Posted on 10/08/2001 8:28:01 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez
Is your problem with JW the fact that they weren't accomplishing anything with the lawsuits (patent: "the proof was not in the pudding")? Or that you didn't think they should have proceeded with the lawsuits in the first place?
Admittedly I am no expert on all things JW but here is my take on them from what I have seen in the news. 1.) They sue public officials under the law when it appears that the law has not been adhered to by them. 2.) No one else seems to do this.
So as you can understand the fact that they are Not Always Successful is kind of low on my list of priorities. I mean even if they are never successful: is that a commentary on them? or on the corruptness of the judicial/political system?
Now, of course, there can be another complaint against them, which could be that (say) they waste money or do something fraudulent. But no one seems to exjplicitly come out and make that complaint; instead they just complain that JW "never succeeds" - which is not the same complaint, now, is it?
I dunno. You guys tell me, what am I missing?
He's just been going nuts in recent times, you know?
(Washington, DC) Judicial watch, the public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, reacted with disbelief to The Wall Street Journal report of yesterday that George H.W. Bush , the father of President Bush, works for the bin Laden family business in Saudi Arabia through the Carlyle group
That's the biggest crock and deliberate spin on a news item that I have seen since Bill and Hill left the WH....Larry should be ashamed of himself.
Read the WSJ piece and tell me where it says that.
I dunno. You guys tell me, what am I missing?To be honest I don't really get into the pro-JW v. anti-JW debates. I kind of leave it alone. If you like them, support them. There have been plenty of flame wars here on the issue and its just not high enough on my list that I want to dive in.
As for my view, I guess it could be summed up by saying they just aren't my style, and really have never been my style. If you like them I don't have a problem with that.
patent
If a publicly traded company behaved this way, the SEC would shut them down and the US Attorney's Office would prosecute its officers. SOP for NFPs.
In another stunning victory, Judicial Watch recently received a personal letter from Ed McMahon, informing them that they may have already won $78 million in the Publisher’s Clearinghouse sweepstakes. “Some contestants overlook the extra prize sticker which gives several extra chances to win, but our diligent and capable staff successfully completed those tricky forms to maximize our chances,” said President Tom Fitton.
ROTFLMAO!
Luckily someone posted it on an FR thread about the JW "release".
The evidence seems to assemble from the article, as follows:
1. "the well-heeled Saudi Arabian clan -- which says it is estranged from Osama -- is an investor in a fund established by Carlyle Group" (this JW therefore considers a "bin Laden family business")
2. "In recent years, former President Bush, ex-Secretary of State James Baker and ex-Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci have made the pilgrimage to the bin Laden family's headquarters in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia." (Interesting, but not quite proof that he "works for" them yet...)
3. "Mr. Bush makes speeches on behalf of Carlyle Group and is senior adviser to its Asian Partners fund," (Well gee, is that considered "working for" them now?)
Found this in just the first three paragraphs. In summary, the Carlyle group is (in a manner of speaking) a "bin Laden family business" (one of many), and Bush "works for" them. And you can't exactly say that "Bush just works for the Carlyle group; that the bin Ladens are also investors is just a coincidence", given the fact that Bush has visited the family. So, what's the problem?
Now look, I realize that it has been spun in a particularly nasty way. But still. We are constantly being told how this will be a "new kind of war" against terrorism, that will involve puncturing their funding networks, etc etc. And this Carlyle group definitely seems connected to some bin Ladens, who, though not implicated in anything, are having some bank records subpoenaed.
So what's wrong with embarrassing the elder Bush over this association and trying to persuade him to resign, due to conflict of interest or even appearance of impropriety?
Is it really just because you fear this would cause political damage to his son W? Cuz I've got news for you: anyone who would be swayed by news like this to hate W already hates W, and is already convinced that "the Bush crime family" is business partners with all sorts of nasty people and controls the world's drug trade through the elder Bush's CIA background and are seeking a Freemasonic/Illuminati New World Order and all that jazz.
Would you rather not know anything whatsoever about these business associations? Even if they are innocuous (and you and I and everyone here knows that anyone in a mutual fund is innocuously "involved" with all sorts of businesses they may not approve of...), what's the harm in bringing the association to light? What are you afraid of?
I will admit that I do also have some kind of vague general conviction that something like Judicial Watch, at least, is sorely needed in politics. Even if Judicial Watch ain't perfect. I mean, if not they, then who exactly will even try to keep politicians honest?
Other politicians?
Look how well that's worked.... :)
URGENT MESSAGE FROM LARRY KLAYMAN, FOX NEWS CHANNEL IS BLOCKING JUDICIAL WATCH
- News/Current Events Announcement Keywords: FOX NEWS NOT COVERING JUDICIAL WATCH....URGENT
Source: Judicial Watch
Published: 8-15-01 Author: LARRY KLAYMAN
380 comments.
URGENT Dear Friend and/or Supporter: Over the last several months Judicial Watch and its activities have not received adequate coverage on Fox News. There seems to be a blockage among some of the evening producers. If you agree could you please send an e-mail or fax to Roger Ailes, CEO of Fox News, asking him to cover Judicial Watch's activities. As you know, for Judicial Watch to have maximum effectiveness, we must educate the public on the need for ethics and respect for the rule of law. This is why an urgent appeal to Roger Ailes is important. Mr. ...
8319930 posted on 08/15/2001 12:51:33 PDT by KLT
- Bush Stem Cell decision breaks campaign pledge; Judicial Watch to probe politics of decision
- Politics/Elections News Keywords: KLAYMAN JUDICIAL WATCH $$$$$
Source: JudicialWatch.org
Published: 8/10/2001 Author: Larry Klayman
247 comments.
Funding Decision Provides Incentive To Promote Future Experimentation With Embryos And Excuses Previous Destruction Of Unborn President Squanders Opportunity To Promote “Culture of Life” And Embraces “Ends Justifies Means” Philosophy Judicial Watch Will Probe Politics Behind Bizarre Decision (Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes government abuse and corruption, expressed grave disappointment in President Bush’s decision to break his September 22, 2000 campaign pledge to oppose federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. President Bush’s decision to spend American tax payers money to promote research of previously “developed” embryonic “stem cell lines,” is being ...
8245678 posted on 08/10/2001 15:17:43 PDT by sinkspur
- JUDICIAL WATCH BLAMES PRESIDENT BUSH FOR TERRORIST ATTACKS --Promises Investigation (mine)
- News/Current Events Announcement Keywords: KLAYMAN, MONEY, FOOLS
Source: Judicial Watch website
Published: September 12, 2001 Author: Larry Klayman
221 comments.
GOVERNMENT INCOMPETENCE, LACK OF HONESTY WITH AMERICAN PEOPLE LEAD TO TERRORIST DISASTERS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 (Washington, DC, September 12, 2001) Larry Klayman, Chairman and General Counsel of Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today issued the following statement concerning the horrific terrorist attack on the United States, on a day – September 11, 2001 – that, even more than Pearl Harbor, will live in infamy. “It is now apparent – given the near total lack of security at U.S. airports and elsewhere – that the U.S. government has not been forthright with ...
8772147 posted on 09/12/2001 18:21:45 PDT by bayourod
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.