Transparency Clinton Style

Say what you will about the bizarre spectacle that is the GOP primary, the primary alternative continues to display her own special clown act.  Here's an example of where she thinks the public deserves transparency...

Hillary Clinton says barring any national security risk, she would like to open up the government files on Area 51 to the public if she is elected president. “I would like us to go into those files and hopefully make as much of that public as possible,” she told Jimmy Kimmel Thursday night on his late night ABC talk show. “If there’s nothing there, let’s tell people there’s nothing there.”

And here's a situation where she doesn't think the public deserves transparency:

The previously undisclosed February 2009 emails between Clinton from her then-chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, raise new questions about the scope of emails from Clinton’s early days in office that were not handed over to the State Department for record keeping and may have been lost entirely. Clinton’s presidential campaign has previously claimed that the former top diplomat did not use her personal "clintonemail.com" account before March 2009, weeks after she was sworn in as secretary of State.

Pretty telling, eh?  No wonder the kids like Bernie. 

In the meantime, video is making the rounds of a national security stemwinder Mrs Clinton puffed out recently in the shadow of Brussels wherein she compares her steady leadership against Trump's when it comes to kicking some terrorist arse and gathering our friends to help.

And such a strategy might be an effective, especially if propped up by the media, except for one thing--most of what she's talking about doing are things Obama is currently NOT doing, and she was an integral part of his administration when the Arab Spring in Syria gave rise to ISIS.   

But Obama is trying to help.  He's been slow-rolling his fight against the JV squad since 2012 but lately it seems progress is being made with the loss of their number two and the counter-attack to recapture Mosul underway.  The Syrian Army is retaking parts of their country after a dose of Putey Poot.  ISIS may indeed be on the run now.  All of this may time out perfectly for November. 

But again, not so fast.  There are still ISIS cells in Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan and elsewhere, plus thousands of radicalized wannabees sprinkled around the globe.  Obama will have to answer to his policy of "Assad must go" if Assad becomes more firmly entrenched.  That's his legacy problem, but nobody will really care.  But Libya?  That's on Hillary.  Which is low-hanging fruit for a player like Trump.

Pipe Dreams and other things

Donald Trump recently said it-- Bush lied!   And that's odd, since his likely opponent Hillary Clinton has never out and out called Bush a liar on Iraq.  With that in mind, Instapundit links a slick video featuring Judith Miller explaining why Bush didn't lie about Iraq...


It's sad such a video has to be made because it was obvious to any informed person that Bush didn't lie.  Grossly misunderestimate the Butcher?  Panic a little after 9/11?  Worry about being blamed for follow on attacks traced to Iraqi material or know-how?  Yes, yes and yes. 

But in a world where people will willingly raise their right hands and swear allegiance to Donald Trump or vote for an outright socialist who thinks everything should basically be free, people will believe anything

Of course the Miller video will never be believed by those who believe Bush lied, but some of us will never stop trying to speak truth to power. 

So here's a flashback to current Vice President Joe Biden discussing Iraq and the lie meme with the late Tim Russert back in 2007, with added emphasis:

MR. RUSSERT: Where are they?

SEN. BIDEN: Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued—they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued. They looked at them and catalogued. What he did with them, who knows? The real mystery is, if he, if he didn’t have any of them left, why didn’t he say so? Well, a lot of people say if he had said that, he would’ve, you know, emboldened Iran and so on and so forth.

This was the same Joe Biden who said Iraq would be a wonderful victory for America when Obama pulled everyone out in 2011. Joe knows some things about Saddam. So does Hillary. She knows what her husband knows. Neither have ever claimed Bush lied.  They just let that sleeping dog lie because they know it's the gift that keeps giving.  But they dare not go very far down the path. 

Mrs Clinton's adviser John Podesta recently said he wants reporters to ask her about UFOs. He says people can 'handle the truth'. Well maybe, unless it's this truth.  But people can handle all kinds of truths.  Get some knowledgeable people to ask her about Saddam. If they catch her unprepared with the right questions it might change the election.

Meaning of the word 'is' again

History repeats.  That's basically what the Clintons are doing on this email scandal, same playbook as Monica.   Define an issue down to legal terms, use legal parsing to craft disingenuous replies, then look in the camera with the best serious face and blame a vast right wing conspiracy.

Can't blame them, it worked before, largely with the same breed of media.  Even tonight one of Clinton's main flacks was on Megyn Kelly's show defending the indefensible, and with vigor and gusto. It's all they've got.  But with a helpful (or even lackadaisical) media not riling up the muddy middle swing voters with saturation coverage, it's not beyond succeeding. 

Meanwhile, getting to wherever we're going on this is already an exercise in the bizarre.  Hillary likes to say she never 'sent or received email that was classified at the time'.  She also likes to say that no organization is too big to fail and no person is too big to jail.  She even said some of this wearing black and white striped pants suits.  Does she even get the irony there?   Or is she just rubbing it in?
 
She is the smartest woman in the world, after all.

Back in reality where chief gumshoe James Comey works (he of Ashcroft hospital drama fame) the stakes are high.  Comey has a legacy as a straight shooter and lefty hero for challenging the evil, constitution crapping imperial president Bushco, but he's got some new cards to play now. Will he play them fairly?  If he recommends indictment and Lynch blows it off, will he resign out of protest?  Or will he see the lucrative FBI position, stretching well into the next president's tenure, as something to protect and serve?  Cough, "I did all I could", sigh, let's move on to ISIS.  No protest leaves the media wide open to carry Hillary's water all the way to the next set of Roman columns. 

My guess is Comey won't fizzle out on principle and we may see something sooner than later.  The more the FBI drags this out the more primary wins Hillary can accumulate, then claim that any FBI investigation is purely partisan and interfering with a national election. There would be some precedence in that, too.  So maybe we'll see something this weekend. 

MORE  1/31/16

The something we saw this weekend was nothing.  So, it appears the FBI is going to let the voters caucus on Monday and beyond before taking any action.  

So here's more wild speculation.  After she's won a primary or three, if FBI moves to indict her the campaign will throw up a flag and cry foul, claiming the FBI is trying to impede an election.   When the right reacts as they predictably will (loud and boisterous) the Clinton machine will attack them as making a phony scandal out of an honest 'mistake'.   That's probably where the press will kick into top gear on the story, jumping in with the historic Mrs Rodham Clinton's campaign, helping her douse the fire before moving the rubes on to other preferred narratives, like the war on women.  It would help is some big breaking story came along to feed that, but surely one can be arranged.

Meanwhile the GOP will wither under the attacks and demand people 'move on' to the substantive issues facing the country, etc etc.

The only wildcard in that scenario is Trump.      

Carnival of Clowns

This is the kind of nonsense the Republicans are going to face going forward.  Front page of the NY Times today, a widget looping through the four main campaign issues determined by the Times, and framed by the Times..

So there you go, issues boiled down in a cartoonish fashion right before the debate, with no specific mention of fighting ISIS other than whether they want to admit Syrian refugees. Nothing at all about foreign policy other than global warming.  Maybe this was sent to the Times from the White House.

If you throw in the clown show that is Trump and how he is setting up a large part of the GOP electorate to be called bitterly clinging racist rubes by Clinton when he finally flames out; and if you consider that unlike General Petraeus, Hillary Clinton's far worse security violations will not be punished, it's beginning to look like this election is already over. They might as well just let George Stephanapoulis anoint the Clintons on Good Morning America and save us all the trouble of listening to campaign ads and robocalls.

Hillary emails: Not Really About Classified

Is the former Secretary of State in hot water due to possibly trafficking classified emails on her private email system?  News coverage seems to be trending that direction.  But it could also be a huge red herring.   The FBI is now involved, what if they come back in say January and announce that no evidence was found of her illegally moving classified documents?

Yes, that will effectively 'clear' her in the minds of those who carve the American narrative (and you know you they are).  Hillary will sail forward to the nomination calling anyone who brings up the matter a hater or worse and she will be bolstered by her high profile supporters, otherwise known as mainstream journalists.

That's why people need to take a step back and focus.

The issue is not just classified emails.  Finding zero evidence of classified docs doesn't clear her.  Her crime is conducting government business entirely on a private server she controlled!   Based on rules and good ethics practices alone it basically an illegal network.  She literally told the American public to pound sand--she was going to have her own State Dept IT department and run her business off the grid, not reachable by FOIA or Congress or even some in the administration. 

And when it came time to turn over government-related emails to the archivists, she and she alone got to decide what was relevant and what went to the bit bucket.   And that HAD TO BE by design.  And that design had to be approved by the President of the United States, where bucks are supposed to go to stop.

And this same person is running to control everything. 

The Old Gray Lady takes a Mulligan (or three)

It's obvious to anyone of even marginal intellect that the New York Times bowed to the pressure of the Clinton political machine in walking back a story from last week suggesting Hillary was the possible target of a criminal inquiry into her email debacle.

So yes, conservatives were ticked, mainly because nothing like that ever happens to them after a NY Times bombshell. When a former Bush White House press secretary confirms it then it's not just a bunch of squawking from partisan yahoos.

Now enter another yahoo doing what leftists do--spinning the legitimate response into something sinister in an attempt to make the response--not the original action--the story:

The point here being that the New York Times wasn’t buckling under to the Clinton campaign. It was undertaking a long and painful walk-back.

Eric fargin Wemple, spending a column bashing conservatives for reacting to the Times reversing a blockbuster story before it was even through the news cycle, done at the behest of the Clinton campaign, based on the same kind of anonymous sourcing they claim was behind the original story.  Wow, it's not like the Times doesn't have editors.  Or reporters.  Or maybe they enacted this FUBAR on purpose?

On Friday afternoon, the Erik Wemple Blog asked Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill what he thought of complaints that the New York Times was doing the bidding of the Clinton campaign in making those initial, stealth changes. His answer: “You’re not serious are you?”

Ahhhhh. Yes. A Clinton hack says the mainstream media is tough on Hils, so it's true, right Eric? Maybe he doesn't realize how stupid that sounds.

Maybe he doesn't realize David Petraeus was brought up on charges for handing classified info to a fellow member of the military (with a clearance) and had his career ruined. 

It's really getting hard to put fingers to keyboard anymore.   This stuff never changes.  The Alinsky press continues focusing on GOP division, heralding every Trump quote about Mexicans as they put a GOP sign around his neck, while ignoring the fact he never bashes Hillary, which makes his entire stunt suspect.  But not worth investigating.  They don't even know Fiorina exists.  And the surgeon is invisible.  They simply never tire of trying to shape the campaign rather than just reporting on it.

And don't even start on the GOP itself, who deserve all the incoming ridicule.  Way to pull defeat from the jaws of victory, McBoner.    

Meanwhile the president has become nothing but a shallow Democratic message board troll, flitting around here and there on Air Force One to scold half the nation (when not scolding foreign leaders not involved in terrorism), actually saying he's concerned about who HE hands the keys to the White House in 2017?  Excuse me sir, but YOU are not handing them to anyone WE don't elect.  You get one vote just like the rest of us.

Amazing.   Frustrating.  Ridiculous.   America, 2015.  

NEED MORE?   7/28/15

Here's a screen grab of the Washington Post headlines on their front page, around 4pm Central Time...

Translations...

News
1.  Huckabee's an idiot
2.  Paul:  engaging in war on women with poor pun
3.  Huckabee pandering to blacks
Opinion
1.  Ted Cruz is bullying his own party--they are tired of it but found out he's a pansy
2.  Trump didn't say anything wrong but his advisor did, same thing
3.  The far right:  spree killers just like the Lafayette theater nut
4.  Bush (it could be any of them) hints GOP primary voters are extremists
5.  Hillary Clinton is a 'wounded queen', poor gal
6.  Some idiocy about white women
7.  Wow, they attack Hillary but it's about the Keystone Pipeline
8.  Jon Stewart: progressive hero figure
More Headlines:
1.  Pollard freed by Obama!   No actually, he just got parole by magic.  No politics here! 
2, 3, 4, actual real news
5.  Evil hunter killed the Lion King 

 You're welcome. 

Another GOP candidate in mix!

According to Fox News..

We'll see if this guy "Tump" can get any traction with so many others in the field..

Deeply Held Beliefs Update

For the life of me I don't know how someone could say something like this--using the words she used--then later reverse it.  Only a true politician could reverse a 'sacred bond'.



There will no doubt be an elaborate explanation for this reversal coming soon, including hints that the reversal itself was due to the hatred of the vast right wing conspiracy.  The question is whether she will get away with it.

Al-Douri Dead, Again

Maybe this time they really got him:

A top aide of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has been killed during fighting against Sunni insurgent forces, senior Iraqi officials claimed Friday, in a potential blow to factions opposing the government in Baghdad.

But previous reports over the years about the death of Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri have proven wrong. Iraqi officials said a DNA analysis of the body was planned.

Indeed, he's one of the top zombie fighters left in the deck of cards. But it certainly does look a little like him, maybe on one of his worse days.

Assuming he's finally in heaven meeting 72 virgins that look like Helen Thomas, the political class will probably decide to use him as a cudgel against Bush-- Jeb Bush.  In the twisted logic of liberal-land it works like this: had George W Bush not invaded Iraq and turned loose the dogs of AQ and other insurgents, Izzat would have never mattered. He would have been inconsequential. And all those innocent people that ISIS butchered would still be there.  Al-Douri had to fight because Bush tossed his Sunni regime out.  Therefore GW Bush created ISIL (Obama-approved acronym) so Jeb Bush is a warmonger who will create more ISILs or something.

But there's another side of the coin.  Izzat al-Douri was the one who persuaded Saddam to put "Allahu Akbar" on the Iraqi flag after the Gulf War. He was in charge of Islamizing Saddam's regime to some degree, probably to keep the Islamic Jihadists at bay during the post-war era where Saddam's power had been eroded. In doing so there was a certain embrace of the radicals, which showed itself to the very end with Douri's Naqshbandi Order having little trouble tag-teaming with the terrorists in an attempt to retake Iraq. So the question should be "where else did they tag-team"?

But of course, everyone considers that question long-answered.  And Jeb Bush probably has no desire to answer it any differently.  And he really doesn't have to if Hillary is his opponent.  But if Hillary drops out he will be forced to deal with it, one way or the other.  Will he throw big brother under the bus while embracing his foreign policy?  Wouldn't look very presidential.  

MORE  4/17/15

I confess I've always been weirdly obsessed with this guy.  Maybe it's because for such a high-level member of the old regime, nobody seems to care about him. The Bush people never made him a public target or even discussed him; the Obama people have never mentioned his name to my knowledge, despite his purported role in ISIS.  Here's another example of the weirdness.  Marie Harf at State is asked about the death report, to which she 1) coughs, 2) looks uninterested, 3) tried to quickly move on, and 4) says "I'll check" several times, which means we'll never hear about it again unless someone asks.  At the end of the clip watch her eyes--she seems to almost roll them.   Why would the administration not want to celebrate this kill?

 

With the news people are asking if he's the last remaining figure in the old most wanted "deck of cards" (he was King of Clubs).   To my knowledge one of the bigger figures is still missing--Taher Habbush, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, who might know a thing or two or three about a lot of things. 

Hard to Disagree

As much as the thought of another Bush in the White House is like anticipating a root canal, Jeb's vision of US foreign policy is pretty hard to disagree with:

“We now have a president — the first one, I believe, in the post-World War II era — that believes that America’s power is not appropriate and America’s presence is not a force for good,” Jeb Bush told a crowd of business leaders in Columbus, Ohio, this week.

“He’s wrong. With all due respect, he is just plain wrong.” “America needs to lead. America needs to stay engaged,” he added. “America’s friends need to know that we have their back over the long haul, and our enemies need to fear us a little bit.”

He's also not apologizing for thinking that way despite the polls, which is a likeable and useful trait in a president. Do not take this an endorsement, other Republicans may share it as well, and Bush will have to convince people he's not a warmonger thanks to his brother who refuses to defend himself.  But it's the correct way to think about foreign policy.  It's not just the economy, stupid.

Making some broad assumptions, it will be interesting to see how Hillary might react to such a position considering her reputation as a foreign policy hawk. It might force her to move left on the issue if there's a primary and back right in the general election.  All the more reason for the Democrats to just crown her and move forward if they can get away with it.   

Perusing the latest Clinton Library Docs

It's Friday before the Columbus Day weekend, so what better time than to release more required documents from the Clinton Library?!   A lot of stuff, but here are some snippets from the section on "African Embassy Bombings":

later in the same doc..

Notice what the White House was crossing out in this talking point outline--any mention of AQ and the likelihood they would attack again.  Their first draft, just like the first guess on Benghazi, seemed correct.  Then politics appears to have taken over. 

The WaPo took interest in an exchange of a Clinton staffer dissing Jimmy Carter for penning an negative op-ed on the retaliatory bombing of the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan in 1998, thought by the administration to have been a plant producing VX nerve gas for bin Laden (with help from Iraqi scientists).   But check out this verbiage...

Ah, the 'full information'.  At some point during the late 90s everyone pretty much agreed the al-Shifa bombing was a big mistake, ie, "Clinton bombed an aspirin factory and killed the night watchman based on false information" to 'wag the dog'.  Everybody, that is, but Sandy Berger and Dan Benjamin, who had recommended it and who've never come off their decision.

And from the looks of this memo there were others in the administration who appeared to know more than was being publicly stated, to the point that if Jimmy Carter knew everything he wouldn't have written the op-ed.  So, what was that information?  And why has the mainstream media never tried to pry it out of these guys? 

Clinton to Berger on bin Laden

Gotta watch the stuff trickling out of the Bubba R Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock.  On a Friday doc dump the library released a handwritten note from the first black president to Sandy 'socks' Berger, his national security advisor at the time, expressing doubt about some intelligence on bin Laden.

The note was written several months after Clinton bombed some tents in Khost Afghanistan and an aspirin factory in the Sudan (1998), which prompted charges he was 'wagging the dog' to remove attention from Monicagate. 

For those who've forgotten, Clinton bombed the plant based on CIA evidence of traces of EMPTA in the ground outside the plant, a substance related to the processing of VX nerve gas.  What most of the mainstream press reports are conveniently ignoring is that the Clinton crew thought Saddam's WMD scientists were involved in helping bin Laden produce this chemical.

So here's the note:

What does it suggest?  And why were they unafraid to release it?  At the same time, they were afraid to release any part of the internal communications between Berger and colleagues Dan Benjamin and Richard Clarke in response--national security.

Well, since Clinton was referencing a NY Times article in 1999 it's useful to understand what Times writer Tim Weiner was saying:

The interviews also raise questions about key assertions that have been made by the Government about Mr. bin Laden. Senior intelligence officials concede that their knowledge of him is sketchy. ''We can't say for sure what was going on'' with him from 1991 to 1996 -- most of the years covered in the indictment -- one senior official said.

His Affluence Seems Overstated Present and former American officials and former business associates of Mr. bin Laden say he appears to control only a fraction of the $250 million fortune that the American Government says he possesses. ''Clearly, his money's running out,'' said Frank Anderson, a former senior Central Intelligence Agency official who maintains close Middle Eastern contacts.

Larry Johnson, the State Department deputy counterterrorism director from 1988 to 1993, said Administration officials had ''tended to make Osama bin Laden sort of a Superman in Muslim garb -- he's 10 feet tall, he's everywhere, he knows everything, he's got lots of money and he can't be challenged.''

Milton Bearden, a retired senior C.I.A. official who ran the agency's war in Afghanistan and retired in 1995, said the Government had ''created a North Star'' in Mr. bin Laden. ''He is public enemy No. 1,'' Mr. Bearden said. ''We've got a $5 million reward out for his head. And now we have, with I'm not sure what evidence, linked him to all of the terrorist acts of this year -- of this decade, perhaps.''

In other words, anonymous CIA and Justice people were telling the Times the legal case against UBL wasn't solid while former high profile intelligence people were downplaying his role.  At the same time Vince Cannistraro, another former intel guy, was telling ABC News that bin Laden might be teaming up with Saddam, while also allegedly telling lawyer Stephen Jones of Oklahoma City bombing fame that the government didn't want any foreign suspects in that case.  Richard Clarke, who was part of the communication with Berger on this event, once famously said UBL might 'boogie to Baghdad' if they missed getting him in Afghanistan.  No wonder Slick was confused.

The key phrase is obviously, "..the CIA sure overstated its case to me..".  So what 'case' does he suspect was being overstated?  This was after a PDB in December 1998 warning of al Qaeda hijacking an airplane to secure the release of members of the 1993 WTC attack and after the embassy attacks, so it's not like terrorism itself was being overstated, just the role of the players involved.

Reporters are assuming he meant CIA was overstating the importance of bin Laden but it's valid to wonder whether Clinton might have been asking a broader question--if UBL is not the 'north star' the CIA claims, who is?   It's hard to imagine how one New York Times article could prompt doubt about terrorism in general, Clinton seemed to be confused on the role of one guy in the nexus--bin Laden.

And that goes directly to the response, which was completely redacted. Keep in mind Clarke and Benjamin have never come off the intelligence that led them to recommend bombing al-Shifa and few if any in the press have grilled them about it.  Returning to Tom Joscelyn's link above..

"The consistent stream of intelligence at that time said it wasn't just al-Shifa. There were three different structures in the Sudan. There was the hiring of Iraqis. There was no question that the Iraqis were there. Some of the Clinton people seem to forget that they did make the Iraqi connection."

So Clinton was questioning the CIA's assessment of UBL, at least in private, while his own team was indicting UBL and making links between him and Saddam Hussein.  As late as 1999. 

Yet when Clinton gave Fox an interview in 2006 (where he wagged his finger at Chris Matthews), he seemed to be saying he did more than anyone to stop bin Laden:

CLINTON: All I'm saying is, you falsely accused me of giving aid and comfort to bin Laden because of what happened in Somalia. No one knew Al Qaeda existed then. And ...

WALLACE: But did they know in 1996 when he declared war on the U.S.? Did they know in 1998 ...

CLINTON: Absolutely, they did.

WALLACE: ... when he bombed the two embassies?

CLINTON: And who talked about ...

WALLACE: Did they know in 2000 when he hit the Cole?

CLINTON: What did I do? What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him.

Now, I've never criticized President Bush, and I don't think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is only one-seventh as important as Iraq.

Pretty feisty, but he admits his counterterrorism team knew about the threat from bin Laden in 1996, three years prior to the note.  Evidently he was still wavering in 1999.

But in the same interview he also told Wallace that neither the CIA nor FBI would 'cerfify' that UBL was behind the attacks, which supports the wishy-washy narrative and provides him some cover despite the CIA setting up a special office in 1996 to track UBL headed by Michael Scheuer (who has been very critical of the Clinton team on apprehending or killing bin Laden in the late 90s).  

It also ignores the aforementioned indictment of UBL in 1998 (mentioning a tie to Iraq then updated to remove ties) and KSM.  Yet here's Slick still questioning the CIA's assessment of UBL's role in global terror in 1999.  Strange.

Could it impact Hillary! 2016?  Only if anyone asks.  Clintonistas might reply that it shows Bill was solidly focused on terrorism but wasn't sure about the intelligence on UBL due to some wishy-washyness at the CIA. Here's a comedic example of how an international news site handled it:

In one file referencing bin Laden, Clinton urgently asked his top national security aide whether the CIA overstated the involvement of the terrorist leader in the August 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Yes that's it, an 'urgent' Clinton was seeking 'extra' information in his quest for the terror leader. By the way, the indictment was in 1998 as indicated above in this post, not after April 1999 as in the story.  Now here's a biased domestic site:

...

Wait, there's very little coverage in the mainstream press other than a stock AP story.   Which by the way is the one quoted above in the international news site.  The Washington Post ran that stock AP story.  The New York Times, itself mentioned in the release, ran an in-house version of the story that said less than AP.  Did the AP intentionally report the indictment as after the note?   Moving it makes it appear Slick was more engaged or even indicted UBL based on the redacted reply from Berger.  Reality makes him look confused and less engaged.  Josh Gerstein explains as well.   

Aides, if anyone asks, may also argue the note explains his cruise missile flop in 1998, ie, it wasn't wagging the dog, it was the CIA overstating the case--or in other words, he was wondering if he was on the right target or whether someone else was running the terror show.   Those goofballs at CIA!   They could then claim that the response from Berger to Clinton, which nobody in public is allowed to see but they know, but can only summarize in general, was that no, the CIA did not overstate the status of UBL, he was still the top dog.  And Clinton, with his question answered, strapped on his cape and pressed forward in his relentless war against bin Laden, unlike Bush who "ignored" his own August 2001 PDB (heavily covered by the press for some reason) that led to 9/11.  They always have a ready answer that satisfies the baby bird press.

Perhaps more interesting than all the finger pointing and blame shifting is the reminder in the 1999 Times story of anniversaries.  The African embassy bombings of 1998 occurred exactly 8 years to the day after US forces entered Saudi Arabia to begin Operation Desert Shield to protect that country from Saddam's forces in Kuwait.  Add to that, in February 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed on the anniversary of the day celebrated in Kuwait as 'liberation day' (2/26/91) from Saddam's forces, and September 11, 1990 was the day when president George HW Bush first called for a "New World Order" in a speech declaring that Saddam's invasion of Kuwait would not stand.  Even this past week the shoot-down of MH17 occurred on the 18th anniversary of TWA800, although the CIA said there was "not a missile" involved in that one. Terrorists do love their anniversaries.   And yes, this post is too long. Nobody cares anymore. 

Wow, where did that come from?

Diane Sawyer actually looked pissed during her Hillary interview.  Maybe it was the way Hillary replied to the age question in another segment, but dang..


ABC US News | ABC Celebrity News

Or maybe this was an attempt at getting her out of the witness chair at Gowdy's Select Committee--after all, she couldn't do much worse.   This jaw dropping display of real journalism ironically came around the same time another veteran journalist, Andrea Mitchell, was shooting holes in State Department spokesgal Marie Harf's Bergdahl narrative as a mother would pick apart her child's lie. 

It's easy to say these events herald a new mainstream media, one finally ready to do their jobs.  But their history is known.  Something must be up.    

Risk? What Risk?

A presumptive GOP candidate for 2016 sets his table:

Bush said immigrants capture the entrepreneurial spirit of America. “People who come here legally and illegally are the risk takers,” Bush said. “If you’re living in a rural area of Guatemala and you come, you’re a bigger risk taker than those who stay.”

There's just so much wrong with that comment. One, what other criminal activity does he consider to be 'risk-taking' and worthy?  Two, he grouped both legal and illegal activity in the same breath.  Does he consider people who follow the law no different than those who can't be bothered?  Three, what risk is there for illegals coming into the country anymore?  If they get past the Border Patrol and settle somewhere they immediately become knighted saints with absolute moral authority, often held in higher esteem than tax-paying law-abiding citizens who suggest they be deported for breaking the law. 

As to education reform:

Aside from immigration, Bush’s advocacy for Common Core State Standards has earned him enmity on the right.

Bush isn't the only Republican jumping on Common Core, many Republicans have embraced it. One of them is the Republican governor of Tennessee. Ads have been running on local radio in the state pushing CC. Why? Do the various characters involved in the development of the program not bother these guys? Or have they been convinced otherwise?  Or something else?  Someone should ask them. 

And here's a potential question-- why do we need new national standards when the US education system has a long history of training some of the most brilliant minds in history that gave rise to a great nation?  Sounds like the problem is more with teachers and parents, not inadequate national standards.

Gates-gate and Christie

Yes, the use of 'gate' on the end of anything controversial is trite and overused, but I couldn't resist.

Although nobody except Gates and a selected few have read the book yet, the releases make it sound like a hit job on his former boss.  Which seems a bit unseemly considering he's not gone yet, that is unless the former Secretary believes the information he's passing along is somehow critical to the moment.  The White House sure seems engaged. Then again, if it was so critical he could have released the book before the election.

Just standing back and taking a perspective, the contrast between Mr. Gates' bombshell assertions--that Obama and Hillary both played politics as Senators by opposing the Iraq surge in 2007 and that Obama sent a surge into Afghanistan but believed the mission would fail (ie, he had to do it because he'd used Afghanistan as a cudgel against McCain and Bush to get elected), those allegations are much worse than a New Jersey governor being accused of closing a few lanes of traffic as some kind of vindictive political punishment to a mayor.

Speaking of which, shall we question the timing?  The Christie story followed the Gates story by a day, how convenient, since one story hurts Hillary and the other greatly helps her.  Just sayin'.  

As to the book, I may buy it, but I may not.  The teaser makes it attractive to conservatives but it's just as likely it contains a glowing portrayal of Obama, a general criticism of Bush, and a tacit disapproval of the Tea Party.  Just guessing here.  Will take an NFL approach and wait for further reviews.  

As to Christie, well, he's now fired more staffers involved with scandals than has the President.   But he's up against the Clinton machine now.  There's only one machine that has successfully defeated them and their "sent" man is in the White House--a man who outmaneuvered Hillary based on her Iraq vote and who actually had two machines, one in Chicago and the other in the national media.  Christie has no known machine and no help from the national media, so things will get worse.  They will try to make this a boat anchor, but Christie is no Ken doll so it's a toss up.  That is, unless evidence comes out that he ordered it.

And that still wouldn't be as bad as running illegal guns to Mexico, intimidating Inspector Generals, using the IRS to target political enemies, disregarding the law through an Attorney General, spying on the media, spying on foreign leaders' personal phones, lying about health care, lying about Benghazi, appointing people when Congress isn't in session, or changing laws by fiat.  Or even lying about being shot at during a stop in the Balkans as a sympathy ploy to get elected.  But it will kill Christie's political career in a New York minute anyway.

1/10/14

Corrected obvious misspelling of Chris Christie's name in the headline.  

Meanwhile,  Jay Leno wins the comment of the day award...

“Pundits are saying this could hurt [Christie’s] 2016 presidential campaign. The ironic thing is now that Christie is denying everything he sounds even more presidential..

That should be an 'ouch, that's gotta hurt' moment, but sadly, it won't.

MORE  1/12/14

As criticism comes in on Gates writing a book before his old boss leaves office it's worth remembering how the media treated Paul O'Neill, Dubya's first Treasury Secretary, who claimed Bush was after Saddam Hussein on day one, wink, wink.   

Hillary's Dream

Here's Ms. What Difference Does it Make Anyway talking about how a female president would send the right message:

In a video of a private Clinton speech posted to YouTube on Friday, Clinton told a Canadian audience that she hoped the U.S. would elect a woman to the White House because it would send "exactly the right historical signal" to men, women and children. She said women in politics need to "dare to compete" and the nation needs to "take that leap of faith."

How magnanimous of her to consider a president Condi Rice or Sarah Palin as good for America and the world.