Document Proves Pair Justified Attacking Iraq Prior to Congressional Authority
New revelations in London’s Sunday Times seem to confirm a long held rumor that Mayor Ron Gonzales and Vice Mayor Cindy Chavez held secret meetings with President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair—long before Congressional approval of the war—in which they discussed ways to deliberately mislead the public by fabricating justifications for the invasion of Iraq.
The “Downing Street Memo,” as it is now referred, was leaked by high level British officials and contained the minutes of a secret July 23, 2002 meeting in London between the United Kingdom Labour government, The United States of America, and apparently San Jose.
President Bush has repeatedly denied the allegations that he met with “Ronnie Boy and the other Cindy” by saying, “I would never have secret meetings and have any record of it—least of all those little internet mail messages you like to send to Grand Prix executives.”
But Councilman Forest Williams was having none of it. “There is a dangerous pattern here,” he said upon hearing the news of his colleagues’ involvement in clandestine meetings in London. “This administration has continually misappropriated funds for travel.”
In eerily related news, what appeared to be rogue WMD relocations in several satellite photos taken of Basra, Iraq, turned out to be U.S. crews removing several dozen Palm trees inside the town limits in order to accommodate a faster and smoother path for U.S. military tanks.
So what, who cares about letting the citizens be part of the process. We don,t listen to them anyway. Labor was in favor of the war,business was in favor of the war. In fact I have some more info on the subject but I will keep you in the dark on that also.
Sometimes there’s just nothing funny about what’s going on. Welcome to SJ – “The Sunshine City” (unless of course you’re talking about our elected folks.)
“I think we were there, but I’m not sure who else was there. It may have been Bush and Blare but it could have been two lobbyists. Did I meet with them? Maybe or maybe not. Unless you have email proof, then , yes I did meet with them, but I wasn’t sure what they wanted. Was it NorCal garbage, the unions or developers? I’m getting them all confused because they just keep coming to my office with money. I think they wanted something but I’m not sure what – unless they wanted something they didn’t talk about; unless they did talk about it and I forgot, or maybe I didn’t forget, but didn’t tell anyone. Was it $11 million or $3m or maybe nothing, or something, but not that much, unless you’re a taxpayer then it’s something, but not much.”
Cindy and Ron
Pandori is the only hope of “Sunshine” in this election.
Now that’s funny—-
what appeared to be rogue WMD relocations in several satellite photos taken of Basra, Iraq, turned out to be U.S. crews removing several dozen Palm trees inside the town limits in order to accommodate a faster and smoother path for U.S. military tanks.
The president should’ve listened to Cindy when she told him to forget all that nonsense about democracy and WMD’s:
“Schools and neighborhoods, Mr. President. Make the invasion about schools and neighborhoods.”
“Oh, and George,” she advised him firmly, “remember to be nice!”
Maybe what’s needed is a Grand Prix race though downtown Basra.
No, seriously.
It would boost the city’s sagging tourist industry, fill hotel rooms, put butts in seats at downtown restaurants…and think of all of that international TV exposure!!!
Maybe we can send Cindy and Ron to Iraq to negotiate a secret government subsidy. When it comes before Congress Cindy can act surprised and Ron can say “Just shut up and vote yes, Damnit!”
Afterwards if anyone questions the deal the Cindinistas can have a field day questioning their patriotism.
Neighborhood and Community Leaders – Spring 2006 Public Policy Forum
San Jose City Council Chambers on April 29, 2006 – 9am – 12 noon.
Moderator: San Jose attorney Miguel Chacon, a local political commentator for local / bilingual newspapers / television / radio and a San Jose State University political science lecturer.
9 am – 10:30 am – “What do we need for open San Jose city government? ” at San Jose City Council Chamber The 14 minute Bill Meyers “Road to Clean Elections” video will be shown and discussed along with local Sunshine law proposals, public participation, public accountability, public outreach and role of elected officials, city attorney and district attorney
10:30 – 12 noon – “How San Jose Public Policy and Land decisions affect Jobs, Tax revenues and City services ” – discussion about San Jose low level of jobs, tax revenues and city services and that all the city, community and neighborhood leaders need to work together to develop balanced workable solutions to these issues while improving our city and it’s quality of life.
DAVE PANDORI SHOULD BE THE NEXT MAYOR OF SAN JOSE !
DAVE PANDORI FOR MAYOR! WAKE UP AND AND MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE!
I am all for sending Cindy and RonCon to Iraq, maybe they can negotiate some deal to bring Bart and Baseball to Baghdad.
They can first start with the first ever Iraq Grand Prix. This would bring a lot of tourist money to Downtown Baghdad and make it a possible destination city. The only problem would be the suicide bombers in the stands and maybe not enough porte-potties.
While RonCon is there maybe he could also help get a new garbage contract and maybe help them get a new city hall with Cisco networking of course.
I can see the design now; it would look like an egg shaped building with an ordinary office tower to the side. A real imaginative gem. Those architects really put themselves out on that design.
RonCon would be in his element out in Baghdad.
Term Limits=fraud
We’ve always had term limits, its called an election.
Posted by Richard Robinson
Thursday, April 27 at 09:32 AM
Compare this post by Richard to these wise words:
“In free governments, the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns. For the former, therefore, to return among the latter is not to degrade but to promote them.” – Benjamin Franklin, 1787
For anyone to say that the mere fact we have elections negates the need for term limits is ludicrous and shows that they have no concept of the real world. It is well known that is is nearly impossible to unseat an incumbent – no matter how poor of a job they are doing. Officeholders has the advantage of not only a higher public profile, they have influence and the access to money sources that the average citizen does not.
Present occupants of these elected offices become more insulated and isolated from reality with each passing year of their perceived life tenancy.
It is time to remind Richard that we citizens put them there to serve the citizens, and not themselves. It is time to remind him that the government exists to serve the people, and not the politicians and there consultants.
It has been decades since council members actually read what we pay them to vote on, leaving us at the whim of staffers who interpret for them. Staffers are now often the targets of big-time lobbyists.
What is desperately needed is the brand of public servants our country’s founders, authors of the Constitution envisioned—the kind of person who seeks elected to serve. These were to be citizen public servants who would go to an office to serve their neighbors and their country for a limited time only. They would temporarily leave their citizen pursuits to serve briefly, bringing their everyday heartland common sense with them, then to return home to live among those neighbors after having completed their citizen responsibilities— <i>to live under the laws they have just passed.,/i> Why should that sound so bizarre today?
Are the citizens truly served when we have developed a culture in which a person can effortlessly strut from one office to another, with little or no real competition? A perfect case in point is Jim Beall. From San José city council, to the board of supervisors, and now strutting on to the state assembly –with no real competition. I have talked to many who would have liked to run, but were intimidated by what the public perceives as an incumbent. So now we are saddled with having a largely ineffective county supervisor becoming a largely ineffective state legislator.
If we had lifetime term limits in San José as we do at the state level, we wouldn’t be faced with Manny Diaz running for city council again. Tell me what did he accomplish when he was here the first time? Other than to abandon his seat 2 years early to strut to Sacramento, short changing those who voted for him.
Locally, we have allowed our elected officials to create a culture that defeats the intent of term limits by having a retirement system that provides life-long rewards for what is supposed to be self-less service to the community. There would be no need for a retirement system if respected citizens served a brief term and returned to productive civilian life.
Term limits are intended to send elected officials back into society as productive citizens – not to set them up for the next office.
Founding Fathers,
You write ‘it is time to remind Richard that we citizens put them there to serve the citizens, and not themselves.’
There inlies the rub. If the citizens are unhappy with the way they are being served—they have the capacity to change the representative.
Term limits simply takes away choice from your citizens.
Moreover, elected officials need time to gain expertise on matters. You want a bunch of amatuers making decisions, that’s what term limits has institutionalized.
Nobody requires you to change you dentist every four years and nobody should require us to change our representatives if we like them—we always have that choice.
If the citizens are so malleable as to be incapable of making that determination, then the entire concept of republican government should be revisited.
What would the founding fathers say? They were tremendously disdainful of mob rule and direct democracy.
At the beginning of our nation, only the lower house was elected. Senators were chosen by the lower house and the people actually voted for Presidential electors to determine who the President.
The idea of direct democracy stemming from an uneducated and uninformed public was dismissed because of the catastrophic results they knew it would produce.
Yet, this is exactly where our system has evolved to today.
Given we have George W. Bush as President, a B actor as Governor, and Ron Gonzalez as Mayor—you might say their analysis was on spot on.
Richard when you state, “If the citizens are unhappy with the way they are being served—they have the capacity to change the representative.” you seemed to miss the main point of #12’s extremely long post: “It is well known that is is nearly impossible to unseat an incumbent – no matter how poor of a job they are doing.”
I also disagree with your coment, “Moreover, elected officials need time to gain expertise on matters. You want a bunch of amatuers making decisions, that’s what term limits has institutionalized.” It’s more accurate to say that a lack of term limits and gerrymandered districts keep elected officials in office even when they are ineffective. Once they make the connections to bring in the $$$ and have the powerful “incumbent” title after their name they can coast to re-election.
For a perfect case-in-point, look at the current elections for SJ Districts 5, 7, & 9. No significant competition. That sure is not due to the fact that Nora, Madison, and Judy are the very best council people in the world. It is simply because of the well known ‘FACT’ that is is nearly impossible to un-seat an incumbent.
Richard, name the last time an local incumbent was elected out of office??? There may be one or two, but none that I can think of.
If it’s true that our mayor and vice mayor advised the the rulers of the the two most powerful nations on Earth on how to deal with Iraq; what were, or are their qualifications? Shouldn’t our president be asking his generals for advice when it comes to military matters?
If you’re looking for diamonds, you don’t go to a butcher…does this mean our mayor and vice mayor were guaranteed a job in Washington?
Kevin,
You believe the myths.
The fact is a seasoned politician knows how to say no to the monied interests, while the newbies do not.
Anybody who know the legislature will tell you how they miss the good old days with Willie Brown, Art Torres, Jim Brulte, John Burton, Al Alquist, John Foran, John Vasconcellos, Ken Maddy, Sam Farr and many other veterans.
Second, you dismiss the notion that the electorate is anything but a pawn of elected offiicials. I submit it is the other way around.
The people have the power to get rid of bad elected officials, if they don’t have the intellect, desire or fail to participate—it is the government they deserve.
Not PC, but too often the press, politicians, and consultants pander to the myths and the masses. If you want to change things, get off your butt and do it.
Stop blaming the people who dare to be in the arena—when the system that corrupts them is created and nurtured by you.
People had a chance to change reapportionment, they declined. They have the opportunity to get rid of incumbants every two and four years, they decline. They have the opportunity to run for office themselves, they decline.
Being an elected official is not easy, every decision you make affects someone positively and negatively. If you are good you will ultimately tick everyone off at least once.
But every loser of an issue will call you corrupt or worse. It is a thankless job—try it sometime.
Finally, term limits is the biggest cause of no competition. Because ambitious people will wait their turn for an open seat. Why challenge the status quo when you can wait two, four or six years and become the status quo.
P.S. Earnie Konnyu is the answer to your question—unless you count Gray Davis.
Hey Rich,
I generally agree that term limits are a bad idea except when I consider George W. Bush, and thank God we have an end in sight.
Wow! Cindy and Ron give advise to Bush and Blair. And what has David given advise on? Oh, that’s right…there’s that poor excuse for a park in the middle of the flight path. Yea, I can see where that qualifies him to be mayor. Not.
That Park won the 2006 Award of Excellence for being the first to combine flood protection with a major park. Something we all needed downtown. Funny thing was, Cindy was also at the opening of the Gaudalupe Park taking credit, but it wasn’t the airplane noise that was distracting from her speech, it was an outdoor Mountain Dew rock concert in the parking lot of the Arena. But if Cindy is elected there will be much more of that concert noise in the park when we get a $400 mil baseball stadium for a non-existent team.
#19: You write that, “if Cindy [Chavez] is elected there will much more of that concert noise in the park when we get a $400 mil baseball stadium for a non-existent team.”
Why is it that you cast Chavez as the candidate supporting bringing major league baseball, when competitors Dave Cortese and Michael Mulcahy are both part of Baseball San Jose? Cortese, in fact, established the city’s sports facilities task force specifically for purpose of bringing major league baseball to town, and it was Cortese’s task force that identified the Diridon site near Guadalupe River Park as one of the primary prospects. On the other hand, Chavez (unlike Mayor Gonzales) is not nor has she been a leading proponent of baseball.
Now, provided there is a deal that makes sense, I don’t have anything against bringing to town major league baseball (though I would have preferred we kept our existing beloved soccer team). That being said, if there is a candidate to vent spleen at over the quixotic effort to build a baseball park for a non-existent team, I would think that person would be Cortese, not Chavez.
By the way, based on projections for the stadium to be built for the Nationals in DC, expect a baseball stadium in San Jose to cost far more than $400 million, probably at least twice as much.
Parks for Kids…if you’re concerned about noise and about childrens’ hearing, Guadalupe Park (GP) is not the place to be. Flood control, yes…a place for small children, I don’t think so. But David continues to press his own agenda regarding the GP, regardless how neighborhoods along the GP feel. David’s disregard towards the wishes of neighborhoods and the dismissing their voice…sounds like qualifications for President. Maybe David should run that job.
#20: No casting here.
At the Big 5 Debate, Chavez, Cortese, and Reed stated they support bringing MLB to San Jose. Cindy’s answer was a very clear Yes. Mulcahy didn’t have the backbone to give a straight answer.
At other forums Cortese has stated he doesn’t know how the Diridon site was selected, but he wants to work with the community to find a solution.
Chavez has not said a word about the Diridon site. She is in a wait-and-see pattern while her Delmas Park neighborhood’s fate hangs in a limbo of pending doom that the stadium will bring to its residents. Quite contrary to her neighborhood advocacy platform, isn’t it? Here’s a recent blog posting about the noise problem http://newballpark.blogspot.com/2006/05/china-basin-noise-study.html
#22: If Dave Cortese told you he doesn’t know how the Diridon site was selected, he’s embroidering the truth. But I think you probably misheard him.
You certainly misheard Chuck Reed. How is that Reed can possibly be construed to “support” bringing baseball to San Jose? I was at the Big 5 forum, and as I recall, his “support,” if you could call it that, was heavily qualified by the caveat that there be a viable plan for financing it, which he observed was currently non-existent. (I got news for you: Reed doesn’t have a plan for baseball and doesn’t intend to come up with one.)
As I recall, though I could be mistaken, Chavez’s statement about baseball at the Big 5 forum was similarly qualified by the proviso that it pencil out. She’s not anti-baseball, but neither is she leading the cheers. (And by the way, I know a Delmas Park neighborhood leader who is actively engaged in critiquing the baseball EIR yet who so strongly supports Chavez that she is actually working on Chavez’s campaign. So your predictions of Chavez dooming the neighborhood are far from universally shared by your neighbors.)
Don’t be fooled. For better or worse, Dave Cortese is the biggest bring-baseball-to-Diridon backer of any candidate running for any public office in all San Jose. He knows how and why the Diridon site was selected; it was his task force that selected it.
#23: I remember the debate a little differently. I believe Chavez said she thinks bringing baseball to San Jose is “A Great Idea” and yes she is for it.
Chavez has not exactly been helpful to neighbors on this stadium. To my knowledge, she has yet to hold any public meeting on the topic. And I really doubt any Delmas Park neighborhood leaders would actually be FOR a stadium in their backyard. Reading the Mercury News today it looks like most people in San Jose are not for it either.