Media-matters introduces parallels on news reporting then and now. The "then" was the day after the Lewinsky story broke and the now is the day after the initial disclosure of the Bush administration's use of the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct domestic surveillance that has been widely described as an illegal trampling of the Constitution. These two stories are worlds apart yet our Bush propagandized media decides that the Lewinsky "affair" far outweighed the NSA spying on citizens report as a public interest event. ALL TOGETHER NOW ... HUH? I sent the mediamatters article around to the email addressess on my list and one of my cyber friends responded with:
THEY ARE DOING THE SAME JOB {that} GOEBBELS DID FOR HITLER! And they should be held ACCOUNTABLE for all the damages, the deaths, the wounding of innocent people by their negligence and pandering to power. I must confess I didn't know too much about this man, Goebbels so I Googled his name and I was astounded to learn how much this GUY seemed to espouse the ideology of his fuehrer Hitler. (even when it contradicted his own beliefs) In fact, his title was MINISTER OF PROPAGANDA... Propaganda is the more or less systematic effort to manipulate other people's beliefs, attitudes, or actions by means of symbols (words, gestures, banners, monuments, music, clothing, insignia, hairstyles, designs on coins and postage stamps, and so forth). Deliberateness… It seemed uncanny how today a certain percentage of our mainstream media is doing the same for Bush and his Neoconservative machine. Wow, if they can do for Bush what Goebbels' did for Hitler... WE ARE ALL IN DEEP, DEEP POOP! (and I don't mean "inside information") Reading about Geobbels immediately made me think of our today's Karl Rove (read Exposing Karl Rove) ... Good old boy Karl must have read everything there was to read about Joe Geobbels and he put to practice what he learned. Here in a free society, I ask, HOW THE HELL DID HE GET AWAY WITH IT? Well grasping the Jamison Foser researched article below on the media's handling of a ridiculous sexual liaison between a leader and a citizen and the horrendous illegal spying by a leader upon his populace is almost too bizarre to seem real. A president's sordid affair is treated like a hot, hot potato and a president's deliberate breaking of a serious law is acted upon with acquiescence, as though it was unimportant and insignificant, something no one really cares about anyway. Again, ALL TOGETHER NOW... HUH? Please read the well documented article from MEDIAMATTERS (below), they sure did name their website correctly because for freedom to continue MEDIA DOES MATTER more than we can imagine! thinkingblue ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ News organizations devote little attention to NSA spying story On January 22, the day after The Washington Post first broke the Lewinsky story, the paper ran the following stories: 1. "FBI Taped Aide's Allegations; Seeking Cooperation, Bureau Confronted Ex-Whitehouse Intern," a 2,663-word front-page article by Peter Baker and Susan Schmidt 2. "Clinton Scoop So Hot It Melted; Newsweek Editors Held Off On Scandal Story," a 1,098-word Howard Kurtz article about reporting of the matter, on the front page of the Style section 3. "FBI Taped Aide's Allegations; Clinton Denies Affair, Says He 'Did Not Urge Anyone' to Lie," a 1,474-word front-page article by John Harris, with contributions by Terry Neal 4. "Clinton Tie to Va. Woman Led to Probe's Latest Angle," a 605-word article about Kathleen Willey by R.H. Melton 5. "Kindred Spirits' Pentagon Bond; White House Exiles Shared Lively Chat, Confidences," a 1,620-word front-page article by Dana Priest and Rene Sanchez with contributions by Ceci Connolly, Judith Havemann, Susan Glasser and David Segal 6. "Jordan: Power Broker And 'FOB' Without Peer; Lawyer Is Now Key Figure in Starr Probe," a 782-word article by Thomas Edsall, with contributions by staff researcher Ben White 7. "THE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS; President Imperiled as Never Before," a 933-word article by Dan Balz, with contributions by Helen Dewar 8. "Affairs of State," an 833-word column by Mary McGrory 9. "THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS; Allegations Against Clinton Could Lead to impeachment, Prosecution," a 1,042-word article by Ruth Marcus 10. "The Allegations," a 420-word editorial
11. "The Reliable Source," a regular multipart feature of the Style section that dedicated 374 words to the Clinton investigation by Ann Gerhart and Annie Groer.
That's a total of 11 articles, written by or using contributions from at least 20 reporters, and comprising 11,844 words dedicated to allegations that the president lied about a consensual
relationship. The New York Times gave the story similar treatment: 1. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE WHITE HOUSE RESPONSE; In Interviews, President Denies Affair With Intern," a 1,067-word article by James Bennet 2. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE FRIENDS; Friendship of 2 Women Slowly Led to the Crisis," a 1,881-word front-page article by Jill Abramson and Don Van Natta 3. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE OVERVIEW; SUBPOENAS SENT AS CLINTON DENIES REPORTS OF AN AFFAIR WITH AIDE AT WHITE HOUSE," a 2,202-word front-page article by Francis X. Clines and Jeff Gerth 4. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE; Independent Counsel Cites Deceit Pattern," a 419-word article by Sephen Labaton 5. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE CONFIDANT; In Fair Weather and Foul, a Friend to Clinton," a 563-word article by Richard Berke 6. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE; Excerpts From Statements by White House and President on Accusations," a 1,465-word article 7. "A Crisis From Petty Sources," a 755-word editorial 8. "Essay; Presume Innocence," a 692-word column by William Safire That's a total of eight articles, written by at least eight reporters, comprising 9,044 words.
Now, here's what the Post did on December 17 -- the day after the initial disclosure of the Bush administration's use of the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct domestic surveillance that
has been widely described as an illegal trampling of the Constitution: 1. "On Hill, Anger and Calls for Hearings Greet News of Stateside Surveillance," a 1,372-word front-page article by Dan Eggen and Charles Lane, with contributions from Carol D. Leonnig, Barton Gellman, and R. Jeffrey Smith, and researcher Julie Tate 2. "Renewal of Patriot Act Is Blocked in Senate," a 1,073-front-page article dealing tangentially with the NSA matter, by Charles Babington 3. "At the Times, a Scoop Deferred," a 782-word article by Paul Farhi
That's all. Three articles, eight reporters, 3,227 words -- and that's generously including the USA Patriot Act article in the tally. And from the Times, which had broken the NSA
story the day before: 1. "SENATORS THWART BUSH BID TO RENEW LAW ON TERRORISM," a 1,875-word front-page article by Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Eric Lichtblau, with contributions from James Risen 2. "Behind Power, One Principle," a 1,201-word front-page article by Scott Shane
That's it for the Times: two articles, four reporters, 3,076 words. All told, on January 22, 1998, the Times and the Post ran 19 articles (five on the front page) dealing with the Clinton investigation, totaling more than 20,000 words and reflecting the words of at least 28 reporters -- plus the editorial boards of both newspapers.
In contrast, on December 17, the Times and the Post combined to run five articles about the NSA spying operation, involving 12 reporters and consisting of 6,303 words. On February 25, 1998, 35 days after the story first broke, the Post ran four articles and an editorial about the Clinton investigation, totaling 5,046 words, involving 11 reporters, and the paper's editorial board. The Times ran four articles, two opinion columns, and an editorial -- seven pieces in all, totaling 5,852 words and involving at least six reporters and columnists, in addition to
its editorial board. The papers combined for 12 articles, columns, and editorials, involving 17 reporters and columnists, as well as both editorial boards. On January 20, 35 days after the NSA story first broke, the Times ran one 1,324-word article about the NSA operation written by two reporters. The Post ran one 945-word article written by one reporter. Combined: two articles, three reporters, 2,269 words. We could go on and on with comparisons like these, and bring in other news organizations, but it should be clear by now that the nation's leading news organizations haven't given the NSA spying story anywhere near the coverage they gave the Clinton-Lewinsky matter. And, based on available evidence, they haven't dedicated nearly the resources to pursuing the NSA story that they dedicated to the Lewinsky story. So, some questions for the Times, and the Post, and ABC, and CBS, and NBC, and CNN, and Time, and Newsweek, and other leading news organizations: 1)How many reporters, editors, and researchers did you assign to the Lewinsky story when it broke? How many remained assigned to that story one month later? 2)How many reporters, editors, and researchers did you assign to the NSA story when it broke? How many remained assigned to that story one month later? 3)How do you explain the disparity? We assume many news organizations would respond by saying that they aren't devoting as much attention to the NSA matter because it hasn't captured the nation's attention the way the Lewinsky
investigation did. But that's a canard; as we demonstrated above, the Times and the Post ran a combined 19 articles totaling more than 20,000 words just a day after the Lewinsky story first broke -- long before they could have known whether the public was interested. If the story captured the nation's attention, it's because the media forced it down our throats. And if Americans aren't captivated by the NSA matter, it may be because the media aren't hyping it nearly as much as it has much lesser stories. The Post's Howard Kurtz effectively -- if unintentionally -- illustrated this bizarre tendency by news organizations to pretend that they merely reflect what people are talking about rather than shaping the national conversation. In his January 18 online column, Kurtz responded to criticism by Media Matters for America and others that he gave unwarranted attention to ages-old, baseless right-wing attacks on Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) by writing an article recounting the attacks for the January 14 edition of the Post. Kurtz noted that the attacks are, indeed, old, but added they
are now "getting national play." But the attacks aren't "getting" national play -- Kurtz is giving them national play. Prior to his article, the only "play" the allegations were getting came in a hatchet job by the Brent Bozell-operated Cybercast News Service upon which Kurtz based his article. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ABOUT NSA spying stories we'd like to see ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"Do I have the legal authority to do this?" Bush said Monday. "And the answer is, 'Absolutely.' " Bush cited his constitutional authority as commander in chief and the congressional resolution, which he said authorized him to bypass requirements for a warrant. CLICK HERE TO READ MOREborn Oct. 29, 1897, Rheydt, Ger. died May 1, 1945, Berlin
 Joseph Goebbels, c. 1935. Interfoto-Friedrich Rauch, Munich
minister of propaganda for the German Third Reich under Adolf Hitler, generally accounted responsible for presenting a favourable image of the Nazi regime to the German people.
Goebbels was the third of five children of a Catholic factory clerk. His parents provided him with a high school education and also helped support him during the five years of his undergraduate studies. In World War I he was exempted from military service because of his clubfoot, which later enabled his enemies to draw a parallel with the cloven hoof and limp of the Devil. This defect, presumably not congenital but rather the result of a childhood disease, played a disastrous role in his life by engendering strong desires for compensation. After graduating from Heidelberg University in 1922, with a doctorate in German philology, Goebbels engaged in—largely un-remunerative—literary, dramatic, and journalistic efforts. Although not yet involved in politics, Goebbels, in common with most of his contemporaries, was imbued with a nationalistic fervor made more intense by the frustrating outcome of the war. During his university days, a friend also introduced him to socialistic and communistic ideas. Antibourgeois from his youth, Goebbels remained so in spite of all his later upper-class affectations. On the other hand, he was initially not anti-Semitic. The high school teachers he valued most were Jews, and he was, during that time, engaged to a half-Jewish girl. At that point his options, if he chose to enter politics, were still wide open. An accident determined the party he was to join. In the autumn of 1924 he made friends with a group of National Socialists. A gifted speaker, he was soon made the district administrator of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP; National Socialist German Workers' Party) in
Elberfeld and editor of a biweekly National Socialist magazine. In November 1926
Hitler appointed him district leader in Berlin. The NSDAP, or Nazi Party, had been founded and developed in Bavaria, and, up to that time, there had been practically no party organization in Berlin, the country's capital. Goebbels owed his new appointment to the prudent choice he made in a conflict between
Gregor Strasser, representing the “left-wing,” anti-capitalist faction of the NSDAP, and the “right-wing” party leader, Hitler. In this conflict, Goebbels, against his own inner convictions, took Hitler's side.
Personally courageous and never shirking danger, Goebbels proceeded to build Nazi strength in Berlin until Hitler's accession to power in January 1933. In 1928 Hitler gave the successful orator, well-versed propagandist, and brilliant journalist (he was editor of Der Angriff [“The Assault”] and later, from 1940 to 1945, Das Reich) the additional post of propaganda director for the NSDAP for all of Germany. Goebbels began to create the Fuehrer myth around the person of Hitler and to institute the ritual of party celebrations and demonstrations that played a decisive role in converting the masses to Nazism. In addition, he spread propaganda by continuing his rigorous schedule of speechmaking. After the “seizure of power,” Goebbels was also able to take control of the national propaganda machinery. A “National Ministry for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda” was created for him, and in addition he became president of the newly formed “Chamber of Culture” for the Reich. In this capacity he controlled, besides propaganda as such, the press, radio, theatre, films, literature, music, and the fine arts as well. To be sure, his control of foreign propaganda, the press, theatre, and literature was limited—exercised only in bitter jurisdictional struggles with other officials—and he displayed little interest in regulating music and art. He did not, however, succeed in extending his power into other areas, such as the high schools. His cultural policies were fairly liberal, but he had to capitulate to the demands of nationalist extremists. Even his propaganda messages were limited by the rationale that ceaseless agitation only dulls the receptive powers of the listener. As far as Goebbels was concerned, efficiency took precedence over dogmatism, expediency over principles. Goebbels' influence decreased in the years 1937 and 1938. During this time he also became involved in a love affair with a Czechoslovakian film star that nearly caused him to give up his career and family. (Since 1931 he had been married to a woman from the upper middle class who eventually bore him six children.) His position underwent little change with the outbreak of World War II (which he did not welcome): in times of victory, the propagandist's services are not much in demand. Goebbels' hour came with the turn in fortunes of the war after the defeats in Stalingrad and Africa, when he was to prove himself a master of the clever propaganda of holding out in the face of defeat. It would be erroneous to believe that Goebbels falsified the facts of the prevailing situation. On the contrary, the main thrust of his propaganda—which he carried on personally and without respite in the press and over the radio—was to continually raise hopes by citing historical parallels and making other comparisons, by conjuring up allegedly immutable laws of history, or even, as a last resort, by referring to some secret miracle weapons. Here, too, he demonstrated personal courage by appearing constantly before the public long after the other prominent Nazis had retreated to their bunkers and fortifications. His public appearances in these years did much to improve an image that had until then been overwhelmingly negative. Goebbels' work was especially effective in intensifying the efforts of the home front: he became the protagonist of total war. After several false starts, the attempted assassination of Hitler on July 20, 1944, brought him within view of his goal. On August 25 he became “Reich Plenipotentiary for Total War”—but it was, as he shortly lamented, too late. On May 1, 1945, the only one of the original Nazi leaders to remain with Hitler in the besieged bunker in Berlin, Goebbels and his wife took their lives and those of their six children. This was the last and, if not the bloodiest, at least the most macabre production of this talented stage manager. The day before, he had been named chancellor of the Reich in Hitler's will. For one day, on a few square meters, he thus became the last successor to Otto von Bismarck.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read the below paragraphs from this site Goebbels' Place in History to understand the parallels between Goebbels and Rove. It gives you a frightening realization how Hitler's man from the Nazi regime and Bush's man from his neoconservative ideology are one and the same. thinkingblue ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Goebbels' real lies, his conscious lies, always pertained to mere detail ...," writes Heiber. "Goebbels' lies were more in the nature of those equivocations and evasions by which government spokesmen everywhere seek to 'protect' the 'national interest'." It is also common to imagine that, however skilled, Goebbels was little more than a clever ranter who won support from his countrymen by appealing to base feelings of envy, revenge, conceit and arrogant pride. This view, which implicitly demeans Germans as a nation of emotional and mental cripples, is especially widespread in the United States. If he thinks about it at all, the typical American imagines that if he had been living in Third Reich Germany, he would not have "fallen" for Goebbels' "obvious" lies. Such a self-flattering view is based on ignorance. In his classic study, Propaganda (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1968; Vintage, 1973 [p. 54]), French scholar Jacques Ellul pointed out that Goebbels' postwar image is itself a propaganda distortion: There remains the problem of Goebbels' reputation. He wore the title of Big Liar (bestowed by Anglo-Saxon propaganda) and yet he never stopped battling for propaganda to be as accurate as possible. He preferred being cynical and brutal to being caught in a lie. He used to say: "Everybody must know what the situation is." He was always the first to announce disastrous events or difficult situations, without hiding anything. The result was a general belief between 1939 and 1942 that German communiqués not only were more concise, clearer and less cluttered, but were more truthful than Allied communiqués (American and neutral opinion) -- and, furthermore, that the Germans published all the news two or three days before the Allies. All this is so true that pinning the title of Big Liar on Goebbels must be
considered quite a propaganda success.
Now a little bit on a Goebbels' clone, equally to become historically infamous,:Thinkingblue Karl Rove "I have no interest whatsoever in being in Washington DC. I'm happy right here." --Karl Rove, when asked if he will head for the White House if Phil Gramm, the candidate he handled in 1996, wins the presidency. Best known for: George W. Bush's chief strategist. Consultant to U.S. Senators Phil Gramm, Kay Bailey Hutchison and many other right-wing politicians. Born: December 25, 1950 in Denver, and grew up in Colorado, Utah and Nevada. Family: His father was a geologist. At age nine, Rove became a faithful Republican when he backed Richard Nixon against John Kennedy. Education: Attended nearly half a dozen colleges without getting a degree. Profession: Teaches graduate students at the University of Texas. 'Bush's Brain' Besieged Jim Lobe July 15 2005 Battered by sagging poll numbers, new doubts in the aftermath of the London bombings about the effectiveness of its war on terrorism, and no letup in the bad news out of Iraq, the White House has found itself this week embroiled in yet another controversy, one that threatens the credibility, if not the tenure, of the man widely known as President George W. Bush's "brain."
Thanks to the disclosure of e-mail messages from a Time magazine reporter to his editor, it is now known that, contrary to categorical assurances by the White House two years ago, Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser, leaked the identity of a covert Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer, the subject of a criminal investigation by a federal grand jury.
At the time, Bush himself had assured reporters that he would fire anyone in his administration found to be responsible for the "outing" of Valerie Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a retired diplomat who had published an article in the New York Times debunking Bush's assertions in the run-up to the Iraq war that Baghdad had tried to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger, presumably as part of a nuclear weapons program.
But now, with Rove "outed" as one of the sources of the leak, the White House is refusing to comment about the implications, insisting, in contrast to its assurances about Rove's innocence as recently as 14 months ago, that it would be wrong to say anything about the case while the grand jury investigation continues.
Bush himself stoically ignored questions about Rove's fate that were shouted at him by reporters during a very brief photo-opportunity with a visiting foreign dignitary Tuesday. At the end of a cabinet meeting in which Rove was discreetly seated in a rear row Wednesday, he announced, "This is a serious investigation."
Top Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, are now trying to extract maximum political advantage, demanding that Rove step down for breaching national security and placing the lives of Plame, her associates, and their agents in jeopardy.
While Rove is considered most unlikely to leave, at least in the near term, the stakes are high. Rove, whom Bush has referred to as "the architect" of his electoral successes and, more affectionately, as "boy genius," is widely considered the president's single most influential adviser, and not just on political matters.
Neoconservatives howled, for example, when Rove, who has guided Bush's political career from its outset, reportedly told top cabinet officials in the fall of 2003 that there was to be "no war in 2004," in order to ensure the president's reelection.
"[T]his president does not want to lose Karl Rove," David Gergen, a top political adviser to former presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, told the Los Angeles Times. "Rove is his right arm."
The controversy began almost exactly two years ago – almost three months after the U.S. invasion of Iraq – when Wilson published a column in the New York Times July 6, 2003, recounting his 2002 trip to Niger as a CIA consultant precisely to investigate intelligence reports that Iraq had tried to buy a large quantity of yellowcake from the country.
After a week talking to sources in the country, Wilson, who had served a good part of his diplomatic career in Francophone Africa, including Niger, concluded that the reports were untrue and reported his conclusions back to the CIA and the State Department.
Despite his findings, the allegation that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," made its way into Bush's State of the Union Address in January 2003, less than two months before the invasion.
Noting the apparent anomaly, Wilson, who wrote that he was confident his findings had been communicated to the relevant policymakers, particularly Vice President Dick Cheney's office, which, he was told, had expressed particular interest in the Niger reports, argued that, "If … the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses."
The article, which was published at the moment when it first became clear that U.S. forces in Iraq faced a serious and growing insurgency, received considerable attention, and, within days, the White House conceded that the inclusion in Bush's speech of the uranium claim was a mistake.
On July 14, 2003, however, Chicago Sun-Times columnist Robert Novak published a column in which he reported that Wilson had traveled to Niger at the suggestion of his wife, whom Novak not only identified by name, but also described as "an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." He cited "two senior administration officials" as his sources.
Several other Washington reporters came forward shortly afterward saying that they, too, had been called by senior officials regarding Plame's identity, apparently in an effort to discredit Wilson's reporting by suggesting that nepotism played a role in his selection. None of the reporters, however, identified their sources by name.
Under a 1982 law, it is a crime to knowingly disclose the identity of U.S. citizens working undercover for the CIA. Democrats, the media, and indeed some intelligence veterans soon began clamoring for a criminal investigation of the leak, particularly amid evidence that the leak may have resulted in the agency's closure of a major international counter-proliferation operation that been running for a number of years.
The Justice Department initiated an investigation and, under growing public pressure, reluctantly appointed a special counsel, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, to handle the case. Fitzgerald promptly impaneled a grand jury and began taking testimony from administration officials, including Rove. All grand jury proceedings are secret, and remarkably little has leaked out to date.
Reporters, many of whom initially resisted testifying on the grounds that conversations with sources were confidential, were also subpoenaed to testify by Fitzgerald, who has won a series of court decisions holding that reporters do not have an absolute right to withhold the identity of their sources when a crime has been committed. It was in that context that Time magazine turned over the records of conversations held between its reporter, Matthew Cooper, and White House officials, including Rove.
According to one e-mail message obtained last week by Newsweek, Cooper informed his editor that Rove had told him four days before the Novak column was published that Wilson's wife – whom he did not identify by name – "apparently works" for the CIA and had a role in selecting him for the Niger mission.
Rove's lawyer has since confirmed that such a conversation had taken place but insisted that his client had not done anything illegal, both because Rove did not provide Plame's name, nor was he aware that she was a covert officer.
In addition, the attorney has also declared that Rove has specifically waived the confidentiality of his conversation with Cooper, thus permitting the Time correspondent, who had been prepared to go to jail rather than to disclose his source, to testify before the grand jury in the coming weeks.
While Rove's waiver saved Cooper from going to jail, another reporter, Judith Miller of the New York Times, has been behind bars since last Wednesday for refusing to cooperate with Fitzgerald's investigation.
While her decision has been hailed by many in the media as an act of integrity and courage, others have noted that, in the run-up to the Iraq, Miller, who is considered close to neoconservative hawks in and out of the administration, was the most consistent purveyor in the elite media of stories about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD) based on the accounts of sources provided by the Iraqi National Congress (INC) and the Pentagon.
Given her close association with the war hawks, her WMD expertise, and the fact that she never wrote about Wilson or his wife, some writers, notably William Jackson, Jr. of the trade publication, Editor & Publisher, have raised the question whether she may have been a source for, as well as a witness to, disclosure of Plame's identity.
Another prominent neoconservative, Clifford May of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, boasted two years ago that he was told by two "former government officials" of Plame's identity before Novak published his column. May worked as a reporter for the Times for 10 years before becoming communications director for the Republican National Committee, a post where he knew Rove quite well.
, "The fab four:Meet the people maneuvering behind the scenes to put George W. Bush in the White House," Salon magazine, June 16, 1999, http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/06/16/advisors/index1.html); Paul Brancato, “Bush League” illustrated cards (Forestville, California: Eclipse Enterprises, 1989), pp. 5, 13, 18.Click here to read another Karl Rove profile.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Everyone, please copy and paste the below message into your email signature... spread the word... thinkingblue
NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse nor protection save to call for the impeachment of the current President. http://thinkingblue.blogspot.com 
QUOTATION OF THE DAY " “We enter parliament in order to supply ourselves, in the arsenal of democracy, with its own weapons. If democracy is so stupid as to give us free tickets and salaries for this bear's work, that is its affair. We do not come as friends, nor even as neutrals. We come as enemies. As the wolf bursts into the flock, so we come.” Joseph Paul Goebbels ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
<< Home