Replies

No, I don't think so. I have no idea what's going on but whether it's bogus or real it is best we collect as much info as possibly while the story is emerging. I don't know if this is related to the old Cap Hill blue thing or not. Seems stupid to do it twice through the same 'paper' if it is, but the only thing in common with this thread is Japan Today. That's thin evidence to discount this new thread's story on treasuries. Keep posting.

But, years later the old story still looks mighty weird. That original Cap Hill Blue / Japan today thing went off right when Hillary Clinton was overseas in a war of words against Condi Rice on multipolarism.

JULY 8?, 2003 TUE? : (HILLARY CLINTON IN EUROPE CRITIQUES BUSH ADMIN 'UNIPOLARISM' -- See COLIN POWELL? ) During the Frost interview, Clinton criticized what she referred to as Bush's "unipolar" view of international relations, using a term often employed by Moscow, Beijing and Havana in their condemnations of U.S. foreign policy. Clinton stated that she gives her support to a "multipolar" foreign policy, a term Russia, Communist China, and Cuba have used for at least six years to describe their vision of a "new world order," with the United States subsumed to the United Nations. ------ 'Hillary: "New Political Icon" Clinton's European Triumph[Benedict Rodham dissing CIC in Old Europe],' International News Analysis Today ^ | July 8, 2003 | By Toby Westerman, www.inatoday.com

JUNE 26, 2003 : (CONDOLEEZA RICE SPEECH CRITICIZING MULTIPOLARISM -- See HILLARY CLINTON "RESPONSE?" FROM EUROPE ) "..Some argue that Europe and America are more divided by differing worldviews than we are united by common values. More troubling, some have spoken admiringly -- almost nostalgically -- of "multipolarity," as if it were a good thing, to be desired for its own sake. The reality is that "multi-polarity" was never a unifying idea, or a vision. It was a necessary evil that sustained the absence of war but it did not promote the triumph of peace. Mulit-polarity is a theory of rivalry; of competing interests -- and at its worst -- competing values. We have tried this before. It led to the Great War -- which cascaded into the Good War, which gave way to the Cold War. Today this theory of rivalry threatens to divert us from meeting the great tasks before us. Why would anyone who shares the values of freedom seek to put a check on those values? Democratic institutions themselves are a check on the excesses of power. Why should we seek to divide our capacities for good, when they can be so much more effective united? Only the enemies of freedom would cheer this division. ..."-------~ Dr. Condoleezza Rice, June 26, 2003

And at a time this advisory group was assembled. All this going on at the same time then, looks freakish now that we know that Powell was ultimately goig to support Obama:

JULY 8 & 9, 2003 Tue & Wed : (STATE DEPT : 'ADVISORY GROUP ON PUBLIC DIPLOMACY IN THE ARAB & MUSLIM WORLD' HOLDS ITS FIRST MEETING - IN SECRET? --- See COLIN POWELL, AALCPAC) The State Department put allies of Rep. Jim Moran on a sensitive propaganda advisory panel. Secretary of State Colin Powell has signed off on a special public diplomacy panel packed with liberal opponents of the president - as well as with a Saudi-funded pollster and a former lawyer for a fundraising group shut down in 2001 for allegedly financing international terrorists. The new 14-member Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy in the Arab and Muslim World, a panel of the State Department's U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, held its first meetings in secret July 8 and 9, without a public announcement of its members, the New York Sun reports. among the members: A former CNN official, donors to the Bill Bradley and Gore-Lieberman presidential campaigns, a dovish Israel Policy Forum figure, and two supporters of the Arab American Leadership Council Political Action Committee, which funded the campaigns of Rep. Jim "Sluggo" Moran (D-Va.) and former Reps. Earl Hilliard (D-Ala.) and Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.). The membership was chosen to represent a "variety of different positions," including Republicans, according to a spokesman, but some are concerned that the group may be politically biased against the president's tough anti-terrorism strategy. Panel members need not file any federal disclosure forms. ------- "State Department packs public diplomacy panel with controversial members ," center for Security Policy, Headline Story, Sunday, July 20, 2003 , http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=today