Karma catches up to Mayor Daley

[Dean Wilkinson]

Daley gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar! Karma for
destroying Meigs field?

<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=18&u=/ap/20040207/ap_on_re_us/chicago_trucking_scandal_1>

[C J Campbell]

I guess both Daley and CBS are finding out that what goes around comes
around.

Still, I would be surprised if anybody but Daley's accusers are fined or
imprisoned. SOP for the Democratic machine. He has already fired the only
reputedly honest man in Chicago -- his budget director. The director
probably is the one who blew the whistle.

[C J Campbell]

I also think it is hysterically funny that Daley thinks he can convince the
public that his budget director is responsible for Daley's taking bribes
from all of his friends and relatives. I wonder how much those insurance
policies that his brother sells cost those trucking companies, anyway? What
is Daley's theory of why his budget director was giving those illegal
contracts to his friends and relatives, anyway? How would that benefit the
budget director?

[Mike O'Malley]

"Dean Wilkinson" > wrote in message
m...
> Daley gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar! Karma for
> destroying Meigs field?
>
>
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=18&u=/ap/20040207/ap_
on_re_us/chicago_trucking_scandal_1>

Nothing new. If anybody thought Slick Willy was the vasoline man, they've
never seen Chicago politics. A few of his underlings' heads will roll, but
just the "little people", the ones that don't matter (the everyday guy that
ISN'T connected). King Dick will come out smelling clean as a whistle.

And if he doesn't? Don't matter anyway, he's mayor for life. Nobody will
run against him, he won last time with something like 86% of the vote.
Sigh...

[Peter Gottlieb]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Still, I would be surprised if anybody but Daley's accusers are fined or
> imprisoned. SOP for the Democratic machine.

You are implying the Republicans do better in this regard. I say BS; both
parties have demonstrated quite clearly they are unable or unwilling to
police their own.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
et...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Still, I would be surprised if anybody but Daley's accusers are fined or
> > imprisoned. SOP for the Democratic machine.
>
> You are implying the Republicans do better in this regard. I say BS; both
> parties have demonstrated quite clearly they are unable or unwilling to
> police their own.

Oh come on, Trent Lott is proof Republicans police their own.

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
et...
|
| "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
| ...
| > Still, I would be surprised if anybody but Daley's accusers are fined or
| > imprisoned. SOP for the Democratic machine.
|
| You are implying the Republicans do better in this regard. I say BS; both
| parties have demonstrated quite clearly they are unable or unwilling to
| police their own.

Actually, the Republicans have demonstrated that they are far more willing
to censure their own. Republicans will vote to investigate and even remove
from office their own politicians. Every vote on a Democratic politician's
corruption, however, has been straight down party lines for as long as I can
remember -- and that is a very long time. Both parties could do a much
better job, but overall I would have to say that the party of Tammany Hall
and Chicago has shown an almost infinite capacity for corruption and
apologizing for it.

Kennedy won by fewer votes than were garnered from obvious voter fraud in
Texas alone. He maintained numerous organized contacts. Johnson, perhaps the
most qualified President we have had in the last century, was also perhaps
the most ruthless. Nixon resigned after being told that he did not have the
support of his own party in an impeachment proceeding. Agnew resigned
because of tax fraud, whereas Johnson blackmailed the IRS agents who were
investigating him.

Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter were weak nonentities, but both had their share
of scandals. Reagan typically fired officials who were accused of
corruption, and was so over-zealous that he often ignored due process or any
semblance of fairness.

Clinton turned stonewalling investigators into an art form, jailing and
fining anyone who dared to investigate him. If he couldn't do that, he
smeared their reputations endlessly. Despite all that, he was eventually
convicted of perjury, but his impeachment proceedings were straight down
party lines. Apparently the Democrats were willing to forgive just about any
kind of behavior from one of their own and were willing to do anything to
obstruct a fair investigation. Clinton's "legacy" may well be the final
abandonment of any sense of decency in politics.

Newt Gingrich resigned during the Clinton administration even though it was
later proved that he did not cheat on his income taxes. Nevertheless,
Democrats continue to pillory the poor man as "corrupt." It is worth noting
that while Newt did not violate the tax law, many organizations dominated by
Democratic politicians such as the Sierra Club, Consumers Union, the
Teamsters, and the National Education Association continue to ignore the
income tax code with impunity. They actually are guilty of what Gingrich was
only accused of, but they obstruct every attempt to investigate their
activities. The NEA in particular has been held in contempt of court for
refusing to fly with federal law, but they simply ignore the court orders,
too. "Ah, another contempt judgment. Throw it on the pile with the rest."

Trent Lott and many other Republicans have resigned over sexual and
harassment scandals, but not one Democrat that I know of has ever done so.
It was particularly galling to listen to Ted Kennedy talking about how
Packwood was a predator.

Democrats have made a lot over Halliburton, but have not shown one single
member of the administration could possibly have benefited from that
scandal. Conversely, the open sale of the White House, nuclear secrets to
China and North Korea (a country still technically at war with the United
States), destruction or withholding of documents involving Whitewater,
imprisoning potential witnesses, and issuing thousands of Presidential
pardons to other potential witnesses were all hallmarks of the Clinton
administration.

Democrats have also constantly attacked Bush for not being "elected," while
attempting to disenfranchise the military and in spite of enormous voter
fraud in Nevada, Texas, Illinois, and elsewhere. Taking out the voter fraud,
Gore probably lost by more votes than there were in the entire state of
Florida.

Did you really want to open that can of worms? Or are you so in thrall to
the Democrats that you are willing to overlook almost anything? What, did
they threaten to cut off your welfare? :-)

[Cecil E. Chapman]

You've got it wrong,,, it's not the democratic machine, it's Daley's 'mob
boss' politics which Chicago never seems to have been able to get away from.

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures complete with pictures and text at:
www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -
"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> I guess both Daley and CBS are finding out that what goes around comes
> around.
>
> Still, I would be surprised if anybody but Daley's accusers are fined or
> imprisoned. SOP for the Democratic machine. He has already fired the only
> reputedly honest man in Chicago -- his budget director. The director
> probably is the one who blew the whistle.
>
>

[John Gaquin]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message news:HtCdnfj-
>
> Oh come on, Trent Lott is proof Republicans police their own.

Come on, Mr Tarver!!! I'm a Rep, but I think Trent Lott is proof of only two
things: A) some people stay really, really, stupid no matter how much
experience they have; and B) hair spray works.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message news:HtCdnfj-
> >
> > Oh come on, Trent Lott is proof Republicans police their own.
>
> Come on, Mr Tarver!!! I'm a Rep, but I think Trent Lott is proof of only
two
> things: A) some people stay really, really, stupid no matter how much
> experience they have; and B) hair spray works.

Juat saying something as stupid as Lott did will get you out of the Senate
Majority Leader's Office.

When Byrd said something stupid, it was not a problem.

[Paul Folbrecht]

Very nice post; thanks for saving me the effort.

C J Campbell wrote:

[Doug Carter]

On 2004-02-07, John Gaquin > wrote:
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message news:HtCdnfj-
>>
>> Oh come on, Trent Lott is proof Republicans police their own.
>
> Come on, Mr Tarver!!! I'm a Rep, but I think Trent Lott is proof of only two
> things: A) some people stay really, really, stupid no matter how much
> experience they have; and B) hair spray works.
>

I'm hoping your critique of Lott stems from his inability to get
anything done as Majority Leader, not for a casual remark at a birthday party.

If stupid comments or acts while not on duty are the criteria then
Robert "Sheets" Byrd (Tip O'Neil's characterization, not mine)
should get at least first runner up for playing a Confederate General in
"Gods and Generals."

I mean, hello! Regardless of what you think of Confederates
(I happen to believe in states rights) shouldn't the only member of the Senate
and (previously) the KKK be a bit more convincing about his rehabilitation?

For second runner up I nominate Senator Clinton for referring to Gandhi as
car wash attendant. Presumably no Democrats called for her removal because
Indians (as opposed to Native Americans) don't deserve Minority Protection.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Did you really want to open that can of worms? Or are you so in thrall to
> the Democrats that you are willing to overlook almost anything? What, did
> they threaten to cut off your welfare? :-)

Can't you read? I believe I was quite clear I distrust both parties. You,
on the other hand, seem to have rose-colored glasses when it comes to one of
those parties.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
et...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Did you really want to open that can of worms? Or are you so in thrall
to
> > the Democrats that you are willing to overlook almost anything? What,
did
> > they threaten to cut off your welfare? :-)
>
> Can't you read? I believe I was quite clear I distrust both parties.
You,
> on the other hand, seem to have rose-colored glasses when it comes to one
of
> those parties.

And you seem to be reading disabled: he agreed then provided factual
examples. Seems you're the one with thick, red-colored lenses.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Kennedy won by fewer votes than were garnered from obvious voter fraud in
> Texas alone. He maintained numerous organized contacts. Johnson, perhaps
the
> most qualified President we have had in the last century, was also perhaps
> the most ruthless.

What do you consider "qualified"? Johnson was far and away the most corrupt
president in recent memory, and probably any other in this century. His
corruption went back before he was even in politics. Barr McClellan makes a
good case that Johnson was heavily involved in the JFK assassination. LBJ's
history would make mafia dons blush.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote in message
om...
> You've got it wrong,,, it's not the democratic machine, it's Daley's 'mob
> boss' politics which Chicago never seems to have been able to get away
from.
>

And he and his old man just kept on getting elected, again and again...

Chicago has always been a bastion of Democrat politics/corruption (is that
redundant??).

[Geoffrey Barnes]

> You are implying the Republicans do better in this regard. I say BS; both
> parties have demonstrated quite clearly they are unable or unwilling to
> police their own.

While some of the replies to this statement have been superb, I'm not
convinced that it's really an issue of political party. At the city level,
anytime a single party controls things for any length of time, the
corruption begin to pop up like mushrooms on an old tree stump. Pittsburgh
has painted itself into bankruptcy not because of Democratic Party policies
per se, but because the Democrats have been in control -- not a single
Republican on the city council -- for over 60 uninterupted years. Half the
judges and senior officials in town come from the same 3 or 4 families.
With no competition to keep things honest, the Pittsburgh wing of the
Democratic Party has morphed into one gigantic self-perpetuating machine.
We used to produce steel. Now we produce no-show government jobs for other
people's nephews and brother-in-laws.

[John Gaquin]

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message > >
>
> I'm hoping your critique of Lott stems from his inability to get
> anything done as Majority Leader, not for a casual remark at a birthday
party.

C) All of the above

> If stupid comments or acts while not on duty are the criteria then
> Robert "Sheets" Byrd (Tip O'Neil's characterization, not mine)
> should get at least first runner up for playing a Confederate General in
> "Gods and Generals."

Senator Byrd has said so many silly things on the Senate floor, no one
notices unless and until he actually says something reasonably intelligent
before he retires.

> For second runner up I nominate Senator Clinton for referring to Gandhi as
> car wash attendant. Presumably no Democrats called for her removal
because
> Indians (as opposed to Native Americans) don't deserve Minority
Protection.

Very few people in Washington who are not Very High Profile dare seriously
cross swords with the Clintons. There are well over a hundred people
associated with the Clintons over the past twenty-five years who have done
so, and subsequently died in violent or questionable circumstances. I've
walked this earth for almost 60 years, and other than friends who died in
combat, I only know one person who died violently (car+booze), and none in
questionable circumstances.

[John Gaquin]

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
>
> Robert "Sheets" Byrd (Tip O'Neil's characterization, not mine)
> should get at least first runner up for playing a Confederate General in
> "Gods and Generals."

Seriously? I saw that film, but didn't notice.

[C J Campbell]

"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
link.net...
| > You are implying the Republicans do better in this regard. I say BS;
both
| > parties have demonstrated quite clearly they are unable or unwilling to
| > police their own.
|
| While some of the replies to this statement have been superb, I'm not
| convinced that it's really an issue of political party. At the city
level,
| anytime a single party controls things for any length of time, the
| corruption begin to pop up like mushrooms on an old tree stump.
Pittsburgh
| has painted itself into bankruptcy not because of Democratic Party
policies
| per se, but because the Democrats have been in control -- not a single
| Republican on the city council -- for over 60 uninterupted years. Half
the
| judges and senior officials in town come from the same 3 or 4 families.
| With no competition to keep things honest, the Pittsburgh wing of the
| Democratic Party has morphed into one gigantic self-perpetuating machine.
| We used to produce steel. Now we produce no-show government jobs for
other
| people's nephews and brother-in-laws.

It would be interesting to find some Republican examples of this.

[C J Campbell]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
|
| "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
| ...
| > Kennedy won by fewer votes than were garnered from obvious voter fraud
in
| > Texas alone. He maintained numerous organized contacts. Johnson, perhaps
| the
| > most qualified President we have had in the last century, was also
perhaps
| > the most ruthless.
|
| What do you consider "qualified"? Johnson was far and away the most
corrupt
| president in recent memory, and probably any other in this century. His
| corruption went back before he was even in politics. Barr McClellan makes
a
| good case that Johnson was heavily involved in the JFK assassination.
LBJ's
| history would make mafia dons blush.

Johnson was corrupt, no doubt about it. He probably should have gone to
prison for tax evasion and bribery with the Brown & Root case in 1944. Only
the direct intervention of FDR stopped it. Then there was Bobby Baker. That
was such a liability that Kennedy considered dropping LBJ from the ticket
for reelection. However, the Senate investigative committee had six
Democrats and three Republicans. It voted solidly on party lines to drop the
investigation of LBJ. LBJ had Clark Clifford and Abe Fortas organize the
cover-up -- both of these men were later involved in scandals of their own.
Senator John Williams was subjected to a dirty tricks campaign. In spite of
all this, Baker was indicted in 1967 and actually went to prison for
seventeen months. LBJ, of course, avoided exposure completely as Senators
Ervin, Tallmadge, and Inouye stopped any further Senate investigation. Of
course, all three of these Senators later led the charge against Nixon.

Johnson bragged that he had sex with a secretary on the desk of the Oval
Office. His sexual appetite was enormous.

The reason Johnson kept Hoover on as head of the FBI was because "it is
better to have him inside the tent ****ing out instead of outside ****ing
in."

Nevertheless, Johnson had a long career in public service dating back to
1931. He was elected to Congress in 1937, served in WW II as a
lieutenant-commander from 1941-42. He was elected to the Senate in 1948,
Democratic whip in 1951, minority leader in 1953, and majority leader from
1955-61. He then was elected vice president. He had a thorough grounding in
Texas politics and extensive experience in both the legislative and
executive branches. No President before or since has been so successful in
achieving his legislative agenda. He radically changed the role of the
Federal government, perhaps permanently. Much of his Great Society program
continues today. Whether you think these changes were beneficial or not, he
was certainly effective in getting them implemented.

[Geoffrey Barnes]

> It would be interesting to find some Republican examples of this.

Yeah, to be perfectly fair, I can't think of any. There are some areas
where Republicans hold a similar dominance. These dynasties typically
haven't been running for as long as the Democrats have enjoyed their
uninterupted reigns. But that's only because the Democrats tend to be
firmly entrenched in older, eastern cities while the Republicans dominate in
younger, western ones. My real point, I guess, is that without any
competitions, local parties change into something that doesn't really match
up with national perception of the party. Even right wingers join the
Democratic party here and in cities like Chicago, because that's the only
way to vote in the "real" election -- the primary races for who wins the
Democratic nomination. The general election in November is just for show.
The real issues and decisions get made during the May primaries.

As a result, things get all mixed up. We actually have a few Democrats here
who occasionally argue (unsucessfully) against their more traditional
brethren for tax cuts, or all things. Boy, did that take some getting used
to when we first moved into town. It was like watching water flow uphill!

[Tarver Engineering]

"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
link.net...
> > It would be interesting to find some Republican examples of this.
>
> Yeah, to be perfectly fair, I can't think of any. There are some areas
> where Republicans hold a similar dominance. These dynasties typically
> haven't been running for as long as the Democrats have enjoyed their
> uninterupted reigns. But that's only because the Democrats tend to be
> firmly entrenched in older, eastern cities while the Republicans dominate
in
> younger, western ones. My real point, I guess, is that without any
> competitions, local parties change into something that doesn't really
match
> up with national perception of the party. Even right wingers join the
> Democratic party here and in cities like Chicago, because that's the only
> way to vote in the "real" election -- the primary races for who wins the
> Democratic nomination. The general election in November is just for show.
> The real issues and decisions get made during the May primaries.

Nixon's vote corruption in southern Illinois was nearly as bad as Daley's in
Chicago, but that was 44 years ago.

> As a result, things get all mixed up. We actually have a few Democrats
here
> who occasionally argue (unsucessfully) against their more traditional
> brethren for tax cuts, or all things. Boy, did that take some getting
used
> to when we first moved into town. It was like watching water flow uphill!

Tort reform is on the way, in the form of DERs that are PEs.

[Tarver Engineering]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> | ...
> | > Kennedy won by fewer votes than were garnered from obvious voter fraud
> in
> | > Texas alone. He maintained numerous organized contacts. Johnson,
perhaps
> | the
> | > most qualified President we have had in the last century, was also
> perhaps
> | > the most ruthless.
> |
> | What do you consider "qualified"? Johnson was far and away the most
> corrupt
> | president in recent memory, and probably any other in this century. His
> | corruption went back before he was even in politics. Barr McClellan
makes
> a
> | good case that Johnson was heavily involved in the JFK assassination.
> LBJ's
> | history would make mafia dons blush.
>
> Johnson was corrupt, no doubt about it. He probably should have gone to
> prison for tax evasion and bribery with the Brown & Root case in 1944.
Only
> the direct intervention of FDR stopped it. Then there was Bobby Baker.
That
> was such a liability that Kennedy considered dropping LBJ from the ticket
> for reelection. However, the Senate investigative committee had six
> Democrats and three Republicans. It voted solidly on party lines to drop
the
> investigation of LBJ. LBJ had Clark Clifford and Abe Fortas organize the
> cover-up -- both of these men were later involved in scandals of their
own.
> Senator John Williams was subjected to a dirty tricks campaign. In spite
of
> all this, Baker was indicted in 1967 and actually went to prison for
> seventeen months. LBJ, of course, avoided exposure completely as Senators
> Ervin, Tallmadge, and Inouye stopped any further Senate investigation. Of
> course, all three of these Senators later led the charge against Nixon.
>
> Johnson bragged that he had sex with a secretary on the desk of the Oval
> Office. His sexual appetite was enormous.
>
> The reason Johnson kept Hoover on as head of the FBI was because "it is
> better to have him inside the tent ****ing out instead of outside ****ing
> in."

It is said that Ross Perot got Hoover's records when he died. I suspect
they were helpfut to his '96 run for office. Of course, LBJ made Perot rich
with Medicare paperwork.

> Nevertheless, Johnson had a long career in public service dating back to
> 1931. He was elected to Congress in 1937, served in WW II as a
> lieutenant-commander from 1941-42. He was elected to the Senate in 1948,
> Democratic whip in 1951, minority leader in 1953, and majority leader from
> 1955-61. He then was elected vice president. He had a thorough grounding
in
> Texas politics and extensive experience in both the legislative and
> executive branches. No President before or since has been so successful in
> achieving his legislative agenda. He radically changed the role of the
> Federal government, perhaps permanently. Much of his Great Society program
> continues today. Whether you think these changes were beneficial or not,
he
> was certainly effective in getting them implemented.

LBJ could govern.

[EDR]

In article >, Tom Sixkiller
> wrote:

> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Kennedy won by fewer votes than were garnered from obvious voter fraud in
> > Texas alone. He maintained numerous organized contacts. Johnson, perhaps
> the
> > most qualified President we have had in the last century, was also perhaps
> > the most ruthless.
>
> What do you consider "qualified"? Johnson was far and away the most corrupt
> president in recent memory, and probably any other in this century. His
> corruption went back before he was even in politics. Barr McClellan makes a
> good case that Johnson was heavily involved in the JFK assassination. LBJ's
> history would make mafia dons blush.

Johnson was the President who first brought in Brown and Root (now a
Haliburton subsidiary) with various contracts in Viet Nam. Brown was a
small Texas construction company whose campaign contributions went to
Johnson.

['Vejita' S. Cousin]

In article >,
Tarver Engineering > wrote:
>> Come on, Mr Tarver!!! I'm a Rep, but I think Trent Lott is proof of only
>two
>> things: A) some people stay really, really, stupid no matter how much
>> experience they have; and B) hair spray works.
>
>Juat saying something as stupid as Lott did will get you out of the Senate
>Majority Leader's Office.
>
>When Byrd said something stupid, it was not a problem.

Byrd has said a LOT of stupid things and people (most people) let it
slide. When a rep says something stupid about race it's normally front
page news. I think both parties are fairly corrput but the dems seem to
get away with more stuff. Mostly because they are more 'well liked' by
the media and people that normally complain about such things, IMHO :)

[C J Campbell]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
|
| "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
| ...
| > Kennedy won by fewer votes than were garnered from obvious voter fraud
in
| > Texas alone. He maintained numerous organized contacts. Johnson, perhaps
| the
| > most qualified President we have had in the last century, was also
perhaps
| > the most ruthless.
|
| What do you consider "qualified"? Johnson was far and away the most
corrupt
| president in recent memory, and probably any other in this century. His
| corruption went back before he was even in politics. Barr McClellan makes
a
| good case that Johnson was heavily involved in the JFK assassination.
LBJ's
| history would make mafia dons blush.

Despite Johnson's corruption, I doubt if anyone but Lee Harvey Oswald had
anything to do with Kennedy's assassination. If you listen to all the
conspiracy theories, it is hard to believe that there was anyone in Dallas
on that day who didn't want to kill Kennedy. Mafia gunmen on the grassy
knoll, CIA snipers on the overpass, Cubans in the sewers, Johnson hitmen
everywhere -- indeed, you begin to wonder if there was anybody who was not
in Dallas on that day. And they all wanted to kill Kennedy or, in the more
bizarre theories, Connelly or Jackie.

Oswald was disaffected, had threatened to assassinate other people, left his
palm print on the rifle that killed Kennedy, and was a loner. He didn't need
anyone else to tell him to shoot Kennedy.

[Doug Carter]

On 2004-02-08, EDR > wrote:
> In article >, Tom Sixkiller
> wrote:
>
> Johnson was the President who first brought in Brown and Root (now a
> Haliburton subsidiary) with various contracts in Viet Nam. Brown was a
> small Texas construction company whose campaign contributions went to
> Johnson.

The Johnson family still has a larger piece of Haliburton than Cheny ever
hoped to have.

[Doug Carter]

On 2004-02-08, John Gaquin > wrote:
>
> "Doug Carter" > wrote in message
>>
>> Robert "Sheets" Byrd (Tip O'Neil's characterization, not mine)
>> should get at least first runner up for playing a Confederate General in
>> "Gods and Generals."
>
> Seriously? I saw that film, but didn't notice.
>
Yeah.. The "official" Gods and Generals pulled his picture from their
web site but its all over the web. He was on the set, in costume for
his 84th birthday; had a party with other (D) congress-persons singing.

He made a speech about the experience on the floor, drawing some kind of
analogy between the civil war and 9/11 that I didn't quite follow...

[Tarver Engineering]

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Tom Sixkiller
> > wrote:
>
> > "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Kennedy won by fewer votes than were garnered from obvious voter fraud
in
> > > Texas alone. He maintained numerous organized contacts. Johnson,
perhaps
> > the
> > > most qualified President we have had in the last century, was also
perhaps
> > > the most ruthless.
> >
> > What do you consider "qualified"? Johnson was far and away the most
corrupt
> > president in recent memory, and probably any other in this century. His
> > corruption went back before he was even in politics. Barr McClellan
makes a
> > good case that Johnson was heavily involved in the JFK assassination.
LBJ's
> > history would make mafia dons blush.
>
> Johnson was the President who first brought in Brown and Root (now a
> Haliburton subsidiary) with various contracts in Viet Nam. Brown was a
> small Texas construction company whose campaign contributions went to
> Johnson.

Brown and Root was owned by Lady Bird.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
...
> On 2004-02-08, EDR > wrote:
> > In article >, Tom Sixkiller
> > wrote:
> >
> > Johnson was the President who first brought in Brown and Root (now a
> > Haliburton subsidiary) with various contracts in Viet Nam. Brown was a
> > small Texas construction company whose campaign contributions went to
> > Johnson.
>
> The Johnson family still has a larger piece of Haliburton than Cheny ever
> hoped to have.

Lady Bird racked up the cash when Halliburton bought Brown and Root.

[G.R. Patterson III]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> LBJ, of course, avoided exposure completely as Senators
> Ervin, Tallmadge, and Inouye stopped any further Senate investigation.

And Tallmadge was later nailed in the Abscam sting and failed re-election. The
people of Georgia prefer not to be represented by crooks.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Nevertheless, Johnson had a long career in public service dating back to
> 1931. He was elected to Congress in 1937, served in WW II as a
> lieutenant-commander from 1941-42. He was elected to the Senate in 1948,
> Democratic whip in 1951, minority leader in 1953, and majority leader from
> 1955-61. He then was elected vice president. He had a thorough grounding
in
> Texas politics and extensive experience in both the legislative and
> executive branches. No President before or since has been so successful in
> achieving his legislative agenda.

In short, he changed the politics from statesmenship to pork-barrelling; he
took corruption from a sideline activity to the overwhelming facet of
political life,

>He radically changed the role of the
> Federal government, perhaps permanently. Much of his Great Society program
> continues today. Whether you think these changes were beneficial or not,
he
> was certainly effective in getting them implemented.

Well hooray!! for his breaking the neck of limited government. Every
tyrant/dictator is effective in getting their "agenda" implemented.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > |
> > | "C J Campbell" > wrote in
message
> > | ...
> > | > Kennedy won by fewer votes than were garnered from obvious voter
fraud
> > in
> > | > Texas alone. He maintained numerous organized contacts. Johnson,
> perhaps
> > | the
> > | > most qualified President we have had in the last century, was also
> > perhaps
> > | > the most ruthless.
> > |
> > | What do you consider "qualified"? Johnson was far and away the most
> > corrupt
> > | president in recent memory, and probably any other in this century.
His
> > | corruption went back before he was even in politics. Barr McClellan
> makes
> > a
> > | good case that Johnson was heavily involved in the JFK assassination.
> > LBJ's
> > | history would make mafia dons blush.
> >
> > Johnson was corrupt, no doubt about it. He probably should have gone to
> > prison for tax evasion and bribery with the Brown & Root case in 1944.
> Only
> > the direct intervention of FDR stopped it. Then there was Bobby Baker.
> That
> > was such a liability that Kennedy considered dropping LBJ from the
ticket
> > for reelection. However, the Senate investigative committee had six
> > Democrats and three Republicans. It voted solidly on party lines to drop
> the
> > investigation of LBJ. LBJ had Clark Clifford and Abe Fortas organize the
> > cover-up -- both of these men were later involved in scandals of their
> own.
> > Senator John Williams was subjected to a dirty tricks campaign. In spite
> of
> > all this, Baker was indicted in 1967 and actually went to prison for
> > seventeen months. LBJ, of course, avoided exposure completely as
Senators
> > Ervin, Tallmadge, and Inouye stopped any further Senate investigation.
Of
> > course, all three of these Senators later led the charge against Nixon.
> >
> > Johnson bragged that he had sex with a secretary on the desk of the Oval
> > Office. His sexual appetite was enormous.
> >
> > The reason Johnson kept Hoover on as head of the FBI was because "it is
> > better to have him inside the tent ****ing out instead of outside
****ing
> > in."
>
> It is said that Ross Perot got Hoover's records when he died. I suspect
> they were helpfut to his '96 run for office. Of course, LBJ made Perot
rich
> with Medicare paperwork.
>
> > Nevertheless, Johnson had a long career in public service dating back to
> > 1931. He was elected to Congress in 1937, served in WW II as a
> > lieutenant-commander from 1941-42. He was elected to the Senate in 1948,
> > Democratic whip in 1951, minority leader in 1953, and majority leader
from
> > 1955-61. He then was elected vice president. He had a thorough grounding
> in
> > Texas politics and extensive experience in both the legislative and
> > executive branches. No President before or since has been so successful
in
> > achieving his legislative agenda. He radically changed the role of the
> > Federal government, perhaps permanently. Much of his Great Society
program
> > continues today. Whether you think these changes were beneficial or not,
> he
> > was certainly effective in getting them implemented.
>
> LBJ could govern.
>
LBJ could RULE, not govern.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Tom Sixkiller
> > wrote:
>
> > "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Kennedy won by fewer votes than were garnered from obvious voter fraud
in
> > > Texas alone. He maintained numerous organized contacts. Johnson,
perhaps
> > the
> > > most qualified President we have had in the last century, was also
perhaps
> > > the most ruthless.
> >
> > What do you consider "qualified"? Johnson was far and away the most
corrupt
> > president in recent memory, and probably any other in this century. His
> > corruption went back before he was even in politics. Barr McClellan
makes a
> > good case that Johnson was heavily involved in the JFK assassination.
LBJ's
> > history would make mafia dons blush.
>
> Johnson was the President who first brought in Brown and Root (now a
> Haliburton subsidiary) with various contracts in Viet Nam. Brown was a
> small Texas construction company whose campaign contributions went to
> Johnson.

And Sea-Train, the heavy shipping company that made a fortune running
equipment to Vietnam, had a majority shareholder in the person of Claudia
Alta Taylor (sp??), AKA Lady Bird.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> | ...
> | > Kennedy won by fewer votes than were garnered from obvious voter fraud
> in
> | > Texas alone. He maintained numerous organized contacts. Johnson,
perhaps
> | the
> | > most qualified President we have had in the last century, was also
> perhaps
> | > the most ruthless.
> |
> | What do you consider "qualified"? Johnson was far and away the most
> corrupt
> | president in recent memory, and probably any other in this century. His
> | corruption went back before he was even in politics. Barr McClellan
makes
> a
> | good case that Johnson was heavily involved in the JFK assassination.
> LBJ's
> | history would make mafia dons blush.
>
> Despite Johnson's corruption, I doubt if anyone but Lee Harvey Oswald had
> anything to do with Kennedy's assassination. If you listen to all the
> conspiracy theories, it is hard to believe that there was anyone in Dallas
> on that day who didn't want to kill Kennedy. Mafia gunmen on the grassy
> knoll, CIA snipers on the overpass, Cubans in the sewers, Johnson hitmen
> everywhere -- indeed, you begin to wonder if there was anybody who was not
> in Dallas on that day. And they all wanted to kill Kennedy or, in the more
> bizarre theories, Connelly or Jackie.

Wanting to kill JFK and the ability to pull off the the feat of marksmanship
that was performed that day are two whole and separate issues.


> Oswald was disaffected, had threatened to assassinate other people, left
his
> palm print on the rifle that killed Kennedy, and was a loner. He didn't
need
> anyone else to tell him to shoot Kennedy.

And in the Marines he could barely shoot "Marksman". The shots that killed
Kennedy would put the finest sharpshooters in the country to shame.

Again, _wanting_ to do something and actually _performing the act_ are two
different things.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> | > You are implying the Republicans do better in this regard. I say BS;
> both
> | > parties have demonstrated quite clearly they are unable or unwilling
to
> | > police their own.
> |
> | While some of the replies to this statement have been superb, I'm not
> | convinced that it's really an issue of political party. At the city
> level,
> | anytime a single party controls things for any length of time, the
> | corruption begin to pop up like mushrooms on an old tree stump.
> Pittsburgh
> | has painted itself into bankruptcy not because of Democratic Party
> policies
> | per se, but because the Democrats have been in control -- not a single
> | Republican on the city council -- for over 60 uninterupted years. Half
> the
> | judges and senior officials in town come from the same 3 or 4 families.
> | With no competition to keep things honest, the Pittsburgh wing of the
> | Democratic Party has morphed into one gigantic self-perpetuating
machine.
> | We used to produce steel. Now we produce no-show government jobs for
> other
> | people's nephews and brother-in-laws.
>
> It would be interesting to find some Republican examples of this.
>

City of Mesa, Arizona.

[Dan Luke]

"John Gaquin" wrote:
> Very few people in Washington who are not Very High Profile
> dare seriously cross swords with the Clintons. There are well
> over a hundred people associated with the Clintons over the
> past twenty-five years who have done so, and subsequently
> died in violent or questionable circumstances.

I personally dislike the Clintons, John, but I just can't let this pass
unchallenged: are you seriously contending that they are complicit in
mass murder, and that many people in Washington fear to criticize them
for this reason?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Gaquin" wrote:
> > Very few people in Washington who are not Very High Profile
> > dare seriously cross swords with the Clintons. There are well
> > over a hundred people associated with the Clintons over the
> > past twenty-five years who have done so, and subsequently
> > died in violent or questionable circumstances.
>
> I personally dislike the Clintons, John, but I just can't let this pass
> unchallenged: are you seriously contending that they are complicit in
> mass murder, and that many people in Washington fear to criticize them
> for this reason?

Complicit, or circumstantial?

It could be that they merely run with a dangerous crowd. That crowd, to
protect it's base, could infer a complicity that isn't really present.

On the other hand, a bunch of presents under the tree on Christmas morning
IMPLIES Santa Claus, but ....

Recall that in the entire history of gangland murder, prosecutors were never
able to directly pin a murder to an order of the mob bosses. They know how
to avoid such blatant directness.

[John Gaquin]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>
> .....are you seriously contending that they are complicit in
> mass murder, and that many people in Washington fear to criticize them
> for this reason?

I can make no unequivocal accusation, because there has never been broad
documentary evidence to provide hard linkage, but certain points hold true:
A) the circumstances I've described are a matter of public record. B) I
stopped believing in repetitive coincidence many years ago. What you (or
anyone else) believe is up to you. When the same type of thing repeatedly
occurs around the same group of people, only a blind man would fail to make
some connection.

How many people in your circle of acquaintances, Dan, have died in such a
manner? Ten? Thirty? Count 'em.

[John Gaquin]

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message > >
> Yeah.. The "official" Gods and Generals pulled his picture from their
> web site but its all over the web. He was on the set, in costume for
> his 84th birthday; had a party with other (D) congress-persons singing.
>

Interesting. Did his image actually appear in the film?

[Doug Carter]

On 2004-02-08, John Gaquin > wrote:
>
> "Doug Carter" > wrote in message > >
>> Yeah.. The "official" Gods and Generals pulled his picture from their
>> web site but its all over the web. He was on the set, in costume for
>> his 84th birthday; had a party with other (D) congress-persons singing.
>>
>
> Interesting. Did his image actually appear in the film?
>
I don't know if he made the cut or not, See if you recognize him:

http://www.ronmaxwell.com/godsandgenerals/

Picture 15: Ron Maxwell, Senator Barbara Mikulski, Senator Robert Byrd

[Gary Drescher]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
> Very few people in Washington who are not Very High Profile dare seriously
> cross swords with the Clintons. There are well over a hundred people
> associated with the Clintons over the past twenty-five years who have done
> so, and subsequently died in violent or questionable circumstances.
> ...I stopped believing in repetitive coincidence many years ago.

John, can you establish that people "associated with the Clintons over the
past twenty-five years" number fewer than tens of thousands (using a broad
enough criterion of "associated with" to encompass the "well over a hundred"
whose deaths you refer to)? Can you then establish that the alleged 100+
consitute an above-average percentage of those associates to have died in
"violent or questionable circumstances" (using a broad enough criterion of
"questionable circumstances" to encompass all alleged 100+)?

Unless you do, you have not shown that there is even any coincidence to be
explained, let alone that your bizarre explanation has merit.

>When the same type of thing repeatedly occurs around the
>same group of people, only a blind man would fail to make
>some connection.

Either a blind man, or anyone with a grasp of elementary statistical
reasoning.

--Gary

[Dan Luke]

"John Gaquin" wrote:
> I can make no unequivocal accusation, because there has never been
broad
> documentary evidence to provide hard linkage, but certain points hold
true:
> A) the circumstances I've described are a matter of public record.

Interesting. Is there a site where these collected records may be
viewed?

> How many people in your circle of acquaintances, Dan, have died
> in such a manner? Ten? Thirty? Count 'em.

Fewer than twenty that I can recall offhand. Nevertheless, to kill so
many people whom the Clintons found objectionable would require a
conspiracy that was ruthless, marvelously efficient and 100% leakproof.
The last item is the achilles heel of many conspiracy theories. For
instance, consider the theory that Flight 800 was shot down by the U. S.
Navy. The idea seems at least superficially plausible when one hears the
eyewitness accounts that support it, but imagine the sheer number of
people who would have to keep absolutely silent to cover up such a
thing.

The idea of an airtight cabal capable of murdering a hundred people in
complete secrecy - and making most of the murders look like accidents -
strains my credulity to the breaking point. Plus, I just don't think the
Clintons could be that good at *anything*. Still, I'd like to read the
record.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 11:20:59 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
> wrote:
>
> :And in the Marines he could barely shoot "Marksman".
>
> In Dec '56 he shot "Sharpshooter."
>
> :The shots that killed
> :Kennedy would put the finest sharpshooters in the country to shame.
>
> No, it wouldn't. I've been to the museum in the depository, and
> looked out the window with a vintage 4x scope, like Oswald had. It's
> not a hard shot. The car was moving at walking speed.

The car was moving 12MPH; a fast walk is 5MPH.

1) A shot on a target moving away,even at walking speed, angling away, is
damn difficult...perhaps the most difficult shot in riflery.
2) The time the target is visible was only a few seconds (between trees and
other obstructions).
3) Was the vintage scope a "Tasco"; Tasco, even then had horrible optics and
light transmission.
4) Try it with a Carcano
5) Now try it four times with a Carcano.

There's a fun match held each year called the "Texas School Depository
Drill" where contetants try to match the feat that Oswald ostensibly
performed (four shots in about six seconds, three hits...) using the same
equipment. Even the best bolt-action shooters can't duplicate it.

> :Again, _wanting_ to do something and actually _performing the act_ are
two
> :different things.
>
> No matter what doubts you have about Oswald, nobody doubts that he
> killed John D. Tippit rather than be taken in to custody. They got
> him with the gun.

And that is totally irrelevant.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> >
> > .....are you seriously contending that they are complicit in
> > mass murder, and that many people in Washington fear to criticize them
> > for this reason?
>
> I can make no unequivocal accusation, because there has never been broad
> documentary evidence to provide hard linkage, but certain points hold
true:
> A) the circumstances I've described are a matter of public record. B) I
> stopped believing in repetitive coincidence many years ago. What you (or
> anyone else) believe is up to you. When the same type of thing repeatedly
> occurs around the same group of people, only a blind man would fail to
make
> some connection.
>
> How many people in your circle of acquaintances, Dan, have died in such a
> manner? Ten? Thirty? Count 'em.
I'm sure Dan's circle of acquaintances is somewhat narrower than Bubba's.
There's a web site out there that attributes the same ratio of deadly
associations to Bush, Sr. (though not nearly as many were associated my
means of criminal enterprise and the links are rather tenuous).

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "John Gaquin" wrote:
> > I can make no unequivocal accusation, because there has never been
> broad
> > documentary evidence to provide hard linkage, but certain points hold
> true:
> > A) the circumstances I've described are a matter of public record.
>
> Interesting. Is there a site where these collected records may be
> viewed?
>
> > How many people in your circle of acquaintances, Dan, have died
> > in such a manner? Ten? Thirty? Count 'em.
>
> Fewer than twenty that I can recall offhand. Nevertheless, to kill so
> many people whom the Clintons found objectionable would require a
> conspiracy that was ruthless, marvelously efficient and 100% leakproof.

Consider the history of prosecutions of gang leaders in the last 50-75
years...and that's with the prosecutors pulling out all stops.

> The last item is the achilles heel of many conspiracy theories. For
> instance, consider the theory that Flight 800 was shot down by the U. S.
> Navy. The idea seems at least superficially plausible when one hears the
> eyewitness accounts that support it, but imagine the sheer number of
> people who would have to keep absolutely silent to cover up such a
> thing.

Whole different context in terms of numbers. Criminal conduct is, be
necessity, restricted to very few numbers. Consider, too, how many people
jumped off an ethical cliff to protect Bubba.

> The idea of an airtight cabal capable of murdering a hundred people in
> complete secrecy - and making most of the murders look like accidents -
> strains my credulity to the breaking point.

It does mine as well, but the lack of scrutiny tends to overwhelm that
credulity.

> Plus, I just don't think the
> Clintons could be that good at *anything*. Still, I'd like to read the
> record.

If you do, take note of how many "incidents" got a very quick pass over.

[C J Campbell]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Richard Riley" > wrote in message
| ...
| > On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 11:20:59 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
| > wrote:
| >
| > :And in the Marines he could barely shoot "Marksman".
| >
| > In Dec '56 he shot "Sharpshooter."
| >
| > :The shots that killed
| > :Kennedy would put the finest sharpshooters in the country to shame.
| >
| > No, it wouldn't. I've been to the museum in the depository, and
| > looked out the window with a vintage 4x scope, like Oswald had. It's
| > not a hard shot. The car was moving at walking speed.
|
| The car was moving 12MPH; a fast walk is 5MPH.
|
| 1) A shot on a target moving away,even at walking speed, angling away, is
| damn difficult...perhaps the most difficult shot in riflery.
| 2) The time the target is visible was only a few seconds (between trees
and
| other obstructions).
| 3) Was the vintage scope a "Tasco"; Tasco, even then had horrible optics
and
| light transmission.
| 4) Try it with a Carcano
| 5) Now try it four times with a Carcano.
|

Let's see: he missed twice and got one fatal shot. Now, are you saying that
all these imaginary people on the grassy knoll, the freeway overpass, the
sewers, etc., were somehow just as superhuman as Oswald?

Shooting somebody who is running away, let alone walking, is not all that
difficult. It is probably the most common shot.

Penn and Teller have duplicated the feat using identical equipment, and they
are not even trained marksmen.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | "Richard Riley" > wrote in message
> | ...
> | > On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 11:20:59 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
> | > wrote:
> | >
> | > :And in the Marines he could barely shoot "Marksman".
> | >
> | > In Dec '56 he shot "Sharpshooter."
> | >
> | > :The shots that killed
> | > :Kennedy would put the finest sharpshooters in the country to shame.
> | >
> | > No, it wouldn't. I've been to the museum in the depository, and
> | > looked out the window with a vintage 4x scope, like Oswald had. It's
> | > not a hard shot. The car was moving at walking speed.
> |
> | The car was moving 12MPH; a fast walk is 5MPH.
> |
> | 1) A shot on a target moving away,even at walking speed, angling away,
is
> | damn difficult...perhaps the most difficult shot in riflery.
> | 2) The time the target is visible was only a few seconds (between trees
> and
> | other obstructions).
> | 3) Was the vintage scope a "Tasco"; Tasco, even then had horrible optics
> and
> | light transmission.
> | 4) Try it with a Carcano
> | 5) Now try it four times with a Carcano.
> |
>
> Let's see: he missed twice and got one fatal shot.

Supposedly he got three hits, one miss.

> Now, are you saying that
> all these imaginary people on the grassy knoll, the freeway overpass, the
> sewers, etc., were somehow just as superhuman as Oswald?

Three hits, one miss, by two shooters?

> Shooting somebody who is running away, let alone walking, is not all that
> difficult. It is probably the most common shot.

Not on an angle it's not.

>
> Penn and Teller have duplicated the feat using identical equipment, and
they
> are not even trained marksmen.

Cite?

[John Gaquin]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message news:NCBVb.260

> I'm sure Dan's circle of acquaintances is somewhat narrower than Bubba's.
> There's a web site out there that attributes the same ratio of deadly
> associations to Bush, Sr.

That may well be, there are numbers everywhere, and there are tenuous
associations to be found in all manner of places. Folks are free to believe
what they want, even bet their life on statistical analysis, if that's what
excites them. But I'll tell you what. I've developed a great respect for
my gut based on experience over the years. When my gut talks to me, I
listen.

[John Gaquin]

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
...
> On 2004-02-08, John Gaquin > wrote:
> >
> > "Doug Carter" > wrote in message > >
> >> Yeah.. The "official" Gods and Generals pulled his picture from their
> >> web site but its all over the web. He was on the set, in costume for
> >> his 84th birthday; had a party with other (D) congress-persons singing.
> >>
> >
> > Interesting. Did his image actually appear in the film?
> >
> I don't know if he made the cut or not, See if you recognize him:
>
> http://www.ronmaxwell.com/godsandgenerals/
>
> Picture 15: Ron Maxwell, Senator Barbara Mikulski, Senator Robert
Byrd

[John Gaquin]

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
>
> Picture 15: Ron Maxwell, Senator Barbara Mikulski, Senator Robert
Byrd

Damn! Now I'll have to check out the film again.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message news:NCBVb.260
>
> > I'm sure Dan's circle of acquaintances is somewhat narrower than
Bubba's.
> > There's a web site out there that attributes the same ratio of deadly
> > associations to Bush, Sr.
>
> That may well be, there are numbers everywhere, and there are tenuous
> associations to be found in all manner of places. Folks are free to
believe
> what they want, even bet their life on statistical analysis, if that's
what
> excites them. But I'll tell you what. I've developed a great respect for
> my gut based on experience over the years. When my gut talks to me, I
> listen.
>

Mylanta?

Or, more likely, "Wisdom is the integration of knowledge" -- Ancient proverb

I'm often amazed at how often the analysis is wrong and my "instincts" were
right.

[Thomas Borchert]

Dan,

> I personally dislike the Clintons, John, but I just can't let this pass
> unchallenged: are you seriously contending that they are complicit in
> mass murder, and that many people in Washington fear to criticize them
> for this reason?
>

Don't feed the trolls.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)