Kennedy. Wilson. Spinning. In Graves.

As are both Truman and MacArthur, whatever their differences.

But let's be fair to Mr. Chamberlain. That was 1938, but he learned his lesson by March of '39. He wasn't still pushing that crap in 1942.

Bill,

What do you make of these documents?

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/images/day5/tax1.htm

Did Kerry invest thousands of dollors in the Cayman Islands back in the 80's to avoid paying taxes? Why is this info on the Boston Globe's servers and yet I have never heard anything about this? Isn't this illegal? Just wondering.

I'm not sure. Try to keep threads on topic. Briefly, $25-30,000 isn't completely insignifcant, but I have no idea what portion of Kerry's portfolio it would represent in 1983.

Thanks Bill. I realize this is not fully on the thread, however, I do have some major concerns as the promissary note discusses almost a quarter of a million dollars. What was Kerry up to? Avoiding taxes? I need to know as my vote could hinge on this issue. Thanks again and sorry for not staying on the thread.

Bill, I realize Cindy is off the thread, however, I just looked at the documents and I am shocked. How come no one is reporting this? It's obvious Kerry tried to avoid taxes and now he claims he is going to shut this "tax free" door down. How much did he make tax free? This is unacceptable. Either look into it or be labeled as part of the leftest MSM. I respect your research and opinions. Thanks for the great work.

Either look into it or be labeled as part of the leftest MSM.

HA! Compliments aside, I hope that you're not talking to me ... becuase if you are, I have a suggestion about where you can go.

- I'm not obligated to cover or look into anything.

- I do not have expertise or interest in tax law.

And unless you're willing to drop about $50,000 into that PayPal account on the right sidebar, you don't have the right to make any demands of me. Or any other blogger, for that matter.

It's very impolite.

Think before you write.

The Matthew Bai article in the NYT Magazine is shocking. Even I didn't think Kerry was that naive'. He never stops surprising you. Adding insult to injury are the smug/glib "Kerry's foregin policy is too intellectual for the masses" comments from his team.

Kerry, Biden and Holbrooke...what a troika. Truly, truly out of touch and dangerous as a result.

I'd say FDR is spinning in his grave too. So is Winston Churchill. And I'm sure that Hitler and Stalin are cackling in glee.

Perhaps Kerry was participating in the original Nigerian 419 scams that were done via snail mail?

Just a thought.

Seriously, nothing suprises me with that cat or the rest of his litter.

Bill

Either look into it or be labeled as part of the leftest MSM.

I said something harsh and I do apologize for that. Sincerely. Bad choice of words.

I was only wondering about Cindy's question, although it's not part of the thread. I realize you're not a tax expert, nor am I. I just think ppl are curious on this matter.

Again, my apologies and keep up the good work. No insult purposely intended - just a stray keyboard.

Sincerely, Jeff

To be fair to Chamberlain, Hitler in 1938 only seemed to be assembling a Greater Germany, and only claimed to want the German part of Czechoslovakia. The British and French governments believed (wrongly) that they were incapable of winning a war against Germany, and their people would have opposed it. Neville was fooled once, not 17 times.

Mr. Kerry, I have met Neville Chamberlain, and you, sir, are no Neville Chamberlain.

But let's be fair to Mr. Chamberlain. That was 1938, but he learned his lesson by March of '39. He wasn't still pushing that crap in 1942.

Posted by David [.net] at October 10, 2004 11:33 PM
Bill,
****************************************
Fair to the man? Had he figured these things out THEN (1938) the next few years might have turned out differently for the world?

How soon the world forgets and excuses.

Today in Europe "Never Again" has become

"Neville Again"

Don't count on anyone trying to win the animal crackers.

Because there was no viable "Plan C" - there's just hatred of GWB.

I don't think there is a cheaper easier plan that would achieve all those goals. Maybe some of them, but not all of them.

Also, just signing an agreement doesn't mean much. Oil for Food and the North Koreans are two easy examples without having to look anything up.

Also the NYTimes article is scary-Kerry almost seems to trivialize the importance and risks of terrorism, I don't see terrorism as being comparable to gambling or prostitution, especially given that the people entering in those crimes are doing so on a consenual basis, I don't think the people being blown up on buses, in hotels and other places are consenting to be blown up.

What is even scarier about the article, is that the reporter seems enchanted with Kerry's POV, thankfully the majority of people out there have more common sense than that I believe.

Spellcheck your "Flashback" post;
specifically "follwing" and "assesment".

No offense intended.

"To be fair to Chamberlain"? all one needed to do was to read Mein Kampf.

As for plan C, Kerry would have send John Edwards over with a basket full of bunnies, that would have melted Saddam's heart and peace would break out all over. Either that or send over Jimmy Carter -- that worked out so well with North Korea.

Bunnies ... bunnies ... I like it!

quote:
Fair to the man? Had he figured these things out THEN (1938) the next few years might have turned out differently for the world?

How soon the world forgets and excuses.

Today in Europe "Never Again" has become

"Neville Again"
Endquote

Churchill forgave him. Chamberlain was a valued part of Churchill's war cabinet for about four years as I recall. Churchill recognized and respected Chamberlain's political judgment - in general - though they differed on the virulence of Hitler for many years.

BTW - how did you guys get italics into these responses? I was unable to.

Bill,

Here we go. Plan C. The only other thing I can think of is a supported coup attempt. Now, we failed miserably at supportting the 90's uprising, but maybe, just maybe Kerry/Gore could have made them forget about us leaving them out to dry.

By supporting the internal overthrow of Saddam, possibly assassination, we could have affected all of the above criteria. There may have been civil war, but with the quick demise of Saddam, I believe the overthrowers could have taken quick control in the ensuing chaos.

Odds of this succeeding? Very low.
Benefit to the war on terror? Moderate.
No Saddam, no money to Palis.
The only problem with this is that it does not guarentee a democracy toehold in the ME. Afganistan doesn't count. With fledgeling democracies on both sides, Iran is quaking, and trying to get nuclear as soon as possible, just to stay alive, and SA's citizens are gonna be pissed when Iraqi's come to visit and can tell them of the riches of freedom. Sorry to rant.

But let's be fair to Mr. Chamberlain. That was 1938, but he learned his lesson by March of '39. He wasn't still pushing that crap in 1942.

Posted by David [.net] at October 10, 2004 11:33 PM

David, Chamberlain was dead by 1942. Appeasers never really change anyway. I'm sure many of them were sure that Churchill was to blame for the war; certainly some understanding could have been worked out during the Phoney War period...Churchill's intransigence caused the Nazis to bomb England in self-defense etc. etc. etc.

Plan C:

1. Stop sanctions. Sanctions killed thousands of Iraqi civilians and didn't slow down Saddam.
2. Establish full diplomatic relations with Saddam with the objective of bringing Iraq fully into the "community of nations" as an active partner. Discontinue efforts to label Saddam as a "rogue regime" and part of the "axis of evil". Understand that leaders are driven to be recognized on an international level and will respond to that more effectively than the threat of military force.
3. If we stop sanctions, Oil for Food stops. Do what ever you want to about the "corruption". Frankly, if the program were stopped because sanctions were lifted, no one would know about the "corruption" because the program was confidential in UN files.
4. Discontinue our support for and stop propping up the criminal regime in Israel, treat the Palestinian people fairly and the "terrorism" will stop.
5. Send a delegation to the region to hold multilateral talks aimed at normalizing the region. The delegation should be led by representatives from the UN General Assembly, popularly elected from that body. Members should include all of the Arab states in the region (including the PLO), a representative from the US, from France, Britian, Germany, Russia, Spain and from the EU organization. In order to insure a perception of fairness to all viewpoints, all representatives of non-Arab countries or organizations should be Muslim. The meetings should be held in Baghdad or Damascus.
6. Because they have been the focus of western imperialism for decades, the People's Republic of North Korea should be offered a seat at the table. Their representative need not be Musilm since they understand the boot of imperialism.
7. The agenda for (5) should include the right of self determination for the Palestinian people, the right of self defense against western aggressor nations, reparations for the 1991 war of aggression against the people of Iraq, an agreement in principle of charges to be lodged in the International Criminal Court against imperialist nations who have been at war with the peaceful Musilm people in the region since the late 1940's. This should include a series of specific indictements against individuals in the position to make policy decisions which resulted in the criminal deaths of civilians in the Arabic world since the late 1940's.
8. The process should have a firm timetable to begin meetings, preferably two months for the initial meeting to draw up the charter and the goals of the organization.
9. Major media outlets from around the world should be invited to the opening session to be attended by the representatives noted above along with the heads of state of the Arabic countries and the specific European nations, the UN and North Korea noted above.
10. Drop a high yield nuclear weapon on the meeting.

As far as I'm concerned, Michael just earned a carton of animal crackers.

Plan C:

1) Collect underpants.
2) ??????
3) Peace.

"How do you ask a person to be the next person to die for a nuisance."

Is it just me, or is K/E basically implying that their plan would have left Saddam in power and still under sanctions? If there are no WMD, then would it not be pre-emptive to retain the sanctions?

Here's the Boston Globe article about the Kerry tax docs:

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061903b.shtml

Michael -

Heh.

Michael

wow

Plan C:

1) Announce that all American interests overseas would be scaled back. Convert all UN political credentials to 2 week visas. Give UN 2 weeks notice to vacate.

2) Evacuate Israel. Anything the Israelis built that can't be moved to the US, Australia, or Britain is razed to ground. Leave Palestine to the Palestinians in the condition it was in 1948.

3) Keep the Navy. Control the seas. Reduce the american army to a coastal defense force. Make it clear to every nation that any terrorist or military threat would be met with a nuclear reaction - in not so many words "Leave Us Alone Or Else" with the caveat "Leave the Brits and Aussies Alone Too".

4) Take freed military budget and devote to crash nuclear energy self-sufficiency until oil is a lubricant only.

5) Push space program by a magnitude or two.

6) Once America firmly in control of space, send 10000 Americans, Brits, and Aussies chosen by lottery along with 9/11 and Bali survivors and family members into near earth orbit on new spaceliners.

7) Line everyone on spaceliners up. Open hatches. Everybody shits on Mideast.

There are details I haven't worked out yet.

1) Nuke the whole Mideast. Level it.
2) Pave it
5) Apply for Guiness book of world record for largest Parking lot in the world

Ok, the first subtle joke by Michael was funny, but I'm really looking for real answers from antiwar readers ...

Plus - a joke about paving the Middle East? You can do better than that.

Michael:

In the words of Emil in "Robocop,"

"I LIKE IT!!!"

Tipton:

"Neville Again" (with a suitable picture of John Kerry) would make a great bumper sticker or t-shirt.

I know it is a serious question. It's just that I felt Michael's plan lacked the sensitivity and compassion so loved by the anti-war crowd. In my plan, the mideast gets fertilizer.

Seriously, I doubt you are going to get a plan c that would pass any realistic common sense test.

That was very kind of you. I am trying to make the environment of this thread as conducive to opposition sentiment as possible, though ... we'll see.

Bill,

In that spirit, I will attempt to restrain myself from calling the opposition (should they post here) "dumb poopyheads." ;-)

rw is on to something.

The underpants gnomes never fail. And if the UN tried to do something, we could just use the chewbacca defense.

seriously though. can't we all just get along? Saddam just needed a hug.

Bill, count me as another doubter that you'll get many/any takers on your Animal Crackers offer. The main reason: it's (obviously) a damn tricky issue and the Kerry/Edwards ticket hasn't bothered to enumerate a workable plan, much less a coherent one. In fact they seem to be espousing *multiple* conflicting plans at any given moment.

Remove the troops! Bolster the troops!
More boots on the ground! Withdraw within a year!
Bring in the UN! Denigrate allies!
Preemption good! Preemption bad!
Fund this! Cut that!
Ad nauseum.

The only thing they say with any decisiveness is that they're sure Bush is doing it wrong. So I'll be as shocked as you if you get an answer (beyond Michael's) that can make sense of the current leftist position(s).

Bill,
Thank you for your kind comments about my earlier post. However, I want the animal crackers.

The post started out in life as an attempt to put together a plan that would offer a "solution" that would appease both the left and the Arabists. [Hold the puns about "final".] If you review steps 1-9 carefully, you will conclude that they are very reasonable approaches to the problem from an internationalists perspective. I really think I covered all the bases: include the UN as the leader for the "solution", include both the "major" European countries AND the EU, include all Arabic countries in the region, forget the Oil for Food stuff [saving face in France, etc.], involve the "major" media - none of those pesky bloggers - so we know the process will be reported fairly, and blame Israel.

I tossed in the last point because I think Jenjes Khan was a wimp and some things just rear their ugly heads... At any rate, less point 10 I think I oughtta get the crackers. Please email them to me...