Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

An obscure "must-read" article from the WSJ, 1999,... seriously.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Parisle Donating Member (849 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 09:25 AM
Original message
An obscure "must-read" article from the WSJ, 1999,... seriously.
---- I actually encountered this somewhat lengthy essay when it first appeared,.... in 1999, and BEFORE the 2000 election,.. and I used it as a resource in a piece I was writing at the time. Some of the information in it will be absolutely stunning to many of you, as it has not been widely reported. So I urge each and every DU'er to take a look. Bear in mind,.. a conservative source, "pre-2000 election," and a lot of info provided which no one realized at the time how significant it would turn out to be,...... Frankly, I'm surprised the article is still available to view.....

----The site is: www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37f1ce197112.htm --- Enjoy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bluerum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
1. No thanks.
Edited on Tue Oct-31-06 09:29 AM by bluerum
It will be a cold day in Hawaii when I voluntarilly click on a link with that stink on it.

on edit: Others may have the stomach for it - but I don't. A few excerpts please?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Parisle Donating Member (849 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Don't be silly,....
----This article was ALSO on the freerepublic site before the election. That is significant, y'know. If you think this is some sort of trick, you're wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluerum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Call me silly. I don't give them the traffic - nor do I like the site. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. Here's a free LINK to the ORIGINAL SOURCE at the Wall St Journal
It's the second half of the webpage at http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=65000070 . The first half is an editorial on Gore.

FYI: Just about any item that appears in the Wall Street Journal is available at their FREE site, http://www.opinionjournal.com .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluerum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Thanks! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tanyev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
3. Yeah, I've noticed in Googling that there were a lot of posts
at FR before 2000 highly critcal of Dubya and the Bush family. Even some covering the same BFEE territory we do. I suspect most of those posters were purged after the 2000 election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
april Donating Member (826 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
5. How interesting . This is a must read...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrgorth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
6. Wow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Parisle Donating Member (849 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Thanks, mrgorth (and April)
----This article, better than any other piece I've ever seen, ties together the Reagan-Bush years, the Bush-Saudi connections, the BCCI scandal and Junior's early years in the TANG and as a "businessman." It touches upon the origins of quite a few scandals and crooked deals,..... and it's from the Wall Street Journal. It OUGHT to be required reading, eh? Please give it a K/R boost,.... I'd like to keep it where the most folks will be moved to check it out. Thanks again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cosmocat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
7. There was even more ...
The Rangers deal ... They did eminent domain or something on some guy to get the stadium deal done ... More ...

Outside of just plain basic being able to spot a scumbag when you see one, information like this was readily available even before the primaries ... This guy spent his life having things handed to him as he slowly was identified as the tool for the overtaking of our government by oil interests and others ...

He SO clearly was not president worthy ... But, the perfect storm of the GOP dragging the country into a hatred of Clinton, the characterizing of a socially ingraceful Gore as arrogant, and a moron as a god fearing guy you could have a beer with ... And, an apathetic country let itself open to having this tool and the cabal behind have the keys the white house ..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheilaT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
10. This information is not all that obscure
and was widely available and disseminated before the 2000 election. I certainly knew all about this stuff from lots of sources, and I wasn't a regular reader of the WSJ, and DU wasn't around yet.

But it certainly is worth reminding everyone of all this stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
12. Clearly the freeps were hoping for Alan Keyes to get the nomination
Since clearly they weren't shilling for McCain. It's too bad they weren't successful. President Gore would be in the 6th year of his presidency after having won all 50 states in 2000.

But in all seriousness, right wingers are distrustful of authority when democrats are in office and blindly loyal to authority when Republicans are in office. The left does this somewhat, but they are more likely to distrust authority no matter who is in power.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 03:01 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC