My old assertion that Bush hid intel...TRUE
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
For years I have been maintaining that the Bush Administration did NOT let
members of Congress see the same intel it had during its buildup to the
war against Iraq.

Now comes an article in the Washington Post that validates my posit:

Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument

By Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 12, 2005; A01

President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of
the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw
the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that
independent commissions have determined that the administration did not
misrepresent the intelligence.

Neither assertion is wholly accurate.

...

But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence
information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration
to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though
concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts
to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the
administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.

National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, briefing reporters Thursday,
countered "the notion that somehow this administration manipulated the
intelligence." He said that "those people who have looked at that issue,
some committees on the Hill in Congress, and also the Silberman-Robb
Commission, have concluded it did not happen."

But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into
whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and
dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush's
commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on
March 31, 2005: "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the
use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that
was not part of our inquiry."

Bush, in Pennsylvania yesterday, was more precise, but he still implied
that it had been proved that the administration did not manipulate
intelligence, saying that those who suggest the administration
"manipulated the intelligence" are "fully aware that a bipartisan Senate
investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the
intelligence community's judgments."

In the same speech, Bush asserted that "more than 100 Democrats in the
House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to
support removing Saddam Hussein from power." Giving a preview of Bush's
speech, Hadley had said that "we all looked at the same intelligence."

****But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the
President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence
Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views about the threat
from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the
use of force in that country.****

In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not
included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be
used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information
had not been cleared for release. For example, the NIE view that Hussein
would not use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or
turn them over to terrorists unless backed into a corner was cleared for
public use only a day before the Senate vote.

Harry, the last paragraph says it all, "Saddam won't use the WMD unless
backed into a corner" That statement assumes quite strongly that he HAS
WMD!!!!! Further, history shows us that anyone who opposes him is a target
for WMD (Kurds, Iranians) or assassination (Bush I) so it means that he
fears our retaliation if he uses them against us. If you remember, our
troops, the Israelis and Kuwaitis were issued gas masks and there were air
raid sirens going on and people putting mask on during the nightly news
during the ramp up to the war. So we were expecting him to use some form of
gas attack.

NOT true (subject of this message)

My old assertion that Bush hid intel...TRUE
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
For years I have been maintaining that the Bush Administration did NOT
let members of Congress see the same intel it had during its buildup to
the war against Iraq.

Now comes an article in the Washington Post that validates my posit:

Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument

By Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 12, 2005; A01

President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics
of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that
Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the
war, and that independent commissions have determined that the
administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.

Neither assertion is wholly accurate.

...

But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence
information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration
to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though
concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence
analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine
whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.

National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, briefing reporters
Thursday, countered "the notion that somehow this administration
manipulated the intelligence." He said that "those people who have
looked at that issue, some committees on the Hill in Congress, and also
the Silberman-Robb Commission, have concluded it did not happen."

But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into
whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and
dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush's
commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report
on March 31, 2005: "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with
the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that
that was not part of our inquiry."

Bush, in Pennsylvania yesterday, was more precise, but he still implied
that it had been proved that the administration did not manipulate
intelligence, saying that those who suggest the administration
"manipulated the intelligence" are "fully aware that a bipartisan Senate
investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the
intelligence community's judgments."

In the same speech, Bush asserted that "more than 100 Democrats in the
House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to
support removing Saddam Hussein from power." Giving a preview of Bush's
speech, Hadley had said that "we all looked at the same intelligence."

****But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the
President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence
Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views about the threat
from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize
the use of force in that country.****

In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not
included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not
be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified
information had not been cleared for release. For example, the NIE view
that Hussein would not use weapons of mass destruction against the
United States or turn them over to terrorists unless backed into a
corner was cleared for public use only a day before the Senate vote.

Harry, the last paragraph says it all, "Saddam won't use the WMD unless
backed into a corner" That statement assumes quite strongly that he HAS
WMD!!!!! Further, history shows us that anyone who opposes him is a
target for WMD (Kurds, Iranians) or assassination (Bush I) so it means
that he fears our retaliation if he uses them against us. If you
remember, our troops, the Israelis and Kuwaitis were issued gas masks and
there were air raid sirens going on and people putting mask on during the
nightly news during the ramp up to the war. So we were expecting him to
use some form of gas attack.

NOT true (subject of this message)


There have been more revelations about the intel the Bush Administration
did not share with Democratic members of Congress. This is another news
story that is going to dog Bush, who is now in the People's Republic of
China to see how many more American jobs he can give away. Or whatever he
is doing over there.

I'd like to see that as I'm under the impression that the President can't
keep Intel from congress, the CIA can reclassify info as eyes only and make
the case that even congress can't see the info but the President can't keep
congress from seeing the Intel (they are co-equal branches of government. )
As I understand the issue, the intelligence committee then only allows two
members (or fewer members can see the Intel) of the committee to see the
Intel.

My old assertion that Bush hid intel...TRUE
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
For years I have been maintaining that the Bush Administration did NOT
let members of Congress see the same intel it had during its buildup
to the war against Iraq.

Now comes an article in the Washington Post that validates my posit:

Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument

By Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 12, 2005; A01

President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics
of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that
Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the
war, and that independent commissions have determined that the
administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.

Neither assertion is wholly accurate.

...

But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence
information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the
administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by
officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure
intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized
to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those
conclusions.

National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, briefing reporters
Thursday, countered "the notion that somehow this administration
manipulated the intelligence." He said that "those people who have
looked at that issue, some committees on the Hill in Congress, and
also the Silberman-Robb Commission, have concluded it did not happen."

But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry
into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting
caveats and dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman,
chairman of Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in
releasing his report on March 31, 2005: "Our executive order did not
direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and
all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry."

Bush, in Pennsylvania yesterday, was more precise, but he still
implied that it had been proved that the administration did not
manipulate intelligence, saying that those who suggest the
administration "manipulated the intelligence" are "fully aware that a
bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political
pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments."

In the same speech, Bush asserted that "more than 100 Democrats in the
House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted
to support removing Saddam Hussein from power." Giving a preview of
Bush's speech, Hadley had said that "we all looked at the same
intelligence."

****But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as
the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National
Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views
about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the
vote to authorize the use of force in that country.****

In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not
included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could
not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified
information had not been cleared for release. For example, the NIE
view that Hussein would not use weapons of mass destruction against
the United States or turn them over to terrorists unless backed into a
corner was cleared for public use only a day before the Senate vote.

Harry, the last paragraph says it all, "Saddam won't use the WMD unless
backed into a corner" That statement assumes quite strongly that he
HAS WMD!!!!! Further, history shows us that anyone who opposes him is
a target for WMD (Kurds, Iranians) or assassination (Bush I) so it
means that he fears our retaliation if he uses them against us. If you
remember, our troops, the Israelis and Kuwaitis were issued gas masks
and there were air raid sirens going on and people putting mask on
during the nightly news during the ramp up to the war. So we were
expecting him to use some form of gas attack.

NOT true (subject of this message)

There have been more revelations about the intel the Bush Administration
did not share with Democratic members of Congress. This is another news
story that is going to dog Bush, who is now in the People's Republic of
China to see how many more American jobs he can give away. Or whatever
he is doing over there.

I'd like to see that as I'm under the impression that the President can't
keep Intel from congress, the CIA can reclassify info as eyes only and
make the case that even congress can't see the info but the President
can't keep congress from seeing the Intel (they are co-equal branches of
government. ) As I understand the issue, the intelligence committee then
only allows two members (or fewer members can see the Intel) of the
committee to see the Intel.

The major legit news outlets have been carrying this story for more than a
week. I don't read the Wash Times or watch Faux News, so I have no idea
what the Bush Apology Outlets are saying about this.

Yes Harry I've been hearing about the Democrat Senators saying that they
were not allowed to see some documents that they know about but can't say
what's in them because they don't know about them. Makes sense doesn't it.

There were red flags in the Intel questioning the accuracy of the
information but they were ignored by EVERYONE because we all assumed that he
had WMD, why else would he not allow inspectors, why when there were
inspectors there did we intercept communications from Iraqis to Iraqis
mentioning where the inspectors were going and "Is that site cleaned up
yet". These red flags and dissenting opinions were there for everyone to
read but they were given no weight by EVERYONE. Now Democrats are saying
that they didn't see the dissenting opinions and the select committee is
saying that they were there for the senators to read.

Did you know that Iraq had enough yellow cake for 1.5 nuclear weapons. He
just needed to enrich it (purify using aluminum tubes and a centrifuge).
The resulting bomb would be massive (like our first "big boy") . TO get
weapons grade that can make SMALL nuclear weapons requires a breeder reactor
or advanced (cyclotron sometimes called gas diffusion) enriching. Just
before 9/11 he and others were trying to get under the table access to more
yellow cake.

My old assertion that Bush hid intel...TRUE
 

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 06:12:01 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:


There have been more revelations about the intel the Bush Administration
did not share with Democratic members of Congress. This is another news
story that is going to dog Bush, who is now in the People's Republic of
China to see how many more American jobs he can give away. Or whatever
he is doing over there.

Your use of the term 'news story' says it all.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

My old assertion that Bush hid intel...TRUE
 

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 06:30:39 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:


I'd like to see that as I'm under the impression that the President can't
keep Intel from congress, the CIA can reclassify info as eyes only and
make the case that even congress can't see the info but the President
can't keep congress from seeing the Intel (they are co-equal branches of
government. ) As I understand the issue, the intelligence committee then
only allows two members (or fewer members can see the Intel) of the
committee to see the Intel.

http://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/lawmaker/toc.htm

My old assertion that Bush hid intel...TRUE
 

"thunder" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 06:30:39 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:


I'd like to see that as I'm under the impression that the President can't
keep Intel from congress, the CIA can reclassify info as eyes only and
make the case that even congress can't see the info but the President
can't keep congress from seeing the Intel (they are co-equal branches of
government. ) As I understand the issue, the intelligence committee then
only allows two members (or fewer members can see the Intel) of the
committee to see the Intel.

http://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/lawmaker/toc.htm

From the above link: "Intelligence agencies also make no effort to screen the publications provided for content; if the publications are on the list to go to the committees, they go. At present, these publications include current intelligence, notably the National Intelligence Daily (NID) and DIA's Military Intelligence Digest (MID), as well as estimative intelligence, including all NIEs. In 1995 approximately 5,000 such publications were delivered to each of the intelligence committees."

1) they are not screened for content
2) The President is not in the loop as to what gets sent to congress
3) Congress has the same access the president has

My old assertion that Bush hid intel...TRUE
 

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 08:37:15 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 06:12:01 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:


There have been more revelations about the intel the Bush Administration
did not share with Democratic members of Congress. This is another news
story that is going to dog Bush, who is now in the People's Republic of
China to see how many more American jobs he can give away. Or whatever
he is doing over there.

Your use of the term 'news story' says it all.



Yes, John, that's what they are called.

Especially when they're just 'stories'.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

My old assertion that Bush hid intel...TRUE
 

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 09:21:25 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:


http://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/lawmaker/toc.htm

From the above link: "Intelligence agencies also make no effort to
screen the publications provided for content; if the publications are on
the list to go to the committees, they go. At present, these
publications include current intelligence, notably the National
Intelligence Daily (NID) and DIA's Military Intelligence Digest (MID),
as well as estimative intelligence, including all NIEs. In 1995
approximately 5,000 such publications were delivered to each of the
intelligence committees."

1) they are not screened for content
2) The President is not in the loop as to what gets sent to congress 3)

The link wasn't to be argumentative. It was to be enlightening. ;-) Do
note, however, not all intelligence comes from the CIA. There are other
sources. I'm sure you have read about the Office of Special Plans whose
purpose was to bypass the CIA. That intel wasn't shared with Congress and
that was the main funnel for Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress' faulty
intelligence. Neither were the Dept. of Energy's assessment of those
infamous aluminum tubes.

My old assertion that Bush hid intel...TRUE
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 09:21:25 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:


http://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/lawmaker/toc.htm

From the above link: "Intelligence agencies also make no effort to
screen the publications provided for content; if the publications are on
the list to go to the committees, they go. At present, these
publications include current intelligence, notably the National
Intelligence Daily (NID) and DIA's Military Intelligence Digest (MID),
as well as estimative intelligence, including all NIEs. In 1995
approximately 5,000 such publications were delivered to each of the
intelligence committees."

1) they are not screened for content
2) The President is not in the loop as to what gets sent to congress 3)

The link wasn't to be argumentative. It was to be enlightening. ;-)

Thanks, grin and I wasn't argueing with you.

Do
note, however, not all intelligence comes from the CIA. There are other
sources. I'm sure you have read about the Office of Special Plans whose
purpose was to bypass the CIA.

The department of Defence has access to many of the same info channels the
CIA has but needed a military slant on info for planning. The CIA and the
military have different prioritys. The department of commerce also has a
different slant and I wouldn't be supprised if they had their own
specialists using CIA info for business planning.

That intel wasn't shared with Congress and
that was the main funnel for Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress' faulty
intelligence. Neither were the Dept. of Energy's assessment of those
infamous aluminum tubes.


http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact

Seems to indicate that Chalibi info came thru the regular intelligence
channels but the Office of special plans (part of the Department of War
which accesses info from intelligence agencies) came to the conclusion from
that and more info that Iraq had WMD.

As to the conclusions gleamed by the Office of Special plans, there was a
comment about the Chalabi info in a brief from someone at the CIA that
questioned it's accuracy. That's the type of document that some in congress
claim they hadn't received (but they did).

My old assertion that Bush hid intel...TRUE
 

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:42:32 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:



Seems to indicate that Chalibi info came thru the regular intelligence
channels but the Office of special plans (part of the Department of War
which accesses info from intelligence agencies) came to the conclusion
from that and more info that Iraq had WMD.

As to the conclusions gleamed by the Office of Special plans, there was a
comment about the Chalabi info in a brief from someone at the CIA that
questioned it's accuracy. That's the type of document that some in
congress claim they hadn't received (but they did).

It's a little like putting a cart, before the horse.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact

My old assertion that Bush hid intel...TRUE
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 06:12:01 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


There have been more revelations about the intel the Bush Administration
did not share with Democratic members of Congress. This is another news
story that is going to dog Bush, who is now in the People's Republic of
China to see how many more American jobs he can give away. Or whatever
he is doing over there.

Your use of the term 'news story' says it all.



Yes, John, that's what they are called.

--
Real Christians are liberal.

To True, I prefer to teach a man how to fish rather than to just give him a
fish that I magically create (government accounting practices). Somewhere
someone pays and we don't all have direct connections to anti-entropy (God).
I guess that makes me a enlightened liberal =
Republican-libertarian-fiscally conservative-humanist

Real people can't be labeled.

My old assertion that Bush hid intel...TRUE
 

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:28:02 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Jeff Rigby wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 06:12:01 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


There have been more revelations about the intel the Bush Administration
did not share with Democratic members of Congress. This is another news
story that is going to dog Bush, who is now in the People's Republic of
China to see how many more American jobs he can give away. Or whatever
he is doing over there.
Your use of the term 'news story' says it all.


Yes, John, that's what they are called.

--
Real Christians are liberal.

To True, I prefer to teach a man how to fish rather than to just give him a
fish that I magically create (government accounting practices). Somewhere
someone pays and we don't all have direct connections to anti-entropy (God).
I guess that makes me a enlightened liberal =
Republican-libertarian-fiscally conservative-humanist

Real people can't be labeled.




If you are going after government accounting practices, don't forget
corporate accounting practices. There are no bigger crooks than publicly
traded corporations.

Where's JimH with some more union stories?
--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"

A Famous Hypocrite

My old assertion that Bush hid intel...TRUE
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:28:02 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Jeff Rigby wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 06:12:01 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:


There have been more revelations about the intel the Bush
Administration
did not share with Democratic members of Congress. This is another
news
story that is going to dog Bush, who is now in the People's
Republic of
China to see how many more American jobs he can give away. Or
whatever
he is doing over there.
Your use of the term 'news story' says it all.


Yes, John, that's what they are called.

--
Real Christians are liberal.

To True, I prefer to teach a man how to fish rather than to just give
him a
fish that I magically create (government accounting practices).
Somewhere
someone pays and we don't all have direct connections to anti-entropy
(God).
I guess that makes me a enlightened liberal =
Republican-libertarian-fiscally conservative-humanist

Real people can't be labeled.




If you are going after government accounting practices, don't forget
corporate accounting practices. There are no bigger crooks than publicly
traded corporations.

Where's JimH with some more union stories?

Here are a few......................

TEAMSTERS (IBT)

Virginia Beach Ex-Bookkeeper Pleads Guilty to Embezzlement

For nearly a half decade Marcia Huizenga thought nobody would figure out how
all those extra paychecks managed to get cashed. But in the end somebody
did figure it out. Huizenga, 48, formerly bookkeeper for Teamsters Local
822, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court on November 4 to embezzling more
than $47,000 in union funds. A routine audit by the local discovered that
from January 1999 to August 2003 she had prepared and cashed 77 extra
paychecks for her own personal use. Huizenga did not dispute the charge
when confronted with the evidence. Local 822 represents about 2,000 meat
cutters, barbers, warehouse workers and other tradesmen in the Virginia
Tidewater area. (Associated Press, 11/5).



LABORERS (LIUNA)

Niagara Falls Menace Sentenced; He's in Good Company

The halls of justice have claimed another member of LIUNA Local 91's
criminal old guard that for a good half-dozen years terrorized nonunion
workers at Niagara Falls-area constructions sites. This November 2,
Salvatore Spatorico, 58, received a 27-month sentence in U.S. District
Court. He'd assaulted a truck driver at the behest of local leaders back in
April 1998. Spatarico joins five local members already convicted of
racketeering conspiracy, including its president, Robert Malvestuto, Jr.,
and executive board member Patrick McKeown. (Associated Press, 11/2).



BAKERY & TOBACCO WORKERS (BC&T)

Pittsburgh-Area Benefit Fund Administrator Arraigned

Marilyn Constable must be an incurable optimist. The suburban Pittsburgh
woman in late September was indicted by a federal grand jury on 15 counts of
embezzlement. Ms. Constable, 45, allegedly wrote out a dozen illegal checks
totaling more than $7,500 from a death-benefits fund for members of Local 12
of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers union. She
has pleaded not guilty. The union, which represented employees at a
now-closed Nabisco plant and elsewhere, since has merged into BC&T Local 19
in Cleveland.



The indictment charged that Constable, as the fund administrator, diverted
local funds for rent, cable TV, and other personal expenses. Additionally,
she was named last year in an ongoing Labor Department civil complaint
seeking restitution. The suit also named as defendants Local 19, two banks
and several union and bakery industry officials who acted as trustees.
(Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/26).



MACHINISTS (IAM)

Former Secretary-Treasurer in California Pleads Guilty

On October 21, William Good Jr., ex-financial secretary-treasurer of Local
Lodge 821 of the International Association of Machinists, pleaded guilty in
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to two counts of
embezzling union funds totaling $192,469. The guilty plea follows an
investigation by the Labor Department's Office of Labor-Management Standards
and Office of Inspector General. (OLMS, 11/10).



POSTAL WORKERS

Ex-Treasurer in Maryland Sentenced, Ordered to Pay Restitution

On October 18, Steven R. Fairfax, formerly secretary-treasurer of Branch
3939 of the National Association of Letter Carriers, was sentenced in U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland to five years of probation and
10 months of home confinement for embezzlement of union funds. He also will
have to make restitution to the union in the amount of $53,990.04. He had
been indicted this March. The sentencing follows an investigation by the
Department of Labor (OLMS, 11/10).



GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (AFGE)

Oklahoma Man Indicted for Embezzlement and Check Fraud

On November 7, Jerry T. LeBlanc, a Tulsa resident and former president of
Local 2250 of the American Federation of Government Employees, was indicted
in federal court in Muskogee for union fund embezzlement and check fraud
totaling about $46,000. (Muskogee Phoenix, 11/9; other sources).



INDEPENDENT GUARDS

Ex-Local Boss in Tennessee Indicted for False Record-Keeping

On October 19, Edward Dupree, formerly president of Local 138 of the
Independent Guards Union of North America, was indicted on one count of
making false entries in union records. The indictment follows an
investigation by the Labor Department's OLMS Nashville District Office.
(OLMS, 11/10).






--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"

A Famous Hypocrite

My old assertion that Bush hid intel...TRUE
 

Thanks. Harry needed that!

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:39:10 -0500, "P Fritz"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:28:02 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Jeff Rigby wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 06:12:01 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:


There have been more revelations about the intel the Bush
Administration
did not share with Democratic members of Congress. This is another
news
story that is going to dog Bush, who is now in the People's
Republic of
China to see how many more American jobs he can give away. Or
whatever
he is doing over there.
Your use of the term 'news story' says it all.


Yes, John, that's what they are called.

--
Real Christians are liberal.

To True, I prefer to teach a man how to fish rather than to just give
him a
fish that I magically create (government accounting practices).
Somewhere
someone pays and we don't all have direct connections to anti-entropy
(God).
I guess that makes me a enlightened liberal =
Republican-libertarian-fiscally conservative-humanist

Real people can't be labeled.




If you are going after government accounting practices, don't forget
corporate accounting practices. There are no bigger crooks than publicly
traded corporations.

Where's JimH with some more union stories?

Here are a few......................

TEAMSTERS (IBT)

Virginia Beach Ex-Bookkeeper Pleads Guilty to Embezzlement

For nearly a half decade Marcia Huizenga thought nobody would figure out how
all those extra paychecks managed to get cashed. But in the end somebody
did figure it out. Huizenga, 48, formerly bookkeeper for Teamsters Local
822, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court on November 4 to embezzling more
than $47,000 in union funds. A routine audit by the local discovered that
from January 1999 to August 2003 she had prepared and cashed 77 extra
paychecks for her own personal use. Huizenga did not dispute the charge
when confronted with the evidence. Local 822 represents about 2,000 meat
cutters, barbers, warehouse workers and other tradesmen in the Virginia
Tidewater area. (Associated Press, 11/5).



LABORERS (LIUNA)

Niagara Falls Menace Sentenced; He's in Good Company

The halls of justice have claimed another member of LIUNA Local 91's
criminal old guard that for a good half-dozen years terrorized nonunion
workers at Niagara Falls-area constructions sites. This November 2,
Salvatore Spatorico, 58, received a 27-month sentence in U.S. District
Court. He'd assaulted a truck driver at the behest of local leaders back in
April 1998. Spatarico joins five local members already convicted of
racketeering conspiracy, including its president, Robert Malvestuto, Jr.,
and executive board member Patrick McKeown. (Associated Press, 11/2).



BAKERY & TOBACCO WORKERS (BC&T)

Pittsburgh-Area Benefit Fund Administrator Arraigned

Marilyn Constable must be an incurable optimist. The suburban Pittsburgh
woman in late September was indicted by a federal grand jury on 15 counts of
embezzlement. Ms. Constable, 45, allegedly wrote out a dozen illegal checks
totaling more than $7,500 from a death-benefits fund for members of Local 12
of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers union. She
has pleaded not guilty. The union, which represented employees at a
now-closed Nabisco plant and elsewhere, since has merged into BC&T Local 19
in Cleveland.



The indictment charged that Constable, as the fund administrator, diverted
local funds for rent, cable TV, and other personal expenses. Additionally,
she was named last year in an ongoing Labor Department civil complaint
seeking restitution. The suit also named as defendants Local 19, two banks
and several union and bakery industry officials who acted as trustees.
(Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/26).



MACHINISTS (IAM)

Former Secretary-Treasurer in California Pleads Guilty

On October 21, William Good Jr., ex-financial secretary-treasurer of Local
Lodge 821 of the International Association of Machinists, pleaded guilty in
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to two counts of
embezzling union funds totaling $192,469. The guilty plea follows an
investigation by the Labor Department's Office of Labor-Management Standards
and Office of Inspector General. (OLMS, 11/10).



POSTAL WORKERS

Ex-Treasurer in Maryland Sentenced, Ordered to Pay Restitution

On October 18, Steven R. Fairfax, formerly secretary-treasurer of Branch
3939 of the National Association of Letter Carriers, was sentenced in U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland to five years of probation and
10 months of home confinement for embezzlement of union funds. He also will
have to make restitution to the union in the amount of $53,990.04. He had
been indicted this March. The sentencing follows an investigation by the
Department of Labor (OLMS, 11/10).



GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (AFGE)

Oklahoma Man Indicted for Embezzlement and Check Fraud

On November 7, Jerry T. LeBlanc, a Tulsa resident and former president of
Local 2250 of the American Federation of Government Employees, was indicted
in federal court in Muskogee for union fund embezzlement and check fraud
totaling about $46,000. (Muskogee Phoenix, 11/9; other sources).



INDEPENDENT GUARDS

Ex-Local Boss in Tennessee Indicted for False Record-Keeping

On October 19, Edward Dupree, formerly president of Local 138 of the
Independent Guards Union of North America, was indicted on one count of
making false entries in union records. The indictment follows an
investigation by the Labor Department's OLMS Nashville District Office.
(OLMS, 11/10).






--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"

A Famous Hypocrite


--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"

A Famous Hypocrite

My old assertion that Bush hid intel...TRUE
 

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:50:33 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

P Fritz wrote:

TEAMSTERS (IBT)

Virginia Beach Ex-Bookkeeper Pleads Guilty to Embezzlement

For nearly a half decade Marcia Huizenga thought nobody would figure out how
all those extra paychecks managed to get cashed. But in the end somebody
did figure it out. Huizenga, 48, formerly bookkeeper for Teamsters Local
822, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court on November 4 to embezzling more
than $47,000 in union funds. A routine audit by the local discovered that
from January 1999 to August 2003 she had prepared and cashed 77 extra
paychecks for her own personal use. Huizenga did not dispute the charge
when confronted with the evidence. Local 822 represents about 2,000 meat
cutters, barbers, warehouse workers and other tradesmen in the Virginia
Tidewater area. (Associated Press, 11/5).


Most of these people get caught, indicted, and then convicted not
because of "the law," but because union officials who handle money or
who can direct expenditures are required by union bylaws to be "bonded."
When I was a union officer many decades ago, I was "bonded" for $1
million, even though the budget under my direct control was only about
10 per cent of that amount.

If there is even a suspicion of wrongdoing, the bonding company steps
in. It has to make good the losses (that's the real purpose of the
bond), AND it makes damned sure the local prosecutors go after the
perpetrators AND go for the throat.

Thus, union officials who engage in financial crookedness go to jail
usually, and the money that was lost is either recovered or the losses
are made good by the bonding company.

Because of the aggressiveness of bonding companies, you hear more about
the occasional union thief than you do the far more common corporate thief.

But, of course, if you are a simple-minded rightie, as most who post
here are, you believe corporations are honest and unions are not.

All the union official "theft" in history doesn't not add up to one
week's thievery committed by publicly held corporations.




Most of them were corrupt as hell. Actually, there are no bigger crooks
than the corrupt union officials in this country.
--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"

A Famous Hypocrite

My old assertion that Bush hid intel...TRUE
 

Harry,
Why does the FBI and the Justice Dept. disagree with your assessment of the
Union's and the Mob?


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:50:33 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

P Fritz wrote:

TEAMSTERS (IBT)

Virginia Beach Ex-Bookkeeper Pleads Guilty to Embezzlement

For nearly a half decade Marcia Huizenga thought nobody would figure
out how
all those extra paychecks managed to get cashed. But in the end
somebody
did figure it out. Huizenga, 48, formerly bookkeeper for Teamsters
Local
822, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court on November 4 to embezzling
more
than $47,000 in union funds. A routine audit by the local discovered
that
from January 1999 to August 2003 she had prepared and cashed 77 extra
paychecks for her own personal use. Huizenga did not dispute the
charge
when confronted with the evidence. Local 822 represents about 2,000
meat
cutters, barbers, warehouse workers and other tradesmen in the Virginia
Tidewater area. (Associated Press, 11/5).

Most of these people get caught, indicted, and then convicted not
because of "the law," but because union officials who handle money or
who can direct expenditures are required by union bylaws to be "bonded."
When I was a union officer many decades ago, I was "bonded" for $1
million, even though the budget under my direct control was only about
10 per cent of that amount.

If there is even a suspicion of wrongdoing, the bonding company steps
in. It has to make good the losses (that's the real purpose of the
bond), AND it makes damned sure the local prosecutors go after the
perpetrators AND go for the throat.

Thus, union officials who engage in financial crookedness go to jail
usually, and the money that was lost is either recovered or the losses
are made good by the bonding company.

Because of the aggressiveness of bonding companies, you hear more about
the occasional union thief than you do the far more common corporate
thief.

But, of course, if you are a simple-minded rightie, as most who post
here are, you believe corporations are honest and unions are not.

All the union official "theft" in history doesn't not add up to one
week's thievery committed by publicly held corporations.




Most of them were corrupt as hell. Actually, there are no bigger crooks
than the corrupt union officials in this country.


What an absurd posit, but I would expect nothing less from
the co-chair of the "Obsessed with Harry Club."

Bet you were more fun before you gave up booze, eh?



--
Bush deserves a fair trial!

My old assertion that Bush hid intel...TRUE
 

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:56:49 -0500, "Sir Rodney Smithers" Ask me about my
knighthood. wrote:

Harry,
Why does the FBI and the Justice Dept. disagree with your assessment of the
Union's and the Mob?


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:50:33 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

P Fritz wrote:

TEAMSTERS (IBT)

Virginia Beach Ex-Bookkeeper Pleads Guilty to Embezzlement

For nearly a half decade Marcia Huizenga thought nobody would figure
out how
all those extra paychecks managed to get cashed. But in the end
somebody
did figure it out. Huizenga, 48, formerly bookkeeper for Teamsters
Local
822, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court on November 4 to embezzling
more
than $47,000 in union funds. A routine audit by the local discovered
that
from January 1999 to August 2003 she had prepared and cashed 77 extra
paychecks for her own personal use. Huizenga did not dispute the
charge
when confronted with the evidence. Local 822 represents about 2,000
meat
cutters, barbers, warehouse workers and other tradesmen in the Virginia
Tidewater area. (Associated Press, 11/5).

Most of these people get caught, indicted, and then convicted not
because of "the law," but because union officials who handle money or
who can direct expenditures are required by union bylaws to be "bonded."
When I was a union officer many decades ago, I was "bonded" for $1
million, even though the budget under my direct control was only about
10 per cent of that amount.

If there is even a suspicion of wrongdoing, the bonding company steps
in. It has to make good the losses (that's the real purpose of the
bond), AND it makes damned sure the local prosecutors go after the
perpetrators AND go for the throat.

Thus, union officials who engage in financial crookedness go to jail
usually, and the money that was lost is either recovered or the losses
are made good by the bonding company.

Because of the aggressiveness of bonding companies, you hear more about
the occasional union thief than you do the far more common corporate
thief.

But, of course, if you are a simple-minded rightie, as most who post
here are, you believe corporations are honest and unions are not.

All the union official "theft" in history doesn't not add up to one
week's thievery committed by publicly held corporations.




Most of them were corrupt as hell. Actually, there are no bigger crooks
than the corrupt union officials in this country.


What an absurd posit, but I would expect nothing less from
the co-chair of the "Obsessed with Harry Club."

Bet you were more fun before you gave up booze, eh?



--
Bush deserves a fair trial!



He'll answer in a minute. He has to pretend he didn't see your post, and
then he has to leave the full length mirror next to his desk.
--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"

A Famous Hypocrite

My old assertion that Bush hid intel...TRUE
 

Harry is just a union corruption appologist.

LMAO

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:50:33 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

P Fritz wrote:

TEAMSTERS (IBT)

Virginia Beach Ex-Bookkeeper Pleads Guilty to Embezzlement

For nearly a half decade Marcia Huizenga thought nobody would figure
out how
all those extra paychecks managed to get cashed. But in the end
somebody
did figure it out. Huizenga, 48, formerly bookkeeper for Teamsters
Local
822, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court on November 4 to embezzling
more
than $47,000 in union funds. A routine audit by the local discovered
that
from January 1999 to August 2003 she had prepared and cashed 77 extra
paychecks for her own personal use. Huizenga did not dispute the
charge
when confronted with the evidence. Local 822 represents about 2,000
meat
cutters, barbers, warehouse workers and other tradesmen in the
Virginia
Tidewater area. (Associated Press, 11/5).


Most of these people get caught, indicted, and then convicted not
because of "the law," but because union officials who handle money or
who can direct expenditures are required by union bylaws to be "bonded."
When I was a union officer many decades ago, I was "bonded" for $1
million, even though the budget under my direct control was only about
10 per cent of that amount.

If there is even a suspicion of wrongdoing, the bonding company steps
in. It has to make good the losses (that's the real purpose of the
bond), AND it makes damned sure the local prosecutors go after the
perpetrators AND go for the throat.

Thus, union officials who engage in financial crookedness go to jail
usually, and the money that was lost is either recovered or the losses
are made good by the bonding company.

Because of the aggressiveness of bonding companies, you hear more about
the occasional union thief than you do the far more common corporate
thief.

But, of course, if you are a simple-minded rightie, as most who post
here are, you believe corporations are honest and unions are not.

All the union official "theft" in history doesn't not add up to one
week's thievery committed by publicly held corporations.




Most of them were corrupt as hell. Actually, there are no bigger crooks
than the corrupt union officials in this country.
--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"

A Famous Hypocrite