Co-equal

Here's the Vice President (not sure if he has anything to do with Vice News) talking about impeaching George W. Bushitler if he went to war with Iran without congressional approval.  Matthews' short diatribe at the end is particularly prescient..



Keep that in mind in relation to Biden's boss, who feels like he has special authority over that same Congress because they don't agree with his policies, or compare it to the audience sitting in Bill Maher's studio booing ex-CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson when she simply declares that Congress and the Executive are "co-equal branches"...



What if Cotton had come on Hardball and told Chris Matthews he would move to impeach Obama if he allowed the Iranians to keep their nuclear technology via an agreement that didn't involve Congressional approval?  It's a little different insofar as declaring war (although Obama used "imminent threat" to citizens of Libya to justify his non-approved military action there) but the intent is the same--checking presidential power.  The founders designed the government to keep each co-equal branch in line. 

The Mother of all Battles...

...never seems to end.  Hopefully what's going on in the Middle East is something less than Armageddon because we have a vacation planned later this month.

But there they go again, kaboom. Americans are pulling out, the Kurds and Iranians are coming in. Expensive toys are falling into the hands of the Saddam Fedeyeen, er sorry, ISIS. And the blame game is in full swing--Obama is working on his blame Bush strategy, or maybe his putting grip, while Hillary finally apologized for her vote.  Bad timing there, eh.  Biden is reportedly blaming Churchill for creating Iraq in the first place, which he saw on some old fireside chats of FDR from 1928.

But what about the wily old codger (and the most-wanted regime member on Iraq's wanted list) Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri? Is the old zombie behind any of this from afar or from anear? Well:

The Sunni insurgency that is storming Iraq towards the capital Baghdad reportedly includes Baathist military officers from the era of Saddam Hussein's regime. A former top military commander and vice president in the Hussein government, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, has joined forces with the jihadists of the Isis (The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) with the aim of overthrowing the Shiite-majority government of prime minister Nouri al-Maliki.

A senior Baathist leader told the New York Times that the groups are "unified by the same goal, which is getting rid of this sectarian government, ending this corrupt army and negotiating to form a Sunni Region".

This is a part of why Zawahiri distanced himself from these guys--he knows who they are.  But the old Saddamites have never had a problem pretending to be AQ-aligned, which was part of the original problem considering the arsenal we thought they had.  This also shows that just because a president 'ends a war' doesn't mean the war is over.   That rhetoric is going to make it very hard for this administration to re-engage there--and those guys know it.

REVIVING THE PAST  6/14/14

Here's the WaPo's Joby Warrick with a history of AQ in Iraq, aka ISIS, aka ISIL, talking about it's founding emir Abu Musab al-Zarqawi:

On the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, a 36-year-old Jordanian who called himself “the Stranger” slipped into the suburbs of Baghdad armed with a few weapons, bags of cash and an audacious plan for starting a war he hoped would unite Sunni Muslims across the Middle East. The tattooed ex-convict and high school dropout had few followers and scant ties to the local population.

Warrick goes on to further describe Zarqawi's return from Afghanistan in 2001, admitting he came into Iraq but remained in the Ansar camp near Kurdistan, not reaching the suburbs of Baghdad until 'the eve of' the invasion.  But Warrick completely ignores a major element of his history:

He failed in this attempt and fled to Afghanistan and then entered Iraq via Iran after the overthrow of the Taliban in late 2001. From Iraq he started his terrorist campaign by hiring men to kill Laurence Foley who was a senior U.S. diplomat working for the U.S. Agency for International Development in Jordan. On October 28, 2002, Foley was assassinated outside his home in Amman. Under interrogation by Jordanian authorities, three suspects confessed that they had been armed and paid by Zarqawi to perform the assassination.

U.S. officials believe that the planning and execution of the Foley assassination was led by members of Afghan Jihad, the International Mujaheddin Movement, and al-Qaeda. One of the leaders, Salim Sa'd Salim Bin-Suwayd, was paid over $27,858 for his work in planning assassinations in Jordan against U.S., Israeli, and Jordanian government officials. Suwayd was arrested in Jordan for the murder of Foley.[24] Zarqawi was again sentenced in absentia in Jordan; this time, as before, his sentence was death.

Why leave out the fact he was convicted in absentia of ordering the murder of a US envoy--from his hiding place in Iraq?  Before the invasion?  The only plausible reason is because that was used by Colin Powell as part of the casus belli for removing Hussein.  Even if the Butcher wasn't blessing Zarqawi's presence or even aware of it, an AQ-linked emir was able to operate freely and carry out plots from Saddam's backyard.   

As this ugly, ugly story rears its ugly head again it's likely we'll see the media engage in various revisions or omissions when brandishing the past in their defense of Obama.  So keep an eye out.  That goes for all sides!

Getting It

"It" being the bottom line (mind out of the gutter).   There are a couple of stories out there rife with narrative manipulation that deserve some IRS-like Tea Party scrutiny, so here goes.

Story one, immigration.  Law-abiding, tax-paying citizens are getting the daily shaft in this country.  They have to follow the laws and rules or they lose their jobs or are thrown in jail.  But there's a huge class of others who break the law daily, not just by their mere presence in the country, but in how they collect their wages, pay taxes, insure their vehicles and other basic things expected of good citizens. 

The law abiding citizens are made to feel guilty about this.  Through no fault other than raising their voices against this inequity they are called names that begin with x, r, and b (when not being told that America is a land of immigrants as if the INS has never existed).  Some folks in government even have had to endure a mob coming to their home to demand that illegal activities be made legal.  Outrage and coverage are limited.
 

And now the law abiding folks are being fed a rasher called amnesty legalization and told that if they don't swallow it the Democrats will have control of America power levers forever.  Maybe they deserve it. 

Rush Limbaugh spoke out on this today, playing the role of Sarah Palin in bashing some of the big money men like Sheldon Adelson and gasp, the Koch Brothers for applying pressure on this..

"All of the Republican major donors want this bill," he said. "I'll give you some names. The Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson. I mean, they want the bill, because they want the influx of new labor. They want it. They're not concerned with how anybody's gonna vote down the line. As long as these guys can stay aligned with whoever is running government, they're in fat city."

That's called 'speaking truth to power', folks.  It's dangerous, even for him.  It probably helped take out Palin.  But the "it" here--the bottom line--is this:  if there were only 100,000 illegal aliens in the country would congress be bending over backwards to legalize them?  This isn't about legalization, it's about money and power just like everything else.  Even for the Catholic church.   

---


On the NSA spygate story, good news.  Obama has decided to hold a huge press conference and let everyone, including bloggers, ask questions. He's going to limit his replies to 3 minutes or less and go on as long as necessary until everyone's question is answered.  It's all about his "national debate" on the matter and a showcase of his administration's unprecedented transparency.

Actually no, I made that up.  His real plan to get back control of the issue is to use his golden voice to bash Bush/Cheney, mainly Cheney, while giving limited syrupy interviews to selected journalists, ie, same old same old. Part of the effort is to get the military and law enforcement types out to remind us how scary the terrorists still are despite Biden cackling that Bin Laden was dead and GM was alive, right before his boss announced that AQ was on the run and it's safe to draw down the GWoT and retreat (negotiate) from the war zone in Afghanistan, all while calling Benghazi a reaction to a hateful video. 

Today, officials from the NSA and FBI testified about the 50 or so plots the program has thwarted. That's good, but that's not the actual debate. The debate is HOW MUCH LIBERTY we want to sacrifice for this security effort.   Surely we could ramp up the program and eliminate almost all attack possibilities, just like we could physically disarm the population and decrease gun violence to near zero.  The bottom line is this:  were the 50 plots worth it based on the loss of liberty suffered?  That's the real debate. And the one nobody will be having anytime soon.

The Gift that keeps on Giving

Obama's gun control czar..



Just don't mess with Joe while he gets this malarky together.   Meanwhile, we heard more about mental health in this debate than we have in the aftermath of Sandy Hook.

Pre-game Show

For the big contest today...  Cards vs Nats.

Just kidding.   This is about the other hardball. 

Obviously the media has hyped the hades out of the Biden-Ryan rumble in Kentuck, leaving America to believe the very election might depend on it, sorta like the Nat's season. 

So what might occur?  Surprises, most likely.  Biden is no spring chicken.  He's had his share of debates.  Ryan's only debates have been on the state level, but he's appeared on the national media stage many times.

But like the Washington Nationals against the World Champ Cardinals in the baseball playoffs, there's something to be said for experience.  Doesn't mean either the Cards or Biden will win, only that experience should not be dismissed.  The moderators also matter--think of the baseball games with an umpire crew consisting of lifelong Cardinal fans--or a debate moderator a lifelong liberal.

For me the question will be foreign policy.  Biden was trumped as Obama's FP expert yet as pointed out he's made more than his share of bad calls in this area over his career.   The obvious moment might come in relation to the state of al Qaeda.  Biden's seminal moment at the DNC convention was his quip about UBL being dead and GM alive; will the debate moderator or Ryan challenge that assertion based on the latest news on Libya (and today's attack on one of our diplomatic employees in Yemen)?

Will anyone point out that aside from Egypt being run by the Muslim Brotherhood and aside from Ayman Zawahiri and his brother Mohammed (present for the Cairo riots in support of releasing the Blind Sheikh) that the almost-vanquished AQ still has longtime operative Saif al Adel and "Jafar the Pilot", aka, Adnan Shukrajumah, on the lam?   What about Syria's alleged release of the "Red-headed Terrrorist", aka Abu Musab al-Suri?  Haven't heard of any of them?  Neither have probably 7/8ths of the debate audience, so nobody will go there.  But the point remains.     

Chances are Ryan will stay largely away.  He's a domestic guy.  His expertise is in budgets, not FP, and he's on record as saying he doesn't want to interject FP into the politics:

A good source tells me that Romney's chief advisor, Stu Stevens, has an almost fervently religious conviction against using any foreign policy issues in a campaign. But the Libya debacle isn't really about foreign policy. Its about competency and the public's trust in the Administration. The Obama Administration made virtually every wrong decision in the run-up to our Ambassador's murder. And then, they lied about the event and tried to cover up their mistakes. No Administration can survive when its lost the public's trust.

Biden would probably love to get Ryan into a FP debate and away from the economy.  Ryan will probably try to stay closer to the latter, perhaps discussing the idea of "losing the public's trust" by questioning the latest surprising numbers from the BLS, surely fodder for Biden's bluster.   Should be interesting.

RECAP  10/12/12

The NY Times calls it "spirited"..

It was Mr. Biden who sought to quiet the rising clamor among Democrats that the president was not assertive enough with Mr. Romney at their debate last week in Denver. A day after Mr. Obama conceded he was “too polite,” Mr. Biden showed no hesitation in hectoring, heckling and interrupting his challenger.

Within a single minute, Mr. Biden worked in three attacks on his rivals, referring to Mr. Romney’s opposition to the auto industry bailout, his statement that the foreclosure crisis would have to “run its course” and his comment about “47 percent” of Americans who he said were overreliant on government benefits.

Obviously, the Times is giddy. The WaPo also calls it spirited and says Biden was "repairing the damage". We don't need any blockquotes here. CNN actually had a poll that called it for Ryan. CBS's poll showed a blow-out win for Don't Mess with Joe. NBC, the Maddow-Matthews network, basically calls it a draw. ABC had a piece called "and the winner is", wherein they didn't say. Interestingly, most everyone in the media admits Biden lost points on the Libya debacle. In other words, a scandal-screw-up in the last days of the campaign, which would sink any GOP incumbent.

Messin' with Joe

It wasn't a big thing, but did you notice how different Biden looked at the convention for his speech?  Here's a comparison with a photo from earlier in the summer...

Yesterday he was out giving a speech and encouraged people to 'fact-check' him.  The AP had already done so--repeated here by Fox News.  The biggest misdirection seems to be the contention the Obama folks have created 4.5 million private sector jobs.  Of course, that depends on how it's worded.  The Biden folks can say they aren't fibbing because ole Joe sandwiched it with "after the worst job loss since the Great Depression", then said "in the past 29 months", which is correct.  But not every Democratic operative uses that context.  The goal is to make it seem Obama has already created more jobs than all eight years of Bush. 

But that's the flim-flam.  When someone parses only the 'new' jobs created during Dubya's terms they get roasted.   For instance, here's Media Matters scolding Hannity for saying he created 10 million "new" jobs, more or less accurate if you subtract all the jobs lost towards the end.  The left is now saying Bush's average new job creation was only 20,000 a month--yes, using the bookend numbers.  As Hackity said, when the millions of jobs were being created after the tax cuts and 9/11 it was hundreds of thousands per month.  But it's not OK to parse that way with W, only with the O.  

The bigger Biden distortion was probably saying that Romney "believes it's OK to raise taxes on middle classes by $2,000."  That's solely based on some expert's interpretation of Romney's plan, not the Romney plan itself.  And forget the fact that the great keynote speaker Bill Clinton engineered the largest tax increase in history back in the early 90s, meaning he definitely thought it was OK to raise taxes on the middle class, and that if nothing is done those huge increases will come back in January 2013.  But hey, we're not supposed to mess with Joe.

On Biden and Chains

Jay Carney spent about half his rare "daily" press briefing today answering questions about Joe Biden's back in chains y'all comment in Virginia the other day--of course he refused to condemn them in any way even when told that the black governor of Virginia (Dem) had condemned them.   He also confirmed that Biden would remain on the ticket, complete with a slap at both McCain and Palin.

He spent most of the other time claiming that news stories about Biden's comments or Democrat commercials about Romney being a killer or accusations that he might be a felon are actually distractions coming from Romney to divert attention away from a substantive debate.  Yes, really.  The Obama folks are just trying to talk issues--the issue being that Mittens might be Stalin.  

But a question comes to my mind about Biden and scripting.  There was a prompter at the speech...



Were his "chains" remarks actually on the screen for him to read or did he ad-lib them?  Ole Joe tends to drift around a lot--or so it would seem--but if those comments were actually on the transcript it would suggest the White House is the one who wants to distract from it's own 'substantive' message, one they are overwhelmingly winning according to Carney.  Figure that logic.   

WMDs in Iraq Finally Found?

Funny, this obscure little AP story seems to be floating around out there with no fanfare:

Britain will help the Iraqi government dispose of what's left of deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons, still stored in two bunkers in north of Baghdad, the British embassy in Baghdad announced Monday.

The British Defense Ministry will start training Iraqi technical and medical workers this year, an embassy statement said. The teams will work to safely destroy remnants of munitions and chemical warfare agents left over from Saddam's regime. He was overthrown in 2003 following an American-led invasion.

Saddam stored the chemical weapons near population centers so that he could access them quickly, despite the danger to his civilian population.

Unless a mistake it certainly seems to indicate that Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton were right about their vote to take out Saddam.

Back to Zero

This is the best article I've seen lately on the political games being played by Obama over gay marriage. An excerpt:

Newsweek editor Tina Brown—she of the “First Gay President” cover—described Obama’s reaction thusly, “He stumbled into it because of Joe Biden. The hero of the hour is Joe Biden, right?" Obama had a different take.

Asked about his inspiration, he cited not Joe Biden, but the Living Word. “When we think about our faith,” said Obama speaking for himself and Michelle, “the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated.”

For the record, Jesus summed up the Golden Rule thusly, “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you.” Given this understanding, Jesus implored his disciples to treat the marginalized, like, say, Mary Magdalene, with respect. He did not demand that they legalize prostitution. He certainly did not call them “bigots” if they hesitated.

He also mentions them using the "old school socialist exploitation of Christianity", which is really the girding underbelly of Obama's true ideology.  Oh, and not to keep harping on Biden, but he came out of the closet in late 2010, right after the mid-term shellacking.  So Obama didn't 'stumble on' anything due to Joe. 

The Summit at Somewhere

It's time for Obama and Boehner to hit the links in their own private golf showdown on US Open weekend. Call it the US Closed--it's almost almost as secretive as the Bilderberger event or a Cheney getaway. The only course eliminated so far is Congressional Country Club.

The NY Times isn't very curious but provides a breakdown of the players for us, including this word of caution:

Mr. Boehner is friends with the golf legend Jack Nicklaus. He has also played with Tiger Woods in a pro-am tournament two years ago at the Congressional Country Club outside Washington.

Scared yet, Mr. President? Don’t be. You’ve got Biden.

Yes, we are told the mighty don't mess with Joe has a handicap index of 6.3. Nobody ever talks about his golf but he must get out there often carrying that kind of number, especially after starting the game around 50. Of course he IS the Vice President and probably has plenty of time on his hands with Recovery Summer currently on hold. Meanwhile Kasich is said to be a "wild card", meaning the Times didn't bother digging very deep because they don't really care.

The big question is whether Obama will practice scorecard transparency. The Moonie Times tells us not to expect an after-action report and they may be right--if team GOP wins--but there's not a soul alive on planet Earth who doesn't think the scorecards will be front and center of every news outlet if team OB manages to keep it in-bounds and slays the evil deficit monsters. There will be glowing hole to hole coverage and some may even use the word gutsy. Maybe a bigger question is whether team GOP will publish the cards if they exact a thumpin', since it would likely be spun by the same journalists as bad form or even racist. Guess we'll see.

As to real golf, Roy McAvoy, er Rory McIlroy is apparently playing his own Open this year. He's only 22 years old and 11 under par with a 6 shot lead over the nearest contender and 9 shots on everyone else in the most difficult tournament in the world. Impressive, but he doesn't quite have the same flair as the Golden Boy back at Pebble Beach in the late 90s. He does however bear a slight resemblance to a famous person...


Although as far as we know he's not from Kansas, or Seattle, or Honolulu, or Kenya, just Northern Ireland. Wait, Obama claims roots in Ireland!

MORE 6/17/11

Looks like there should be some good hole to hole chatter out there tomorrow. Or how about this--the event gets canceled after 12 holes with team GOP up by a million due to the announcement that Gadaffi has been killed or captured. It would be just like Obama to do that to invited guests.

How Much Longer Forgotten?

The media is not making a big deal out of it, but doesn't this sound like "mission accomplished"?

“I think America wins,” Biden told POLITICO in an end-of-trip interview at the ambassador’s residence in the sprawling U.S. Embassy complex. “I sound corny, but I think America gets credit here in the region. And I think everybody gets credit, from George Bush to [President Obama].

Despite the statesman-like rhetoric, with violence increasing and problems persisting on the formation of a new government Biden's comments seem to leave a lot of skin on Obama's political hide going forward.

Questions: can the administration back away from Iraq as scheduled if it's descending back into chaos with Biden's comments floating forever in cyberspace? If AQ proxies start flowing back in will it be OK to ignore their Iraqi wing while maintaining the pressure on the Afghanistan/Pockeston wing? Will the press allow that to make any sense, especially when Obama claimed he'd leave a strike force in Iraq to handle AQ?

Ah well. Biden is certainly correct that success or failure in the region will be shared by all Americans. That was true in 1991, 1998, 2003, and now. Too bad it wasn't obvious all along but it's never too late for teachable moments.


Just don't mess with Joe!

Fair and Balanced

Sometimes blogging requires a meal of one's own words. In my case, a comment in the previous KSM thread about Cheney's relative timidity on the trial coming to Manhattan and the whole terror-underbomber imbroglio in general. Darth will blast his way onto the Sunday shows today to discuss.

The specter of this apparently rings fear into some liberal hearts--Obama will send Joe Biden out to mess with his predecessor on TV while the leftosphere was busy Saturday evening working up their pre-emptive strikes. A couple of pundits were afraid the talking heads wouldn't ask the right questions, so they penned a few they hope will be asked.

HuffPo's Jason Linkins came up with several gotchas, some of them fairly decent. For instance, he uses this link to claim Cheney was hot to trot on trying Zacarias Moussaoui in federal court, and it looks that way, but the article goes on to explain why that wasn't a very good idea. So really, this is one Cheney could admit to being wrong about, and still be right.

He makes the comparison between Richard Reid and Abdulmichelob, who are exactly the same to liberals despite the time difference and protocols in place, but nevertheless this might elicit an interesting response. Personally I don't have a big issue with trying him in federal court, I have a big issue with them saying they had gotten all the intelligence possible within 50 minutes then reading him the same rights they'll one day read me when they get tired of all this.

Linkins then points to a Village Voice column containing a real cogent observation:

Afterward the disgraced former Vice President retired to his hyperbaric chamber to suck the blood out of a living infant.

Evil! Worse than Osama! That's followed by a joke about the guy Cheney accidentally shot.

Maureen Dowd of the Times was not to be outdone. Her strictly objective no-nonsense story was entitled "Icicles, Inside and Out", an imaginary conversation between Cheney, Obama, and Richard Robert Gates. Here's a zany outtake:

OBAMA: You keep saying there were no terror attacks after 9/11, Dick. That’s like saying that blimps were safe after the Hindenburg. I wouldn’t have been caught flat-footed reading “The Pet Goat” to second graders.

CHENEY: No, you’d have been teaching a graduate seminar on “The Pet Goat.” Don’t you Muslims eat pet goats?

Hard-hitting Times journalism! Imagine the worst boilerplate lefty war criticism from the Bush era and you can make up the rest without wasting the energy to click.

But in some respects they've got a point--the national media (including them) has shied away from asking the really hard-hitting questions of our political elite. So here's a suggestion for the next Obama interview..

Ask him about whether former Marxist and now Professor John Drew's memory of that little evening in San Francisco is correct, and about where he stands on Rawlsian social justice.

Then maybe ask him why he hasn't allowed anyone to see much from his Occidental and Columbia days. Inquire about Percy Sutton's claim that Khalid al-Mansour helped him into Harvard. Then about what was so private about that Rashid Khalidi tape the LA Times spiked. And how in the world Christopher Andersen could possibly claim that domestic washed up terrorist/neo-communist William Ayers ghost wrote "Dreams". And why no one asked Robert Gibbs about any of this.

Ask him if he continues to think his decision to not support the surge in Iraq was a good one based on events on the ground now, and whether he would now support it in hindsight after being in office and having the responsibility, or does he still think he would withdraw to the horizon. Perhaps the interviewer could include recent comments about the brewing success in Iraq made by the very same guy he's sending out today to slap Cheney around.

Ask him if anything attributed to him in "Game Change" is true. And whether Recovery.gov was worth 18 million or whether that was actually part of the Stimulus.

And finally on the underbomber, ask him if he really expects anyone to believe that Holder acted completely independently on the KSM decision, and why it's OK for al-Nashiri to be tried in a commission. And how KSM can get a fair trial after the leader of the free world has already declared him a dirty, filthy, guilty terrorist headed for hell.

Ya know, this honesty stuff could be pretty fun! Just think of it as 'media justice'.

MORE 2/14/10

Cheney on ABC. A very good, adult-like interview with Jonathan Karl. Cheney:

"If they are going to take credit for [Iraq], fair enough, for what they’ve done while they are there. But it ought to go with a healthy dose of ‘thank you George Bush’ up front," he said.

Darth also condemned Biden's comment about a low likelihood of more 9/11 style attacks, which he said would lower preparedness. In a pre-emptive response, Biden basically said they've already won the war:

"The reason it's unlikely is because we have been relentless," Biden said.

As mentioned previously, that's a pretty risky strategy, probably one designed to line up with the "terrorists are nuisance criminals" position of HolderBama, due in part to the political cancellation of most of BushCheney's terror tools.

But if there's less threat of a 9/11 style attack why are we currently surging and kicking ass in Afghanistan? Isn't it to stop terrorists from having a safe-haven (right next door to a nuclear Pakistan) to create more attacks, as Obama has said?
Isn't Biden's comment sort of like declaring 'mission accomplished'?

Cheney then caused massive head-explosions by tacitly supporting the repeal of DADT. As to KSM in New York, no surprises--he didn't want anyone released from Gitmo. Cheney must be a great poker player.

MORE BIDEN 2/14/10

Biden's comment about Iraq not being worth it is certainly his opinion- at least today. But while he's welcome to his own facts, he's not welcome to his own, ah, well here..

Assessing Obama’s Iraq plan on September 13, 2007: “My impression is [Obama] thinks that if we leave, somehow the Iraqis are going to have an epiphany” of peaceful coexistence among warring sects. “I’ve seen zero evidence of that.”

And from 2002:

Biden on Meet the Press in 2002, discussing Saddam Hussein: “He’s a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security… “We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world.”

Keep in mind this was not entirely based on Bush's intelligence, since he'd been saying the same things before 2001. But that was then. Again from 2007, during his run for the presidency, addressing the comment above from 2002:

SEN. BIDEN: That’s right, and I was correct about that. He must be, in fact—and remember the weapons we were talking about. I also said on your show, that’s part of what I said, but not all of what I meant. What I also said on your show at the time was that I did not think he had weaponized his material, but he did have. When, when the inspectors left after Saddam kicked them out, there was a cataloguing at the United Nations saying he had X tons of, X amount of, and they listed the various materials he had. The big issue, remember, on this show we talked about, was whether he had weaponized them. Remember you asked me about those flights that were taking place in southern Iraq, where—were they spraying anthrax? And, you know, what would happen? And, you know, so on and so forth. And I pointed out to you that they had not developed that capacity at all. But he did have these stockpiles everywhere.

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.

The problem with Biden--and the reason I can't help but like him--is that he can't control himself enough to keep from blubbering out some honesty every now and then.

MORE 2/14/10

From the WaPo analysis:

White House officials say they have been unmoved by criticism from Cheney, whom they note is one of least popular political figures in America.

That's their rebuttal? For real? Sounds appropriate--for ninth grade.

Biden's Biden

Joe Biden talked to Larry King and seems to be laying down some new ground..



We must assume Joe is privy to some inside knowledge as to the size of the next attack lest he set the administration (or maybe just him) up for failure. But it's an interesting statement. Perhaps Joe has been sent out to help put terrorism back into the nuisance box so as not to lose focus on the the more important domestic agenda. Downplaying the threat also helps get the KSM show trial to Manhattan, a plan mostly likely designed to allow surrogates to take free shots at Bush-Cheney and tie them to current Repubs in front of the mid-terms. Oh and to uphold our values.

Or maybe it was just Joe being Joe. After all, he offhandedly praised Bush on fighting terror and said he "likes" Sarah Palin despite some of her ideas (countdown to a Palin Facebook reply).

But the suggestion, even if clumsily made, that his administration might get credit for a successful Iraq was just plain 'out there'. Or wait, again, maybe it was just Joe being Joe, since he was once a true believer. It's hard to tell! Is this kinder, gentler Joe representative of some kind of new way forward in the post Scott Brown/Abdulmuttalob era at least until the health summit, or just a political burp? Well, whatever the case let's hope Obama doesn't go all Gangsta on him for talking out of turn. Joe's a likable guy.

Blame it on Biden

The Times has a "Biden is pessimistic on Afghanistan" story up, detailing the Veep's glass-half-empty view of a war he once enthusiastically endorsed when Bush was losing Iraq. There are a few dropped hints about how the base might somehow affect the coming decision, such as this:

“I think a big part of it is, the vice president’s reading of the Democratic Party is this is not sustainable,” said Bruce O. Riedel, who led the administration’s review early this year. “That’s a part of the process that’s a legitimate question for a president — if I do this, can I sustain it with political support at home? That was the argument the vice president was making back in the winter.”

Hmm, would the president actually decide whether or not to surge troops based on party politics? Well, to not surge and please the base would be hard to rectify considering his fiery rhetoric about Afghanistan being the central front of the overseas contingency operation. Then again, if he surges before the health care bill and the bill flames out, his left base will implode over such a dichotomy. There's also the December acceptance speech in Oslo to consider.

On the flip side if he delays, then gets health care passed and ends up not surging it will mainly be Fox News complaining, which is probably why the administration is doing what they're doing right now.

Obama has some time--the snows are coming and fighting will soon be ebbing for the winter (in Afghanistan). But if he wants to get the extra troops out there in time for Spring he can't wait too much longer to decide. The question is whether Biden's pessimism holds any clues? As Ricks pointed out, Joe has been wrong on nearly every single military strategic issue since the Gulf War so they can always attach the decision to him and let the chips fall (even if you're technically not supposed to mess with Joe). Cynical? Yes. So here's hoping domestic politics aren't as much in play as it would seem.

Passport-gate Update

Remember the night Keith Olbermann thought he had another Watergate? In a fit of hilarity, before he could get his special 'special comment' written about the worstest worst person in the world, which was likely a toss-up between Condi Rice, Bush, Rove or Bill O'Reilly (he's always in play) the story dynamically transformed into contractors accessing all three major candidates' passport records in the State Dept, spluttering the balloon in deflated circles around his neck.

The initial snoopers involved worked for two State contractors--John O. Brennan's Analysis Corp and Phil Nolan's Stanley Associates. Brennan was a big Obama supporter who later became a leading candidate for CIA Director until the nutroots viciously took him out, leaving him a mere intelligence czar, and Phil Nolan was a big Hillary supporter. Sounds like at least a "friendly" rivalry there.

Anyway, the DoJ has been slowly busting employees who gained unauthorized access and today comes news of the fifth employee's takedown. Here's the DOJ release naming names.

Of course this story has overlapped into the birth cert conspiracy, with the general gist being the snoopers were trying to sanitize, or as Ken Timmerman put it, 'cauterize' the records to keep anyone from seeing copies of original birth certs or other stuff possibly in the files. Publicity hounds like Orly Taitz have also made hay with the Lt. Harris murder twist, which does give the whole thing a kind of Robert Ludlum feel, although on deeper inspection, not so much.

The deeper story might be the fraud ring Harris was connected with featuring moles in the State Department selling access. This was all made more stark by today's news of the swiping of information from millions of credit cards. From the Wash Times on Harris:

Mr. Harris also said the fraud ring submitted credit-card applications using the names and “identifying information” of the persons listed on the passport applications, and that a postal service employee then would intercept the cards before they were delivered to the appropriate residences.

Better not let Obama hear about such postal employees when making future comparisons to government health care. As to Harris' death there seem to be three possibilities: 1) he committed suicide, 2) he was rubbed out by former thug pals or by some thug passing by, or 3) some political black ops red team eliminated him. Those who believe Timmerman and his anonymous insiders will undoubtedly believe number 3. Others, including me, will need more proof.

FURTHERMORE 8/18/09

This is the stupidest thing you'll see all day. Or all week. Or all month.

Hey, Who Invited Joe?

Obama told everyone not to call the man-talk teaching session a "beer summit", then said:

It's a clever term, but this is not a summit, guys," Obama told reporters. "This is three folks having a drink at the end of the day, and hopefully giving people an opportunity to listen to each other. And that's really all it is. This is not a university seminar."

Three? How did Joe get into the picture? Maybe he saw the beer cart and followed it. Or maybe he was there as The Enforcer. Anyway, if it wasn't a beer summit maybe it was a local chapter meeting of the he-man women-haters club, since the other involved party, the witness Ms. Whalen who got labeled by some a racist, was snubbed.

Never can tell, maybe something good will come out of the meeting other than a photo-op. We'll see what the players say in their post-game interviews.

Inspector General Update

In light of the recent Inspector General flap(s) it might be helpful to go back to Obama's address to Congress this past February:



Overnight and transparency were the two linchpin anchors of the program, which were handed to Biden (who proceeded to forgot the website name--which doesn't work as advertised anyway). At any rate, one might think a story about inspector general firings in this arena might force the press to remember what they quickly forgot about the Gerald Walpin firing. Fortunately Stacy McCain has the memory they don't.

Follow the links--the tie-in to Biden is of course Amtrak but the main theme in all of this is how flimsy the notion of oversight was all along, something the Dems knew when they used it as a selling point. The mainstream press (and masses) have no interest in stories about inspector generals. Matter of fact, even a blog post about it will be largely ignored, unless titled "inspector general sex scandal" and maybe not even then (apologies to the IG profession but somehow it doesn't evoke much titillation).

The same old dog and pony sales pitch is being used with health care and cap/trade, and will likely be employed with immigration amnesty and a host of other lollipops from the liberal make-a-wish tree. And no, it's probably not limited to the Democrats--those in power aren't about to let a few watchdogs take down their entire hot dog factory--but we were promised change this time around.

The Spin Never Stops

Cheney seems to be in a grudge match with Obama to see who can do the most media appearances. Today he made news that resonated strongly in leftist quarters. Yes that's right--he favors gay marriage! Which is not even news. Actually,

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that he does not believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the planning or execution of the September 11, 2001, attacks.

He strongly defended the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq, however, arguing that Hussein's previous support for known terrorists was a serious danger after 9/11.

Which is being played in message board world and MSNBC as a shocking reversal. But for a shocking reversal one normally requires a definitive statement to the contrary at some prior point, such as "Saddam was definitely behind the 9/11 attacks". Which never occurred, although admittedly Darth played it close to the vest for awhile:

In his CNBC interview, Cheney went a bit further. Asked if Iraq was involved in 9/11, he said, "We don't know."

"What the commission says is they can't find evidence of that," he said. "We had one report, which is a famous report on the Czech intelligence service, and we've never been able to confirm or to knock it down."

The left no doubt has a more radical explanation but they need to ask themselves why it should be surprising for a government official to be suspicious of a man who still referred to "the Mother of all Battles" as late as 2002, or whose son-in-law told reporters he wanted to turn the White House into dust? As to George Tenet, of course he supplied the administration intel about the numerous links between Iraq and AQ--just read his book! That doesn't mean Saddam green-lighted 9/11.

Disagree? Don't take it from a right wing blogger then, take it from our new Vice President:

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?

In other words, perhaps they were moved to Syria, right Joe? Hard to invent such stuff. No wonder they keep scrubbing this clip off You Tube. We'll close with this:

Asked if he knows information that the 9/11 commission does not know, Cheney replied, "Probably."

One has to wonder if his recent request to the CIA for documents might shine some light on the puzzle or is just a rouse to save his hide. Obama surely knows everything Cheney knows, yet he's motionless on the challenge.

Biden Blows Secret Location

VP Biden has apparently blown the cover of a Vice Presidential 'secret location', at least one of them:

Ever wonder about that secure, undisclosed location where Dick Cheney secreted himself after the 9/11 attacks? Joe Biden reveals the bunker-like room is at the Naval Observatory in Washington, where Cheney lived for eight years and which is now home to Biden. The veep related the story to his head-table dinner mates when he filled in for President Obama at the Gridiron Club earlier this year.

Actually the veil has been lifting ever since the Emperor left DC, which was the same day Google Maps/Earth unfuzzed its photo of the Naval Observatory.

Well, it's nice that a man so prone to verbal gaffes can laugh at concepts like the continuity of government. Or maybe we should hope number two in succession is just crazy like a fox.

Captains of the Universe

Here's Maxine Waters playing the good comrade and proving herself as capable of people picked at random out of the phone book, grilling the banking fat cats (it's OK to use the descriptor 'fat' when talking about bankers--Obama has issued a waiver):



She gonna go all socialist on 'em. But hey, it's a free market (or was). Nobody is forced at gunpoint to hold any credit cards. None at all. Dave Ramsey has been warning us about these whores for years but it doesn't take a radio talk show host to understand that credit and credit cards can be dangerous to your financial health. This used to be taught in the home.

Funny thing, Joe Biden is from Delaware, a state housing many of America's credit card companies. Where is 'the Senator from MBNA' when we need him?