Hussein the Traitor
Joe Gillis
==============================
Obama tried to sway Iraqis on Bush deal-In private conversations on
troop presence, pitched delay
Washington Times
10/10/08
Barbara Slavin
In private conversations on troop presence, candidate pitched delay
EXCLUSIVE:
At the same time the Bush administration was negotiating a still
elusive agreement to keep the U.S. military in Iraq, Democratic
presidential candidate Barack Obama tried to convince Iraqi leaders in
private conversations that the president shouldn't be allowed to enact
the deal without congressional approval.
Mr. Obama's conversations with the Iraqi leaders, confirmed to The
Washington Times by his campaign aides, began just two weeks after he
clinched the Democratic presidential nomination in Ju
ne and stirred controversy over the appropriateness of a White House
candidate's contacts with foreign governments while the sitting
president is conducting a war.
Some of the specifics of the conversations remain the subject of
dispute. Iraqi leaders purported to The Times that Mr. Obama urged
Baghdad to delay an agreement with Mr. Bush until next year when a new
president will be in office - a charge the Democratic campaign denies.
Mr. Obama spoke June 16 to Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari when he was
in Washington, according to both the Iraqi Embassy in Washington and
the Obama campaign. Both said the conversation was at Mr. Zebari's
request and took place on the phone because Mr. Obama was traveling.
However, the two sides differ over what Mr. Obama said.
"In the conversation, the senator urged Iraq to delay the [memorandum
of understanding] between Iraq and the United States until the new
administration was in place," said Samir Sumaidaie, Iraq's ambassador
to the United States.
He said Mr. Zebari replied that any such agreement would not bind a
new administration. "The new administration will have a free hand to
opt out," he said the foreign minister told Mr. Obama.
=============
Logan Act:
§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without
authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or
carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign
government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence
the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or
agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the
United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or
both.
1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004
chatnoir
All in the tradition of Reaggy dealing with the Iranian terrorists
behind Carter's back I guess!
syvyn11
"chatnoir" <wolfb...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:35c8a5bd-da8c-4de5...@t18g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
Proof on that bubba?
TBerk
Even if this cross-posted off topic post is 100% true and honest there
are two things to consider:
- If Mr. Obamma was acting in his official capacity then he was a member
of he US Government and not acting 'against' it.
- Standing behind our elected leaders is all very admirable, and it is
usually a wise thing to present a united front, oh wait. President Bush
didn't think it was important to be united, either with our Allies nor
his own peers nor constituents.
As time draws near to the Election, the folks who are getting desperate
are going to get a lot uglier than this; it will pay to carry a pocket
of salt around to pinch it at each of these attempts.
TBerk
Stone me
"Joe Gillis" <Floating...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fe058c71-e4d9-4c49...@z18g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
==============================
Washington Times
10/10/08
Barbara Slavin
EXCLUSIVE:
=============
Logan Act:
This seems almost a replica of the allegations that Nixon, in a similar
position,
used a well-known intermediary to get the Vietnam Peace Talks in Paris
suspended until after he took office. It was alleged that LBJ knew exactly
what
had happened but was supposed to have judged it best to use the information
privately, when Nixon met him at the Ranch.
I understand that one source for some of this is
Seymour Hersh's The Price of Power: Kissinger in the White House,
My own is from a tv documentary probably on Discovery or History channel.
Let's remember that the press no longer serve a high cause of bringing facts
to
the public but serve the greater cause of selling newspapers.
Given that, I wonder if this NY Times story will pan out.
Stone me.
Jim Beaver
"Stone me" <a...@c.cpm> wrote in message
news:O3GHk.15013$bq4....@newsfe15.ams2...
> Let's remember that the press no longer serve a high cause of bringing
> facts to
> the public but serve the greater cause of selling newspapers.
>
> Given that, I wonder if this NY Times story will pan out.
It's not a New York Times story. It's a WASHINGTON Times story. Might as
well be the Palin Times.
Jim Beaver
chatnoir
> "chatnoir" <wolfbat3...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
http://americanimperium.blogspot.com/2005/06/reagan-bushes-and-iran.html
excerpt:
In the 1980 race for the White House, Republicans apparently thought
the stakes were so high that they secretly negotiated with
representatives of a enemy foreign power. Fifty two Americans were
being held as hostages in Iran, and campaign manager William Casey,
Edward Meese, and others successfully negotiated a deal with
representatives of the Iranian government to assure that the hostages
would not be released while Jimmy Carter was president. One of the
influential clerics they dealt with was Mehdi Karrubi.
The Iranian government they was divided over what to do with the
hostages, and foreign minister Sadegh Ghotbzadeh publically protested
that Reagan, backed by Henry Kissinger, was working to block
resolution of the crisis until after Carter left office.Casey had the
help of many asctive and former CIA personnel who resented Carter’s
reforms at the agency. Robert Gates, a high CIA official attached to
the NSC, fed the Republicans information, and Carter was certain that
NSC member Donald Gregg also fed national security information to the
Republicans. Cyrus Hashemi, an Iranian banker, was supposed to be
assisting Carter, but he actually functioning as a back channel for
the Republicans.There was suspicion that Lt. Colonel Oliver North and
Major General Richard Secord sabotaged Operation Eagle Claw, the
failed rescue mission launched by Carter.
Casey was able to get in touch with the Iranians with the help of the
French intelligence service, Count Alexandre de Marenches. Carter had
unwittingly sealed his own fate by refusing to trade arms for
hostages. Among other things, Casey promised that Israel would sell
some arms to Iran immediately and that they would sell many more after
Ronald Reagan became president. Israel believed it was important to
weaken Iraq, and many Israeli officials detested Carter for pushing
Begin into the Camp David agreements. The Iranians were also promised
the return of $12 billion in blocked funds. Prime Minister Menachin
Begin, who had promised not to sell so much as a shoelace to Iran,
cooperated with the Republicans’ efforts to undermine the Carter
position.
These activities thoroughly undermined the activities of the
legitimately elected government of the United States and weakened the
U.S. position in bargaining for the return of the hostages. Once
before, a Republican presidential candidate had practiced back-channel
diplomacy to benefit himself and undermine the policy of the sitting
government. In 1968, Richard Nixon sent Claire Chenault to persuade
President Thieu of South Vietnam to block peace talks at least until
after the election. This maneuver eventually came to light, and there
was no great uproar. Perhaps, Casey assumed that this kind of conduct
was now considered acceptable.There were a number of meetings between
Republican operatives and representatives of Ayatollah Ruhollah
Khomeini in Paris and Madrid.
Casey went to Madrid four times, were he laid out the main outlines of
the deal, which was concluded in mid October at a meeting in a Paris
suburb. The Iranians were promised weapons for delaying the release of
the hostages, and it has been suggested that millions were given to
the Iranian leadership in bribes.The weapons were shipped to Portugal
on ships by means of false documents, where other items were added to
their cargoes. The payment in arms then went to Israel for
transshipping to Iran. It has often been charged that vice
presidential candidate George Bush attended that meeting, and there is
evidence to sustain the charge.
Whether Bush was flown there by Gunter Russbacher is another matter.
Russbacher had taken part in a number of Naval Intelligence and CIA
operations. A Russian speaker who even knew Gorbachev, Russbacher was
eventually accused of profiting from covert operations and imprisoned.
However, there is not enough solid evidence to prove that Bush
attended the Paris meeting. On the other hand, Bush’s explanation of
where he was then cannot be proven and seems somewhat implausible. He
has refused to release the kind of information that would settle the
matter.
The Republican effort to derail Carter’s efforts to free the hostages
was assisted by Republicans in the CIA, other parts of the
intelligence community, and the State Department. As a result of their
activities, the Reagan campaign often had better information on the
Iranian situation than the President of the United States. Sympathetic
elements in the press, including columnist Jack Anderson, printed
classified information and clever disinformation in a successful
effort to thwart Carter’s efforts to free the hostages.The Israelis
had been asked to sell a limited number of arms to Iran, and they
wanted a green light from potentially the next American government to
sell more. For that reason, Israeli intelligence sent an Arab merchant
with Iranian ties to negotiate with Republican operatives at the L’
Enfante Hotel in Washington. He proposed the kind of deal Casey
negotiated, except that Israel would immediately begin unlimited arms
sales. The Republicans attending those meetings were Richard Allen,
Robert McFarlane, and Lawrence Silberman.
They were unaware of the deal Casey was negotiating and were very much
interested in pursuing the possibility of damaging Carter’s efforts.
Casey was assisted in this by banker David Rockefeller and Casey
business associate John Shaheen. Shaheen and Iranian banker Cyrus
Hashemi would eventually profit from a complex banking transaction
associated with the GOP plan to fcree the hostages on their own terms.
Casey was a hard-bitten capitalistic high-roller with intelligence
experience. He knew how possession of power would have positive
economic consequences for himself and his friends. Others may have
been driven more by ideology. Carrying on diplomatic negotiations with
a foreign enemy is a violation of the law, as was coordinating arms
shipments to Iran, before and after Reagan took power. One would think
that patriots would want the hostages returned as soon as possible and
would support the nation’s foreign policy in a time of crisis, even if
the president was a Democrat.
The Republican plotters, aided by an informal group called "Spooks for
bush" and the Israeli intelligence service, had better knowledge about
wehat was going on in Tehran than Carter and his staff. Moreover,
tghey had vastly more influence. On September 16, 1980, the very
frustrated Iranian foreign minister, Sadegh Ghitbzadeh complained to
the press that Reagan and Kissinger would do anything possible to
block the release of the hostages until after the inauguration of
Reagan. By then, the Reagan campaign hierarchs were in direct contact
with senior Iranian cleric Mehdi Karrubi.
What led these people to violate the law overcame any patriotic
impulses to carry on their own destructive foreign policy. The best
answer is that they were so convinced by their own ideology and
attacks on the Democrats that they felt justified in doing anything
necessary to restore Republican control of the White House. It was as
though elected Democrats automatically lack legitimacy, except when
they co-operate in enacting and carrying out Republican policy. The
CIA people who worked to short-circuit Arter policies had respect for
the Georgian's sharp mind, but they believed it their duty to remove
him from office because his idealism had led to serious foreign policy
mistakes. There was an op-ed piece and a PBS special outlining the
facts in this matter in 1991. At that time ther was a half-hearted
Congressional inquiry into this Most of the material remains
classified but some of it has been leaked.
Not one Republican politician or pundit expressed any interest in the
possibility that this may have happened. So-called liberal politicians
and journalists showed little interest when it became clear that there
was not overwhelming evidence that President George Bush was involved.
Years later, Yasir Arafat told Jimmy Carter that the Republicans had
asked them to help with the arms deal used to keep the hostages
captive until after the election. In 1993, Russia gave Congressional
investigators files that showed that Casey met with the Iranians in
1980 and that Robert Gates and George H.W. Bush were involved in the
deal with Iran.There was a House investigation in 1992 of allegations
that Republicans derailed CArter's efforts to retrieve the hostages .
It turned up little other than secret testimony that a former CIA
official heard a new ambassador discuss the operation with Casey in
1981. ...
KalElFan
news:KeGHk.297$%11...@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
The poster's (stone me's) context where he cited the coverage of the Nixon
issue by Seymour Hersh, who worked for the New York Times back
then, suggests he may have meant it as a challenge to the New York Times,
and most of the mainstream media that's shilling for Obama, that they also
ought to be covering this scandalous behavior by their candidate.
If stone me didn't mean it that way, well I've still pointed it out.
KalElFan
news:gcn9mm$3n0$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> Even if this cross-posted off topic post is 100% true and honest there are
> two things to consider:
>
> - If Mr. Obamma was acting in his official capacity then he was a member
> of he US Government and not acting 'against' it.
He's not a member of the executive branch, and his actions in this case
were on the face of it in his self-interest as a candidate. The Iraqi's
comeback, that Obama shouldn't worry because if he didn't like the
deal and won his administration could always abrogate it, was also
devastatingly on point. Obama had no fraking business doing what
he did.
The Washington Times also says they have confirmation from Obama
campaign aides on it, which further exposes the Obama side on this
story. If there isn't some relevant case law or statute exempting sitting
U.S. Senators from the Logan Act, or ones who are on any particular
committee, there's a plausible Logan Act case looking at that section
that was posted.
> - Standing behind our elected leaders is all very admirable, and it is
> usually a wise thing to present a united front, oh wait. President Bush
> didn't think it was important to be united, either with our Allies nor his
> own peers nor constituents.
Your reluctant admission that Bush is head of the executive branch and
doesn't have a Logan Act problem noted.
> As time draws near to the Election, the folks who are getting desperate
> are going to get a lot uglier than this...
"Uglier" in the sense of legitimate issues that strike a blow to Obama's
campaign and fitness to be President, there is indeed lots more to come
that's already out there but many voters aren't yet aware of because it's
gone mostly unreported.
> it will pay to carry a pocket of salt around to pinch it at each of these
> attempts.
Not to mention a discerning eye for *ANY* plausible defenses, of
which there've been none in this admittedly brief thread. I'll follow with
interest to see if any show up.
KalElFan
news:-cOdnbb_O_8ZjnLV...@earthlink.com...
> "chatnoir" <wolfb...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:35c8a5bd-da8c-4de5...@t18g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
> All in the tradition of Reaggy dealing with the Iranian terrorists
> behind Carter's back I guess!
>
> Proof on that bubba?
He/she has no proof just a blog entry cited in the other post and even
that ends with:
"There was a House investigation in 1992 of allegations that
Republicans derailed Carter's efforts to retrieve the hostages .
It turned up little other than secret testimony that a former CIA
official heard a new ambassador discuss the operation with Casey
in 1981. ..."
What really happened is that the Iranians were scared sh*tless that
Reagan wouldn't wait five minutes after taking office before launching
an attack. I'm not saying he would have, but that was the environment.
Meanwhile, Carter was about to leave office and put on a major
diplomatic push to clean up his own mess and bring the issue to a
close. That gave the Iranians a plausible way out of having to face
Reagan.
In addition to it not happening, another major difference is that once
*anything* was happening Reagan had been elected in November. In
this case Obama had not. As a Senator he had no executive authority
or pending authority to try to influence the government of Iraq, especially
not for his own political benefit. While this story was hinted at weeks
ago, the new context of the Washington Times article (including the
campaign sources it says it has), and the Logan Act reference the OP
made make it a much better issue.
According to the Wikipedia entry on it, the Logan Act has never had a
case that's been fully prosecuted and it's been around for 200+ years.
There've been several instances it was talked about as possibly being
prosecuted, including by Reagan's administration in a couple of instances.
The wailing from the left would probably be based on that lack of any
prior prosecutions, but really if the Washington Times has campaign
sources, and the Iraqi source and others at the meeting can confirm
it too, this one is blatantly self-serving enough on Obama's part that
it might stick. DOJ is probably too chicken to open an investigation
though.
Kingo Gondo
We can smell your desperation, Joe. Do you really want to shit your pants
here?
syvyn11
> two things to consider:
>
> - If Mr. Obamma was acting in his official capacity then he was a member
> of he US Government and not acting 'against' it.
wrong, only the state department can make deals with other countries, not
senators, they can talk and that's about it.
>
> - Standing behind our elected leaders is all very admirable, and it is
> usually a wise thing to present a united front, oh wait. President Bush
> didn't think it was important to be united, either with our Allies nor his
> own peers nor constituents.
wrong again, we went in with a collalition, why must you always lie about
this?
>
> As time draws near to the Election, the folks who are getting desperate
> are going to get a lot uglier than this; it will pay to carry a pocket of
> salt around to pinch it at each of these attempts.
yeah and let the white house go to a man who will not answer questions about
his friends, who says two different things, who is a idiot.
With Obama, you are buying a pig in a poke. Things will get worse. The
only question is will you be man enough to admit that it was wrong to elect
this neophyte to be our beloved leader.
>
>
> TBerk
chatnoir
> "syvyn11" <robhorine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:-cOdnbb_O_8ZjnLV...@earthlink.com...
>
> > "chatnoir" <wolfbat3...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
http://wjcohen.home.mindspring.com/otherclips/sick.htm
October Surprise: America's Hostages in Iran and the Election of
Ronald Reagan. By Gary Sick.
BY WARREN COHEN
Summer 1992 (1619 words)
Historians frequently remind us that the study of the past is less a
definitive chronicle of bygone eras than a vehicle to examine
contemporary social and cultural values. Through this perspective,
there appears in the late twentieth century a popular belief that the
interruption of the natural course of history by sinister plots has
inflicted unfair burdens upon the United States. Oliver Stone's "JFK"
beams this message to an impressionable populace, but the phenomenon
is rampant with new interpretations of Watergate and the deaths of
Martin Luther King Jr., Zachary Taylor, and even Marilyn Monroe.
The latest historical "fact" exhumed in this process is the 1980
Iranian hostage crisis. Gary Sick, the National Security Council
expert on the Middle East at the time, soberly reports in October
Surprise of an alleged clandestine deal between the Iranian mullahs
and Ronald Reagan's campaign operatives. In return for holding the
fifty-two Americans until after the election, the Republicans promised
to pay back Iran through surreptitious arms deliveries via Israel. The
book's implicit message is that without the foul play, the Reagan-Bush
era may never have occurred. If the allegations are true, the 1980
election would be, in Sick's words, the first "political coup" (p.12)
in American history.
The argument in October Surprise rests on the confession of Jamshid
Hashemi, a jet-setting Iranian businessman. Hashemi, along with his
arms-dealing brother Cyrus, offered to put the Carter administration
in touch with members of Iran's revolutionary regime to discuss the
hostage crisis. The Hashemis credentials were solid, Sick reports,
because the brothers had already arranged at least one contact between
a still-classified US government official and a relative of the
Ayatollah. In 1990, Jamshid told reporters that the Hashemis had also
been approached by members of the Reagan campaign seeking the same
access.
Sick makes a compelling prima facie case for the charges of a secret
deal. Terrified that a pre-November hostage release would tip the
election in Carter's favor, members of the Reagan campaign staff
penetrated the deepest levels of the government to monitor Carter's
handling of the crisis, "an achievement," in Sick's phrase, "that
would have been the envy of the KGB" (p.138). Some of the more
egregious examples of Reaganite scheming include: around-the-clock
surveillance of US Air Force bases where Iranian weaponry purchased
under the Shah was interned; knowledge of the transcripts of meetings
of a handful of top government and military officials planning a never-
executed second rescue; and the theft of Carter's foreign policy
briefing book. These ethical breaches were so grave that both the FBI
and a Senate subcommittee investigated the leaks of classified
information after the end of the campaign.
For obvious political reasons, the Carter administration was
desperately trying to negotiate the hostages' release. But the
Iranians were searching for a solution as well especially after Iraq
invaded in late September. Carter's worldwide arms embargo prevented
Iran from obtaining the weapons and spare parts necessary to defend
itself. As the talks with Carter were reaching their climax, the
Hashemis allegedly set up secret negotiations between Reagan campaign
director William Casey and Khomeini officials. These contacts occurred
in July and August in Madrid and concluded in Paris in October, Sick
reports. At the same time these purported meetings ended, the Iranians
abruptly cut off contact with the Carter administration and refused to
discuss the hostages until after the election. Sick reasons that the
Republicans came through with a more attractive offer, and so the
hostages were ultimately not released until five minutes after Reagan
was inaugurated. The moniker "October Surprise," coined and
disseminated by the Reagan campaign through the press to ready the
public for a possible pre-November hostage release, became a term best
known for Casey's insidious deal. Sick illustrates the alleged payoff
for the hostage release as well. Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin
suggested that Carter allow Israel to resume weapon sales to Iran.
Israel had furtive, but good relations with Iran before the revolution
and wanted to continue the ties in order to counter what it perceived
as Iraq's growing military threat. During the Carter embargo, a few
Israeli shipments to Iran did circumvent US restrictions, but the
weapons pipeline began to gush immediately after the inauguration,
despite pronouncements that the new administration would never sell
arms to Iran. In 1990, then Secretary of State Alexander Haig publicly
admitted that some weapons arrived in Iran without his permission
though Sick lists a variety of sources including State and Defense
department officials and high-ranking Israelis who point the finger at
Haig.
But it is a far leap to connect the antecedents and the aftermath to
form a conclusive tale of treachery. Sick's meticulously documented
evidence fails to convince readers of Casey's secret deals. By citing
an anonymous underworld of gun smugglers, French and Israeli
intelligence agents, and embittered Iranian exiles, Sick relies on
hearsay testimony from people who were not present at the rumored
meetings. For example, despite reporting that there were six Israelis,
sixteen Iranians, and twelve Americans in attendance in Paris, Sick
writes "none of the principals involved have ever spoken publicly
about what happened" (p.146). And two of the main characters at the
crux of the scandal-William Casey and Cyrus Hashemi-died in the mid-I
980s.
Sick unwittingly undermines his own case by citing "on-the-record"
sources with histories of contradictions. Oswald LeWinter, a self-
described freelance intelligence operative, claimed that he helped
clean up evidence of the Paris meetings. However, he also said that he
received $40,000 in 1988 to spread false stories about the "October
Surprise" under an assumed name, a tale backed up by the journalists
he fooled. Who can say if he is now telling the truth? Another example
is the case of Iran's first President Abol Hassan Bani-Sadr, now
living in exile. Bani-Sadr admits he was excluded from important
decisions by Khomeini's religious inner circle, but claims he
overheard secret murmurs of the deal. Yet Bani-Sadr also has a
credibility gap. In addition to the "October Surprise" conspiracy, he
is convinced that in 1980 National Security Advisor Zbigniew
Brzezinski secretly teamed up with Saddam Hussein to plot the Iraqi
invasion into Iran.
Aside from his questionable sources, Sick also neglects to analyze the
story through other important viewpoints. In Sick's 1985 book All Fall
Down: America's Tragic Encounter with Iran, the hostage crisis is
examined from the inner depths of the White House. Reagan, Casey, and
the Hashemi brothers do not even merit an appearance in that book, but
in October Surprise they become lead characters when Sick reconsiders
the same events through the prism of the 1980 election. To peg the
story accurately, Sick should revise his stance a third time from the
most important angle-the Iranian perspective. The many contradictory
and inconsistent signals the Carter administration received after the
revolution are best explained by factions in Iran struggling for
power. Clerics and politicians attempting to curry favor with
potential allies were unlikely to breach Khomeini's inner circle by
advocating a deal with the "Great Satan." Furthermore, it is a dubious
proposition to believe that Iran would pass up a chance to procure
critical ammunition from the Carter administration for a future
promise of weapons from Casey. After the initial success of the Iraqi
incursion, Iran was literally fighting for its life. If Iran had held
the hostages until after the elections, there were no definite
assurances that the Republicans would win and then keep their end of
the bargain once elected. Reagan's oft-quoted belligerence toward Iran
at the time suggests the opposite. And if there was a deal, why did
Iran negotiate so frantically with the Carter administration after the
election to reach an agreement days before Reagan was inaugurated?
Despite the inconsistencies and illogical interpretation of events,
there remain many titillating details to give even the most skeptical
reader pause. Jamshid Hashemi and six other corroborating sources were
able to pinpoint separately, without consultation, the exact days
during the campaign for which there is no conclusive evidence of
Casey's whereabouts. A search of 100,000 pages of Reagan's 1980
campaign documents revealed no traces, such as hotel receipts or
journal entries, exonerating Casey. Also, in October 1980, the FBI
began surveillance of Cyrus Hashemi's offices because he was suspected
of illegal arms sales, but in February 19~, the taping was terminated
ahead of schedule by the new administration. The information from
these tapings has still not been released despite many Freedom of
Information Act requests from journalists. Then there are the
inexplicable arms sales to Iran after the Reagan administration took
over, which some journalists have estimated to be worth several
billion dollars. Sick makes a valid point when he claims that an
"October Surprise" deal would serve as a precursor to the Iran-Contra
affair between the same parties years later.
In Washington, Sick's charges have ignited a partisan battle. The
story has been branded baseless by Republicans (White House press
secretary Marlin Fitzwater called Sick "the Kitty Kelley of foreign
policy"). Columbia Pictures has optioned the movie rights for a
reported $500,000.
On the other side of the debate, Sick's accounts have found a voice
with outraged Democrats. Eight former hostages, President Carter,
former hostage negotiator Warren Christopher, and even Presidents Bush
and Reagan have supported a Congressional inquiry. While Republicans
have blocked a move in the Senate, the House approved the formation of
a bipartisan task force that will spend between $1.2 and $2.5 million
to probe the charges. But any evidence Congress discovers supporting
or denying the theory will be secondary to the ultimate judgment of
the American people, who will confront past and present demons again
chatnoir
>
> news:-cOdnbb_O_8ZjnLV...@earthlink.com...
>
> > "chatnoir" <wolfbat3...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile3.html
The Consortium
Bill Casey' Iranian
Iranian banker Cyrus Hashemi was a mystery man of the 1980s, a nexus
point for scandal, from accessing vaults of the corrupt BCCI to
opening doors to the Iran-Contra Affair. But for years, the FBI
withheld key wiretaps of Hashemi's secret conversations.
Now, from a dusty box in a Capitol Hill storage room, a classified
summary of those incriminating calls has been recovered. It fills in
crucial missing pieces of the history of the Reagan-Bush era: another
chapter of the October Surprise X-Files
October Surprise X-Files (Part 3): Bill Casey's Iranian
By Robert Parry
WASHINGTON -- On Sept. 23, 1980, in the midst of the Reagan-Carter
presidential race, two men from Houston placed phone calls to an
Iranian banker at his swank office in a mid-town Manhattan skyscraper.
The two men had a cryptic message. They informed the banker, Cyrus
Hashemi, that "a Greek ship captain" would be delivering a $3 million
deposit from Beirut to Hashemi's offshore bank headquartered in the
Netherlands Antilles.
Hashemi was told the "Greek ship captain" would use the name
"Fibolous." One of the Texans, a former judge named Harrel Tillman,
considered himself a 30-year friend of George Bush, the Republican
candidate for Vice President. Hashemi, in 1980, was acting as a
principal intermediary for President Carter's frantic efforts to free
52 Americans held hostage in Iran.
On Nov. 20, after President Carter failed to spring the hostages and
lost to Ronald Reagan, Tillman was back on the phone with Hashemi,
this time about the "purchase of [a] refinery," according to a
"secret" FBI wiretap summary. Tillman said he had been in touch with
Vice President-elect Bush and had consulted with "the 'Bush' people"
about the troubles that Hashemi and his business associate, John
Shaheem, were having with a bankrupt oil refinery in Newfoundland.
"Bush people would be cooperative with this matter and make it a
showcase," Tillman said, according to the summary. "But the 'Bush'
people would not act on it until after the Inauguration" in January
1981.
Interviewed this past week about those 1980 phone calls, Tillman said
he recalled nothing about either the $3 million deposit or the
promises from the "Bush people." "I don't remember having that
conversation," Tillman told me. He acknowledged, though, being
questioned about the calls by congressional investigators in 1992, but
added that he could not recall the substance of that interview either.
"I'm not trying to be evasive," he insisted.
But the ex-judge did add another twist to the mysterious phone calls.
Tillman said that besides supporting the Reagan-Bush ticket in 1980,
he was working as a consultant to Iran's radical Islamic government.
Tillman also felt President Carter had bungled the hostage crisis.
Still, whatever the reason for the $3 million deposit -- whether it
was a payoff or an unrelated business deal -- it added to Hashemi's
already-deep dependence on the Republicans. Hashemi worked closely
with former Nixon administration official Stanley Pottinger and was a
business associate of John Shaheen, a Republican businessman who
counted among his best friends William J. Casey, then in charge of the
Reagan-Bush campaign.
A Madrid Meeting?
Hashemi's ties to Casey and Shaheen would be central to allegations
that the Reagan-Bush campaign sabotaged President Carter's hostage
talks. Hashemi's older brother, Jamshid, claimed that Cyrus and Casey
began collaborating secretly on the Iranian hostage issue in the
spring and summer of 1980.
According to Jamshid Hashemi's sworn testimony, Cyrus arranged a
clandestine meeting in Madrid between Casey and a radical Iranian
mullah, Mehdi Karrubi, in late July 1980. At the meeting, Casey
allegedly opened a back-channel to Iran that disrupted President
Carter's hostage negotiations and ensured Ronald Reagan's resounding
victory that November.
As many as two dozen other Iranian, European and Middle Eastern
officials made similar assertions of GOP interference. But in January
1993, after a year-long investigation, a special House task force
concluded that "no credible evidence" existed to support allegations
of a Republican dirty trick. One of the task force's principal
arguments for the debunking was that a careful review of secret FBI
wiretaps on Cyrus Hashemi's phones from September 1980 to February
1981 found nothing to support the so-called October Surprise charges.
So when I gained access to boxes of the task force's raw records in an
obscure Capitol Hill storage room (see The Consortium, Dec. 21), I was
startled to discover a "secret" FBI wiretap summary that revealed a
much more complex story than the House task force's sanitized version
of events.
For instance, while the task force was aware of the $3 million "Greek
ship captain" deposit and the potential conflict of interest it
represented for Cyrus Hashemi, no mention was made of it in the House
report. Nor did the task force explain financial connections that tied
Shaheen and Hashemi to wealthy figures from the Philippines, the
Middle East, the corrupt Bank of Credit and Commerce International,
and the ousted royal family of Iran.
All those links gave Hashemi powerful motives to betray President
Carter -- and, in each one, William Casey was in the background.
'Two Faces'
The wiretap summary showed almost daily contacts between Cyrus
Hashemi, a worldly financier in his 40s whose phone calls included
chats with high-priced prostitutes, and John Shaheen, the fast-talking
former officer in World War II's Office of Strategic Services. Shaheen
and Casey, who met in the OSS, also had worked together on the failed
Newfoundland oil refinery that Hashemi and Tillman discussed in the
wiretapped conversation.
Indeed, on Sept. 22, the day before the first calls from Houston,
Hashemi was on the phone discussing how to line up a $40 million loan
to help Shaheen regain control of the refinery.That same week, Hashemi
and Shaheen hashed over schemes for opening a bank together, possibly
in Asia with some Philippine investors.
On Sept. 25, Hashemi and Shaheen discussed a "Hong Kong deal,"
according to the wiretaps. On Oct. 14, the two men were arranging a
meeting with Philippine bankers and businessmen. Hashemi expressed
concern because he had already deposited "a large sum of money in a
bank in the Philippines."
In mid-October 1980, even as Hashemi supposedly was helping President
Carter's last-ditch effort to resolve the hostage crisis, the Iranian
banker began work with other Republicans lining up arms shipments to
Iran, including parts for helicopter gunships and night-vision goggles
for pilots.
The FBI wiretap summary also contained references to Hashemi lying
about the hostage issue. On Oct. 22, 1980, the FBI bugs caught
Hashemi's wife, Houma, scolding her husband about his denials that he
had discussed the hostages with Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed
Rafsanjani. "It is not possible to be a double agent and have two
faces," Houma warned Cyrus.
The next day, Oct. 23, Shaheen again was in Hashemi's office at 9 West
57th St., using one of the bugged phones to brief a European
associate, Dick Gaedecke, about the latest developments in the hostage
negotiations. Hashemi was keeping Shaheen, Casey's pal, fully informed
about President Carter's hostage strategies.
A Reagan Link?
On Oct. 24, the FBI recorded another cryptic note suggesting Hashemi's
close ties to another prominent Republican. Using Cyrus Hashemi's
initials, it read: "CH-banking business about Reagan overseas corp.,"
according to the wiretap summary.
The possibility of a Reagan-Hashemi link was not entirely new. It
arose initially in 1992 when Reuters news agency quoted FBI sources in
New York as saying that agents heasrd Ronald Reagan on one Hashemi
tape. But the congressional investigators said Reagan was not recorded
speaking on the 548 tapes made available to Congress, except for some
television background noise.
But the investigators were unable to explain an eight-day gap on one
tape. Eleven others were blank, a condition possibly caused by
intentional erasure, according to tape experts. Still, the House task
force found nothing suspicious about this pattern.
In clearing the Republicans, the House report also left out testimony
from Iran's former Defense Minister, Ahmed Madani, who stated that he,
too, had chastised Hashemi for collaborating secretly with the
Republicans behind President Carter's back. Madani testified that
Hashemi offered to bring Casey to a hostage discussion during the
campaign.
"We are not here to play politics," Madani said he responded. The
discussion convinced Madani that "Casey wanted to fish in troubled
waters" and that Hashemi was "double-dealing" President Carter.
In the transition period after Ronald Reagan's victory, the FBI picked
up more conversations about Hashemi's GOP ties. On Nov. 20, the same
day as Tillman's call about the "Bush people," Hashemi boasted to
fellow Iranian Mahmood Moini about ties to Casey, who was then running
President-elect Reagan's transition office. "I have been, well, close
friends ... with Casey for several years," Hashemi told Moini.
Although the Carter administration had finally frozen Hashemi out of
the hostage talks because of the arms dealing, the shrewd Iranian
banker kept his hands in. On Jan. 15, 1981, Hashemi met with Iranian
Revolutionary Guard officials in London and opened an account for them
with 1.87 million pounds (roughly equal to $3 million), according to
the FBI wiretaps. The money apparently was to finance arms sales.
On Jan. 19, 1981, the last day of the Carter Presidency, Hashemi was
back on one of the bugged phones, describing to a cohort "the banking
arrangements being made to free the American hostages in Iran."
Hashemi was also moving ahead with military shipments to Iran. "How
should we proceed with our friend over there?" the associate asked
Hashemi. "I'm just a little bit nervous that everyone is trying to
move in on the action here."
The hostages were released the next day, immediately after Ronald
Reagan's Inauguration.
BCCI Flies the Concorde
Over the next weeks, unusual deposits continued to flow into Hashemi's
offshore bank, the First Gulf Bank and Trust Company. In early
February 1981, the FBI recorded a call alerting Hashemi that "money
from BCCI [is] to come in tomorrow from London on Concorde."
Within days of the BCCI-Concorde call, the new Justice Department
ordered the wiretaps pulled from Hashemi's office. Though the FBI and
field prosecutors wanted to use the wiretap information immediately to
mount an arms trafficking case against Hashemi, the proposed
indictment languished for more than three years. Even then, in May
1984, when the evidence finally went to a grand jury, the Justice
Department insisted on tipping off Hashemi, allowing him to cancel a
flight from London to New York and avoid arrest.
Less than a year later, in early spring 1985, Israeli arms dealers,
Albert Schwimmer and Ya'acov Nimrodi, arrived at a luxury London hotel
to meet with Cyrus Hashemi, Saudi financier Adnan Khashoggi and an
Iranian intelligence man named Manucher Ghorbanifar. Hashemi was
proposing more weapons sales for Iran.He was working again with John
Shaheen and Bill Casey, who was President Reagan's director of the
CIA.
A year later, still in London, Hashemi fell suddenly ill with what was
diagnosed as acute leukemia. He died on July 21, 1986. But what
Hashemi had started in that London hotel room would become known a few
months after Hashemi's death as the Iran-Contra Affair.
Bob
4c49-a5c6-2...@z18g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
> A clear violation of the Logan Act, and just plain scummy:
>
> =============================
> Obama tried to sway Iraqis on Bush deal-In private conversations on
> troop presence, pitched delay
>
> Washington Times
>
> 10/10/08
> Barbara Slavin
>
> In private conversations on troop presence, candidate pitched delay
>
> EXCLUSIVE:
>
<snip>
I'm new to the group, just what movie are you discussing?
Stone me
"KalElFan" <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote in message
news:6l936jF...@mid.individual.net...
To put it clearer, I was suggesting the Press cannot be relied upon to tell
the truth, the whole truth an nothing but the truth. Such action doesn't
serve
to sell newspapers.
I got the newspaper wrong, that's all.
If it were me, I wish that Mrs.Clinton were to become the next President,
but
that's not because Obama is black, but because I think she represents
something
missing from politics during the last two terms. her husband had to spend
the first
term rescuing the economy, and whoever gets the job will need at least that
to
sweep up after this one.Obama is an unknown.
Stone me.
mike...@gmail.com
He already violated it earlier this year when he attended the
Bilderberg meeting in secret.
Kingo Gondo
"Bob" <B...@bob.bob> wrote in message
news:Xns9B335B543...@216.168.3.70...
The one playing between his ears. He's responding to this line of dialogue:
"You know what I am? I'm your worst fuckin' nightmare, man. I'm a nigger
with a badge which means I got permission to kick your fuckin' ass whenever
I feel like it!"
Stick around, and you'll meet our cabal of angry, scared middle aged (and
older) white guys who never thought it would come to *this*. Besides Joe,
you've got stevie, and Georgie and calvin.
A bunch of charmers they are, really.
Tom Sutpen
> He already violated it earlier this year when he attended the
> Bilderberg meeting in secret.
*****
How do you know that; did Big Jim Tucker whisper it in your ear?
Tom 'Or was it Alex Jones?' Sutpen
tomcervo
A HISTORIC TICKET.... Now that Sarah Palin has been found to have
abused her powers, violated state ethics, and lied about it, I did a
little digging and found an interesting historical footnote.
The McCain/Palin ticket is the first in American history in which both
candidates were found to have violated ethics standards before a
national election.
McCain, of course, was admonished by Senate Ethics Committee "for
exercising 'poor judgment' for intervening" with federal regulators on
behalf of Charles Keating, as part of the infamous Keating Five
scandal.
And now McCain's running mate has also been found to have violated
state ethics laws and abused the powers of her office, as part of the
"Troopergate" scandal.
The nation has had 102 major-party tickets covering 51 presidential
elections over more than two centuries. And we've never had a ticket
in which both candidates on the same ticket were responsible for
ethics violations before a national election. McCain/Palin is the
first.
moviePig
Surprising to realize that "ethics violations" are such a frequent
occurrence that such a statistical artifact is even possible.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
KalElFan
[re chatnoir failing to produce anything demonstrating Reagan had
any problem like Obama does here]
> ... If the allegations are true, the 1980 election would be
Somewhere over the rainbow?
> The argument in October Surprise rests on the confession of Jamshid
> Hashemi, a jet-setting Iranian businessman....
Well that settles it then. LOL.
Have you got anything that might help your pal Obama out on his
scandalous behavior trying to delay the troop pullout from Iraq,
and his related Logan Act exposure? If you can't find any defenses
I'll suggest, as I did on another issue not long ago, getting Bill Curtis
to help. He's not only good at uncovering stuff that's tough to find while
he uses his AT&T Laptop Connect Card there, like Amelia's plane,
the Fountain of Youth, the Abominable Snowman, and the Leprechaun
and pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. He's also quick while he
does all that, faster than Michael Phelps in fact and it's all over in 30
to 60 seconds. Maybe he can help keep Obama's head above water
on this latest trouble he's having.
Curtis's *multi-tasking* abilities are also called for here, because the
Logan Act problem was yesterday morning and then the afternoon it
was failing to disclose $800,000 related to <cough> ACORN </cough>.
See what you can do on that, or Ayers, or Rezko, or Wright, or the
Berg lawsuit on Barack Obama's citizenship, or any of the others and
get back to us in the thread here. Thanks in advance.
KalElFan
> The Consortium
Wow, has there ever been a more awful title of *anything* in the history
of mankind. Anyone feel free to get on topic and come up with something...
movie, TV show, anything. I see "the Consortium" there, and all I have to
do is keep on reading this one more post of chat's. But as I write this I'm
not quite sure I can do it. I have an overwhelming sense of being... well,
underwhelmed. A sleepiness is descending upon me.... zzzzz.... can't
quite make it any further... sorry chat... wait....
> Iranian banker Cyrus Hashemi was a mystery man...
hmmm... where have I heard that Hashemi name before... oh, yeah, the
last chat post... that was it... his brother maybe... zzzz.... it was a
rainy day... sleepy... Snoopy... it was a dark and stormy night... The
Consortium... worst. title. ever. ... zzzz... sorry chat... too sleepy to
keep reading.
Have you asked Bill Curtis for help yet? Maybe AT&T could sponsor
his involvement. Call it "How Bill Curtis Saved Barack Obama And
His Campaign From Crumbling Under The Weight Of Scandal And
Doubt". Pitch it as a 1 1/2 hour special and tack it on to that half
hour Barack is buying up on several networks a few weeks from now.
Curtis won't be able to cover all the Scandal and Doubt in a mere hour
and a half. But the 3 to 1 ratio -- or flipping it like Obama does his
positions, one part Message to three parts Scandal and Doubt --
sounds about right in terms of balance.
tomcervo
> "chatnoir" <wolfbat3...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
Dude, put the pipe down, you're repeating yourself. And try and find
something with a little more validity than the Moonie Times. I know
that some of you think that the world began anew when Reagan was
elected, but those of us sentient in the 70's still recall those
pathetic kids selling flowers at the expressway ramps and airports for
the Rev Moon.
Nowadays their main outward sign of lunacy is Times honcho Wes Pruden,
with his vault full of Confederate bonds, waiting for the South to
resecede.
Tom
>
> yeah and let the white house go to a man who will not answer questions about
> his friends, who says two different things, who is a idiot.
A idiot? Where'd you learn grammar. It's AN idiot and he's clearly not
an idiot. I'd put my CV up against yours any day, and mine is no
comparison to Obama's. Being the editor of the Harvard Law Review is
enough to inform even the dimmest of bulbs that he is a very smart
man.
>
> With Obama, you are buying a pig in a poke. Things will get worse. The
> only question is will you be man enough to admit that it was wrong to elect
> this neophyte to be our beloved leader.
How can things get worse? Aside from nuclear holocaust and the like...
This I gotta hear!
Tom
syvyn11
"Tom" <drs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:469bdfff-96d0-4229...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
This I gotta hear!
Tom
______________________________
double digit inflation?
Double digit unemployment?
terrorist attacks on US Soil and all that beloved leader will do is cry and
send in the FBI?
re-instate the fairness doctirne, thus ending talk radio?
start net neutality, thus ending usenet
the Obama-mania media shedding it's role and becoming nothing more than
cheerleaders and advocates for Obama?
good enough for you?
clouddreamer
Well...Palin does believe in the End of Days.
..
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us.
syvyn11
"clouddreamer" <Clim...@nge.is.real.ca> wrote in message
news:a5-dnSboNdGV_WzV...@supernews.com...
i don't
Tom
> "Tom" <drso...@aol.com> wrote in message
Do you have this this week's powerball numbers?
We're well on our way to double digit inflation and unemployment
thanks to the Bush economic policies. As for the other stuff... it's
nothing more than spectulation without a shred of evidence to back it
up.'
Yawn.
Tom
tomcervo
> How can things get worse? Aside from nuclear holocaust and the like...
>
> This I gotta hear!
>
> Tom
> ______________________________
> double digit inflation?
> Double digit unemployment?
Which we have if you count the real numbers: people who have given up
looking or gone off unemployment.
> terrorist attacks on US Soil and all that beloved leader will do is cry and
> send in the FBI?
Uh, Jack Bauer is a guy on TV. In real life we send the FBI. Tends to
work better than Bush/Cheney "Ready! Fire! Aim?"
> re-instate the fairness doctirne, thus ending talk radio?
> start net neutality, thus ending usenet
Yeah, these are comparable with mass unemployment and terrorist
attacks. I realize that if talk radio ends, you'll be left with only
the voices in your head for company, ditto for usenet. The rest of us
will just talk to the friends we already have.
> the Obama-mania media shedding it's role and becoming nothing more than
> cheerleaders and advocates for Obama?
You don't seem to mind it when they do it for Bush. Face it, most of
them will suck up to whoever's popular and brings them ratings.
> good enough for you?
In other words, you're about to be in opposition,and the thought
terrifies you.
syvyn11
"tomcervo" <tomc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b945c91b-de51-43ff...@t65g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 11, 10:19�pm, "syvyn11" <robhorine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> How can things get worse? Aside from nuclear holocaust and the like...
>
> This I gotta hear!
>
> Tom
> ______________________________
> double digit inflation?
> Double digit unemployment?
Which we have if you count the real numbers: people who have given up
looking or gone off unemployment.
oh, "the real numbers". The numbers the government gives are good enough
for the clinton administration, but now the Bushies are giving us fake
numbers. You libs will say anything.
> terrorist attacks on US Soil and all that beloved leader will do is cry
> and
> send in the FBI?
Uh, Jack Bauer is a guy on TV. In real life we send the FBI. Tends to
work better than Bush/Cheney "Ready! Fire! Aim?"
___________________________________
Our enemies will soo that as weakness. You KILL your enemies, not give
them 'indictments'.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> re-instate the fairness doctirne, thus ending talk radio?
> start net neutality, thus ending usenet
Yeah, these are comparable with mass unemployment and terrorist
attacks. I realize that if talk radio ends, you'll be left with only
the voices in your head for company, ditto for usenet. The rest of us
will just talk to the friends we already have.
______________________________________
First it's our stuff, then it's a medium that you like that's in the
crosshairs of Obama.
What is so hard to understand about "congress shall make no law abridging
freedom of speech and the free exersise thereof"?
__________________________________________
> the Obama-mania media shedding it's role and becoming nothing more than
> cheerleaders and advocates for Obama?
You don't seem to mind it when they do it for Bush. Face it, most of
them will suck up to whoever's popular and brings them ratings.
______________________________________________
They don't. To watch MSNBC it's the Obama Channel. Keith Olbermann
should be the press sec for obama.
_____________________________________________
> good enough for you?
In other words, you're about to be in opposition,and the thought
terrifies you.
_________________________________________________
First my political dissent, then yours will be gone. When they come after
you, who will speak for you.
steve
On 11-Oct-2008, tomcervo <tomc...@aol.com> wrote:
> A HISTORIC TICKET.... Now that Sarah Palin has been found to have
> abused her powers, violated state ethics, and lied about it
Did you actually read the Branchflower report? It's laughable, and without
credibility. That doesnt mean it wont score points with the ignorant or the
faithful opposition, but it is of no substance just the same. Google it up
and read it.
> McCain, of course, was admonished by Senate Ethics Committee "for
> exercising 'poor judgment' for intervening" with federal regulators on
> behalf of Charles Keating, as part of the infamous Keating Five
> scandal.
Another laughably weak case. But proof that in washington it's the
accusation that counts, and not the veracity of the claim.
steve
--
We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We
laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate
and bid the geldings to be fruitful. - C.S. Lewis
David Oberman
>> Double digit unemployment?
>
>Which we have if you count the real numbers: people who have given up
>looking or gone off unemployment.
A lot of people do give up looking, but I think fewer are going off
unemployment (while still unemployed) because benefits have been
extended -- in California, for example, up to a year. I haven't,
however, looked up #s.
Dano
> On 11-Oct-2008, tomcervo <tomc...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> A HISTORIC TICKET.... Now that Sarah Palin has been found to have
>> abused her powers, violated state ethics, and lied about it
>
> Did you actually read the Branchflower report? It's laughable, and
> without credibility. That doesnt mean it wont score points with the
> ignorant or the faithful opposition, but it is of no substance just
> the same. Google it up and read it.
>
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jOTk11gvqDAgD0cY3i4WjI_2YOxwD93O2H2G0
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Sarah Palin unlawfully abused her power as governor
by trying to have her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper, the
chief investigator of an Alaska legislative panel concluded Friday. The
politically charged inquiry imperiled her reputation as a reformer on John
McCain's Republican ticket.
Investigator Stephen Branchflower, in a report to a bipartisan panel that
looked into the matter, found Palin in violation of a state ethics law that
prohibits public officials from using their office for personal gain.
The inquiry looked into her dismissal of Public Safety Commissioner Walter
Monegan, who said he lost his job because he resisted pressure to fire a
state trooper involved in a bitter divorce and custody battle with the
governor's sister. Palin says Monegan was fired as part of a legitimate
budget dispute.
Monegan's firing was lawful, the report found, but Palin let the family
grudge influence her decision-making — even if it was not the sole reason
Monegan was dismissed.
http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2201443
Friday night saw the demise of Sarah Palin's dreaded "Troopergate," scandal
with the release of a lengthy legislative report finding that the Governor
had "abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110 (a) of the
Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. The ethics rule provides that "each
public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a
personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of
that trust." The report concluded that "(Palin) knowingly, as the term is
defined in the above cited statutes, permitted Todd Palin to use the
governor's office and the resources of the governor's office, including
state employees, to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an
effort to find some way to get trooper (Mike) Wooten fired." (Wooten was
Palin's brother-in law, embroiled in a nasty split with her sister). But the
report goes on to conclude that Palin's dismissal of Alaska's public safety
commissioner, Walt Monegan, "was a proper and lawful exercise of her
constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch
department heads."
Ultimately, Monegan served at Palin's pleasure. If she could fire him for
refusing to wear a light-up reindeer tie, she could fire him for almost
anything. Thus the Troopergate report giveth, and the Troopergate report
taketh away: Palin broke the state ethics laws but ultimately committed no
crime. The state legislature might still vote to sanction her but it's
unlikely to happen and cannot happen before the election. And if all that
sounds familiar it's because it echoes Attorney General Michael Mukasey,
who—in declining to prosecute Justice Department officials who broke the
civil service laws by hiring based on partisan criteria — announced in
August that "not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a
crime." Sometimes the embarrassment is punishment enough.
<end c&p>
Now...she may not be impeached...or punished any further...but after this
bi-partisan (10 Republicans and 4 Democrats) panel dressed her down, anyone
who wants this woman and her husband anywhere close to the highest office in
the land is seriously deranged.
steve
On 12-Oct-2008, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Now...she may not be impeached...or punished any further...but after this
> bi-partisan (10 Republicans and 4 Democrats) panel dressed her down,
> anyone
> who wants this woman and her husband anywhere close to the highest office
> in
> the land is seriously deranged.
What is seriosuly deranged is reading the report and concluding that the
finding of abuse of power is in any way reasonable and credible. This is
the political equivalant of the childhood homework excuse "my dog ate it".
Palin had good reason to sack Monegan, and it is an exercise in pure
speculation to conclude that she canned him over the trooper incident.
Even if one actually accepts the paper thin finding of abuse (and I cant see
good reason why anyone should), it is so minimal that it should hardly be a
cause for alarm. This is clearly a political attack, bi-partisanship not
withstanding (and you should know how politicians twist arms and call in
favors). In the legal sense, I suspect this is over. But it will, to some
extent and whenever expedient for Palin's opponents, serve it's political
purpose.
Dano
> On 12-Oct-2008, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Now...she may not be impeached...or punished any further...but after
>> this bi-partisan (10 Republicans and 4 Democrats) panel dressed her
>> down, anyone
>> who wants this woman and her husband anywhere close to the highest
>> office in
>> the land is seriously deranged.
>
> What is seriosuly deranged is reading the report and concluding that
> the finding of abuse of power is in any way reasonable and credible.
> This is the political equivalant of the childhood homework excuse "my
> dog ate it". Palin had good reason to sack Monegan, and it is an
> exercise in pure speculation to conclude that she canned him over the
> trooper incident.
>
> Even if one actually accepts the paper thin finding of abuse (and I
> cant see good reason why anyone should), it is so minimal that it
> should hardly be a cause for alarm. This is clearly a political
> attack, bi-partisanship not withstanding (and you should know how
> politicians twist arms and call in favors). In the legal sense, I
> suspect this is over. But it will, to some extent and whenever
> expedient for Palin's opponents, serve it's political purpose.
>
Twist arms? Call in favors? The Republicans have a very distinct majority
in that body. You think don't think it takes a lot of political courage
and will to go against this popular Republican (in her state...they tell
us)...one who is this close to the vice presidency...but at the very least
has raised her national profile to a great extent? You have a lot of
trouble with rational thought.
steve
On 13-Oct-2008, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Twist arms? Call in favors? The Republicans have a very distinct
> majority
> in that body. You think don't think it takes a lot of political courage
> and will to go against this popular Republican (in her state...they tell
> us)...one who is this close to the vice presidency...but at the very least
>
> has raised her national profile to a great extent? You have a lot of
> trouble with rational thought.
The reports conclusions dont reconcile or are out of proportion with the
stated facts. That suggests that the motivation must be political. Logical
enough?
Jim Beaver
"steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote in message
news:HTHIk.5533$YS4....@newsfe06.iad...
>
> On 12-Oct-2008, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Now...she may not be impeached...or punished any further...but after this
>> bi-partisan (10 Republicans and 4 Democrats) panel dressed her down,
>> anyone
>> who wants this woman and her husband anywhere close to the highest office
>> in
>> the land is seriously deranged.
>
> What is seriosuly deranged is reading the report and concluding that the
> finding of abuse of power is in any way reasonable and credible.
Would I be out of line to suggest one way you might read the report and
conclude that the finding is reasonable and credible? Just go through and
substitute Barack Obama or Joe Biden wherever you find Sarah Palin, and I
bet it gets real reasonable and credible to you.
This is clearly a political attack, bi-partisanship not
> withstanding (and you should know how politicians twist arms and call in
> favors). In the legal sense, I suspect this is over. But it will, to
> some
> extent and whenever expedient for Palin's opponents, serve it's political
> purpose.
This was under way long before Palin was a blip on the national radar, so it
clearly wasn't intended as a roadblock on her path to the Jr. White House.
And the overwhelming majority of her own party who instigated this
"bi-partisan" "political attack" suggests that it was neither bi-partisan
nor political, at least not in the manner you mean. Her own party thought
she'd overstepped legal bounds and decided she'd probably done so badly
enough to warrant their investigation of their own state party leader. How
that's bi-partisan in a "the Democrats are really behind it" manner such as
I think you intend is beyond me.
Jim Beaver
steve
On 13-Oct-2008, "Jim Beaver" <jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
> Would I be out of line to suggest one way you might read the report and
> conclude that the finding is reasonable and credible? Just go through and
>
> substitute Barack Obama or Joe Biden wherever you find Sarah Palin, and I
> bet it gets real reasonable and credible to you.
Hi Jim. Funny you should mention that, because earlier today I was thinking
to myself that if this was a report on a hated opponent (like BO) Id be
sorely disappointed that nothing was discovered. Truly.
> This is clearly a political attack, bi-partisanship not
> > withstanding (and you should know how politicians twist arms and call in
> > favors). In the legal sense, I suspect this is over. But it will, to
> > some
> > extent and whenever expedient for Palin's opponents, serve it's
> > political
> > purpose.
>
> This was under way long before Palin was a blip on the national radar, so
> it
> clearly wasn't intended as a roadblock on her path to the Jr. White House.
Yes and no. It was underway, but there was little indication that it was
yet politicized. In other words, some feathers were ruffled (and that was
Palins MO) and some complaints were made. Common and no big deal. Once he
nomination came about, interest and pace were both increased.
And, I might add, if an ethics investigation went forward against a dem that
was run by a repub (a supported of the oppostion candidate, no less) who
made comments about an "october surprise" and the like, the national press
would have been investigating the investigators...with good reason (not that
they usually act on good reason).
> And the overwhelming majority of her own party who instigated this
> "bi-partisan" "political attack" suggests that it was neither bi-partisan
> nor political, at least not in the manner you mean. Her own party thought
>
> she'd overstepped legal bounds and decided she'd probably done so badly
> enough to warrant their investigation of their own state party leader.
> How
> that's bi-partisan in a "the Democrats are really behind it" manner such
> as
> I think you intend is beyond me.
What I dont understand is how you guys can read that report and conclude
that anything of substance is even at issue. Her family wanted the trooper
fired because he was apparently reckless and potentially (or actually)
violent. They lodged complaints like anyone might, and Palin showed
reasonable restraint, IMO, in staying out of the matter officially. The guy
she fired had been clearly insubordinate to the point where a canning was
appropriate. It's not relevant even if she was also personally annoyed with
him because he didnt fire the trooper, or even if she was glad to fire him
because of it. Since she had both cause and the power to fire the guy,
there is no basis to conclude that she acted inappropriately, but only a
temptation to speculate that it was so. And because of the (weak) nature of
the report and the attending circumstances, I can only conclude that it is
politically motivated. No other conclusion makes sense.
Jim Beaver
To you.
I haven't been following this very closely, but my understanding is that the
firing is not where the ethics violation occurred. Yet most of the defense
of Palin I've read seems to base itself on "she was completely within her
rights to fire him." Even the commission didn't end up disputing that.
Jim Beaver
Dano
She had her husband call the guy to pressure him to fire the guy. Come on.
Who can think that's appropriate in any way? The "First Dude" had no
standing, and no business involving himself.
felonio...@aol.com
tomcervo
> A clear violation of the Logan Act, and just plain scummy:
>
>
> Obama tried to sway Iraqis on Bush deal-In private conversations on
> troop presence, pitched delay
>
> Washington Times
>
> 10/10/08
> Barbara Slavin
>
> In private conversations on troop presence, candidate pitched delay
>
> EXCLUSIVE:
>
> elusive agreement to keep the U.S. military in Iraq, Democratic
> presidential candidate Barack Obama tried to convince Iraqi leaders in
> private conversations that the president shouldn't be allowed to enact
> the deal without congressional approval.
>
> Mr. Obama's conversations with the Iraqi leaders, confirmed to The
> Washington Times by his campaign aides, began just two weeks after he
> clinched the Democratic presidential nomination in Ju
> ne and stirred controversy over the appropriateness of a White House
> candidate's contacts with foreign governments while the sitting
> president is conducting a war.
>
> Some of the specifics of the conversations remain the subject of
> dispute. Iraqi leaders purported to The Times that Mr. Obama urged
> Baghdad to delay an agreement with Mr. Bush until next year when a new
> president will be in office - a charge the Democratic campaign denies.
>
> Mr. Obama spoke June 16 to Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari when he was
> in Washington, according to both the Iraqi Embassy in Washington and
> the Obama campaign. Both said the conversation was at Mr. Zebari's
> request and took place on the phone because Mr. Obama was traveling.
>
> However, the two sides differ over what Mr. Obama said.
>
> "In the conversation, the senator urged Iraq to delay the [memorandum
> of understanding] between Iraq and the United States until the new
> administration was in place," said Samir Sumaidaie, Iraq's ambassador
> to the United States.
>
> He said Mr. Zebari replied that any such agreement would not bind a
> new administration. "The new administration will have a free hand to
> opt out," he said the foreign minister told Mr. Obama.
>
> =============
>
> Logan Act:
>
> § 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
>
> Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without
> authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or
> carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign
> government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence
> the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or
> agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the
> United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall
> be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or
> both.
>
> 1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004
(Oh, by the way? You're full of shit.)
Obama did not ask to delay security agreement, Iraqi FM says
Posted: 06:19 PM ET
The Iraqi foreign minister weighed in Sunday on a stateside campaign
trail controversy.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama
did not urge Iraqi officials to delay a decision on a security
agreement with the United States, Iraq's foreign minister told CNN on
Sunday.
The statement by Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari refutes a
recent published report and a statement by Republican vice
presidential candidate Sarah Palin that Obama tried to influence Iraqi
politicians negotiating with the United States to score political
points.
Fact Check: What did Obama tell the Iraqis?
Obama "never, ever discouraged us not to sign the agreement," Zebari
said. "I think this was misrepresented, and I have clarified this case
in a number of interviews back in the United States recently."
The Washington Times reported Friday that in June, Obama told Iraqi
leaders in Baghdad that an agreement between the United States and the
leaders to allow U.S. troops to stay in the country after 2008 should
not go into effect unless it had congressional approval.
The newspaper quoted Samir Sumaidaie, the Iraqi ambassador to the
United States, about a June 16 telephone conversation between Zebari
and Obama.
But the article did not contain a comment from Zebari.
The campaign of Obama's Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, argued
that Obama's call interfered with U.S. efforts to reach a "status of
forces agreement" with the Iraqi government. The United States and
Iraq have yet to announce an agreement despite numerous reports that
one was near.
During a Friday fund-raiser in Madeira, Ohio, Palin said Obama tried
to influence the negotiations "in a way that would set back America's
cause there, while advancing his campaign here."
(But you know what liars those Iraqis are.)
Jim Beaver
<felonio...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5c221514-2a08-430b...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Yeah, I'm always scared shitless when my guy is 10 points ahead three weeks
out.
Jim Beaver
William December Starr
st...@steve.com said:
> What is seriosuly deranged is reading the report and concluding that
> the finding of abuse of power is in any way reasonable and credible.
> This is the political equivalant of the childhood homework excuse
> "my dog ate it". Palin had good reason to sack Monegan, and it is
> an exercise in pure speculation to conclude that she canned him over
> the trooper incident.
>
> Even if one actually accepts the paper thin finding of abuse (and I
> cant see good reason why anyone should), it is so minimal that it
> should hardly be a cause for alarm. This is clearly a political
> attack, bi-partisanship not withstanding (and you should know how
> politicians twist arms and call in favors). In the legal sense, I
> suspect this is over. But it will, to some extent and whenever
> expedient for Palin's opponents, serve it's political purpose.
You're pretty long-winded there. Adam Savage put it a lot more
succinctly on Mythbusters: "I reject your reality and substitute
my own!"
-- wds
steve
On 13-Oct-2008, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> I can only conclude that
> >> it is politically motivated. No other conclusion makes sense.
> >
> > To you.
> >
> > I haven't been following this very closely, but my understanding is
> > that the firing is not where the ethics violation occurred. Yet most
> > of the defense of Palin I've read seems to base itself on "she was
> > completely within her rights to fire him." Even the commission
> > didn't end up disputing that.
> She had her husband call the guy to pressure him to fire the guy. Come
> on.
> Who can think that's appropriate in any way? The "First Dude" had no
> standing, and no business involving himself.
There is a hint of a problem there, but there was no evidence (or even the
accusation, as far as I could see) that Palin used her office to threaten or
intimidate. She was, in my estimation, perfectly within the limits of her
power to quietly express an opinion on the matter to her subordinates. Plus
her husband had good reason and the same rights as any other citizen to
complain about the trooper. Given that a family member was supposedly
assaulted (a kid, no less) TFD had both standing and business (but no
authority) to involve himself. Palin was in a difficult position, and it
appears, even from the report, she handled it with proper restraint rather
than with an abuse of power.
And the report does conclude that it was the firing, because it was
ostensibly influenced by the trooper incident, that constituted the abuse of
power. That is what I characterize as a speculative leap.
Kris Baker
"Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gd0pu4$i1l$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> Jim Beaver wrote:
>>
>> I haven't been following this very closely, but my understanding is
>> that the firing is not where the ethics violation occurred. Yet most
>> of the defense of Palin I've read seems to base itself on "she was
>> completely within her rights to fire him." Even the commission
>> didn't end up disputing that.
>
> She had her husband call the guy to pressure him to fire the guy. Come
> on. Who can think that's appropriate in any way? The "First Dude" had no
> standing, and no business involving himself.
Hell, he sat in the governor's office and called meetings on it!
"Reasonable" non-amateur "executives" think before donig
stupid stuff like that.
Kris
>