Town Square

Post a New Topic

Hoover Institution gets $10 million gift

Original post made on Nov 8, 2007

The Hoover Institution at Stanford University has received a $10 million gift from the Annenberg Foundation to establish a fund to study public policy development in economics, national security and foreign policy by Hoover scholars.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, November 8, 2007, 10:32 AM

Comments (43)

Posted by Stanford's Shame, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 8, 2007 at 10:58 am

Bingo! This sheds light on the Rumsfeld appointment. President Hennessy has taken the money, in exchange for letting Rumsfeld accept an honorable (now tarnished0 academic appointemtn from Hoover

Remember that Walter Annenberg was a major conservative, first made a U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain in 1969 by President Richard M. Nixon.

Annenberg was also a close friend of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

This cynical quote accompanies the Annenberg award:
""Funds from this magnificent and imaginative endowment will spawn such creative ideas that are especially new, sweeping and undeveloped. The Annenberg Strategic Initiative will allow scholars a means for taking intellectual risks in addressing new areas of inquiry with new approaches pertaining to important issues of the day."

One wonders what "new areas of inquiry" this award will allow within Hoover's hallowed halls of death.

A further quote "a new Stanford project is exploring the possibility of a world free of nuclear weapons. Hoover Fellows Sydney Drell, a physicist and nuclear weapons expert, and former Secretary of State George Shultz launched an initial conference a year ago."

This is simply amazing. Stanford (note: Drell is from Stanford) Sydney Drell, has been a long-time member of government advisory panels that deal with nuclear weapons, and other nuclear technology. He **has also endorsed the existing nuclear stockpile**, while saying we don't need to renew the current stockpile. How is Mr. Drell's position support a "world free of nuclear weapons"?

This award, at this time, smells to high heaven - certainly, much higher than a nuclear mushroom cloud can travel. The timing of this award shows the pure cynicism that exists within the executive offices at Stanford, and the executives that work within them.

Stanford is a great institution, but the current administration seems to be doing its level best to play both ends against the middle, under cynical cover of the phrase "academic freedom". If only those who have suffered (and died) under the near sociopathic hammer of Mr. Rumsfeld's cynical actions - for decades - could be here now to witness this Stanford shame.


Posted by Dr. Ferragamo, a resident of Stanford
on Nov 8, 2007 at 12:41 pm


Thank-you for the very good analysis, Stanford's Shame.

This hateful crime network really loves to rub our noses in it.

I'm not certain which they relish more: The wealth and control, or degrading, demoralizing, and dehumanizing the Little People by flaunting horrific genocidal crimes that are never punished.

In addition to funding neocon think tanks like the ADL, FPRI, CSIS, Aspen Institute; last September the Annenberg Foundation gave ten million to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation: Web Link


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 8, 2007 at 12:43 pm

Great!

The Annenburg award will help Hoover to continue to battle for the intellectual freedom that is not, otherwise, provided on the Stanford campus.

Rumsfeld is a solid appointment, and very desrving of it. I continue to hope that Rumsfeld will take time out of his schedule to debate Bernstein (one-on-one, no audience, on camera, unedited)about the Iraq war, Middle East, etc.

The real shame is that some leftists at Stanford tried (and failed miserably) to prevent Rumsfeld's appointment. Now, apparently, they are starting to whine about the Annenburg gift.


Posted by Stanford's Shame, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 8, 2007 at 12:59 pm

Gary,

There is no whining; there is only deconstructing. When that happens, transparancy let's the light of real motivation shine - unlike the metaphorical rough-hewn doors that the Bush administration, in this case led by Rumsfeld, that keep us from knowing what horrors have gone on (and continue to go on) behind closed doors, in our name.

Stanford's honoring of Donald Rumsfeld honor's the man, and ALL he has done. We disagree on the latter. I'm sure that dead innocents, and those maimed by psychological and physical torture (including some of our own, in retaliation for what we have done) would find issue with your stance.

Does the phrase "habeus corpus" mean anything to you? Are you aware of its significance as a core component of the Western tradition of individual rights?

I would like to know how your support of Rumsfeld's actions square with the very underpinnings of the US Constitution. I would further question your remarks about Stanford, where there was an outcry that was significant, given the size of the student body.

I'm disappointed in Stanford's leadership, who has sold out some of the high crown jewels of non-relative ethics, in service to the cynical ethics of short-term advantage.

There is no way to effectivelt debate the merits of an ethical stance, short term. History will judge Mr. Rumsfeld, and his enablers, including Stanford's now-tarnished President, John Hennessy.


Posted by Dr. Ferragamo, a resident of Stanford
on Nov 8, 2007 at 1:20 pm


The Hoover Institute is also harboring General John Abizaid, the man responsible for the Fallujah genocide.

But even more perplexing to me is EXACTLY WHO pulled the strings that landed John Yoo a desireable position as a law professor at Berkeley's Boalt Hall.

In case you don't recall, John Yoo is believed to have authored the infamous torture memos while working for the President's Office of Legal Council. Yoo also works for the neocon think tank American Enterprise Institute, home to Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Michael Ledeen, Fred Kagan, Irving Kristol, David "Axis of Evil" Frum, Michael Rubin, et al.




Posted by Not Dr Ferragamo, a resident of Woodside
on Nov 8, 2007 at 1:52 pm

I hear that the real brains behind the Hoover Institute and the American Enterprise Institute is Saudi Arabia and there local front man, Dr Ferragamo


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 8, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Oh, that "d' word, deconstruction. It was rampant in the 60s-70s. Very lefty trendy. The underlying assumptions, as deciphered by...who else...those who use the term. Intellectual masturbation is another definition.

Rumsfeld was part of the team that liberated Iraq from Saddam. If Iraq achieves freedom, he will get a lot of the historical credit. Of course, Bush will get more, and the neocons will be seen as the realists who pushed the policy.

The U.S. Constituion is alive and well.

There was no "significant outcry" against Rumsfeld. That silly petition, which gained only about 4000 signatures was not limited to current Stanford students. It was aimed at the "Stanford community", which is more than 180,000 strong. It was a pathetic response.

Rumsfeld and Bush are the ethical players in this drama. Watch and learn.


Posted by Peter, a resident of another community
on Nov 8, 2007 at 2:31 pm

Rumsfeld and Bush have the same concept of ethics as Atilla the Hun.


Posted by Stanford's Shame, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 8, 2007 at 2:59 pm

Gary, there is "Deconstruction" per the literary movement (it was at its peak in the 80's-90's, btw), and "deconstruction" per the dissembling of lies, deceit, an cynical cover of a torture-monger under the rbric of free speech.

Since when do ethical players approve of torture, and the suspension fo habeus corpus - in AMERICA?

Somehow, your heros seem not too far removed from those they decry. We all have a little of Hitler, Saddam, Stalin, and Mao in us - given the right conditions.

Perhaps the leader of America, and the leader of Stanford University, should be sensitive to that, and not enable actions that bring us closer to realizing those tendencies?


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 8, 2007 at 4:35 pm

SS,

Bush has not approved of torture.

Where do you lefties come up with this habeus corpus stuff?

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that President Bush has the authority to detain Padilla without charges. The Supreme Court may have another answer, but that is one we have now.

Are there any intelligent criticisms of Rumsfeld or Hoover out there in leftyland?


Posted by Patriot, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Nov 8, 2007 at 4:44 pm

Gary, Holding a person without charges, for an indefinite period of time, without access to an attorney, is in fact a suspension of habeus corpus.

for your edification, and education:
Web Link

You might be surprised at the number of conservatives and moderates who feel this way. It's very comfortable - and a non-thinking debate strategy - to label one's opponent. How about showing us something of the intelligence you claim is missing, in your _defense_ of Rumsfeld.

Is waterboarding - a favored Rumsfeld field "interrogation" tactic, torture, or not?

If not, why not?




Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 8, 2007 at 5:25 pm

Patriot,

Review the 4th Circuit opinion. It was quite aware of your Wikipedia definition. Lincoln definitely suspended HC, and nobody denies that. However, Bush has not (unless the Supreme Court says otherwise).

If waterboarding was torture, then USN Seals would have been subjected to torture on a routine basis, during their training. If the U.S. Congress wants to define waterboarding as torture, they can do so. But they have not, probably because they understand how effective it is in getting valuable intelligence, on a selective basis. In reality such enhanced interrogation methods have been used sparingly. A reasonably balanced artilce, by Brian Ross (ABC News), puts it in perspective:

Web Link

I am still waiting for an intelligent response about Rumsfeld at Hoover.


Posted by Dr. Ferragamo, a resident of Stanford
on Nov 8, 2007 at 5:28 pm


Because our media kingpins have concealed the truth about waterboarding, I'm posting an excerpt describing this torture:

Web Link

"The practice involves strapping the person being interrogated on to a board as pints of water are forced into his lungs through a cloth covering his face while the victim's mouth is forced open. Its effect, according to Mr Nance, is a process of slow-motion suffocation.

Typically, a victim goes into hysterics on the board as water fills his lungs. "How much the victim is to drown," Mr Nance wrote in an article for the Small Wars Journal, "depends on the desired result and the obstinacy of the subject.

"A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience to horrific, suffocating punishment, to the final death spiral. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch."


Posted by Patriot, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Nov 8, 2007 at 6:46 pm

Gary, I am still waiting for an intelligent response about waterboarding.

Here one intelligent definition.
Web Link

Please disagree with that.

Further, I suggest you volunteer for a waterboarding simulation, and see then wether your abstract idealization of same is - shall we say - a "scary enough experience" to constitute torture.

Rumsfeld approved waterboarding, and used the power of his boss to call it something else.

You are living nin the land of Orwell's work on propaganda if you believe otherwise.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 8, 2007 at 6:55 pm

Every now and then it is worth looking at some real torture. The following link provides some Saddam versions of it. Don't worry, the link will not expose you, directly, to reality, but you can follow links that are provided to get a grip on why Rumsfeld/Bush/CIA/neocons are among the real moral players in this drama.

Web Link

When am I gonna get some real challenges? This is boring.




Posted by D, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 9, 2007 at 12:48 pm

Gary,
Your link is broken.
In any case, go back to Bush's 2003 State of the Union. He denounced what went on in Saddam Hussein's torture chambers. He said "If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning." And then after the invasion, Rumsfeld moved the man in charge of the Guantanamo facility, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, to Abu Ghraib to "Gitmoize" the operation there. Among the procedures inflicted upon detainees were some of the same ones that Bush railed against in his State of the Union.


What's really disappointing is your need to reduce everything to black-and-white. The world is not that simple -- it never has been, and 9/11 didn't change that fact. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a "leftist" or "silly". Name-calling will get you nowhere.


Posted by sue, a resident of College Terrace
on Nov 9, 2007 at 1:01 pm


refreshing that the grant will enable the battle against the aging anti

American pro UN bias on campus




Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 9, 2007 at 1:24 pm

D,

The link that I provided on Saddam version of torture works fine on my computer. Maybe you don't have the proper software to run videos.

D., somehow figure out how to watch what Saddam was about, in a huge way. Your whining aout Bush is childish.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 9, 2007 at 1:28 pm

D,

The link that I provided on Saddam,s version of torture works fine on my computer. Maybe you don't have the proper software to run videos.

D., somehow figure out how to watch what Saddam was about, in a huge way. Your whining aout Bush is childish.


Posted by Patriot, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Nov 9, 2007 at 1:43 pm

Gary, we all know that Saddam was a living demon, and got what was coming to him. Strop hiding behind Saddam,

I am still waiting for your intelligent response about waterboarding.

Here one intelligent definition.

Web Link

Please disagree with that.

Is waterboarding torture, or is it not?

Looks like you're hiding behind the "boring" card to avoid an answer. Let's have it.


Posted by Patriot, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Nov 9, 2007 at 1:44 pm

Gary here's the link
Web Link


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 9, 2007 at 1:59 pm

Patriot,

Your web link did not come up for me. I will check it out, if it works.

Waterboarding is very stressful. Some think it is too stressful. It doesn't kill them or leave any marks, so I wouldn't call it torture. It IS a form of extreme psychological stress. It is used sparingly, by the CIA, to overcome some initial stubborness
for high value targets.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is reported to have sung like a canary after waterboarding. See the following link for some discussion about this creep:

Web Link

If, as many of your stripe say, that torture does not work, and waterboarding does work, then waterboarding cannot be torture. Or are you saying that torture does work, Patriot? If so, we can than begin a discussion on what forms of torture can be used, under what circumstances.




Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 9, 2007 at 2:04 pm

Patriot,

Your web link did not come up for me. I will check it out, if it works.

Waterboarding is very stressful. Some think it is too stressful. It doesn't kill them or leave any marks, so I wouldn't call it torture. It IS a form of extreme psychological stress. It is used sparingly, by the CIA, to overcome some initial stubborness
for high value targets.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is reported to have sung like a canary after waterboarding (after he had resisted all other techniques used to that point). See the following link for some discussion about this creep:

Web Link

If, as many of your stripe say, that torture does not work, and waterboarding does work, then waterboarding cannot be torture. Or, are you saying that torture does work, Patriot? If so, we can than begin a discussion on what forms of torture can be used, under what circumstances.

This one, possibly, does get interesting to me...if you are up to it.




Posted by sue, a resident of College Terrace
on Nov 9, 2007 at 2:27 pm



Waterboarding is not torture as it does not kill or cripple.

it is part of the escape and evasion training for our troops.

Consider the fate of many inmates in state prison-- they are raped and

beaten by other prisoners all the time-- we know this, we do not call it torture and there is no huge protest about it.

Maybe we should just place terrorists among state prisoners for a

while until they tell us what we need to know?

and threaten others with this option.


Posted by Patriot, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Nov 9, 2007 at 2:35 pm

Gary,

"It causes some stress?" Isn't it fun to parse meaning when it's not your lungs that are taking water?

Here's the link, again, with a following quote from the source:
Web Link
"Waterboarding is a torture technique that simulates drowning in a controlled environment. It consists of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face[1] to force the inhalation of water into the lungs.[2] Waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate. In contrast to merely submerging the head, waterboarding elicits the gag reflex,[3] and can make the subject believe death is imminent. "

you say:
"If, as many of your stripe say, that torture does not work, and waterboarding does work, then waterboarding cannot be torture"

Another false conclusion, as Saddam tortured many persons who wouldn't collaborate to implicate associates, or family. His torture therefore didn't work in those instances; thus, following your logic, his torture wasn't torture, because it didn't work.

What's happening here is that you are one of many who are apparently ignorant of what torture is, or does - which is entirely unlike what Donald Rumsfeld knew, and enabled.

I wonder how many "payback" deaths of innocents we are experiencing right now, as "payback" for AG, and our ill-fated march into Bagdhad with too few troops, as Rummy's request.

Rumsfeld was/is a very, very smart bureaucratic hack who has never been held accountable for the harm that he has done. He failed, and caused unneccessary death and misery.

That Stanford is not only harboring this sociopathic hack, but *honoring* him, is a blight on Stanford, and Palo Alto - as we are closely tied to Stanford in the minds of outsiders.

What's sad about all this is that Bush and Rumsfeld and their very weak intellect AT, Gonzalez, knew very well what torture was/is.

Instead of simply saying that "we are going to torture people, if necessary"; they have tried to lower the torture bar to a place where only a bsolute near-death experiences csan be considered torture.

What they have tried to do is *normalize* a series of torture beahviors that every civilized nation on earth agrees is, in fact, torture.

The Geneva Concentions classify waterboarding as torture.

Bush and company did what any administration would have done after 9/11; they went after the perpetrators.

The difference *after* that was the gross manipulation and instigation of fear that they managed to impant in the consciousness of Americans, for the cyncial purpose of using the energy of this great nation to wreak havoc in the Middle East in a way that has (and will) cost us FAR more than we will every get from it.




Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 9, 2007 at 4:04 pm

"According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess."

Web Link

Let's see here...the CIA torture themselves, right? I think Sue (above) is right...put them in an American prison, as opposed to the country club at gitmo...they will talk within a week.

"Saddam tortured many persons who wouldn't collaborate to implicate associates, or family. His torture therefore didn't work in those instances; thus, following your logic, his torture wasn't torture, because it didn't work."

No, Patriot, false assumptions don't provide true conclusions. Saddam was able to stay in power, because his torture and threats of torutre, DID work! He, like Stalin, used torture as a common technique to discover his enemies. How do you know that there were many people that withstood torture, and didn't give up their associates? Just because they survived, and then say as much, doesn't mean that they did as much. It is much more likely that they are alive becasue they gave in under torture...the few who did not are dead. Very naive, Patriot.

Even Alan Deshowitz thinks there are times when actual torture (fingernail dislodging stuff)are justified. KSM was turned into a canary by much milder methods. The CIA deserves a lot of credit for applying the various techniques that work on high value targets. Who knows how many lives were saved by pressuring this creep (who was a college student in the U.S., btw).

"The Geneva Concentions classify waterboarding as torture."

Really? Where?


Posted by Patriot, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Nov 9, 2007 at 5:11 pm

""According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in."

And that's not torture?


Posted by sue, a resident of College Terrace
on Nov 9, 2007 at 5:25 pm

patriot??


Look- in ww2 we killed 100s of thousands of innocent German and

Japanese civilians through fire bombing cities to win the war and you

are worried about a trivial interrogation technique like water

boarding----simulated drowning ----that the terrorist can stop at any

time by telling us what we need to know to save American lives,

innocent AMERICAN lives

Who's side are you on in this war?





Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 9, 2007 at 6:35 pm

No, Patriot, that is effective interrogation. Most interrogators would not subject themselves to torture. It is not prolonged, and it is very effective...and it is seldom used. When we get a guy like KSM, it is too easy on him...but it got him to sing, and that is the important thing. This is war, Patriot, in case you have not noticed.

Please provide that Geneva Convention article that specifically prohibits waterboarding.


Posted by Sad, a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Nov 9, 2007 at 10:43 pm

I thought the US stood for something--that we were different than countries that mistreated their people. Now we have a single terrorist attack and we turn into some kind of monster--torturing people, jettisoning our constitution etc.
i am not sure how the US will ever be able to tell countries like China, Sudan etc that they need to observe basic human rights when we so quickly got rid of any sfaeguards on human rights because of a single terrorist incident.
This is very sad indeed.


Posted by Patriot, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Nov 10, 2007 at 12:25 am

Article 3 describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed conflict not of an international character "(regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3's protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war. Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of GCIII."

Web Link

How does waterboarding pass this test?

Further, what saddens me is the fact that torture is known to regularly result in false information, as the recipient of torture will say anything to stop the pain.

Our stooping to torture and degredation also emboldens our enemies,and puts our own troops in harm's way if they are captured. **This was the rationale behind the Geneva Conventions**

There is no way that Gary and others who agree with the Bush legacy will change their minds, as they are already tortured souls sho project their own suffering to a convenient enemy. There is no human being who would condone torture as policy, otherwise.

There probably *are* situations where an argument for torture could be made, but to blithly act as though taking another's right to breathe away for a period of time, in a way that makes the recipient of that action think that s/he is going to die, is anything other than torture, is itself a tortured representation of the truth delivered by those who are comfortable with lies.

There is simply no other way to say it.

Gary and others have still not answered my question, which does not surprise.

It's not about whether torture happens, it's about the Orwellian nightmare of having policy makers lower the bar of acceptable behavior in a way that endangers even those who we send out to fight for our rights. That's the sin, and evil, that Rumsfeld helped to promulgate.

"Sad", above, makes the point. Now where do we stand when we complain about the violation of human rights by others. Bush and Rumsfeld are traitors to our constitution, as they have weakened what we stand for, even as they (sincerely) believe they are doing the right thing.

History, in this day of fast communication, has already begun to judge Bush and his cronies harshly. Thank goodness for that.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 10, 2007 at 9:19 am

Common Article 3 (Geneva Convention):

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed 'hors de combat' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

--

Leaving aside that Al Queda are ineleigle for Geneva Convention protections, because they are illegal combatants (non-uniformed), the only listed prohibition that might apply to waterboarding is "torture".

Waterboarding is used as a training technique in our own military and our own CIA subject themselves to it. If it is to be defined as torture, then it means that it must be pulled from current training techniues, right? Along those lines, should boot camp be defined as torture, because it violates many of the listed Article 3 prohibitions (especially making the soldiers-in-training take off their gas masks in the presence of toxic gases)?

I see waterboarding as a technique that can be effective in certain situations. The CIA, apprently, only uses it for high value targets where time sensitivity is an issue. What, may I ask, should be done, Patriot, when lives are on the line, and immediate information is necessary? The KSA case is a good example.


Posted by King Solomon, a resident of Stanford
on Nov 10, 2007 at 10:15 am


The crime network, who are responsible for the staging the 9/11 attack and blamed it on Muslims, are also behind the 9/11 coverup.

This crime network is also responsible for WMD lies, the War on Muslims, and the deaths of millions of Iraqis.

Don't hope for a second that these murderous thugs are not eager to dish out much worse treatment to Americans.


Posted by Not Dr Ferragamo, a resident of Stanford
on Nov 10, 2007 at 1:34 pm

King Solomon aka Dr Ferragamo strikes again--I think we know who he is eluding to when he talks about a "crime network".
Even though I am not a Bush supporter and abhor the actions of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, I know that 9/11 was carried out by a muslim extremist group called Al Qeida--the evidence is conclusive.


Posted by sue, a resident of College Terrace
on Nov 10, 2007 at 3:56 pm




The greatest crime we could commit would be to lose the war on terror



Posted by Intellectual Freedom, a resident of Midtown
on Nov 11, 2007 at 7:38 am

The whole point of the Annenberg Foundation is to "advance public well-being through improved communication". This is a 10 million dollar grant to an institution that is part of promoting the free exchange of ideas.

Thus, assuming this is what happened, it makes total sense to wait to award the grant to Hoover until after it is clear that Stanford still supports true intellectual freedom. If the president had caved to the demands of a few to not hire Rumsfeld, I would have been shocked if Annenberg would waste its hopes and money on Hoover. It would have proved that is part of an institution that has lost its purpose.


Posted by What-A-Crock, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 11, 2007 at 7:42 pm

> The Hoover Institute is also harboring General
> John Abizaid, the man responsible for the
> Fallujah genocide

What a crock!


Posted by Just Wondering, a resident of Barron Park
on Nov 11, 2007 at 10:04 pm

It crossed my mind that this could be more long-term planning by the GOP to indoctrinate the folks on the left-coast to their style of thinking... and in particular, to get those electoral college votes that are so precious.


Posted by Mike, a resident of another community
on Dec 1, 2007 at 12:04 pm

The director of the Hoover Institution violated protocol in order to get Rumsfeld the position, and thereby entice the big contribution, and I expect he (the director) will be on thin ice from this day forward. He put the president in an impossible situation, and has seriously damaged the reputation of the University and jeopardized the status of the Institution. Rumsfeld, for whatever reasons, oversaw the deaths of a million Iraqis, and the creation of millions of refugees, not to mention the torture and possible war crimes. It is a massive record of incompetence, politics aside, and the man has no business being called "distinguished" by one of the world's most distinguished universities.
Rumsfeld, for Stanford, should be a subject of research, not someone deserving of near-faculty status.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 1, 2007 at 1:47 pm

Iraq is well along its way to liberation. Don Rumsfeld should be hailed as one of its liberators. Hoover Instituion has provided an opportunity for Rumsfeld to contibute to the history and understanding of this liberation. If only Stanford could have been so far-sighted....


Posted by Stanford's Shame, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 1, 2007 at 2:21 pm

Iraq is well along its way to liberation"...from democracy.

Thanks, Rummy


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 1, 2007 at 2:30 pm

Shame,

Despite your best efforts, nobody is going to believe that Saddam ran a democracy. However, your belief that he did is music to my ears. Only goes to show how twisted leftist thinking tries to revise history.

Rumsfeld will have an easy time confronting such nonsensical arguments. Stanford is in for a real treat.


Posted by Rummy is Sticky, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 1, 2007 at 3:16 pm

"Stanford is in for a real treat"

Guaranteed, Rummy is a sticky guy.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

The dress code
By Jessica T | 21 comments | 1,951 views

September food and drink goings on
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 1,364 views

. . . People will never forget how you made them feel.
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,287 views

Two Days to Save This Dog?
By Cathy Kirkman | 15 comments | 1,256 views

It Depends... Disguising Real Characters in Fiction
By Nick Taylor | 0 comments | 409 views