It’s the Media, Stupid

[omega minimo]

When we wonder if most Americans really feel like we are “at war”.....

When we remember that the First Bush Gulf War was the introduction of government censorship on American TV and in the press....

When we consider how uninformed or misinformed many people are.....

When it seems like we’re surrounded by dittoheads.....

When we ask when are the American people gonna WAKE UP?!

When people seem disengaged and unable to respond..... or even think......

When it seems like there is no Youth Movement and never will be again.....

If we wonder why people are apathetic and DON’T VOTE.....

When we ask why people sit still for fraudulent elections or deny that they were defrauded.....

When we just can’t believe that people fall for the spin and the lies over and over and over.....

When it seems like somebody needs to do a national air drop of


IT’S THE MEDIA, STUPID.

Yeah yeah yeah-- we all think we know all this... But who owns what? Why is it so hard to find a good up-to-date graphic of the corporate media food pyramid? While we're scrambling around the base, the warmongers at the top are selling ads for "news" programs selling wars for selling arms and ultimately selling out America.


In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called "alarmist" for pointing this out in his book, The Media Monopoly. In his 4th edition, published in 1992, he wrote "in the U.S., fewer than two dozen of these extraordinary creatures own and operate 90% of the mass media" -- controlling almost all of America's newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies. He predicted then that eventually this number would fall to about half a dozen companies. This was greeted with skepticism at the time. When the 6th edition of The Media Monopoly was published in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market. More than 1 in 4 Internet users in the U.S. now log in with AOL Time-Warner, the world's largest media corporation.

-----------------------
Media Reform Information Center
http://www.corporations.org/media/
The Media Monopoly / Corporate Media Ownership:

-----------------
Columbia Journalism Review
Who Owns What
CJR's online guide to what major media companies own:
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/
-----------------

http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/front.shtml#chart
The Media Ownership Chart
Due to its large file size (361KB), this page will take time to load.
-------------------

PBS Frontline: The Merchants of Cool
frontline: merchants of cool: media giants | PBS
Examine the charts breaking down what each of the five US media giants now control ... This privately-owned German media conglomerate has interests in 600 ...
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/giants/

[omega minimo]

1. That's a big catapult!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x515888

[omega minimo]

2. "Timidity of major media and top Dems combine to defuse public outrage"

Article from top of DU home page this morning :hi:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/06/02/25_timidity.html

Timidity of major media and top Dems combine to defuse public outrage

February 25, 2006 · By now, progressives should stop hoping that the next colossal blunder or abuse of power by the Bush administration' will finally and magically ignite the public into rejecting the Bush Administration and its reign of incompetent crony capitalism. By Roger Bybee and Carolyn Winter


:bounce: :bounce:

[blm]

8. Media Matters reports media ignored Dems' warnings on port security

Media coverage of port deal ignores Democratic port security efforts ...

In covering the Bush administration's controversial decision to allow a company owned by the government of Dubai, a member state of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), to run terminals at six U.S. ports, many news outlets have ignored long-standing demands by leading Democrats that more be done to secure U.S. ports.

NBC's Tim Russert even suggested that Democrats are talking about the port deal in order to exploit it for political gain and ignored the other possibility: that Democrats are talking about port security because they've been talking about port security for years.

Russert told Today viewers that Democrats "say they have learned" a "lesson" from Bush: "That is, there is a post-September 11th mentality," adding "Here's the situation: Democrats believe they can look tough on national security."

In fact, leading Democrats have long argued and fought to strengthen U.S. border security, only to be thwarted by Republicans -- something it is almost impossible to believe Russert does not know. During a December 1, 2002, appearance on Russert's Meet the Press, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) pointed to port security as a way in which "there are enormous gaps and deficits in the preparedness level of our country." And on October 17, 2004, Russert hosted a Meet the Press debate between South Carolina's Democratic and Republican Senate candidates. During that debate, Democratic candidate Inez Tenenbaum, now South Carolina's state superintendent of education, accused then-Republican candidate, Sen. James DeMint of having "voted against port security for South Carolina."
>>>>>

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602250001

[omega minimo]

11. More power to them

While they stand up for themselves and for us.

Any chance any of them will address the true nature of the deal, "follow the money" and point out the corporatist agenda? Name the members of the administration (and family) that will profit from it? Question the selling off of America to outside companies and governments?

:patriot:

[blm]

14. They already did - media not reporting Kerry and Dodd's letters

Kerry sent his to Snow on Tuesday and Dodd sent his to Bush on Wednesday. No media coverage.


They both take the perfect approach - get behind the deals behind the deal. Uncover the crony corporatism.

I posted this the other day and think these letters are why all of a sudden you started hearing that none of them knew anything about the deal - even Snow.


Kerry's letter:

The Honorable John Snow
Chair
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
Office of International Investment
Department of Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Room 4201 NY
Washington, DC 20220

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I write to you in your capacity as Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) regarding the review and approval of the sale of Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Navigation Company to Dubai Ports World (DP). As you know, this sale would give DP, a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates, significant operational control over six major US ports.

Specifically, given the national security implications of this sale, I am concerned about the process by which this transaction was approved by CFIUS. First, it appears that CFIUS approved the sale as expeditiously as possible, without even using the additional 45 day investigation process that was clearly warranted under the circumstances.

Further, several media reports have cited ties between Administration officials and DP that raise questions about the basis for the approval of this sale by CFIUS. As you know, the CSX rail corporation, where you previously served as Chief Executive Officer, sold its port operations to DP in 2004. Moreover, the President's nominee for Administrator of the Maritime Administration, David Sanborn, was DP's Head of Operations for Latin America while this transaction was being reviewed by CFIUS. In light of these connections, Congress needs to learn more about the relationship between CFIUS members and DP, and whether Administration officials could have unduly influenced CFIUS's approval process.

Therefore, in the interest of full disclosure and the transparency appropriate under these circumstances, I request that you provide to the relevant committees in Congress all documentation and information relating to contacts between Administration officials, CFIUS members and staff, and DP, including any lobbyists or registered foreign agents working on behalf of DP.

Given the national security implications surrounding this transaction, it is essential that lawmakers have access to this information so that Congress can conduct meaningful oversight.
Sincerely,
John F. Kerry


Dodd letter:

The President
The White House

Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Bush:

I write to express my concerns regarding Treasury Secretary John Snow's involvement in the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States' (CFIUS) approval of the acquisition of Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Navigation Co.'s (P&O) U.S. port operations by DP World. As you know, DP World is owned and controlled by the Government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Prior to joining the Treasury Department in February 2003, Secretary Snow spent approximately twenty years working at the CSX Corporation, including as Chairman and CEO. According to press reports, Secretary Snow received $72.2 million in compensation from CSX in 2003 (including $33.2 million from a special retirement pension), and he has a stake in a CSX deferred compensation plan worth between $5 million and $25 million. In December 2004, after Secretary Snow's departure from CSX, that company's port business was purchased by DP World in a deal worth more than $1 billion. It is unclear whether Secretary Snow was involved in any discussions related to that sale before his resignation from CSX in 2003.

There may have been no actual conflict in Secretary Snow's involvement in the CFIUS process related to the review of DP World's proposed acquisition of P&O's U.S. port operations. However, given the highly sensitive nature of this matter it would have been better had Secretary Snow not been the Chair, or served in any capacity, of the CFIUS review in this case.

The security of some of our Nation's most important ports is at stake. I know you agree that an effective and unbiased CFIUS process is a vital component of protecting the national security of these ports. In order for the process to be effective, however, it must be transparent and free from not only any conflict, but also the appearance of any conflict. Secretary Snow's involvement in the CFIUS review has clouded the recently concluded review process.

I believe that the additional information that has come to light with respect to Secretary Snow and the DP World acquisition of certain CSX port business makes it all the more compelling that an additional, more extensive review of the P&O-DP World deal be conducted to ensure that all of the potential national security implications of this transaction have been fully analyzed. Furthermore, I believe that Secretary Snow should not serve in any capacity as part of CFIUS during its review of this matter. Given that our nation's security is at risk, I believe that this is the prudent way to proceed. I hope you do as well.

Sincerely,

Christopher J. Dodd

United States Senator

[omega minimo]

19. Incredible letters. People need to know about this effort

Could this be an Activist Corps effort to blast media with demands for coverage?

Thanks for adding here, blm-- I saw another post you did last night. Have you OP'd these letters?

THANKS! :grouphug:

[blm]

22. I did - but even here real efforts by lawmakers get little notice.

Good, hot rhetoric trumps deliberate approaches every time.

[omega minimo]

24. "even here"

:eyes:


Focus in Media Forum or Act. Corps? :shrug:

[Wordie]

3. K&R (#5)

[niallmac]

4. The sell off of our media was a traitorous act of our own Congress.

They should have been protecting our free press. Instead, they folded under corporate pressure and enticement.

[Gregorian]

5. Amen, amen, amen...

Ultimately when we ask where the buck stops, it stops with the American people. Not Bush. Bush could never have done a single thing, including gotten past the people in 1999, had it not been for the trained parrots. I mean, the media.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no more important subject. The media is what shapes the public opinion. Gore should have wiped the mat with that pathetic little cheerleader. But I remember gaping at how his successes were suppressed, and Bush's supposed advantages were amplified. Gore is nothing short of brilliant. Listen to him, and you know it. Bush not only cannot tell the truth, he doesn't know the truth. Not to mention he's pure evil. But you'd never know it, reading anything but the New York Times, or some such quality paper.

The media is more than just a megaphone for hire. It's what the innocent people rely on for their truth. It's the fourth estate. That is more than just "the media".

We can impeach Bush, and we still have the people. And uninformed, we are in no better shape than we would be with him in office, since it's the corporations which run the media. And their agenda is profit. Not equality, fairness, health, happiness, infrastructure, culture...

Without an unbiased media, we have nothing. And until we have a media that tells the truth, we will continue going down the road we have been on. And we have been on that road a lot longer than just the Bush administration.

2006 will be no different. The electronic voting machines are still with us. It's a no-story. War will continue, even if it's illegal. Even if it poses a grave threat to the future of Americans, if it goes on much further, unabated.

26 million Americans get their meals from a soup kitchen, yet runaway brides stream across tv screens with split pictures and dizzying banners running in the borders. All corriagraphed and timed to create just the illusion the producers design. It's not news, it's entertainment. At best.

Now what? How? Who can help us? GE? Westinghouse? Halliburton? We the people own those airwaves. WE own them. They are ours, are they not? But weren't they sold for billions of dollars? How do we get back what is already ours? Because we must. If we are to survive as a democracy.

[blm]

9. Well stated, Gregorian - This really should be our battle, and I cannot

believe that the Dem party has yet to recognize this as a priority issue.

[omega minimo]

10. At the bottom it does. Who is at the top?

"Ultimately when we ask where the buck stops, it stops with the American people. Not Bush. Bush could never have done a single thing, including gotten past the people in 1999, had it not been for the trained parrots. I mean, the media."

The buck stops with the American people. Someone here pointed out the 1996 criminal sellout of the public airwaves. The big picture goes right to the top of global corporatist pyramid where all the bucks are going. THAT is the reason to object to the UAE deal. (Are there any pix of *W* kissing a member ot THAT royal family?) And don't those same profiteers own the media?

What if we can't "get back" the public airwaves and corporations continue to push the news and imagineers control entertainment and Republican machines count the votes?

I don't expect the next Dem candidates to get rid of the corporate media handlers that sagotage their campaigns by making them act like someone they're not (like they did with Gore and Kerry). It's all for the cameras isn't it?

And many good Americans (esp. those in your sigline who don't know they're Democrats) only believe what comes through the screen. Bush's legitimacy is only maintained through the screen.

What if we ask each other and our representatives to face the issues that are the bigger picture, that our current alternative media is documenting and reporting for us? We may not have the airwaves or the voting booth but we can sure as hell ask the right questions.

[BlueEyedSon]

6. k&r

[blm]

7. ABSOLUTELY 100% RIGHT ON THE MONEY!!!!!!!!!!

There's no two ways about this.

[omega minimo]

12. Link: Harper's: Lapham: "Why We Can No Longer Afford George W. Bush"

ProSense (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-25-06 11:11 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2480720

Thanks to ProSense for posting :toast:

The Case for Impeachment - Harpers Magazine Cover Story (short excerpt)
Edited on Sat Feb-25-06 11:13 AM by ProSense

The Case for Impeachment - Harpers Magazine Cover StoryThe March issue of Harper's Magazine has a great cover article by its editor Lewis H. Lapham explaining, "Why We Can No Longer Afford George W. Bush." Mr. Lapham spends a lot of his article discussing my work and the "The Constitution in Crisis." I would link to the story if there were an online version, but here is an excerpt from the article discussing the NSA warrantless wiretaps:

"We're at war," the President said on December 19, "we must protect America's secrets."

No, the country isn't at war, and it's not America's secrets that the President seeks to protect. The country is threatened by free-booting terrorists unaligned with a foreign government or an enemy army; the secrets are those of the Bush Admnistration, chief among them its determination to replace a democratic republic with something more safely totalitarian. The fiction of permanent war allows it to seize, in the name of the national security, the instruments of tyranny.

It is the business of the Congress to prevent the President from doing more damage than he's already done to the people, interests, health, well-being, safety, good name, and reputation of the United States - to cauterize the wound and stem the flows of money, stupidity, and blood.

The article is a must read. I highly recommend that you find a copy.
http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000388.htm

[snot]

13. Has everyone here written to support THIS yet, & forwarded it to others??

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=109x21930 :

Democrats Move to Re-Regulate Media

<snip>

Two liberal House members who recently have been critical of what they view as attempts by conservative Republicans to take over America’s mass media and public broadcasting have now introduced a sweeping bill that would re-regulate radio and TV back to the days before the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

The Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005 (MORA) is co-sponsored by Reps. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y. and Diane Watson, D-Calif. In a written announcement, MORA is described as legislation “that seeks to undo the massive consolidation of the media that has been ongoing for nearly 20 years.”

The measure would restore the Fairness doctrine, reinstate a national cap on radio ownership and lower the number of radio stations a company can own in a local market. It also reinstates a 25% national television ownership cap and requires stations to submit regular public interest reports to the Federal Communications Commission.

<end of snip>

http://mediachannel.org/blog/node/189

[omega minimo]

18. All right. Cool, snot! Thanks for adding here.

:yourock:

[blm]

25. That should be reposted every day, imo.

.

[omega minimo]

26. stop the port deal website

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x524452

How about a dedictated thread like the "Elections" roundup one MelodyB does?

[SeattleRob]

15. K/R !!!

You're absolutely correct!

We need to take on the misinformers of the media. We need to be come the media and call them on their lies and their bullshit.

Great post!

:kick:

[omega minimo]

17. "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything."

!!!
:toast:
edit: link to "The "Prescience of Jello Biafra"
(Jello coined "Become The Media." Comments on that thread about 1991 led to this OP. Wasn't THAT LONG AGO that the news media was consorshipified and it was via Bush I's Gulf War I)


SWAMP RAT BECOME THE MEDIA

[Harald Ragnarsson]

16. Half the media

the other half of the equation is that neither party addresses what effects real americans. No matter what party has been in power in the last 26 years, the lower class has gone backwards. Maybe at a slower rate under Clinton, but still not forward.

If you saw a real populist that can get the masses attention, you would be surprised at the numbers that would turn out.

No matter who won if 2004, a Skull and Bones member would have sat in the White House. Now, the average american doesn't know that, of course. But they are definately perceptive enough to KNOW that it's all a Dog and Pony Show.

The media effects this too, but The People have to still be given a real choice in candidates.

[omega minimo]

20. " Wouldn't somebody have said what a minute. What the hell happened here?"

DAVID BRANCACCIO: Well, you write in the book you say that the last election, the two leading candidates were two C students from Yale, as you put it.

KURT VONNEGUT: Two members of Skull and Bones at Yale, for God's sake. If I mean, that's what a charade the combat between the Republicans and the Democrats is. It's rich kids. Winners on both sides. So the winners can't lose. And, of course, the losers have no representation in Congress or whatever.

But look, yeah. We had to choose between two members of Skull and Bones? What about if we had to choose between two members of Sigma Chi at Purdue? Wouldn't somebody have said what a minute. What the hell happened here?

DAVID BRANCACCIO: But you're saying you don't see senior political figures really, anybody representing the interests of people who are struggling?

KURT VONNEGUT: No, are not representing the American people. And, so there are people who made a hell of a lot of money one way or another. Making it during the war, incidentally. As you know, maybe the war is a bad idea. But some people are making a ton of money off of it. And they want to hang on to whatever they've got. And so they bank roll political campaigns for both Republicans and Democrats. Look, we're awful animals. We can start with that. You know, it's a whole human experiment, if that's what we are.

DAVID BRANCACCIO: That heart-- at heart, we're awful?

KURT VONNEGUT: Look, we after two World Wars and the holocaust and the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and after the Roman games and after the Spanish Inquisition and after burning witches, the public-- shouldn't we call it off? I mean, we are a disease and should be ashamed of ourselves.

And so, yeah, I think we ought to stop reproducing. But since we're not going to do that, I think the planet's immune system is trying to get rid of us.

DAVID BRANCACCIO: The planet is sort of trying to shed us as if we are some sort of toxin.

KURT VONNEGUT: Look, I'll tell you. It's one thing that no cabinet had ever had, is a Secretary Of The Future. And there are no plans at all for my grandchildren and my great grandchildren.

DAVID BRANCACCIO: That's a great idea. In other words a Cabinet post--

KURT VONNEGUT: Well, it's too late! Look, the game is over! The game is over. We've killed the planet, the life support system. And, and it's so damaged that there's no recovery from that. And we're very soon going to run out of petroleum which powered everything that's modern. Razzmatazz about America. And, and it was very shallow people who imagined that we could keep this up indefinitely. But when I tell others, they say; Well, look there's-- you said hydrogen fuel. Nobody's working on it.

DAVID BRANCACCIO: No one is working seriously on it is what you're saying.

KURT VONNEGUT: That's right. And, and what, our energy people, presidents of our companies, energy companies never think. All they wanna do is make a lot of money right now.

[blm]

28. Vonnegut's off rocker on this count - You don't get the best environmental

record in Congress and on alternative energy plans by being just like George Bush.

Kerry's environmental record over 20yrs was even better than Kucinich's record in 12yrs, but Vonnegut would never say Kucinich and Bush are no different when discussing the environment and alternative energy.

This LAZY-assed S&B business sure did benefit Bush with the gullible left. Please bring back the REAL LEFT who bothers to KNOW the records of candidates before they believe some blog-mythologists.

[omega minimo]

29. He was not comparing or saying "there's no difference" on the environment

In the flow of conversation, he stated that earth's life-support system is under attack and is responding to it (us).

[blm]

31. But you can't separate the two issues. You can't say that the two

candidates are the same and then go on about your concern over the environment and energy issues when Kerry had the BEST record in Congress over 20 yrs, while Bush is the EXACT OPPOSITE.

BushInc is the most corrupt administration in our history, while Kerry has racked up the best record in investigating and exposing government corruption in moidern history.

How anyone can say they are the same because of S&B is just ABSURD and LAZYHEADED.

[omega minimo]

33. Vonnegut is definitely absurd

and NEVER lazyheaded.

I don't want to get in the way of an argument you may have had with others here.

The point raised is that we have "two" parties now serving the same master-- and it ain't The People. Kerry's record may shine in the midst of that (and the letter posted is another example).

However, they ARE all in The Club-- and we aren't.

[blm]

34. That is just so wrong - do you even know how almost all DC ostracized

Kerry for years throughout and beyond BCCI? Even most of his own party? That should speak volumes to any fair-minded person.

[omega minimo]

37. May be wrong but it's true

:evilgrin:

Hey blm, let's not fight. I avoid on DU those discussions where people ASSUME they know my part in a pre-existing argument (that I have no part in) and don't hear what I (me-- right now) am saying.................

To me, it's not either/or. What if Kerry did all he could AND he is "In The Club" (and I don't just mean S&B) AND he was ostracized AND it wasn't enough AND the same players (club) is still in charge AND it's the One Party aspect of this that was commented on?


omega minimo (1000+ posts) Sun Feb-26-06 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Vonnegut is definitely absurd
and NEVER lazyheaded.
I don't want to get in the way of an argument you may have had with others here.
The point raised is that we have "two" parties now serving the same master-- and it ain't The People. Kerry's record may shine in the midst of that (and the letter posted is another example).
However, they ARE all in The Club-- and we aren't.

[blm]

27. What a crock of lazy-mindedness. Examining ACTUAL RECORDS too daunting

a task that you have to resort to one-size-fits-all Skull and Bones?

You can't NAME even ONE lawmaker who has investigated and exposed more government corruption over the last 35 yrs than John Kerry has. Yet, some asshat bloggers want to spread the idea that Kerry and Bush are the same using S&B? The records show Kerry has never even USED his college S&B connections even ONCE to achieve his accomplishments, where Bush used them at every turn in his life.

You think the BFEE wanted Kerry to expose IranContra, BCCI, and CIA drugrunning to the historic record?

[omega minimo]

30. You're right & it's also true that pols are mostly the hyper-privileged

LIke Carlin says: "They're in The Club and YOU AREN'T."

[blm]

32. Kerry EARNED it - he wasn't privileged financially - that's a myth.

A well-off aunt paid for Kerry's tuition to go to college, while he worked for his room and board.

Kerry ALWATS worked hard and never shirked a duty in his entire adult life.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

36. You don't get into Skull and Bones unless you are

priveledged financially. Kerry's money and connections from the Forbes side got him in. He is East Coast Establishment Blue Blood just like the Bushes, whether you want to admit ot or not.

What about the pic of him on the yacht with JFK? Did the Kennedy's jsut like to take underprivieldged kids along on boat rides with them or did Kerry have some connections even before he went into Skull and Bones?

[omega minimo]

38. And some of that Blue Blood may still run through honorable veins

which inspired Kerry to return from Viet Nam and speak out and try to expose corruption in Congress (now those buried scandals reemerge).

[blm]

43. Yes - members of his family were privileged - his parents had much less

than others as Kerry's father was a middle class public servant, and his mother's family wealth had been divided in such a widespread manner that it was no longer significant during Kerry's youth.

You still need to use perspective and facts before you succumb to the heady lure of mythology when attacking a person of Kerry's accomplishments. What the hell would the left even have to show for ourselves in the last 3 decades if you want to brand Kerry's efforts inconsequential?

[Harald Ragnarsson]

35. And, pray tell, what came from all this?

"You can't NAME even ONE lawmaker who has investigated and exposed more government corruption over the last 35 yrs than John Kerry has. Yet, some asshat bloggers want to spread the idea that Kerry and Bush are the same using S&B? The records show Kerry has never even USED his college S&B connections even ONCE to achieve his accomplishments, where Bush used them at every turn in his life.

You think the BFEE wanted Kerry to expose IranContra, BCCI, and CIA drugrunning to the historic record?"

Why, NOTHING! Any of these things should have derailed Bush Sr and by extention, Junior, but they did not.

PROVE that Kerry's Skull and Bones connections have not paid off for him! What a laugh!

Oh, and there are FIFTEEN new Bonesmen made per year, no more than 200 alive at any one time. What are the chances that the candidates for BOTH PARTIES in 2004 were of this small, select, elite club? Out of 290 MILLION citizens. 10 Zillion to One? 10 Quadrillion to One?

Do you believe in the Easter Bunny too?

[blm]

39. Kerry is the one who kept it alive while ALMOST ALL OF DC, including many

Dems who were never S&B, conspired AGAINST Kerry's efforts to expose BCCI.

And what came of his astounding tenacity? THE HISTORIC RECORD WAS PRESERVED. Historic record MATTERS.

You and a million more like you wouldn't even know HALF the shit you know today about BushInc if Kerry hadn't investigated IranContra, BCCI, and CIA drugrunning.

Go laugh at the historic record - because you won't find ONE OTHER LAWMAKER in the last half century who EFFECTED this nation's historic record more positively than John Kerry has.

[omega minimo]

41. His contributions inspire your passionate defense of him

and how many leaders can we say that about?

Right now, is there any chance that the dots will be connected, as those "old" scandals and players are coming up in the current Dubai/Dubya scam?

[blm]

42. When Conason brought up BCCI in relation to port deal on Franken's show

last Friday, I thought it had a chance. We'll see.

[omega minimo]

40. Stephanie's UAE-BCCI thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=490176&mesg_id=490176

[bloom]

21. At the same time as control consolidates

Advertisers/manipulation strategies get more and more effective.


That is a powerful graph.

[omega minimo]

23. Oh yeah. People are branded

Sheeple