Kerry wins First Debate hands down

All things outside of Burning Man.
Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Sat Oct 02, 2004 5:25 am

Force wrote:
Simply Joel wrote:
Force wrote:Of course you would.
as much as i would have agreed with you 25 years ago, i must say... "the known is far more desirable than the unknown" even though the "known" isn't performing up to task.

force, you may not like that answer and you are entitled...

entitled to be any noun i choose to label you with...
The fear of the unknown is a damned weak argument for not fixing something.
i expect the person elected on 2 Nov 04 to fix what is broken... one is capable, one says he is capable and yet another one says no one is capable.

now, a moment to reflect on new nouns.

User avatar
Force
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 10:51 am

Post by Force » Sat Oct 02, 2004 5:37 am

Simply Joel wrote:
Force wrote:
Simply Joel wrote: as much as i would have agreed with you 25 years ago, i must say... "the known is far more desirable than the unknown" even though the "known" isn't performing up to task.

force, you may not like that answer and you are entitled...

entitled to be any noun i choose to label you with...
The fear of the unknown is a damned weak argument for not fixing something.
i expect the person elected on 2 Nov 04 to fix what is broken... one is capable, one says he is capable and yet another one says no one is capable.

now, a moment to reflect on new nouns.
So you're expecting the guy who wasn't smart enough to not break it in the first place to fix it?

That's kinda dumb.

It doesn't take a genius to drive a car into a tree, but it does take a skilled mechanic to fix it. And it takes an even smarter guy, a surgeon, to save the lives of the driver and the passengers.

Bush is no mechanic, he's no surgeon, but I would assess his skill level as (barely) adequate to drive America right into a fucking tree.

And giving the Bush monkey another 4 years to pound on something with a fucking rock while he grins like a moron and gives us the thumbs-up and tells us over and over that "it's almost fixedetated! Just give me, oh, say, about 4 more years and about a trillion dollars and it should be right as rain" doesn't sound like the best decision I could make November 2nd either.

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Sat Oct 02, 2004 5:47 am

nouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs dance around my head... too many to put forth...

force, you seem to make bucket-loads of assertions and exclamations...

User avatar
Force
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 10:51 am

Post by Force » Sat Oct 02, 2004 5:49 am

While you make no point at all...

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Sat Oct 02, 2004 5:51 am

Force wrote:While you make no point at all...
less words, same result as you attain.

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Sat Oct 02, 2004 6:03 am

October 2, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Sense and Sensibility
By DAVID BROOKS

In weak moments, I think the best ticket for this country would be Bush-Kerry. The two men balance each other out so well.

Kerry can't make a decision; Bush makes them too quickly. Kerry changes his mind by the month; Bush almost never changes his mind. Kerry thinks obsessively about process questions, but can't seem to come up with a core conviction; Bush is great at coming up with clear goals, but is not so great about coming up with the process to get there.

That was the striking thing about the debate on Thursday night. It wasn't so much a clash of ideologies, or a clash of cultures. It was a clash of two different sorts of minds.

You could say it was a hedgehog (Bush) debating a fox (Kerry), if you want to use that tired but handy formulation. But I think you'd be getting closer to the truth if you put it this way: The atmosphere of Kerry's mind is rationalistic. He thinks about how to get things done. He talks like a manager or an engineer.

The atmosphere of Bush's mind is more creedal or ethical. He talks about moral challenges. He talks about the sort of personal and national character we need in order to triumph over our enemies. His mind is less coldly secular than Kerry's, but also more abstracted from day-to-day reality.

When John Kerry was asked how he would prevent another attack like 9/11, he reeled off a list of nine concrete policy areas, ranging from intelligence reform to training Iraqi troops, but his answer had no thematic summation. If you glance down a transcript of the debate and you see one set of answers that talks about "logistical capacity" or "a plan that I've laid out in four points," or "a long list" of proposals or "a strict series of things" that need to be done, you know that's Kerry speaking.

If, on the other hand, you see an answer that says, "When we give our word, we will keep our word," you know that is Bush. When you see someone talking about crying with a war widow, you know that's Bush.

These contrasting casts of mind influence how the two men see the world - for example, how they define the enemy. On Thursday night, Bush defined the war on terror as a broad moral and ideological struggle. He said, "We have a solemn duty to defeat this ideology of hate."

Bush believes that Iraq is a crucial battlefield in the war because a free Iraq will be a rebuttal to radical Islam right in the heart of the Arab world.

Kerry, on the other hand, defined the enemy in narrow, concrete terms. He emphasized that it was Osama bin Laden who attacked us. He emphasized the need to defeat Al Qaeda's network. He called Iraq a diversion from defeating that network.

Each cast of mind comes with its own strengths and weaknesses. The mechanically minded Kerry is much better at talking about realities like securing the Iraqi border. On the other hand, he is unable to blend his specific proposals into guiding principles.

That's why he's been fuzzy about the big things over the entire course of his career. That's why he has changed his mind on big issues with such astonishing rapidity. That's why he gets twisted into pretzels, like vowing to continue fighting the Iraq war, which he says was a mistake to begin.

Bush, by contrast, is steadfast and resolute. But his weakness is statecraft. That is the task of relating means to ends, of orchestrating the institutions of government to achieve your desired goals.

Bush sometimes acts as if it's enough for a president to profess his faith. But a coach can't just dream up a game plan. He has to understand what his specific players can and can't do, and adapt to those realities.

Bush launched a pre-emptive war even though his intelligence community was incompetent. He occupied a country even though he didn't really believe in, or work with, the institutions of government he would need to complete the task.

Nonetheless, I suspect that the reason Bush's approval ratings hover around 50 percent, despite a year of carnage in Iraq, is because of the reason many of us in the commentariat don't like to talk about: in a faithful and moralistic nation, Bush's language has a resonance with people who know that he is not always competent, and who know that he doesn't always dominate every argument, but who can sense a shared cast of mind.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

User avatar
Alpha
Posts: 764
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 4:55 pm

Post by Alpha » Sat Oct 02, 2004 7:39 am

Simply Joel wrote:"the known is far more desirable than the unknown" even though the "known" isn't performing up to task.
I find this rather ironic considering that Republicans in California were saying the exact opposite around Recall time.

User avatar
samtzu
Posts: 3403
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 5:56 pm
Location: Portland,OR;Columbia,CA;Emigrant Wilderness
Contact:

Post by samtzu » Sat Oct 02, 2004 8:52 am

Force wrote:
If you had an employee that was robbing you blind, making bad (or corrupt) decisions that would seriously undermine your business and sending your son to a bad neighborhood with instructions to kick in their doors, wouldn't you fire that guy no matter how bad his replacement might be? If only to send the message to your other employees that that kind of wanton dereliction of duty will not be tolerated?
UNLESS!....
You were a fucking moron who spent most of your life in front of the tube and let your employees run the business, sending them a substantial portion of your earnings to do so, and didn't really know your son that well, and thought that maybe, well, he could be someone else's son, couldn't he? And that employee who's robbing you blind sure is a good guy, and you like him because he thinks like you, and that other guy (only two choices???) that's up for the job sure is a smarty pants, and wishy-washy and can't really make up his mind about things, so you don't like him, but you like the goofy one with the jug ears 'cause... well, hell! He's kinda' cute! And he has promised to straighten everything out with the business as soon as he gets some of his friends, who are really good at watching people, on the payroll to help protect you from your competitors by trying to run them out of business and then taking over their businesses (it's the only safe way, isn't it?) so that you can sit back on your easy chair, huffing down McDonalds, and Budweiser, driving your big ol' American Built SUV, going to the lake, or the river, or the beach, so that you can relax and ....
NOT THINK!!!!
The revolutionary does not grow up because he cannot grow, while the creative individual cannot grow up because he keeps growing ~~ Eric Hoffer

User avatar
robbidobbs
Posts: 2825
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 1:07 pm
Burning Since: 1999
Camp Name: Pottie Central
Location: LOS of the Pottie doors

Post by robbidobbs » Sat Oct 02, 2004 9:43 am

Now for some well deserved levity...

http://www.ihateyoursuv.com/media2.html

User avatar
Captain Goddammit
Posts: 8589
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 9:34 am
Burning Since: 2000
Camp Name: First Camp
Location: Seattle, WA

Post by Captain Goddammit » Sat Oct 02, 2004 9:44 am

I'll just say this; I don't like Bush any more than any of you.
I also don't like Kerry. But I lean Republican.

The Republicans lose me with their religious shit and pro-life stance, the Democrats with taxing us to death for their goddamm social programs...

I can't stand either of them, and all of your anti-Bush points are totally valid in my opinion. If I thought there was someone else who could actually get elected, I'd vote for them. Unfortunately I just don't think a Libertarian has a realistic chance of getting in, or I'd cast my vote that way. (Yeah, I know, that's only true because everyone thinks like that and therefore makes it true...)

Really I think we're fucked this time either way it goes.
GreyCoyote: "At this rate it wont be long before he is Admiral Fukkit."

User avatar
Captain Goddammit
Posts: 8589
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 9:34 am
Burning Since: 2000
Camp Name: First Camp
Location: Seattle, WA

Post by Captain Goddammit » Sat Oct 02, 2004 9:53 am

robbidobbs wrote:Now for some well deserved levity...

http://www.ihateyoursuv.com/media2.html
*Captain tightens up his Kevlar*
I drive a crew-cab 1-ton dually with a 500-inch motor that dwarfs an SUV...
When I'm not in my F250 4x4 with 428 and sticker on tailgate that says "Sucks gas and hauls ass"...
Or my '55 Chevy with 383 stroker, dual four barrel, American dream machine.

I very well might show up on the playa next year in a semi truck, to do a stone pond and waterfall piece on the playa.

*Captain Goddammit takes cover*
GreyCoyote: "At this rate it wont be long before he is Admiral Fukkit."

User avatar
Force
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 10:51 am

Post by Force » Sat Oct 02, 2004 10:50 am

Captain Goddammit wrote: Really I think we're fucked this time either way it goes.
Have to agree with that.

You can call it a silly conspiracy theory if you want, but the fact that both Bush and Kerry, along with many other people who rise to high national office were skull and bones men will alert anyone with even a basic knowledge of statistical theory that there's something wrong there.

That's why I think the best choice we can make is to fire the dumber of the two- we make a statement that we don't care for the current brand/style of idiocy, which has us invading and attacking countries that have done nothing to us for political/economic reasons and mad dogging other countries while our president fer cryin out loud, acts like a 5 year old on a playground, practically saying "Whatchoo lookin at, you want some too?" to other countries, and at least try a different brand of idiocy, rejecting the one that's led us into war...

I'm teetering this time, between thumbing my nose at the whole bread and circuses "reality" of making a difference by electing a different figurehead who is really just another mask on the same face by voting for Nader in the hopes that he gets a significant enough percentage of the vote to wake people up that there are better choices than the puppets the demreps keep putting forward, and voting for Kerry to make sure Bush doesn't decide to attack the rest of the world in an alcoholic/cocaine binge haze.

User avatar
bullD
Posts: 1321
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:32 am
Location: sf
Contact:

Post by bullD » Sat Oct 02, 2004 12:11 pm

Force wrote:
Captain Goddammit wrote: Really I think we're fucked this time either way it goes.
Have to agree with that.

You can call it a silly conspiracy theory if you want, but the fact that both Bush and Kerry, along with many other people who rise to high national office were skull and bones men will alert anyone with even a basic knowledge of statistical theory that there's something wrong there.

That's why I think the best choice we can make is to fire the dumber of the two- we make a statement that we don't care for the current brand/style of idiocy, which has us invading and attacking countries that have done nothing to us for political/economic reasons and mad dogging other countries while our president fer cryin out loud, acts like a 5 year old on a playground, practically saying "Whatchoo lookin at, you want some too?" to other countries, and at least try a different brand of idiocy, rejecting the one that's led us into war...

I'm teetering this time, between thumbing my nose at the whole bread and circuses "reality" of making a difference by electing a different figurehead who is really just another mask on the same face by voting for Nader in the hopes that he gets a significant enough percentage of the vote to wake people up that there are better choices than the puppets the demreps keep putting forward, and voting for Kerry to make sure Bush doesn't decide to attack the rest of the world in an alcoholic/cocaine binge haze.
I did know that both GB and JK were skull and bones silver spooners but, do you have any facts to back up your claim that "many other people who rise to high national office were skull and bones men?" I would be interested in seeing some actual numbers on this...

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Sat Oct 02, 2004 1:05 pm

How come no one here likes to do any research on the web about the candidates? If you want to find out who's skull and bones, a list online.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Sat Oct 02, 2004 1:07 pm

It took a couple of seconds.

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/bones.htm
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Sat Oct 02, 2004 3:14 pm

So now that enough time has assed by for you to do additional research on the skull and bones and saw that there were a few bush's as members, I bet you saw a Prescott Bush there and said to yourself, "Hummmm, whos Prescott Bush?" :

Life of Prescott Bush
Saturday September 25, 2004
The Guardian

· 1895 Born, son of Samuel and Flora Bush. Raised in Columbus, Ohio
· 1917 Graduated as a BA from Yale

· 1917-19 Artillery captain in US army. Served in first world war

· 1921 Married Dorothy Walker, daughter of wealthy industrialist, George Herbert Walker. They have five children, including GHW Bush, later to become US president (1988-1992)

· 1924 Joins Harriman Brothers in New York through introduction from father-in-law

· 1930 Partner in Brown Brothers Harriman

· 1942 Assets of companies of which he is director seized under Trading with the Enemy Act

· 1950 Now living in Greenwich, Connecticut, he runs unsuccessfully for Republican party to represent Connecticut in US Senate. Describes himself as "moderate progressive"

· 1952 Runs again in mid-term election and wins. "He looked more like a senator than any senator I've ever met," William Hildenbrand, former secretary to Senate said, according to Kitty Kelley's new Bush family biography, The Family. Takes stand against McCarthyism

· 1956 Re-elected to senate

· 1963 Retires from politics on health grounds

· 1972 Dies

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,1 ... 17,00.html
______________________________________

Prescott Bush's contribution to society

______________________________________


How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power

Rumours of a link between the US first family and the Nazi war machine have circulated for decades. Now the Guardian can reveal how repercussions of events that culminated in action under the Trading with the Enemy Act are still being felt by today's president

Ben Aris in Berlin and Duncan Campbell in Washington
Saturday September 25, 2004
The Guardian

George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

The debate over Prescott Bush's behaviour has been bubbling under the surface for some time. There has been a steady internet chatter about the "Bush/Nazi" connection, much of it inaccurate and unfair. But the new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis' plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty.

Advertiser links
FX Solutions - Forex Investing
FX Solutions is a primary market maker in online Forex...

fxsol.com

Get Ken Fisher's Stock Market Outlook
Fisher Investments CEO Ken Fisher is a widely respected...

fisherinvestments.com

Alternative Investment Ranking Reports
Free performance ranking reports and profiles for over 1500...

catranis.com
Remarkably, little of Bush's dealings with Germany has received public scrutiny, partly because of the secret status of the documentation involving him. But now the multibillion dollar legal action for damages by two Holocaust survivors against the Bush family, and the imminent publication of three books on the subject are threatening to make Prescott Bush's business history an uncomfortable issue for his grandson, George W, as he seeks re-election.

While there is no suggestion that Prescott Bush was sympathetic to the Nazi cause, the documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade. The Guardian has seen evidence that shows Bush was the director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that represented Thyssen's US interests and he continued to work for the bank after America entered the war.

Tantalising


Bush was also on the board of at least one of the companies that formed part of a multinational network of front companies to allow Thyssen to move assets around the world.

Thyssen owned the largest steel and coal company in Germany and grew rich from Hitler's efforts to re-arm between the two world wars. One of the pillars in Thyssen's international corporate web, UBC, worked exclusively for, and was owned by, a Thyssen-controlled bank in the Netherlands. More tantalising are Bush's links to the Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC), based in mineral rich Silesia on the German-Polish border. During the war, the company made use of Nazi slave labour from the concentration camps, including Auschwitz. The ownership of CSSC changed hands several times in the 1930s, but documents from the US National Archive declassified last year link Bush to CSSC, although it is not clear if he and UBC were still involved in the company when Thyssen's American assets were seized in 1942.

Three sets of archives spell out Prescott Bush's involvement. All three are readily available, thanks to the efficient US archive system and a helpful and dedicated staff at both the Library of Congress in Washington and the National Archives at the University of Maryland.

The first set of files, the Harriman papers in the Library of Congress, show that Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder of a number of companies involved with Thyssen.

The second set of papers, which are in the National Archives, are contained in vesting order number 248 which records the seizure of the company assets. What these files show is that on October 20 1942 the alien property custodian seized the assets of the UBC, of which Prescott Bush was a director. Having gone through the books of the bank, further seizures were made against two affiliates, the Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation. By November, the Silesian-American Company, another of Prescott Bush's ventures, had also been seized.

The third set of documents, also at the National Archives, are contained in the files on IG Farben, who was prosecuted for war crimes.

A report issued by the Office of Alien Property Custodian in 1942 stated of the companies that "since 1939, these (steel and mining) properties have been in possession of and have been operated by the German government and have undoubtedly been of considerable assistance to that country's war effort".

Prescott Bush, a 6ft 4in charmer with a rich singing voice, was the founder of the Bush political dynasty and was once considered a potential presidential candidate himself. Like his son, George, and grandson, George W, he went to Yale where he was, again like his descendants, a member of the secretive and influential Skull and Bones student society. He was an artillery captain in the first world war and married Dorothy Walker, the daughter of George Herbert Walker, in 1921.

In 1924, his father-in-law, a well-known St Louis investment banker, helped set him up in business in New York with Averill Harriman, the wealthy son of railroad magnate E H Harriman in New York, who had gone into banking.

One of the first jobs Walker gave Bush was to manage UBC. Bush was a founding member of the bank and the incorporation documents, which list him as one of seven directors, show he owned one share in UBC worth $125.

The bank was set up by Harriman and Bush's father-in-law to provide a US bank for the Thyssens, Germany's most powerful industrial family.

August Thyssen, the founder of the dynasty had been a major contributor to Germany's first world war effort and in the 1920s, he and his sons Fritz and Heinrich established a network of overseas banks and companies so their assets and money could be whisked offshore if threatened again.

By the time Fritz Thyssen inherited the business empire in 1926, Germany's economic recovery was faltering. After hearing Adolf Hitler speak, Thyssen became mesmerised by the young firebrand. He joined the Nazi party in December 1931 and admits backing Hitler in his autobiography, I Paid Hitler, when the National Socialists were still a radical fringe party. He stepped in several times to bail out the struggling party: in 1928 Thyssen had bought the Barlow Palace on Briennerstrasse, in Munich, which Hitler converted into the Brown House, the headquarters of the Nazi party. The money came from another Thyssen overseas institution, the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvarrt in Rotterdam.

By the late 1930s, Brown Brothers Harriman, which claimed to be the world's largest private investment bank, and UBC had bought and shipped millions of dollars of gold, fuel, steel, coal and US treasury bonds to Germany, both feeding and financing Hitler's build-up to war.

Between 1931 and 1933 UBC bought more than $8m worth of gold, of which $3m was shipped abroad. According to documents seen by the Guardian, after UBC was set up it transferred $2m to BBH accounts and between 1924 and 1940 the assets of UBC hovered around $3m, dropping to $1m only on a few occasions.

In 1941, Thyssen fled Germany after falling out with Hitler but he was captured in France and detained for the remainder of the war.

There was nothing illegal in doing business with the Thyssens throughout the 1930s and many of America's best-known business names invested heavily in the German economic recovery. However, everything changed after Germany invaded Poland in 1939. Even then it could be argued that BBH was within its rights continuing business relations with the Thyssens until the end of 1941 as the US was still technically neutral until the attack on Pearl Harbor. The trouble started on July 30 1942 when the New York Herald-Tribune ran an article entitled "Hitler's Angel Has $3m in US Bank". UBC's huge gold purchases had raised suspicions that the bank was in fact a "secret nest egg" hidden in New York for Thyssen and other Nazi bigwigs. The Alien Property Commission (APC) launched an investigation.

There is no dispute over the fact that the US government seized a string of assets controlled by BBH - including UBC and SAC - in the autumn of 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy act. What is in dispute is if Harriman, Walker and Bush did more than own these companies on paper.

Erwin May, a treasury attache and officer for the department of investigation in the APC, was assigned to look into UBC's business. The first fact to emerge was that Roland Harriman, Prescott Bush and the other directors didn't actually own their shares in UBC but merely held them on behalf of Bank voor Handel. Strangely, no one seemed to know who owned the Rotterdam-based bank, including UBC's president.

May wrote in his report of August 16 1941: "Union Banking Corporation, incorporated August 4 1924, is wholly owned by the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart N.V of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. My investigation has produced no evidence as to the ownership of the Dutch bank. Mr Cornelis [sic] Lievense, president of UBC, claims no knowledge as to the ownership of the Bank voor Handel but believes it possible that Baron Heinrich Thyssen, brother of Fritz Thyssen, may own a substantial interest."

May cleared the bank of holding a golden nest egg for the Nazi leaders but went on to describe a network of companies spreading out from UBC across Europe, America and Canada, and how money from voor Handel travelled to these companies through UBC.

By September May had traced the origins of the non-American board members and found that Dutchman HJ Kouwenhoven - who met with Harriman in 1924 to set up UBC - had several other jobs: in addition to being the managing director of voor Handel he was also the director of the August Thyssen bank in Berlin and a director of Fritz Thyssen's Union Steel Works, the holding company that controlled Thyssen's steel and coal mine empire in Germany.

Within a few weeks, Homer Jones, the chief of the APC investigation and research division sent a memo to the executive committee of APC recommending the US government vest UBC and its assets. Jones named the directors of the bank in the memo, including Prescott Bush's name, and wrote: "Said stock is held by the above named individuals, however, solely as nominees for the Bank voor Handel, Rotterdam, Holland, which is owned by one or more of the Thyssen family, nationals of Germany and Hungary. The 4,000 shares hereinbefore set out are therefore beneficially owned and help for the interests of enemy nationals, and are vestible by the APC," according to the memo from the National Archives seen by the Guardian.

Red-handed


Jones recommended that the assets be liquidated for the benefit of the government, but instead UBC was maintained intact and eventually returned to the American shareholders after the war. Some claim that Bush sold his share in UBC after the war for $1.5m - a huge amount of money at the time - but there is no documentary evidence to support this claim. No further action was ever taken nor was the investigation continued, despite the fact UBC was caught red-handed operating a American shell company for the Thyssen family eight months after America had entered the war and that this was the bank that had partly financed Hitler's rise to power.

The most tantalising part of the story remains shrouded in mystery: the connection, if any, between Prescott Bush, Thyssen, Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC) and Auschwitz.

Thyssen's partner in United Steel Works, which had coal mines and steel plants across the region, was Friedrich Flick, another steel magnate who also owned part of IG Farben, the powerful German chemical company.

Flick's plants in Poland made heavy use of slave labour from the concentration camps in Poland. According to a New York Times article published in March 18 1934 Flick owned two-thirds of CSSC while "American interests" held the rest.

The US National Archive documents show that BBH's involvement with CSSC was more than simply holding the shares in the mid-1930s. Bush's friend and fellow "bonesman" Knight Woolley, another partner at BBH, wrote to Averill Harriman in January 1933 warning of problems with CSSC after the Poles started their drive to nationalise the plant. "The Consolidated Silesian Steel Company situation has become increasingly complicated, and I have accordingly brought in Sullivan and Cromwell, in order to be sure that our interests are protected," wrote Knight. "After studying the situation Foster Dulles is insisting that their man in Berlin get into the picture and obtain the information which the directors here should have. You will recall that Foster is a director and he is particularly anxious to be certain that there is no liability attaching to the American directors."

But the ownership of the CSSC between 1939 when the Germans invaded Poland and 1942 when the US government vested UBC and SAC is not clear.

"SAC held coal mines and definitely owned CSSC between 1934 and 1935, but when SAC was vested there was no trace of CSSC. All concrete evidence of its ownership disappears after 1935 and there are only a few traces in 1938 and 1939," says Eva Schweitzer, the journalist and author whose book, America and the Holocaust, is published next month.

Silesia was quickly made part of the German Reich after the invasion, but while Polish factories were seized by the Nazis, those belonging to the still neutral Americans (and some other nationals) were treated more carefully as Hitler was still hoping to persuade the US to at least sit out the war as a neutral country. Schweitzer says American interests were dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The Nazis bought some out, but not others.

The two Holocaust survivors suing the US government and the Bush family for a total of $40bn in compensation claim both materially benefited from Auschwitz slave labour during the second world war.

Kurt Julius Goldstein, 87, and Peter Gingold, 85, began a class action in America in 2001, but the case was thrown out by Judge Rosemary Collier on the grounds that the government cannot be held liable under the principle of "state sovereignty".

Jan Lissmann, one of the lawyers for the survivors, said: "President Bush withdrew President Bill Clinton's signature from the treaty [that founded the court] not only to protect Americans, but also to protect himself and his family."

Lissmann argues that genocide-related cases are covered by international law, which does hold governments accountable for their actions. He claims the ruling was invalid as no hearing took place.

In their claims, Mr Goldstein and Mr Gingold, honorary chairman of the League of Anti-fascists, suggest the Americans were aware of what was happening at Auschwitz and should have bombed the camp.

The lawyers also filed a motion in The Hague asking for an opinion on whether state sovereignty is a valid reason for refusing to hear their case. A ruling is expected within a month.

The petition to The Hague states: "From April 1944 on, the American Air Force could have destroyed the camp with air raids, as well as the railway bridges and railway lines from Hungary to Auschwitz. The murder of about 400,000 Hungarian Holocaust victims could have been prevented."

The case is built around a January 22 1944 executive order signed by President Franklin Roosevelt calling on the government to take all measures to rescue the European Jews. The lawyers claim the order was ignored because of pressure brought by a group of big American companies, including BBH, where Prescott Bush was a director.

Lissmann said: "If we have a positive ruling from the court it will cause [president] Bush huge problems and make him personally liable to pay compensation."

The US government and the Bush family deny all the claims against them.

In addition to Eva Schweitzer's book, two other books are about to be published that raise the subject of Prescott Bush's business history. The author of the second book, to be published next year, John Loftus, is a former US attorney who prosecuted Nazi war criminals in the 70s. Now living in St Petersburg, Florida and earning his living as a security commentator for Fox News and ABC radio, Loftus is working on a novel which uses some of the material he has uncovered on Bush. Loftus stressed that what Prescott Bush was involved in was just what many other American and British businessmen were doing at the time.

"You can't blame Bush for what his grandfather did any more than you can blame Jack Kennedy for what his father did - bought Nazi stocks - but what is important is the cover-up, how it could have gone on so successfully for half a century, and does that have implications for us today?" he said.

"This was the mechanism by which Hitler was funded to come to power, this was the mechanism by which the Third Reich's defence industry was re-armed, this was the mechanism by which Nazi profits were repatriated back to the American owners, this was the mechanism by which investigations into the financial laundering of the Third Reich were blunted," said Loftus, who is vice-chairman of the Holocaust Museum in St Petersburg.

"The Union Banking Corporation was a holding company for the Nazis, for Fritz Thyssen," said Loftus. "At various times, the Bush family has tried to spin it, saying they were owned by a Dutch bank and it wasn't until the Nazis took over Holland that they realised that now the Nazis controlled the apparent company and that is why the Bush supporters claim when the war was over they got their money back. Both the American treasury investigations and the intelligence investigations in Europe completely bely that, it's absolute horseshit. They always knew who the ultimate beneficiaries were."

"There is no one left alive who could be prosecuted but they did get away with it," said Loftus. "As a former federal prosecutor, I would make a case for Prescott Bush, his father-in-law (George Walker) and Averill Harriman [to be prosecuted] for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They remained on the boards of these companies knowing that they were of financial benefit to the nation of Germany."

Loftus said Prescott Bush must have been aware of what was happening in Germany at the time. "My take on him was that he was a not terribly successful in-law who did what Herbert Walker told him to. Walker and Harriman were the two evil geniuses, they didn't care about the Nazis any more than they cared about their investments with the Bolsheviks."

What is also at issue is how much money Bush made from his involvement. His supporters suggest that he had one token share. Loftus disputes this, citing sources in "the banking and intelligence communities" and suggesting that the Bush family, through George Herbert Walker and Prescott, got $1.5m out of the involvement. There is, however, no paper trail to this sum.

The third person going into print on the subject is John Buchanan, 54, a Miami-based magazine journalist who started examining the files while working on a screenplay. Last year, Buchanan published his findings in the venerable but small-circulation New Hampshire Gazette under the headline "Documents in National Archives Prove George Bush's Grandfather Traded With the Nazis - Even After Pearl Harbor". He expands on this in his book to be published next month - Fixing America: Breaking the Stranglehold of Corporate Rule, Big Media and the Religious Right.

In the article, Buchanan, who has worked mainly in the trade and music press with a spell as a muckraking reporter in Miami, claimed that "the essential facts have appeared on the internet and in relatively obscure books but were dismissed by the media and Bush family as undocumented diatribes".

Buchanan suffers from hypermania, a form of manic depression, and when he found himself rebuffed in his initial efforts to interest the media, he responded with a series of threats against the journalists and media outlets that had spurned him. The threats, contained in e-mails, suggested that he would expose the journalists as "traitors to the truth".

Unsurprisingly, he soon had difficulty getting his calls returned. Most seriously, he faced aggravated stalking charges in Miami, in connection with a man with whom he had fallen out over the best way to publicise his findings. The charges were dropped last month.

Biography


Buchanan said he regretted his behaviour had damaged his credibility but his main aim was to secure publicity for the story. Both Loftus and Schweitzer say Buchanan has come up with previously undisclosed documentation.

The Bush family have largely responded with no comment to any reference to Prescott Bush. Brown Brothers Harriman also declined to comment.

The Bush family recently approved a flattering biography of Prescott Bush entitled Duty, Honour, Country by Mickey Herskowitz. The publishers, Rutledge Hill Press, promised the book would "deal honestly with Prescott Bush's alleged business relationships with Nazi industrialists and other accusations".

In fact, the allegations are dealt with in less than two pages. The book refers to the Herald-Tribune story by saying that "a person of less established ethics would have panicked ... Bush and his partners at Brown Brothers Harriman informed the government regulators that the account, opened in the late 1930s, was 'an unpaid courtesy for a client' ... Prescott Bush acted quickly and openly on behalf of the firm, served well by a reputation that had never been compromised. He made available all records and all documents. Viewed six decades later in the era of serial corporate scandals and shattered careers, he received what can be viewed as the ultimate clean bill."

The Prescott Bush story has been condemned by both conservatives and some liberals as having nothing to do with the current president. It has also been suggested that Prescott Bush had little to do with Averill Harriman and that the two men opposed each other politically.

However, documents from the Harriman papers include a flattering wartime profile of Harriman in the New York Journal American and next to it in the files is a letter to the financial editor of that paper from Prescott Bush congratulating the paper for running the profile. He added that Harriman's "performance and his whole attitude has been a source of inspiration and pride to his partners and his friends".

The Anti-Defamation League in the US is supportive of Prescott Bush and the Bush family. In a statement last year they said that "rumours about the alleged Nazi 'ties' of the late Prescott Bush ... have circulated widely through the internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated ... Prescott Bush was neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathiser."

However, one of the country's oldest Jewish publications, the Jewish Advocate, has aired the controversy in detail.

More than 60 years after Prescott Bush came briefly under scrutiny at the time of a faraway war, his grandson is facing a different kind of scrutiny but one underpinned by the same perception that, for some people, war can be a profitable business.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,1 ... 40,00.html
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Sat Oct 02, 2004 3:18 pm

Sorry about the advertisement in the middle of all that. and the miss selling.

Just cant catch everything.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
bullD
Posts: 1321
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:32 am
Location: sf
Contact:

Post by bullD » Sat Oct 02, 2004 4:29 pm

I asked the question that I did only as a means of getting peeps to back up their wild claims with facts, thats all...

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Sat Oct 02, 2004 4:30 pm

bullD wrote:I asked the question that I did only as a means of getting peeps to back up their wild claims with facts, thats all...
No sweat.

I have a way with words that just does'nt come out right sometimes.

:P
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
bullD
Posts: 1321
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:32 am
Location: sf
Contact:

Post by bullD » Sat Oct 02, 2004 4:32 pm

:)

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Sun Oct 03, 2004 5:30 am

AND THE WINNER IS ...

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh Thursday morning, and he said: "Folks, you want to know about the debate tonight? Well, you don't have to bother to tune in. What will be reported on Friday morning is that John Kerry walked away with it."
Well, that's not exactly the unanimous verdict, but it's true that Kerry scored. There were two reasons for this, one personal, the other objective.

Senator Kerry was presentable, polite, informed, combative and credible. Those who felt that he would crumble, or hoped that he'd do so, waited out the 90 minutes without gratification. He is quick on his feet, his formulations were well-rehearsed, and he did as best he could athwart his past contradictions.

There was even an apology of sorts for his rotational thoughts on the aid bill to Iraq. Yes, he said, it's true that I used awkward language in defending what I did; that was my mistake. President Bush's mistake was in going to war. Neatly done, and effective in redirecting attention from his own lapse, to the lapse of George Bush -- going to war with Iraq -- which is, after all, the gravamen of Kerry's case against Bush.

There wasn't any notable felicity in language. Kerry is a verbalist, but not a belletrist. This was not Adlai Stevenson talking, but someone who seeks to be president and persuasively suggests himself as qualified.

Now, the objective factor working for Mr. Kerry the other night was, simply, the indecisiveness of events in Iraq. The day of the debate, more than 40 Iraqis had been killed in one of the largest terrorist acts in the war, and American soldiers had been wounded.

President Bush sought his way out of that charnel house by indirect references to the progress we are making, and direct references to the inflexibility of the goal ahead, which, he said often, was freedom for the Iraqi people. Freedom they were entitled to, freedom they aspired to, and freedom of a kind that would affect the region and, ultimately, the world itself.

Mr. Bush can be defended in the sense that courage and determination can be defended. But Kerry was able to say things that have become pretty self-evident. He did not say that, in Iraq, we were headed for defeat, but he suggested that a different course of action was necessary.

Ah! A different course of action. Like simply pulling out?

No, no. Mr. Kerry reminded us, lest we have forgotten it in the 15 minutes that have gone by since last he referred to it, that he knew what it was to fight for his country, inasmuch as he had done so.

Well, what then?

His answer: Another approach to our allies. Bringing them in by a new attitude of cooperation. Reopening a door to the resources of the United Nations. Scheduling one or more summit conferences to make our venture in Iraq more comprehensive. Energizing the morale of the American people by improving the prospect of their own lives. Etc. etc.

Mr. Bush attempted here and there to challenge any soft assumptions encouraged by this vague agenda. He was able to recall how many times we had moved our case before the United Nations, and to cite expressions of hopeful joy by Iraqis, notably the acting prime minister, at the prospects of a new national life without Saddam Hussein.

But he was not able to dismiss Kerry's objections by any resonant plea of manifest destiny or whatever. The audience was certainly prepared to believe that Iraqis would enjoy freedom. But people know that freedom is frequently abjured, in preference for something else. The commentator who remarked that there was a kind of stability in Husseinland, for which there is nostalgia, was devastatingly correct. Back then, if Hussein didn't imprison, torture or shoot you, you were left relatively snug in the ambit of your little world.

What the terrorists are succeeding in accomplishing is a quite general despondency. This is owing to the dramatic danger in Iraq of associating yourself with the interim government, which, it is preached, is representative of the infidel invader, the United States. To sign up with the police in Iraq, to engage in construction work in Iraq, to cooperate in any markedly observable way with the Iraqi government puts you in dire peril of kidnapping, mayhem and death.

President Bush does not have an easily salable vision of what to do with that cursed dilemma. It transpires, gradually, that we are relying on the Iraqi people to effect their liberation, because we simply aren't up to it. And Kerry was there to say: Let me try it; I'm somebody else. That got a lot of people to opine that that is a winnable program.

COPYRIGHT 2004 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

User avatar
cowboyangel
Posts: 6986
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm

Post by cowboyangel » Sun Oct 03, 2004 12:54 pm

simple equation:
if x= presidential and y= non-presidential and Z= wonthedebate then,
x=Kerry - y=Bush = Z
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981

User avatar
Rob the Wop
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 4:06 pm
Location: Furbackistan, OR
Contact:

Post by Rob the Wop » Sun Oct 03, 2004 1:52 pm

Force wrote: You can call it a silly conspiracy theory if you want, but the fact that both Bush and Kerry, along with many other people who rise to high national office were skull and bones men will alert anyone with even a basic knowledge of statistical theory that there's something wrong there.
I have a basic knowledge of statistical theory. Give me the statistical data on 'wrong'.

I looked up the 'Skull and Bones' link posted. Sounds like a frat or masonite style 'club' at Yale. Most of our upper elected officials went to prestegious schools, same as any government really. What's your point? That Yale contains a secret society for world domination?

And if they were all Boy Scouts, then that would be a secret society for world domination? Are there any 'Skull and Bones' members that are not high political officials?

Logic man, logic. PLEASE go to your local community college, it will make my reading pleasure so much more enjoyable.
[b]The other, other white meat.[/b]

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Sun Oct 03, 2004 2:36 pm

hey,

you tink Rob is a closet frat boy? :P :x
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
unjonharley
Posts: 10434
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 11:05 am
Burning Since: 2001
Camp Name: Elliot's naked bycycel repair
Location: Salem Or.

Post by unjonharley » Sun Oct 03, 2004 3:00 pm

HOw did "our" oil get under "thier" sand¿¿¿¿¿
I'm the contraptioneer your mother warned you about.

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Sun Oct 03, 2004 3:01 pm

unjonharley wrote:HOw did "our" oil get under "thier" sand¿¿¿¿¿

Oh man........



that was really funny. :lol: :lol:
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
cowboyangel
Posts: 6986
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm

Post by cowboyangel » Sun Oct 03, 2004 4:44 pm

Kerry will win the next one too anybody see the ABC poll? Kerry's out ahead!
President Kerry! Sounds alot better ta me than ....the other thing
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981

User avatar
samtzu
Posts: 3403
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 5:56 pm
Location: Portland,OR;Columbia,CA;Emigrant Wilderness
Contact:

Post by samtzu » Sun Oct 03, 2004 5:18 pm

.... I dunno', Cowboy.... President Dickhead still sounds the same to me...
The revolutionary does not grow up because he cannot grow, while the creative individual cannot grow up because he keeps growing ~~ Eric Hoffer

User avatar
Zulegoona
Posts: 7097
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 5:54 pm
Location: Saint Paul, MN

Post by Zulegoona » Sun Oct 03, 2004 6:40 pm

[quote="Rob the Wop

And if they were all Boy Scouts, then that would be a secret society for world domination? .[/quote]

Way back when I was a Boy Scout it was an organization bent on world domination. Some of our former members were presidents, priministers, and C.E.O.s of some of the worlds largest industries. Back then everyone thought it was good for kids to have goals.

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Sun Oct 03, 2004 6:58 pm

Zulegoona wrote:
Rob the Wop wrote:
And if they were all Boy Scouts, then that would be a secret society for world domination? .
Way back when I was a Boy Scout it was an organization bent on world domination. Some of our former members were presidents, priministers, and C.E.O.s of some of the worlds largest industries. Back then everyone thought it was good for kids to have goals.
DVD, allow me to point out... the statements above are funny.

Post Reply

Return to “Open Discussion”