly from Clinton, that they recognize the need to restore some fiscal discipline in Washington. Clinton has talked about this since before becoming a candidate. Here's what she said in April 2006, speaking to the Economic Club of Chicago:

"I think a return to fiscal discipline, living within our means, is essential to our long-term health. It is also critical to whether or not we control our own destiny as a nation. ... Red-ink fiscal policies will undermine America's competitiveness. We have to ask ourselves whether our taxing and spending policies are in line with our economic goals."

Her campaign has often pointed to ways in which she would offset the cost of new spending -- with revoking the Bush tax cuts and ending subsidies to oil companies the favored new revenue sources for the new programs. But as The Post editorial suggests, the potential gap between real spending and imagined savings could be substantial.

Obama has been even less, shall we say, disciplined about fiscal discipline. If the budget deficit worries him, he rarely lets it show. His politics of change do not feature as a central tenet a break from the often irresponsible approach to deficits practiced by the Bush administration and by many Democratic administrations of the past.

The Clinton administration was an exception. With a valuable push from the Gingrich-led Republicans in Congress, President Bill Clinton presided over a balanced budget. The combination of a robust -- even overheated -- tech-driven economy and a political détente on the budget brought about a sudden and significant shift in the fiscal picture.

The rosy projections of budget surpluses quickly disappeared once Bush took office, thanks to massive tax cuts and a war in Iraq that has far exceeded even the costliest estimates at the time of the invasion in 2003.

Among the Democratic candidates, only John Edwards spoke forthrightly about the deficit. He didn't particularly care whether it grew while he was president. Edwards was candid in saying that, given the trade-offs, he preferred to spend $100 billion or so annually to achieve universal health care and additional resources into other new programs than to worry about the budgetary consequences. At least with Edwards, the voters knew what they were getting.

With Obama and Clinton, that is far less clear. Clinton has resisted outlining any plans for dealing with the fiscal health of Social Security by arguing that until Washington brings back some fiscal sanity, there is no point it tackling the looming entitlements problem. But as The Post editorial makes clear, getting to that promised land of manageable red ink or better will be far harder than she's acknowledged.

Obama has been more forthcoming about Social Security -- and Clinton has hammered him for doing so -- but overall appears to be less a fiscal hawk than she is.

The candidates know they can dance effectively away from most questions about whether their plans add up. The press has little patience for that kind of debate, particularly given the other elements of this contested Democratic race. Voters say they care about the deficit, but their concerns don't rise to the level of their fear of losing a job or trying to pay for gasoline or health care.

The Post editorial does not give John McCain a pass either. The champion of spending discipline has suddenly become a supply-side tax cutter this spring. He too has questions to answer about how he would manage the budget.

What is at issue here is credibility as much as economics. Experts long have debated what constitutes a manageable deficit -- and even whether sustained surpluses are healthy. The question is whether voters can trust any of the candidates when it comes to speaking honestly about the deficit. At this stage, as The Post editorial page makes clear, they have appear to have a credibility gap.

By Web Politics Editor  |  April 25, 2008; 12:06 PM ET
Categories:  Dan Balz's Take  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: 'China Cheats' Ad Targets Candidates
Next: A Hillary Fundraiser Jumps Ship

Comments

"Roll in the cost of rolling back President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and some other tax changes and the budgetary gap is instantly clear."

What are you, idiots? "Rolling back...tax cuts" will SAVE MONEY, not add to the cost.

No wonder the American public is so uninformed, with idiot reporters like you spouting this kind of nonsense.

Posted by: rita forte | April 25, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

CITIZENS,


howz about


you require your country to work for _you_

and

THAT _IS_ the National Security ISSUE...

this country does not and should not exist solely

so that "fill in the blank," gets to feel okay about his destruction of our economy to enrich his friends...


and "his or her" use of the government to enrich "him or her" as a way of doing business without worrying about recompense for the people


or how they/ _WE_


are affected...


they don't have to be responsible.


outsourcing downsizing internationalization


all of a sudden bankruptcy laws were tightened and overtime was allowed to not be paid


that's what the government and corporations needed......


they effing _caused it_


you have to effing _pay for it_

how about mandating that

we as a country start doing


the _right_


thing?

and that the majority get served, not the minority...


and punish those that would use disinformation to control you.


this is not the effing soviet union and we don't need a pravda feeding us effing lies on a daily basis....


Rupert Murdoch tried to own the media business....blah blah Fox News..blah..
.

take it away from them, and take away the money from them that they have stolen from you....


.

Posted by: hello pork lovers... | April 25, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Neil C -- teachers and government employees garner a disproportionate share of the national wealth?

Based on what imaginary metric?

Most career civil servants opt into government service at substantially lower rate of pay than they would earn in the private sector.

Teachers get paid peanuts in this country compared to what they might earn in other more developed countries -- this is also true in reference to the private sector.

Gary -- I'd be curious to see some hard numbers to back up your claims too.

Illegal immigrants have paid about $100 billion into social security over the past ten years (this is based on social security revenue that can't be linked back to a legitimate social security number -- most of this money is coming from illegal immigrants).

Illegal immigration does have a big impact on the local level in some states -- and it also has an impact on wage pressures for low-skilled workers. Not at $9,000 per taxpayer. Maybe a net of $90. Not $9,000.

Posted by: JP2 | April 25, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clintion will be the BEST PRESIDENT we ever had.
She is already the BEST SENATOR we ever had.
She was the BEST FIRST LADY we ever had.

She is the BEST MOTHER we ever had on this planet.
She is THE BEST HUMAN we ever had on this planet.

She is simply THE BEST...BETTER than all the rest...and that includes ...

YOU!

Go Hillary!

Posted by: Annie Rodham Oakly | April 25, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

America's Debt to Journalist Gary Webb
By Robert Parry
December 13, 2004

In 1996, journalist Gary Webb wrote a series of articles that forced a long-overdue investigation of a very dark chapter of recent U.S. foreign policy - the Reagan-Bush administration's protection of cocaine traffickers who operated under the cover of the Nicaraguan contra war in the 1980s.

For his brave reporting at the San Jose Mercury News, Webb paid a high price. He was attacked by journalistic colleagues at the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the American Journalism Review and even the Nation magazine. Under this media pressure, his editor Jerry Ceppos sold out the story and demoted Webb, causing him to quit the Mercury News. Even Webb's marriage broke up.

On Friday, Dec. 10, Gary Webb, 49, was found dead of an apparent suicide, a gunshot wound to the head.

Whatever the details of Webb's death, American history owes him a huge debt. Though denigrated by much of the national news media, Webb's contra-cocaine series prompted internal investigations by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department, probes that confirmed that scores of contra units and contra-connected individuals were implicated in the drug trade. The probes also showed that the Reagan-Bush administration frustrated investigations into those crimes for geopolitical reasons.

Failed Media

Unintentionally, Webb also exposed the cowardice and unprofessional behavior that had become the new trademarks of the major U.S. news media by the mid-1990s. The big news outlets were always hot on the trail of some titillating scandal - the O.J. Simpson case or the Monica Lewinsky scandal - but the major media could no longer grapple with serious crimes of state.

Even after the CIA's inspector general issued his findings in 1998, the major newspapers could not muster the talent or the courage to explain those extraordinary government admissions to the American people. Nor did the big newspapers apologize for their unfair treatment of Gary Webb. Foreshadowing the media incompetence that would fail to challenge George W. Bush's case for war with Iraq five years later, the major news organizations effectively hid the CIA's confession from the American people.

The New York Times and the Washington Post never got much past the CIA's "executive summary," which tried to put the best spin on Inspector General Frederick Hitz's findings. The Los Angeles Times never even wrote a story after the final volume of the CIA's report was published, though Webb's initial story had focused on contra-connected cocaine shipments to South-Central Los Angeles.

The Los Angeles Times' cover-up has now continued after Webb's death. In a harsh obituary about Webb, the Times reporter, who called to interview me, ignored my comments about the debt the nation owed Webb and the importance of the CIA's inspector general findings. Instead of using Webb's death as an opportunity to finally get the story straight, the Times acted as if there never had been an official investigation confirming many of Webb's allegations. [Los Angeles Times, Dec. 12, 2004.]

By maintaining the contra-cocaine cover-up - even after the CIA's inspector general had admitted the facts - the big newspapers seemed to have understood that they could avoid any consequences for their egregious behavior in the 1990s or for their negligence toward the contra-cocaine issue when it first surfaced in the 1980s. After all, the conservative news media - the chief competitor to the mainstream press - isn't going to demand a reexamination of the crimes of the Reagan-Bush years.

That means that only a few minor media outlets, like our own Consortiumnews.com, will go back over the facts now, just as only a few of us addressed the significance of the government admissions in the late 1990s. I compiled and explained the findings of the CIA/Justice investigations in my 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

Contra-Cocaine Case

Lost History, which took its name from a series at this Web site, also describes how the contra-cocaine story first reached the public in a story that Brian Barger and I wrote for the Associated Press in December 1985. Though the big newspapers pooh-poohed our discovery, Sen. John Kerry followed up our story with his own groundbreaking investigation. For his efforts, Kerry also encountered media ridicule. Newsweek dubbed the Massachusetts senator a "randy conspiracy buff." [For details, see Consortiumnews.com's "Kerry's Contra-Cocaine Chapter."]

So when Gary Webb revived the contra-cocaine issue in August 1996 with a 20,000-word three-part series entitled "Dark Alliance," editors at major newspapers already had a powerful self-interest to slap down a story that they had disparaged for the past decade.

The challenge to their earlier judgments was doubly painful because the Mercury-News' sophisticated Web site ensured that Webb's series made a big splash on the Internet, which was just emerging as a threat to the traditional news media. Also, the African-American community was furious at the possibility that U.S. government policies had contributed to the crack-cocaine epidemic.

In other words, the mostly white, male editors at the major newspapers saw their preeminence in judging news challenged by an upstart regional newspaper, the Internet and common American citizens who also happened to be black. So, even as the CIA was prepared to conduct a relatively thorough and honest investigation, the major newspapers seemed more eager to protect their reputations and their turf.

Without doubt, Webb's series had its limitations. It primarily tracked one West Coast network of contra-cocaine traffickers from the early-to-mid 1980s. Webb connected that cocaine to an early "crack" production network that supplied Los Angeles street gangs, the Crips and the Bloods, leading to Webb's conclusion that contra cocaine fueled the early crack epidemic that devastated Los Angeles and other U.S. cities.

Counterattack

When black leaders began demanding a full investigation of these charges, the Washington media joined the political Establishment in circling the wagons. It fell to Rev. Sun Myung Moon's right-wing Washington Times to begin the counterattack against Webb's series. The Washington Times turned to some former CIA officials, who participated in the contra war, to refute the drug charges.

But - in a pattern that would repeat itself on other issues in the following years - the Washington Post and other mainstream newspapers quickly lined up behind the conservative news media. On Oct. 4, 1996, the Washington Post published a front-page article knocking down Webb's story.

The Post's approach was twofold: first, it presented the contra-cocaine allegations as old news - "even CIA personnel testified to Congress they knew that those covert operations involved drug traffickers," the Post reported - and second, the Post minimized the importance of the one contra smuggling channel that Webb had highlighted - that it had not "played a major role in the emergence of crack." A Post side-bar story dismissed African-Americans as prone to "conspiracy fears."

Soon, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times joined in the piling on of Gary Webb. The big newspapers made much of the CIA's internal reviews in 1987 and 1988 that supposedly cleared the spy agency of a role in contra-cocaine smuggling.

But the CIA's decade-old cover-up began to crumble on Oct. 24, 1996, when CIA Inspector General Hitz conceded before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the first CIA probe had lasted only 12 days, the second only three days. He promised a more thorough review.

Mocking Webb

Meanwhile, however, Gary Webb became the target of outright media ridicule. Influential Post media critic Howard Kurtz mocked Webb for saying in a book proposal that he would explore the possibility that the contra war was primarily a business to its participants. "Oliver Stone, check your voice mail," Kurtz chortled. [Washington Post, Oct. 28, 1996]

Webb's suspicion was not unfounded, however. Indeed, White House aide Oliver North's emissary Rob Owen had made the same point a decade earlier, in a March 17, 1986, message about the contra leadership. "Few of the so-called leaders of the movement ... really care about the boys in the field," Owen wrote. "THIS WAR HAS BECOME A BUSINESS TO MANY OF THEM." [Capitalization in the original.]

Nevertheless, the pillorying of Gary Webb was on, in earnest. The ridicule also had a predictable effect on the executives of the Mercury-News. By early 1997, executive editor Jerry Ceppos was in retreat.

On May 11, 1997, Ceppos published a front-page column saying the series "fell short of my standards." He criticized the stories because they "strongly implied CIA knowledge" of contra connections to U.S. drug dealers who were manufacturing crack-cocaine. "We did not have proof that top CIA officials knew of the relationship."

The big newspapers celebrated Ceppos's retreat as vindication of their own dismissal of the contra-cocaine stories. Ceppos next pulled the plug on the Mercury-News' continuing contra-cocaine investigation and reassigned Webb to a small office in Cupertino, California, far from his family. Webb resigned the paper in disgrace.

For undercutting Webb and the other reporters working on the contra investigation, Ceppos was lauded by the American Journalism Review and was given the 1997 national "Ethics in Journalism Award" by the Society of Professional Journalists. While Ceppos won raves, Webb watched his career collapse and his marriage break up.

Probes Advance

Still, Gary Webb had set in motion internal government investigations that would bring to the surface long-hidden facts about how the Reagan-Bush administration had conducted the contra war. The CIA's defensive line against the contra-cocaine allegations began to break when the spy agency published Volume One of Hitz's findings on Jan. 29, 1998.

Despite a largely exculpatory press release, Hitz's Volume One admitted that not only were many of Webb's allegations true but that he actually understated the seriousness of the contra-drug crimes and the CIA's knowledge. Hitz acknowledged that cocaine smugglers played a significant early role in the Nicaraguan contra movement and that the CIA intervened to block an image-threatening 1984 federal investigation into a San Francisco-based drug ring with suspected ties to the contras. [For details, see Robert Parry's Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth']

On May 7, 1998, another disclosure from the government investigation shook the CIA's weakening defenses. Rep. Maxine Waters, a California Democrat, introduced into the Congressional Record a Feb. 11, 1982, letter of understanding between the CIA and the Justice Department. The letter, which had been sought by CIA Director William Casey, freed the CIA from legal requirements that it must report drug smuggling by CIA assets, a provision that covered both the Nicaraguan contras and Afghan rebels who were fighting a Soviet-supported regime in Afghanistan.

Justice Report

Another crack in the defensive wall opened when the Justice Department released a report by its inspector general, Michael Bromwich. Given the hostile climate surrounding Webb's series, Bromwich's report opened with criticism of Webb. But, like the CIA's Volume One, the contents revealed new details about government wrongdoing.

According to evidence cited by the report, the Reagan-Bush administration knew almost from the outset of the contra war that cocaine traffickers permeated the paramilitary operation. The administration also did next to nothing to expose or stop the criminal activities. The report revealed example after example of leads not followed, corroborated witnesses disparaged, official law-enforcement investigations sabotaged, and even the CIA facilitating the work of drug traffickers.

The Bromwich report showed that the contras and their supporters ran several parallel drug-smuggling operations, not just the one at the center of Webb's series. The report also found that the CIA shared little of its information about contra drugs with law-enforcement agencies and on three occasions disrupted cocaine-trafficking investigations that threatened the contras.

Though depicting a more widespread contra-drug operation than Webb had understood, the Justice report also provided some important corroboration about a Nicaraguan drug smuggler, Norwin Meneses, who was a key figure in Webb's series. Bromwich cited U.S. government informants who supplied detailed information about Meneses's operation and his financial assistance to the contras.

For instance, Renato Pena, a money-and-drug courier for Meneses, said that in the early 1980s, the CIA allowed the contras to fly drugs into the United States, sell them and keep the proceeds. Pena, who also was the northern California representative for the CIA-backed FDN contra army, said the drug trafficking was forced on the contras by the inadequate levels of U.S. government assistance.

The Justice report also disclosed repeated examples of the CIA and U.S. embassies in Central America discouraging Drug Enforcement Administration investigations, including one into alleged contra-cocaine shipments moving through the airport in El Salvador. In an understated conclusion, Inspector General Bromwich said secrecy trumped all. "We have no doubt that the CIA and the U.S. Embassy were not anxious for the DEA to pursue its investigation at the airport," he wrote.

CIA's Volume Two

Despite the remarkable admissions in the body of these reports, the big newspapers showed no inclination to read beyond the press releases and executive summaries. By fall 1998, official Washington was obsessed with the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, which made it easier to ignore even more stunning contra-cocaine disclosures in the CIA's Volume Two..

In Volume Two, published Oct. 8, 1998, CIA Inspector General Hitz identified more than 50 contras and contra-related entities implicated in the drug trade. He also detailed how the Reagan-Bush administration had protected these drug operations and frustrated federal investigations, which had threatened to expose the crimes in the mid-1980s. Hitz even published evidence that drug trafficking and money laundering tracked into Reagan's National Security Council where Oliver North oversaw the contra operations.

Hitz revealed, too, that the CIA placed an admitted drug money launderer in charge of the Southern Front contras in Costa Rica. Also, according to Hitz's evidence, the second-in-command of contra forces on the Northern Front in Honduras had escaped from a Colombian prison where he was serving time for drug trafficking

In Volume Two, the CIA's defense against Webb's series had shrunk to a tiny fig leaf: that the CIA did not conspire with the contras to raise money through cocaine trafficking. But Hitz made clear that the contra war took precedence over law enforcement and that the CIA withheld evidence of contra crimes from the Justice Department, the Congress and even the CIA's own analytical division.

Hitz found in CIA files evidence that the spy agency knew from the first days of the contra war that its new clients were involved in the cocaine trade. According to a September 1981 cable to CIA headquarters, one of the early contra groups, known as ADREN, had decided to use drug trafficking as a financing mechanism. Two ADREN members made the first delivery of drugs to Miami in July 1981, the CIA cable reported.

ADREN's leaders included Enrique Bermudez, who emerged as the top contra military commander in the 1980s. Webb's series had identified Bermudez as giving the green light to contra fundraising by drug trafficker Meneses. Hitz's report added that that the CIA had another Nicaraguan witness who implicated Bermudez in the drug trade in 1988.

Priorities

Besides tracing the evidence of contra-drug trafficking through the decade-long contra war, the inspector general interviewed senior CIA officers who acknowledged that they were aware of the contra-drug problem but didn't want its exposure to undermine the struggle to overthrow the leftist Sandinista government.

According to Hitz, the CIA had "one overriding priority: to oust the Sandinista government. ... [CIA officers] were determined that the various difficulties they encountered not be allowed to prevent effective implementation of the contra program." One CIA field officer explained, "The focus was to get the job done, get the support and win the war."

Hitz also recounted complaints from CIA analysts that CIA operations officers handling the contra war hid evidence of contra-drug trafficking even from the CIA's analytical division. Because of the withheld evidence, the CIA analysts incorrectly concluded in the mid-1980s that "only a handful of contras might have been involved in drug trafficking." That false assessment was passed on to Congress and the major news organizations - serving as an important basis for denouncing Gary Webb and his series in 1996.

Though Hitz's report was an extraordinary admission of institutional guilt by the CIA, it passed almost unnoticed by the big newspapers.

Two days after Hitz's report was posted at the CIA's Internet site, the New York Times did a brief article that continued to deride Webb's work, while acknowledging that the contra-drug problem may indeed have been worse than earlier understood. Several weeks later, the Washington Post weighed in with a similarly superficial article. The Los Angeles Times never published a story on the release of the CIA's Volume Two.

Consequences

To this day, no editor or reporter who missed the contra-drug story has been punished for his or her negligence. Indeed, many of them are now top executives at their news organizations. On the other hand, Gary Webb's career never recovered.

At Webb's death, however, it should be noted that his great gift to American history was that he - along with angry African-American citizens - forced the government to admit some of the worst crimes ever condoned by any American administration: the protection of drug smuggling into the United States as part of a covert war against a country, Nicaragua, that represented no real threat to Americans.

The truth was ugly. Certainly the major news organizations would have come under criticism themselves if they had done their job and laid out this troubling story to the American people. Conservative defenders of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush would have been sure to howl in protest.

But the real tragedy of Webb's historic gift - and of his life cut short - is that because of the major news media's callowness and cowardice, this dark chapter of the Reagan-Bush era remains largely unknown to the American people.


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

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His new book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'


Posted by: is duh monkey angwy...can't contwol hesellf ???? | April 25, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

when an OCCUPATION, sucks the economy dry, demands a lot of a non existent tax base, and contributes very little in_country to the citizens...

and our politicians support it because it's MONEY IN THEIR POCKETS, regardless of what the country needs...

as in Dianne Feinsteins' backing of Mukasey...

WELL FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WONDERED WHY FEINSTEIN SWITCHED HER VOTE:

this should help,

HopeSpringsATurtle wrote:
.....
I believe the mask of connivance is slipping as demonstrated by Dianne Feinstein's vote for Mukasey.

Her vote is part of the price she's paying to her master the BushCo war-mongering, war services industry which directly benefits her war-profiteering husband

Richard Blum, a 75% partner in PERINI CORPORATION.

PERINI is a construction company that has received nearly a billion dollars in Iraq reconstruction funds.

end of HopeSpringsATurtle quote.

______________________________


SO DIANNE FIENSTEIN IS AN agent of Israel, an "Israel FIRST!!!," non-citizen disguised as a citizen of the United States and a WAR PROFITEER...

the quote is from a poster on the Paul Kane Blog

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2007/11/update_hoyer_impeachment_is_no.html

Posted by: distancing by pointing out the truth... | April 25, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

maybe the reason George W. doesn't want to give up those emails is because they're about manboylove


Did George W. Bush Have Sex with That Man, James Guckert?

By Bob Fertik

In 1998, Bill Clinton was impeached because of these 10 words:

I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.


In 2003, New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey was forced to resign over a secret gay affair.

So what about George Bush and this man James Guckert (a.k.a. Jeff Gannon) - a $200/hour gay male prostitute? (See Monday's expose by John Aravosis of AmericaBlog.org [1])

Sooner or later, Washington will have to ask: Did George W. Bush Have Sex with That Man, James Guckert?

On January 26, George W. Bush called on Guckert/Gannon at one of Bush's rare press conferences, "bypassing dozens of far more experienced reporters" according to Joe Strupp of Editor & Publisher [2].

I guess that depends on the meaning of "experienced."

This was not Guckert/Gannon's first time near Bush. Guckert/Gannon was at other Bush press conferences and was called on by Bush once before. Moreover, Guckert/Gannon went to the White House nearly every day for nearly 2 years. Each time he went, he got specific permission from Scott McClellan's White House Press Office. And Guckert/Gannon went to Bush's White House Christmas Party.

How did a $200/hour gay male prostitute get near George W. Bush nearly every day for 2 years?

Don't tell me the Secret Service didn't know Guckert/Gannon's background. It took amateur bloggers at DailyKos about 5 minutes to find out Gannon owned male prostitution websites, and just two weeks for Aravosis to find out he was a $200/hour sexual partner / wife substitute. I guarantee Scott McClellan and other top White House officials knew exactly who Guckert/Gannon was. According to RawStory.com, McClellan himself has been spotted at gay bars [3].

So how will the American people learn the sordid truth about Bush, the White House, and Guckert.


______________________________________________________


let's play "fair," here MSM

there's the same kinds of information outthere about Trent Lott, Karl Rove and others...


and the GOP posters here....let's see you go after your own about "morality,"

oh, you're just using "morality," as a position to


herd the sheeple? wotta a surprise from the people who gave you


"hate as a family value,"


Posted by: looks like we have a renegade operative...Watergate Hotel...take him down... | April 25, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

INSIDER WASHINGTON is the epitome of unprincipled...

how does a really nice guy come in and take on Washington DC insiders by themselves...

they don't.


JIMMY CARTER, was backstabbed by William Casey, George H.W. Bush and Robert M. Gates...

CIA DIRECTOR William Casey, "died of a braintumor," ahem !right! , 6 weeks after being asked to testify before Congress about IRAN CONTRA and was buried with a closed casket...

George H.W. Bush went on to become vice president and then president...after commiting treason

Robert M. Gates is Secretary of Defense today...


how do you deal with people like that? you really have to be able to gut them and leave them flopping on the bank for a blue heron to eat...

parenthetically speaking...they are trash fish....like squawfish...they eat the salmon fingerlings and there are no "good fish," if there are too many of them...

which is why it would be a good idea for the "democratic candidates," to eliminate them now....

by identifying them...

SEARCH on October surprise, russian, carter, casey, bush, gates


it's all there....Hamilton knows about it, but Hamilton was persuaded by Dick Cheney to be bipartisan and pick up the soap....


and cheenie sang sooooooo sweetly in his ear he didn't even realize that he had commited treason....


and still thinks he's a "good guy," though history will treat him poorly.


.check it out.

Posted by: show them the door... | April 25, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Your Comments On...

The Race That Wouldn't Die
Fighting for the nomination in such a way as to give the presidency to McCain is unforgivable.
- By Eugene Robinson

Commentsrobin1231hotmailcom wrote:
john mccain u s senator and gop presidential hopeful and candidate now trying to manipulate his nomination of gop is not trruely beyond laws. his chances of winning election of 2008 nov 4 is slim ? why his miscondicts in influence peddlinf have been reported in 47+ us d c jurisdioctions, U s court system is no dumb, it is possibly one of the best in world of democracies , although most democratic system are taintedbut billions of we the people are no dumb, no insane, we the people in usa are among the bests of people. law worls in most cases if not in all cases.
interest is in promoting those issues that affect the majority of Americans. The rigid, right-wing Republicans have done a lot of damage to our country, and it's good to have support for getting rid of a greedy, special -interest administration.
7 minutes ago
0 Rating: Good Answer 1 Rating: Bad Answer Report It Sorry, you must be Level 2 to rate

by Rebourne... Member since:
December 02, 2007
Total points:
3505 (Level 4)
Add to My Contacts

Block User

Truer words were never spoken. The media can certainly do a lot of damage.
They don't really discriminate either, if it can be made controversial, it will be exploited.
4 minutes ago
0 Rating: Good Answer 0 Rating: Bad Answer Report It Sorry, you must be Level 2 to rate

by viswa_dh Member since:
April 21, 2008
Total points:
2 (Level 1) it is true. but it may slightly differ in changed circumstance in democracies and we the people really our watchful with truth with news materials. pl take the quotation as is in respect of lead leader and in retrospect. see see below as a modern episode of truth linked with new media:
"do u know that rev dr kamal karna k roy shall remain a legal contender until nov 4 2008 of until later date of election as his right to contest electoral competition for gop u s contender was abused by the news media in us, human_god/s and human_animals' conceived god/s and u s a govt et al in violation of u s constitutional laws of equities in matter of election of u s president 2008.? pl do not laugh. next time your dream ould could be rejected fof indifferent system for interests of weaker people ? rights of freedom and liberty include right to be your leader of leader of nation viz u s a: o k ?" in Yahoo! Answers
1 second ago - Edit - Delete
Source(s):
thje rev dr kamal karna karuna roy , a u s gop presidential conender who is contesting leadership race or u s presoident 2008 against john mccain who is trying to capture u s presidency with sweetwill preference of john maccain, u s senator from arizona, usa when a divided news media accused john with many instances of interest peddling by john for favor of sexual pursuit with middle aged beauty as lobbyist, of couse free use of sex is a god's gift for oppressive persons viz mccain when he be hopefully indicted of felony crime by f b i et al see web with seach in any standard english language seach viz google with words "kamal karna roy u s president hopefulo republican 2008 " with 3 to five w0rds at a time
0 Rating: Good Answer 0 Rating: Bad Answer Report It Sorry, you must be Level 2 to rate

4/25/2008 6:33:46 PM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Ijane wrote:
Mr Robinson the way that I see it, Obama got his wins in when he was riding high on the media-free wave. He's had a much tougher time of things now that the media is starting to actually ask him questions. I agree with you in theory that it's better for Obama to deal with spurious questions about aloofness or patriotism now than in the fall but I believe that vetting him now would risk his winning the nomination. There's no way Obama would survive the primary if the media should stop asking him about flag pins and Ayres and start asking him tougher questions such as: Obama campaigning for Odinga- the communist would-be president of Kenya whose first order of business once elected was to replace Kenya's democracy with Islamic law. BAIPA-the Born Alive Infant Protection Act that gave babies who had the misfortune of surviving late term abortions the right to medical treatment. While every single senator at the federal level agreed that a mother's right to choose ended with the birth of her baby, Obama fought the act for 3 years on the basis that it wasn't right to burden a mother with a baby she intended to abort in the first place. In plain words, Obama feels that a mother's burden is more important then a human life that's breathing outside the womb. A position most people in the United states don't agree with not to mention most countries around the world! Rezko- the millions of dollars Obama received in campaign contributions in exchange for city and state tax money and grants awarded to Rezko so he could build the slums that Obama's African Americans, the people fighting so hard to get him into the presidency, were made to live in. Even a question about the Byrne grant program could do Obama in. Obama's support for the Byrne anti-drug program, a corrupt and racist law enforcement program that targets African Americans and would no doubt bring up memories of Tulia Texas. If Obama were to be asked these questions he'll for sure lose the primary. If he's not asked these questions now you can bet the Republicans will ask him these in the GE and he'll lose the election for sure.
4/25/2008 6:32:28 PM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

robin1231hotmailcom wrote:
the reverend dr kamal karna roy episode in u s politics is relevant on the issue . as reported by the reverend mr premansu roy das . rev makhan lal ghosh, thr rev atreyee sen roy, the rev ms paromita r baidya in conference with chief of campaign rev ms lisa n roy of new york : drkamal roy for cleanest us gop president 2008 if election be held without injunction from any u s district court in 47+ jurisdictions in usa where massive campaign corruption by 590+ defendants. dr roy wa petitioner for 490+ plaintiffs pro se, reported by premansu r das, the rev, & assistant of dr roy 4. 25. 2008:
interest is in promoting those issues that affect the majority of Americans. The rigid, right-wing Republicans have done a lot of damage to our country, and it's good to have support for getting rid of a greedy, special -interest administration.
7 minutes ago
0 Rating: Good Answer 1 Rating: Bad Answer Report It Sorry, you must be Level 2 to rate

by Rebourne... Member since:
December 02, 2007
Total points:
3505 (Level 4)
Add to My Contacts

Block User

Truer words were never spoken. The media can certainly do a lot of damage.
They don't really discriminate either, if it can be made controversial, it will be exploited.
4 minutes ago
0 Rating: Good Answer 0 Rating: Bad Answer Report It Sorry, you must be Level 2 to rate

by viswa_dh Member since:
April 21, 2008
Total points:
2 (Level 1) it is true. but it may slightly differ in changed circumstance in democracies and we the people really our watchful with truth with news materials. pl take the quotation as is in respect of lead leader and in retrospect. see see below as a modern episode of truth linked with new media:
"do u know that rev dr kamal karna k roy shall remain a legal contender until nov 4 2008 of until later date of election as his right to contest electoral competition for gop u s contender was abused by the news media in us, human_god/s and human_animals' conceived god/s and u s a govt et al in violation of u s constitutional laws of equities in matter of election of u s president 2008.? pl do not laugh. next time your dream ould could be rejected fof indifferent system for interests of weaker people ? rights of freedom and liberty include right to be your leader of leader of nation viz u s a: o k ?" in Yahoo! Answers
1 second ago - Edit - Delete
Source(s):

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

JAYANTI AICH - In India, it may be considered polite to cut and paste repeatative comments. Here, it merely means you are wasting space and time, consuming oxygen that would be much better spent on keeping our pet guppies alive.

Posted by: Mike! | April 25, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Your Comments On...

The Race That Wouldn't Die
Fighting for the nomination in such a way as to give the presidency to McCain is unforgivable.
- By Eugene Robinson

Commentsrobin1231hotmailcom wrote:
john mccain u s senator and gop presidential hopeful and candidate now trying to manipulate his nomination of gop is not trruely beyond laws. his chances of winning election of 2008 nov 4 is slim ? why his miscondicts in influence peddlinf have been reported in 47+ us d c jurisdioctions, U s court system is no dumb, it is possibly one of the best in world of democracies , although most democratic system are taintedbut billions of we the people are no dumb, no insane, we the people in usa are among the bests of people. law worls in most cases if not in all cases.
interest is in promoting those issues that affect the majority of Americans. The rigid, right-wing Republicans have done a lot of damage to our country, and it's good to have support for getting rid of a greedy, special -interest administration.
7 minutes ago
0 Rating: Good Answer 1 Rating: Bad Answer Report It Sorry, you must be Level 2 to rate

by Rebourne... Member since:
December 02, 2007
Total points:
3505 (Level 4)
Add to My Contacts

Block User

Truer words were never spoken. The media can certainly do a lot of damage.
They don't really discriminate either, if it can be made controversial, it will be exploited.
4 minutes ago
0 Rating: Good Answer 0 Rating: Bad Answer Report It Sorry, you must be Level 2 to rate

by viswa_dh Member since:
April 21, 2008
Total points:
2 (Level 1) it is true. but it may slightly differ in changed circumstance in democracies and we the people really our watchful with truth with news materials. pl take the quotation as is in respect of lead leader and in retrospect. see see below as a modern episode of truth linked with new media:
"do u know that rev dr kamal karna k roy shall remain a legal contender until nov 4 2008 of until later date of election as his right to contest electoral competition for gop u s contender was abused by the news media in us, human_god/s and human_animals' conceived god/s and u s a govt et al in violation of u s constitutional laws of equities in matter of election of u s president 2008.? pl do not laugh. next time your dream ould could be rejected fof indifferent system for interests of weaker people ? rights of freedom and liberty include right to be your leader of leader of nation viz u s a: o k ?" in Yahoo! Answers
1 second ago - Edit - Delete
Source(s):
thje rev dr kamal karna karuna roy , a u s gop presidential conender who is contesting leadership race or u s presoident 2008 against john mccain who is trying to capture u s presidency with sweetwill preference of john maccain, u s senator from arizona, usa when a divided news media accused john with many instances of interest peddling by john for favor of sexual pursuit with middle aged beauty as lobbyist, of couse free use of sex is a god's gift for oppressive persons viz mccain when he be hopefully indicted of felony crime by f b i et al see web with seach in any standard english language seach viz google with words "kamal karna roy u s president hopefulo republican 2008 " with 3 to five w0rds at a time
0 Rating: Good Answer 0 Rating: Bad Answer Report It Sorry, you must be Level 2 to rate

4/25/2008 6:33:46 PM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Ijane wrote:
Mr Robinson the way that I see it, Obama got his wins in when he was riding high on the media-free wave. He's had a much tougher time of things now that the media is starting to actually ask him questions. I agree with you in theory that it's better for Obama to deal with spurious questions about aloofness or patriotism now than in the fall but I believe that vetting him now would risk his winning the nomination. There's no way Obama would survive the primary if the media should stop asking him about flag pins and Ayres and start asking him tougher questions such as: Obama campaigning for Odinga- the communist would-be president of Kenya whose first order of business once elected was to replace Kenya's democracy with Islamic law. BAIPA-the Born Alive Infant Protection Act that gave babies who had the misfortune of surviving late term abortions the right to medical treatment. While every single senator at the federal level agreed that a mother's right to choose ended with the birth of her baby, Obama fought the act for 3 years on the basis that it wasn't right to burden a mother with a baby she intended to abort in the first place. In plain words, Obama feels that a mother's burden is more important then a human life that's breathing outside the womb. A position most people in the United states don't agree with not to mention most countries around the world! Rezko- the millions of dollars Obama received in campaign contributions in exchange for city and state tax money and grants awarded to Rezko so he could build the slums that Obama's African Americans, the people fighting so hard to get him into the presidency, were made to live in. Even a question about the Byrne grant program could do Obama in. Obama's support for the Byrne anti-drug program, a corrupt and racist law enforcement program that targets African Americans and would no doubt bring up memories of Tulia Texas. If Obama were to be asked these questions he'll for sure lose the primary. If he's not asked these questions now you can bet the Republicans will ask him these in the GE and he'll lose the election for sure.
4/25/2008 6:32:28 PM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

robin1231hotmailcom wrote:
the reverend dr kamal karna roy episode in u s politics is relevant on the issue . as reported by the reverend mr premansu roy das . rev makhan lal ghosh, thr rev atreyee sen roy, the rev ms paromita r baidya in conference with chief of campaign rev ms lisa n roy of new york : drkamal roy for cleanest us gop president 2008 if election be held without injunction from any u s district court in 47+ jurisdictions in usa where massive campaign corruption by 590+ defendants. dr roy wa petitioner for 490+ plaintiffs pro se, reported by premansu r das, the rev, & assistant of dr roy 4. 25. 2008:
interest is in promoting those issues that affect the majority of Americans. The rigid, right-wing Republicans have done a lot of damage to our country, and it's good to have support for getting rid of a greedy, special -interest administration.
7 minutes ago
0 Rating: Good Answer 1 Rating: Bad Answer Report It Sorry, you must be Level 2 to rate

by Rebourne... Member since:
December 02, 2007
Total points:
3505 (Level 4)
Add to My Contacts

Block User

Truer words were never spoken. The media can certainly do a lot of damage.
They don't really discriminate either, if it can be made controversial, it will be exploited.
4 minutes ago
0 Rating: Good Answer 0 Rating: Bad Answer Report It Sorry, you must be Level 2 to rate

by viswa_dh Member since:
April 21, 2008
Total points:
2 (Level 1) it is true. but it may slightly differ in changed circumstance in democracies and we the people really our watchful with truth with news materials. pl take the quotation as is in respect of lead leader and in retrospect. see see below as a modern episode of truth linked with new media:
"do u know that rev dr kamal karna k roy shall remain a legal contender until nov 4 2008 of until later date of election as his right to contest electoral competition for gop u s contender was abused by the news media in us, human_god/s and human_animals' conceived god/s and u s a govt et al in violation of u s constitutional laws of equities in matter of election of u s president 2008.? pl do not laugh. next time your dream ould could be rejected fof indifferent system for interests of weaker people ? rights of freedom and liberty include right to be your leader of leader of nation viz u s a: o k ?" in Yahoo! Answers
1 second ago - Edit - Delete
Source(s):

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Your Comments On...

The Race That Wouldn't Die
Fighting for the nomination in such a way as to give the presidency to McCain is unforgivable.
- By Eugene Robinson

Commentsrobin1231hotmailcom wrote:
john mccain u s senator and gop presidential hopeful and candidate now trying to manipulate his nomination of gop is not trruely beyond laws. his chances of winning election of 2008 nov 4 is slim ? why his miscondicts in influence peddlinf have been reported in 47+ us d c jurisdioctions, U s court system is no dumb, it is possibly one of the best in world of democracies , although most democratic system are taintedbut billions of we the people are no dumb, no insane, we the people in usa are among the bests of people. law worls in most cases if not in all cases.
interest is in promoting those issues that affect the majority of Americans. The rigid, right-wing Republicans have done a lot of damage to our country, and it's good to have support for getting rid of a greedy, special -interest administration.
7 minutes ago
0 Rating: Good Answer 1 Rating: Bad Answer Report It Sorry, you must be Level 2 to rate

by Rebourne... Member since:
December 02, 2007
Total points:
3505 (Level 4)
Add to My Contacts

Block User

Truer words were never spoken. The media can certainly do a lot of damage.
They don't really discriminate either, if it can be made controversial, it will be exploited.
4 minutes ago
0 Rating: Good Answer 0 Rating: Bad Answer Report It Sorry, you must be Level 2 to rate

by viswa_dh Member since:
April 21, 2008
Total points:
2 (Level 1) it is true. but it may slightly differ in changed circumstance in democracies and we the people really our watchful with truth with news materials. pl take the quotation as is in respect of lead leader and in retrospect. see see below as a modern episode of truth linked with new media:
"do u know that rev dr kamal karna k roy shall remain a legal contender until nov 4 2008 of until later date of election as his right to contest electoral competition for gop u s contender was abused by the news media in us, human_god/s and human_animals' conceived god/s and u s a govt et al in violation of u s constitutional laws of equities in matter of election of u s president 2008.? pl do not laugh. next time your dream ould could be rejected fof indifferent system for interests of weaker people ? rights of freedom and liberty include right to be your leader of leader of nation viz u s a: o k ?" in Yahoo! Answers
1 second ago - Edit - Delete
Source(s):
thje rev dr kamal karna karuna roy , a u s gop presidential conender who is contesting leadership race or u s presoident 2008 against john mccain who is trying to capture u s presidency with sweetwill preference of john maccain, u s senator from arizona, usa when a divided news media accused john with many instances of interest peddling by john for favor of sexual pursuit with middle aged beauty as lobbyist, of couse free use of sex is a god's gift for oppressive persons viz mccain when he be hopefully indicted of felony crime by f b i et al see web with seach in any standard english language seach viz google with words "kamal karna roy u s president hopefulo republican 2008 " with 3 to five w0rds at a time
0 Rating: Good Answer 0 Rating: Bad Answer Report It Sorry, you must be Level 2 to rate

4/25/2008 6:33:46 PM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Ijane wrote:
Mr Robinson the way that I see it, Obama got his wins in when he was riding high on the media-free wave. He's had a much tougher time of things now that the media is starting to actually ask him questions. I agree with you in theory that it's better for Obama to deal with spurious questions about aloofness or patriotism now than in the fall but I believe that vetting him now would risk his winning the nomination. There's no way Obama would survive the primary if the media should stop asking him about flag pins and Ayres and start asking him tougher questions such as: Obama campaigning for Odinga- the communist would-be president of Kenya whose first order of business once elected was to replace Kenya's democracy with Islamic law. BAIPA-the Born Alive Infant Protection Act that gave babies who had the misfortune of surviving late term abortions the right to medical treatment. While every single senator at the federal level agreed that a mother's right to choose ended with the birth of her baby, Obama fought the act for 3 years on the basis that it wasn't right to burden a mother with a baby she intended to abort in the first place. In plain words, Obama feels that a mother's burden is more important then a human life that's breathing outside the womb. A position most people in the United states don't agree with not to mention most countries around the world! Rezko- the millions of dollars Obama received in campaign contributions in exchange for city and state tax money and grants awarded to Rezko so he could build the slums that Obama's African Americans, the people fighting so hard to get him into the presidency, were made to live in. Even a question about the Byrne grant program could do Obama in. Obama's support for the Byrne anti-drug program, a corrupt and racist law enforcement program that targets African Americans and would no doubt bring up memories of Tulia Texas. If Obama were to be asked these questions he'll for sure lose the primary. If he's not asked these questions now you can bet the Republicans will ask him these in the GE and he'll lose the election for sure.
4/25/2008 6:32:28 PM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

robin1231hotmailcom wrote:
the reverend dr kamal karna roy episode in u s politics is relevant on the issue . as reported by the reverend mr premansu roy das . rev makhan lal ghosh, thr rev atreyee sen roy, the rev ms paromita r baidya in conference with chief of campaign rev ms lisa n roy of new york : drkamal roy for cleanest us gop president 2008 if election be held without injunction from any u s district court in 47+ jurisdictions in usa where massive campaign corruption by 590+ defendants. dr roy wa petitioner for 490+ plaintiffs pro se, reported by premansu r das, the rev, & assistant of dr roy 4. 25. 2008:
interest is in promoting those issues that affect the majority of Americans. The rigid, right-wing Republicans have done a lot of damage to our country, and it's good to have support for getting rid of a greedy, special -interest administration.
7 minutes ago
0 Rating: Good Answer 1 Rating: Bad Answer Report It Sorry, you must be Level 2 to rate

by Rebourne... Member since:
December 02, 2007
Total points:
3505 (Level 4)
Add to My Contacts

Block User

Truer words were never spoken. The media can certainly do a lot of damage.
They don't really discriminate either, if it can be made controversial, it will be exploited.
4 minutes ago
0 Rating: Good Answer 0 Rating: Bad Answer Report It Sorry, you must be Level 2 to rate

by viswa_dh Member since:
April 21, 2008
Total points:
2 (Level 1) it is true. but it may slightly differ in changed circumstance in democracies and we the people really our watchful with truth with news materials. pl take the quotation as is in respect of lead leader and in retrospect. see see below as a modern episode of truth linked with new media:
"do u know that rev dr kamal karna k roy shall remain a legal contender until nov 4 2008 of until later date of election as his right to contest electoral competition for gop u s contender was abused by the news media in us, human_god/s and human_animals' conceived god/s and u s a govt et al in violation of u s constitutional laws of equities in matter of election of u s president 2008.? pl do not laugh. next time your dream ould could be rejected fof indifferent system for interests of weaker people ? rights of freedom and liberty include right to be your leader of leader of nation viz u s a: o k ?" in Yahoo! Answers
1 second ago - Edit - Delete
Source(s):

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

All of these folks are indeed dead and it might all just be a tragic coincidence--- But I wouldn't want to be on their list of associates (just to be on the safe side)!!!!!!!!!!!

SO NOW YOU MIGHT VOTE FOR HILLARY? THINK ABOUT IT FIRST......

This is what happens when you have dirt on the Clintons :

1 - James McDougal - Clinton's convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr's investigation.

2 - Mary Mahoney - A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Georgetown. The murder happened just after she was to go public with her story of sexual harassment in the White House.

3 - Vince Foster - Former white House councilor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little Rock's Rose Law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide.

4 - Ron Brown - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown's skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors.

5 - C. Victor Raiser II and Montgomery Raiser, Major players in the Clinton fund raising organization died in a private plane crash in July 1992.

6 - Paul Tulley - Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room in Little Rock, September 1992... Described by Clinton as a "Dear friend and trusted advisor."

7- Ed Willey - Clinton fund raiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey died on the same day his wife Kathleen Willey claimed Bill Clinton groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several Clinton fund raising events.

8 - Jerry Parks - Head of Clinton's gubernatorial security team in Little Rock. Gunned down in his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock. Park's son said his father was building a dossier on Clinton. He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files were mysteriously removed from his house.

9 - James Bunch - Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a "Black Book" of people which contained names of influential people who visited prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas.

10 - James Wilson - Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He was reported to have ties to Whitewater.

11- Kathy Ferguson, ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson, was found dead in May 1994, in her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were several packed suitcases, as if she were going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant along with Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Kathy Ferguson was a possible corroborating witness for Paula Jones.

12 - Bill Shelton - Arkansas State Trooper and fiancee of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the suicide ruling of his fiancee, he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a suicide at the grave site of his fiancee.

13 - Gandy Baugh - Attorney for Clinton's friend Dan Lassater, died by jumping out a window of a tall building January, 1994. His client was a convicted drug distributor.

14 - Florence Martin - Accountant & sub-contractor for the CIA, was related to the Barry Seal Mena Airport drug smuggling case. He died of three gunshot wounds.

15 - Suzanne Coleman - Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney General. Died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a suicide. Was pregnant at the time of her death.

16 - Paula Grober - Clinton's speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death December 9, 1992. She died in a one car accident.

17 - Danny Casolaro - Investigative reporter. Investigating Mena Airport and Arkansas Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in the middle of his investigation.

18 - Paul Wilcher - Attorney investigating corruption at Mena Airport with Casolaro and the 1980 "October Surprise" was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993 in his Washington DC apartment. Had delivered a report to Janet Reno three weeks before his death

19 - Jon Parnell Walker - Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. Jumped to his death from his Arlington, Virginia apartment balcony August15, 1993. He was investigating the Morgan Guarantee scandal.

20 - Barbara Wise - Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang. Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised, nude body was found locked in her office at the Department of Commerce.

21- Charles Meissner - Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash.

22 - Dr. Stanley Heard - Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee, died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small plane crash. Dr. Heard, in addition to serving on Clinton's advisory council personally treated Clinton's mother, stepfather and brother.

23 - Barry Seal - Drug running pilot out of Mena, Arkansas, death was no accident.

24 - Johnny Lawhorn Jr. - Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of a car left at his repair shop. He was found dead after his car had hit a utility pole.

25 - Stanley Huggins - Investigated Madison Guarantee. His death was a purported suicide and his report was never released.

26- Hershell Friday - Attorney and Clinton fund raiser died March 1, 1994 when his plane exploded.

27 - Kevin Ives and Don Henry - Known as "The boys on the track" case. Reports say the boys may have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. A controversial case, the initial report of death said, due to falling asleep on railroad tracks. Later reports claim the two boys had been slain before being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case died before their testimony could come before a Grand Jury.

THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAD INFORMATION ON THE IVES/HENRY CASE:

28 - Keith Coney - Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck, July 1988.

29 - Keith McMaskle - Died stabbed 113 times, Nov, 1988

30 - Gregory Collins - Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.

31 - Jeff Rhodes - He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989.

33 - James Milan - Found decapitated. However, the Coroner ruled his death was due to "natural causes."

34 - Jordan Kettleson - Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June 1990.

35 - Richard Winters - A suspect in the Ives / Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery July 1989.

THE FOLLOWING CLINTON BODYGUARDS ARE DEAD: 36 - Major William S. Barkley Jr. 37 - Captain Scott J. Reynolds 38 - Sgt. Brian Hanley 39 - Sgt. Tim Sabel 40 - Major General William Robertson 41 - Col. William Densberger 42 - Col. Robert Kelly 43 - Spec. Gary Rhodes 44 - Steve Willis 45 - Robert Williams 46 - Conway LeBleu 47 - Todd McKeehan

Quite an impressive list! Pass this on. Let the public become aware of what happens to anyone who might damage the Clinton machine

Posted by: No Dummy | April 25, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Your Comments On...

The Race That Wouldn't Die
Fighting for the nomination in such a way as to give the presidency to McCain is unforgivable.
- By Eugene Robinson

Commentsrobin1231hotmailcom wrote:
john mccain u s senator and gop presidential hopeful and candidate now trying to manipulate his nomination of gop is not trruely beyond laws. his chances of winning election of 2008 nov 4 is slim ? why his miscondicts in influence peddlinf have been reported in 47+ us d c jurisdioctions, U s court system is no dumb, it is possibly one of the best in world of democracies , although most democratic system are taintedbut billions of we the people are no dumb, no insane, we the people in usa are among the bests of people. law worls in most cases if not in all cases.
interest is in promoting those issues that affect the majority of Americans. The rigid, right-wing Republicans have done a lot of damage to our country, and it's good to have support for getting rid of a greedy, special -interest administration.
7 minutes ago
0 Rating: Good Answer 1 Rating: Bad Answer Report It Sorry, you must be Level 2 to rate

by Rebourne... Member since:
December 02, 2007
Total points:
3505 (Level 4)
Add to My Contacts

Block User

Truer words were never spoken. The media can certainly do a lot of damage.
They don't really discriminate either, if it can be made controversial, it will be exploited.
4 minutes ago
0 Rating: Good Answer 0 Rating: Bad Answer Report It Sorry, you must be Level 2 to rate

by viswa_dh Member since:
April 21, 2008
Total points:
2 (Level 1) it is true. but it may slightly differ in changed circumstance in democracies and we the people really our watchful with truth with news materials. pl take the quotation as is in respect of lead leader and in retrospect. see see below as a modern episode of truth linked with new media:
"do u know that rev dr kamal karna k roy shall remain a legal contender until nov 4 2008 of until later date of election as his right to contest electoral competition for gop u s contender was abused by the news media in us, human_god/s and human_animals' conceived god/s and u s a govt et al in violation of u s constitutional laws of equities in matter of election of u s president 2008.? pl do not laugh. next time your dream ould could be rejected fof indifferent system for interests of weaker people ? rights of freedom and liberty include right to be your leader of leader of nation viz u s a: o k ?" in Yahoo! Answers
1 second ago - Edit - Delete
Source(s):
thje rev dr kamal karna karuna roy , a u s gop presidential conender who is contesting leadership race or u s presoident 2008 against john mccain who is trying to capture u s presidency with sweetwill preference of john maccain, u s senator from arizona, usa when a divided news media accused john with many instances of interest peddling by john for favor of sexual pursuit with middle aged beauty as lobbyist, of couse free use of sex is a god's gift for oppressive persons viz mccain when he be hopefully indicted of felony crime by f b i et al see web with seach in any standard english language seach viz google with words "kamal karna roy u s president hopefulo republican 2008 " with 3 to five w0rds at a time
0 Rating: Good Answer 0 Rating: Bad Answer Report It Sorry, you must be Level 2 to rate

4/25/2008 6:33:46 PM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Ijane wrote:
Mr Robinson the way that I see it, Obama got his wins in when he was riding high on the media-free wave. He's had a much tougher time of things now that the media is starting to actually ask him questions. I agree with you in theory that it's better for Obama to deal with spurious questions about aloofness or patriotism now than in the fall but I believe that vetting him now would risk his winning the nomination. There's no way Obama would survive the primary if the media should stop asking him about flag pins and Ayres and start asking him tougher questions such as: Obama campaigning for Odinga- the communist would-be president of Kenya whose first order of business once elected was to replace Kenya's democracy with Islamic law. BAIPA-the Born Alive Infant Protection Act that gave babies who had the misfortune of surviving late term abortions the right to medical treatment. While every single senator at the federal level agreed that a mother's right to choose ended with the birth of her baby, Obama fought the act for 3 years on the basis that it wasn't right to burden a mother with a baby she intended to abort in the first place. In plain words, Obama feels that a mother's burden is more important then a human life that's breathing outside the womb. A position most people in the United states don't agree with not to mention most countries around the world! Rezko- the millions of dollars Obama received in campaign contributions in exchange for city and state tax money and grants awarded to Rezko so he could build the slums that Obama's African Americans, the people fighting so hard to get him into the presidency, were made to live in. Even a question about the Byrne grant program could do Obama in. Obama's support for the Byrne anti-drug program, a corrupt and racist law enforcement program that targets African Americans and would no doubt bring up memories of Tulia Texas. If Obama were to be asked these questions he'll for sure lose the primary. If he's not asked these questions now you can bet the Republicans will ask him these in the GE and he'll lose the election for sure.
4/25/2008 6:32:28 PM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

robin1231hotmailcom wrote:
the reverend dr kamal karna roy episode in u s politics is relevant on the issue . as reported by the reverend mr premansu roy das . rev makhan lal ghosh, thr rev atreyee sen roy, the rev ms paromita r baidya in conference with chief of campaign rev ms lisa n roy of new york : drkamal roy for cleanest us gop president 2008 if election be held without injunction from any u s district court in 47+ jurisdictions in usa where massive campaign corruption by 590+ defendants. dr roy wa petitioner for 490+ plaintiffs pro se, reported by premansu r das, the rev, & assistant of dr roy 4. 25. 2008:
interest is in promoting those issues that affect the majority of Americans. The rigid, right-wing Republicans have done a lot of damage to our country, and it's good to have support for getting rid of a greedy, special -interest administration.
7 minutes ago
0 Rating: Good Answer 1 Rating: Bad Answer Report It Sorry, you must be Level 2 to rate

by Rebourne... Member since:
December 02, 2007
Total points:
3505 (Level 4)
Add to My Contacts

Block User

Truer words were never spoken. The media can certainly do a lot of damage.
They don't really discriminate either, if it can be made controversial, it will be exploited.
4 minutes ago
0 Rating: Good Answer 0 Rating: Bad Answer Report It Sorry, you must be Level 2 to rate

by viswa_dh Member since:
April 21, 2008
Total points:
2 (Level 1) it is true. but it may slightly differ in changed circumstance in democracies and we the people really our watchful with truth with news materials. pl take the quotation as is in respect of lead leader and in retrospect. see see below as a modern episode of truth linked with new media:
"do u know that rev dr kamal karna k roy shall remain a legal contender until nov 4 2008 of until later date of election as his right to contest electoral competition for gop u s contender was abused by the news media in us, human_god/s and human_animals' conceived god/s and u s a govt et al in violation of u s constitutional laws of equities in matter of election of u s president 2008.? pl do not laugh. next time your dream ould could be rejected fof indifferent system for interests of weaker people ? rights of freedom and liberty include right to be your leader of leader of nation viz u s a: o k ?" in Yahoo! Answers
1 second ago - Edit - Delete
Source(s):

Posted by: JAYANTI AICH, POLITICAL REFORMS AGENT | April 25, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

John Gillnitz - "The last Dem we put in the White House had a budget surplus."

John, that Democrat turned the Democratic Party into his own personal priesthood and worship team. When he entered office
the Democrats had solid majorities in the House and Senate. When he left office, they had lost both. When he entered office, 25% of federal revenues were from trade tariff's and those tariff's
protected Amercian jobs. When he left office, tariff's had disappeared. He enacted the H1-B and L-1 visa programs, and got us onto the globalization train wreck that squarely landed us in our present economic straights. It is not too much to say that Bill Clinton, the entire Democratic leadership, is as reponsible for
the present economic mess as is Bush-Cheney and the fools of the Republican Party. Understand this, if you understand nothing else, *neither* party has your interests at heart. Either will sell you out in a second for Wall Street "walking around" money. You mean NOTHING to them. They will promise you everything, but deliver NOTHING, once the votes are cast. We live in a bankrupt country, literally morally, politicially, intellectually, and economically bankrupt. The best we can hope for is that the job and food riots this Fall will frighten enough of those old fools into actually acting like our representatives. It's either that or this country and their futures are very very much in doubt.

Posted by: Mike! | April 25, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

attempting to drown me out...


"gargi lahiri reforms agent democracy redevelopment in u s a et "


is i fact a CIA representative in INDONESIA


arrest her


.

Posted by: the incomprehensible poster | April 25, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

America's Debt to Journalist Gary Webb
By Robert Parry

December 13, 2004

In 1996, journalist Gary Webb wrote a series of articles that forced a long-overdue investigation of a very dark chapter of recent U.S. foreign policy - the Reagan-Bush administration's protection of cocaine traffickers who operated under the cover of the Nicaraguan contra war in the 1980s.

For his brave reporting at the San Jose Mercury News, Webb paid a high price. He was attacked by journalistic colleagues at the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the American Journalism Review and even the Nation magazine. Under this media pressure, his editor Jerry Ceppos sold out the story and demoted Webb, causing him to quit the Mercury News. Even Webb's marriage broke up.

On Friday, Dec. 10, Gary Webb, 49, was found dead of an apparent suicide, a gunshot wound to the head.

Whatever the details of Webb's death, American history owes him a huge debt. Though denigrated by much of the national news media, Webb's contra-cocaine series prompted internal investigations by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department, probes that confirmed that scores of contra units and contra-connected individuals were implicated in the drug trade. The probes also showed that the Reagan-Bush administration frustrated investigations into those crimes for geopolitical reasons.

Failed Media

Unintentionally, Webb also exposed the cowardice and unprofessional behavior that had become the new trademarks of the major U.S. news media by the mid-1990s. The big news outlets were always hot on the trail of some titillating scandal - the O.J. Simpson case or the Monica Lewinsky scandal - but the major media could no longer grapple with serious crimes of state.

Even after the CIA's inspector general issued his findings in 1998, the major newspapers could not muster the talent or the courage to explain those extraordinary government admissions to the American people. Nor did the big newspapers apologize for their unfair treatment of Gary Webb. Foreshadowing the media incompetence that would fail to challenge George W. Bush's case for war with Iraq five years later, the major news organizations effectively hid the CIA's confession from the American people.

The New York Times and the Washington Post never got much past the CIA's "executive summary," which tried to put the best spin on Inspector General Frederick Hitz's findings. The Los Angeles Times never even wrote a story after the final volume of the CIA's report was published, though Webb's initial story had focused on contra-connected cocaine shipments to South-Central Los Angeles.

The Los Angeles Times' cover-up has now continued after Webb's death. In a harsh obituary about Webb, the Times reporter, who called to interview me, ignored my comments about the debt the nation owed Webb and the importance of the CIA's inspector general findings. Instead of using Webb's death as an opportunity to finally get the story straight, the Times acted as if there never had been an official investigation confirming many of Webb's allegations. [Los Angeles Times, Dec. 12, 2004.]

By maintaining the contra-cocaine cover-up - even after the CIA's inspector general had admitted the facts - the big newspapers seemed to have understood that they could avoid any consequences for their egregious behavior in the 1990s or for their negligence toward the contra-cocaine issue when it first surfaced in the 1980s. After all, the conservative news media - the chief competitor to the mainstream press - isn't going to demand a reexamination of the crimes of the Reagan-Bush years.

That means that only a few minor media outlets, like our own Consortiumnews.com, will go back over the facts now, just as only a few of us addressed the significance of the government admissions in the late 1990s. I compiled and explained the findings of the CIA/Justice investigations in my 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

Contra-Cocaine Case

Lost History, which took its name from a series at this Web site, also describes how the contra-cocaine story first reached the public in a story that Brian Barger and I wrote for the Associated Press in December 1985. Though the big newspapers pooh-poohed our discovery, Sen. John Kerry followed up our story with his own groundbreaking investigation. For his efforts, Kerry also encountered media ridicule. Newsweek dubbed the Massachusetts senator a "randy conspiracy buff." [For details, see Consortiumnews.com's "Kerry's Contra-Cocaine Chapter."]

So when Gary Webb revived the contra-cocaine issue in August 1996 with a 20,000-word three-part series entitled "Dark Alliance," editors at major newspapers already had a powerful self-interest to slap down a story that they had disparaged for the past decade.

The challenge to their earlier judgments was doubly painful because the Mercury-News' sophisticated Web site ensured that Webb's series made a big splash on the Internet, which was just emerging as a threat to the traditional news media. Also, the African-American community was furious at the possibility that U.S. government policies had contributed to the crack-cocaine epidemic.

In other words, the mostly white, male editors at the major newspapers saw their preeminence in judging news challenged by an upstart regional newspaper, the Internet and common American citizens who also happened to be black. So, even as the CIA was prepared to conduct a relatively thorough and honest investigation, the major newspapers seemed more eager to protect their reputations and their turf.

Without doubt, Webb's series had its limitations. It primarily tracked one West Coast network of contra-cocaine traffickers from the early-to-mid 1980s. Webb connected that cocaine to an early "crack" production network that supplied Los Angeles street gangs, the Crips and the Bloods, leading to Webb's conclusion that contra cocaine fueled the early crack epidemic that devastated Los Angeles and other U.S. cities.

Counterattack

When black leaders began demanding a full investigation of these charges, the Washington media joined the political Establishment in circling the wagons. It fell to Rev. Sun Myung Moon's right-wing Washington Times to begin the counterattack against Webb's series. The Washington Times turned to some former CIA officials, who participated in the contra war, to refute the drug charges.

But - in a pattern that would repeat itself on other issues in the following years - the Washington Post and other mainstream newspapers quickly lined up behind the conservative news media. On Oct. 4, 1996, the Washington Post published a front-page article knocking down Webb's story.

The Post's approach was twofold: first, it presented the contra-cocaine allegations as old news - "even CIA personnel testified to Congress they knew that those covert operations involved drug traffickers," the Post reported - and second, the Post minimized the importance of the one contra smuggling channel that Webb had highlighted - that it had not "played a major role in the emergence of crack." A Post side-bar story dismissed African-Americans as prone to "conspiracy fears."

Soon, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times joined in the piling on of Gary Webb. The big newspapers made much of the CIA's internal reviews in 1987 and 1988 that supposedly cleared the spy agency of a role in contra-cocaine smuggling.

But the CIA's decade-old cover-up began to crumble on Oct. 24, 1996, when CIA Inspector General Hitz conceded before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the first CIA probe had lasted only 12 days, the second only three days. He promised a more thorough review.

Mocking Webb

Meanwhile, however, Gary Webb became the target of outright media ridicule. Influential Post media critic Howard Kurtz mocked Webb for saying in a book proposal that he would explore the possibility that the contra war was primarily a business to its participants. "Oliver Stone, check your voice mail," Kurtz chortled. [Washington Post, Oct. 28, 1996]

Webb's suspicion was not unfounded, however. Indeed, White House aide Oliver North's emissary Rob Owen had made the same point a decade earlier, in a March 17, 1986, message about the contra leadership. "Few of the so-called leaders of the movement ... really care about the boys in the field," Owen wrote. "THIS WAR HAS BECOME A BUSINESS TO MANY OF THEM." [Capitalization in the original.]

Nevertheless, the pillorying of Gary Webb was on, in earnest. The ridicule also had a predictable effect on the executives of the Mercury-News. By early 1997, executive editor Jerry Ceppos was in retreat.

On May 11, 1997, Ceppos published a front-page column saying the series "fell short of my standards." He criticized the stories because they "strongly implied CIA knowledge" of contra connections to U.S. drug dealers who were manufacturing crack-cocaine. "We did not have proof that top CIA officials knew of the relationship."

The big newspapers celebrated Ceppos's retreat as vindication of their own dismissal of the contra-cocaine stories. Ceppos next pulled the plug on the Mercury-News' continuing contra-cocaine investigation and reassigned Webb to a small office in Cupertino, California, far from his family. Webb resigned the paper in disgrace.

For undercutting Webb and the other reporters working on the contra investigation, Ceppos was lauded by the American Journalism Review and was given the 1997 national "Ethics in Journalism Award" by the Society of Professional Journalists. While Ceppos won raves, Webb watched his career collapse and his marriage break up.

Probes Advance

Still, Gary Webb had set in motion internal government investigations that would bring to the surface long-hidden facts about how the Reagan-Bush administration had conducted the contra war. The CIA's defensive line against the contra-cocaine allegations began to break when the spy agency published Volume One of Hitz's findings on Jan. 29, 1998.

Despite a largely exculpatory press release, Hitz's Volume One admitted that not only were many of Webb's allegations true but that he actually understated the seriousness of the contra-drug crimes and the CIA's knowledge. Hitz acknowledged that cocaine smugglers played a significant early role in the Nicaraguan contra movement and that the CIA intervened to block an image-threatening 1984 federal investigation into a San Francisco-based drug ring with suspected ties to the contras. [For details, see Robert Parry's Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth']

On May 7, 1998, another disclosure from the government investigation shook the CIA's weakening defenses. Rep. Maxine Waters, a California Democrat, introduced into the Congressional Record a Feb. 11, 1982, letter of understanding between the CIA and the Justice Department. The letter, which had been sought by CIA Director William Casey, freed the CIA from legal requirements that it must report drug smuggling by CIA assets, a provision that covered both the Nicaraguan contras and Afghan rebels who were fighting a Soviet-supported regime in Afghanistan.

Justice Report

Another crack in the defensive wall opened when the Justice Department released a report by its inspector general, Michael Bromwich. Given the hostile climate surrounding Webb's series, Bromwich's report opened with criticism of Webb. But, like the CIA's Volume One, the contents revealed new details about government wrongdoing.

According to evidence cited by the report, the Reagan-Bush administration knew almost from the outset of the contra war that cocaine traffickers permeated the paramilitary operation. The administration also did next to nothing to expose or stop the criminal activities. The report revealed example after example of leads not followed, corroborated witnesses disparaged, official law-enforcement investigations sabotaged, and even the CIA facilitating the work of drug traffickers.

The Bromwich report showed that the contras and their supporters ran several parallel drug-smuggling operations, not just the one at the center of Webb's series. The report also found that the CIA shared little of its information about contra drugs with law-enforcement agencies and on three occasions disrupted cocaine-trafficking investigations that threatened the contras.

Though depicting a more widespread contra-drug operation than Webb had understood, the Justice report also provided some important corroboration about a Nicaraguan drug smuggler, Norwin Meneses, who was a key figure in Webb's series. Bromwich cited U.S. government informants who supplied detailed information about Meneses's operation and his financial assistance to the contras.

For instance, Renato Pena, a money-and-drug courier for Meneses, said that in the early 1980s, the CIA allowed the contras to fly drugs into the United States, sell them and keep the proceeds. Pena, who also was the northern California representative for the CIA-backed FDN contra army, said the drug trafficking was forced on the contras by the inadequate levels of U.S. government assistance.

The Justice report also disclosed repeated examples of the CIA and U.S. embassies in Central America discouraging Drug Enforcement Administration investigations, including one into alleged contra-cocaine shipments moving through the airport in El Salvador. In an understated conclusion, Inspector General Bromwich said secrecy trumped all. "We have no doubt that the CIA and the U.S. Embassy were not anxious for the DEA to pursue its investigation at the airport," he wrote.

CIA's Volume Two

Despite the remarkable admissions in the body of these reports, the big newspapers showed no inclination to read beyond the press releases and executive summaries. By fall 1998, official Washington was obsessed with the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, which made it easier to ignore even more stunning contra-cocaine disclosures in the CIA's Volume Two..

In Volume Two, published Oct. 8, 1998, CIA Inspector General Hitz identified more than 50 contras and contra-related entities implicated in the drug trade. He also detailed how the Reagan-Bush administration had protected these drug operations and frustrated federal investigations, which had threatened to expose the crimes in the mid-1980s. Hitz even published evidence that drug trafficking and money laundering tracked into Reagan's National Security Council where Oliver North oversaw the contra operations.

Hitz revealed, too, that the CIA placed an admitted drug money launderer in charge of the Southern Front contras in Costa Rica. Also, according to Hitz's evidence, the second-in-command of contra forces on the Northern Front in Honduras had escaped from a Colombian prison where he was serving time for drug trafficking

In Volume Two, the CIA's defense against Webb's series had shrunk to a tiny fig leaf: that the CIA did not conspire with the contras to raise money through cocaine trafficking. But Hitz made clear that the contra war took precedence over law enforcement and that the CIA withheld evidence of contra crimes from the Justice Department, the Congress and even the CIA's own analytical division.

Hitz found in CIA files evidence that the spy agency knew from the first days of the contra war that its new clients were involved in the cocaine trade. According to a September 1981 cable to CIA headquarters, one of the early contra groups, known as ADREN, had decided to use drug trafficking as a financing mechanism. Two ADREN members made the first delivery of drugs to Miami in July 1981, the CIA cable reported.

ADREN's leaders included Enrique Bermudez, who emerged as the top contra military commander in the 1980s. Webb's series had identified Bermudez as giving the green light to contra fundraising by drug trafficker Meneses. Hitz's report added that that the CIA had another Nicaraguan witness who implicated Bermudez in the drug trade in 1988.

Priorities

Besides tracing the evidence of contra-drug trafficking through the decade-long contra war, the inspector general interviewed senior CIA officers who acknowledged that they were aware of the contra-drug problem but didn't want its exposure to undermine the struggle to overthrow the leftist Sandinista government.

According to Hitz, the CIA had "one overriding priority: to oust the Sandinista government. ... [CIA officers] were determined that the various difficulties they encountered not be allowed to prevent effective implementation of the contra program." One CIA field officer explained, "The focus was to get the job done, get the support and win the war."

Hitz also recounted complaints from CIA analysts that CIA operations officers handling the contra war hid evidence of contra-drug trafficking even from the CIA's analytical division. Because of the withheld evidence, the CIA analysts incorrectly concluded in the mid-1980s that "only a handful of contras might have been involved in drug trafficking." That false assessment was passed on to Congress and the major news organizations - serving as an important basis for denouncing Gary Webb and his series in 1996.

Though Hitz's report was an extraordinary admission of institutional guilt by the CIA, it passed almost unnoticed by the big newspapers.

Two days after Hitz's report was posted at the CIA's Internet site, the New York Times did a brief article that continued to deride Webb's work, while acknowledging that the contra-drug problem may indeed have been worse than earlier understood. Several weeks later, the Washington Post weighed in with a similarly superficial article. The Los Angeles Times never published a story on the release of the CIA's Volume Two.

Consequences

To this day, no editor or reporter who missed the contra-drug story has been punished for his or her negligence. Indeed, many of them are now top executives at their news organizations. On the other hand, Gary Webb's career never recovered.

At Webb's death, however, it should be noted that his great gift to American history was that he - along with angry African-American citizens - forced the government to admit some of the worst crimes ever condoned by any American administration: the protection of drug smuggling into the United States as part of a covert war against a country, Nicaragua, that represented no real threat to Americans.

The truth was ugly. Certainly the major news organizations would have come under criticism themselves if they had done their job and laid out this troubling story to the American people. Conservative defenders of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush would have been sure to howl in protest.

But the real tragedy of Webb's historic gift - and of his life cut short - is that because of the major news media's callowness and cowardice, this dark chapter of the Reagan-Bush era remains largely unknown to the American people.


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

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His new book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'


Posted by: the bush families DRUG CONNECTION | April 25, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Your Comments On...

The Race That Wouldn't Die
Fighting for the nomination in such a way as to give the presidency to McCain is unforgivable.
- By Eugene Robinson

Commentsrobin1231hotmailcom wrote:
john mccain u s senator and gop presidential hopeful and candidate now trying to manipulate his nomination of gop is not trruely beyond laws. his chances of winning election of 2008 nov 4 is slim ? why his miscondicts in influence peddlinf have been reported in 47+ us d c jurisdioctions, U s court system is no dumb, it is possibly one of the best in world of democracies , although most democratic system are taintedbut billions of we the people are no dumb, no insane, we the people in usa are among the bests of people. law worls in most cases if not in all cases.
interest is in promoting those issues that affect the majority of Americans. The rigid, right-wing Republicans have done a lot of damage to our country, and it's good to have support for getting rid of a greedy, special -interest administration.
7 minutes ago
0 Rating: Good Answer 1 Rating: Bad Answer Report It Sorry, you must be Level 2 to rate

by Rebourne... Member since:
December 02, 2007
Total points:
3505 (Level 4)
Add to My Contacts

Block User

Truer words were never spoken. The media can certainly do a lot of damage.
They don't really discriminate either, if it can be made controversial, it will be exploited.
4 minutes ago
0 Rating: Good Answer 0 Rating: Bad Answer Report It Sorry, you must be Level 2 to rate

by viswa_dh Member since:
April 21, 2008
Total points:
2 (Level 1) it is true. but it may slightly differ in changed circumstance in democracies and we the people really our watchful with truth with news materials. pl take the quotation as is in respect of lead leader and in retrospect. see see below as a modern episode of truth linked with new media:
"do u know that rev dr kamal karna k roy shall remain a legal contender until nov 4 2008 of until later date of election as his right to contest electoral competition for gop u s contender was abused by the news media in us, human_god/s and human_animals' conceived god/s and u s a govt et al in violation of u s constitutional laws of equities in matter of election of u s president 2008.? pl do not laugh. next time your dream ould could be rejected fof indifferent system for interests of weaker people ? rights of freedom and liberty include right to be your leader of leader of nation viz u s a: o k ?" in Yahoo! Answers
1 second ago - Edit - Delete
Source(s):
thje rev dr kamal karna karuna roy , a u s gop presidential conender who is contesting leadership race or u s presoident 2008 against john mccain who is trying to capture u s presidency with sweetwill preference of john maccain, u s senator from arizona, usa when a divided news media accused john with many instances of interest peddling by john for favor of sexual pursuit with middle aged beauty as lobbyist, of couse free use of sex is a god's gift for oppressive persons viz mccain when he be hopefully indicted of felony crime by f b i et al see web with seach in any standard english language seach viz google with words "kamal karna roy u s president hopefulo republican 2008 " with 3 to five w0rds at a time
0 Rating: Good Answer 0 Rating: Bad Answer Report It Sorry, you must be Level 2 to rate

4/25/2008 6:33:46 PM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Ijane wrote:
Mr Robinson the way that I see it, Obama got his wins in when he was riding high on the media-free wave. He's had a much tougher time of things now that the media is starting to actually ask him questions. I agree with you in theory that it's better for Obama to deal with spurious questions about aloofness or patriotism now than in the fall but I believe that vetting him now would risk his winning the nomination. There's no way Obama would survive the primary if the media should stop asking him about flag pins and Ayres and start asking him tougher questions such as: Obama campaigning for Odinga- the communist would-be president of Kenya whose first order of business once elected was to replace Kenya's democracy with Islamic law. BAIPA-the Born Alive Infant Protection Act that gave babies who had the misfortune of surviving late term abortions the right to medical treatment. While every single senator at the federal level agreed that a mother's right to choose ended with the birth of her baby, Obama fought the act for 3 years on the basis that it wasn't right to burden a mother with a baby she intended to abort in the first place. In plain words, Obama feels that a mother's burden is more important then a human life that's breathing outside the womb. A position most people in the United states don't agree with not to mention most countries around the world! Rezko- the millions of dollars Obama received in campaign contributions in exchange for city and state tax money and grants awarded to Rezko so he could build the slums that Obama's African Americans, the people fighting so hard to get him into the presidency, were made to live in. Even a question about the Byrne grant program could do Obama in. Obama's support for the Byrne anti-drug program, a corrupt and racist law enforcement program that targets African Americans and would no doubt bring up memories of Tulia Texas. If Obama were to be asked these questions he'll for sure lose the primary. If he's not asked these questions now you can bet the Republicans will ask him these in the GE and he'll lose the election for sure.
4/25/2008 6:32:28 PM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

robin1231hotmailcom wrote:
the reverend dr kamal karna roy episode in u s politics is relevant on the issue . as reported by the reverend mr premansu roy das . rev makhan lal ghosh, thr rev atreyee sen roy, the rev ms paromita r baidya in conference with chief of campaign rev ms lisa n roy of new york : drkamal roy for cleanest us gop president 2008 if election be held without injunction from any u s district court in 47+ jurisdictions in usa where massive campaign corruption by 590+ defendants. dr roy wa petitioner for 490+ plaintiffs pro se, reported by premansu r das, the rev, & assistant of dr roy 4. 25. 2008:
interest is in promoting those issues that affect the majority of Americans. The rigid, right-wing Republicans have done a lot of damage to our country, and it's good to have support for getting rid of a greedy, special -interest administration.
7 minutes ago
0 Rating: Good Answer 1 Rating: Bad Answer Report It Sorry, you must be Level 2 to rate

by Rebourne... Member since:
December 02, 2007
Total points:
3505 (Level 4)
Add to My Contacts

Block User

Truer words were never spoken. The media can certainly do a lot of damage.
They don't really discriminate either, if it can be made controversial, it will be exploited.
4 minutes ago
0 Rating: Good Answer 0 Rating: Bad Answer Report It Sorry, you must be Level 2 to rate

by viswa_dh Member since:
April 21, 2008
Total points:
2 (Level 1) it is true. but it may slightly differ in changed circumstance in democracies and we the people really our watchful with truth with news materials. pl take the quotation as is in respect of lead leader and in retrospect. see see below as a modern episode of truth linked with new media:
"do u know that rev dr kamal karna k roy shall remain a legal contender until nov 4 2008 of until later date of election as his right to contest electoral competition for gop u s contender was abused by the news media in us, human_god/s and human_animals' conceived god/s and u s a govt et al in violation of u s constitutional laws of equities in matter of election of u s president 2008.? pl do not laugh. next time your dream ould could be rejected fof indifferent system for interests of weaker people ? rights of freedom and liberty include right to be your leader of leader of nation viz u s a: o k ?" in Yahoo! Answers
1 second ago - Edit - Delete
Source(s):

Posted by: gargi lahiri reforms agent democracy redevelopment in u s a et al | April 25, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Negroponte, Honduras and Iraq

by Peter Watt
July 09, 2004

Until the word became unfashionable in the West, Iraq would have been called a colony. The equivalent of the colonial office, the US embassy in Baghdad, will be the biggest embassy in the world and will be headed by John Negroponte, a veteran neo-conservative of the Reagan administration.

Negroponte's specialty, while ambassador to Honduras under Reagan (1981-1985) was to ensure that any resistance to US hegemony in Nicaragua would be utterly crushed. The ambassador carried out his duties with considerable success. A brief look at Negroponte's Central American period gives us a hint at what bodes for US-run Iraq.

When the Sandinista revolution took power in Nicaragua in 1979, alarm bells rang in Washington. Somoza, the brutal US-backed dictator, had been overthrown by revolutionary forces after 43 years in power. US hegemony in Nicaragua, and thus in Central America was under serious threat. Washington's paranoia about Cuba and Bolshevism had thus spread to Central America - any challenge to the US system of control was treated with absolute contempt, as Nicaraguans were to learn right throughout the 1980s. Indeed, any government in Latin America that refused to give in to US domination, regardless of its policies, was decried as Communist - a label which provoked the most vitriolic condemnation in Washington throughout the Cold War.

In 1980 Jimmy Carter put pressure on the Honduran government to act as a "bulwark against Communism" against the Sandinista government. With Somoza gone the US had no internal grip inside Nicaragua and would thus have to control much of its anti-Sandinista operations from outside the country's borders. Some 5000 members of Somoza's hated brutal National Guard fled Nicaragua to Honduras when the Sandinistas took power. It was in consequence that Honduras became the training ground and launching pad for the US-funded Contra war against Nicaragua.

During the Reagan administration, and while Negroponte was ambassador to the country, "Contra" militias were trained in Honduras. The Contras had hitherto made relatively small attacks across the border into Nicaragua until in 1982 thousands of marines arrived with up to 200 military advisers - airstrips were built, arms supplied and radar stations erected, all courtesy of the US taxpayer.

The Contras were trained in some of the most gruesome guerrilla war techniques. Some were trained by military officers from Argentina's dirty war who knew nothing about the jungle but plenty about torture and execution. Others were trained in Florida and California while many others, like Honduras' military dictator, General Gustavo Alvarez Martínez, were educated in torture techniques, execution and combat at the School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia. While it was purported by Reagan that the Contras were fighting the evil scourge of communism, referring to them as "freedom fighters," the Contras raped, tortured and terrorised the civilian population throughout the subsequent decade, leaving the destroying the civilian infrastructure, leaving tens of thousands dead and many more displaced.

Negroponte's role in Honduras was crucial as it meant maintaining US dominance in the region. Jeane Kirkpatrick, Negroponte's predecessor at the UN once declared that "Central America is the most important place in the world for the United States today." Maintaining political control of the region meant controlling its vast and rich natural resources. The Sandinistas were beginning to take matters into their own hands and started to redistribute wealth and land in Nicaragua, thus threatening US dominance in the region. Panic in the Reagan administration reached feverish and sometimes surreal levels, with the president declaring that the Sandinistas were on the verge of invading the United States. The real cause for alarm among Reaganite neo-conservatives (including the virulent anti-communist Negroponte) was that the Sandinista revolution would spread throughout El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala. It had nothing to do with communism, just as the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with preventing terrorism. More, it was that the economic system the US had maintained in Central America since 1945 was falling apart - it was simply untenable for the impoverished masses who barely had enough to eat. Washington's solution, like its present incarnation in the Middle East, was one of force and overwhelming military power in order to maintain US hegemony. Just as Negroponte acted as the strong arm of US imperialism in Central America in the 1980s he will protect US business and political interests in the Middle East, now the "most important place in the world for the United States today."

While the country was used as the launching ground for the war against Nicaragua, US aid to Honduras increased from 5 to almost $100 million with $200 million given in economic aid. Honduras now received more aid than anywhere else in the region, most of the money ultimately being controlled by the military.

Jack Binns, Negroponte's predecessor as ambassador appointed by Jimmy Carter, complained about the blatant human rights abuses in Honduras and briefed him as he took office. He later reported that Salvadoran nuns who fled to Honduras after the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero had been tortured by the Honduran secret police and thrown out of helicopters alive - a speciality of the Argentine military officers employed in Honduras during Negroponte's stint. One official, Rick Chidester, claims Negroponte ordered him to remove all mention of torture and execution from his report on human rights in Honduras.

During Negroponte's stay in Honduras, human rights violations peaked. The infamous US trained death squad, Batallion 3-16, was notorious for the torture, rape, kidnapping and killing of Honduran dissidents. Hundreds of people disappeared. By the end of the 1980s at least 10,000 were dead, not to mention the conservative estimate of 200,000 deaths in Central America as a result of US intervention. Negroponte, however, claims no knowledge of the human rights abuses the US carried out and funded despite being ambassador at the time. He told CNN, "I think on balance if you look back at what we did, I think a good case can be made that there was actually less suffering in Central America as a result of the actions the United States took than there would have been if we had just folded our arms and done nothing."

Many other Honduran victims of the US led war in Central America ended up at the El Aguacate airstrip, whose creation was supervised by Negroponte, and where dissidents were detained and tortured - 185 corpses were dug up there in 2001.

When George W. Bush appointed Negroponte as US ambassador to the UN, members of Honduran death squads who had previously been granted asylum in the US were deported. It was feared they testify about Negroponte's role in human rights abuses while ambassador to Honduras.

Interestingly, none of this came up in the US and British mainstream media when career journalists heaped praise on Reagan shortly after his death. Somehow, amidst the fawning in mainstream and elite circles it was forgotten that the Reagan administration carried out in Central America one of the worst campaigns of state terrorism of the late 20th century. All of this in the context of the present situation in Iraq - one might expect that the media would pick up on the fact that many of the present incumbents in Washington are those who were responsible for the terror in Central America in the 1980s. John Negroponte's appointment as ambassador, as if it was not clear enough by now, tells something about what Bush et al have in store for Iraq.

What should we expect now that the US has handed "sovereignty" back to Iraqis? What kind of sovereignty is it? Will it be more sovereign than Honduras, which was effectively controlled by the CIA and the US military?

Of course, it is nothing like sovereignty. Some 250,000 occupation soldiers will stay in the country long after the US has left. Not having allowed any free elections, the US has installed a puppet government that will receive orders from Washington. Should the new government fail to do so, it can expect to be overthrown either by US backed coup organised from the US embassy or outright invasion (again). Iraqi sovereignty does not even allow the courts to prosecute foreign civilians or contractors or mercenaries should they commit a crime. Any mercenary guilty of killing an Iraqi is immune from legal prosecution. The new government has no control of the quarter of a million soldiers that will continue to occupy the country and intimidate the civilian population. The American government will determine how the budget of $18 billion for reconstruction is spent. Iraq's natural resources will be handed over to mostly American private companies - control of oil reserves the most obvious example. Moreover, the Bush administration has ensured that Iraq's public services should be milked for profit for US corporations who will now control much of the country's infrastructure. So much for "sovereignty."

We might consider the reaction of people in the US if a foreign power invaded, killed thousands of civilians, destroyed the country's infrastructure after a ten year bombing campaign and sanctions that left up to a million dead, denied Americans the right to vote while making lofty claims about freedom and democracy, shot people protesting the invasion, shot carloads of people at checkpoints and condemned present and future generations to all kinds of disease and illness and maiming as a result of exposure to depleted uranium and contact with unexploded cluster bombs. How would Americans react when the foreign power supposedly left the country, leaving hundreds of thousands of soldiers and mercenaries in the US, all immune from prosecution in American courts after appointing a puppet government that took its orders from the foreign capital and having given American natural resources and public services over to foreign companies. How would Americans react to being denied the right to vote when the leaders of the occupying power strutted about making asserting this was a victory for democracy?

The anger and outrage Americans would feel is now felt by Iraqis. Resistance to the US occupying forces will increase, and eventually, like all imperial powers, the Americans will be forced to leave - because of the scale of the resistance and because of the chaos wreaked by the occupying forces. Yet before that happens we are likely to see a great deal of violence. The US will attempt to crush all kinds of resistance to their power, which is only likely to become more organized and apparent.

Interestingly, none of this came up in the mainstream media when career journalists heaped praise on Reagan shortly after his death. Somehow, amongst the fawning and whining in mainstream and elite circles it was forgotten that the Reagan administration carried out in Central America one of the worst campaigns of state terrorism of the late 20th century. All of this in the context of the present situation in Iraq - one might expect that the media would pick up on the fact that many of the present incumbents in Washington are those who were responsible for the terror in Central America in the 1980s. John Negroponte's appointment as ambassador, as if it was not clear enough by now, tells something of what Bush et al have in store for Iraq.

Peter Watt is an independent journalist and activist. He presently lives in France.

WAKE UP AMERICA


examine. question. explore. dare to hope you have a choice. demand.


.

Posted by: where we've been | April 25, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

what's irritating are punters that have no interest in


NATIONAL SECURITY at all and put our nation at risk

because they want to WAR PROFITEER, even when there is

no war going on.


JUST A MFing occupation.

Those people need to have their kids rounded up and put in concentration camps, and then joined by their parents....so that they know what it is like to be the recipients of thoughtless agression based upon greed.


the crawford salaami sucker that posted this sentence

"This is eerily similar to their approach to national security threats. Clinton hated the military and made no effort"

is one that I would like to see placed in GITMO as an "enemy of the state."

obviously, a traitor.


.


Posted by: yah know | April 25, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

just curious, dan, but how many times have you asked that question during the past eight years of the bush administration.

Posted by: linda | April 25, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Neither Clinton or Obama have answers. They are simply saying that the right has dicked up the country and they are going to fix it.

Interestingly enough, neither one has introduced legislation to fix anything.

This goes back to congenital lying and extreme inexperience. Clinton would rather climb a tree and lie than stand on the ground and tell the truth. Obama doesn't have a clue either what the issues are or how to fix them. Had he spent his remarkably short time in office learning how the system works, he would have the beginnings of an idea. However, he has spent this short time demagoguing and race hustling to try this latest gig.

This is eerily similar to their approach to national security threats. Clinton hated the military and made no effort to disguise that while she was covering up for her husbands bizarre behaviour. Obama's only idea concerning the military is to eradicate Israel to bolster his muslim constituency and to bring gays to the forefront of our military. Neither have any experience with the military other than condescending photo ops whenever necessary.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

obviously youfather had sex with his sister and married her


and you are the brain bent progney of that ill fated union...


a demagogue is always the result of lust and no forsight

.

Posted by: and | April 25, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

you're a DA


loony tunes scheiss sucking monkey lover...


.

Posted by: dear whining barack... | April 25, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a far left liberal. He has no intention of balancing the budget. That would mean telling people the truth.
There is a reason that Obama does not like being ask tough questions. He has no answers. Persist and you are a racist. Just ask James Clyburn. What a joke.

Posted by: Whining Barack | April 25, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

rid of BLACKWATER,

you want an elite Unit under the control of the PENTAGON, no prob...

I do have a problem with a unit being used to train latinos to drug run for bushco and cronys


heroin and cocaine suppliers...


want to end a certain families future????


stop the drug runners. how hard is that?


with today's modern technology, I could do it 3 months.


the fact that it hasn't happened is proof that


theydon'twannastopit


.FT.


take them out and beat the figurative schiess out of them and theirs'


.

Posted by: get | April 25, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Balz has GOT to be kidding. If there were a debate, they would be asked about lapel pins and long-forgotten associations.

How about asking .... McCain! Hey, there's an idea. No, it's only the dems who are held up to the toughest standard.

That is how we got a numbskull like George Bush in the white house -- and the resultant fake, illegal war that is currently destroying us.

So please, Balz. You and your ilk could give a fig about issues. Every time Hillary gives a substantive speech, the columnists line up to snark on her "droning" and her "wonkishness" (like they did to Gore before her.)

So save the pontificating.

Posted by: monk | April 25, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Cheap propaganda. I know where about 4 billion dollars a week could be cut from current spending. That would cover either Clinton's or Obama's plan pretty easy.


Posted by: mk | April 25, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

you forgot to Mention That Newt GINGRICH is a NEOCON,

and was schtupping someone else's wife while his was sick in bed....and he was hounding Bill Clinton about dipping his seegar....


Newt Gingrich is a liar and a BJ give rtolittle George, his but buddy...


_G_I_N_G_R_I_C_____NEOCON____TRAITOR___TO_HIS___COUNTRY___

A LITTLE RELATIONSHIP INFORMATION about Washington D.C.: you are not invisible.


American Enterprise Institute aei.org
Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, Newt Gingrich, David Frum


Also: Project for New American Century (aka "PNAC") newamericancentury.org
William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Michael Ledeen, Jeb Bush, Frank Gaffeny, Elliot Abrams, Thomas Donnelly, Eliot Cohen, Richard Perle, John R. Bolton, David Frum. Their infamous "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report outlined their aggressive intentions and the need for a "new Pearl Harbor".


Also: Weekly Standard Magazine weeklystandard.com
Editor William Kristol hosts a whole raft of neocon writers
@1150 17th Street, NW

2. Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies sais-jhu.edu
Paul Wolfowitz, Frank Gaffney, Thomas Donnelly, Eliot Cohen
@1740 Massachusetts Avenue, NW

3. Saban Center for Mideast Policy brookings.edu/dybdocroot/sabancenter/
(Neo-liberals do neo-conservativism"lite") Martin Indyk, Kenneth M. Pollack @1775 Massachusetts Ave NW

4. Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs jinsa.org
Michael Ledeen, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, James Woolsey, Frank Gaffney, Jay Garner, Tom Neumann, J. Kenneth Blackwell (OH Attorney General)
@1779 Massachusetts, NW, Ste 515

5. Foundation for Defense of Democracies defenddemocracy.org
Newt Gingrich, James Woolsey, Gary Bauer, Frank Gaffney, Marc Ginsberg, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Perle
@1020 19th St NW, Suite 340

6. Center for Security Policy centerforsecuritypolicy.org
Richard Perle, James Woolsey, Elliott Abrams, Frank Gaffney, Douglas Feith, Dov Zakheim [IRAN_CONTRA THUGS FOR DRUGS GANG]
@1920 L Street, N.W. Suite 210 (K and L)

7. Washington Institute for Near East Policy washingtoninstitute.org
Martin Indyk, Mortimer Zuckerman, Martin Peretz.
Spin-off of American-ISRAEL Public Affairs Committee.
@1828 L Street NW, Suite 1050

8. Center for Strategic & International Studies csis.org
Brent Scowcroft, James Woolsey, Henry Kissinger, James Schlesinger
@1800 K Street, NW Suite 400

9. Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies israeleconomy.org
David Wurmser; Published Richard Perle's Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (June 1996).
@1020 16th Street, NW

what does this posting mean? not a lot, it's simply that these people work the same job...

a combination of ANTI_ISLAM, PRO ZIONIST, BIG OIL, IRAN CONTRA THUGS FOR DRUGS...

con's piracy GROUPS...you know liars of little mental ability...so obvious are their actions that a person of ordinary intelligence can work out their dishonesty quite easily by searching the net for information about the names from any one group.

Cristol is associated most frequently with PNAC/AEI and ZIONISM...

I believe he has been recorded breaking the law regarding espionage with ISRAEL as the recipient of verbotten information, but I could be mistaken. I know for sure that Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle have been caught passing classified information to Israeli agents...


that's called TREASON


and with the current thing about IRAN, collusion to defraud the U.S. of A. of it's resources....and commit to an untenable position.

anyway, these organizations are the cream of neoconism...better known as latter day NAZIS pretending to be jewish

.


Posted by: hey Neil C. | April 25, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

The last Dem we put in the White House had a budget surplus. Bush has blow up the deficit like no one since Reagen. McCain will be no different then Bush. Dan Balz isn't acting as a journalist in this piece, but as a shill for McCain. Not really surprising at the WP.

Posted by: John Gillnitz | April 25, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

OIL IS $120 to $140 DOLLARS a barrel...

we are dependant on foreign sources, when the United States Executive Branch is as popular with the world as the Luftwaffe was with Great Britain...

we need to treat our domestic issues with a certainty that borders on

tight thinking.

all of our manufacturing is overseas...


all of our customer service is overseas...


we are experiencing suburban sprawl that means that commuting is a major problem for those that do not live in cities...


our cities are largely dangerous and uninhabitable by any but those who can't do better and the young...


WTF ???


all of those things point towards one thing.


Nationalizing OIL, and considering it a NATIONS RESOURCE...in a time of CRISIS


and rebuild our infrastructure,


turn Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, KBR, DynCorp, CACI, BLACKWATER


into extensions of GAO, GSA, the Pentagon


and place all of them on GS SCALE WAGES,

same for any US Contracting companies in AFGHANISTAN and IRAQ...


then seperate any members of the current executive branch from receiving profit from those companies by congressional mandate...


then look at the books for those companies.

and look at the books and connections of the bush families and the past and current members of the George W. Bush Executive offices...


just stopping war profiteering will put us in the BLACK.


the current administration been skimming like this was Nicaragua


.

Posted by: let's be real here... | April 25, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

I applaud your article, particularly that you recognize the efforts by Newt Gingrich in restraining government spending.

Unfortunately, educated Americans typically don't understand the federal budgeting process. They forget that only Congress can pass legislation for the signature of the President, who merely signs the legislation before spending tax dollars on dozens of pens as souvenirs for political hacks.

And the less educated truly believe that money actually grows on trees. So persuasive are their arguments, that they convinced Greenspan to print an almost unending supply of greenbacks.

Unaffected by the nation's financial crisis and it's problems with fiscal discipline are high ranking senior corporate executives, government employees and teachers, who continue to garner an increasingly disproportionate share of American wealth.

Posted by: Neil C | April 25, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Hey Bruce McDougall, check out this link:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

The Neo-Cons hands are dirtier and filthier than Obama's could ever be. He was simply in proximity to Wright and Ayers and therefore we bridge the gap and make the man guilty by association. This smearing is not what this country needs right now, and I say this with respect to you, sir, not out of dislike or hatred.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

To mike!


America has been sold out over the years by corrupt politicians for personal gain and/or "fame". The national debt was nil and stable until around 1970,when it started escalating. That was the woodstock era, the time America became pretty well comfortable finance-wise and every family had an automobile, and the other good things. Morals began to degenerate, such that politicians were able to get away with most anything, and it has only gotten worse since then. As to Iraq, we should have struck a deal with Hussein instead of wiping him out. The cost would have been minimal, and the benefits many. He was a cruel man, and could have been less extreme in some cases, but I hated to see the man go to the gallows. At least he walked to them like a man. Back to the bushmeister, he has cost America way too much in many regards. One is sorely tempted to namecall, but in his case he may deserve such.

Posted by: Billw | April 25, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

The 20 to 30 millions Illegal Aliens each cost an average of 9,000.00 per year more than the contribute. So get of of them and start spending tax money on American Citizens instead of Criminals from Mexico!

Posted by: gary | April 25, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Democratic administrations have a history of adding massive debts to the U.S. economy? This is a novel fact free idea.

These numbers are not inflation adjusted, which would actually work to Carter's benefit, but lets actually take a look at the hard numbers . . .

1945 to 1960 -- a $30 billion dollar deficit increase added on top of $250 billion worth of debt associated with WWII and its aftermath.

Nixon/Ford -- $500 billion of debt added.

Carter -- $300 billion (once again -- with high inflation these numbers would be lower in real terms than $300 billion today).

Reagan -- $2.3 TRILLION.

George H.W. Bush -- $1.4 TRILLION (in just 4 years)

Clinton -- $1.6 TRILLION in 8 years, but with declining deficits at the end of his term.

George W. Bush -- $4.8 TRILLION in 8 years.

In other words, almost $8 TRILLION of our national debt has come under Republican administrations just since 1980.

This does not include outlays for the out-years in Iraq connected to long-term care for veterans, replacement costs for equipment, and on-going occupation costs -- which should add at least another $1 trillion to our current debt burden.

It is patently false to say that the massive deficit spending -- which has been due in large part to the ramping up of military spending and Reagan/Bush tax-cut and spend policies -- are primarily the responsibility of Democratic administrations.

The numbers do not add up to support that claim.

One reason why both Democrats are likely to offer better returns for taxpayers is due to the fact that they will:

1. Approach something close to pay-go -- where outlays are covered by increasing revenue (by closing tax-loop holes, and stopping the massive wealth redistribution in this country to the very, very top .01 percent).

2. The Democrats will be spending this money on the domestic front. Investments in alternative energy and rebuilding infrastructure will put money into the economy -- and lay the foundation for future economic growth. We did see a dividend from massive spending programs like the GI Bill and the Interstate Highway Act of 1952 -- these are programs that have effectively paid for themselves and then some.

One of the terrible things about war spending is that it has a tendency to be extremely wasteful. There's a difference between building infrastructure on the home front and blowing it up overseas.

Much of the money spent -- going to U.S. and foreign based companies only trickles back to the domestic economy.

The expenditures in equipment are wasteful when million dollar vehicles are destroyed by $200 worth of explosives from an IEDs. On top of this we have companies like KBR, which skirt U.S. tax laws avoiding the payment of over $500 million in medicare and social security taxes. We have a BILLION dollar embassy which is being built in large part by foreign contracts. The benefit of this kind of spending is not widely shared in the larger economy -- the bulk of the benefits just tend to go towards a few war profiteers.

To top it off all of this wasteful spending is being fueled by deficits which come with interest payments down the line (6 percent of overall spending right now, but sure to increase down the line).

Military spending tends to be wasteful spending. Sometimes it is necessary -- especially in a place like Afghanistan -- but in a place like Iraq American taxpayers will never see a trillion dollar return on their trillion dollar expenditure. Any politician who suggests otherwise is playing fast and loose with the economic reality. i.e. he or she is lying.

As far as health care policy goes, the movement to a single-payer system won't happen anytime soon because of political and special interest factors -- but this would be another area where the U.S. could see a good return on investment. Right now we are paying about 30 to 50 percent more for our health care than other developed countries per capita -- and getting health outcomes which are worse than those other developed countries. The start up costs associated with a single payer system would be pretty massive, but within about a 10 year period U.S. businesses in particular would start seeing a better return on their own investment through a single-payer system than we have under the current private insurance model.

Neither of the Democrats will be able to make deficits disappear, but they should be able to establish a foundation in 4 to 8 years which opens the door to that outcome. By slowing the massive redistribution of wealth in this country to the very top where ordinary Americans see no benefit to an economic expansion (thanks in no small part to tax policy) -- and giving the middle and working classes a financial stake in the future of this nation (a good thing) -- the Democrats will strength this country's economic security.

McCain's policies will only increase our indebtedness -- with the expenditures going to a wasteful war which will never provide taxpayers with a sufficient return on investment on top of even more tax cuts.

Under McCain we will be even more leveraged in 4 to 8 years -- with less flexibility to deal with looming financial burdens associated with entitlement programs, and a larger share of federal receipts will be going just to cover interest payments on our debt.

Posted by: JP2 | April 25, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Personally - they meaning al lthe politicians should be fired...and that goes for ALL Democrats and Republicans alike. How they have managed to mess things up this bad....God only knows. But they all stink. And I mean at the FED, STATE and local levels.

Regarding taxes.....recently had homes reassessed in NC......subsequently tax rates are suppose to then go down to remain revenue neutral...and what does our local government do.......only lower the rates 60%....in otherwords...2007 - 2008 will provide an additional 40% in revenues ....is that amazing - do they forget whose money it is. The crime is - that then the county wil lthen higher theres next year...and if the Feds higher theres, etc.....and even with that they are stil corrupt and cant run things.....a village idiot can do better.

Posted by: John | April 25, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

You all need to stop touting your party as if it has the answers. Dems create entitlements & end up discouraging people from working. GOPs lower taxes to encourage growth & then the rich create asset bubbles (like real estate recently) that punish everyone, particularly the financially ignorant.

As for 'paying' for things by pulling back the Bush tax cuts, why is it revenues have gone up when capital gains tax went down? Look it up. You hate the rich for being rich? Probably because you work for them. So vote dem & pray that our business taxes don't get so regressive that even the EU looks to be a better option for investing the capital that drives the economic growth that justifies your job's existance.

This article simply points out the specious rhetoric of the candidates on fiscal discipline, and rightfully so. Between the war on terror on the right & entitlements on the left, there seem to be no good options. I just hope that the value produced in US citizens exchanging goods & services in progressively innovative ways will be enough to offset the irresponsible policies of both parties.

Posted by: Aspiring Entrepreneur | April 25, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

The biggest cause of deficit spending is war. It may be that all three candidates are already heading for an increased deficit. But a war on top of these expenses is what will really blow the budget.

McCain will drag America into a war against Iran. Hillary may well do the same, judging from her words and track record. That will not only bust the budget, it will also directly attack Americans' wallets through vastly increased gas prices.

Therefore, by default, Obama is the most fiscally conservative candidate.

As for McCain, he promises to keep large troop numbers in Iraq for a long time, yet doesn't factor that cost into his economic projections. That's outright fraud.

PS Balz: "Roll in the cost of rolling back President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and some other tax changes and the budgetary gap is instantly clear."

I hardly think that cancelling the Bush tax cuts can be counted as a "cost".

Posted by: OD | April 25, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Our country is run by the pentagon.

Note: Pentagon employees have all the 'entitlements' that the right wing screams about when anyone even suggests providing them to all the people: health care, education, retirement benefits, housing allowances...

Before the war we had a huge JOBS program called the armed forces. We still do, and we will long after the shooting has stopped.

Welcome to the Fourth Reich.

Posted by: Dave | April 25, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

And how many partisan dimwits does it take to screw in a lightbulb. None. Becasue with them the lights are OUT! Obama, McCain, Clinton, the Republican and Democratic leadership, have rigged a game, constructed a gigantic Ponzi Scheme, and you don't get it! Quit attacking Obama with juvenile garbage you heard on FOX. Understand that FOX and Rush Limbaugh, and Hanidy, and Air America are merely money making shills for this gigantic con game that is designed to swindle you out of your job. Get REALLY ANGRY and join together with liberals and conservatives who are fed up with getting screwed by the political-Wall Street-corporate media syndicate and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Take your country back. If you side with one of these con artists or the other, you are only committing slow motion suicide.

Posted by: mike! | April 25, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

The NEXT time you dare even write the words "fiscal discipline", "fiscal responsibilty", or "fiscal [anything]".... YOU NEED TO ADD UP THE AMOUNT OF *FISCAL MONEY* THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION HAS COST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OVER THE LAST 8 YEARS.

EITHER THRU WAR, MISMANAGEMENT OR OUTRIGHT THEFT.

You got alotta nerve, pal.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen | April 25, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Atten: Dan Balz. Re: Your column of 4-25-08.
No one believes the promises being made by the three current contenders for the White House. When one considers the past few years, and the great leadership we have had: ie. F.D.R., Harry Truman, Jack Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, it is shameful to realize that the best we have to offer are the three clowns making unreal promises, that we are going to have to settle for.
Why some one doesn't come up with a proven track record and the competence to manage
huge operations, such as Gov. Ed Rendell of Pa. is a mystery that exceeds that of the three clowns now being force fed to us.
With utmost sincerity, and tears in my eyes,I remain: Cyrano forever.

Posted by: Kenneth B. Smith, P.E. | April 25, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Here's a question for all you Obama supporters, especially for the person who ends their post with:"How stupid are we?"

HOW MANY OBAMA SUPPORTERS DOES IT TAKE TO SCREW IN A LIGHT BULB?

JUST ENOUGH TO MAKE IT WRIGHT.

Posted by: BruceMcDougall | April 25, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Billw, Sara - Do either of you have a son, a relative in Iraq? I do! I want them OUT, I wanted them out when I voted for the Democrats last election. I note, however, that they are still there!!! My youngest on his third tour of duty.... That Democratic COngress has done flat out nothing except try to use this as an election issue. As for cutting funds, I have a problem with leaving my kids without ammunition and weapons with which to defend themselves against the subhuman trash that composes most of Iraq's population. I would like it noted, too, that Dianne Feinstein's hubby is a defense contractor and makes barge loads of money from Iraq, so do a number of other Democratic "leaders". It's all about money. The collection of maggots and parasites in Washington support free trade policies, guest workers, wars with Iraq, Iran, North Korea, China's suppression of Tibet, etc. etc. all in their insane chase for money. In the meantime, food is due to increase by as much as 100% THIS YEAR, oil prices are at record levels and due to climb even more (and the commodity brokers and assorted Wall Street bottom feeders make money off both), metals, clothing, everything necessary to support this country is due to increase by 30% or more! Offhand, I'd say we're in trouble, and as with Iraq, the blithering idiots in Washington wont do one thing.

Posted by: mike! | April 25, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Once again, we, the American people, are faced with trying to determine which of these candiates are the best of the worse. I have no faith, that any of them, can turn this country around. For those who talk about how much better, so-and-so can be better than Bush, is not really important, as he is not running for re-election. We can't change the past seven years, so no reason to harp on it.

Also, the President of the United States is not the most powerful person in the world. Beyond being Commander in Chief, there is not many things they can do. They can promise all these wonderful things, to get votes, but can not directly control the country. They can only approve items in which the HR or Congress has approved and put on their desk to sign. Too many people think the president can wake up one morning, wave a magic wand, and cut taxes. This is what they tell you in stump speeches to get your vote. We are not a nation run by a dictator in which their decision is final.

The grand ole USA, needs less government trying to control our lives and make eveyone dependent on them. Some citizens seem to think that the government are their parents, and suppose to provide well being form the cradle to the grave. This country was built on people who could take care of themselves, and not rely on others. This has changed, oh so much the past several decades. Everyone thinks the world should evolve around their needs and what ever everyone else need to conform too, to make them happy.

We were always considered the best country in the world, but as other nations prosper, we are not seen by the world as a super power, or the place to live. Yes, we are still better than a lot of other nations, but the government is eroding away at our quality of life.

While some like or dislike Ronald Reagan, that is fine, but his words of wisdom was something along the lines of the problem, is we have too much government in our lives.

Posted by: Big D. | April 25, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

going to be hard to fix anything when we can't drill for oil and we are giving money to the U.N. to fight the global warming hoax.good gosh,rush thinks his operation chaos is working good,he doesn't hold a candle to the scam that gore and the left wing have perpetrated on us.

Posted by: gunclinger | April 25, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Dan, did you find this article on the playground during recess? What schoolyard partisan drivel, grow up little boy.

How ironic that you end with the words, "credibility gap."

Posted by: Paul | April 25, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Obama isn't clobbering anybody or haven't you noticed? And financing a campaign is a far cry from managing the Federal budget. How many budgets has Mr. Obama ever managed in his political life? In fact , can anybody out there tell me how one year of real experience in the Senate has prepared this man to be President? You cannot convince me that this past year he has been steeped in Senate work. May be we could change the Presidential job description to exclude everything except speech making, writing self laudatory books, visiting with Oprah and completely changing the way everything works in Washington ( dream on with that one). In that case Obama is eminently well suited to be President.

Posted by: helenoftroy | April 25, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Sara said:
"Illegally invading Iraq has caused a trillion dollars or more to be spent there. The balance of power through out the entire Middle East is extremely shaky and has been since we took it on ourselves to over throw former President Husain."

One cannot condone violence, unless perhaps as the lesser of two evils. Hussein controlled Iraq with an iron fist, and it looks like that's the only way it can be done. He overdid it, and I don't know the statistics, but I would bet more have died there due to violence per year since his demise, than did during his tenure. Bush misled the people about weapons of mass destruction, and many feel he was on a personal vendetta against Hussein. We sure as hell could use Hussein now along with his military as a deterrant to Iran, and we would be better off all around. The Bushmeister has put America in bad standing in many ways. You might say he has bushwhacked America. Too bad.


Posted by: Billw | April 25, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

France, Italy, San Marino, Andora, Malta, Singapore, Spain, Oman, Austria, Japan, Norway, Portogal, Monaco, Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Ireland, Switzerland, Belgium, Colombia Sweeden, Cyprus, Germany, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Israel, Morocco, Canada, Finland, Australia, Chile, Denmark, Dominica, and Codta Rica all tried universial health care and like it just fine, but the USA can't afford it!

Posted by: Balz Buster | April 25, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

This article is garbage. It aptly points out that the candidates have not been clear, but the cost of rolling back tax cuts? Rolling back a tax cut will *ideally for them* increase gross tax revenues. Increasing a tax rate which results in a cost, or net loss of tax revenues is an economic issue that is highly unlikely to occur.

Combine that mistake with the omission of war spending decreases (+other spending reduction) and that equals that this article plainly sucks.

Dan, come on now. I know it's a blog, but lets have some pride in your work at least!

Posted by: Chris | April 25, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Interesting that at least one article finally gets it right about the budget during the Clinton years - it was primarily because of hard work of Newt Gingrich!

Posted by: slb | April 25, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY CLINTON IS A LIAR. SHE LIED ABOUT BOSNIA. SHE IS LYING ABOUT THE POPULAR VOTE. SHE IS A LIAR!

Posted by: Philadelphious | April 25, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama +5 in Indiana. The Hoosiers will not prolong this silly exercise in futility.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

When has the mainstream media actually told the American people the costly secret of Bush's tax cuts to the rich and the cost of the war in Iraq? He has raised the deficit from 5 TRILLION to 10 Trillion.

Posted by: THOMAS | April 25, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Reflecting reality not on agenda for corporate media.

Posted by: whywhywhy | April 25, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Of course they won't honor their word, they're POLITICIANS. Jeez!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's leadership qualities should be judged relative to the train wreck of a campaign she managed. The race was hers to lose. And she did just that. Thse end game moves are just to save face. She's also not getting re-elected in NY after she is forced out kicking and screaming when Obama clobbers her in Indiana and NC.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

END THE DEFICIT

END THE McCAIN BUSH

TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH

VOTE OBAMA 298 DELEGATES TO VICTORY

Posted by: BUY LOONIES | April 25, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Fiscal discipline has been a problem for "Many Democratic administrations of the past"!?!?!? Are you kidding me? The ~$10 trillion debt we have today is almost 100% from Reagan, Bush, and Bush II, and you're telling me the Democrats have a problem with fiscal discipline!?

Just compare http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/ to http://www.barackobama.com/issues

John McCain says NOTHING about fiscal discipline- he suggests that we continue to spend $150 billion/year on Iraq, cut another $300 billion/year of taxes for the rich, and he suggests that "cutting earmarks" ($20 billion/year) will somehow balance the budget.

Barack Obama will cut wasteful spending in Iraq, get rid of the tax cuts for the rich that are bankrupting our government, and restore pay-go spending.

The double-speak of this column is ridiculous.

Posted by: JohnPseudo | April 25, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Isn't " blowing a new hole in the federal deficit" a good thing? (-:

Posted by: Steven | April 25, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

John McSame:

Bush tax cuts permanent

Iraq war without end

Tax relief for middle class

This looks worse that either Obama or Clinton. So is Balz a Republican stooge?

Posted by: willandjansdad | April 25, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

I remember Dan and the WaPo asking for details about how the Bush Administration was going to pay for the Iraq invasion and occupation. They beat the drum, non-stop, demanding fiscal discipline from the Republicans. One headline after an other about how Republicans were running up the biggest deficits in History and withholding information needed to analyse how much they were spending and borrowing.

Come on Dan, blatant Republican talking points from the "liberal press"??? You can do better than that!

Posted by: thebob.bob | April 25, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Well, I don't think you can even get as far as this argument as yet. First look at how they are conducting their campaigns-finance-wise. Yes, it is different than the US budget- but is suggests management quality and fiscal responsibilty. Hillary has been in the hole big-time, twice, and nearly jeopardized the health-care coverage of her paid staffers. She blew her wad in Iowa because she didn't think that the campaign would not be competitive after that primary. Which is an indicator of not being a manager with a Plan-B mentality. Now she wants to count votes that were disenfranchised by her own party's committee- so she's counting numbers that aren't there- so as a manager does she count on resources that aren't realistic? Obama and his people, on the other hand, seem to have the money part well under control and managed well enough so that it isn't even mentioned as an issue around his campaign. So maybe this is a controlled spending group that is well managed? Hmmm....

Posted by: Millie Bea | April 25, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

One simple idea - round up every illegal and deport them. Deny their children a place in school, deny them medical care, deny them access to any and all social services. All of this *exactly* as they do in Europe - http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1987607,00.html#.
By most estimates, illegals consume more than two trillion dollars annually in costs for these and other items. Beyond this, they take jobs from Amercian's nd drive down wages and benefits for our workers. I kind of figure, we need the money here..... Two trillion dollars, heck half of that, would just about balance the federal budget.

Posted by: MikeB | April 25, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

I am glad you got around to mentioning the bogosity of McCain's proposal-albiet at the end of the article. How about an expose about how his tax policy is a recipe for increased deficits. Keep in mind which party was the last to have a balanced budget. So when it comes to credibility I think Democrats have more going for them than the GOP.

Posted by: VA Patriot | April 25, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

COUNTDOWN TO VICTORY
298 DELEGATES

THEN CUT THE DEFICIT
END TAX CUTS FOR THE PRIVELAGED

GO OBAMA

Posted by: DELGATE MATH | April 25, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

When President Bush first proposed a tax rebate for Americans earlier this year, he billed it as a shot in the arm for the economy.
Today, he suggested the money will simply help people pay their rising bills for gas and food. It's almost three times what it was when President Bush took office. It was a dollar and change- close to 175% increase..when he took office.

I voted dem in 2006 and got zip.

Vote CLINTON- not the usual losers.

Posted by: robin | April 25, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

ITS THE DEFICIT
STUPID

COSTING US IN IMPORT PRICES

GO OBAMA

Posted by: DEAD DOLLARS | April 25, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

As long as we're borrowing money from China to kill Iraqis, perhaps they would loan us some for health care for Americans.

Posted by: Balz Buster | April 25, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Like the Republican Congress and current Administration have been fiscally responsible? Hasn't the national debt grown from 5 to 9 Trillion dollars under the Bush Administration? Did not Clinton, during 8 years of prosperity, not only balance the budget, but show a 350 Billion surplus during his DEMOCRATIC administration? Democrats must prove their fiscal responsible ! Get Real !

Posted by: A.Lincoln | April 25, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Like the Republican Congress and current Administration have been fiscally responsible? Hasn't the national debt grown from 5 to 9 Trillion dollars under the Bush Administration? Did not Clinton, during 8 years of prosperity, not only balance the budget, but show a 350 Billion surplus during his DEMOCRATIC administration? Democrats must prove their fiscal responsible ! Get Real !

Posted by: A.Lincoln | April 25, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

The candidates promises have no more a chance at becoming law than I might count to infinity.

Universal Health Care? They tried that, in Romania. It's a fast track to national insolvency.

Posted by: Rob L. | April 25, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

New initiatives (i.e. money spent by the government to benefit people other than the very wealthy) can be funded out of the savings that will result from eliminating legacy government agencies and programs. I think it is time to redesign the Pentagon so that it fights wars (quickly and to Victory) and stops acting like a social welfare agency for government contractors. The stupid Republicans howl everytime somebody suggests cutting "defense" spending. Opponents of "defense" spending are called weaklings, unpatriotic, unsupportive of Our Troops, and ready to turn over the keys to the government to whatever foreign knucklehead comes along to demand them. And their argument works! How much spending on war do we need? Apparently the answer is: How much you got? Do we need HUD? Do we need DOE (either of them)? Do we need a Department of Labor? Do we need a Department of Agriculture? Really? How so? I'd increase funding in the Office of the President of the United States to record every meeting, telephone call, and e-mail in the White House for archival purposes. Loss of any recording would be a capital offense. Nothing agreed to outside the range of the recorders would be binding on either party or on the People of the United States.

Posted by: BlueTwo1 | April 25, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

America needs to come out of its dismal economic situation by raising taxes on the vulgar rich. I thought that taxes were used to make society more fair. Now taxes have been turned on their heads.
Illegally invading Iraq has caused a trillion dollars or more to be spent there. The balance of power through out the entire Middle East is extremely shaky and has been since we took it on ourselves to over throw former President Husain. We may not have seen anything yet. But, I do believe we should get out of there now and hope for the best.

Posted by: Sara | April 25, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Its been the Hypublicrit "strangle the baby in the crib" strategy sense Mr. Ray-Gun. Bust the budget so bad that there's nothing left for people. Borrow and spend ,drunken saylor, Hypubliocrits will spend money on anything as long as common people don't get any!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

I've heard Hillary speak, the one thing I took from her speech was real detail she gave on her economic plans, actual numbers, where it was coming from, where it would go...Balz (apptly named) obviously is basing his views off of one speech, or part of a speech he read from USA today and ran wild...way to go Balz...please washington post, I expect more from you than to publish high school level writing...

Posted by: Tim | April 25, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

COUNTDOWN TO VICTORY

298 DELEGATES

706 REMAINING 300 SUPERS

GO OBAMA

Posted by: DELEGATE MATH | April 25, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

POPULAR VOTE DON'T COUNT FOR JACK
AND BILL DON'T HELP EITHER

ASK

AL GORE

Posted by: JACK SHOT | April 25, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

The USA is the only industrialized country in the world that does not have universial health care, and we pay more for it than any other country, yet we rank 27th.

Posted by: Balz Buster | April 25, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

GRANT says McCain will keep us in Iraq 4 more years but McCain himself says 100.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Making the wealthy pay a fair share will cost the budget money? WHAT BALONEY!!! This is the same old stinky Hypublicrit cheese that has never smelled good and it still stinks.

Posted by: Balz Buster | April 25, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

The "we'll save the money by getting out of Iraq" argument is pretty naive - whatever your view on the war, we are not going to be there forever in large numbers. If you believe Obama, a couple of years (if he is lucky), McCain, I'd say probably 4 years.. both parties want to bring troops home - the debate is just when. But any program that Obama wants to spend money on - healthcare, education - is in effect PERMANENT. So many the Iraq saving pays for things for a year or two.. but then what? We get saddled with a new entitlement program.

And if you are worked up over the $1-2 trillion for Iraq, you'll be really upset over the $50 trillion current liability for long-term Medicare and SS expenses.

Posted by: Grant | April 25, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Yes, this is a poorly written and poorly researched one-sided article. Like much of mass media today this hatchet-job of an article is nothing more than tomfoolery and bad reporting. How about the American people not giving the Post editorial staff a pass either? I know we all have deadlines and know that scandalous opinions garner the highest number of viewers but have you no scruples or self-respect? If I was your Journalism professor and you were my student I'd hand this back to you and ask you to re-research it and rewrite it with the instructions to make it fair and balanced, not written from one viewpoint and heading in only one direction.

Posted by: George, Washington D.C. | April 25, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

What fiscal disciplin is McBush proposeng? 100 MORE YEARS OF A HALF TRILLION DOLLAR A YEAR WAR! Your breaken my Balz here.

Posted by: Rick | April 25, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

The cost of rolling back tax cuts? Maybe you should stop writing ill-informed and poorly-researched hit pieces and take an economics class.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Don't worry folks. We have Hillary the savior to our rescue. She will pursuade China, our friendlist ally who has only our welfare in mind, to folk out even more billions and billions of dollars to stall our recession.

The only down side to it is that China will probably demand to own America Inc. completely in return for its generous investment and Hillary will just squeak out 'yes sir', as long as she has a generous helping of the cake herself first.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Did somebody mention ' fiscal deficit '? Well, in such a case, it would certainly help to put a woman who has bungled her campaign fiscal management in charge, wouldn't it? She will certainly make sure that America will finally perfect its bankrupcy as soon as she gets her grubby hands on the national treasury.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

It is going to be hard to increase taxes with a long recession that is likely. Worse problem is going to be the inflation that the fed is ignoring. With gas presently at $3.50 this will increase the price of everything. Look for inflammation to get out of control. China will no longer take our debt which will add to the inflammation problem. All this will come as a surprise that the fed did not count on. In fact who is going to take our debt? Oh! We want the free lunch again and again but nobody is giving it.

Posted by: Arthur Gittleman | April 25, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

As a Canadian, a law student, and a confirmed lover of much that is American (road trips to Disneyland and the like AND an a brother who is now an American citizen) I would just like state that UP HERE many of us don't realy care if it is Obama or Clinton, either would represent the forward thinking attitude that is so needed. We too, have now got a "Bush Light" in power and many/most of us quake to think what will happen if another status quo is followed in the US. I just heard that Nader was running too. Most distressing, if one thinks back to the 2001. and, remember, the debt facing the US now was built on the backs of your children. Also, rememeber, that while the rich get richer ie Haliburton. the rest of you poor souls will have to deal with this mess, for what will be generations to come.

peace, from Canada

Posted by: leny | April 25, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

seems to me the pentagon needs some serious fiscal discipline. the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted and -- let's be real -- flat out looted from the u.s. taxpayer tells me there's plenty of excess spending in that building.

Posted by: linda | April 25, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Fiscal Discipline,

Meet VP Mitt Romney.

VP Mittster, meet your Adversary,

"Porky"-the Congressional Pig! ;~)

Posted by: RAT-The | April 25, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

With military spending at about $1 trillion per year, and McCain planning to prolong the Iraq war while the Obama and Clinton plan to stop this spending, the savings will be in the neighborhood of $200-400 billion per year. When analyzing the budget math, this should be factored into the equation.

Posted by: stichmo | April 25, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Like we've had a lot of fiscal discipline the last eight years?

Posted by: John | April 25, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Why don't you ask the same about McCain. It seems to me the worst steward of the economy in my life time has been Bush and the Republicans.

McCain wants to keep all of the Bush tax cuts, add more tax cuts, sprinkle some fairy dust and make the revenues soar. His math, even with rosy projections of cutting pork, do not add up.

Posted by: birdman | April 25, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Like anyone would really ask those two about "fiscal discipline." It's all about Rev. Wrighr and Bill Ayers.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | April 25, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Well what Obama or Clinton can't do is make it any worse the Bush or the Republicans have already done. They took a country with a surplus and ran it into the ground. It's going to take 3 generations of taxpayers to pay off the debt that Bush has created these past 8 years.

Posted by: Kurtis | April 25, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Dan, your "take" is severely lacking in any facts about Obama's well-stated stance on the Federal Deficit:

"The cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and states of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on. . . . If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we'd see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies."

-- Barack Obama, Speech in the U.S. Senate, March 13, 2006

Barack Obama's Record

PAYGO: Obama voted in 2005, 2006, and 2007 to reinstate pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) federal budget rules.

No-Bid Contracts: Obama has introduced and helped pass bipartisan legislation to limit the abuse of no-bid federal contracts.

Against Raising the Federal Debt Limit: In 2006, Obama voted against misguided Republican efforts to raise the statutory debt limit at the same time the Republicans were pushing through massive debt-financed tax cuts for the wealthy.


Posted by: Jeff in Akron Ohio | April 25, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Now this IS hilarious !!!! Fiscal discipline is something we've seen under Geo Bush? No. You can see fiscal discipline in Obama's campaign. You can see a balanced budget and a flow. You can see debit spending on Clinton's side, a really reckless kind, with her new money underwriting her continued campaign while her bills go unpaid. That's kind of what's going on with our credit to debt ratio nationally.

So people can talk fiscal discipline til they are blue in the face but look at what they do. Look at their checkbook. See whether their talk matches their actions.

Posted by: Gaias Child | April 25, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

"Roll in the cost of rolling back President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans...."?
I'd say, "Subtract out the savings from rolling back President Bush's tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans, and the budgetary impacts are less severe."

Posted by: DanMan | April 25, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

LOL! It is just as well, Senators are the ones who appropriate Funding.

The President, John McCain, can't spend a Dime!

And I believe Both Barack and Hillary, will still be Senators January 22! :-(

Posted by: RAT-The | April 25, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

COST of rolling back the tax cuts?

If this is not propaganda, I don't know what is.

Obama has said he would institute PAY-GO.

Posted by: memoryaid | April 25, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Obama is our Savior. Obama, Ayers, and Reverend Wright are Right! God D*** america! The stupid, bitter, racist "typical white people" of pennsylvania voted for clinton. How disgusting, now they have more blood on their hands. They ignored their chance for redemption for their racist past - slavery - and to finally make Michelle proud. How sad. Please no hater responses, but do please stop buying guns you bitter small town indiana hicks, and save it for my reparations check! Obama ''08, Repartions Check, ''09!

http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/racism/010827.reparations.html

Posted by: Obamamania | April 25, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Frank:

The most recent polls I've seen had Hillary in the lead in Montana (25 delegates), Kentucky (60 delegates), West Virginia (39 delegates), and I assume she will take Guam and Puerto Rico as well.

A new primary poll released today for Indiana shows it to be a statistical tie. Indiana is part of ye-olde-rust-belt, so it should vote like Ohio and Pennsylvania, but with a couple of footnotes. First, northwestern Indiana is really suburban Chicago and gets Chicago TV, so Obama is well known in that part of Indiana. Second, the state has a lot of typical Midwestern farm towns. Third, unlike Pennsylvania which is basically a blue state and Ohio which is a swing state, Indiana is a red state -- so, it will probably go to McCain regardless -- Obama has done relatively well in other red states, but he certainly can't count on that here and both candidates will be fighting tooth and nail for this state. Hoosiers are not accustomed to being the center of attention, but this looks like their 15 minutes of fame.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

How much have we spent in Iraq already? Half a trillion? Getting out of that war, as Obama and Hillary have proposed, would probably save us a bit of money, don't you think?

Posted by: ManUnitdFan | April 25, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse


Harold Ford Jr. To Obama: "You Have To Win the Indiana Primary"

Is Indiana Primary a must win for Barack Obama?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=2274

.

Posted by: Frank, Austin TX | April 25, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Barack HUSSEIN Obama is afraid to debate a girl ...

Posted by: JakeD | April 25, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company