Obama's new plan

[wez]

Regime Change: How the CIA put Saddam's Party in Power

From Richard Sanders, 24 October 2002

Source: Andrew and Patrick burn,

excerpt from Out of the Ashes, The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, 2000.

Cited by Tim Buckley <http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2000/msg01267.html>

 

With the death of former CIA director Richard Helms, the corporate media is offering a rare glimpse into the CIA's use of political assassinations. Unfortunately, however, the coverage is highly-sanitized. It covers up much more than it reveals.

 

Contrary to what the corporate media suggests, assassination is not a clean, surgical method of removing very specific political enemies. It is only one small element in a larger cluster of crimes used by the CIA in executing a regime change.

 

The reality is that the CIA's use of assassination to exterminate political leaders has historically been closely linked to many other political crimes that are, arguably, even worse.

 

For example, when planning, coordinating, arming, training and financing repressive military coups, as the CIA has done so many times, their henchmen are wont to carry out mass arrests, mass torture and mass murder. It's a nasty business. As Kissinger once said about the CIA's betrayal of Iraqi Kurds, covert action should not be confused with missionary work.

 

Although 32 of the 98 recent stories on Richard Helms (found using a google media search) mention the term assassination, not one of these articles mentions any of the following terms that are equally relevant to CIA operations: torture, murder, arrest.

 

Only 4 of the 98 recent stories on Helms mention the term coup. In one case, the article uses the term to praise Helms, saying he scored a journalistic coup when he interviewed Adolph Hitler in 1935. Richard Helms' contact with Nazis didn't end there (and probably didn't begin there either). Helms went on to work closely with General Reinhard Gehlen, the notorious Nazi spymaster who was hired by US intelligence to set up an organization within the CIA. The Gehlen Org recruited thousands of Nazi agents to run covert operations in Eastern Europe after the war. Gehlen is, of course, not mentioned in any of recent news reports on Helms. Neither is the fact that the OSS (the US agency that preceded the CIA) had a lot in common with the SS. To both, the biggest evil in the word was summed up in one word, communism. And to both, the elimination of communists, labour activists and other undesirable elements that got in the way of corporatism was their chief preoccupation.

 

Political assassination is a valuable weapon in the covert operative's toolbox. But it is only one tool among many. A successful right-wing covert action not only removes the enemy's head, it replaces the body politic.

 

The CIA has been organizing regime change for 50 years. They have removed many governments that are unfriendly to US corporate interests and replaced them with regimes that are more likely to work closely and slavishly to carry out the economic and geopolitical desires of the US corporate elite.

 

But the CIA's crimes don't end when a right-wing coup has succeeded. The CIA then has to keep its repressive despots in power in order to ensure that they can put into place and then maintain a variety of unjust economic systems and structures. This is done with arms sales (and outright gifts of surplus weapons), glowing diplomatic support, intelligence support (sic) and massive economic investment (i.e., pillaging as much profit as possible by exploiting the natural resources that drew them in there in the first place, and handing out some of the spoils to a loyal local elite).

 

When the corporate media describe the CIA's use of political assassination as if it exists in isolation from mass imprisonment, torture and murder, they cover up the horror, pain and suffering experienced by thousands of ordinary people in countries where CIA-backed blood baths have taken place. They neglect to reveal that when the CIA carries out its high-profile assassination efforts, they also carry out murders of thousands of lesser-known political figures.

 

It's standard procedure with many coups that thousands of grassroots activists and organizers get rounded up, tortured and killed. Such waves of mass violence make today's serial sniper in Washington look like a Boy Scout. The CIA has used such goons to eliminate its opponents and as a scare tactic to ensure that other citizens, who might otherwise have protested the regime change, decide instead to lay very low in order to stay alive.

 

An apt example of a real CIA assassination campaign was the Phoenix Program in Vietnam. Tens of thousands of people where specifically targetted, tracked down and assassinated, many by snipers. Although Helms held the post of Director of the CIA during the height of this mass serial assassination program, none of the 98 recent stories on Helms, found with the google search engine, even mention Phoenix. Reliable estimates on the total number of people killed by the US in South East Asia during the Vietnam war range from three to five million people. But, of course, there is no mention of Helms culpability in any recent corporate media articles. they say it is taboo to speak ill of the dead, but what they don't say is that it is even more taboo to speak ill of the CIA, or breath word that CIA directors are criminals for overseeing the deliberate murder of millions of innocent civilians.

 

During Helms' tenure as director of the CIA under President Johnson, he also oversaw the secret war against Laos. But, it was no secret for the people of Laos. Over two million tons of bombs were dropped on this small country. The word Laos is not mentioned in any of the 98 recent corporate media articles found by google in a search for Richard Helms. Tio much of the world, it's still a secret war.

 

Another very good example of a CIA-organized regime change was a coup in 1963 that employed political assassination, mass imprisonment, torture and murder. This was the military coup that first brought Saddam Hussein's beloved Ba'ath Party to power in Iraq. At the time, Richard Helms was Director for Plans at the CIA. That is the top CIA position responsible for covert actions, like organizing coups. Helms served in that capacity until 1966, when he was made Director.

 

In the quotations collected below, the name of the leader who was assassinated is spelled variously as Qasim, Qassim and Kassem. But, however you spell his name, when he took power in a popularly-backed coup in 1958, he certainly got recognized in Washington. He carried out such anti-American and anti-corporatist policies as starting the process of nationalizing foreign oil companies in Iraq, withdrawing Iraq from the US-initiated right-wing Baghdad Pact (which included another military-run, US-puppet state, i.e., Pakistan) and decriminalizing the Iraqi Communist Party. Despite these actions, and more likely because of them, he was Iraq's most popular leader. He had to go!

 

In 1959, there was a failed assassination attempt on Qasim. The failed assassin was none other than a young Saddam Hussein. In 1963, a CIA-organized coup did successfully assassinate Qasim and Saddam's Ba'ath Party came to power for the first time. Saddam returned from exile in Egypt and took up the key post as head of Iraq's secret service. The CIA then provided the new pliant, Iraqi regime with the names of thousands of communists, and other leftist activists and organizers. Thousands of these supporters of Qasim and his policies were soon dead in a rampage of mass murder carried out by the CIA's close friends in Iraq.

 

Iraq is once again a target of US regime change. Despite that, precious little is being said by the corporate media about how the CIA aided and abetted political assassination, regime change and mass murder, all in the name of putting Saddam's Ba'ath power into power for the first time in Iraq.

 

One thing is for sure, the US will find it much harder to remove the Ba'ath Party from power in Iraq than they did putting them in power back in 1963. If more people knew about this diabolical history, they just might not be so inclined to trust the US in its current efforts to execute regime change in Iraq.

 

Here then are some quotations that I've gathered on this fascinating early history of CIA involvement in the vicious history of regime change in Iraq:

 

Continued..

[wez]

Continued..

 

 

In early 1963, Saddam had more important things to worry about than his outstanding bill at the Andiana Cafe. On February 8, a military coup in Baghdad, in which the Baath Party played a leading role, overthrew Qassim. Support for the conspirators was limited. In the first hours of fighting, they had only nine tanks under their control. The Baath Party had just 850 active members. But Qassim ignored warnings about the impending coup. What tipped the balance against him was the involvement of the United States. He had taken Iraq out of the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact. In 1961, he threatened to occupy Kuwait and nationalized part of the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC), the foreign oil consortium that exploited Iraq's oil. In retrospect, it was the ClAs favorite coup. We really had the ts crossed on what was happening, James Critchfield, then head of the CIA in the Middle East, told us. We regarded it as a great victory. Iraqi participants later confirmed American involvement. We came to power on a CIA train, admitted Ali Saleh Sa'adi, the Baath Party secretary general who was about to institute an unprecedented reign of terror. CIA assistance reportedly included coordination of the coup plotters from the agency's station inside the U.S. embassy in Baghdad as well as a clandestine radio station in Kuwait and solicitation of advice from around the Middle East on who on the left should be eliminated once the coup was successful. To the end, Qassim retained his popularity in the streets of Baghdad. After his execution, his sup- porters refused to believe he was dead until the coup leaders showed pictures of his bullet-riddled body on TV and in the newspapers.

[wez]

Source: Alfred Mendes,

Excerpt from Blood for Oil, Spectr@zine.

<http://www.spectrezine.org/war/Mendes.htm>

 

The Ba'athist coup, resulted in the return to Iraq of young fellow-Ba'athist Saddam Hussein, who had fled to Egypt after his earlier abortive attempt to assassinate Qasim. Saddam was immediately assigned to head the Al-Jihaz al-Khas, the clandestine Ba'athist Intelligence organisation. As such, he was soon involved in the killing of some 5,000 communists. Saddam's rise to power had, ironically, begun on the back of a CIA-engineered coup!

 

Source: From Practical History,

London, May 2000.

<http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/7672/iraq.html>

 

1963: Qasim's government is overthrown in a coup bringing the Arab nationalist Ba'ath party to power. They favour the joining together of Iraq, Egypt and Syria in one Arab nation. In the same year, the Ba'ath also come to power in Syria, although the Syrian and Iraqi parties subsequently split.

 

The Ba'ath strengthen links with the U.S. During the coup, demonstrators are mown down by tanks, initiating a period of ruthless persecution. Up to 10,000 people are imprisoned, many are tortured. The CIA supply intelligence to the Ba'athists on communists and radicals to be rounded up. In addition to the 149 officially executed, about 5,000 are killed in the terror, many buried alive in mass graves. The new government continues the war on the Kurds, bombarding them with tanks, artillery and from the air, and bulldozing villages.

 

Source: Muslimedia:

August 16-31, 1997

<http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/features98/saddam.htm>

 

Iraqis have always suspected that the 1963 military coup that set Saddam Husain on the road to absolute power had been masterminded by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). New evidence just published reveals that the agency not only engineered the putsch but also supplied the list of people to be eliminated once power was secured--a monstrous stratagem that led to the decimation of Iraq's professional class.

 

The overthrow of president Abdul Karim Kassim on February 8, 1963 was not, of course, the first intervention in the region by the agency, but it was the bloodiest--far bloodier than the coup it orchestrated in 1953 to restore the shah of Iran to power. Just how gory, and how deep the CIA's involvement in it, is demonstrated in a new book by Said Aburish, a writer on Arab political affairs.

 

The book, A Brutal Friendship: The West and the Arab Elite (1997), sets out the details not only of how the CIA closely controlled the planning stages but also how it played a central role in the subsequent purge of suspected leftists after the coup.

 

The author reckons that 5,000 were killed, giving the names of 600 of them--including many doctors, lawyers, teachers and professors who formed Iraq's educated elite. The massacre was carried out on the basis of death lists provided by the CIA.

 

The lists were compiled in CIA stations throughout the Middle East with the assistance of Iraqi exiles like Saddam, who was based in Egypt. An Egyptian intelligence officer, who obtained a good deal of his information from Saddam, helped the Cairo CIA station draw up its list. According to Aburish, however, the American agent who produced the longest list was William McHale, who operated under the cover of a news correspondent for the Beirut bureau of Time magazine.

 

The butchery began as soon as the lists reached Baghdad. No-one was spared. Even pregnant women and elderly men were killed. Some were tortured in front of their children. According to the author, Saddam who 'had rushed back to Iraq from exile in Cairo to join the victors, was personally involved in the torture of leftists in the separate detention centres for fellaheen [peasants] and the Muthaqafeen or educated classes.'

 

King Hussain of Jordan, who maintained close links with the CIA, says the death lists were relayed by radio to Baghdad from Kuwait, the foreign base for the Iraqi coup. According to him, a secret radio broadcast was made from Kuwait on the day of the coup, February 8, 'that relayed to those carrying out the coup the names and addresses of communists there, so they could be seized and executed.'

 

The CIA's royal collaborator also gives an insight into how closely the Ba'athist party and American intelligence operators worked together during the planning stages. 'Many meetings were held between the Ba'ath party and American intelligence--the most critical ones in Kuwait,' he says.

 

At the time the Ba'ath party was a small nationalist movement with only 850 members. But the CIA decided to use it because of its close relations with the army. One of its members tried to assassinate Kassim as early as 1959. Saddam, then 22, was wounded in the leg, later fleeing the country.

 

According to Aburish, the Ba'ath party leaders--in return for CIA support--agreed to 'undertake a cleansing programme to get rid of the communists and their leftist allies.' Hani Fkaiki, a Ba'ath party leader, says that the party's contact man who orchestrated the coup was William Lakeland, the US assistant military attache in Baghdad.

 

One of the coup leaders, colonel Saleh Mahdi Ammash, former Iraqi assistant military attache in Washington, was in fact arrested for being in touch with Lakeland in Baghdad. His arrest caused the conspirators to move earlier than they had planned.

 

Aburish's book shows that the Ba'ath leaders did not deny plotting with the CIA ro overthrow Kassim. When Syrian Ba'ath party officials demanded to know why they were in cahoots with the US agency, the Iraqis tried to justify it in terms of ideology comparing their collusion to 'Lenin arriving in a German train to carry out his revolution.' Ali Saleh, the minister of interior of the regime which had replaced Kassim, said: 'We came to power on a CIA train.'

 

It should not come as a surprise that the Americans were so eager to overthrow Kassim or so willing to cause such a blood bath to achieve their objective. At the height of the cold war, they were causing similar mayhem in Latin America and Indo-China overthrowing any leaders that dared show the slighest degree of independence.

 

Kassim was a prime target for US aggression and arrogance. After taking power in 1958, he took Iraq out of the Baghdad Pact, the US-backed anti-Soviet alliance in the Middle East, and in 1961 he dared nationalise part of the concession of the British-controlled Iraq Petroleum company and resurrected a long-standing Iraqi claim to Kuwait ( the regime which succeeded him immediately dropped the claim to Kuwait).

 

But the cold war does not by itself explain Uncle Sam's propensity to violence. When president George Bush bombed Iraq to smithereens, killing thousands of civilians, the cold war was over. Clinton cannot cite the cold war for insisting that the brutal regime of sanctions imposed on the country should stay.

 

In fact the brutal, blood-stained nature of Uncle Sam goes back all the way to the so-called 'Founding Fathers,' who made no attempt to conceal it. As long ago as 1818, John Quincy Adams hailed the 'salutary efficacy' of terror in dealing with 'mingled hordes of lawless Indians and negroes.' He was defending Andrew Jackson's frenzied operations in Florida which virtually wiped out the indigenous population and left the Spanish province under US control. Thomas Jefferson and his colleagues were not above professing to be impressed by the wisdom of his words.

 

Source: Kryss Katsiavriades and Talaat Qureshi,

The Acts of the Democracies: 1960 to 1964

<http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_1960to1964.html>

 

Kassem had helped found the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in an attempt to curtail Western control of Arab oil. He had been planning to nationalise the Iraq Petroleum Company in which the USA had an interest. Iraq had also disapproved when Kuwait had been given independence by the UK with a pro-west emir (king) and oil concessions to Western companies. A few days before the coup, the French newspaper La Monde had reported that Kassem had been warned by the USA government to change his country's economic policies or face sanctions. British government papers later declassified would indicate that the coup was backed by the USA and UK. The new government promises not to nationalise American oil interests and renounces its claim to Kuwait. The USA recognises and praises the new government

 

 

 

 

Everybody seems to see things differently. History depends on who's telling it I figure. Hard to know what to believe...

 

Regime Change: How the CIA put Saddam's Party in Power

[Anna Perenna]

So which is it wez? Do you want all the soldiers home, or do you want us (and our money) there helping to rebuild Iraq?

 

Because you just said both. Is your last name "Kerry"?

 

That's not fair. You just cut and pasted only a small snippet of my whole quote. And all Wez said about my whole post, as an opinion, was "well said".

 

Eddo, it would be nice if you stopped stalking Wez around the board, and actually tried to properly participate in the debates. You know, practising what you preach and all that.

[Anna Perenna]

If you really want small government Ron Paul is the only choice out there.

 

Ron Paul on free trade:

 

Ron Paul, What is Free Trade? | Ron Paul Library

 

The rich got screwed by Bush too. THERE WAS A CEILING ON THE SIZE OF THE CHECK YOU GOT BACK.

 

Libertarians, as Paul is, are not isolationists they favor true free trade.

 

Paul is a strong believer in limited government. You cannot have limited government and be the world's policeman. You did not see Canada attacked on 9/11.

 

I knew you wouldn't let me down.

 

Though the scariest thing about Ron Paul, for me, is that the more I read, the more I think I agree with him.......

[eddo]

That's not fair. You just cut and pasted only a small snippet of my whole quote. And all Wez said about my whole post, as an opinion, was "well said".

I took his "well said" to mean he agreed. He clarified, and all is good.

 

 

 

Eddo, it would be nice if you stopped stalking Wez around the board, and actually tried to properly participate in the debates. You know, practising what you preach and all that.

I'm sorry, but I just have to LOL at this- as it is so obvious that all of my replies all over the extreme business of this board are all wez related...

 

Best be careful- Wez don't like people sticking up for each other. he calls it asslicking.

[wez]

Best be careful- Wez don't like people sticking up for each other. he calls it asslicking.

 

 

No, asslicking is not sticking up for someone. You know better.. Nice try again...

 

Although, blindly "sticking up for someone" as you accuse the target of being the perp and claiming they are doing what your asslickee is doing because you think they can help you in your personal vendetta, would be construed as asslicking.. Like you with certain folks around the www ... Hahahahahaha

 

Remember me sticking up for Sixes? A post certainly got him reinstated.. And DM? Addressed that one in Dr. eddo's fixit shop. Hahahahahaha

[wez]

That's not fair. You just cut and pasted only a small snippet of my whole quote. And all Wez said about my whole post, as an opinion, was "well said".

 

Wasn't it also slick how he tried to insinuate I was contradicting myself and pin me down to 2 choices that aren't necessary? Like we need to be there (with our money).. How clever..

 

Eddo, it would be nice if you stopped stalking Wez around the board, and actually tried to properly participate in the debates. You know, practising what you preach and all that.

 

Thank you, sweetheart.

[Anna Perenna]

I'm sorry, but I just have to LOL at this- as it is so obvious that all of my replies all over the extreme business of this board are all wez related...

 

Best be careful- Wez don't like people sticking up for each other. he calls it asslicking.

 

Your last two posts in this thread have been directed at Wez, and have been unnecessarily combative. No doubt you'll continue to laugh, and roll your eyes, and not take my protest seriously - but the fact is, you show no more will to amicably resolve your problems with Wez than he does, so it's a little much for you to continually paint him as the antagonist.

 

By the way, I don't actually consider myself to be sticking up for Wez - it just so happens that the last few times I have pointed out someone's hypocrisy, that person has been attacking Wez.

[wez]

Your last two posts in this thread have been directed at Wez, and have been unnecessarily combative. No doubt you'll continue to laugh, and roll your eyes, and not take my protest seriously - but the fact is, you show no more will to amicably resolve your problems with Wez than he does, so it's a little much for you to continually paint him as the antagonist.

 

By the way, I don't actually consider myself to be sticking up for Wez - it just so happens that the last few times I have pointed out someone's hypocrisy, that person has been attacking Wez.

 

 

Well said again.. As I know you wouldn't have any problem whatsoever telling me if I was being an unreasonable asshole for no reason or a hypocrite to someone along with a gang of asslickers/asslickees...

[ImWithStupid]

Well said again.. As I know you wouldn't have any problem whatsoever telling me if I was being an unreasonable asshole for no reason or a hypocrite to someone along with a gang asslickers/asslickees...

 

You are an unreasonable, asshole, hypocrite, asslicker,asslickee, etc... Just in case you didn't know.

[eddo]

you mean, right after he took office?

 

isn't that a bit different than doing it before you take office?

gee, I was pretty combative with hugo on that first post in this thread too. Better rip me a new one for it as well...

 

oh, and there was the comment about how I hate the Patriots. That one was completely biased and unnecessary. Best get busy.

 

ohh, and I bashed psychics as well... Hell, I even accused IWS of bribery! oh noooosss!!!!!111111oneoneone...

 

No doubt you'll continue to laugh, and roll your eyes, and not take my protest seriously

 

well, as long as we understand each other.

 

 

You are most likely right that my comments towards wez were "combative," but it isn't like that has only been directed at him. It is part of how my humor presents itself. always has been. I apologize if you think I was attacking him, as I wasn't. Maybe my lack of name calling and/or cursing could have been a hint?

[wez]

You are an unreasonable, asshole, hypocrite, asslicker,asslickee, etc... Just in case you didn't know.

 

Thank you... Thank you very much..

[wez]

but the fact is, you show no more will to amicably resolve your problems with Wez than he does,

 

I actually removed eddo's head from my avatars mouth a few weeks ago when I thought he was at the point of acceptance and was mellowing out.. You prolly didn't notice, but I guarantee eddo did. Time to put it back.. I like chew toys...

[snafu]

I actually removed eddo's head from my avatars mouth a few weeks ago when I thought he was at the point of acceptance and was mellowing out.....

 

Yeah I saw that. Good move. And eddo was being pretty damn civil too. You were both doing good. Now all of you quit you ing bickering for gods sake!

Anna they were doing fine. Don't stir up!

 

Good grief!

CB

[snafu]

Oh back to the topic of the thread. Obama's ing pin head.

[wez]

Yeah I saw that. Good move. And eddo was being pretty damn civil too. You were both doing good. Now all of you quit you ing bickering for gods sake!

Anna they were doing fine. Don't stir up!

 

Good grief!

CB

 

Hey now... she did nothing wrong.. I'm a big boy. And so is eddo...or not.

[snafu]

Hey now... she did nothing wrong.. I'm a big boy. And so is eddo...or not.

 

No you were both doing fine. She had no reason to start up . I think if she would've reviewed more than two posts she would've seen both of you were participating in some good debates that you were civil.

[ImWithStupid]

Thank you all, I was hoping I wasn't going to have to step in as a mod. This is how a mature, debate, forum should be.

[wez]

No you were both doing fine. She had no reason to start up . I think if she would've reviewed more than two posts she would've seen both of you were participating in some good debates that you were civil.

 

Perhaps you don't understand the degree and duration of eddo's assholery... Like he said, I've never done a thing to him. What's his problem?

 

Meaning.. I can promise you Anna had nothing to do with anything.. trust me.

 

Plus, she can and should say whatever she wants, whenever she wants to say it.. Me and eddo are responsible for me and eddo..

 

And don't forget...

I do also enjoy playing childish games of "I know you are, but what am I" when someone freaks out on me.. Hahahaha.. Maybe most of all.

[wez]

gee, I was pretty combative with hugo on that first post in this thread too. Better rip me a new one for it as well...

 

oh, and there was the comment about how I hate the Patriots. That one was completely biased and unnecessary. Best get busy.

 

ohh, and I bashed psychics as well... Hell, I even accused IWS of bribery! oh noooosss!!!!!111111oneoneone...

 

 

 

well, as long as we understand each other.

 

 

You are most likely right that my comments towards wez were "combative," but it isn't like that has only been directed at him. It is part of how my humor presents itself. always has been. I apologize if you think I was attacking him, as I wasn't. Maybe my lack of name calling and/or cursing could have been a hint?

 

 

By the way...

 

 

Shut the hell up.. The victim act is wearing thin. And your comparisons are the logic of an imbecil...

[eddo]

By the way...

Shut the hell up.. The victim act is wearing thin. And your comparisons are the logic of an imbecil...

 

Blah blah blah, whatever you say wez. Mirror time maybe?

 

 

anyway-

 

 

Moving on now...

 

 

On the way home from work yesterday, I was listening to Bill O'Rielly. He had a caller that was upset that Obama keeps being listed as "a black candidate" when in reality he is only half black.

 

To be fair to Obama, I have never heard him refer to himself as a "black candidate," I have only heard that phrase from the media.

 

Do you think the media is consciously trying to move the vote his direction by referring to him as "black"?

 

Should his racial heritage be an issue? Should we be focused on possibly "electing the first black president"? Are some people gonna vote for him to avoid being labeled a racist for not voting for him?

[snafu]

I think it?s a strategy that he himself doesn?t bring it up But his PR people probably would and the same for Hillary.

 

The problem with America is that some people will vote for him for the simple fact that he's black. And others will vote for Hillary just becuse she's a women.

I know it?s wrong but I have to admit that because McCain was a POW for five years gives him an edge in my eyes.

[timesjoke]

I think it?s a strategy that he himself doesn?t bring it up But his PR people probably would and the same for Hillary.

 

The problem with America is that some people will vote for him for the simple fact that he's black. And others will vote for Hillary just becuse she's a women.

I know it?s wrong but I have to admit that because McCain was a POW for five years gives him an edge in my eyes.

 

 

I saw some study group results last year where college students were asked who they would most likely support for President, and there was a heavy support for Hillary from young women so on a follow up, these women were asked about what specific things Hillary stood for and they they liked the most, and they didn't really have an answer.

 

 

Yes, some people will vote for Hillary just because she is female and many that will vote for Obama due to his bering part black, in the absence of knowing the issues, all that anyone can do is support your own I guess.

[wez]

Appears Obama's new plan is George's old plan.. Sounds like some more "economic stimulus" giveaways are on the way.. There's "tax rebate" talk again.. Only this time, there is no surplus like when Clinton left office. 9+ Trillion the other way, with a baby boomer retirment party on the way.. Yeah, money grows on trees.. even better, it rolls off a printing press. No need to wait for it to grow..

 

Wall St. drops as Bush rescue plan disappoints | Reuters

 

Bush pushes $150B economic aid package - MSNBC Wire Services - MSNBC.com