Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Octafish
Octafish's Journal
Octafish's Journal
March 5, 2015
I will let DUers think about that one.
[font size="8"][font color="red"]Any examples of where Octafish is a racist or homophobe: Please post. [/font color][/font size]
And if you don't want to post because of what I wrote is so horrible, PM me and I'll repost anonymously.
March 5, 2015
Why do you do that?
You've been 'following' me for years now.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022386270#post20Why do you do that?
March 5, 2015
A Fresh Look
by Carla Binion
Investigative reporter Christopher Simpson says in BLOWBACK that after World War II, Nazi émigrés were
given CIA subsidies to build a far-right-wing power base in the U.S. These Nazis assumed prominent positions
in the Republican Party's "ethnic outreach committees." Simpson documents the fact that these Nazis did not
come to America as individuals but as part of organized groups with fascist political agendas. The Nazi agenda
did not die along with Adolf Hitler. It moved to America (or a part of it did) and joined the far right of the
Republican Party.
Simpson shows how the State Department and the CIA put high-ranking Nazis on the intelligence payroll "for
their expertise in propaganda and psychological warfare," among other purposes. The most important Nazi
employed by the U.S. was Reinhard Gehlen, Hitler's most senior eastern front military intelligence officer. After
Germany's defeat became certain, Gehlen offered the U.S. certain concessions in exchange for his own
protection. Gehlen promoted hyped up cold war propaganda on behalf of the political right in this country, and
helped shape U.S. perceptions of the cold war.
Journalist Russ Bellant (OLD NAZIS, THE NEW RIGHT, AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY) shows that
Laszlo Pasztor, a convicted Nazi war collaborator, built the Republican émigré network. Pasztor, who served as
adviser to Republican Paul Weyrich, belonged to the Hungarian Arrow Cross, a group that helped liquidate
Hungary's Jews. Pasztor was founding chairman of the Republican Heritage Groups Council.
Two months before the November 1988 presidential election, a small newspaper, Washington Jewish Week,
disclosed that a coalition for the Bush campaign included a number of outspoken Nazis and anti-Semites. The
article prompted six leaders of Bush's coalition to resign.
According to Russ Bellant, Nazi collaborators involved in the Republican Party included:
CONTINUED...
http://www.bartcop.com/nazigop.htm
NAZIs in the Republican Party are a serious issue, zappaman.
Nazis and the Republican PartyA Fresh Look
by Carla Binion
Investigative reporter Christopher Simpson says in BLOWBACK that after World War II, Nazi émigrés were
given CIA subsidies to build a far-right-wing power base in the U.S. These Nazis assumed prominent positions
in the Republican Party's "ethnic outreach committees." Simpson documents the fact that these Nazis did not
come to America as individuals but as part of organized groups with fascist political agendas. The Nazi agenda
did not die along with Adolf Hitler. It moved to America (or a part of it did) and joined the far right of the
Republican Party.
Simpson shows how the State Department and the CIA put high-ranking Nazis on the intelligence payroll "for
their expertise in propaganda and psychological warfare," among other purposes. The most important Nazi
employed by the U.S. was Reinhard Gehlen, Hitler's most senior eastern front military intelligence officer. After
Germany's defeat became certain, Gehlen offered the U.S. certain concessions in exchange for his own
protection. Gehlen promoted hyped up cold war propaganda on behalf of the political right in this country, and
helped shape U.S. perceptions of the cold war.
Journalist Russ Bellant (OLD NAZIS, THE NEW RIGHT, AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY) shows that
Laszlo Pasztor, a convicted Nazi war collaborator, built the Republican émigré network. Pasztor, who served as
adviser to Republican Paul Weyrich, belonged to the Hungarian Arrow Cross, a group that helped liquidate
Hungary's Jews. Pasztor was founding chairman of the Republican Heritage Groups Council.
Two months before the November 1988 presidential election, a small newspaper, Washington Jewish Week,
disclosed that a coalition for the Bush campaign included a number of outspoken Nazis and anti-Semites. The
article prompted six leaders of Bush's coalition to resign.
According to Russ Bellant, Nazi collaborators involved in the Republican Party included:
1.Radi Slavoff, GOP Heritage Council's executive director, and head of "Bulgarians for Bush." Slavoff was a
member of a Bulgarian fascist group, and he put together an event in Washington honoring Holocaust
denier, Austin App.
2.Florian Galdau, director of GOP outreach efforts among Romanians, and head of "Romanians for Bush."
Galdau was once an Iron Guard recruiter, and he defended convicted Nazi war criminal Valerian Trifa.
3.Nicholas Nazarenko, leader of a Cossack GOP ethnic unit. Nazarenko was an ex-Waffen SS officer.
4.Method Balco, GOP activist. Balco organized yearly memorials for a Nazi puppet regime.
5.Walter Melianovich, head of the GOP's Byelorussian unit. Melianovich worked closely with many Nazi
groups.
6.Bohdan Fedorak, leader of "Ukrainians for Bush." Fedorak headed a Nazi group involved in anti-Jewish
wartime pogroms.
CONTINUED...
http://www.bartcop.com/nazigop.htm
March 5, 2015
POWERFUL ALLIANCE AIDS BUSHES' RISE
FINANCIER GEORGE HERBERT WALKER PROVIDED MONEY AND SUPPORT FOR THE CLIMB TO POWER
BUSH FAMILY'S LONG PATH TO POWER
FIRST OF TWO PARTS
By Michael Kranish
Boston Globe Staff
Prescott S. Bush hardly seemed destined to lead a political dynasty when he arrived in Massachusetts in the 1920s. Nothing about his circumstances foreshadowed that his descendants would include two Republican presidents. Here was the young Bush, struggling to run a Braintree rubber factory while receiving little financial help from his wealthy father, a Democrat.
But another figure loomed in Bush's life: his father-in-law, George Herbert Walker, a powerful and much-feared financier who also happened to be a die-hard Republican. With Walker's intervention, Bush soon left the unglamorous factory to become one of the most successful bankers on Wall Street and, eventually, a Republican senator from Connecticut.
In time, the sons of these men would tie the Bush-Walker bonds even tighter. George H.W. Bush, Prescott Bush's son and eventually the 41st president, received hundreds of thousands of dollars in investment money at a crucial moment, from Walker's son. Without the Walker money, without the extraordinary Walker devotion, there might well never have been two Presidents Bush.
This is the story of the rise of the Bushes, the indispensable role of the Walkers, and the path to power laid by Prescott Bush. It is in many ways a saga akin to that of the Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys, a sweeping drama that has love and money and politics - and privilege beyond the dreams of most Americans.
The English-bred Bushes and the Scottish Walkers both arrived in New England before the American Revolution. The Bushes made their fortune in the steel plants and railroads of Ohio, while the Walkers flourished in finance in Missouri.
As certifiable Brahmins, both families returned to New England for long summer vacations, formed their bond in the seaside resort of Kennebunkport, Maine, and later lived side by side for decades in the moneyed New York City suburb of Greenwich, Conn. Like so many dynasties, this one was built with fortunes won, and nearly lost,
that were then applied to the pursuit of political power.
In this tale, there is no Joe Kennedy urging his brood to politics. But the cast of characters is perhaps no less compelling: the Bush patriarch, Samuel Prescott Bush, who lost his wife in a tragic Rhode Island accident; the Walker patriarch George Herbert Walker, who sometimes seemed to care more for his Bush in-laws than his own children; the famed Democrat, W. Averell Harriman, who saved Prescott Bush from bankruptcy; and Dorothy Walker Bush, a debutante dynamo who married Prescott and forever linked the two families.
CONTINUED...
http://www.michaelkranish.com/Michael_Kranish/Bush_Family_History.html
George Herbert Walker and Averell Harriman
Bush Family HistoryPOWERFUL ALLIANCE AIDS BUSHES' RISE
FINANCIER GEORGE HERBERT WALKER PROVIDED MONEY AND SUPPORT FOR THE CLIMB TO POWER
BUSH FAMILY'S LONG PATH TO POWER
FIRST OF TWO PARTS
By Michael Kranish
Boston Globe Staff
Prescott S. Bush hardly seemed destined to lead a political dynasty when he arrived in Massachusetts in the 1920s. Nothing about his circumstances foreshadowed that his descendants would include two Republican presidents. Here was the young Bush, struggling to run a Braintree rubber factory while receiving little financial help from his wealthy father, a Democrat.
But another figure loomed in Bush's life: his father-in-law, George Herbert Walker, a powerful and much-feared financier who also happened to be a die-hard Republican. With Walker's intervention, Bush soon left the unglamorous factory to become one of the most successful bankers on Wall Street and, eventually, a Republican senator from Connecticut.
In time, the sons of these men would tie the Bush-Walker bonds even tighter. George H.W. Bush, Prescott Bush's son and eventually the 41st president, received hundreds of thousands of dollars in investment money at a crucial moment, from Walker's son. Without the Walker money, without the extraordinary Walker devotion, there might well never have been two Presidents Bush.
This is the story of the rise of the Bushes, the indispensable role of the Walkers, and the path to power laid by Prescott Bush. It is in many ways a saga akin to that of the Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys, a sweeping drama that has love and money and politics - and privilege beyond the dreams of most Americans.
The English-bred Bushes and the Scottish Walkers both arrived in New England before the American Revolution. The Bushes made their fortune in the steel plants and railroads of Ohio, while the Walkers flourished in finance in Missouri.
As certifiable Brahmins, both families returned to New England for long summer vacations, formed their bond in the seaside resort of Kennebunkport, Maine, and later lived side by side for decades in the moneyed New York City suburb of Greenwich, Conn. Like so many dynasties, this one was built with fortunes won, and nearly lost,
that were then applied to the pursuit of political power.
In this tale, there is no Joe Kennedy urging his brood to politics. But the cast of characters is perhaps no less compelling: the Bush patriarch, Samuel Prescott Bush, who lost his wife in a tragic Rhode Island accident; the Walker patriarch George Herbert Walker, who sometimes seemed to care more for his Bush in-laws than his own children; the famed Democrat, W. Averell Harriman, who saved Prescott Bush from bankruptcy; and Dorothy Walker Bush, a debutante dynamo who married Prescott and forever linked the two families.
CONTINUED...
http://www.michaelkranish.com/Michael_Kranish/Bush_Family_History.html
March 5, 2015
You always say that.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3853817
March 5, 2015
From Kissinger's "Platform State" to the Plutonium Club
How the US Supplied Iran with Nuclear Know-How
By Saul Landau
Counterpunch Weekend Edition September 9 / 11, 2005
EXCERPT…
Such stories provoke the question: how could Iran have obtained nuclear capabilities? Surely, those irresponsible former Soviet scientists must have sold them the technology, a colleague guessed. "Those people would sell anything after the fall of the Soviet Union."
Not quite! It was US policy, not anti-American Moslem fanaticism that led Iran directly into the nuclear age. In the late 1960s, Iran stood out as a model ally of the United States. After all, the ruling Shah owed the CIA after the Agency's operatives ousted elected Premier Mossadegh's government in 1953. CIA action followed Mossadegh's declaration that he would nationalize foreign oil holdings. The Shah understood loyalty to those who reinstalled his "royal family" to dictatorial power.
His servility won him nuclear access. "The US and her allies were in fact the driving force behind the birth of Iran's nuclear program in the late 1960s and early 1970s" (Mohammad Sahimi, Iran's Nuclear Program. Part I: Its History October 2003). By 1974, the Shah, after consulting with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, boasted that nuclear power plants in Iran would soon produce more than 20,000 megawatts of energy.
In the mid-1970s, led by Kissinger who saw in Iran a "platform state" to fight communism in the region, Washington proposed that The Shah expand his nuclear capacity by acquiring as many as twenty three nuclear reactors. According to Mohammad Sahimi, the work on the reactors began in 1974 with the help of MIT engineers who contracted to train Iranian nuclear technicians.
Sahimi cites a speech by Sydney Sober, a State Department official who in October 1977, "declared that the Shah's government was going to purchase eight nuclear reactors from the US for generating electricity. On July 10, 1978, only seven months before the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the final draft of the US-Iran Nuclear Energy Agreement was signed. The agreement was supposed to facilitate cooperation in the field of nuclear energy and to govern the export and transfer of equipment and material to Iran's nuclear energy program. Iran was also to receive American technology and help in searching for uranium deposits."
Why, asked critics, should a nation with huge oil and gas reserves invest in nuclear technology? Why not? Both General Electric and Westinghouse sold Iran reactors. These manufacturers of nuclear energy plants for the third world and their media acolytes regaled The Shah for his "westernizing policies," his far-sightedness in seeing beyond the age of oil.
CONTINUED…
http://www.counterpunch.org/landau09092005.html
Odd how when Big Oil's Puppet Shah left, it wasn't OK anymore for nuclear proliferation, I mean, for Iran to have a nuclear program.
How the US Supplied Iran with Nuclear Know-How
From Kissinger's "Platform State" to the Plutonium Club
How the US Supplied Iran with Nuclear Know-How
By Saul Landau
Counterpunch Weekend Edition September 9 / 11, 2005
EXCERPT…
Such stories provoke the question: how could Iran have obtained nuclear capabilities? Surely, those irresponsible former Soviet scientists must have sold them the technology, a colleague guessed. "Those people would sell anything after the fall of the Soviet Union."
Not quite! It was US policy, not anti-American Moslem fanaticism that led Iran directly into the nuclear age. In the late 1960s, Iran stood out as a model ally of the United States. After all, the ruling Shah owed the CIA after the Agency's operatives ousted elected Premier Mossadegh's government in 1953. CIA action followed Mossadegh's declaration that he would nationalize foreign oil holdings. The Shah understood loyalty to those who reinstalled his "royal family" to dictatorial power.
His servility won him nuclear access. "The US and her allies were in fact the driving force behind the birth of Iran's nuclear program in the late 1960s and early 1970s" (Mohammad Sahimi, Iran's Nuclear Program. Part I: Its History October 2003). By 1974, the Shah, after consulting with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, boasted that nuclear power plants in Iran would soon produce more than 20,000 megawatts of energy.
In the mid-1970s, led by Kissinger who saw in Iran a "platform state" to fight communism in the region, Washington proposed that The Shah expand his nuclear capacity by acquiring as many as twenty three nuclear reactors. According to Mohammad Sahimi, the work on the reactors began in 1974 with the help of MIT engineers who contracted to train Iranian nuclear technicians.
Sahimi cites a speech by Sydney Sober, a State Department official who in October 1977, "declared that the Shah's government was going to purchase eight nuclear reactors from the US for generating electricity. On July 10, 1978, only seven months before the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the final draft of the US-Iran Nuclear Energy Agreement was signed. The agreement was supposed to facilitate cooperation in the field of nuclear energy and to govern the export and transfer of equipment and material to Iran's nuclear energy program. Iran was also to receive American technology and help in searching for uranium deposits."
Why, asked critics, should a nation with huge oil and gas reserves invest in nuclear technology? Why not? Both General Electric and Westinghouse sold Iran reactors. These manufacturers of nuclear energy plants for the third world and their media acolytes regaled The Shah for his "westernizing policies," his far-sightedness in seeing beyond the age of oil.
CONTINUED…
http://www.counterpunch.org/landau09092005.html
Odd how when Big Oil's Puppet Shah left, it wasn't OK anymore for nuclear proliferation, I mean, for Iran to have a nuclear program.
March 4, 2015
Why smear me over what Mearsheimer wrote? Take it out on him. That's the Fascist thing to do.
Here's why I defend Mearsheimer and everything he's published: That's the Democratic thing to do.
March 4, 2015
That's what they said about me on Conservative Cave, zappaman.
Octafish, for those who aren't aware, is famous for his sporadic "Know your BFEE" posts, in which he attempts to link all badness in the world to the Bush family. He is also obsessed with the Kennedy assassination, so much so that it has become essentially a job for him. When provoked or encouraged (same difference, really), he does the Judi Lynn routine of writing 500-word jeremiads and links to arcane sources which (a) don't generally support anything in particular, and (b) are probably larded with spyware anyway.
SOURCE: http://conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=99014.0
What a coincidence! That's the kind of reasoning you've displayed in your responses on this thread and many others going back many years.
March 4, 2015
Just because the warmongers and banksters go unpunished and good people like Siegelman and Manning are in prison and the rest of us are considered suspects until proven innocent doesn't mean it's not what it is.
Obama Adviser Cass Sunstein Rejects Prosecution of “Non-Egregious” Bush Crimes
by jonathanturley, 1, July 21, 2008
With many Democrats still fuming over the refusal of Democratic leaders like Speaker Nancy Pelosi to allow even impeachment hearings into detailed allegations of crimes by President Bush in office, close Obama adviser (and University of Chicago Law Professor) Cass Sunstein recently rejected the notion of prosecuting Bush officials for crimes such as torture and unlawful surveillance. After Sen. Obama’s unpopular vote on the FISA bill, it has triggered a blogger backlash — raising questions about the commitment of the Democrats to do anything other than taking office and reaping the benefits of power.
The exchange with Sunstein was detailed by The Nation’s Ari Melber. Melber wrote that Sunstein rejected any such prosecution:
Sunstein did add that “egregious crimes should not be ignored,” according to one site, click here. It is entirely unclear what that means since some of us take the views that any crimes committed by the government are egregious. Those non-egregious crimes are precisely what worries many lawyers who were looking for a simple commitment to prosecute crimes committed by the government.
We will have to wait for a further response from Sunstein, but liberal groups are up in arms given his close association with Sen. Obama.
Sunstein and I were on opposite sides on the Clinton impeachment. While I voted for Clinton and came from a well-known democratic family in Chicago, I believe (and still believed) that Clinton was rightfully impeached for lying under oath. One of the objections that I made in an academic writing at the time was that some professors seemed to accept that Clinton did commit perjury but argued that it should not have been prosecuted as an impeachable offense — or a criminal offense. As with the current controversy, many argued that some crimes could be prosecuted while others tolerated or excused. It was the same egregious versus non-egregious distinction. Obviously, it could be argued that perjury is not an impeachable offense — though I strongly disagree with this view. However, many also opposed any criminal prosecution in the Clinton case. At the time, many cited the dangers to the presidency in such cases as raising the appearance of political prosecutions (much like the current rationale with Bush). I view the dangers as far worse when you fail to act in the face of a crime committed by a president, even one who I supported. I feel equally strongly that President Bush should be subject to impeachment based on the commission of the crimes of torture and unlawful surveillance.
The main concern with Sunstein’s reported comment is how well they fit within the obvious strategy of the Democratic party leaders: to block any prosecution of either President Bush or his aides for crimes while running on those crimes to maintain and expand their power in Washington. The missing component in this political calculus is, of course, a modicum of principle.
SNIP...
Here’s the problem about “avoiding appearances.” There seems ample evidence of crimes committed by this Administration, in my view. To avoid appearances would require avoiding acknowledgment of those alleged crimes: precisely what Attorney General Mukasey has been doing by refusing to answer simple legal questions about waterboarding.
SNIP...
The combination of Obama’s vote to retroactively grant immunity for the telecoms and Sunstein’s comments are an obvious cause for alarm. We have had almost eight years of legal relativism by both parties. For a prior column on the danger of relativism in presidents, click here A little moral clarity would be a welcomed change.
CONTINUED...
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/07/21/obama-adviser-cass-sunstein-rejects-prosecution-of-possible-bush-crimes/
That was published in July 2008. Gee. Here it is March 2015 and the banksters and warmongers are still riding high in the saddle and We the People are paying for their thievery and wars without end for profits without cease.
PS: For some reason I thought you'd written that, Javaman. Did you?
Smile. Don't believe what your eyes and ears tell you.
Just because the warmongers and banksters go unpunished and good people like Siegelman and Manning are in prison and the rest of us are considered suspects until proven innocent doesn't mean it's not what it is.
Obama Adviser Cass Sunstein Rejects Prosecution of “Non-Egregious” Bush Crimes
by jonathanturley, 1, July 21, 2008
With many Democrats still fuming over the refusal of Democratic leaders like Speaker Nancy Pelosi to allow even impeachment hearings into detailed allegations of crimes by President Bush in office, close Obama adviser (and University of Chicago Law Professor) Cass Sunstein recently rejected the notion of prosecuting Bush officials for crimes such as torture and unlawful surveillance. After Sen. Obama’s unpopular vote on the FISA bill, it has triggered a blogger backlash — raising questions about the commitment of the Democrats to do anything other than taking office and reaping the benefits of power.
The exchange with Sunstein was detailed by The Nation’s Ari Melber. Melber wrote that Sunstein rejected any such prosecution:
Prosecuting government officials risks a “cycle” of criminalizing public service, [Sunstein] argued, and Democrats should avoid replicating retributive efforts like the impeachment of President Clinton — or even the “slight appearance” of it.
Sunstein did add that “egregious crimes should not be ignored,” according to one site, click here. It is entirely unclear what that means since some of us take the views that any crimes committed by the government are egregious. Those non-egregious crimes are precisely what worries many lawyers who were looking for a simple commitment to prosecute crimes committed by the government.
We will have to wait for a further response from Sunstein, but liberal groups are up in arms given his close association with Sen. Obama.
Sunstein and I were on opposite sides on the Clinton impeachment. While I voted for Clinton and came from a well-known democratic family in Chicago, I believe (and still believed) that Clinton was rightfully impeached for lying under oath. One of the objections that I made in an academic writing at the time was that some professors seemed to accept that Clinton did commit perjury but argued that it should not have been prosecuted as an impeachable offense — or a criminal offense. As with the current controversy, many argued that some crimes could be prosecuted while others tolerated or excused. It was the same egregious versus non-egregious distinction. Obviously, it could be argued that perjury is not an impeachable offense — though I strongly disagree with this view. However, many also opposed any criminal prosecution in the Clinton case. At the time, many cited the dangers to the presidency in such cases as raising the appearance of political prosecutions (much like the current rationale with Bush). I view the dangers as far worse when you fail to act in the face of a crime committed by a president, even one who I supported. I feel equally strongly that President Bush should be subject to impeachment based on the commission of the crimes of torture and unlawful surveillance.
The main concern with Sunstein’s reported comment is how well they fit within the obvious strategy of the Democratic party leaders: to block any prosecution of either President Bush or his aides for crimes while running on those crimes to maintain and expand their power in Washington. The missing component in this political calculus is, of course, a modicum of principle.
SNIP...
Here’s the problem about “avoiding appearances.” There seems ample evidence of crimes committed by this Administration, in my view. To avoid appearances would require avoiding acknowledgment of those alleged crimes: precisely what Attorney General Mukasey has been doing by refusing to answer simple legal questions about waterboarding.
SNIP...
The combination of Obama’s vote to retroactively grant immunity for the telecoms and Sunstein’s comments are an obvious cause for alarm. We have had almost eight years of legal relativism by both parties. For a prior column on the danger of relativism in presidents, click here A little moral clarity would be a welcomed change.
CONTINUED...
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/07/21/obama-adviser-cass-sunstein-rejects-prosecution-of-possible-bush-crimes/
That was published in July 2008. Gee. Here it is March 2015 and the banksters and warmongers are still riding high in the saddle and We the People are paying for their thievery and wars without end for profits without cease.
PS: For some reason I thought you'd written that, Javaman. Did you?
Profile Information
Gender: MaleMember since: 2003 before July 6th
Number of posts: 55,745