I posted the following, back on April 19. It seems to me that, unlike back when there was only the WMD deception for the illegal invasion/occupation of Iraq, Tom Delay's Texas indictment, runaway federal budget deficits, tax cuts aimed to almost solely benefit the rich, the leaking of Plame's name for political revenge, the collapse of FEMA amid the disclosures that it was mismanaged by incompetent political hacks, the indictment of Scooter Libby, Bush's campaign to privatize SSI, officially sanctioned CIA & DOD secret prisons and abuse and torture of detainees, and even the NSA's illegal wiretapping, the "liberal" press had "a handle" on reporting those stories.
Bush supporters, republican party platform or policies supporters, and some other conservatives who posted here, seemed able to defend, minimize, explain away, or blame the liberal press in reaction to most or all of the above. Those who were critical could be branded as unAmerican...unpatriotic in a "time of war"...guilty of failing to "support our troops"!!!
Folks who never voted for the "candidates" responsible for those other scandals, were accused of being wrong for merely critically discussing those controversies and condemning those practices, and those who promoted them.
My concern now is that, with the advent of the guilty pleas of Randy "Duke" Cunningham, and Jack Abramoff, the "balance" here has changed. The "defenders" post less and less, even as the scandals grow more alarming, more intertwined; larger in scale, in the cost to our government and in it's very ability to function. Now, whole government agencies seem destroyed. FEMA has been described by senators as irretrievably "broken". The CIA, punching bag and scapegoat for all that went wrong with WMD "intelligence", even though the VP had to visit their HQ ten times, and the CIA feat of "turning" Saddam's foreign minister had to be ignored before the CIA, in the administration's eyes, "got it right", is also broken.
Blaming the CIA was not enough. Porter Goss was sent there to chase out the entire covert section, and demand partisan loyalty as a prerequisite for continued employment of the rest of the agency personnel. Even the CIA Inspector General, John Helgersonin one of Porter Goss's last destructive edicts, was <a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/24/news/cia.php">forced to take a polygraph</a>, the agency "watchdog", appointed by the POTUs, and only removed by him, was marginalized because he was supposed to investigate the CIA, not to submit to it!
Goss appointed a new executive director of operations, the #3 position, "Dusty" Foggo, in Nov., 2004, and the now "too complicated" scandals of Cunningham, Wade, Wilkes, and Abramoff, Delay, Buckham, merged.
Can the "liberal" press even cover these intricacies, let along convince any of Bush's remaining 31 percent "base" to reverse course and vote for a democratic party congressional candidate in November? Is there any other way to <b>realistically</b> trigger actual congressional investigations and oversight, as soon as next January, without voting in a house or senate democratic majority? is the press even liberal? Are they covering the third Cunningham briber, Thomas Kontogiannis, even now? Check the <a href="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=Thomas+Kontogiannis&btnG=Search+News">google news link</a>....they aren't!
Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...is#post2048118
Here is the background on this story. I've highlighted the name of the Russian who Curt Weldon praised in the Congressional Record. Consider that Ed Buckham was Tom Delay's chief of staff, and that he is represented as Delay's Pastpr and his spiritual advisor. Buckham founded a lobbying firm, Alexander Strategies Group (ASG), that paid Delay's wife $3200 per month, to "work" a "no show" job. ASG received $500000 in lobbying fees from Randy Cunningham briber, Brett Wilkes.....
.....Republican Rep. Randy Cunningham pled guilty to corruption charges five months ago. Would a liberal press take this long to report the following, sparse coverage about two of the four conspirators who Cunningham admitted accepting bribes from? (New York businessman Thomas
Kontogiannis; and John T. Michael, Kontogiannis' nephew)
Again....if you've read similar reports of Weldon's 1999 Congressional Record entry, or about Karen Weldon suddenly starting a lobbying firm with no prior experience or international connections, or a followup report about Thomas Kontogiannis, before today, from a MSM press source, please post a link. The Curt Weldon/Able Danger reports, and the Cunningham corruption scandal were widely reported. A liberal press would dispatch armies of reporters to dig deeper, in order to report more "dirt", ASAP, but that is not what has happened.
Consider what is new "news" to you, in this post. After Bob Ney was accused by the DOJ of placing statements in the Congressional Record in exchange for trips and other "perks" from Jack Abramoff, wouldn't a "liberal" press, provide more followup coverage than reports from a sole outlet, the Washington Post? Wouldn't "the Post", and other liberal major media outlets comb the Congressional Record, looking for similar, odd entries, by other congressmen, linked to Abramoff or Delay associates? Why would a liberal press, leave it to me, to share Curt Weldon's apparent complicity with Abramoff, Delay, and Buckham, with you?
|
....and here's the problem...even for a "liberal" biased, anti-Bush, anti-republican press cadre, there's greed, treason, conspiracy, and racketeering, but there are too many players, and it's too effing complicated:
Yesterday, in Post #11 in the <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=104278">"Why did Goss Resign?"</a> thread, I mentioned Jerry Lewis, before posting an article about Rick Gwin:
Now, there's this in today's news:
Quote:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000609.php#more
Are Feds to Blame for Duke's Silence?
By Paul Kiel - May 11, 2006, 1:25 PM
Below, Justin noted the mixed signals coming from Rick Gwin, the Pentagon's top investigator into the Duke Cunningham case, about Duke's level of cooperation. I called legal experts and asked -- if Cunningham isn't talking to investigators, as Gwin claims, why not?
If Duke's staying silent, it's because prosecutors have already forfeited their only leverage to get him to talk, the experts said. In fact, they've given him incentive to hush up....
|
Quote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines
Lewis Surfaces in Probe of Cunningham
By Peter Pae, Times Staff Writer
May 11, 2006
Federal prosecutors have begun an investigation into Rep. Jerry Lewis, the Californian who chairs the powerful House Appropriations Committee, government officials and others said, signaling the spread of a San Diego corruption probe.
The U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles has issued subpoenas in an investigation into the relationship between Lewis (R-Redlands) and a Washington lobbyist linked to disgraced former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Rancho Santa Fe), three people familiar with the investigation said.....
....Lewis said Wednesday that he was not aware of any investigation, had not been contacted by any investigator and did not know why he would be investigated.
<b>"For goodness sake, why would they be doing that?" Lewis asked.</b>
|
and, if this is true, isn't it treason?:
Quote:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...-home-business
Cozying Up to Power
Brent Wilkes' businesses grew along with his political ties. He is 'co-conspirator No. 1' in the Cunningham case, his lawyer says. He has not been charged.
By Peter Pae and Dan Morain, Times Staff Writers
May 8, 2006
POWAY, Calif. — Brent R. Wilkes was a small defense contractor who looked for powerful friends in high places.....
.......Over the next four years, Cunningham secured through legislation $80 million in digital document work, and Wilkes' firm was always a beneficiary. But Wilkes wanted more.
The Pentagon was slow to pay Wilkes because Army officials in the field preferred Audre's rival system, according to an inspector general's report. So in July 1999, co-conspirator No. 1 faxed Cunningham "talking points" on how to bully a Pentagon manager into releasing more government funds. These documents were included in Cunningham's sentencing hearing.
The memo instructed the lawmaker to demand that the Defense Department official shift money from another program to cover funds designated for ADCS. "We need $10 m[illion] more immediately," Cunningham was to tell the official.
If the official didn't cooperate, Cunningham was to say his next calls would be to two high-ranking Pentagon officials. The script called for Cunningham to add: "This is very important and if you cannot resolve this others will be calling also" — two names in this passage are blacked out in the memo. Despite Cunningham's threats, the Pentagon manager was unmoved, according to grand jury testimony.
A week later, Cunningham and Lewis called a Washington news conference to announce that they had slashed $2 billion in funding for the F-22 Raptor fighter jet, one of the Pentagon's prized programs, citing cost overruns. Both congressmen had been key supporters of the project, and their comments shocked Pentagon officials.
Within days, the same Pentagon manager who had been resistant to Cunningham's appeals sent the congressman a list of other programs where money could be "reallocated" to Wilkes' firm, according to court documents. "The Defense Department spends $1 billion a day, so the [Wilkes] contract was like a rounding error. It just wasn't worth putting our big programs at risk," a senior Pentagon official said on condition he not be identified.
On Friday, Lewis said "there was no connection whatsoever" between his position on the F-22 program and Cunningham's effort to pressure the Pentagon on Wilkes' behalf. "If I knew about it, I would have stopped it," Lewis said.
The Pentagon agreed to send $5 million more to Wilkes' firm, according to court documents. The F-22 funds were later restored. In subsequent years, Cunningham and Lewis supported full funding for the warplane.
In May 2000, a month after his firm received the $5 million, Wilkes wrote two checks to Cunningham for a total of $100,000. These payments were used as evidence in the bribery case...
|
Mods, I had to leave out descriptions of how Wilkes, Foggo, Goss, Abramoff, Delay, Buckham, and even Delay's wife are all interrelated in this "mess". Even with self imposed brevity, small posted news article excerpts, I fear that this thread will be locked for having a"too wordy, link rich" OP. Bear in mind that I don't make this stuff up. Please allow this thread to proceed.
Is the liberal press covering this in any way that is an example that they are "liberal" ceasing any opportunity to smear non-liberals? Will anyone who still supports Bush or congressional republicans be influenced to vote against them? Where will all of this lead?