Year: 2008

Bill Blames Hillary’s Screw Ups About Bosnia on Being Tired at Night. What About 3 a.m.?

Trish

Bill just keeps making things worse for Team Hillary. In explaining how she got it wrong on Bosnia, he himself is also inaccurate on almost every detail.

But here’s the capper: Bill keeps saying Hillary screwed up because it was 11 p.m. and she was tired. Excuse me? Someone who twice hung her entire campaign on her acumen, hypervigilance, and superior ability to respond after being awakened at 3 in the morning in the White House was brain dead at 11 at night on the campaign trail in Pennsylvania? Except it wasn’t 11 at night.

ABC’s Jake Tapper could find hardly anything correct in the former president’s explanation. First is Bill’s version, followed by what really happened, according to Tapper’s fact check.

Excuse me? Someone who twice hung her entire campaign on her acumen, hypervigilance, and superior ability to respond after being awakened at 3 in the morning in the White House was brain dead at 11 at night on the campaign trail?

Former President Bill Clinton offered this bit of revisionist history of his wife’s Bosnia story in Jasper, Ind., today, one riddled with a veritable sniper fire of errors.

“She took a terrible beating in the press for a few days,” he said, per ABC News’ Sarah Amos, “because she was exhausted at 11 o’clock at night (1) and she started talking about Bosnia and she misstated the circumstances under which she landed in Bosnia. (2)

“Did you all see all that? And oh, they acted like she was practically Mata Hari,” he said — referring to the Dutch exotic dancer accused by the French of spying for the Germans and executed by a firing squad during World War I — “like she was making up all this stuff.

“And then the president of Bosnia said, ‘Well, it was quite dangerous when she came, there were snipers in the hills all around,’ (3) And then Gen. Wes Clarke, who was there trying to make the peace among the Bosnians, said ‘Yeah, it was dangerous, let me remind you three of the Americans who were on my peace-keeping team were killed because they had to take a dangerous road ’cause they couldn’t go the regular way.’

[…]

Poll: Bush’s Approval Remains Stupendously High at 28% in New AP-Ipsos Survey

Jon Ponder

Although 28 percent is the lowest rating George Bush has received in the AP-Ipsos poll, it is still remarkably high for a president whose signal accomplishments in seven years and three months in office have been turning the entire world against the United States, needlessly causing the deaths of over 4,000 U.S. troops and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens, emptying the U.S. Treasury and staving off impeachment.

With Bush’s record of zero achievements, it is a miracle that over 25 percent of Americans — 100 percent of whom are Republicans — can yet muster approval of good ol’ George. But, as is typical of the liberal media, the AP writer sees the glass half-empty for Worst President Ever:

Public approval of President Bush has reached a new low in the Associated Press-Ipsos poll, driven by dissatisfaction with his handling of the economy.

A survey released Thursday showed just 28 percent approve of the overall job he is doing. His previous record low in the poll was 30 percent last month.

In another record low, only 27 percent are happy with his job on the economy, which threatens to enter a recession.

Other presidents have had low approval ratings that were nonetheless amazingly high, of course. Richard Nixon was still garnering a 25 percent approval rating at the time of his resignation in August 1974, for example.

Gov. Siegelman: ‘Karl Rove’s Fingerprints Were All Over’ My Conviction on Trumped up Political Charges

Jon Ponder

“Saying that Karl Rove is not involved in my prosecution is like saying George Bush is not involved in the war in Iraq,” former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman told Dan Abrams on the MSNBC show, “The Verdict,” on Monday. It was Siegelman’s first live interview after being released on bail from prison, where he was serving a seven-year term on federal corruption charges.

“I think the House and Senate Judiciary Committee should subpoena Karl Rove and bring him before those committees.”
– SiegelmanSiegelman, a Democrat, was convicted by a jury on charges that he traded a seat on a state board for a donation to the state education lottery. Siegelman insists that “not a penny of that money” went into his own pocket (and we can assume that if prosecutors had found otherwise, we’d know it by now). So, on the face of it, the quid pro quo here is far less corrupt than when a newly elected president gives a major donor an ambassadorship to, say, Luxembourg — a trade off that happens approximately every four years in this country.

Seigelman insists Karl Rove masterminded the prosecution by U.S. Attorneys from the political office in the White House in an effort to suppress the Democratic Party in Alabama:

ABRAMS: How are you so convinced that Karl Rove and Alabama Republicans were behind your prosecution?

SIEGELMAN: Well, number one, Karl Rove‘s fingerprints were all over this case. And you know, if you ask me, do we have the knife with his fingerprints on it, no, but we‘ve got the glove and the glove fits. And here‘s how.

In 1994, when Karl Rove was in Alabama trying to steal his first election, I voluntarily testified against his client. In 1999, his client starts an investigation of me and this goes on until 2001 when Bill Canary, who is a business associate and political partner of Karl Rove, his wife is appointed as a U.S. attorney and she starts a federal investigation.

ABRAMS: … You‘re alleging that Rove talks to his friend, who‘s that Bill Canary who‘s married to the U.S. attorney and it‘s a serious allegation you‘re making that he then effectively gets his wife to go after you?

SIEGELMAN: Well, I‘m telling you, the facts of this are that Rove‘s fingerprints are all over here – all over this case because his client investigated me, one of his friends, social friends started an investigation and prosecution of me that was dismissed after just a couple of days in court.

They went after me again, this time with the wife of Bill Canary—the wife of Karl Rove‘s business client and political associate. And, you know, it continues from there. When those investigations were faltering, the people who were holding back the investigation, a career Department of Justice employee was replaced, was replaced with someone who was the wife of the campaign manager of one of Karl Rove‘s clients … And then when that investigation was slowing down, they were called to Washington and they were told to go at Siegelman again.

Siegelman says Rove has strong connections into Alabama Republican politics:

[…]

Cheney, Rice, Powell and Other Top Bush Officials Said to Have ‘Choreographed’ Torture Techniques

Jon Ponder

ABC News is reporting that a gang of top Bush officials known as the “Principals” — but for whom a better moniker might be the “Sadists” — met, starting in 2002, to prescribe in detail which torture techniques, and what combinations, American interorogators could use on terror suspects.
The high-level discussions about these “enhanced interrogation techniques” were so detailed [that] some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed — down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.
At the time, the Principals included Dick Cheney, National Security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and John Ashcroft, a devout Christian who then served as U.S. attorney general.

What this group of high officials did in these meetings appears to have been not only horrifically immoral and unethical, but illegal and un-Constitutional:

In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News.

The so-called Principals who participated in the meetings also approved the use of “combined” interrogation techniques — using different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time — on terrorist suspects who proved difficult to break, sources said.

Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects — whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.

The high-level discussions about these “enhanced interrogation techniques” were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed — down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.

All of these officials — these suspects — were unavailable or refused to comment when contacted by ABC News.

Torture is illegal in the United States, and it can’t be made legal by a cabal around George Bush, or any president, just because they say so. Or at least that’s the way it used to be, back in the quaint old times before 2000, when Americans — especially Republicans — demanded that our elected leaders abide by the U.S. Constitution.

Poll: Obama, McCain Tied

Trish

Rasmussen’s daily presidential poll took an interesting turn today.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows Barack Obama with a statistically insignificant one-point advantage over John McCain, 46% to 45%. While that lead is statistically insignificant, it is the first time Obama has had any advantage over McCain in a month…

While that lead is statistically insignificant, it is the first time Obama has had any advantage over McCain in a month

In a match-up with Hillary Clinton, McCain attracts 47% of the vote while Clinton earns 44%. McCain has a very slight edge over Clinton among unaffiliated voters but trails Obama 49% to 39% among that key group. McCain leads both Democrats by double digits among White voters but trails by large margins among African-American voters. Rasmussen Markets data shows that Democrats are given a 59.2 % chance of winning the White House this year.

McCain is viewed favorably by 53% and unfavorably by 44%. Obama’s reviews are 53% favorable and 45% unfavorable. For Clinton, those numbers are 45% favorable, 52% unfavorable.

Today’s numbers might be influenced by yesterday’s Petraeus/Crocker hearings, at which Sen. John McCain again had a hard time getting his arms around the differences between those darn Sunnis and Shiites. The hearings also reminded voters that six months ago, Sen. Hillary Clinton dissed Petraeus by saying she’d have to suspend disbelief to believe him, which I think, is another way of saying she doesn’t believe him which might, when you think about, be a way to say he’s lying.

McCain’s Sunni-Shia Confusion: Senility or Bushevik Conflation?

Jon Ponder

During his questioning of Gen. David Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings yesterday, John McCain again confused — or deliberately conflated — the relationship between the Iranian regime, which is controlled exclusively by Shiites, and al Qaeda, a Sunni terror cult.

Here’s what McCain said:

SEN. MCCAIN: There are numerous threats to security in Iraq and the future of Iraq. Do you still view al Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat?

GEN. PETRAEUS: It is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was, say, 15 months ago.

SEN. MCCAIN: Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shi’ites, all overall, or Sunnis or anybody else.

McCain’s confusion/conflation yesterday was the fifth time he’s made the mistake, according to an email sent out by the Democratic National Committee yesterday. If so, the first error may have been a slip of the tongue. The second time could have been misspeaking. The third may have been a brain fart. But the fourth time he confused Shias and Sunnis was simply egregious, and this fifth time may well be presenting for senile dementia.

On the other hand, Republicans have been talking up a purported threat from Iran whenever possible lately, and the Petraeus/Crocker hearings provided an excellent venue for fear-baiting. So maybe McCain was not confused at all. Maybe he has deliberately conflating Shiite Iran with its bitter Sunni enemies in order keep the GOP base too terrified to think rationally about, say, how Republican economic policies have devastated their family finances.

While the difference between the Islamic sects is obscure to most Americans, as it was to George Bush before he invaded Iraq, Shiites and Sunnis have been bitterly at odds for the better part of 12 centuries, and voters must demand that the next president have a comprehensive understanding of the blood lust of these internecine factions, which is at the core of the violence faced by U.S. occupation forces in the region.

No Impeachment Or War Crimes Charges For Bush – Only ‘Punishment’ Will Be Treatment in Oliver Stone Biopic

Jon Ponder

What fate will befall George W. Bush as retribution for leading the United States into the worst debacle in our military history, illegally authorizing torture, deliberately betraying a secret CIA operation tracking the black market for terror weapons or the drowning of New Orleans on his watch?

It’s safe to say it won’t be impeachment, at least not while he remains in office, and it is surely wishful thinking to suggest he might be tried for war crimes later on.

No, as it was with Richard Nixon, whose malfeasance pales in comparison with Bush’s, the only “punishment” awaiting Bush is to grow old in disgrace — and to be the subject of a fictionalized biographical film by Oliver Stone.

Hollywood is buzzing about the film, which is titled “W.” (pronounced “Dubya”), starting with the fact that Josh Brolin, son of James Brolin, the spouse of uber-liberal Barbra Streisand, has been signed to play the title character. Now the film-biz trade rag Hollywood Reporter has obtained the first couple of pages of the script for Stone’s movie, which in the real world might be be called a “scoop” but in this town it is called, “promotion”:

Even before a single talent deal was signed or locations scouted, Oliver Stone’s “W” was hotter than a Texas afternoon in July. Conservative pundits were ready to pounce on the provocateur for what they said was agenda-driven filmmaking, while Stone and his partners said they were simply telling the story of the Bush White House without varnish or sugar-coating.

As Stephen Galloway and Matthew Belloni report in THR today, both turn out to be right — sort of. According to four Bush scholars who read a draft of the script, the tale has elements that are unquestionably accurate (like when George Jr. comes home drunk and nearly gets into a fistfight with his father) and elements that are just plain made-up (like when the president and his advisers discuss high-level policy in a casual, even frat-house, sort of manner).

Rather than just let the experts judge, we decided to offer the first few pages of the script, in which Bush and his advisers prep for the “Axis of Evil” speech, here on Risky Biz — with the caveat that this comes from a draft of the script dated in mid-October and, according to sources close to the project, may have changed in the interim.

Here are the script pages in PDF.