Year: 2007
Obama Pulls a Biden
Harbinger? Come on, Barack, we thought you were smarter and better than that:
Despite the mea culpa, Obama’s gaffe caused no break in the media gushing over his budding candidacy.
If Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John Kerry or Joe Biden had said that American lives lost in Iraq were “wasted,†a media firestorm would have erupted.
And yet there was Sen. Barack Obama, just 24 hours after his presidential campaign announcement over the weekend, saying the nation had “seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.â€
Immediately following his off-the-cuff remark during an Iowa town hall meeting — and after huddling with horrified aides — the Illinois Democrat told the Des Moines Register that he regretted his choice of words, and wished he had instead said “their sacrifices are never wasted.â€
Despite the mea culpa, Obama’s gaffe caused no break in the media gushing over his budding candidacy. But if he does win the nomination, expect Republicans to play that tape over and over, arguing that it shows a lack of respect for soldiers who gave the ultimate sacrifice.
Bush Caught on Tape Lying about 2003 SOTU ’16 Words’ – Media Yawns
Pres. Bush with then-U.N. chief Kofi Annan addressing reporters in the Oval Office on July 14, 2003.
Prevaricator-in-Chief: The media is ignoring the revelation yesterday that it was Vice Pres. Cheney who knowingly inserted a false statement about Iraq’s nuclear program into the 2003 State of the Union speech.
They are also apparently uninterested in reporting that both Pres. Bush and his spokesman Scott McClellan lied on the record in July 2003 about how the infamous 16-word statement — “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” — came to be included in the speech.
Cook: Hillary the Dem to Beat in ’08
Handicapping the race: National Journal’s political analyst Charlie Cook muses on the effect that Barak Obama’s entry into the presidential race will have on Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Seems he thinks it’s not much:
Obama could be just one more of the alternatives whom Democrats disinclined to support Clinton could choose from.
Part of me hated to see Barack Obama jump into the presidential race. Don’t get me wrong: I have nothing against the senator from Illinois. But I had a theory about how the contest for the Democratic nomination would play out, and I worried that Obama’s entry could complicate things.
My theory was that the race would largely be a referendum on Hillary Rodham Clinton and on whether her party thinks she could win the general election. Virtually every Democratic voter knows her, and up to 83 percent have a favorable opinion of her. If they decide she can win, I reasoned, most would vote for her. It would come down to whether they see her as a winner.
So, this theory goes, the Democratic nomination contest would amount to two NCAA-style brackets. The top bracket would be the Hillary Clinton bracket. She would be the only one in it, and she would get byes all the way to the final. All of the other candidates would be in the second bracket, competing with one another.
Eventually, someone would emerge as the alternative to Clinton, most likely after the Iowa caucuses. Former Sen. John Edwards, I figured, had the best chance to become the un-Hillary because he is better-known than the rest and has a head start in Iowa.
[…]
Quote du Jour
We are the tools and vassals of the rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks; they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.
— John Swinton (1830-1901), Editor of the New York Sun, replying to the toast “An independent press,” at a journalists’ gathering, Twilight Club, New York, April 12, 1893
Joint Chiefs Chair Denies Bush Officials’ Iran Weapons Claim
Red-handed: Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace has quashed a story put out by anonymous Bush officials yesterday purporting that the government of Iran was supplying weapons to Shi’ite insurgents in Iraq:
We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran. What I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se [specifically], knows about this,†he said. “It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it’s clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit.
It’s good for the republic, though tragically too late, that a general is finally calling the president on his bullshit.
Quote du Jour
But what is war? What is needed for success in warfare? What are the habits of the military? The aim of war is murder; the methods of war are spying, treachery and their encouragement, the ruins of a country’s inhabitants, robbing them or stealing to provision the army, and fraud and falsehood termed military craft. The habits of the military class are the absence of freedom, that is, discipline, idleness, ignorance, cruelty, debauchery and drunkenness. And in spite of all this, it is the highest class, respected by everyone … and he who kills the most people receives the highest rewards.
— Count Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy (1821-1910), Russian writer
Former Bush Official Says Admininstration Is Deliberately Provoking Iran
This one is on the record:
“They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for,†says Hillary Mann, former Bush national security official.
Some view the spiraling attacks as a strand in a worrisome pattern. At least one former White House official contends that some Bush advisers secretly want an excuse to attack Iran. “They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for,” says Hillary Mann, the administration’s former National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs.
U.S. officials insist they have no intention of provoking or otherwise starting a war with Iran, and they were also quick to deny any link to Sharafi’s kidnapping. But the fact remains that the longstanding war of words between Washington and Tehran is edging toward something more dangerous.
A second Navy carrier group is steaming toward the Persian Gulf, and NEWSWEEK has learned that a third carrier will likely follow. Iran shot off a few missiles in those same tense waters last week, in a highly publicized test.
With Americans and Iranians jousting on the chaotic battleground of Iraq, the chances of a small incident’s spiraling into a crisis are higher than they’ve been in years.
Whispering Campaign Against Iran Grows
The mainstream media has reached a new low in failing their sole mission to give us information we need to make good decisions. Instead, they are reporting the carefully assembled “facts” about Iran’s involvement in Iraq without questioning — or even naming — the source. Here’s the lead to an ABC story:
“The officer briefed reporters on condition he not be further identified…” Huh?
High-tech roadside bombs that have proved particularly deadly to American soldiers are manufactured in Iran and delivered to Iraq on orders from the “highest levels” of the Iranian government, a senior intelligence officer said Sunday.
The officer, briefing reporters on condition he not be further identified, said that between June 2004 and last week, more than 170 Americans had been killed by the bombs, which the military calls “explosively formed projectiles.”
Those weapons are capable of destroying an Abrams tank.
The officer said American intelligence analysts believe the EFPs are manufactured in Iran and smuggled into Iraq on orders from the top of the Iranian government. He did not elaborate.
Who is this mystery “senior intelligence officer” and why on earth would we accept his information without demanding his identity? What possible reason is there to keep his identity secret? And who has the greater need? Mr. X, to get out his information? Or the press, to reveal it to us? I’d wager their need to put this out is much greater than ours to get it, especially since they are making sure we can’t judge its accuracy.
Have we not learned any lessons about the miserable mistake of letting the Bush administration spoon-feed us their version of the facts, and what happens when the press rolls over and becomes mere transcribers? Can you say, “Here we go again?”
