A must read! Includes several articles on CICBush43 from conservatives outlining failures with basic trust, Homeland Security and elsewhere. Good job, Bruce!
David Bier --- In osint@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Tefft" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49012 > > Dubai funds Neil Bush's company > Posted: February 27, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern C 2006 WorldNetDaily.com > > Investors from the United Arab Emirates helped fund the $23 million > Neil Bush raised for Ignite!, the learning systems company that holds > lucrative No Child Left Behind Act contracts in Florida and Texas. The > "Cow" is an Ignite! portable computer designed to work in a classroom, > providing interactive instruction aimed at improving students' scores > on standardized tests. If you loved Billy Carter and "Billy Beer," > you're certain to love Neil Bush and the "Ignite! Cow." > > Neil Bush's frequent travels to Dubai are documented by Datamax, a > Dubai-based information technology company that has featured Neil Bush > as a speaker. The Datamax website features several prominent > photographs of Neil Bush addressing a Dubai conference, identifying > Neil Bush as "the brother of U.S. President George Bush." > > Dubai's Datamax appears to be bipartisan, as the company's website > also shows Dubai appearances of various Democratic Party luminaries > including Al Gore (with and without a beard), Sandy Beger - the > National Security Adviser under President Clinton who achieved fame by > stuffing classified documents in his socks - and Howard Dean, the > current Democratic National Committee chairman. The site also shows > photographs of Tipper Gore and John Sununu receiving "Token of > Appreciation" awards in Dubai from Datamax. Anti-Bush Internet > websites have been touting the Neil Bush connection with Dubai for > months, although the story has been largely shut out of the mainstream > media. > > Many times over, Neil Bush has won the distinction of being the "black > sheep" of the Bush family. In 1988, Neil Bush was a director of the > failed Silverado Savings and Loan, which collapsed in a scandal that > ultimately cost taxpayers an estimated $1 billion. For his role in the > savings and loan debacle, Neil Bush was personally fined and > permanently banned from any further activities in banking. In a messy > divorce ending a 23-year marriage with Sharon Bush, the mother of his > children, Neil Bush gave a deposition in which he admitted multiple > sex romps with Oriental prostitutes during his many "business trips" > to Asia. > > Reports also document Neil Bush traveling around the ex-Soviet Union > to raise money for Ignite! with the notorious Boris Berezovsky, a > Russian wheeler-dealer who has sought asylum in London to avoid > Russian authorities who want to prosecute him for fraud. Bush has also > turned up in the Philippines and Taiwan at the side of the Rev. Sun > Myung Moon, the head of the controversial Unification Church. State > Department and White House spokespersons often disavow any comment > when pressed to respond to reports of Neil Bush's business activities. > In a separate business venture involving semiconductors, Neil Bush > took investment money from Jiang Mianheng, the son of former Chinese > President Jiang Zemin. > > Neil Bush is hardly the first to trade on the name of his president > brother. We all remember Donald Nixon, who took a $200,000 > never-repaid loan from Howard Hughes to establish a failed chain of > hamburger joints, known as "Nixonburgers." Then, there was Billy > Carter who took $200,000 from Muammar Gadhafi to lobby Jimmy Carter to > release embargoed C-130 airplanes to Libya. Also, Roger Clinton, who > spent a year in prison for dealing cocaine, surfaced in "Pardongate" > by arguing as Clinton left the White House to get pardons for a > rogue's gallery of his clients, including Rosario Gambino, a jailed > New Jersey restaurant owner with ties to organized crime. > > As investigative reporters start digging to "follow the money" in what > is becoming known as the "Dubai Debacle," Neil Bush is certain to find > center stage once again in what well could be also dubbed the coming > "Neil-gate" controversy. > > Jerome R. Corsi received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in political > science in 1972 and has written many books and articles. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49019 > > Embarrassing questions for Bush > Posted: February 27, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern C 2006 WorldNetDaily.com > By Rachel Ehrenfeld & Alyssa Lappen > > Something strange is going on in our nation's capital. The lack of > transparency with which the U.S. administration has handled the ports > sale to Dubai Ports World is just the latest in a series of troubling > incidents in which the administration tried to force its will on the > public, policy and lawmakers. > > In the second week of February, several government agencies - handling > national security issues - began a massive campaign to disrupt and > discredit a major counter-intelligence conference whose participants > and speakers included former and current top U.S. and foreign > government, security, defense and intelligence officials and experts. > > The Feb. 17, 2006 conference in Arlington, Va., was organized by the > Intelligence Summit, a young, private, nonprofit and non-partisan > organization, headed by former U.S. prosecutor John Loftus. Since its > planning began a year in advance, the conference attracted hundreds of > government officials, security analysts, intelligence, > counter-terrorism officers and corporate executives to speak and > attend hundreds of sessions over three days. > > Ten days before the conference was scheduled to begin, the organizers > announced that tapes of Saddam Hussein's cabinet meetings discussing > Iraq's WMD and nuclear weapons would be released at the conference. > Immediately thereafter, the listed participants begin to receive > telephone calls, e-mails, faxes and even telegrams from anonymous > "friends" in several U.S. government agencies, strongly advising them > against attending. > > At first, the reason for these warnings was the backing from the > "suspicious" industrial magnate and Israeli philanthropist, Michael > Cheney. The messages alleged that this Russian emigre to Israel had > ties to the "Russian Mafiya." These allegations, already disproved and > dismissed, were now recycled by government agents in an apparent > attempt to discredit the conference. And even if they were not, this > one source of funding (there were many others) did not justify such a > well-orchestrated effort, in which many government officials used > their time and offices to intimidate the people registered to attend > and speak at this meeting. Moreover, this funding source had nothing > to do with the extraordinary collection of new information and > insightful presentations that the conference offered. > > Considering the timing of this substantial effort, the real reason for > this intimidation campaign seemed to be the new information in 12 > hours of recorded discussions from Saddam Hussein's cabinet meetings > between 1992 - 2000 about concealing Iraq's WMD weapons programs from > U.N. inspectors. In the tapes - revealed and translated by former U.N. > weapons inspector Bill Tierney - Saddam also talks about the > possibility of targeting the United States. In addition, the tapes > revealed that Iraq had a uranium enrichment plan "using a technique > known as plasma separation" in 2000, and that the U.N. weapons > inspectors knew nothing about it. Some of these tapes were aired by > ABC News' "Nightline," on Feb. 15, 2006, before the Intelligence > Summit began. > > The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Pete Hoekstra, > R-Mich., confirmed two days before the conference began that the tapes > were authentic. Yet, the intimidating e-mails and telephone calls from > government officials to conference participants only intensified. This > is puzzling especially since the tapes confirm the early statements of > the administration regarding Iraq's possession of WMD. > > However, these new tapes would have forced the intelligence community > to admit that they misled President George W. Bush to state that Iraq > had no WMD. Such admission, apparently, was something the intelligence > community wanted to avoid by attempting to discredit this conference. > > Many Washington veterans commented that they have never before > witnessed such a blatant and concerted effort to discredit and silence > a private conference - in particular, one focused on advancing U.S. > national security. > > At the time when the U.S. administration advocates democracy and free > speech for the rest of the world, this gauche attempt to silence the > truth and defuse embarrassing questions is disturbing. > > Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is the author of "Funding Evil; How Terrorism is > Financed - and How to Stop It," the director of American Center for > Democracy and a member of the Committee on the Present Danger. Alyssa > A. Lappen is a fellow at the American Center for Democracy. > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49018 > > It's all about the trust, Stupid > Posted: February 27, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern C 2006 WorldNetDaily.com > > Few commentators have hit on the real reason why the public - and a > rather impressive bipartisan political coalition - almost instantly > congealed to protest President Bush's politically tone-deaf decision > to allow the United Arab Emirates-owned Dubai Port World to operate > major American port facilities: It's less about trusting the UAE, and > more about trusting Bush about trusting the UAE. > > This isn't just semantics. Clearly, this administration has burned all > its bridges and then some when it comes to convincing Americans that > it is trustworthy. Where to begin? Almost half the public was > initially convinced that Bush stole the 2000 election. But even > putting this admittedly partisan issue aside, one can still point to > the questionable rationale for invading Iraq, Saddam Hussein's > vanished stockpiles of WMDs, the absolutely incompetent administration > of the post-war aftermath, or the hopelessly muddled response to > Hurricane Katrina (which continues to the present hour.) > > So when Bush stood up on the ports issue and essentially said, "Trust > me" - the UAE has been our reliable ally in the War on Terror, or that > the UAE's government is different now than in the bad old days, or > that we shouldn't worry because port security will remain in American > hands - no one believes him. Many Americans couldn't find the UAE on a > map, and so must rely on their president to exert leadership, backed > by the full expertise of the federal government, to advise them and > build support for potentially controversial decisions. That is the > essence of presidential leadership. > > But this president, like a shop-a-holic given a charge card, has blown > through his credit limit and now that he might wish to use his card > for some important purpose, discovers that it's being declined > everywhere. In sum, his word is no good. > > Maybe if a Reagan, an Eisenhower, a Kennedy or a Truman tried to make > the case in wartime for dealing with a country that many Americans > today associate with "the enemy," the people might've taken a chance, > given the president the benefit of the doubt - in short, trusted him. > But this president, who first threatened to veto any measures Congress > might pass to cancel the deal, then admitted the very next day that he > was as surprised as anybody else to discover the very existence of the > deal, inspires no confidence. > > Bush's squandering of the trust element is everything. Given his inept > conviction about WMDs (and remember, even after none were found, he > still gave the departing CIA director a Presidential Medal of > Freedom!), and the tragic consequences still unfolding from this > administration's myopic post-war planning in Iraq, why should any > American trust him when he declares that the United Arab Emirates are > in fact our staunch allies, good friends and committed to reform? > > Admittedly, there are politics aplenty intersecting with this issue. > Democrats, who have long sought a way to undermine the > Republicanization of national security are now able to claim that it > is little more than a dollar-driven fraud - as I wrote last week, many > Americans now believe that the Republicans' real motto is, "Salute the > flag, cash the check." Meanwhile, some Repubilcans, lusting for a way > to put some distance between themselves and this very unpopular > administration, are using the ports deal to do just that. > > But the truth is that whatever the politicians' true motives may be, > they wouldn't get to first base without massive, spontaneous public > support. And the way it looks now, these politicians are rounding > third base. > > This lack of trust in Bush - and not racism or so-called Islamophobia > - is what's really driving opposition to the deal. While there are > surely some morons who oppose the ports deal because the buyers happen > to be from a Muslim country, responsible Democrats or Republicans do > not number among them. The Bush administration has spilled lots of ink > frightening Americans. And not without some cause, Americans believed > him. Like every other wartime president throughout our history, Bush > was given leeway to define and characterize the enemy. And one of the > contributing factors that he placed as a centerpiece of his > characterization was the relationship between jihadism and the > existence of undemocratic, corrupt regimes that repressed their people > and indulged intolerant mutations of Islam. It was always understood > by many Americans that among those regimes were several unnamed > Persian Gulf kingdoms. > > Now, Bush comes before the people and asks them to trust him - that > Dubai is different than say, the Wahabbis of Saudi Arabia, the > Iranians, or the Syrians, or the host of jihadis from "friendly" > countries Egypt, Jordan or Pakistan. > > Trust President Bush? Sure thing. > > Ellen Ratner is the White House correspondent and bureau chief for the > Talk Radio News service. She is also Washington bureau chief and > political editor for Talkers Magazine. In addition, Ratner is a news > analyst at the Fox News Channel. > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48984 > > Is Bush worse than Clinton? > Posted: February 27, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern C 2006 WorldNetDaily.com > > It's hard to imagine. > > It's difficult to come to grips with the possibility. > > It's not even an idea with which I like to wrestle. > > But the time has come to consider the notion. > > In his new book, "Impostor: How George Bush Bankrupted America and > Betrayed the Reagan Legacy," conservative economist Bruce Bartlett, a > member of the Reagan and first Bush administrations, takes a hard and > sobering look at the presidency of George W. Bush. > > He concludes that at least on matters of spending and budget, Bill > Clinton was better than our current president. > > This is not a conclusion likely to be embraced by many of Bartlett's > conservative colleagues. As a "non-conservative," let me take a > dispassionate view of the charge. > > Frankly, though I agree with some of the observations and conclusions > of "Impostor," I don't like the way the hypothesis is framed. > > To propose that Clinton is or was, in any way, "better" than any other > president is anathema to me. > > Clinton is and was a crook - a charlatan, a rogue, a traitor to his > country, virtually without redeeming qualities. > > As a victim of his reign of terror in the White House, I cannot look > at his administration with any degree of nostalgia. > > While Bush sold us out on border security and port security, Clinton > did the same. The borders were, if anything, less secure under > Clinton, and he sold out control of U.S. ports to the Chinese > government for campaign cash. > > While Bush has done too little, too late to make our nation secure > after Sept. 11, Clinton did everything in his power to make our > country vulnerable to the inevitable attacks of that day. > > While Bush seems to have no understanding of the way a > constitutionally limited federal government is supposed to operate > with restraint, Clinton attempted to rewrite the Constitution with a > series of presidential decision directives and executive orders that > came close to setting himself up as a dictator of sorts. > > But, there is one area in which Bush is clearly worse than Clinton. > And that is, as Bartlett affirms, the matter of fiscal policy. > > It is undeniable that Bush has, to date, refused to veto a single > piece of legislation passed by Congress. He has spent far more than > the previous administration and it is not, as his defenders would > suggest, just because of national security concerns. > > When you take the new Homeland Security behemoth out of the budget, > when you take increased defense spending out of the budget, Bush still > outspends Clinton significantly. > > This is an ominous and indefensible fact. > > Bush is bankrupting the country. We cannot forever sustain the > reckless deficit spending he has approved. It is not only disastrous > from a practical point of view, it is morally wrong. Our children and > grandchildren will pay a price for it if this generation does not. > > So, my only argument with Bruce Bartlett on this point is one of > semantics. I would not say that Clinton is in any way "better" than > George W. Bush or any other president. Clinton was, in every way, a > terrible failure, a disgrace to our nation, a human plague that > infected the White House for eight years. > > But, there is no question, when you look at the cold, hard facts of > the budgets approved by the two presidents, that Bush is "worse" than > Clinton in that one area. > > There are many reasons for this. We can find many rationalizations for > it. We can make excuses for Bush if we like. For instance, Clinton was > forced to deal with a Republican Congress for much of his tenure in > office. Republicans showed some political restraint during the Clinton > years. Unfortunately, they have displayed no fiscal restraint > whatsoever during the Bush years. > > Republicans in Congress may have had their arms twisted by the White > House during the Bush years. They may have believed they were doing > their president a favor by giving him what he wanted. > > However, the result is that after all is said and done, the Bush > administration will have a more disgraceful fiscal record than the > previous administration. There's just no other conclusion to draw. > > Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally > syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49016 > > The new guest workers > Posted: February 27, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern C 2006 WorldNetDaily.com > > Editor's note: Michael Ackley's columns may include satire and parody > based on current events, and thus mix fact with fiction. He assumes > informed readers will be able to tell which is which. > > "In conclusion," said the president, "we have to recognize that our > economy could not function if it were not for those people from other > lands who will take the jobs no American will take, who will do the > hard work no American is willing to do. > > "Now, I'll be happy to take a few questions." > > A voice called from the midst of the audience: "Do you mean jobs like > the stoop labor of the fields, the back-breaking work of bringing in > our crops despite heat or cold, the mind-numbing work of picking peas > or strawberries or peaches or grapes for 12 or 14 hours a day? > > "Or do you mean those dangerous, low-paying jobs in mills and > industrial plants, where a moment's inattention could cost you a > finger, an arm, a leg - or your life?" > > "No," replied the chief executive. "I mean the job of running our > seaports." > > Once again, you readers proved yourselves smarter than yours truly, > coming up with some presidential "nominations" we had not considered. > However, there was one serious omission, which may say as much about > that "candidate's" chances as anything. Not one writer suggested Sen. > Bill Frist of Tennessee. At any rate, here are some of the suggestions > we received: > > * Gil Fremont suggests Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina. Fremont > says he "keeps his promises, doesn't seem to care about popularity, in > spite of needing it for elections. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem > interested in national politics." We'd be surprised if that last > sentence were true. > > * Condoleezza Rice got votes from Robert E. Bunn and Sam Richmond, > despite her professed lack of interest in running. > > * Kim Segar suggests Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo. He's the guy the Left > characterizes as "anti-immigrant" because he actually wants to do > something to curb the influx of illegal immigrants. > > * How could we have omitted Massachusetts Gov. Mit Romney? Barbara > Roberts says he has "the leadership and business skills that are > sorely needed." > > * We never considered Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio's secretary of state. > Jim Haboustak did. He declares, "He has national name recognition from > the 2004 election, and he is as untouchable as Eliot Ness was. Voters > seem to have a predilection for state governors to ascend to the U.S. > presidency. If Mr. Blackwell is elected governor of Ohio in 2006, he > may well have a chance for a presidential nomination in 2008." > > * While we're on the subject of border security, consider Charlie > Link's perception that our list lacked "any conservatives (except the > disinterested Dr. Rice.)" He writes that none of our suggestions > "could win the Republican nomination, as a result of the perceived > liberal sellout by President George W. Bush of conservative values - > most notably free speech (McCain-Feingold) and his patent > unwillingness to secure the borders." Link likes Virginia Sen. George > Allen, who "has experience as both a senator in leadership roles ..." > and "fared best at the recent conservative meeting (CPAC) in Washington." > > * A writer who asks for anonymity recalls a President Richard Nixon > event in 1970, where the governor of California "gave a little warm-up > speech." "It was the most amazing speech I had ever heard," the writer > recalls. "First of all, it was perfectly delivered. Clear, complete > sentences. Great examples that even I could relate to. A little > self-deprecating humor ... And from that moment on, I voted for Ronald > Reagan every chance I got." > > All of this leads up to the writer's nomination of former House > Speaker Newt Gingrich. None of the other candidates approaches > Gingrich's class as a public speaker, he writes, adding, "Of course, > he's too nasal and high pitched. Television is not his friend," but > "he speaks in complete sentences, gives great examples, has actual > ideas derived from actual facts, and (most important of all) a > thought-through philosophy in which he truly believes. I want odds, > but he's my bet." > > * Finally, we had one nomination for Joseph Farah as a guy who "can > sure straight talk. America needs someone like him. Tell all the > others to take a hike." > > Now there's an interesting thought: WND publisher Farah is a > tech-savvy, Christian Arab American who has proved he can > simultaneously raise a family, run a business, prepare for a radio > program and write a daily column. The presidency should be a piece of > cake. > > Michael P. Ackley has worked more than three decades as a journalist, > the majority of that time at the Sacramento Union. > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
