Please donate to send Cynthia McKinney back to Congress!

[mouse7]

Two years ago, Rep. Cynthia McKinney asked the question, "What did the Bush Administration know, and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th?" Immediately, conservatives started a firestorm over this simple question, challenging everything from her patriotism to her sanity, simply because she dared to ask the question. Conservatives dumped over a million dollars into the primary for this house seat to support a protege of Zell Miller, Denise Majette.

Two years later, it's obvious to all who look that Cynthia McKinney was absolutely right in challenging the President on what prior knowledge the President had regarding the events of September 11th, and all the critics who massed against her were wrong.

That wasn't the only thing Cynthia McKinney was right about long before it was conventional wisdom. Cynthia McKinney authored legislation to deny a tax break to companies who move their plants overseas. Cynthia McKinney was fighting job out-sourcing long before it was considered "cool" to do so.

And Zell Miller? He just endorsed President Bush in the 2004 election. How can we let a man who refuses to support the Democratic Party's nominee for President be allowed to handpick Democratic candidates in other races?

Now more than ever, we need Cynthia McKinney's voice back in the halls of Congress. I know a lot of people have been digging deep into their pocket to support the Party's efforts to capture the White House. The country needs you to dig a little deeper into your pockets. It's critical that we reverse the wrong done here in the 2002. Cynthia McKinney is a hero for standing up the the Bush Administration when nobody else would and demanding full disclosure and accountability on 9/11. We don't get a chance to send real patriots to Washington very often. Please dig a little deeper into your pockets and help send a great American back to Capitol Hill.

Thanks for your consideration.

http://cynthiaforcongress.com/donations.html

[Foswia]

1. Amm. Didn't you miss something.

At least tell everyone what Denise "Majette" (not Magette) has done that is so wrong? Oh and please don’t rely on guilt by association. When you campaign against your fellow democrat, please do so on the issues and not the Zell-menace.

[mouse7]

2. Here's an editorial from blackcommentator.com

"....The unfinished business in DeKalb County is a national Black concern. Although many on the Left see only the progressive vs. corporate front aspect of last year's McKinney-Majette race, the assault on McKinney was actually a concerted Right effort to prove that the Black Consensus has collapsed, shattered by fundamental class and attitudinal differences among African Americans. Corporate media described the race as a contest between the civil rights-oriented Old School, and an "independent minded," "more conservative" Black youth and middle class. Racists came out of their closets long before the votes were cast, celebrating the dawning of a new era in which race relations were finally freed from the shackles of Black bloc voting. Every major corporate electronic and print media organ in the nation took a keen interest in the outcome, and cheered when Majette won by a 16 percent margin...."

"...There was a problem with the new paradigm, however: it wasn't true. It immediately became apparent that McKinney had, indeed, been the overwhelming Black choice, while whites and Republicans expressed themselves through Majette. National media found it convenient to walk away packing their pre-election propaganda, never bothering to note, post-election, that Blacks had rallied to McKinney as if she were the only African American in the race. They voted in a near bloc, treating Majette as the surrogate white candidate. At least 90 percent of the white electorate also voted as a bloc, for Majette. An unknown number of Republican crossovers gave the election the numerical character of a landslide, but there was no doubt that this was a white racial victory...."
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Bogus Election 'Study': Black Majette vote grossly inflated, BC analysis reveals"


'There is no emerging cohort of black, centrist leaning voters. The figures are public, a link to the precinct-by-precinct stats is provided at the end of this analysis and we challenge the Drs. Bullock and Boone, at the University of Georgia and Clark Atlanta, along with their colleagues in the press, to show otherwise. It's an urban myth, concocted and spread by the AJC, the Washington Post, Fox News, NPR and other news and opinion outlets. Neither McKinney nor Majette constructed a "biracial coalition" for this election. Four-fifths of the black vote went to McKinney and 90-95% of the white vote to Majette. Whites turned out in bigger numbers, and their candidate won ....
We at The Black Commentator searched the election returns in vain for signs of the "18,000 black voters who made up one-fourth of Majette's total," as proclaimed by Ben Smith and David Milliron in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on October 14. Their conclusions depend upon the votes of people that never were; black and white ghosts, inhabiting "predominantly black voting precincts" that must be invented to accommodate a fictional political class of conservative black voters. For perhaps the first time in history, a significant white southern institution has resorted to, in effect, padding the black voter rolls!'

The crime has come back to haunt the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. In reporting that McKinney's people were filing papers for a return match, the AJC was compelled to share the results of a study by University of Georgia professor Charles Bullock, one of the paper's regular quote men. During the campaign and its immediate aftermath, Bullock had given credibility to the Majette "biracial coalition" myth. Later, however, he conducted his own study, and found that Majette had garnered only 17 percent of the Black vote - entirely consistent with BC's analysis, which had bent over backwards to give Majette the benefit of the doubt whenever questions of voters' race arose...."

http://www.blackcommentator.com/46/46_commentary.html

It also goes without saying how wrong Majette was in her condemnations of McKinney's statements on 9/11 accountablity. McKinney was one of the very few who stood up for 9/11 accountability, a position McKinney is now shown to be heroic on in the aftermath of the testimony of Richard Clarke to the 9/11 commission.

[Bombtrack]

14. Blackcommentator isn't an objective source

It's an extrememly narrow-minded, hostile, borderline fringe web-rag who demonizes who they don't like. Does anyone remember what they did to Clark?

[IndianaGreen]

3. The pig Zell Miller gave money to Majette's campaign in 2002

The DLCers and other deniers of Bush's LIHOP of 9/11 went on a frenzy because McKinney had dared to suggest the very things that you guys are praising Dick Clarke for today.

I don't know why an outspoken African-American woman is less credible than a white dude, but that's essentially what happened in 2002.

I won't go into AIPAC's shameful role in the smearing of McKinney for that would take an entire thread in its own right.

[Freddie Stubbs]

4. Zell Miller also supported Max Cleland

Did Cleleand get what he deserved? I don't think so.

[IndianaGreen]

7. Zell Miller is the leader of Democrats for Bush

What a role model!

Is the DNC going to allow Zell to keep his superdelegate credentials for the Democratic Convention? Or is loyalty something that is only demanded from the Left?

BTW, have you heard what Zell has been saying about Cleland lately?

Zell is not a very nice man!

[CatWoman]

11. Zell Miller is the last person I'd want in my corner

the traitorious pig bastard.

[mobuto]

44. Zell Miller was in Bill Clinton's corner

Zell Miller used to be a great guy. Used to be.

[CatWoman]

47. I know. I remember.

When he was governor, he was one of Clinton's fiercest allies.

Zell lost it when he was appointed to fulfill Paul Coverdell's term.

[Hippo_Tron]

13. Did he actively campaign for Cleland?

If so, my respect for him just went up slightly.

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. He certainly did

"I have seen first-hand and up close what this unique individual means to this state and this nation. He is absolutely indispensable…It would be the height of folly not to return him (to the Senate) for another six years. No one should take his place and no one should think about taking his place."

-- U.S. Senator Zell Miller in Macon, 8/23/02


October 13, 2002
Statement by Senator Zell Miller Re: Latest Attack Ad against Senator Max Cleland

"I've been around a while; I've seen a lot of political attacks. I thought I'd seen everything. But I was wrong. I hadn't seen the worst politics had to offer. On the very night Senator Max Cleland voted to give the Commander in Chief authority to act against Iraq and Saddam Hussein, the Senator's opponent took to the airwaves with an ugly advertisement linking Senator Cleland to Hussein and our arch-enemy, Osama Bin Laden.

"I am offended by this ad. I am offended by its pictures. And I am offended by its message. It is wrong, terribly wrong.

"Max Cleland is a courageous man who has given his own blood and so much more fighting for the right of all of us to live in freedom.

"My friend Max deserves better than to be slandered like this. Georgia deserves better. America deserves better."

http://web.archive.org/web/20021020070052/www.maxcleland2002.com/

[Leilani]

27. It's good to know

Old Zell was right about something.

[mobuto]

43. He certainly was

Zell Miller also campaigned heavily for Bill Clinton, and praised John Kerry as recently as two years ago.

But Miller's brain has gone soft, in recent years. A Miller endorsement used to be a good thing - he used to be a progressive.

[Hav]

51. .

What the fuck went wrong with Miller???

[Foswia]

22. He was the one who got Carvile and Begala w/ Clinton! [nt]

[OKNancy]

31. I'm sure Zell is heart-broken then

Majette voted the exact same way as Maxine Waters and Barbara Lee, that is 100% Democratic.
http://www.adaction.org/2003housevr.htm

[mouse7]

32. Majette is running for Zell's US Senate seat in Primary

Majette is vacating the GA 4th CD seat to run for the Senate.

[arewethereyet]

5. no

McKinney disgraced her constituants. Majette has not.

[mouse7]

6. Disgraceful asking Bush what he knew before 9/11, huh?

We need more of our elected representives to "disgrace" their constituents with calls for openness and accountability in government.

[arewethereyet]

8. no

try everything else

[mouse7]

9. Authoring bill repealing tax break to companies out-sourcing disgraceful?

Yeah. Being one of the first fighting out-sourcing was disgraceful, too.

[CatWoman]

12. as one of her former constituents

I'd like for you to enlightmen me????!!??

[arewethereyet]

15. perhaps you should direct that to the majority who rejected her

[ulysses]

16. you made the statement. you back it up.

It still amuses me no end when folks who don't live here presume to speak for those of us who do.

[arewethereyet]

17. my brother has been regaling me with her exploits for years

http://www.blackpressusa.com/Op-Ed/Speaker.asp?NewsID=2525

there is no end of bad press availab eto cover this but when her own race cronicles her failures...

[Foswia]

21. Thanks. i didn't have time to find it [nt]

[CatWoman]

36. "her own race chronicles her failures"

:wtf:

I don't know where to begin with that.

so Blacks who don't agree with other blacks should not, as you say, chronicle it? :+

or are Blacks only supposed to chronicle white failures? :silly:

Black failures are more credible when chronicled by blacks? :wow:

help me out here.

I'm really trying to understand that preposterious statement. :eyes:

I'll see your chronicle, and raise you

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16172

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=232&row=0

Do I get extra credit for using white sources?

[Forkboy]

39. I got my popcorn ready

Whether I eat it or throw it depends on the answer you recieve :)

[CatWoman]

40. Hey Baby!!!!

wiseass!!!!

:hi:

:loveya:

[ulysses]

63. zing!

Do I get extra credit for using white sources?

:D :D :D

[genius]

20. The majority of Democrats voted for her. It was an open primary

The Republicans raided it because they were so afraid of her. The opposition to her was from Zell Miller and the Republicans. Zell Miller endorsed her opponent and he also endorsed Bush.

[arewethereyet]

24. but they all represent her constituancy don't they ?

I would ask is it a question of fear or exasperation ?

[CatWoman]

35. why am i bothering answering this non question

yeah, those upstanding republicans banded together to do the right thing -- out of exasperation.

sure.

right.

[mouse7]

28. The Republicans who voted in the Democratic Primary, you mean

Democrats should be selecting the Democratic Party nominee. Not Republicans. Not AIPAC.

[bitchkitty]

66. How so?

What are you referring to?

[mouse7]

10. Started an online support group for national supporters of campaign

It's an online group for McKinney supporters outside the GA 4th.

Link...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/McKinneyForCongressNationalSupportGroup/

[genius]

18. We need her. I'm not in her district but I'll send a donation.

We have to keep the Republicans from sabotaging her race again.

[mouse7]

60. Thank you!

We need our brave voices on Capitol Hill!

[fujiyama]

23. No thank you...

Basically she blamed her deafeat on Indians and Jews. Plus, I do take issue with some of the groups she has raised money from. I'll give her credit for questioning the administration's 9/11 story, but I think there are others that can do that.

[Classical_Liberal]

95. Document her blaming "the Jews" please!

?

[corporatewhore]

25. I want her to run for president next !!! we should all send her flowers

for her great courage and abilityto tell it like it is!!

[Leilani]

26. I don't know as much as people who were in Georgia

& correct me if I'm wrong, but I read quite a few articles that said McKinney was accused of being anti-semetic. And because of that, money had flowed in from all over the country, representing Jewish voters who had targeted her for defeat.

Is this true?

[mouse7]

29. No, AIPAC targeted McKinney and another Rep from Alabama

McKinney was in line to be senior Dem on the sub-committee that makes the foreign aid budget decisions. AIPAC targeted both members of the Congressional Black Caucus on that sub-committee to ensure that Israeli foreign aid is never scrutinized.

[KoKo]

30. The Repugs never "weeded out" their vocals like DeLay, Gingrich, etc..but

Democrats are always very willing to censure those who are vocal on the left. Meanwhile that POS Zell Miller can run around organizing Dems for Bush and not a word is said. No one threatens to throw him out of the Party or makes a ruckus about it. We just sit passive watching as Cynthia is declared not "politically savy enough to run."

So, what about Ginrich, DeLay, Nicols, Hatch, Lott, and the rest of the Crew of Loudmouths, Foul Mouths and their hangers on like Coulter, Lucienne,Jonah and the rest?

hmmm?? Seems the Repugs have been sucessfully with these folks while we are urged to go the "Daschle Way." And, what has that gotten us?

[mobuto]

33. Never

McKinney and her father embarass the Democratic Party.

I'd rather not.

[mouse7]

34. Just what does a person's father have to do with it?

McKinney's father is not running. McKinney is.

[mobuto]

37. Nothing

McKinney is an embarassment in her own right.

[mouse7]

41. White House Accountability for 9/11 is an "embarrassment?"

McKinney only said what Clarke just said last week, only she had the courage to say it 2 years earlier, when nobody else dared speak the truth.

It was heroic.

[mobuto]

42. No she didn't

She implied that Bush staged the attacks because people close to him were in a position to profit from increased defense spending afterwards. That's insane. That was insane then, and its insane now.

[CatWoman]

46. ....

http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=16172

[mobuto]

48. Uh, according to a written statement

released by Cynthia McKinney's office on April 11, 2002, after she was pressed on earlier claims:

"I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case," she said "(W)hat is undeniable is that corporations close to the administration have directly benefited from the increased defense spending arising from the aftermath of Sept. 11. The Carlyle Group, DynCorp, and Halliburton certainly stand out as companies close to this administration."

First she denies implying that Bush staged 9/11 for personal profit, then she goes back and says it again. Her position is clear.

[mouse7]

50. Yes... a position that calls for accountability and transparancy

Wow.... McKinney calling for accountability and transparacy in government. How embarrassing!

[CatWoman]

52. Mouse, you're killing me

:D

[mobuto]

54. Nobody has a problem with accountability and trasparency

or rather, I don't. The Bush Administration does.

My problem is that she implies the Bush Administration set up 9/11 for personal financial profit. Its clear she did so, and she said the same thing on numerous occaisions. I can't support that claim, I'm embarassed by that claim, and I think it is sufficiently outrageous to have cost her her Congressional seat. If all she had done was to call for a transparent 9/11 investigation she would still be in Congress.

[Classical_Liberal]

99. deleted by author

delected by author.

[mouse7]

56. Apparently, you can't click link on #46, so I'll put it the text on thread

The Screwing of Cynthia McKinney
Greg Palast, AlterNet
June 13, 2003
Viewed on March 29, 2004

Have you heard about Cynthia McKinney, former U.S. Congresswoman?

According to those quoted on National Public Radio, McKinney’s “a loose cannon” (media expert) who “the people of Atlanta are embarrassed and disgusted” (politician) by, and she is also “loony” and “dangerous” (senator from her own party).

Yow! And why is McKinney dangerous/loony/disgusting? According to NPR, “McKinney implied that the Administration knew in advance about September 11 and deliberately held back the information.”

The New York Times’ Lynette Clemetson revealed her comments went even further over the edge: “Ms. McKinney suggest that President Bush might have known about the September 11 attacks but did nothing so his supporters could make money in a war.”

That’s loony, all right. As an editor of the highly respected Atlanta Journal Constitution told NPR, McKinney’s “practically accused the President of murder!”

Problem is, McKinney never said it.

That’s right. The “quote” from McKinney is a complete fabrication. A whopper, a fabulous fib, a fake, a flim-flam. Just freakin’ made up.

-----------

Hi, Lynette. My name is Greg Palast, and I wanted to follow up on a story of yours. It says, let’s see, after the opening -- it’s about Cynthia McKinney -- it’s dated Washington byline August 21. “McKinney’s capitalized on the furor caused by Miss McKinney’s suggestion this year that President Bush might have known about the September 11 attacks but did nothing so his supporters could make money in a war.” Now, I have been trying my darndest to find this phrase . . . I can’t. . .


Lynette Clemetson, New York Times: Did you search the Atlanta Journal Constitution?


Yes, but I haven’t been able to find that statement.


I’ve heard that statement--it was all over the place.


I know it was all over the place, except no one can find it and that’s why I’m concerned. Now did you see the statement in the Atlanta Journal Constitution?


Yeah....





And did you confirm this with McKinney?


Well, I worked with her office. The statement is from the floor of the House .... Right?


So did you check the statement from the Floor of the House?


I mean I wouldn’t have done the story. . . . Have you looked at House transcripts?


Yes. Did you check that?


Of course.


You did check it?





I think you have to go back to the House transcripts.... I mean it was all over the place at the time.

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

Yes, this is one fact the Times reporter didn’t fake: The McKinney “quote” was, indeed, all over the place: in the Washington Post, National Public Radio, and needless to say, all the other metropolitan dailies--everywhere but in Congresswoman McKinney’s mouth.


Nor was it in the Congressional Record, nor in any recorded talk, nor on her Website, nor in any of her radio talks. Here’s the Congresswoman’s statement from the record:


“George Bush had no prior knowledge of the plan to attack the World Trade Center on September 11.”


Oh.


And I should say former Congresswoman McKinney.


She was beaten in the August 2002 Democratic primary. More precisely, she was beaten to death, politically, by the fabricated quote...."

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

"...At BBC Television, we had Florida’s computer files and documents, marked “confidential” -- stone-cold evidence showing how the vote fix was deliberately crafted by Republican officials. Not a single major U.S. paper asked for the documents – not from the state of Florida nor from the BBC. Only one U.S. Congressperson asked for the evidence and made it public: Cynthia McKinney of Atlanta.


That was her mistake.


The company that came up with the faux felon list that determined the presidency: a Republican-tied database company named “ChoicePoint,” one of the richest, most powerful companies in Atlanta.

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

Did I mention to you that (ex-)Congresswoman McKinney is black? And not just any kind of black. She’s the uppity kind of black.


What I mean by uppity is this:


After George Bush Senior left the White House, he became an advisor and lobbyist for a Canadian gold-mining company, Barrick Gold. Hey, a guy’s got to work. But there were a couple of questions about Barrick, to say the least. For example, was Barrick’s Congo gold mine funding both sides of a civil war and perpetuating that bloody conflict? Only one Congressperson demanded hearings on the matter.


You’ve guessed: Cynthia McKinney.


That was covered in the . . . well, it wasn’t covered at all in the U.S. press.


McKinney contacted me at the BBC. She asked if I’d heard of Barrick. Indeed, I had. Top human rights investigators had evidence that a mine that Barrick bought in 1999 had, in clearing their Tanzanian properties three years earlier, bulldozed mine shafts . . . burying about 50 miners alive.


I certainly knew Barrick: They’d sued the Guardian for daring to run a story I’d written about the allegations of the killings. Barrick never sued an American paper for daring to run the story, because no American paper dared.


The primary source for my story, an internationally famous lawyer named Tundu Lissu, was charged by the Tanzanian police with sedition, and arrested, for calling for an investigation. McKinney has been trying to save his life with an international campaign aimed at Barrick.


That was another of her mistakes.

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

The New York Times wrote about McKinney that Atlanta’s “prominent Black leaders -- including Julian Bond, the chairman of the NAACP and former Mayor Maynard Jackson -- who had supported Ms. McKinney in the past -- distanced themselves from her this time.”


Really? Atlanta has four internationally recognized black leaders. Martin Luther King III did not abandon McKinney. I checked with him. Nor did Julian Bond (the Times ran a rare retraction on their website at Bond’s request). But that left Atlanta’s two other notables: Vernon Jordan and Andrew Young. Here, the Times had it right; no question that these two black faces of the Atlanta Establishment let McKinney twist slowly in the wind -- because, the Times implied, of her alleged looniness.


But maybe there was another reason Young and Jordan let McKinney swing. Remember Barrick? George Bush’s former gold-mining company, the target of McKinney’s investigations? Did I mention to you that Andy Young and Vernon Jordan are both on Barrick’s payroll? Well, I just did.


Did the Times mention it? I guess that wasn’t fit to print.

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

I suppose it’s my fault, McKinney’s electronic lynching. Unlike other politicians, McKinney, who’s earning her doctorate at Princeton School of Diplomacy, enjoys doing her own research, not relying on staff memos. She’s long been a reader of my reports from Britain, including transcripts of BBC Television investigations. On November 6, 2001, BBC Newsnight ran this report with a follow-up story in the Guardian the next day:



Wednesday, November 7, 2001

Probes Before 11 September


Officials Told to 'Back Off' on Saudis Before September 11.


FBI and military intelligence officials in Washington say they were prevented for political reasons from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden family in the US before the terrorist attacks of September 11. US intelligence agencies have come under criticism for their wholesale failure to predict the catastrophe at the World Trade Centre. But some are complaining that their hands were tied.


FBI documents shown on BBC Newsnight last night and obtained by the Guardian show that they had earlier sought to investigate two of Osama bin Laden's relatives in Washington and a Muslim organisation, with which they were linked.


And so on. There was not one word in there that Bush knew about the September 11 attacks in advance. It was about a horrific intelligence failure. This was the result, FBI and CIA/DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) insiders told us at BBC, of a block placed on investigations of Saudi Arabian financing of terror. We even showed on-screen a copy of a top-secret document passed to us by disgruntled FBI agents, directing that the agency would not investigate a “suspected terrorist organization” headed in the US by a member of the bin Laden family. The FBI knew about these guys before September 11 (with their office down the street from the hijackers’ address).


The CIA also knew about a meeting in Paris, prior to September 11, involving a Saudi prince, arms dealers, and al Qaeda. Although the information was in hand, the investigation was stymied by Bush’s intelligence chiefs. This is what McKinney wanted investigated.


Why were the Saudis, the bin Ladens (except Osama), and this organization (the World Assembly of Muslim Youth) off the investigation list prior to September 11, despite evidence that they were reasonable targets for inquiry? The BBC thought it worth asking; the Guardian thought it worth asking -- and so did Congresswoman McKinney. Why no pre-September 11 investigations of these characters?


And what was the reason for the block? According to the experts we broadcast on British television, it was the Bush Administration’s fanatic desire to protect their relations with Saudi Arabia -- a deadly policy prejudice which, according to the respected Center for Public Integrity of Washington, DC, seems influenced by the Bush family ties, and Republican donors’ ties, to Saudi royalty. McKinney, a member of the House Foreign Relations Committee, thought the BBC/Guardian/Observer investigation worth a follow-up Congressional review.


According to NPR, her “loony” statement was made on the radio news show Counterspin. (Not incidentally, Counterspin is produced by an NPR competitor, the nonprofit Pacifica Radio Network.) I have the transcript; it’s on the web. Her charge that Bush knew about the September 11 attacks in advance and deliberately covered it up can’t be found.


What can be read is her call for a follow-up on the revelations from the BBC and USA Today on the information about a growing terror threat ignored by Bush . . . and whether the policy response -- war, war, war -- was protecting America or simply enriching Bush’s big arms industry donors and business partners. Fair questions. But asking them is dangerous . . . to one’s political career.

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

The BBC report which got McKinney in hot water mentioned the Bush Administration’s reluctance to investigate associates of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), which the FBI secret document termed “a suspected terrorist organization.” They may be. They may not be. McKinney’s question was only, Why no investigation?


Just after McKinney’s defeat, the courier of Osama bin Laden's latest alleged taped threat against the United States was busted in Africa: He was on the staff of WAMY. Shortly thereafter, Prince Abdullah, the Saudi dictator, invited WAMY leaders to his palace and told them, “There is no extremism in the defending of the faith.”


So if you listen to U.S. radio and read U.S. papers, you are told this: Abdullah’s protector and godfather, George W. Bush, is sane and patriotic, and McKinney, who wants to investigate these guys, is a loony and a traitor. Got it?

http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=16172

The TRUTH shall set you free, mobuto, at least free of GOP spin.

[mobuto]

59. Thanks, however

the position I referred to is clearly hers. When asked to clarify, her office issued a statement reiterating it. McKinney suggested that the attacks were staged for the personal profit of people close to Bush. Later she backtracked and said that was only a possibility, but the message was clear. And that message was clearly wrong and embarassing.

[mouse7]

61. Palast disproved that! Read the freakin article!

You refuse to read the text of the article. YOU ARE WRONG and Greg Palast proved it.

[rinsd]

71. Not really.....

Palast proved the original meme(McKinney says Bush staged 9/11) wasn't true(that she also stated such on the floor of Congress). But that didn't stop McKinney from making a more nuanced attack which basically says the same thing. From mobuto's post.

"I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case," she said "(W)hat is undeniable is that corporations close to the administration have directly benefited from the increased defense spending arising from the aftermath of Sept. 11. The Carlyle Group, DynCorp, and Halliburton certainly stand out as companies close to this administration."

Which I think he got from here:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/04.13A.Extend.Probe.htm

It also appears that the quote arose from an interview on a Berkley radio station; http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12868

This is similar to Kerry's claim about foreign leaders which was actually was "more" leaders but Kerry ran with it because it seemed beneficial at the time.

[mouse7]

72. Palast disproved that. Read the freakin' article.

You clearly have not read the text of the article. Palast covers all of that. I wouldn't be saying it this often, this strenuously if he hadn't.

I know what the article says. You clearly don't, otherwise you would know that Palast covered the non-existent Counterspin (from Berkeley's Pacifica affiliate) quote in his article.

[rinsd]

74. Palast covers what?

"I know what the article says. You clearly don't, otherwise you would know that Palast covered the non-existent Counterspin (from Berkeley's Pacifica affiliate) quote in his article."

I merely made mention where the quote supposedly originated so we didn't do the dance about whether it was part of her congressional record.

Here's Palast:

"According to NPR, her “loony” statement was made on the radio news show Counterspin. (Not incidentally, Counterspin is produced by an NPR competitor, the nonprofit Pacifica Radio Network.) I have the transcript; it’s on the web. Her charge that Bush knew about the September 11 attacks in advance and deliberately covered it up can’t be found."

I went to Counterspin's archives and didn't see McKinney's name listed. Here's the funny thing....I went to google and hit "mckinney transcript counterspin". I basically got a million copies of Palast's article then I finally hit paydirt. A site mentioned another site had done a transcript. It turns out the show was actually Flashpoints and not CounterSpin. Here it is:

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020426Utwater6.html

The likely remarks in question:

"But instead of requesting that Congress investigate what went wrong and why, we had president Bush (painful for me to say that, but) we had president Bush placing a call to Majority Leader Senator Tom Daschle asking him NOT to investigate the events of September 11, And then, hot on the heels of the president's phone call was another phone call from the vice president asking that Tom Daschle also not investigate the events that lead to September 11. My question is, What do they have to hide? And why is it that the American people are being asked to make tremendous sacrifices now in our civil liberties?"

"And the fact that we got this request for an unprecedented hike in -- the hike alone of 48.1 billion dollars is more than any one of our allies spend total on their defense. And then the other issue that saddens me is the fact that the former President, president Bush's daddy, sits on the board of the Carlyle Group. And so we get this presidency, of questionable legitimacy, requesting a nearly unprecedented amount of money to go into a defense budget for defense spending that will directly benefit his father. Where is the … where are the brakes on transparency and corruption that I see happening as a result of the fact that the president's father stands to make money off of the very requests that the president has made, on what I would call a specious argument saying that we need to increase defense spending because of Sept 11, when we now know that there were enough warnings that we didn't have to even experience September 11 at all; at least that's the way it is now beginning to appear."


The kicker?

Apparently the things relies upon(which supposed independent verification)a transcript wait for it because here it comes:

FREE REPUBLIC!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/665750/posts

That's Palast's big debunking.

[mouse7]

76. That's fine... it shows the "famous" quote doesn't exist

McKinney asked what the White House had to hide regarding September 11th? Why the Patriot Act? Why so much money on defense after September 11th, especially when it looks like we had plenty of warnings to avoid September 11th? Why no transparancy when the President's father stands to benefit from defense budget increases?

Those are all legitimate questions that were asked by Clarke last week.

Asking about transparancy to avoid corruption in the defense procurement process IS NOT claiming the President ordered planes crashed into the WTC.

As for the FlashPoints/Counterspin title "controversy." I heard the McKinney's speech here on KBOO-FM on a syndicated national produced show called CounterSpin after the controversy about the phantom quote erupted. I would assume that the National show picked up the tape from the local show, which was called Flashpoint in the interview. I would assume that Greg Palast heard or got a tape of the same broadcast I did.

[rinsd]

78. Strawman....

"Asking about transparancy to avoid corruption in the defense procurement process IS NOT claiming the President ordered planes crashed into the WTC."

HUH? I don't think I've even seen slobbering RWers make that charge? Are you speaking of their interpretation? It was "What did Bush know and when did he know it" schtick that I heard about.

[mouse7]

80. No... read post #42 Even Mobuto believes it

That's what this whole "phantom" quote crap is about. Idiots in abundance across the political spectrum claiming McKinney saying Bush made/let 9/11 happen to make money off the aftermath.

Why do you think someone like Greg Palast got involved with this story?

from Crossfire...

"CARLSON: Now Bob Shrum, if you think the Lapierre quote was over the top, then obviously you didn't hear what Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of Georgia said the other day. She essentially went on, and it's a terrifying quote. And I won't read the whole thing, but it basically, she made the point that the administration probably knew about the events of 9/11. We know there were numerous warnings of events to come on September 11.

"What did the administration know and when did it know it about the events of September 11? Who else knew, and why did not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered?" She went on to imply that the administration and its allies got rich from the ensuing war. That's not the amazing thing. Everyone knows that she's a crackpot.

Here's what Dick Gephardt spokesman said. "Mr. Gephardt does not agree with many of the things she said, but she has the right to say them. He's confident all of her questions will be answered by the congressional investigation that will headed by the intelligence committees."

Now my question to you is, what questions do we need answered? That's prima facie outrageous, insane and really slanderous, don't you agree?

SHRUM: Well, let me do something a little different than what Murphy did with that lunatic quote from Wayne Lapierre. I think the Cynthia McKinney quote is lunatic. I think it's completely wrong. I think if she has any questions, she's going to get them all answered. And the answers are all going to be in the negative...."

[rinsd]

82. .....

"Why do you think someone like Greg Palast got involved with this story?"

Palast does good work but the fact is he's a partisan. That's why he got involved.

"That's what this whole "phantom" quote crap is about. Idiots in abundance across the political spectrum claiming McKinney saying Bush made/let 9/11 happen to make money off the aftermath."

Isn't that what she meant? I'm serious. I believe she believes that.

[mouse7]

83. She did not say that. Palast proved it. You know it.

You cut and paste the article yourself and said it was a strawman two posts ago.

READ THE PALAST ARTICLE.

Question 1: Whether the White House is hiding info about screwing up defending the country before 9/11?

Question 2: Why the patroit act?

Qustion 3: IS the President's father going to profit from the defense budget increases pushed through after 9/11?

Three seperate questions. Nowhere in any of them is there the implication that McKinney thinks Bush ordered planes crashed into the WTC.

Now that you played the David Duke card in post #85, I'm discontinuing the conversation.

[rinsd]

84. That wasn't my point....

"You cut and paste the article yourself and said it was a strawman two posts ago."

I know that we've already been past that.

"Nowhere in any of them is there the implication that McKinney thinks Bush ordered planes crashed into the WTC."

I was speculating that McKinney may be a MIHOP believer. Probably the wrong place to do so.

[Classical_Liberal]

100. How is the message clearly wrong in light of Perle, and Cheney's

et. all personally profiting from the war.

[Classical_Liberal]

98. Ok, so what? Are you saying Cheney has nothing to do with Haliburton?

? The Haliburton scandal is pretty big right now. Do you want to squash it. Looks to me like it is just another area where history has proved her completely correct.

[mouse7]

49. And it's a GOP lie!

Read the article Catwoman quoted in #46.

[Classical_Liberal]

97. Ok whatever

I think that is one of the reasons they did it, just aside from oil and neoliberal privatizing of Iraq'a welfare state. I guess if I cricize Halburton, I am not. If I note how many people on the defense policy board work for defense contractors I am a nut. I am kookoo.

[Classical_Liberal]

96. How is she and embarrassment in her own right?

?

[rinsd]

70. Ask Mel Gibson.....(nt)

[MonicaR]

88. And Zell Miller isn't an embarrassment to Georgians?

Give me a break! Go Cynthia!

[VOX]

38. Kick.

:kick:

[Zynx]

45. Majette may have been supported by Miller, but she is quite liberal.

She is more liberal than the rest of the Georgia delegation and votes the precise opposite of the right-wing Georgia Republicans.

[mouse7]

53. Well, Majette's running for US Senate now.

There is no "rematch" between McKinney and Majette. Majette is vacating the seat and seeking the party nomination for US Senate. McKinney will be running to hold the House seat.

[mndemocrat_29]

55. Majette's entry into the race will definitely affect this race

I'm sure that McKinney won't face more than one challenger for the nomination. I'll bet that someone like State Sen. Connie Stokes will run for this open House seat, and it will be a close race.

[ronnykmarshall]

57. $ent!

[mouse7]

58. Thank you so much!

She a real hero, and we appreciate the help!

[RowWellandLive]

62. No thanks!

Maybe she'll have Farrakhan campaign for her again and if she loses her father can blame the J-E-W-S.

[ButterflyBlood]

64. Why is it the only attacks on her are guilt by associate ones?

She never asked for Farrakhan's support, nor did she ever say she agreed with her father.

[RowWellandLive]

65. Did she ask Farrakhan NOT to?

Did she disagree with her father? It's appearant to me and many other J-E-W-S, judging by her lack of Jewish support, that she agrees with her Dear Daddy and Farrakhan.

[ulysses]

68. she's abandoned by her own state party

and she's supposed to tell the guy who does show up to help to fuck off? I'm no fan of Farrahkan, but gee, maybe if Zell hadn't stabbed her in the back, she'd have been able to ask him not to come.

The rest of your post is the usual innuendo and guilt-by-association.

[MonicaR]

90. The Screwing of Cynthia McKinney: A Greg Palast article

I've met Rep McKinney, and I can say she ain't crazy.


http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16172

[mouse7]

69. Does the Washington Post hate Jews, too?

The Washington Post blames J-E-W-S for being key factors in McKinney and Hilliard's defeats in 2002.

"...The McKinney-Majette contest is the second House Democratic primary this year in which an African American incumbent who had taken controversial stands sympathetic to Palestinian and Muslim causes was ousted by a lesser-known black challenger financed heavily by out-of-state Jewish donors and pro-Israel PACs. In Alabama, Rep. Earl F. Hilliard (D) lost to Artur Davis. Davis and Majette raised and spent more than $1 million each, more than McKinney or Hilliard...."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A47064-2002Aug21?language=printer

National Jewish PACS, out of state Jewish donors, and Republicans had more influence in this 2002 Dem primary than the Democrats that lived in the district. Jews living outside the GA 4th need to find another subject than Cynthia McKinney once and for all. The Washington Post made clear McKinney's father was accurate in his statements. Jewish organizations were a massive factor in that 2002 primary. If Jews keep piling on Cynthia McKinney, it's your own fault of you start getting questioned regarding the subject of racial bias against African-Americans. The anti-African-American rhetoric has just gone too damn far.

[rinsd]

73. Blaming Jews and likely not accurate

"National Jewish PACS, out of state Jewish donors, and Republicans had more influence in this 2002 Dem primary than the Democrats that lived in the district."

McKinney raised 73% of her money out of state;

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/geog.asp?CID=N00002511&cycle=2002

Majette raised 61% out of state.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/geog.asp?CID=N00025138&cycle=2002

You are correct that out of staters had far more influence than people actually in the district.

"If Jews keep piling on Cynthia McKinney, it's your own fault of you start getting questioned regarding the subject of racial bias against African-Americans."

I think McKinney's skin color has less to do with Jewish anger at her than her non-support of Israel and support for her from Arab communities. It did not go over too well when she wanted accept money from the Saudi prince that Guilliani rejected because of his anti-semitic remarks.

I haven't been able to find any exit poll data so I can't tell you percentages of registered Republicans for Majette. Though here's an article detailing reasons why McKinney lost and why its wrong to blame "the jews"

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0825-01.htm

Edit: Found this an WaPo article: "The Republican crossover votes appeared to be less than 4 percent of total votes, however, as more than 113,000 voters headed to the polls in the 4th District Tuesday." Even if GOP crossovers were double that and they all voted for Majette, McKinney would still lose if they were thrown out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A43977-2002Aug21¬Found=true

"The Washington Post made clear McKinney's father was accurate in his statements."

Accurate? Not really, more like a bigoted generalization.

[mouse7]

75. No...accurate in both McKinney and Hilliard races

Nice try with showing percentage. You failed to mention that Majette outspent McKinney more than 2-1. Hilliard's opponent did the same.

Out-of-state Jewish groups gave Majette more money than McKinney entire campaign cost. Out-of-state Jewish groups gave Hilliard's opponent more money than Hilliard spent in his campaign. Now... how often do incumbents get outspent 2-1 by challengers? How often does it happen in Democratic Primaries?

You're trying to claim this was all anger at McKinney. It's obvious that's not true because out-of-state Jewish groups did the exact same thing to Ike Hilliard.

Jewish groups targeted McKinney and Hilliard for defeat to get African-Americans out of a position to examine Israeli foreign aid budgets. McKinney and Hilliard were both on the sub-committee that made foreign aid decisions.

Jewish interest wanted to hand-pick who made Israeli foreign aid decisions. When Jewish groups dump more money into an opponent's cofers than your entire campaign budget, you IT IS NOT BIGOTRY TO POINT OUT THE GROUP THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DUMPING THE MONEY INTO THE OPPONENT'S BANK ACCOUNT.

If McKinney's father is guilty of bigotry for pointing out the Jewish influence in the McKinney and Hilliard races, so is the Washington Post. So I ask again, are you going to claim the Washington Post hates Jews too?

[rinsd]

77. Not quite....

"Nice try with showing percentage. You failed to mention that Majette outspent McKinney more than 2-1. "

Percentages and actual figures are better than your exaggeration, from the links on open secret,

Majette spent $1,898,579 to McKinney's $1,078,511. If your claim is soft money expeditures in addition to these, then make it and actually back it up.

"Hilliard's opponent did the same."

Hilliar spent $829,109 to Davis's $1,430,623.

"Out-of-state Jewish groups gave Majette more money than McKinney entire campaign cost"

Hmmmm a bald faced lie wasn't expecting that:

McKinney campaign took in $953,621. Majette collected $757,490 total from out of state. Even if they are all Jews, you're still wrong.

". Out-of-state Jewish groups gave Hilliard's opponent more money than Hilliard spent in his campaign."

Hilliard raised $812,164. Davis raised $625,877 from out of state. Do you just pull these numbers out of thin air or does the whole "jews did it" thing just work for you?

"Now... how often do incumbents get outspent 2-1 by challengers? How often does it happen in Democratic Primaries?"

I'm not sure. It would take time to research.

"You're trying to claim this was all anger at McKinney. It's obvious that's not true because out-of-state Jewish groups did the exact same thing to Ike Hilliard."

Since all 4 campaigns took in their majority of dough from out of state I think you can leave the ominnous references to out of state groups alone.

"Jewish groups targeted McKinney and Hilliard for defeat to get African-Americans out of a position to examine Israeli foreign aid budgets. McKinney and Hilliard were both on the sub-committee that made foreign aid decisions."

So they replaced them with African Americans? Now if you want to make the charge about being Israel friendly(or non) you may have more ammo but you toss around the race card a little to easily here.

"Jewish interest wanted to hand-pick who made Israeli foreign aid decisions. When Jewish groups dump more money into an opponent's cofers than your entire campaign budget, you IT IS NOT BIGOTRY TO POINT OUT THE GROUP THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DUMPING THE MONEY INTO THE OPPONENT'S BANK ACCOUNT."

When you lump people together and refer to something called "Jewish Interest" it is. Mentioning AIPAC etc connotates political background not simply the fact that they were Jewish. In fact your "shorthand" for AIPAC as the Jews is telling.

"If McKinney's father is guilty of bigotry for pointing out the Jewish influence in the McKinney and Hilliard races, so is the Washington Post. So I ask again, are you going to claim the Washington Post hates Jews too?"

WaPo makes note of several factors; , GOP crossover votes(which it dismishes as a alrge factor), her comments ie 9/11, Jewish contributions, the lack of a strong turnout in DeKalb, etc.

McKinney's dad says it was the jews and then spells it out so we get the picture. Can you not see the difference?


Edit: took out inflammatory subject line

[mouse7]

79. Spin, spin spin... you're numbers are just backing me up

AIPAC and Out-of-state Jewish sources contributed almost as much as the the McKinney and Hilliard Campaign spent. Happy? The idea that you would show those numbers and claim it makes a difference in the story shows just how hard you are spinning for whatever aganda you have.

I am not dropping the out of state references no matter how much you scream for it because of the massive sums of it that went to the challengers. AIPAC and the out-of-state Israeli interests wanted to hand pick who sat on that foreign aid budgeting sub-committee, like I said in the above post.

McKinney's father said what the Washington Post said. Sorry that removed a strawman to create mock righteous indignation against. If I had a daughter that went down to defeat after all those lies about her and the dump of Israeli foreign interest money into her opponents bank account, I probably would have been a hell of lot less charitable on the night of the defeat.

McKinney father was right. Just as the Washington Post was. And he's not even the candidate.

And the reason you can use the term Jews and Israeli interchangably is all Jews are citizens of Israel. Israeli interests, Jewish interests, same thing.

[rinsd]

81. Okay...

"AIPAC and Out-of-state Jewish sources contributed almost as much as the the McKinney and Hilliard Campaign spent. Happy? "

Not really. Since one has to assume ALL out of state money was in fact from "Jewish interests"

"The idea that you would show those numbers and claim it makes a difference in the story shows just how hard you are spinning for whatever aganda you have."

I have an agenda? You're spinning so hard for McKinney you should get paid for it. I showed you the numbers don't support what you are saying and you accuse me of having an agenda? Sorry while I have a good laugh.

"I am not dropping the out of state references no matter how much you scream for it because of the massive sums of it that went to the challengers."

Well you're stupid for doing so in light of the fact that the incumbents took in a greater percentage of out state contributions than did their challengers.

"AIPAC and the out-of-state Israeli interests wanted to hand pick who sat on that foreign aid budgeting sub-committee, like I said in the above post."

So they hand picked African Americans or are you now dropping the racist insinuations?

"McKinney's father said what the Washington Post said."

Really Wapo said it was the Jews and then spelled it out?

"Sorry that removed a strawman to create mock righteous indignation against."

What removal...it wasn't a strawman to begin with. That is what the man said. It is also not what the WaPo said. Is this hard?

"If I had a daughter that went down to defeat after all those lies about her and the dump of Israeli foreign interest money into her opponents bank account, I probably would have been a hell of lot less charitable on the night of the defeat."

Yeah, you would have had the balls to call them k%&*s I suppose.

"And the reason you can use the term Jews and Israeli interchangably is all Jews are citizens of Israel. Israeli interests, Jewish interests, same thing."

Exactly....this is bigotry 101. Ignore the individual and assail the group based on stereotype. One wonders if David Duke had blamed African Americans for his gubenatorial defeat with the same language would he receive such a spirited defense from you? I would hope not.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mouse7]

94. White guy supporting McKinney is a bigot?

That's what you're claiming.

Nice try. Next.

[Classical_Liberal]

101. She's publically disagreed with her father twice on such gafs.

.

[mouse7]

67. Does the Washington Post hate jews, too?

McKinney's father AND THE WASHINGTON POST blame J-E-W-S as being a key factor in McKinney and Hilliard defeats.

"....The McKinney-Majette contest is the second House Democratic primary this year in which an African American incumbent who had taken controversial stands sympathetic to Palestinian and Muslim causes was ousted by a lesser-known black challenger financed heavily by out-of-state Jewish donors and pro-Israel PACs. In Alabama, Rep. Earl F. Hilliard (D) lost to Artur Davis. Davis and Majette raised and spent more than $1 million each, more than McKinney or Hilliard...."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A47064-2002Aug21?language=printer

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NewJerseyDem]

89. We don't even know who the other candidates will be

Since Majette decided to run for Senate today then we don't know who will run against McKinney in the primary. How can anyone be so sure that McKinney is the best candidate, if you don't know who else is running? There are plenty of others who may jump in the race and those candidate might be better.

I happen to not be a fan of Cynthia McKinney. I am happy that she isn't in Congress anymore. You point how she wanted to deny tax breaks to companies who move jobs overseas. However, McKinney voted to override President Clinton's veto on the the bill to end the "marriage penalty tax." So, I'm not so sure she is the best on tax policy.

[fujiyama]

91. And she also claimed...

Al Gore has "low Negro tolerance", basically trying to imply Al Gore was racist. What nonsense. I too am not a fan of her and hope she doesn't win her seat back.

[mouse7]

93. No... Secret Service had some legitimate questions to answer

Congresswoman Disclaims Gore Comment
By JEFFREY McMURRAY, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - A black congresswoman who asserted Vice President Al Gore has a low ``Negro tolerance level'' backed off Friday, saying the claim was in a draft statement not meant to be released.

Rep. Cynthia McKinney's office issued a statement on Aug. 29 related to a lawsuit brought by three black Secret Service agents in which she said Gore's ``Negro tolerance level has never been too high.''

``I've never known him to have more than one black person around him at any given time,'' said McKinney, D-Ga.

After a week of Associated Press efforts to reach her for comment, her office issued a new statement late Friday.

``These remarks originated in a draft of a press release that was in the editing process and were never intended for public distribution. I disclaim all of those comments,'' she said in the new statement.

The lawsuit contends black agents are passed over for promotions on Gore's security detail. The agents contend the vice president has done nothing to address the situation.

``That these black officers had no response from Gore's staff is symptomatic of a larger problem,'' McKinney's original statement said. ``Gore would like these problems to just go away, but they'll never go away if they're not addressed.''

Gore campaign spokesman Chris Lehane said the vice president had a ''25-year record of fighting for African-Americans.'' Donna Brazile, a black woman, heads Gore's campaign.

After McKinney issued her retraction, a campaign spokeswoman said it was clear the congresswoman didn't want the statement to come out and that Gore was pleased to have her support.

Secret Service spokesman Jim Mackin said 30 percent of the agents assigned to Gore's detail are minorities or women, and 18 percent are black. In addition, blacks hold 40 percent of the ``whip'' positions - senior agents who occasionally supervise the detail.

Attorney Ron Schmidt, who represents the black Secret Service agents, said he does not believe Gore is racist ``and I don't think any of the agents do.''

``But they're very concerned Gore is brushing them off. It's disconcerting for these guys to put their lives on the line for the protectee while at the same time the candidate is acting with complete indifference toward them,'' he said.

In her later statement, McKinney said the Secret Service matter still deserves ``serious attention and vigorous investigation,'' but she warned Republicans not to use the earlier statement to ``divide and confuse the voters.''

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003mom

[mouse7]

92. There were a stack of non-related issues attached

I can't find specifics but I'm going to jump to a conclusion that McKinney was voting for a completely unrelated matter that was attacked to this bill. I'm going to guess that matter would have been the one forcing medicare to identify children at risk for lead poisoning... lead poisoning of kids is a huge issue in poverty-stricken urban areas.

I don't know this is what happened though.


7. S.AMDT.3850 to H.R.4810 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the deduction for health insurance costs of self-employed individuals, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Durbin, Richard J. (introduced 7/14/2000) Cosponsors: (none)
Latest Major Action: 7/17/2000 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3850 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.

8. S.AMDT.3851 to H.R.4810 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction for 100 percent of the health insurance costs of self-employed individuals.
Sponsor: Sen Bond, Christopher S. (introduced 7/14/2000) Cosponsors: (none)
Latest Major Action: 7/17/2000 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3851 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.

11. S.AMDT.3854 to H.R.4810 To ensure that children enrolled in the medicaid program at highest risk for lead poisoning are identified and treated.
Sponsor: Sen Torricelli, Robert G. (introduced 7/14/2000) Cosponsors: 1
Latest Major Action: 7/17/2000 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3854 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

12. S.AMDT.3855 to H.R.4810 To amend the Social Security Act to waive the 24-month waiting period for medicare coverage of individuals disabled with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).
Sponsor: Sen Torricelli, Robert G. (introduced 7/14/2000) Cosponsors: 1
Latest Major Action: 7/17/2000 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3855 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

16. S.AMDT.3859 to H.R.4810 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude United States savings bond income from gross income if used to pay long-term care expenses.
Sponsor: Sen Cleland, Max (introduced 7/14/2000) Cosponsors: (none)
Latest Major Action: 7/17/2000 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3859 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

17. S.AMDT.3860 to H.R.4810 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the enhanced deduction for corporate donations of computer technology to public libraries and community centers.
Sponsor: Sen Cleland, Max (introduced 7/14/2000) Cosponsors: 1
Latest Major Action: 7/17/2000 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3860 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d106:1:./temp/~bdBOnV:@@@L&summ2=m&|/bss/d106query.html|