Labour Party on Libertas/CIA CT.

studiorat

Joe Costello gets all Conspiracy Theory like...

http://www.labour.ie/press/listing/122183214937816.html

The US military has been actively recruiting in EU Members States and other European States to join NATO and enhance the US military role in Europe. They are opposed to the EU fine-tuning its Common Foreign and Security Policy which was a feature of the Lisbon Treaty.

indymedia he press guy prolly read!

dresden8

So, If we're now against the CIA we can expect the government to tell the CIA to p1ss off out of Shannon now.

If we're against the US military we can expect the government to tell them to p1ss off out of Shannon too as well.

Since UKIP have become ardent No supporters and Avril Doyle keeps going on about how we should tell the Brits to keep out of Irish affairs, can we expect Fine Gael to call for a British withdrawal from the north?

Hypocritical cnuts.

utick

studiorat wrote: »

The US military has been actively recruiting in EU Members States and other European States to join NATO and enhance the US military role in Europe. !

this doesnt make much sense because dam near all of europe is already in nato

utick

dresden8 wrote: »

So, If we're now against the CIA we can expect the government to tell the CIA to p1ss off out of Shannon now.

If we're against the US military we can expect the government to tell them to p1ss off out of Shannon too as well.

Since UKIP have become ardent No supporters and Avril Doyle keeps going on about how we should tell the Brits to keep out of Irish affairs, can we expect Fine Gael to call for a British withdrawal from the north?

Hypocritical cnuts.

yeah its kinda funny avril doyle complaining about ukip, perhaps if she was doing her job and representing the interests of the people of her country ukip wouldnt need to be so vocal

Breezer

utick wrote: »

yeah its kinda funny avril doyle complaining about ukip, perhaps if she was doing her job and representing the interests of the people of her country ukip wouldnt need to be so vocal

One could argue that she is representing the interests of the people of her country.

irish_bob

utick wrote: »

yeah its kinda funny avril doyle complaining about ukip, perhaps if she was doing her job and representing the interests of the people of her country ukip wouldnt need to be so vocal

ukip dont give a crap about irish people , avril doyle by exposing there motives does

dresden8

irish_bob wrote: »

ukip dont give a crap about irish people , avril doyle by exposing there motives does

But they respect the result of the vote, the same way the Irish government does.

K-9

dresden8 wrote: »

Since UKIP have become ardent No supporters and Avril Doyle keeps going on about how we should tell the Brits to keep out of Irish affairs, can we expect Fine Gael to call for a British withdrawal from the north?

Ignoring the obvious problems with that post, You do realise you're basing that on UKIP?

How do you think UKIP would reply, Those defenders of our independence!

There must be a fancy word for what you've done there!

molloyjh

dresden8 wrote: »

But they respect the result of the vote, the same way the Irish government does.

Only because it went their way. Would they be so vocally supportive if the result was a Yes?

lostexpectation

lab wrote:

The US military has been actively recruiting in EU Members States and other European States to join NATO and enhance the US military role in Europe. They are opposed to the EU fine-tuning its Common Foreign and Security Policy which was a feature of the Lisbon Treaty

why wouldn't they?

via indymedia
New EU treaty worries US intel services
http://www.janes.com/news/publicsafety/jid/jid080117_1_n.shtml

but anyway the us/cia doesn't need to pay anyway to do they bidding when said person wants to suck their dick for free

dresden8

molloyjh wrote: »

Only because it went their way. Would they be so vocally supportive if the result was a Yes?

Of course not.

The fallacy that is being propagated here is that no voters were swayed by Libertas and their evil CIA masters. UKIP are in the mix because politics makes strange bedfellows.

One would imagine that Libertas/CIA/US Military threads should be thrown out of the politics thread into the conspiracy theory forum, but are not of course because they support the "yes" point of view.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

Of course not.

The fallacy that is being propagated here is that no voters were swayed by Libertas and their evil CIA masters. UKIP are in the mix because politics makes strange bedfellows.

One would imagine that Libertas/CIA/US Military threads should be thrown out of the politics thread into the conspiracy theory forum, but are not of course because they support the "yes" point of view.

Not really - it's frankly a bit embarrassing, and I for one would be perfectly happy to see it banished to CT. Unfortunately, because it's been put forward by some relative heavyweights like MEPs, it gets to live.

In a sense, I'm not surprised Libertas don't bother quashing it - it's a red herring, which distracts from the far more prosaic, yet far more damaging conclusion - that Libertas is backed by Ganley and a few other rich businessmen as a 'private' political vehicle.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

One would imagine that Libertas/CIA/US Military threads should be thrown out of the politics thread into the conspiracy theory forum, but are not of course because they support the "yes" point of view.

The CIA and conspiracy theories are not mentioned in the linked article; they are a red herring thrown in by the OP. This thread is based on a press release from the Labour Party.

Still, it would be a shame to miss an opportunity to implicitly complain about biased moderation, wouldn't it?

dresden8

Okay, we'll come at this another way.

Rich people have always influenced politics. That's what the tent in Galway was about. So what?

Ganley has links to the US military. So what? What are the heavyweight MEPs trying to imply?

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

Rich people have always influenced politics. That's what the tent in Galway was about. So what?

You believe that rich people influencing politicians through shady deals in Galway tents is perfectly acceptable?

Ganley has links to the US military. So what? What are the heavyweight MEPs trying to imply?

You don't think Libertas have any questions whatsoever to answer?

amacachi

If the US army are recruiting here I wish I knew where to go. Really need a job.

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

You believe that rich people influencing politicians through shady deals in Galway tents is perfectly acceptable?

I don't actually. But the likes of Dick Roche and other FF heads calling Ganley to explain himself is pure hypocrisy.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You don't think Libertas have any questions whatsoever to answer?

What are the questions our political heavyweight masters want him to answer? We at least now know the source of Ganleys money. So what?

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

I don't actually. But the likes of Dick Roche and other FF heads calling Ganley to explain himself is pure hypocrisy.

I'm not sure how that differs from saying "but sure isn't everyone at it, so that's alright." If transparency is important in politics, it's important on all sides.

What are the questions our political heavyweight masters want him to answer? We at least now know the source of Ganleys money. So what?

As long as his money was used to secure the "right" result from your perspective, I guess it doesn't matter at all. For those of us who feel that democracy was subverted, it's kind of important to understand what the motive was for spending a lot of money doing so.

dresden8

Who subverted it and how?

oscarBravo

Anyone who spent enormous sums of money to spread FUD and lies about the treaty. Again, you seem to have a tolerance for that sort of thing as long as it's done by both sides, but I'd rather see some transparency.

dresden8

"People are lied to before a vote" shock. That's what happens.

Can we re-run the last general election so? And the one before that? And the one before that?

What's the US military and the CIA got to do with anything?

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

"People are lied to before a vote" shock. That's what happens.

Again it seems that the difference between us is that I have a problem with large quantities of money being spent on dishonestly influencing the outcome of a vote.

Can we re-run the last general election so? And the one before that? And the one before that?

We re-run them every few years.

What's the US military and the CIA got to do with anything?

I've no idea what CIA has to do with anything; I've already said it was a red herring.

As for the US military, let me ask you a direct question: if the "yes" vote had won, and it transpired that a hitherto unknown businessman with links to (say) the French and German militaries had spent large quantities of money on a dishonest campaign to scare people into voting "yes" - would you be blithely shrugging it off as you are now?

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

As for the US military, let me ask you a direct question: if the "yes" vote had won, and it transpired that a hitherto unknown businessman with links to (say) the French and German militaries had spent large quantities of money on a dishonest campaign to scare people into voting "yes" - would you be blithely shrugging it off as you are now?

What's your problem with Ganley doing business with the US military? I'm sure there's at least some "Yes" voters/supporters/ who possibly are doing business with the French and German militaries.

Businessmen do business with whoever will give them €200 million euro. Fair enough.

oscarBravo

Why am I not surprised that you didn't answer the question?

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

As for the US military, let me ask you a direct question: if the "yes" vote had won, and it transpired that a hitherto unknown businessman with links to (say) the French and German militaries had spent large quantities of money on a dishonest campaign to scare people into voting "yes" - would you be blithely shrugging it off as you are now?

I'm sure there's at least some "Yes" voters/supporters/ who possibly are doing business with the French and German militaries.

What's your problem with that answer? I'm sure they're already doing business with them. I'm sure when the next vote comes around they will still be doing business with them. Whether the answer is yes or no, it will have no bearing.

Now back to the original unanswered question (Post #21, if you're interested)

What's the US military got to do with anything?

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

What's your problem with that answer?

It's a perfectly satisfactory answer, with one problem: it doesn't answer the question I asked. Re-read my post.

Now back to the original unanswered question (Post #21, if you're interested)

What's the US military got to do with anything?

I don't know. I'd like to know. You know, one of those unanswered questions that, for some reason, you seem anxious not to have asked.

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's a perfectly satisfactory answer, with one problem: it doesn't answer the question I asked. Re-read my post.

But then I qualified in the same paragraph

Whether the answer is yes or no, it will have no bearing.

"I don't know. I'd like to know. You know, one of those unanswered questions that, for some reason, you seem anxious not to have asked."

So, you don't know your problem with the US military. If you don't know the problem, how can you have a problem?

If I seem anxious not to have the question asked you're being awful obliging in not asking it.

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

But then I qualified in the same paragraph

Whether the answer is yes or no, it will have no bearing.

The long and the short of it is, you have no issue whatsoever with large amounts of money changing hands in order to secure political influence?

On that, we'll agree to differ.

So, you don't know your problem with the US military. If you don't know the problem, how can you have a problem?

If I seem anxious not to have the question asked you're being awful obliging in not asking it.

Since you're determine to take wilful obtuseness to an art form, I'll spell it out for you.

I don't have a problem with the US military.

I don't have a problem with Libertas doing business with the US military.

I do have a problem with a businessman who does a huge amount of business with the US military suddenly popping up, taking an interest in our relationship with the EU, and spending enormous sums of money on creating enough doubt in people's minds to prevent a treaty from being ratified. I have a problem with the lack of transparency involved in the spending of this money.

My question was whether you would have a problem with this were the shoe on the other foot. You've made it clear you have no problem with clandestine funding of political processes, so I guess I can consider the question answered.

dresden8

Actually no.

I refer you to my first post in this thread

So, If we're now against the CIA we can expect the government to tell the CIA to p1ss off out of Shannon now.

If we're against the US military we can expect the government to tell them to p1ss off out of Shannon too as well.

Since UKIP have become ardent No supporters and Avril Doyle keeps going on about how we should tell the Brits to keep out of Irish affairs, can we expect Fine Gael to call for a British withdrawal from the north?

Hypocritical cnuts.

It's the hypocrisy of the mainstream parties that gets me.

For this shower of tossers to now come out with this crap is sickening. Where does everybody else's money come from? That's the real question that has never been answered in Irish politics.

dresden8

I don't have a problem with the US military.

I don't have a problem with Libertas doing business with the US military.

I do have a problem with a businessman who does a huge amount of business with the US military

First two statements jar with the third. If you have no problem with the US military why include it like that?

studiorat

I posted here 'cause firstly I thought it was interesting that the Labour Party actually had something to say about it.
A long time after most internet users knew about it I might add. I do feel the net is seriously underused as a political instrument. Funny then that Libertas' PR guy owns Politics.ie! Interesting too that a lot of users see it automatically filed under crackpot conspiracy theories too!

My problem is none of Ganleys business ventures seem to be in "normal" markets. If there's a war zone or some clusterf*ck going on Ganley seems to be setting up shop there. What's that all about?

Ganley while well connected in US spook business, is not the only member of Libertas with business connections in the US military. Ulick McEvaddy is the CEO of a US air defence contractor. I mean check this out ffs http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0114/knock.html

How ironic that they used the sensationalist "We need a European Army" headline for one of their No campaign posters. Not to mention legalised abortion. A little nod to the Youth Defence crowd, no doubt, big No to Nice supporters at that!

So either the two main operators are genuine in their motivation which would suggest they are amazingly stupid or there's a hidden agenda for their interest in a No vote for Lisbon...

AW fuggid! Prolly just an over active imagination, nothing to worry about here!

dresden8

studiorat wrote: »

I posted here 'cause firstly I thought it was interesting that the Labour Party actually had something to say about it.

My problem is none of Ganleys business ventures seem to be in "normal" markets. If there's a war zone or some clusterf*ck going on Ganley seems to be setting up shop there. What's that all about?
Ganley's while well connected in US spook business, is not the only member of Libertas with business connections in the US military. Ulick McEvaddy is the CEO of a US air defence contractor. I mean check this out ffs http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0114/knock.html

How ironic that they used the sensationalist "We need a European Army" headline for one of their No campaign posters. Their PR Guy owns politics.ie BTW.

So either the two main operators are genuine in their motivation which would suggest they are amazingly stupid or there's a hidden agenda for their interest in a No vote for Lisbon...

Now we're into conspiracy theory territory.

studiorat

dresden8 wrote: »

Now we're into conspiracy theory territory.

Shrug it off like that if you wish.

Maybe in the spirit of healthy debate you'd point out a particular fact that you would consider as a conspiracy. Or maybe you think the whole thing is..

You edited the post so maybe not...

I for one do not believe that their motives are in the interest of the country.

dresden8

Well you do love your "..."

I suspect Ganley is in warzones and stuff because there is a shed load of money to be made. I doubt he goes there himself though, just creams the money off the top.

studiorat

dresden8 wrote: »

Well you do love your "..."

[/QUOTE]
I suspect Ganley is in warzones and stuff because there is a shed load of money to be made. I doubt he goes there himself though, just creams the money off the top.[/QUOTE]


YEEEESSSS I do.
It means I'd go on but I won't bother...

As far as I know he spend a fair bit of time wandering around Eastern Europe back in the day... (See?)

dresden8

Just to put a bit of context. Ganley has €200m worth of business.

The Irish defence industry is worth €3 billion.

Do we have questions to ask these people about who their contracts are with and which way they voted/lobbied spent money on Lisbon?

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2008/05/25/story33124.asp

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

Just to put a bit of context. Ganley has €200m worth of business.

The Irish defence industry is worth €3 billion.

Do we have questions to ask these people about who their contracts are with and which way they voted/lobbied spent money on Lisbon?

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2008/05/25/story33124.asp

Well, we could ask McEvaddy as well!

If the Irish arms industry has contributed to Irish political parties, that would be a matter of record, assuming we're talking large donations. Do you reckon any of the Irish defence industry subbed either campaign to the tune of at least €200,000?

I appreciate that you're not quite defending Libertas as much as pointing out that questions should be asked equally of both sides - and I would favour that - but I think that dismissing the question because of one source of it (FF) is an ad hominem, the more so since FF are not the only one asking it.

If we want to know something (where Libertas' funding came from, for example), are we to have the question dismissed simply because Dick Roche has asked it in public?

cordially,
Scofflaw

studiorat

dresden8 wrote: »

Just to put a bit of context. Ganley has €200m worth of business.

The Irish defence industry is worth €3 billion.

Do we have questions to ask these people about who their contracts are with and which way they voted/lobbied spent money on Lisbon?

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2008/05/25/story33124.asp

Licences for military contracts last year was to the value of €33m. The rest was of dual use, mostly civilian according to the article.

I'm a firm believer in ethical business practices. And I reckon there's a difference between selling springs for hummers and wanting US military planes to land in Knock. (The CEO of an US air defence contractor who's sitting on the board of Knock airport "seeing no reason why US military planes could land at Knock"? Well of course not, but I can't help thinking that decision may have just the smallest bit of self interest.)

As for your other question I certainly believe we should know who these contracts are with. Are you suggesting we let anybody sell anything they want to whoever they want?

Certainly their vote is a private matter, but if they are lobbying Govnt. and running campaigns (on either side) for a change in the constitution -nevermind run a "political party"- I would certainly like to know some background and where they got their funds from. Otherwise the guy with the most money gets the advantage! Not a good thing in the running of a country IMO.;)

Good night sir!

dresden8

studiorat wrote: »

Certainly their vote is a private matter, but if they are lobbying Govnt. and running campaigns (on either side) for a change in the constitution -nevermind run a "political party"- I would certainly like to know some background and where they got their funds from. Otherwise the guy with the most money gets the advantage! Not a good thing in the running of a country IMO.;)

No, seriously. Are you not aware of how things are done in this country?

studiorat

dresden8 wrote: »

No, seriously. Are you not aware of how things are done in this country?

too much so.

studiorat

...

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

If we want to know something (where Libertas' funding came from, for example), are we to have the question dismissed simply because Dick Roche has asked it in public?

cordially,
Scofflaw

It should probably be dismissed because Roche is a fool.

But again, I see you see my point about the hypocrisy (yes, my choice of word) of the mainstream parties.

Ganleys finances and motives are only being questioned because he supported the no vote. If he had campaigned for yes, the government and opposition would have been quite happy to have him on board.

If we're down to enquiring about where people's money came from, I think FF were asked that question first, and a satisfactory answer has not been forthcoming. At least Ganley doesn't claim he won the money on the horses.

I suppose he could claim it came from "Paddy the Mercenary"!

lostexpectation

they play down the military angle on the yes side and play it up on the no side...?

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

It should probably be dismissed because Roche is a fool.

But again, I see you see my point about the hypocrisy (yes, my choice of word) of the mainstream parties.

Ganleys finances and motives are only being questioned because he supported the no vote. If he had campaigned for yes, the government and opposition would have been quite happy to have him on board.

If we're down to enquiring about where people's money came from, I think FF were asked that question first, and a satisfactory answer has not been forthcoming. At least Ganley doesn't claim he won the money on the horses.

I suppose he could claim it came from "Paddy the Mercenary"!

Hmm. Yes, the government and opposition ask these questions because Ganley was on the other side from them. As far as I can tell, you then defend them because he is on the same side as you, plus throwing the question back at them because they are on the other side from you.

So far, so partisan, and answers no questions. However, FF are already up at Dublin Castle being asked questions about their 'donations', so now can we the interested electorate ask Libertas? Or are you saying we should have to wait twenty years for those answers as well?


cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

We know the libertas answers. It's Ganleys money for his own personal crusade, for whatever reasons.

Oh and I wasn't defending Ganley. I think he's an odious m/fer. Once again it's the hypocrisy of these tossers. Especially Roche.

I'd like to go back to a question not answered earlier. What's the big deal with his connections to the US military?

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

We know the libertas answers. It's Ganleys money for his own personal crusade, for whatever reasons.

Oh and I wasn't defending Ganley. I think he's an odious m/fer. Once again it's the hypocrisy of these tossers. Especially Roche.

Fair enough - particularly on "Tara, what archaeological heritage?" Roach.

dresden8 wrote: »

I'd like to go back to a question not answered earlier. What's the big deal with his connections to the US military?

That I couldn't entirely say - after all, the one point Libertas never touched was neutrality.

I imagine, though, that being hand in glove with the US military/neocon complex makes personal crusades for "openness and transparency in Europe" ring a little hollow. After all, if you wanted an example of openness and transparency, you wouldn't be looking at the neocons or the US military for inspiration (or the Irish government, of course) - and the "hand in glove" thing is really quite strong - Admirals on the board, sweetheart deals, etc. Would you trust Dick Cheney if he went on a crusade for "openness and transparency"?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Valcin

dresden8 wrote: »

We know the libertas answers. It's Ganleys money for his own personal crusade, for whatever reasons.

Oh and I wasn't defending Ganley. I think he's an odious m/fer. Once again it's the hypocrisy of these tossers. Especially Roche.

I'd like to go back to a question not answered earlier. What's the big deal with his connections to the US military?

The US miltary is fighting a war in Iraq. The main countries at the heart of the EU are against this war and two of the largest, France and Germany, have been its biggest critics. There is a general anti-US foreign policy feeling at the core of the EU countries.
The US also has issues with Russia.
Its main allies in Europe have been especially the eastern european countries and the UK and Ireland(due to the use of shannon).
The Lisbon treaty unites the EU further. This brings the US allies of eastern europe and UK closer to France and Germany who have been opponents of US military action.

The Lisbon treaty is in the interest of the US from an economic viewpoint as it gives it one market to deal with and its good for business but from a strategic military view you would have to say its bad because it may lead to closer foreign policy cooperation which could go against the US. While european countries are divided the US can bully the individual small countries to do what they want. I would imagine the US have made sure that there would be consequences for ireland if we stopped letting planes land in shannon. Ireland under a stronger union of countries would much easily be able to follow the wish of the people and not allow the planes to land.

It is unbelievable how people can not think it is outrageous that someone like Ganley has arrived out of nowhere just before the referendum in ireland pushing for a no vote and we are to believe he is just doing it out of the goodness of his heart.

Why does Ganley care so much?

Ganley is CEO of Rivada, a company that makes miltary equipment for the US military. His income comes from the continuation of US military action. He received 37.3million in contracts from the US government over the last 4 years in "no bid" contests which is a loophole in the law where by no other companies are allowed to bid for the contracts. It is something to do with some loophole where Eskimo companies get contracts without anyone else being allowed to bid. The law had been changed after the Halliburton scandels but they still got them on this loophole. If you think thats conspiracy theory check it out in the Irish Times:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/newsfeatures/2008/0705/1215184125729.html

He writes for the US Foreign Policy Research Institute which is a think tank set up to push US foreign policy. Heres one of his articles:
http://www.fpri.org/enotes/20030311.ganley.europedirection.html

Someone with links that close to a foreign military should not be anywhere near a constitutional campaign in ireland.
You have to ask what do you think the US wanted in return for those contracts?

He is now dedicating himself to some rubbish campaign for "openness and transparency", who the hell would go to all the trouble hes gone to for that. Almost everything in the Libertas campaign has been proved to be absolute spoof. Serious questions need to be asked as to where the money came from, they spent more than all the politcal parties together on their spoof campaign. It is obvious as hell why he was supporting the no campaign. His links are way, way too close to the US military and the US military has way too much of a vested interest in the outcome being no for him to have any credibility.

There is a monumental difference between some gangster TD's taking some backhanders so that some property developer can get a contract to build a hotel and a referendum on our constitution being undermined by a foreign influence.

DublinWriter

Valcin wrote: »

Someone with links that close to a foreign military should not be anywhere near a constitutional campaign in ireland.

US Military Planes. Shannon. Hypocrisy? Much.

dresden8

Valcin wrote: »

The US miltary is fighting a war in Iraq. The main countries at the heart of the EU are against this war and two of the largest, France and Germany, have been its biggest critics. There is a general anti-US foreign policy feeling at the core of the EU countries.
The US also has issues with Russia.
Its main allies in Europe have been especially the eastern european countries and the UK and Ireland(due to the use of shannon).
The Lisbon treaty unites the EU further. This brings the US allies of eastern europe and UK closer to France and Germany who have been opponents of US military action.

The Lisbon treaty is in the interest of the US from an economic viewpoint as it gives it one market to deal with and its good for business but from a strategic military view you would have to say its bad because it may lead to closer foreign policy cooperation which could go against the US. While european countries are divided the US can bully the individual small countries to do what they want. I would imagine the US have made sure that there would be consequences for ireland if we stopped letting planes land in shannon. Ireland under a stronger union of countries would much easily be able to follow the wish of the people and not allow the planes to land.

It is unbelievable how people can not think it is outrageous that someone like Ganley has arrived out of nowhere just before the referendum in ireland pushing for a no vote and we are to believe he is just doing it out of the goodness of his heart.

Why does Ganley care so much?

Ganley is CEO of Rivada, a company that makes miltary equipment for the US military. His income comes from the continuation of US military action. He received 37.3million in contracts from the US government over the last 4 years in "no bid" contests which is a loophole in the law where by no other companies are allowed to bid for the contracts. It is something to do with some loophole where Eskimo companies get contracts without anyone else being allowed to bid. The law had been changed after the Halliburton scandels but they still got them on this loophole. If you think thats conspiracy theory check it out in the Irish Times:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/newsfeatures/2008/0705/1215184125729.html

He writes for the US Foreign Policy Research Institute which is a think tank set up to push US foreign policy. Heres one of his articles:
http://www.fpri.org/enotes/20030311.ganley.europedirection.html

Someone with links that close to a foreign military should not be anywhere near a constitutional campaign in ireland.
You have to ask what do you think the US wanted in return for those contracts?

He is now dedicating himself to some rubbish campaign for "openness and transparency", who the hell would go to all the trouble hes gone to for that. Almost everything in the Libertas campaign has been proved to be absolute spoof. Serious questions need to be asked as to where the money came from, they spent more than all the politcal parties together on their spoof campaign. It is obvious as hell why he was supporting the no campaign. His links are way, way too close to the US military and the US military has way too much of a vested interest in the outcome being no for him to have any credibility.

There is a monumental difference between some gangster TD's taking some backhanders so that some property developer can get a contract to build a hotel and a referendum on our constitution being undermined by a foreign influence.

So what you're saying is that the US government is conspiring to undermine democracy in Ireland and Europe by funding a Quisling organisation to disrupt the Irish political system.

If our political leaders really believe that, why are they asking that question of Ganley and not the American Ambassadors all over Europe? Why isn't Sarkozy, as President of the Union, not taking this up at the highest levels of the US government?

If the Irish government really believe we're under attack this way why hasn't the American ambassador been expelled? We're fighting for our future here Goddammit!

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

First two statements jar with the third. If you have no problem with the US military why include it like that?

If you need to selectively quote me to the extent of altering the meaning of my post, you clearly don't have much faith in the quality of your argument.

Deadeyes

dresden8 wrote: »

So what you're saying is that the US government is conspiring to undermine democracy in Ireland and Europe by funding a Quisling organisation to disrupt the Irish political system.

It's not like they haven't done it before. Overtly it's called the The National Endowment for Democracy.<tin foil hat>Covertly who knows what the C.I.A. are doing.</tin foil hat>

http://www.emayzine.com/lectures/usmeddling.htm