S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
|---|
| Monthly Archives | [−] |
Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1) the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2) in the public domain, with free use granted for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email.
Original content copyright © 2006 by the respective authors. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed.
Site contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com
Members of Congress have as much as $196 million collectively invested in companies doing business with the Defense Department, earning millions since the onset of the Iraq war, according to a study by a nonpartisan research group.This probably is more a reflection of the fact that elected Democrats are generally far more wealthy than their merely rich Republican counterparts, and less an indication of their desire to profit from war.
<...>
The study found that more Republicans than Democrats hold stock in defense companies, but that the Democrats who are invested had significantly more money at stake.In 2006, for example, Democrats held at least $3.7 million in military-related investments, compared with Republican investments of $577,500.
After all, if they wanted to make money from war they'd try to prolong it as much as they could, right*?
And here's how the three currently viable Presidential Candidates stack up:
According to the report, presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and John McCain did not report any defense-related holdings on their filings; Hillary Rodham Clinton noted holdings in companies such as Honeywell, Boeing and Raytheon, but she sold the stock in May. All three are senators.*Of course, in years past the real golden eggs have come from the USAF (ahem) and Navy budgets. Those geese have been a bit hungry in the past few years, and some investors might be a bit disappointed...
"Basically," said Maj. Henry Schott of the command’s plans and requirements section, "if it’s a place like The New York Times, an established, reputable media outlet, then it’s fairly cut and dry that that’s a good source, an authorized source."
Maj. Henry Scott..obviously lacking an education in history...doesn't realise the NY Times has been on the "Other Side" since the 30's. The NY Times holds the world record for most Pulizer Prizes for selling 'Black Propaganda" originiated by the KGB to the US public.
I can read Pravda on the Internet...no reason to read the NY Times. I can even read the original articles in Russian.(Just hit the Goodle translate button)
But hey..I'm a right wing nutcase...unlike an acquantance of mine that worked for Tom Daschle(Center for American Progress) that depends on Pravda for "The Truth".
The shelves in Russian shops have always been overflowing with superior goods...just ask an East European or the NY Times.