tabacco
My RSS Feeds
Ralph Nader On Ralph Nader - Ralph Nader On Hillary Clinton - What Has Clinton Done In Senate To Earn Your Vote? Quick, Name 2 Things! NO! Wrong! She Funded War! - RI10
posted Friday, 6 July 2007
Ralph Nader On
Ralph Nader -
Ralph Nader On
Hillary Clinton -
What Has Clinton
Done In Senate To
Earn Your Vote?
Quick, Name 2
Things! NO! Wrong!
She Funded War! -
RI10
THE SITUATION ROOM
Aired June 21, 2007 - 1900 ET
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks very much Lou.
Happening now -- U.S. troops are on the offensive, taking the fight to the insurgents. But the insurgents are taking a very heavy toll. As American forces go on the offensive, commanders are warning of very, very tough days ahead.
Some critics still call him the spoiler, saying he drew votes from Democrats in the past. Is Ralph Nader planning another presidential campaign? I'll ask him.
And how did Osama bin Laden's family flee the United States in those chaotic days right after 9/11? Who helped them? There are new FBI documents that have now been released. We're taking a second look.
I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
---
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Wolf, dead last is how our Congress rates among the people of this fine country. A new Gallop poll ranks Americans confidence in 16 institutions, and Congress is dead last. Before we get to the numbers, it is worth noting that Americans are becoming increasingly disillusioned about a lot of things they used to put a lot of faith in.
For example,
25% of those polled, only one in four, say they have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the presidency, and that's the highest number. They go down from there.
23% feel that way about television news,
22% about newspapers.
19% of Americans feel confident in the criminal justice system.
Just 18% give that response for big business.
15% a high level of confidence in HMOs and
a measly, crummy, lousy 14% feel that way about their Congress --14 percent.
Wait a few days; number could drop. There's no shortage of reasons why Americans might feel that way. The ongoing debates and resolutions about the never-ending war in Iraq, the inability of the Democrats to end the war, the on-again, off-again amnesty bill for illegal aliens -- the list is long. The question is not so long. It's short.
What will it take for Americans' confidence in Congress to rank higher than their confidence in the presidency, the media, big business, HMOs, and the criminal justice system? E-mail CaffertyFile@CNN.com or go to CNN.com/CaffertyFile. People are not real happy these days, Wolf.
BLITZER: No, they certainly are not. Jack, thanks very much.
Coming up, Osama bin Laden's family members fly out of the United States right after 9/11 and now there are new FBI documents are fueling some conspiracy theories. We're going to try to set the record straight on what's going on and what happened.
Plus, Ralph Nader, he says he's seriously thinking about another run for the White House. Will he be a spoiler? Will he be a spoiler again? I'll ask him.
Plus, Israel's sexy P.R. campaign, former soldiers showing some skin, but the new efforts to boost terrorism in Israel is being called pornographic by some people in Israel.
Stay with us. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Thousands of people dead, U.S. landmarks destroyed or shattered. Amid the shock and chaos after the September 11th attacks, how did Osama bin Laden's family flee America? Let's go to CNN's Brian Todd. Brian?
BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, in those frightful days after 9/11, U.S. intelligence dealt with a fog of information, and these newly released documents seem to add to the confusion.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TODD (voice-over): More than a week after the attacks, a couple of days after more than 100 Saudi nationals, including members of Osama bin Laden's family, are flown out of the U.S. on chartered flights, an FBI document mentions one of the flights.
Quote -- "the plane was chartered either by the Saudi Arabian royal family or Osama bin Laden”. The plane in question left on September 19. The FBI document was written on September 21. Was the FBI still not sure if bin Laden was involved in arranging a flight carrying his family members even after it had left? The bureau is eager to clarify.
RICHARD KOLKO, FBI SPOKESMAN: By the time that flight ever left the U.S., we knew (A), for a fact that Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with it, and (B), the people on that flight had no information pertinent to the investigation.
Tabacco: Ramos and Compean they don’t trust; but Saudi Arabians, especially those named bin Laden, those they trust implicitly! And how did our Republican government know they “had no information pertinent to the investigation”? Why, because they said so, of course! Under oath? Not necessary! Any bin Laden, not named Osama, has unquestioned integrity! Now we Americans cannot trust anybody named Bush or Cheney; why would anybody trust the family of Osama bin Laden! I only examine this for logic to prove one thing: why anyone would ever trust a Republican in general and members of the Bush administration in particular is beyond the realm of either experience or logic.
TODD: Still, observers say this about the documents’ seeming second-guessing.
CRAIG UNGER, "VANITY FAIR": What it suggests is a sloppiness of the FBI's records, of its documents.
TODD: How did that get into the FBI's records at a time they knew bin Laden wasn't involved? An FBI official says it got caught up in a swirl of information circulating at the time.
KOLKO: And what is in that report filed by an FBI agent from Los Angeles is information that he had gathered from the airport. We were able to quickly determine that it was not Osama bin Laden that had chartered that flight.
Tabacco: No, it was chartered by someone inside the inner circle at the White House – definitely a Bush confidant and therefore a Republican! Any doubters?
TODD: The group, Judicial Watch, which requested the documents be released, also questions whether the FBI adequately screened everyone on a flight carrying some members of bin Laden's family. FBI officials say they did. We asked a member of the 9/11 Commission.
TIM ROEMER, 9/11 COMMISSIONER: We were satisfied that they did that. That they were very concerned about who was on these fights, and who was leaving the country, and that they did a good job on that front.
Tabacco: We have your word on that, right? Who designated Tim Roemer the 9/11 Commissioner? If his name is Bush, how can anyone trust Roemer to be either truthful or comprehensive! If you cannot trust the American president, you cannot trust that president’s nominees. It’s that simple!
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TODD: So who did arrange for those chartered flights of Saudi nationals? The 9/11 Commission report says an official at the Saudi embassy made some of the contacts, and a member of the Saudi royal family, the former ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar bin Sultan, has said that he called the FBI and top U.S. counter terrorism officials to make the request. Wolf?
BLITZER: Brian Todd reporting.
Osama bin Laden was granted an award today. Get this. A group of hard-line Pakistani Muslim clerics says it's bestowing upon bin Laden, the title -- and I'm quoting now -- "Sword of God", for, quote, "serving Muslims by waging jihad against infidels". The move is a protest against Britain's decision to grant a knighthood to the author, Salmon Rushdie, accused of insulting Islam in his novel, "The Satanic Verses". The knighthood has led Pakistani protesters to burn the British flag and to burn Rushdie in effigy.
One of the most popular videos online right now is an animated version of the September 11 attacks. The simulation is the result of a two and half year study that examined how the World Trade Center actually collapsed. Let's go to our Internet reporter Jacki Schechner. She's watching this. What does the video show, Jacki?
JACKI SCHECHNER, CNN INTERNET REPORTER: Wolf, this is the video right here, and you can take a look at it for yourself. The animation shows the first plane crashing into the north tower, slicing through it, and breaking into pieces. Researches say the plane, packed with fuel, moved through the building like a quote, "hot and fast lava flow".
They say the weight and energy of the plane's 10,000 gallons of fuel stripped fireproofing material off of the towers steel columns and eventually led to the tower's collapse. They say when developers first designed the World Trade Center, they anticipated the possibility of a crash but they never anticipated this kind of fire. Engineering professors and computer scientists at Purdue University spent two and a half years creating this 3-D simulation. They posted it on YouTube and it's now been viewed more than half a million times. The researchers say they hope this project helps engineers design safer buildings and possibly, Wolf, save lives in the future.
BLITZER: Let's hope something comes out of this. Thanks very much for that, Jacki Schechner.
Tabacco: I love the way CNN tells you about the simulation, then does not direct you to the site. If you didn’t see the show and the simulation, go to:
http://www.nyc24.us/2007/06/22/3d-simulation-of-the-world-trade-center-attacks/
Even those of us, who saw the simulation on The Situation Room, did not see CNN reveal its source. Thank goodness, Tabacco did the necessary research!
Please note that CNN has left the bin Laden family vis-à-vis 9/11 situation just as opaque and enigmatic as it was before. CNN’s report is known as non-informative information. CNN’s report at best is innuendo. Only Tabacco has given any real analysis. Wrong or Right, at least Tabacco is giving you analysis. Tell me what you learned from the CNN rhetoric other than there is a simulation. Only in America do people watch the news and learn absolutely nothing.
You learned almost as much about the World Trade Center’s collapse as you did about who authorized those flights out of the USA of bin Laden’s family immediately after 9/11. Imagine how this Post would read without my green comments! And this is CNN, not Fox News!
Normally, Tabacco edits out this sort of non-story story, but I want you to see just how dumb CNN thinks the public really is. Without Paris Hilton to identify the “news story” as trivia, one has to pay close attention to the MSM. Often watching or reading the “news” is like eating COTTON CANDY. It may taste good, but you are still hungry!
Still ahead here in THE SITUATION ROOM, keeping secrets secret. You are going to find out why the Vice President Dick Cheney is now claiming his office is not, repeat, not a part of the executive branch of the U.S. government.
Tabacco: Why would anyone need to hear that? Any fool could make an educated guess and be correct. Please give us the latest on Paris Hilton already!
And should pet owners be required to have their pets spayed and neutered -- a drastic measure in California that could be a first in the nation. We'll tell you what's going on out there.
Stay with us. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
Tabacco: Try to remember you’re reading the prose of CNN, not Fox News. You expect vacuous trivia from Bill O’Reilly. You expect better from Wolf Blitzer!
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: It's a stunning charge. A top House Democrat claiming the vice president, Dick Cheney, often does not want the American people to see what his office is doing. And Henry Waxman also claiming the vice president takes drastic steps to keep things from public view. Let's go back to our White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux. What's going on, Suzanne?
MALVEAUX: Wolf, this feud is a little bit different. It is not about actually classified information protecting that information, but rather, it's about the public's right to know just how much the vice president keeps secret.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MALVEAUX (voice-over): The vice president's office is keeping a secret. The secret is over how many secrets it keeps. An order by President Bush requires Cheney's office to tell the National Archives how many documents it classifies or declassifies each year. For years, the vice president's office has refused.
Now, an explosive charge -- the vice president's solution to the dispute? Abolish the office asking for the records. That's according to Congressman Henry Waxman, who heads the congressional committee investigating the matter. He warned Cheney in a letter that his actions could be downright criminal, saying I question both the legality and wisdom of your actions.
A Cheney spokeswoman would neither confirm nor deny whether they sought to abolish the National Archives office seeking the vice president's records. But she did respond to Waxman's accusations, saying we are confident that we are conducting the office properly under the law. That executive order Mr. Bush signed in 2003 requires all agencies or any other entity within the executive branch to report its record for classifying top-secret documents.
But according to Waxman, the vice president's office is now claiming it is not an entity within the executive branch. That's because, as vice president, Cheney also serves as the president of the Senate, which means he's in the unique position of straddling the executive and legislative branches.
STEVEN AFTERGOOD, FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS: It is transparently silly. If it were true, then we would have to rewrite all of the textbooks that we all grew up with. It's obvious that the vice president's office is part of the executive branch, and to claim otherwise is preposterous.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MALVEAUX: And Wolf, the vice president's office really has a pattern of secrecy was back in 2001, as you recall, they did not release the name of energy executives that the vice president met with. More recently as well they tried to deny access to some of the visitors' logs of his residence -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Suzanne, some inconsistencies. Critics are saying that the White House now is showing inconsistencies in this latest argument.
MALVEAUX: Well, it is very interesting, because the Bush administration, on numerous occasions cites the reason why they are going to keep things quiet, this information secret, is they cite executive privilege, executive power, so, it would seem very inconsistent now that the vice president's office is claiming that he now holds this unique position -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Suzanne, thanks very much.
Just ahead, will he or won't he? Ralph Nader wants you to know his intentions about the race for the White House. He'll join us here in THE SITUATION ROOM.
And a whole new meaning to the term out of uniform -- some of Israel's former female soldiers are now serving their country in another way. Carol Costello is standing by to show us what is going on.
Stay with us. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
Ralph Nader could jump into the presidential race, but some say he will only play the role of spoiler once again. CNN's Mary Snow is following these latest developments for us. Mary, what is Nader's motivation potentially to run this time?
MARY SNOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well Wolf, Independent Ralph Nader still has a long-standing gripe with the two-party system and wants to push a progressive agenda, but he's also being motivated by the candidate viewed as the Democratic front-runner.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SNOW (voice-over): Ralph Nader's chances of ever winning a presidential election are slim. But he tells the political Web site, the Politico, he has seriously considered running yet again, because the current crop of eight Democrats, 10 Republicans and a list of maybes that could include Mike Bloomberg as an Independent offer little real choice. His staunchest criticism is aimed at Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton, calling her a political coward. It's a theme he's been hammering away at for months. Here is Nader in February.
RALPH NADER (I), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: She is pandering and flattering her way around the country as if she's moving to a coronation.
SNOW: The Clinton camp declined comment. But a former campaign staffer for Al Gore says it's vanity behind Nader's possible run.
Tabacco: What’s wrong with vanity? He’s telling the T-R-U-T-H! Instead of answering the charges, that staffer attacked the messenger. I thought only Republicans did that!
CHRIS LEHANE, FORMER GORE CAMPAIGN SPOKESMAN: Nader by campaigning against her and trying to make her his target, I think, is only trying to create a dynamic, or a system, where he could indeed play the spoiler role.
SNOW: He was dubbed the spoiler in 2000, when Nader won nearly 3% of the vote. Many Democrats blame him for taking votes away from Al Gore, causing Gore…
LEHANE: ... his target, I think, is only trying to create a dynamic, or a system, where he could indeed play the spoiler role.
SNOW: He was dubbed the spoiler in 2000, when Nader won nearly 3% of the vote. Many Democrats blame him for taking votes away from Al Gore, causing Gore to lose key states to George Bush. By 2004, support for the long-time consumer advocate dwindled to .4 of 1%. While his numbers may be small, political observers say candidates, such as Nader, add substance.
LARRY SABATO, UVA CENTER FOR POLITICS: They contribute to the debate. They force some of the major party candidates to discuss issues they would prefer to ignore entirely.
Tabacco: Not so long as the MSM refuses to discuss anything more relevant than Hillary’s % in the polls or Barack’s campaign contributions for the last quarter. I watched the 8 Democrats debate at Howard University last week. The fact that this is the only mention of it made in this column should inform my Readers how worthless it was. However, it was no worse than debates, sponsored by White groups. How can you possibly get any serious debate or relevant candidate comments in 60-second spots!
One minor Democratic candidate at least tried to be provocative. I know his name but refuse to give him any free publicity here. That candidate attacked the other 7 with persuasive insults. However he wants the “FairTax” and thinks “Outsourcing is NOT the problem”. Enough said about that Economic Republican in Populist’s clothing. It’s a sad situation when a candidate of his ilk makes Hillary Clinton look presidential.
SNOW: But when it comes to votes, some Democrats worry in a tight race, even small numbers can make a big impact.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(on camera): And some observers say the progressives Nader is trying to target by criticizing Senator Clinton, are the same ones still bitter about Al Gore's loss in 2000. Wolf?
BLITZER: Mary Snow in New York for us, thanks, Mary.
The idea of Ralph Nader running for president, once again, likely to cause deep anxiety among some of the candidates.
Ralph Nader is joining us here in the SITUATION ROOM. Let's talk about it. Thanks very much for coming in.
RALPH NADER, FMR. GREEN PARTY PRES. CANDIDATE: You're welcome.
BLITZER: Are you running for president?
NADER: It is too early to say. And the reason why I say that, is it is too early. I mean, the others are getting in the race, because they have to raise hundreds of millions of dollars. We have to raise thousands of volunteers. And unless we have a lot of volunteers, to overcome the Democrats prospective efforts to get us off the ballot, you can't run.
BLITZER: But you are certainly, at least have been saying things over the past day or two that would suggest you are giving this really serious thought. That in 2008, once again, you are going to be a candidate for president.
NADER: There are serious issues they are not addressing. They don't -- they still don't do anything about ...
BLITZER: When you say they, who?
NADER: Both parties.
BLITZER: The Democrats and the Republicans.
NADER: They are not cleaning up the political system, the election rackets and the monies that's involved. They haven't touched the horrendous tax system; the military budget is out of control. Waste, fraud, abuse, documented by their own Congressional investigations. The GAL and Pentagon audits. They are thumbing their nose at the workers. Look, this is the 60th anniversary of the worst law, the Taft Hartley Law (ph), shackling American labor, and the Democrats will not make an event out of it.
BLITZER: But you heard the Democratic debate, the one we did in New Hampshire, the Republican debate that followed. If you listen carefully, not even all that carefully, there were significant differences between the Democrats and the Republicans as to how to end the war in Iraq, on health care, on tax cuts, on whether gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military. There were two very different positions. When you say there are no real differences, between Democrats and Republicans, there are significant differences. (Tabacco: Mostly on Social Issues, not Economic ones! Neither side wants to end the War and kill the Golden Goose! Even my own Representative, Steve Israel, used that Sophistry on me “Support the Troops”. Israel calls himself a Democrat.)
NADER: There are significant differences, but not enough. Because there is a whole spectrum of issues. Like who is making solar energy conversion as a national mission in our county? I mean, Gore is talking about it. But who in -- they are tiptoeing here and there and they avoiding some very important issues that we call concentration of power issues.
Giant corporations have absolutely too much power in this country. And they have too much power to abandon this country with their factories and with their jobs.
BLITZER: If Michael Bloomberg ran as a third party candidate, would that satisfy you? Would you then step aside?
Tabacco: Bloomberg ran New York City as a Republican. I hardly think that switching his Party affiliation from Democrat to Republican to Independent changes Bloomberg the man. Bloomberg is out for Bloomberg – 1st, last and always! And he’s R-I-C-H! That’s all we need is another RICH, SELF-PROMOTING CAPITALIST in the Oval Office!
NADER: That would make it very interesting.
BLITZER: Why? Why do you like him so much?
NADER: One, he will turn into a three-way race. Clearly, even more than Perot. Number two, he has a spectrum of issues coming from his New York City background, and experience, and managerial experience that the other two can't match.
I mean, I don't think we would have the post-Katrina situation if we had some sort of managerial competence running the federal government.
BLITZER: And his business background, you like that?
NADER: Yes. You know, I was in Bloomberg News getting interviewed, and he called me over. Before he ...
BLITZER: When was this?
NADER: This was before he announced for mayor.
BLITZER: This was years ago.
NADER: Yes. And he said, you know, I'm just going to tell you, tomorrow I'm going down and switching my registration from Democrat to Republican. I said, he's running for mayor.
BLITZER: Yes.
NADER: He now has switched from Republican to Independent. He is seriously considering it. He looks at the field. He's not impressed. You know, a lot of the Republicans, they are all pro-war. This country is not going to come close to electing a pro-war Republican. He's saying, look, this could be a three-way race. My prediction is, that he's going to go in. He doesn't have to go in early, because he has so much money. He can go in late.
Tabacco: So the RICH want Bloomberg to play “Spoiler” to elect that pro-war Republican by splitting the anti-war, Democratic, Independent & Republican votes. Remember Bloomberg is one of them, not one of us. He is R-I-C-H!
BLITZER: He can go in and get on all the ballots.
NADER: Yes.
BLITZER: And if he does, that would reduce the incentive for you to get in?
NADER: It would make it all the more interesting.
BLITZER: You would still ... NADER: Then it wouldn't just be just a two-party elected ...
BLITZER: And that would reduce your incentive?
NADER: No. No. It would make it more interesting. Because it would open up to the American people more voices, more choice.
Tabacco: I’m beginning to wonder just how sincere Ralph Nader really is. One of my major Axioms is that “You must consider the net effect, not just the rhetoric”. If what Nader says is basically correct, and it is, his political meddling certainly did not elect a Democrat to the White House. Therefore we must evaluate critically his true motives. Cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face has never been a practical, pragmatic policy, political or otherwise. Though I admire Nader’s rhetoric, I abhor his 3rd Party stances, which have permitted the worse of two evils to prevail. I trust Nader no more than I trust Bloomberg!
“When the rabbit screams, the fox comes a runnin’ – but not to help!” – ‘Hannibal’
BLITZER: Well, I'm a little confused. If Bloomberg runs as a third party candidate, will Ralph Nader, that would be you. Will you run as a fourth party candidate?
NADER: I said before, it's too early to say.
BLITZER: But your -- but the ...
NADER: In answer to your ...
BLITZER: But does the Bloomberg decision effect your decision?
NADER: It makes it more interesting and more useful. You know why? Because you reduce the political bigotry against a small party candidate. Because you have a got three-way race, it's more mixed, more diverse, and there will be otherwise preoccupied, shall we say, with Michael Bloomberg.
BLITZER: So, as much as you say you like some of the things he stands for, even if he ran, you might still run anyhow?
NADER: Yes.
BLITZER: All right. I just want to be clear on that.
NADER: I haven't made the decision at all.
BLITZER: Let's talk ...
NADER: I said, you can't -- you can't run a locomotive without fuel. The fuel are pro-bono lawyers and thousands of volunteers to overcome the Democratic move to get us off the ballot.
BLITZER: I ...
NADER: It's a big issue.
BLITZER: I saw this quote the other day, I want to make sure it ...
NADER: Yes.
BLITZER: ... accurately conveys your attitude towards Senator Clinton. Senator Hillary Clinton. If Senator John F. Kennedy's best- selling book, "Profiles in Courage" was updated, nothing Hillary Clinton has done in the Congress would come close to being a footnote. You don't -- is that an accurate quote?
NADER: Yes.
BLITZER: You don't like her?
NADER: It isn't a matter of
liking her. It's a matter of --
she has great name recognition,
she's got a terrific political
machine. She's not using her
political capital to shift power,
to challenge abuses of power.
Done nothing on the bloated
wasteful Pentagon budget.
She's on the Senate Armed
Services Committee. Nothing
on these huge subsidies going
to corporations. She hasn't
even done anything for the
ghettos, in terms of, you
know, the serious economic
exploitation in the inner city.
Not to mention, asbestos and
lead in children's bodies. I
mean, she knows all about this.
Tabacco: You know he’s telling the Truth. So those of you, who think Hillary should be president, why? You tell me that! Other than the fact she’s leading currently in the Democratic polls, I can’t think of another reason to vote for her – unless she actually gets the Democratic nomination. Then you more or less have to! But not in the Primaries! I would prefer Jack The Ripper, The Marquis de Sade, Benedict Arnold or Elmer Fudd. That’s why in the New York Primary, I will vote for Dennis Kucinich of Ohio for PRESIDENT!
BLITZER: But you know Republicans would be salivating if you decided to jump in, because they feel, correctly or incorrectly, you would be taking votes away from a Democratic candidate.
NADER: Well, that's because they are themselves inhibited. If they saw what we were doing, they would say, hey, let's grab issues ourselves, like a real living wage, an authentic health insurance plan, a real reform of the tax system, public funding of public campaigns, you know, public transit. There are a thousand issues they are shying away from because they are dying for the same corporate dollars as the Republicans are dialing for.
By the way, it's amazing how they never look at my critique of Bush in 2000, 2004.
BLITZER: Well, you were very critical of Bush.
NADER: [inaudible]
BLITZER: But to this day, it is something you have had to live with all these years, since the Florida recount down in 2000, Ralph Nader effectively got George W. Bush elected president.
NADER: Factual errors. You see, it's the dynamic before Election Day you have to look at. Pushing Gore to more progressive positions actually got him more votes. 25% of my vote, according to the Democratic exit poll, would have gone to Bush. (That means 75% would have gone to Gore – strange this ?honest man? couldn’t bring himself to say that!) I was very, very critical of Bush. I think Gore won. And by the way, I've spoken to him, I think he knows he won in Florida; it was taken from him. From Tallahassee to the Supreme Court, before, during, after, Election Day. (True!) But let's get over that because we all have equal right to run for election. (True!) We are either all spoilers of one another, trying to get votes from one another, or none of us are spoilers. Let's go to the American people with so many wonderful solutions to the problems that as are on the shelf, but not being deployed on the ground.
Tabacco: Amazing how many Truths one man can speak and still be totally disingenuous! George W. Bush could learn a lot about effective Sophistry from Ralph Nader!
BLITZER: Ralph Nader, thanks for coming in.
Tabacco: Yeah, thanks, Ralph!
The question is this: Would you rather have an honest populist run for President in 2008 on the Independent or Green Party ticket, which allows a Pro-War Republican like Rudy Giuliani to be elected, or would you prefer to see that honest populist drop out of the race and allow a Democrat, even Hillary Clinton, to win? Your answer to that question will tell you whether you are sincere about stopping the War and helping the Middleclass or whether you are just deceiving yourself. Be careful how you answer that question!
NADER: Thanks, Wolf.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/21/sitroom.03.html
Tabacco: I consider myself both a funnel and a filter. I funnel information, not readily available on the Mass Media, which is ignored and/or suppressed. I filter out the irrelevancies and trivialities to save both the time and effort of my Readers and bring consternation to the enemies of Truth & Fairness! When you read Tabacco, if you don’t learn something NEW, I’ve wasted your time.
In 1981's 'Body Heat', Kathleen Turner said, "Knowledge is power".
T.A.B.A.C.C.O. (Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization)
comments