CheesalaIsGood

I could care less. The man has bought into his own hype. If others opt to not recognize it, so be it. Um, only to people of a specific political idealogy. I won't mention which one. Again, Kerry went there for a reason. What points did he bring up? "Crossfire" was hurting America? Jesus, that's something I'd have been too embarrassed to say back in high school. Issues? Hardly. Stewart wants to be a "journalist" --- but he will always fall back on his "it's a big ol' joke show" whenever anybody asks him about it. He wants to be taken seriously, but falls back to "I tell jokes" whenever somebody actually does so. -=Mike Journalist eh? Yeah, I must being missing those "in depth" reports on The Daily Show. Did see plenty of parody and satire though. Yanno, on the COMEDY channel! So when he went on something OTHER than the comedy channel he got serious. He spoke to the crossfire guys seriously. When they exposed themselves for the jokes that they ARE, how they contribute NOTHING to the discourse, he let them have it. Good. If any of you can find it, look up Nader on Crossfire, something like a year ago when he crushes Novac and Carvell on the 2000 election. It's awesome.

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~drtaylor/kerry/kerry.html Captions of John Kerrys stance on the issues^

Strom Thurmonds daughter is gay.

I posted a link on the 1st page Bob.

Said no go? He's pointing out that the highly partisan blather that the commentators spit out is retarded. Right to their faces, to the audience that's watching them. What better venue than showing up to the show when invited? Stewart wasn't doing the same thing that they do. I can't believe you're actually trying to defend political talking head shows. What service do they render to anyone except people who don't care to find out about issues by paying attention to the news? And what benefit does Stewart's show bring to the populace? A well-written show hosted by an egomaniac? -=Mike A COMEDY SHOW! One that makes people laugh! Better than a show that muddies the politcal discourse. Cuz the talking head shows aren't really funny HA HA. Embarrassing mostly.

DOA? The guy has a book, a TV show and has done several movies in the last couple of years? DOA? Please. The complaint was about CROSSFIRE! Show them the folly of their ways! They didn't listen and neither do you G.O.

The goal of maximizing Iraq's debt payments directly contradicts the US foreign policy aim of drastically reducing Iraq's debt burden. According to Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University and a leading expert on government ethics and regulations, this means that Baker is in a "classic conflict of interest. Baker is on two sides of this transaction: He is supposed to be representing the interests of the United States, but he is also a senior counselor at Carlyle, and Carlyle wants to get paid to help Kuwait recover its debts from Iraq." After examining the documents, Clark called them "extraordinary." She said, "Carlyle and the other companies are exploiting Baker's current position to try to land a deal with Kuwait that would undermine the interests of the US government." undermine the interests of the US government. Money. Money. Money.

Exactly.

Hint: CONFLICT OF INTEREST! They've not even approached actually making a case here. It's laughable that you take the Carlyle bullshit seriously. -=Mike It's equally laughable that you lack the ethical barometer to see that this isn't kosher. Sorry streetmeat, this guy is an asshole not worth defending. I might as well lump Greatone in here too since he will no doubt add his "thoughts".

I can't stand Tucker Carlson or Paul Begala personally. I just am finding Stewart to be as obnoxious as them. -=Mike Does this mean you DON'T wear a bowtie? I'm so disappointed.

Hint: CONFLICT OF INTEREST!

You mean to say you guys didn't think it was funny? Hmmmm. Wonder why?

article | Posted October 12, 2004 James Baker's Double Life A Special Investigation by Naomi Klein Print this article E-mail this article Write to the editors Take Action Now! Click here to read documents detailing James Baker's conflict of interest. Research support for this article was provided by the Investigative Fund of The Nation Institute. hen President Bush appointed former Secretary of State James Baker III as his envoy on Iraq's debt on December 5, 2003, he called Baker's job "a noble mission." At the time, there was widespread concern about whether Baker's extensive business dealings in the Middle East would compromise that mission, which is to meet with heads of state and persuade them to forgive the debts owed to them by Iraq. Of particular concern was his relationship with merchant bank and defense contractor the Carlyle Group, where Baker is senior counselor and an equity partner with an estimated $180 million stake. Until now, there has been no concrete evidence that Baker's loyalties are split, or that his power as Special Presidential Envoy--an unpaid position--has been used to benefit any of his corporate clients or employers. But according to documents obtained by The Nation, that is precisely what has happened. Carlyle has sought to secure an extraordinary $1 billion investment from the Kuwaiti government, with Baker's influence as debt envoy being used as a crucial lever. The secret deal involves a complex transaction to transfer ownership of as much as $57 billion in unpaid Iraqi debts. The debts, now owed to the government of Kuwait, would be assigned to a foundation created and controlled by a consortium in which the key players are the Carlyle Group, the Albright Group (headed by another former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright) and several other well-connected firms. Under the deal, the government of Kuwait would also give the consortium $2 billion up front to invest in a private equity fund devised by the consortium, with half of it going to Carlyle. The Nation has obtained a copy of the confidential sixty-five-page "Proposal to Assist the Government of Kuwait in Protecting and Realizing Claims Against Iraq," sent in January from the consortium to Kuwait's foreign ministry, as well as letters back and forth between the two parties. In a letter dated August 6, 2004, the consortium informed Kuwait's foreign ministry that the country's unpaid debts from Iraq "are in imminent jeopardy." World opinion is turning in favor of debt forgiveness, another letter warned, as evidenced by "President Bush's appointment...of former Secretary of State James Baker as his envoy to negotiate Iraqi debt relief." The consortium's proposal spells out the threat: Not only is Kuwait unlikely to see any of its $30 billion from Iraq in sovereign debt, but the $27 billion in war reparations that Iraq owes to Kuwait from Saddam Hussein's 1990 invasion "may well be a casualty of this U.S. [debt relief] effort." In the face of this threat, the consortium offers its services. Its roster of former high-level US and European politicians have "personal rapport with the stakeholders in the anticipated negotiations" and are able to "reach key decision-makers in the United Nations and in key capitals," the proposal states. If Kuwait agrees to transfer the debts to the consortium's foundation, the consortium will use these personal connections to persuade world leaders that Iraq must "maximize" its debt payments to Kuwait, which would be able to collect the money after ten to fifteen years. And the more the consortium gets Iraq to pay during that period, the more Kuwait collects, with the consortium taking a 5 percent commission or more. The goal of maximizing Iraq's debt payments directly contradicts the US foreign policy aim of drastically reducing Iraq's debt burden. According to Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University and a leading expert on government ethics and regulations, this means that Baker is in a "classic conflict of interest. Baker is on two sides of this transaction: He is supposed to be representing the interests of the United States, but he is also a senior counselor at Carlyle, and Carlyle wants to get paid to help Kuwait recover its debts from Iraq." After examining the documents, Clark called them "extraordinary." She said, "Carlyle and the other companies are exploiting Baker's current position to try to land a deal with Kuwait that would undermine the interests of the US government." The Nation also showed the documents to Jerome Levinson, an international lawyer and expert on political and corporate corruption at American University. He called it "one of the greatest cons of all time. The consortium is saying to the Kuwaiti government, 'Through us, you have the only chance to realize a substantial part of the debt. Why? Because of who we are and who we know.' It's influence peddling of the crassest kind." In the confidential documents, the consortium appears acutely aware of the sensitivity of Baker's position as Carlyle partner and debt envoy. Immediately after listing the powerful players associated with Carlyle--including former President George H.W. Bush, former British prime minister John Major and Baker himself--the document states: "The extent to which these individuals can play an instrumental role in fashioning strategies is now more limited...due to the recent appointment of Secretary Baker as the President's envoy on international debt, and the need to avoid an apparent conflict of interest." [Emphasis in original.] Yet it goes on to state that this will soon change: "We believe that with Secretary Baker's retirement from his temporary position [as debt envoy], that Carlyle and those leading individuals associated with Carlyle will then once again be free to play a more decisive role..." Chris Ullman, vice president and spokesperson for Carlyle, said that "neither the Carlyle Group nor James Baker wrote, edited or authorized this proposal to the Kuwait government." But he acknowledged that Carlyle knew a proposal was being made to the government of Kuwait and that Carlyle stood to land a $1 billion investment. "We were aware of that. But we played no role in procuring that investment." Asked if Carlyle was "willing to take the billion but not to try to get it," Ullman answered, "Correct." http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041101&s=klein ------------------------------------------------------------------- Same old story. Still, he should have plenty of money saved in time for the rapture.

^ Whiners.

http://www.ifilm.com/filmdetail?ifilmid=2652831 Go there to ifilm they have it posted. Stewart schooled both those guys. He called Carlson a dick to his face and he took it like a bitch. He even laughed it off like it didn't happen. He went on sombody elses show and told them straight up it sucks. How often do you get to see that. The CNN dolts stepped in it on this one. Its all good though. This is what happens to the news stations now that they all wanna be part of the story rather just report it. Crossfires ad rates just went to shit. Thanks John. Thank you.

Best.Idea.Ever.

People sorta made a stink (for all the good it did) about Hilary in NY and Mitt Romney in Mass. Not sure people really care that much if out-of-staters win elections. Of course they SHOULD! Yay politics.

Clinton being the one to preside over the policy towards Iraq doesn't necessarily show him in a positive light, especially after not actively doing anything with it--you do know of the petition (which was signed by John Kerry mind you) for the use of military force in Iraq similar to now, don't you? So they're highlighting that, yes the policy was the same. Clinton just happened to be there at the time, making him a mere byproduct. I guess if you are under the assumption that Clinton was actually a Republican president then you aren't being contradictory. Being President of the United States is a mere byproduct?

Gimmie THREE! Plus a plug in the back of my head. We trust in NEO.

I'm not sure where you got the idea I was trying to do myself some kind of favor. I can only guess that your right-wing mind seeing ALL in black and white cannot understand that some one NOT for Bush doesn't mean they are FOR Kerry. In fact my post has nothing to do with the election. Paranoid? Even though the film does beat the viewer over the head with rhetoric and talking points the novelty of the republican slanted film piece that shows Bill Clinton in ANY sort of positive light is too sweet. Cuz, GODAMN they hated his ass! After all the talk of blow jobs, cumstains, and impeachments here is the right actually having to legitimize Clinton to support a point they are trying to make. Something greatone has chosen to ignore thus far. Which is fine by me. Since greatone has made this thread more about my beliefs than about my post let me clarify. I am against this war for these reasons. 1. The conflict of interest w/ Haliburton. Sorry, rightys. The fact that anyone would at least ASK about the involved parties and the connections between them is just stupid. But I guess it would be more patroitic of me to just assume they (Bush/Cheney/Haliburton) will play fair as an act of faith. Overcharging anyone? 2. No foreseeable exit strategy. You know, the REASON King George the 1st pulled back 13 years ago. Trying to mold a culture that we don't understand in our image will leave us with more enemies and in fighting than we can handle. When we DO LEAVE the job will remain undone and we will have made enemies of those over there who might have supported the US being there in the beginning but turned feeling abandoned. Sorta like in Afganistan after they fought our proxy war with the Soviets. 3. The lack of support for vets in post war conditions. Hell, lack of support while still in service! I've known too many vietnam vets in my time to simply ignore the fact that we have a really bad track record of taking care of our heroes once the fighting is over. Be it Gulf War Syndrome to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, to Agent Orange, you name it. Our defenders of FREEDOM get the shit end of the stick when we no longer need them. Well FUCK THAT! It takes more than a parade for us to truly give thanks. Isn't it great they work cheap? Pfft. Yes, I do think we were mislead. On purpose. Ok, fuck it call it lies. I never bought Clinton as a true liberal after passing NAFTA and GATT. If Bush and Clinton are in agreement about something I'm not surprised. A (corporate) puppeteer has two hands does he not? So I don't see how I am being contradictory. Then again, I don't see in just black and white.

Hey, whats the exit strategy again?

Just watch the film and shut the fuck up. I don't care who you vote for. The point is the the FILM is a twist on the perspective. I POV on the war isn't changed, because MY take on the war has NOTHING to do with WMDS. Pay attention and maybe you might learn something jailbait.

Its mostly a quotefest of things Clinton said about wanting to get rid of Saddam, WMDs, etc. The novelty about it is that its very right-wing slanted yet with all the Clintons quotes shows him in this BIZARRE positive light. Not your typical conservative M.O. MMkay. I just thought it was really odd, and yet interesting. If you can get it to work, enjoy you right-wing nutjobs.

Watch the film dipshit.

Here is a link to a short film that was VERY interesting concerning Iraq during Clintins term in office. www.republicanfilms.com http://www.republicanfilms.com/ oops. edit