From: gdgibson@earthlink.net

Subject: Lost Clinton Glory: Money Laundering

Dear Bartcop,

The July/August Foreign Affairs has an article by a former National Security Council staffer who has a lot of nice things to say about the way Bill Clinton worked assiduously, and on a global scale, to close the loopholes that allowed terrorists, drug traffickers, and other criminals to transfer vast sums of money without getting caught.

The article closes, however, with concerns about the pResident's administration. Chief economic adviser Lawerence Lindsey "who has long opposed the legislative foundations of the U.S. anti-money laundering regime," said " 'current . . . enforcement practices are the kind of blanket search that the writers of the Constitution sought to prohibit.'"

And then there's Paul O'Neil (R-Loose Cannon), who said that the multilateral anti-money laundering approaches that Clinton signed on for with other industrialized nations were " 'not in line with the administration's tax and economic priorities.' "

The writer, William Wechsler, expressed hope that Bush would express support for the hard work of the Clinton administration when the G-7 met in Genoa. Besides the death of a protester, all I clearly remember about Genoa is Bush's adamant refusal to even consider signing the Kyoto treaty.

Then W. expects us to get all happy when he freezes Bin Laden's bank accounts in the U.S.? I don't think so.
Churchill? Ha!
Our current president looks more and more like Neville Chamberlain--minus the ennobling desire for peace.

Thanks for listening,
George Gibson

From: williebo@eohsi.rutgers.edu

Subject: homegrown terrorists

Dear Bartcop
That extreme conspiracy theory by R. B Hamm you linked us to was otherworldly.
He needs to be writing books instead of driving trucks.  However, as with most
conspiracy theories, no matter how outlandish, there is always some fact, some element
of truth that gets ignored because the initial premise, or conclusions, or purported facts
are found to be incorrect.

In this case the single worst case of terrorism visited upon the US soil prior to the WTC
was from right wing homegrown terrorists.  After the WTC Bush initially vowed to extirpate
all terrorist and the countries and organizations that harbor them.  Now I ask you,
if that is the case will he eliminate the KKK, the Christian Militia, Neo Nazis, Skin Heads, et al?

Notice how the terrorist cells to be eliminated must suddenly now have "global reach".
Do you think the governmnent  will ever officially define terrorism or a terrorist?
(As I see it the conventional definition seems to be, a terrorists is a man of middle Eastern
descent who straps a bomb onto his person and kills innocent civilians in the ensuing explosion).
And just how thorough will the government be in tracing the money laundering trail of bin Laden?

Remember money laundering equals drug trade and the drug trade is tacitly run/tolerated by governments.
I am not one those who say we should not "glass" the perpetrators of the WTC but already I see
troubling signs that this attack is being used just as another opportunity to for that top five percent
to make more money (witness those patriotic bears on Wall Street!) and solidify their positions globally.

W. Johnson Jr.

 From: (withheld)

I remember what Republicans said when Clinton was driving Slobo from office:
"If a cause is worth fighting for, the President should
  prove it to us by sending his own daughter."

I never agreed with that, but you know how those Republicans are;
once they decide something is right, there's no changing their minds.

In all fairness to W., I hope Republicans don't demand he send both of his daughters to combat.
Just sending one will prove he believes in the cause.

Limbaugh was constantly demanding that Chelsea go to Serbia.
Has he indicated which Bush daughter should go to Afghanistan,
or will leave that up to the parents?

From: sstark@etigers.net

Subject: Pigboy and the Tribute to Heroes

BC,
I trust you heard the Vulgar Pigboy comment on the Tribute to Heroes program near the end of his show Monday.

In case you didn’t, these were his main points:
All those candles—made it seem like a funeral
NO FLAGS!  (The horror, the horror)
NO MENTION OF OUR ARMED FORCES!

Imagine, a program aimed at getting relief to the families of over 6000 dead victims,
including Fire and Police who gave their lives in service (i.e. heroes),
having no flag waiving or military presence!

All they did was raise over $100 million!

I’ll bet that if everything else had been the same, except that the Tribute had been conducted
by Conservative Republicans, that asshole would have spent the entire 3 hours praising it
and bragging how much he had contributed to the cause.

Instead, he limited his few half-hearted compliments (?!) to the final 20 minutes.
What a turd.

Steve
 

Steve, can't argue with that...

From: derek@NTI4.com

Subject: I don't get it

I saw a news report tonight. NBC Nightly, I think, that said the CIA has been working with
the “northern alliance” or whatever they are calling the Taliban opposition, for ‘many months now’.

How they know that I can’t say, but if it’s true why was Bush giving the Taliban millions of
American tax dollars (which was not even mentioned in the report, of course) at the same time
his intelligence agency was working the other side?

What the f*** is going on?

Derek
 

I don't know either, but I don't trust the son of a bitch.
He's got to be the dimmest bulb who ever tried to take over the world.

I Know Why I'd Fight

This past week the Rev. Jerry Falwell, our own fundamentalist religious
cleric, shared with the million people who listen to Pat Robertson's 700
Club a good list of what makes America better than the fundamentalist
terrorists, although I'm sure that's not what he intended [Style, Sept.14].
The Rev. Falwell said America had been subjected to the deadly attack
because the Supreme Court banned prayer in public schools, because we
respect feminism and tolerate abortion, because of the ACLU and because
we lead "alternative lifestyles."

Right on, reverend.  That is why they attacked, and that is why we should fight.
We should fight for our culture and politics, because America recognizes that
people will never agree about religion, and because we are not willing to kill
people who disagree.  We should fight for America because we treat women
as equals.  We do not ban them from schools, from work and from driving.
We should fight for America because we don't allow a religious belief about
when life begins to dictate the private decisions of millions of women and girls.
We should fight for America because of every civil liberty the ACLU protects:
to believe in any God we choose or no God, to speak what we believe,
to publish what we say, to rise from class to class regardless of race or ancestry.
We should fight for America because we don't kill each other for our sexual
orientation or at least we don't have a public policy that we do.

Before Sept. 11, secular, materialist, tolerant egalitarian America seemed so
shallow and so foolish, with its shark stories and its Condit stories. Now, America
seems so precious, with its bond traders sobbing for their workers, its firefighters
rushing into burning buildings, its lines of blood donors around the block and its flag.
Every time this feminist, abortion-rights-supporting secular humanist sees the flag,
her eyes fill up.  Draft me.  I may be old, but I'd sure know why I was fighting.

LINDA R. HIRSHMAN
Falmouth, Mass.
as seen in the Washington Post

 Some good Bush toons at  http://www.senryusid.com

From: SGMJAG83@aol.com

Subject: Non Sequitur of the Week

   During the past weekend, SecState Powell at various times stated before TV cameras
that "evidence" of Bin Laden's part in terrorism would be made public by the government.
Today El Chango, when a reporter asked him about it, said the evidence or any such info
would NOT be released. Powell gets punked again.

      At 1105AM today, W/S and the Canadian PM (cheese something or other) made a
brief appearance for reporters, and in his introductory remarks, 90% made two points
before I cut him off. The first part was devoted to whining about some criticism leveled
at him for not mentioning Canada in his Magnum Opus after he was returned to DC.

      In the other part, as he orally stroked the PM about good US-Canada relations,
he suddenly stated: "Border relations between Canada and Mexico have never been better"
a phrase completely out of sync with his preceding remarks, then continued speaking about
US-Canada relations. What a mind!

Miguel in Texas  

From:  jcaruso1@cfl.rr.com

Subject: idiots like you

Well, it is a good thing that idiots like you didnt choose to become stockbrokers.

If a person holds 1 million shares of stock at $20 apiece, that gives him a
total net worth of $20 million. He sells off all the shares and collects $20
million. The stock tumbles to $10 and he buys back a million shares at $10
million (10 bucks each), leaving him with $10 million in cash. He still has
the SAME $20 MILLION! It's just that he now has $10 million in cash and
another $10 million in securities you nitwit! The way he makes money is to
sell HALF of his shares (500,000 @ $20) for $10 million and then buy back
the same shares when it drops to $10 (500,000 @ $10) for $5 million.
He how has million shares again, with $5 million in cash left over.

Assunming the market WILL soon come back, all he did was bet on our decline.
The more the market fell, the bigger the bargain.
That's so Republican...
 

Also, you asked the question, "Who can make money when stock prices are zooming upwards?"
And you call George W. Bush stupid?

I sure do!
 

The same person you were talking about earlier could have purchased his million shares at a buck apiece
and the price wound up going to $20. Hello. THAT is how you make money in the stock market.
Get a clue man.

Jay

Jay, I don't mind people getting rich by betting ON America.
I get pissed when those super-rich bastards make a killing when we're in trouble.

Funny it doesn't bother you, tho...