Friday, May 12, 2006

HUD Secretary Either "Broke The Law And Then Lied About It, Or ... Lied That He Had Broken The Law"

"Which is worse," the Washington Post asks this morning, "violating the law or pretending to have done so?"

Those are the choices at hand when discussing HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson.

(Don't worry: Jackson is a long-time friend of President Bush. No need to count the days until Jackson's firing ...)

Two weeks ago, Jackson said at a business gathering in Dallas that he had canceled a government contract because the contractor criticized President Bush. "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president?" Jackson was quoted as saying.

Jackson, a former head of the Dallas Housing Authority, said: "we started this process where every time a businessperson of color came in to see me, I’d tell them, ‘Go down to the (minority small business) office and get registered — then I can work with you." Once you get on the list and get a contract, HUD will "just keep giving you tax dollars.”

Jackson stressed that “HUD provides ‘business opportunities for many in this room to get rich,’” adding that “one contract can make you wealthy.”

A spokeswoman, Dustee Tucker, later offered the Dallas Morning News additional justification for the canceled contract, saying the contractor in question had been rude to Mr. Jackson, "trashing, in a very aggressive way," the HUD secretary and the president.

But amazingly, Jackson now claims that the story of the businessman who lost his contract with HUD because he criticized Bush -- an act which would be illegal -- was a fabrication.

"During my tenure, no contract has ever been rewarded, rejected or rescinded due to the personal or political beliefs of the recipient," he stated. Tucker added that it was "a made-up story," intended to demonstrate how people in Washington "will come in, trash you, trash the president and then ask you for money."

Yeah, right. Or is it possible that for the umpteenth time, a Bush Administration secretary has had a tin ear, getting caught saying something that later can't be defended?

-- Such as when Education Secretary Rod Paige called the National Education Association a "terrorist organization," then a day later, apologized.

-- Such as when DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff said that rail security should take a backseat to aviation security becuase "A bomb in a subway car may kill 30 people." His spokesperson later said Chertoff was concerned about securing all means of transportation "with the unique solution that each requires."

-- Such as when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said: "I can’t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that," then more recently lied, "I've avoided predicting the timing."

-- Or when Rumsfeld was caught in a lie when he was challenged by CIA veteran Ray McGovern. Rumsfeld denied ever saying the U.S. knew where weapons of mass destruction were, and then McGovern read quotes Rumsfeld had given on various Sunday talk shows.


When you're caught, what choice do you have but to try to lie your way out of trouble? Pretend you never said something. Say you were misquoted. Try to change the subject. Hope the American people forget.

The Post, talking about Jackson, nailed the main argument: "Whatever his intention in telling the story -- and whether the story is true or false -- it appears to lead to only two possible conclusions: Either Mr. Jackson broke the law and then lied about it, or he lied that he had broken the law. Which of those actions makes him fit to be secretary of housing and urban development?"


Anonymous trinity said...

David R. Mark said...
"When you're caught, what choice do you have but to try to lie your way out of trouble? Pretend you never said something. Say you were misquoted. Try to change the subject. Hope the American people forget."

Oh, I get it. You mean like when former President Clinton revealed at the Long Island Association's annual luncheon, that he "pleaded with the Saudis" to accept Sudan's offer to hand bin Laden over to Saudi Arabia. And that we couldn't take him because, as Clinton said, "At the time, he committed no crime against America, so I couldn't bring him here."

Former Sudanese officials also claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States, but of course, Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. I believe it was Madeleine Albright,
who came out and said that Clinton "misspoke".

And we know Clinton's people would never lie about anything like OBL, right? They might steal and shred classified secret documents from our national archives, and block relevant testimony from ever reaching the ears of the 9-11 Commission, but they'd never lie about OBL, would they? No, of course not.

If I remember correctly, wasn't it also Madame Sec. Albright, along with Sandy "Burglar" Berger who were among those loyal Clinton apologists who during the Lewinski scandal "trooped to a microphone set up just outside of the White House and personally assured us that they had met with the President, heard his denial and believed in him enough to vouch for him to their fellow Americans."

And we all know what happened to the truth in that instance. No, honesty and truth were not one of the Clinton Administration's top priorities I'm afraid.

5:34 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

Another fantastic defense of the Bush Administration, Trinity.

When in doubt, bring up Monica Lewinsky. Conservatives will be mentioning her name after each GOP screw up for the next 100 years, right?

10:53 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Actually, cutiepie. My main point, if you read my post, had little to do with that airhead Lewinski, and more to do with the fact that Clinton admitted that we could have had OBL if we wanted him, but we passed on it. Nice dodge though. ;)

My post was in direct response to this quote from David:

When you're caught, what choice do you have but to try to lie your way out of trouble? Pretend you never said something. Say you were misquoted. Try to change the subject. Hope the American people forget.

Since he left himself wide open with that comment, I felt I was obligated to take the shot. :)

12:25 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Trinity: That claim about Clinton having declined Sudan's offer of Bin Laden to U.S. custody and to Saudi Arabia has long been discredited.
I quote from the 9-11 Commission Report, Chapter 4:
"Sudan's minister of defense, Fatih Erwa has claimed that Sudan offered to hand Bin Ladin over to the United States (in the spring of 1996 during the Clinton Administration). The Commission has found no credible evidence that this was so."
The 9-11 Commission report also discredited that claim that Clinton tried to get Saudi Arabia to take bin Laden from Sudan, purportedly because he could be more easilly tortured there.
The 9-11 Commission wrote: "No rendition plan targeting Bin Ladin, who was still perceived as a terrorist financier, was requested by or presented to senior policymakers during 1996."
It does not matter what Clinton said. An objective source: the 9-11 Commission investigated the entire claim in the exact same context you put it above and found "no credible evidence" to support it.
Read for yourself:
Conservatives on Faux News and such as Trinity can't stop regurgitating long discredited right-wing spin merely to create a fog around the actions of their own failed party. They are like broken unstoppable wind up toys.
Instead of bringing up dubious Clinton missteps anyway, why don't you stick to JABBS topic: the lying statements of Bush Administration officials.

9:17 PM  
Blogger Joe said...

Whenever Republicans are faced with the misdeeds and lies of the Bush Administration, they respond, “Well, well, well, Clinton lied!” or “It’s all Clinton’s fault!” Got news for you trinity, Clinton’s not the president and hasn’t been for almost 6 years. The blame Clinton excuse has worn pretty thin over the years and only shows how lame any Bush apologist’s defense becomes the more that is learned about him. The public agrees with that. If you insist on bringing up Clinton, a majority of Americans recently surveyed favor Clinton over Bush in every area measured: economy, solving the problems of ordinary Americans, foreign affairs, taxes, handling natural disasters, and national security. They said that Bush has divided the country more than Clinton and found Clinton more honest than Bush as well. So what were you saying about Clinton in defense of Bush and his cronies’ lies?

10:26 PM  
Blogger edwardharolds9895070120 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

6:04 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"Trinity: That claim about Clinton having declined Sudan's offer of Bin Laden to U.S. custody and to Saudi Arabia has long been discredited."

Only by people like you, twot, who choose not to see beyond their own noses. You see only what you want to see, and ignore the fact that there were Clinton people in place on that commission who used their position to keep certain information away from the eyes of other, more objective people on the panel.

We know for a fact that Jamie Gorelick's aide was responsible for removing certain pieces of evidence that would undoubtedly make former President Bill Clinton look bad or negligent, and we can also be quite sure that the aide, didn't make that decision unilaterally.

And it was an outrage first of all that Jamie Gorelick was even on that commission. Instead, she should have been one of the witnesses called in to testify and defend her actions while working in the Clinton Justice Department. Just the fact that she was allowed to be on the panel, told me all I needed to know about how serious the 9-11 Commission was going to be about getting to the bottom of all we did wrong pre-9-11. This was pure CYA in nature.

Then you had Sandy Berger helping whitewash Clinton's actions and/or non-actions as well, by making multiple trips into our National Archives and unlawfully removing vital, relevant secret documents, sneaking them out past the guards by hiding them in his pants, jacket and socks, taking them home, going through them, and removing and SHREDDING anything he felt might be found to be detrimental to the way the Clinton Administration handled certain aspects of our national security. And all he got was a slap on the wrist, which is an outrage in and of itself, but I digress.

the war on terrible said...
"It does not matter what Clinton said."

No. Of course not. Here we have Clinton, speaking at a business luncheon on Long Island, and telling us in his own words how Sudan was looking to get rid of OBL, but that he didn't feel we could accept him because he had not yet committed a crime against the U.S. He went on, again, in plain English, to tell the audience how he begged the Saudis to take him, but that they considered it a "hot potato", so they didn't want him.

I'm sure you've heard the tape for yourself. But nevermind. Don't believe your own lying ears! Believe the Clinton insiders (read: protectors) who tell you that it just never happened. That Clinton "misspoke".

Twot, I don't really care that you choose to ignore the real evidence that's available for all to see, or that in your desire to protect yourself from the truth, you flatly refuse to connect the dots. Be as willfully blind as you wish. Just don't expect me to share in your delusion, okay? :)

1:00 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Trinity. I don't understand.
I'm confused.
You find no credibility in the conclusions of an official 9-11 Commission report, or on the Whitewater matters, areas that have been fully investigated by non-partisan sources.
AND YET, you place full faith in right-wing conclusions surrounding matters that have NOT been investigated or fully investigated at all.
These include but are not limited to: Bush's NSA wiretapping, Bush torture prison overseas, Bush manipulation of Iraq pre-War intelligence, the outing of Valerie Plame, etc. etc.
You accuse people of BOTH PARTIES mind you questioning all of the above non-investigated matters as engaging in wild conspiracy theories, speculation or bowing to yellow journalism.
But you do not see yourself or your ilk engaged in wild conspiracy theories, speculation or bowing to yellow journalism via persisting in wild theories which run counter to findings of closed and concluded investigations.

The only conclusion that can be reached is that your Bushie opinions stem from blind partisanship or right-wing talk radio blowhards.

(In so many words, I posted this response as well to you on Sniffer's blog).

1:50 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

the war on terrible said...
"Trinity. I don't understand.
I'm confused.
You find no credibility in the conclusions of an official 9-11 Commission report, or on the Whitewater matters, areas that have been fully investigated by non-partisan sources."

I don't know, twot. When you call extremely biased top-level Clinton people like Jamie Gorelick "non-partisan", I'm at a loss as to where to begin to reason with you. I'm afraid you are a lost cause. Do you even know the definition of "partisan"?

As for the way the Whitewater debacle was concluded, excuse me for having an opinion. I disagree with Robert Ray's conclusions. So sue me.

And btw, it wasn't that Ray felt the Clintons were innocent of all of the charges. It was a matter of his deciding that he would have too difficult a time proving their willful involvement in the fraudulent business dealings beyond a shadow of a doubt.

He based this upon his opinion that their denials (under oath) of having knowledge of fraud, etc., would very likely carry more weight with the jury than the evidence he had of their involvement. Obviously, based upon reality, (read: lack of faith in the Clintons' honesty) there were many who disagreed with that decision, but it was his judgement call to make.

So stop trying to marginalize me by suggesting I'm not well-informed. Reasonable people can disagree on these matters. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Neither am I. I am well aware of the facts of the case. I don't dispute the facts. I disagree with the way the matter was resolved. I think it should have gone to a jury.

the war on terrible said...
"AND YET, you place full faith in right-wing conclusions surrounding matters that have NOT been investigated or fully investigated at all."

Exactly. As always, it comes down to facts, and in that area, you are dismally lacking. You and your ilk engage in speculation out the kazoo, but base your suspicions upon little if any facts or actual knowledge. And you want me to what? Jump on the bandwagon and think the worst of a President that I trust and respect? Why? Because YOU don't trust him to be a man of integrity? Puleeeze!

4:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lack of available facts?
If you lack reading and comprehension skills.
There are plenty of FACTS. The problem is conservatives, like yourself, instantly discredit anyone who attempts to air them or pursue additional information.
They would be right at home within a true Bush-run dictatorship.

7:42 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

I'm talking about facts, Anonymous. Not hysterical, paranoid fearmongering by Bush-haters like yourself who see everything this man does as some secret evil plot to destroy our civil liberties.

And that last line is really asinine, even for you.

10:45 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

I won't waste my time going over with you the factual, well-documented evidences of Bush Administration improprieties that have been in the main stream media of recent years.
They are hardly "hysterical, paranoid fear-mongering," unless you want to write-off essentially all of the non-Faux news media, and in many cases a solid majority of the American public in polls who find reason to be concerned.
I stand by my statement that you conservatives essentially discredit or obfuscate any info questioning the Bush Administration's actions at least on national security and Iraq. You thereby endorse an unchecked Bush dictatorship.
For one, you blind yourself to facts such as the 9-11 Commission giving the Bush Administration failing grades for enacting recommended homeland security measures, and, as JABBS has repeatedly reported, for undercutting funding for rail, port and airport security.

(Yes, I take credit for that above post. I accidentally clicked the anonymous button upon publishing).

12:31 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

To Trinity:
It is time for today's lesson in Common Sense 101.
Today, we have a textbook example of what happens when conservatives seek to block probes of the Bush Administration due to a "lack of evidence."
Many parties in the domestic and international security agencies had screamed "lack of evidence" when Bush declared Sadaam actually possessed WMDs in the months leading up to the U.S. attack on Iraq.
This was no secret, as Bushie historical revisionists often insist.
Any one at the time could have done what I had done and read the rampart stories about global security specialists and actual Iraq insiders countering the Bushie claims of Sadaam's WMD capabilities.
Such news however was buried in the back pages of the newspapers or on progressive websites. Editor and Publisher recently noted that a whopping 40% of mainstream newspaper editorials advised Bush against attacking Iraq, insisting we must wade out the UN inspections to ensure we had sufficient evidence Saddaam actually had possessed WMDs.
At the time, Bushie and his conservative flocks, if they would even acknowledged the info, said of such dissent: "There is lack of evidence that Sadaam DOES NOT possess WMDs."
Now, almost 2,500 dead U.S. soldiers later (dum de dum, why don't we just go for 3,000 in short order), tens of thousands of innocent Iraquis killed later, bankrupt U.S. coffers having spent $300 billion on this quagmire with no end in sight later, we now recognize the truth it was the Bush Administration that actually lacked evidence. It was the Bush administration guilty of "hysteria" "fear-mongering" and "paranoia."
If only someone had then heeded those credible sources, instead of blindly insisting they lack evidence.
Now, Trinity. Let's see what we have learned. Can you draw any parallels to conservatives today?

11:47 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

the war on terrible said...
"(Yes, I take credit for that above post. I accidentally clicked the anonymous button upon publishing)."

Credit? What a strange word to use, in view of the fact that you sound like a moron there. Well, in that case, let me revise the comment I made when I thought I was addressing Anonymous, and say that in your case, the line about a Bush dictatorship is not really too asinine for you after all. ;)

Just kidding. Actually, in all honesty, going by your comments and those of Anonymous, I really have a difficult time telling you two posters apart. You're like clones of one another.

12:37 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

the war on terrible said...
"Many parties in the domestic and international security agencies had screamed "lack of evidence" when Bush declared Sadaam actually possessed WMDs in the months leading up to the U.S. attack on Iraq."

Twot, you can rant away on this all day long, and into the night if you wish. I'm only interested in the bottom line. And the bottom line is that Saddam Hussein DID have WMD. He DID use them on his own people.

Furthermore, he DID also have the responsibility to demonstrate to the U.N. Weapons Inspectors either that he did still have these WMD, or prove by documentation what he had done with them. He thumbed his nose at the U.N. resolutions and did neither.

But aside from all that, I myself do believe that he did have WMD, but that they were removed by Russian special forces to Syria and Lebanon in the months/weeks prior to the war. You don't have to believe this, of course. I don't really give a damn what you believe.

Here's an interesting article on Iraqi WMD, and what happened to them, and I think the millions of documents that are still being translated can verify a lot of this information. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to take the time to read it with an open mind, since it doesn't conform to your "NO WMD" "BUSH LIED" mindset. But hey! That's your problem.

1:15 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Hey Trinity,
Did you know The Los Angeles Times has reported in July 2004 that your man, a former deputy undersecretary of defense John A. Shaw, who makes the claims on the right-wing Newsmax site that Sadaam snuck all the WMDs out of Iraq in the days leading up to the war, IS UNDER INVESTIGATION BY THE FBI AND OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES for alleged unauthorized investigations of Iraq reconstruction efforts in order to gain information need to steer lucrative contracts to his Bush Administration croonies and their friends.
Here's a link to the Los Angeles Times article
I know based on some of Shaw's statements in the Newsmax piece, which conveniently leaves out any mention of the earlier report, Shaw would likely attribute the probe to "a smear campaign" against him by the CIA.
Now we wouldn't want to give Shaw any credibility to his excuse would we? Wouldn't that be equivalent of what the conservatives would call a "wild baseless conspiracy theory."

2:50 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

the war on terrible said...
"........John A. Shaw........IS UNDER INVESTIGATION BY THE FBI AND OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES for alleged unauthorized investigations of Iraq reconstruction efforts in order to gain information need to steer lucrative contracts to his Bush Administration croonies and their friends."

Okay. I read your article. So Shaw headed some temporary office under a special agreement with Joseph Schmitz, the Pentagon Inspector General, and he investigated and it seems that he found there was some bribing involved in some of the contracts that had been awarded in Iraq.

His report is being investigated by the FBI, and it's possible that he may have either misused and/or misunderstood what his authority in that position may have been. Let the investigation occur, and it will determine whether or not Shaw did anything wrong. Big whoop! So what does something so unrelated have to do with WMD being taken out of Iraq?

In any case, according to this article, it looks like the Democrats have their own problems with corruption. What is that they say about not throwing stones when you live in glass houses?

12:43 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Trinity, you are so full of crap I'm not going to debate you anymore on this topic.
You ask why does Shaw have anything to do with WMD taken out of Iraq. He has everything to do with it because he is the one making the wild unfounded claims. The credibility of a individual making wild, widely disputed claims about what may have happened in Iraq when he himself is under investigation for wrongdoing directly pertaining to his involvement in Iraq.
Then, in complete hypocrisy to your "what does the investigation have to do with anything", you bring up Jefferson being targeted for bribery.
The only question relevant here is what the hell does Jefferson have to do with ANYTHING pertaining to claims Sadaam took out WMDs out of Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion? Jefferson has nothing to do with either internal operations in Iraq or making crazy allegations about what happened before the war there.
Give me a break.
You've just been disqualified.

1:33 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Suit yourself, twot. I kind of figured you wouldn't care to address the bribery charges against Congressman William Jefferson. He is a Democrat after all, and I've noticed you usually refrain from acknowledging wrongdoing by Democrats. It's the Republicans you are out to hang. No problem. I'll just write my comment, and you can simply not respond to it. It's not like I care or anything. In fact, from now on I'll just address you in the third person. ;)

(from the article twot cited)
"WASHINGTON — A senior Defense Department official conducted unauthorized investigations of Iraq reconstruction efforts and used their results to push for lucrative contracts for friends and their business clients, according to current and former Pentagon officials and documents."

According to that excerpt, it appears that John Shaw may have misused his position to steer some Iraqi reconstruction contracts towards his friends. He claims that he did so because there had been some bribery involved in the way the original contracts were given out. The article states:

" Shaw sent his report to the inspector general's office, which turned it over for further investigation to the FBI. An FBI official confirmed that the agency had received the report and had just begun looking into the allegations of bribery."

That's the story twot cited, and I fail to see how anything in that story puts in question or automatically negates any of the very complex WMD intelligence that is written about in the story that I linked to in one of my above posts. As is mentioned in that article:

"Shaw has dealt with weapons-related issues and export controls as a U.S. government official for 30 years.

Furthermore, for anyone reading this who may be caught up in this 24/7 news cycle mindset, try to remember that history takes time to occur, more time to unravel, and then more time to be accurately recorded. Some might think that we know all there is to know about Saddam's WMD. We don't.

You hear twot insisting there weren't any. I'd humbly suggest, to people who think like twot, to hold yourself in check a bit and refrain from ridiculing people who think otherwise. It might save you from one day having to clean the egg off of your face. I'm just sayin'..... :)

P.S. I brought up Rep. William Jefferson, because he is being accused of attempting to use his position as a United States Congressman to financially benefit members of his family through some business deals, since twot seemed interested in that sort of thing. :P

11:47 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares