Judith Regan's lawsuit against Murdoch is delicious fun (here and here), but it also gives us a glimpse into Uncle Rupert's motives: He really, really, really wants Giuliani to win.
Yet he also hosted fundraisers for Hillary Clinton. Which indicates that he thinks she's the candidate Giuliani can most easily beat. As in: Maybe he has something on her, something we don't yet know.
7 comments:
More likely Rupert sees himself as a Don King and would like nothing better than an Ali-Frazier kind of match-up.
(I think Hillary should let her hair grow long again, to the length she had it when she helped get Bill elected; and I think Rudy should wear a toupee only for the camera, like John Wayne and Sinatra did.)
Or he thinks that Hillary is the most likely winner, and he is trying to curry favor with her.
Mr.C, have a look at today's story about Nada Nadim Prouty. Her activities don't sound that unusual or bad. Care to speculate on some angles not being made public? Also many details seem isometric with what Sibel Edmonds wrote about, only this lady got a job with clandestine in 2003. Hmmm...
Arbusto205
I dunno, you think that's it, that he's trying to curry favors with the future Mrs. President? Rupert? Me, I think that fox News would just really love (or is that lust?) to run with a Huma/Hillary scissor-sisters story... It doesn't even have to be true, right? All they'd need. is for the little-man-in-the-Swift-boat meme to spread... Abedin is hot enough (and Muslim enough) to really freak the beJesus out the Bozarks.. And thats before like u say, Vince Foster, blue dresses, her creepy laugh, [cough cough... park-on-meter*] whether true or not doesn't matter, you'll see Heidi Collins tossing softballs to Alexander Cockburn and on Faux News they'll be showing diagrams for G-on-G action, flashed with images from Les bars, and pics of Ellen and Porsche (no seriously, check out the Faux News clip up there and ask why Rupert would wanna back that horse....
I normally avoid threadjacking, but there's a Laura Rozen thing at her MoJoBlog that is really worth noting. Titled "Assassination Jokes, Anthrax Spores, and Russian Mobsters," it's about Neil Livingstone and includes speculation on his possible connections with Simeon Mogilevich.
Neil Livingstone is a shady "counter-terrorism" expert with deep roots in the Iran-Contra era. He's also a member of the Iran Policy Committee, almost all of whose other members are involved with the Intelligence Summit, though Livingstone himself doesn't seem to be.
And when I checked my files for mentions of Mogilevich, he showed up in virtually everything I have on the Russian Mafia, the Bank of New York money-laundering scandal, and all of that.
It seems to me that there is a recurrent nexus here that involves the counter-terrorism racket and the extreme Iran warhawks on one side and the Russian-Israeli Mafia on the other. That particular combination is extremely disquieting -- not least for what it implies about the forces that are pushing hardest for war with Iran.
I'd be overreaching if I concluded at this point that it all has to do with the originally CIA-based drugs-and-arms racket that was centered in Vietnam in the early 70's, then was transplanted wholesale to Iran after the fall of Saigon in 1975 (and had a lot to do with inciting the overthrow of the Shah), was strongly manifested in Iran-Contra in the 80's, and has since gotten largely privatized and thus less visible. But that does seem to be the direction in which a lot of this is pointing.
In one sense, it's nothing more than Casolaro's Octopus, but with a few new twists for the 21st century. Or it's Sibel Edmond's Deep State. Or Peter Dale Scott's global meta-group. But the part that really has me freaking out is that it may now be actively attempting to manipulate US foreign policy and not merely profiting around the edges. That would be something new -- and altogether disastrous.
I still haven't heard the MSM ask Rudy what was the reason he bailed on running against Hillary when she first ran. Methinks there is an interesting story there.
Murdoch made Ed Koch the mayor of NY by endorsing him (according to Koch's assessment). Murdoch headed a similar fund raiser for Chuck Schumer in '03, as he had also reached across ideological differences to support the Labor Party's candidate, Tony Blair.
In these cases, Murdoch was backing the likely winners, not propping up losers as some kind of easy pickings for his presumably preferred GOP or Conservative Party candidate.
As in the prior cases, HRC was well favored in her re-election race. She also led the pre-campaign polling on Democrats' presidential preferences, with an upcoming election favoring whomever the Democrats nominated.
Howard Dean's candidacy was destroyed shortly after he said that media concentration ought to be reversed. (Plus something about an even handed policy in the Middle East.) Murdoch probably made more money from the '90s deregulation of communications than any other single factor, and that was BC's DLC policy.
Would a likely Pres. HRC reverse the relaxed ownership rules (as per the liberal position), force Murdoch's empire to disgorge overly concentrated flagship media assets (many in NY), and lose billions? Would she support such efforts even if she remained but a US senator?
Probably not, and the $60,000 raised at the event politely asked that be the case. Murdoch has since hosted Bill Clinton and Al Gore in private retreats, prompting worries on the right that he is trending liberal for better monetary gain potential in this political environment.
alfos.....
Post a Comment