RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Friday Night OPEN Thread

By SusanUnPC on January 18, 2008 at 6:21 PM in Current Affairs, Presidential Candidates, State Department

UPDATE: Steve Clemons has written an important piece on the departure of the State Dept.’s Nicholas Burns, “Filling the Void After Nick Burns Departs: For Two Years, Burns was the Anti-Bolton to John Bolton’s Bolton. Snippet:

R. Nicholas “Nick” Burns is a stunningly effective diplomat. There is Dean Acheson DNA in the kind of work he does — but also a little John Foster Dulles. He is part Kennan and Scowcroft and also has the moral integrity of a Cyrus Vance. …

I happened to be on the US Airways shuttle flying back from New York to DC a while back — and Nick Burns was on the plane. … (Read all.)

sctpmreps250.pngSo, which Republican is going to win South Carolina tomorrow? (TPM graph.)

One of Josh Marshall’s readers has an amusing take on Rudy Guiliani’s campaign, and his sure losses in South Carolina and Nevada: “[W]e are guaranteed at least another 10 days of increasingly hilarious self-deifying 9/11 exploitation…”

A pro-Obama 527 ad is running in Nevada “on Spanish-language radio in the state, criticizes Clinton for a lawsuit filed by some of her Nevada supporters that sought new restrictions workplace caucus sites this Saturday. The buy is allegedly being funded by the Unite Here Campaign Committee on behalf of the Culinary Workers Union, which has endorsed Obama,” reports CNN’s Political Ticker. John Edwards has attacked Obama and defended Clinton:

John Edwards was criticized by Obama in Iowa for not calling an independent group that supported the former North Carolina senator to demand they pull ads they were running in support of his candidacy. “When Sen. Obama says ‘turn the page,’ he obviously means turn to whatever page is most convenient. He loudly and repeatedly attacked independent ads by unions in Iowa as the product of special interests,” said Edwards Deputy Campaign Manager Jonathan Prince.

“But when a different outside group starts running ads on his behalf in Nevada, there’s not a peep from him or his campaign. It must be because he’s burning up the phone lines calling the head of Unite Here personally to demand he pulls the ads down right away.”

Politico has more: “Edwards rips Obama, defends Hillary.” Then there’s Obama’s gaffe, reported on CNN’s Situation Room this afternoon:

From Jessica Yellin’s report today on CNN’s Situation Room:

And Wolf, to add to all this Sen. Obama added to the back-and-forth just this afternoon. In an unusual move he actually named Sen. Clinton by name, taking a jab at her saying she copied a key part of his economic stimulus plan.

But the Clinton people — they’re howling at that saying she came out with an economic stimulus plan before Barack Obama.

And, as readers here know, Paul Krugman said the economic stimulus plans of John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are far superior to that of Barack Obama.

  • TeakWoodKite

    Do we know which Phone Bot company was making the calls? was it same one as Huckabee’s? What a coinicidence that would be.

    donor lists for Unite Here Campaign Committee (near as I can tell)

    http://www.philadelphiacontroller.org/2007Cycle3/CampaignReports/UNITE_HERE_TIP_Campa.pdf

  • Kathleen

    The so called progressive blogosphere has been even more silent about what is taking place in the Gaza than the MSM. Not a peep at Firedoglake, Salon, Crooks and Liars, Think Progress, Daily Kos etc etc.
    We know we have come to expect a black out in the MSM when it comes to the Israeli Palestinian conflict but that black out has and is taking place in the Progressive blogosphere. Oh some of the bloggers will make their excuses, not my thing, put something in the title. I really believe they are terrified and intimidated by the mail they receive when the topic has come up in the past and the trolls that show up to bash and destroy anyone who tries to discuss this critical issue.

    The issue that dare not speak its name in the debates in the msm and in the so called progressive blogosphere
    http://www.muzzlewatch.com/

    How in the hell can this conflict ever be resolved if no one is discussing it or even aware of what is taking place.

    UN ranking official urges Israel to reopen Gaza crossings

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-01/19/content_7449720.htm

    Israel Closes Vital Gaza Crossings

    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jD4YSkDPlclqd9dHvg2f0Ij18zEgD8U8I3A01

  • ybnormal

    Obama debuts new act in Vegas

    Referring to Tuesday’s debate question, “What’s your biggest weakness?” Obama said, a messy desk, and needs help with paperwork. Edwards said a powerful response to pain in others, and Clinton said impatience to bring change to America.

    So now in speeches, Obama is using humor to call the other’s responses dishonest.

    HUH?

    First off, everyone everwhere who ever did a job interview (which is what a campaign is) knows that you don’t really tell the prospective boss your REAL weakness.

    C’mon, how lilkely are you to get hired if you say,
    “Ever since I’ve got hooked on erectile disfunction drugs I’ve had a sexual addiction for everyone, as long as they’re not my wife; and I can’t balance my own finances; I’m a serious procrastinator; I tried to read a book about time management but I didn’t have time; I used to be indecisive but now I’m not sure; Oh, and did I mention gambling? – I recently lost my wife’s wedding ring and the deed to my house in a back room poker game at the Mayfair hotel.”

    But yet Obama claims he’s the honest one. Let’s see a show of hands; who really believes that Obama’s BIGGEST weakness is paperwork?

    tick…tick…

    How about that big-ass job qualification weakness everyone in the news media has reported -
    l-a-c-k o-f e-x-p-e-r-i-e-n-c-e

    • http://noquarterusa.net/ SusanUnPC

      I read the HuffPo piece about it, and groaned. Not only does he not have the delivery style for jokes, the jokes weren’t any good.

      Here’s more on his gaffe today:

      Today, Sen. Obama falsely claimed that Hillary followed his lead on introducing a stimulus package: [...]

      Actually, the opposite is true. Hillary first suggested a stimulus package in December. When she introduced her plan on January 11, Sen. Obama was roundly criticized for claiming his existing package of long-term tax relief would function as stimulus. Two days later, he then introduced an actual stimulus package, that borrowed heavily from Hillary’s package. …

      Read all.

      • ybnormal

        Clinton spokesman Phil Singer
        “Judging from his act, it doesn’t sound like Senator Obama has much experience doing stand-up either,”

    • Cee

      tick…tick…

      Great presidents according to Hillary
      by kos
      Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 06:24:44 PM PST
      So what did Hillary Clinton tell the Salmon Press editorial board? Apparently, nothing different than what Obama said.

      But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents – Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan – demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list.

      The hypocrisy of the Hillary campaign is almost overwhelming, trying to score cheap political points from the exact same things she’s been obviously telling editorial boards herself.

      Worse, actually. Obama didn’t say that Reagan was one of his favorites.

      Update: And if Obama wins Nevada, spins Mark Penn, it’ll be because of those darn unions.

      Update II: Okay, the author of that editorial says they screwed up:

      The question posed was originally what portraits would you hang in the White House if you were President and as the dialogue progressed, who are the presidents you admire most?

      She [Sen. Clinton] listed several presidents that she admired and mentioned she liked Reagan’s communication skills. She did not say Reagan was her favorite President. She didn’t say anything close to that.

      So Hillary didn’t say Reagan was one of her favorites either. She just praised his skills. Like someone else suddenly being attacked for doing the same

      Hillary has Lieberman’s back
      by kos
      Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:36:50 PM PST
      Hillary thinks Lieberman should keep his committee assignments, even though he’s campaigning for Republican John McCain.

      http://www.dailykos.com/

      • Eva Veverka

        Kos has already walked the first one back; “they shouldn’t have posted it if it was wrong so I would be wrong in commenting on it” seems to be the gist. Or “nevermind”

        And Hillary did NOT say Lieberman should keep his committee assignments: she refused to comment. Said he was glad Joe still voted in their caucus (which keeps Harry Reid Senate Majority Leader).

        Lordie. And I know you read these things last night and the caveats are there this morning.

        Just it’s so hard to find quotes that really stand up, you know?

        Eva

      • Kathleen

        What has Obama ever done for Unions? Obamarama machine on full speed

  • brat

    My Take on South Carolina:

    1. Huckabee will romp. He’s the real deal regarding “traditional conservatives.” And he keeps punching that increasingly sore class button, which the country club members wish they’d ignore. McCain will get beaten like a drum.

    2. Say good-bye to grandpa Fred after SC. He didn’t have much of a presence when I was there.

    3. Next week, it will be Clinton by a hair. I was in SC late December and early January, and she had the ground troops in place. Obama (and Edwards as well), didn’t have their respective A-teams in place. Clinton did. And her office had prime real estate in Colubmia–across the street from the Capital (and that damned flag).

    Watch for the staying power of Huckabee and Clinton. I think Huckabee is a policy moron, but he’s a smart pol–and he projects better on the TV than any other GOP candidate.

    Clinton’s legendary discipline will show as each candidate gets increasingly ragged. I really think she’s the person to beat, which will become increasingly difficult over time.

  • http://www.evergreenpolitics.com shoephone

    The comment thread at the Politico is reliably nasty, including all the vitriolic name-calling that the Obama supporters can muster up.

    A Clinton supporter asked one of the commenters to name three policies of Obama’s that she likes, and to please “be specific”. She didn’t respond, but another Obama supporter did. See if you can find anything specific in his reasons:

    Hil 08 @ 4:21 PM: I’m not who you were talking to, but I’ll take a shot at that. Three policies that have convinced me to vote Obama?
    1. I prefer his health plan, with its lack of mandates (for adults).

    2. I like his plan (mentioned in the “blueprint for change” on his website) to have cabinet officials give ‘fireside chats’ and actually inform the public as to what they’re doing and why.

    3. Iraq– I believe we need to get out of Iraq and, while Clinton and Obama do seem to agree substantially on that point, I frankly trust him to enact his policy more because she voted for Iraq and he opposed it. You may not consider that “specific” enough, but it sure is a big deal to me, and I think it involves the most important policy decision the next president can make.

    Notice that he doesn’t actually tell us what he likes about the Obama health care plan, he just tells us what he doesn’t like about the others (mandates). I get the distinct feeling he has not read through any of the candidates’ plans and has no idea what is in them — “specifically”.

    “Fireside chats”??? Huh?? This is a detailed policy?

    Okay, so he admits that Clinton’s and Obama’s plans for getting troops out of Iraq are quite similar (I agree, which is why I like Edwards’ pledge to get them out quicker and leave no U.S. military bases behind). But then he says he just “trust[s]” Obama more to implement it, because Clinton voted for the AUMF while he opposed it. Well, we’ve been down this road a million times. I could not/cannot abide her vote, but the reason he “opposed it” rather than “voted against it” is because he wasn’t in the Senate at the time and didn’t actually have to “vote on it”. BUT considering that Obama has voted for every single Iraq War funding bill since coming to the Senate, well… I’m hard-pressed to understand why or how this commenter just “trust[s]” him more than Clinton on a redeployment.

    Like I thought — no specifics. No meat. No intellectual understanding. Just more “trust” and fawning.

    It’s enough to make me want to take up smoking again.

    • shirin

      “while Clinton and Obama do seem to agree substantially on that point, I frankly trust him to enact his policy more because she voted for Iraq and he opposed it.”

      Clinton and Obama have said virtually the same thing about Iraq, and if you analyze intelligently and objectively what they have said, it is clear that they have no intention of getting out of Iraq. They both intend to remove one to two brigades per month during the first year in office. I don’t recall whether they have said when they would begin, but let’s say from the first month in office. That would leave approximately 50,000 troops in Iraq

      • ybnormal

        I tend to give more weight to what they’re on record as having done, rather than the claims they state verbally in vote-seeking statements.

        While Obama did make a strong speech against going into Iraq in ’02, it was not as a federal House or Senate member, and carried little risk.

        Both Obama and Clinton voted a number of times in favor of war appropriations, in spite of the fact that congress’ budget authority is the greatest power they have, and also in spite of the fact that at least more recently, the public’s disapproval of continuing the war has been greater than congress’ willingness to fund it.

        The claim by many in congress is the risk of being protrayed as a soldier hater. What about Kucinich? He’s not really a good choice for president, but he’s an example of someone who does vote against the war, and still manages to be re-elected to the House.

        So for purposes of evaluating Clinton and Obama, what do their votes tell us? Is it all about retribution from the GOP attack media? Can the media really change the public’s mind that much? As we know, votes are traded like currency in congress. Is it maybe about vote trading?

        Which leads to the final question, what is either of them likely to do about Iraq in the different role as president, but still under the pressures of the public and the media? Frankly, it seems hard to tell.

        • Cee

          If we don’t free ourselves from the clutches of AIPAC and Israel nothing is going to change in the Middle East.

          Who is more wedded to and favored by them. Barak or Hillary?

        • shirin

          I agree that their record of actions is more important than what they say. Hillary’s record of enthusiastic support for military and other forms of deadly and destructive violence as a solution to problems both real and imagined goes back at least to her tenure as first lady where she strongly supported all of her husband’s murderous – some say genocidal – policies in Iraq, including much more military violence than most Americans are aware of. She supported the transmogrification of Iraq policy from its focus on Iraq’s weapons programs and capabilities (real and alleged) to regime change, which conveniently took place as it was becoming apparent that Saddam was effectively disarmed.

          She encouraged her husband in his bombing of Serbia.

          She has fully and uncritically supported Israel’s depredations on Palestinians, including its unspeakable blockade of Ghaza. She has enthusiastically supported the collective punishment meted out by the U.S. and the EU to the Palestinian people for the crime of exercising their right to elect their own leadership.

          And she fully and uncritically supported Israel’s 33 days of horror and devastation of Lebanon in Summer, 2006.

          Hillary Clinton is touted here and elsewhere as a great champion of rights and well-being of women and children. Tell that to the women and children of Iraq, Serbia, Palestine, Lebanon – and perhaps even Iran.

          Those are some examples of Hillary’s record. The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.

          As for Obama, his past record is not noticeably different from Hillary’s, there is just less of it to look at.

    • shirin

      “while Clinton and Obama do seem to agree substantially on that point, I frankly trust him to enact his policy more because she voted for Iraq and he opposed it.”

      Clinton and Obama have said virtually the same thing about Iraq, and if you analyze intelligently and objectively what they have said, it is clear that they have no intention of getting out of Iraq. They both intend to remove one to two brigades per month during the first year in office. I don’t recall whether they have said when they would begin, but let’s say from the first month in office. That would leave approximately 50,000 troops in Iraq at the end of 2009. They have given big laundry lists of what they will need troops to continue to do for the indefinite future, including guarding the “embassy” (which is not an embassy, and should be dismantled), protecting “American assets” (could easily involve combat) and/or “strategic interests” (like what, the oil, perhaps?), fighting terrorists (wait a minute, isn’t that – ummmmm – combat?), etc., etc., etc. Oh, yeah – and all those Americans who would be in Iraq for “humanitarian” reasons need to be protected too? And of course, plenty of American troops would have to stick around to “train Iraqi forces”.

      I don’t recall Hillary ever saying anything one way or another about permanent bases – very telling if she has not.

      But Obama has stated there would be no permanent bases built under his presidency (no need for that, since they are already built), and has also stated there would be no permanent bases period (so, where does he intend to keep the tens of thousands of troops who would remain in Iraq indefinitely? Will he leave the extremely well-appointed permanent bases empty and have 50,000 or so troops live in tents out in the desert somewhere?). But you know, Barack recently made an itsy bitsy slip of the tongue when he stated that enough troops would need to remain to guard the “embassy”, and “American bases”. Say what? American bases? But, I thought you said………oh, nevermind.

      Edwards is the only one who has specifically stated that he would remove all but 3500-5000 troops – the number he deems necessary to guard the “embassy”, and to protect Americans working in Iraq. I argue, of course, that the “embassy” in Iraq is no embassy, that the United States has no business having an embassy in Iraq until and unless they are invited to do so by a legitimate Iraqi government, that it is the Iraqi government not the United States that determines the size, location, and nature of the facility. No more than a few tens, or at most a hundred or so troops should be required to guard any legally established embassy. But at least Edwards is heading in the correct direction.

      And yes, Chris Vosburg, you rude (expletive omitted) Edwards has specified the number I cited, and the purposes I cited. I have heard it with my own ears.

      • Chris Vosburg

        Shirin writes: I don’t recall Hillary ever saying anything one way or another about permanent bases…

        Of course you don’t. You had your fingers firmly planted in your ears and were shouting “la la la la la la la”.

        Hillary is on record in opposition to permanent bases in Iraq. You could look it up. But you won’t.

        Edwards hasn’t cited an actual figure, and cannot. As I pointed out earlier, any one of the democratic candidates will get us out of Iraq, and the speed of that withdrawal will be determined by circumstance. You got a taste of what I was talking about earlier this week with the Iraqi government’s statement that US troops would be required for border patrol an such through the next decade. Now do you get it? No, of course you don’t.

        Further, Bill Clinton’s decision to bomb Serbia made sense. Look, the serbs already had taken most of what they wanted, teritory-wise, and everything else was just killing for fun. Clinton saw this, and saw an opening. A few bombing runs, and presto, Dayton Accords, bringing an end to a conflict which had taken 200,000 lives over the course of eighteen months.

        Sometimes a threat of force is what’s needed, and this is what put inspectors back in Iraq, darlin’, and actually would have succeeded, and this is what Hillary voted for, as she’s said innumerable times, despite your slanderous insistence that she cast a vote for invasion.

        Let’s get this straight now: Dubya violated the terms of the authorization when he invaded. In doing so he violated US law relating to justification for such an invasion.

        If you claim that Hillary and the rest of congress are responsible for the invasion, than you cannot argue that Bush is in breach of law, and you cannot argue that the invasion was illegal.

        That’s really, really, really silly.

        Incidentally, “smartass know-it-all” isn’t an expletive, so there’s no need to delete. Go ahead and say it.

        • shirin

          “Edwards hasn’t cited an actual figure”

          Yes, he has, but of course you didn’t hear it because you had your eyes, ears, mouth, and mind firmly shut. Of course, you COULD look it up, but you won’t.

          Edwards has said with his very own voice, which I heard with my very own (open) ears, and processed with my very own mind, that he anticipates the number of troops needed to guard the embassy and protect Americans working in Iraq would be approximately 3500-5000. I know what I heard. The fact that you have not bothered to hear it too does not mean that it didn’t happen.

          If John Edwards speaks and Chris Vosburg doesn’t listen, has John Edwards actually spoken?

        • shirin

          “the Iraqi government’s statement that US troops would be required for border patrol an such through the next decade. Now do you get it? No, of course you don’t.”

          Actually, you are the one who does not get it. You actually believe that the Iraqi so-called “government” is a real government that acts and speaks independently based on their own accurate, independent assessment of conditions. You don’t think for a moment, do you, that they are saying what they have been “advised” by their American masters to say if they want to keep their jobs. It doesn’t occur to you that they might be speaking in their own selfish interest in keeping the support of the imperial power now occupying the country and at whose pleasure they serve.

          Why, I’ll bet you actually believe that the Iraqi so-called “government” is a genuine democratically-elected government, too, and that it is representative of the Iraqi people, serves at the pleasure of the people of Iraq, and genuinely acts and speaks on their behalf.

          No, you really, really, really do not get it.

          “Further, Bill Clinton’s decision to bomb Serbia made sense.”

          There are a lot of very smart, very knowledgeable people to whom it did not make sense at all, including a lot of Serbs (and others) who suffered and lost loved ones as a result.

          “A few bombing runs, and presto, Dayton Accords, bringing an end to a conflict which had taken 200,000 lives over the course of eighteen months.”

          Oh, yeah – it’s a simple as that. A few simple, little harmless bombing runs always solve everything, don’t they?

          “Sometimes a threat of force is what’s needed, and this is what put inspectors back in Iraq”

          Post hoc ergo propter hoc, right? Wrong, my rude, arrogant friend.

          Given that Saddam expressed willingness to readmit the inspectors weeks before the Congress voted to authorize Bush to attack Iraq, your statement that it is the threat of force contained in that vote that “put inspectors back in Iraq”, or that such a threat of force was even needed to accomplish that, is simply bull****.

          There is not only no evidence whatsoever that it was any action by the United States Congress that put the inspectors back in Iraq, the evidence contradicts that assertion. The Bush regime, not Saddam, had for weeks been blocking efforts to return inspectors to Iraq. For weeks prior to that critical vote in Congress Saddam had been expressing his willingness for the inspectors to return, and the Bush regime had been rejecting the proposition, and insisting that Saddam was lying (without, of course, being willing to put Saddam’s sincerity to the test by allowing the UN to try to send the inspectors back – that was a bit too risky, after all). Tony Blair finally convinced the Bush regime that for credibilities’ sake he had to capitulate on the inspectors and allow the UN to send them into Iraq, and sure enough, Saddam allowed them back in immediately, much to to the chagrin of Bush and his warmongers, and their salivating supporters (of course, that has not stopped Bush et al. from insisting until now that Saddam refused to let the inspectors in).

          “ and this is what Hillary voted for”

          SURE it is! It says so right in the resolution, right? Oh, yeah, – hehehehehe – it DOESN’T say anything about Saddam allowing weapons inspectors in, does it, dearie? Not one single syllable, right sweetheart? And when Carl Levin proposed an amendment requiring Saddam to grant immediate access to inspectors it was defeated three to one, and your heroine Hillary voted against it, didn’t she dearie? In fact – correct me if I am wrong – I believe your Hillary opposed any amendment that might have limited Bush’s ability to attack Iraq without consulting or even informing Congress or the UN.

          “as she’s said innumerable times”

          Oh yeah, right! And we should believe her because…….? I can hear it now. “Yes, yes, I know that there isn’t a single syllable in the Resolution about Saddam admitting weapons inspectors, and I know I voted against Levin’s effort to include something about that, and I know that the Resolution authorizes Bush to attack Iraq, and that he doesn’t even really have to notify congress until 48 hours after he initiates the attack, but really, seriously, I really DID think I was voting about getting Saddam to let weapons inspectors in. You have to believe me, no mater what the Resolution actually SAYS, I had no intention of actually authorizing Bush to actually attack Iraq.”

          RTFR, dearie, RTFR.

          “…your slanderous insistence that she cast a vote for invasion.”

          You are quite fond of hyperbole, aren’t you sweetheart?

          “Let’s get this straight now: Dubya violated the terms of the authorization when he invaded. In doing so he violated US law relating to justification for such an invasion.”

          And you also like to introduce irrelevancies, don’t you?

          “If you claim that Hillary and the rest of congress are responsible for the invasion…”

          And you enjoy trying to argue about things your interlocutor has not said as well. It’s so much easier sometimes, isn’t it, than coming up with good arguments against what she has actually said.

          • TeakWoodKite

            Bush regime had been rejecting the proposition, and insisting that Saddam was lying

            The Bush regime even lied to Congress and they are all responsible. Those that voted for it or against the AUMF matters only to history. It not that it has no bearing just that karma will be judge.

            • shirin

              Everyone who supported the aggression against Iraq, and especially everyone who took steps that helped it along its way to happening, bears responsibility.

              In fact, I would go further and say that everyone who did not take some active steps in an attempt to stop it – whether that meant demonstrating, informing themselves and speaking out, educating others, expressing their opposition to their Congressional representatives, writing articles, letters to the editor – bears responsibility.

              • TeakWoodKite

                And witness.

          • Chris Vosburg

            Shirin writes: …Saddam expressed willingness to readmit the inspectors weeks before the Congress voted to authorize Bush to attack Iraq,…

            A lie.

            In August of 2002, Saddam offered to meet with Hans Blix to discuss unresolved disarmament issues. The UN replied that this was not acceptable and once again requested that Saddam readmit inspectors, as required by the 1991 cease fire resolution, et seq. Saddam did not do so, nor indicate willingness to.

            On October 10 of 2002, the AUMF/Iraq was signed into law. Among other things it expressed support for the diplomatic efforts of the UN in the matter of compliance with those resolutions, and authorized miitary force to insure compliance if diplomatic effort failed.

            On November 13 of 2002, weapons inspectors were readmitted to Iraq, after a four year absence.

            Probably just coincidence.

          • Chris Vosburg

            Shirin writes: it DOESN’T say anything [in the AUMF/Iraq] about Saddam allowing weapons inspectors in, does it, dearie? Not one single syllable, right sweetheart?

            A lie.

            From the resolution itself:

            —————————-

            SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
            The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to—
            (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
            and encourages him in those efforts; and
            (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

            —————————–

            Within the umbrella of “all relevant Security Council resolutions” are the terms of the cease file agreement of 1991, obviously, and all subsequent UN resolutions concerning noncompliance with it.

            • shirin

              Come on! That section is no more than a pro forma bit of blahablahblah about “diplomacy”. It has no teeth. It does not require the President to do anything. And I am sure it is a coincidence that it does not specify anything about requiring Iraq to admit weapons inspectors – an eventuality Bush was trying very hard to avoid.

              “Supports the president’s efforts”?! What efforts? It was 100% clear by then that the President was doing his best to avoid even a convincing semblance of diplomacy. Are you suggesting that Hillary and the others were so out of touch that they didn’t see that?! And it utterly ignores the fact that it was obviously the President, not Saddam Hussein who was desperate to keep the inspectors out of Iraq.

              What part of “SADDAM HAD EXPRESSED HIS WILLINGNESS FOR THE INPECTORS TO RETURN FOR WEEKS BEFORE THAT VOTE TOOK PLACE” is not penetrating your little mind? And are you claiming that you were unaware that Bush was desperate to avoid having the inspectors in Iraq? And are you suggesting that your Hillary and the others were so remiss in doing their jobs that they didn’t know these things?

              Hillary’s claim that she was voting to get inspectors, not American bombs and troops, into Iraq is pure politicians bullcrap.

              She eagerly ate up every single one of the neocon/Bushistas lies about Iraq, and did so without a shred of skepticism, or question. Even Lieberman showed some skepticism, but not your Hillary!

              • Chris Vosburg

                Shirin writes: Hillary’s claim that she was voting to get inspectors, not American bombs and troops, into Iraq is pure politicians bullcrap.

                Nonsense. Here’s a few excerpts from Hillary’s speech on the floor of the Senate on the day she cast her vote for the resolution, explaining the rationale for her vote.

                ————————————-

                [...]

                “Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

                “This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980′s when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

                “However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

                “If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

                “So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

                [...]

                “While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

                “If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

                “If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

                “If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam’s compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.

                “I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein’s biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can’t use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.

                “President Bush’s speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

                “Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

                “My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose — all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

                “Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

                “And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year’s terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

                “So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him – use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein – this is your last chance – disarm or be disarmed.”

                ———————————–

                Seems clear from this that she did, in fact, at the time the vote was cast, favor the diplomatic route, and saw the authorization as a means to that end.

                You know the rest. In fact, it worked. Inspectors were readmitted.

                As you also know, Bush chose to renege on his promise to Congress to pursue the diplomatic solution, and this is hardly the fault of Hillary or anyone else in the Congress.

          • Chris Vosburg

            Shirin writes: In fact – correct me if I am wrong – I believe your Hillary opposed any amendment that might have limited Bush’s ability to attack Iraq without consulting or even informing Congress or the UN.

            I’ve got a better idea– How ’bout you just stop posting any old lie you like and asking others to correct you if you’re wrong. If you don’t know that it’s true, don’t say it. Simple.

            In fact the resolution carries the language you are absurdly claiming she voted against. The President is required by the resolution to exhaust diplomatic means before pursuing a military solution, and to provide congress with his determination that such diplomatic means were bearing no fruit before invasion, or at the latest within 48 hour of having taken action. Here ya go:

            ———————————

            SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
            (a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—
            (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
            (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
            (b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of
            Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that—
            (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
            resolutions regarding Iraq; and
            (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
            organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
            persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist
            attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
            (c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
            (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
            (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

            ————————————–

            Again, this is not an authorization to invade; it is an authorization to use military force if all other means are exhausted.

            Bush violated the authorization when he invaded, because he had not exhausted diplomatic efforts, nor had he shown to congress that such efforts were exhausted.

            Further, you’re mistating the contributions of Tony Blair in this. Tony made no rebuffed overture to Bush to readmit inspectors, as you claim. Perhaps you’re confusing this with Tony’s overture to Bush to secure UN Security Council resolution specifically authorization before invading at one point.

            Frankly, I don’t know where you’re pulling this crap out of. Not sure I wanna know.

  • Mr.Murder

    McCain has no business with the keys to the kingdom on two counts.

    1)Keating scandal- someone is going to help overhaul the entire banking structure and his scandal plagued hands cannot do it.

    2)Phoenix Memo- That’s why he hugged dubya after the race bating campaign, their goons got dirt on him.

    You can only campaign on one of those items. Only St. Rudy and the Apostle AWOL can talk about 9-11 all the time.
    2a)Defense authorizations. McCain is a Senior Senator, at wartime, with a majority party in control of the House, Senate, and White House for four year straight and they got jack squat done on medical care for the troops.

    “When I get the chance.”

    You had that chance already, not got enough cahones to push things through a corrupt 109th Congress when your party called all the shots, you fumbled it already.

    Same argument can be made with your fundie-gelical wedge issue, abortion.

    To the overall race. If a Democrat wants to win the state they’ll run against the GOP positions.

    Fighting opponents moving the same direction is less accurate and harder to defend self effectively. Stop getting baited into items with other candidates on your side at this time.

    Attack the common foe, and ride above the slings and accusations. Use the purpose of moving forward against their frontrunner as a way to advance and limit criticism.

    Hillary:
    As for the union item, embrace their choice, recognize those who chose not to go that way and instead support you, then emphasize the fact you have teachers that have endorsed you. Go back to your days in Arkansas, how you had to work with the teachers union to the common purpose of better results. You have the same support in Nevada now and the caucus may diminish their ability to be effectively heard.

    Use cell phone cams if need be in caucus, get any goon tactics on record immediately. Your endorsements have all the rights theirs have, equal voice and protection. Caucus tactics usually have their share of bully work going on, make the most of new media to help the outcome be on record.

    Edwards, take that last point and make that your main item, it will insulate your perception as an underdog, get your people to work for your viewpoint anew.

    Stick to the positives, continue to lead the way on your ability to emphasize good traits in yourself, the message items that most connect, and especially emphasize the feedback you get from those who move forward as voters. You’ve given voice to a lot of people, continue to do that, make it personal on a local scale. All politics are local. That’s where your best efforts come from in convincing others. The front runner to your side is who you have to run against until you poll near, his greatest shortcoming is with the people who should most identify his historic effort. Highlight the fact he doesn’t connect with the older experienced demographic, people who have seen all kind of change from GWB, and no results. America already had change and the new change didn’t work. Colin Powell and Condi Rice were supposed to be part of the change. New faces don’t make prior lackluster policies work.

    The reason the institution of Social Security worked was in its efficiency. Medicare remains a major mandate for Americans in retirement, most private plans switch over on leaving employment, so it’s clear that it must be strengthened in terms of effectiveness and remain part of the social insurance pillars. The third leg of Roosevelt’s New Deal was the TVA, and industry deregulation has seen utility prices go up. Americans still see their infrastructure needs in power and transit go on the blink, much like it did in years prior. This was a time in history our country had a need, and FDR didn’t blink. Let’s get back to public interest being part of the solution, job creation counts. As we make renewable energy, we make more jobs, and we make our jobs in use more efficient so they can pay better and be more competitive.

    Should the opportunity arise, I’d suggest scaling the infrastructure upgrades through the bond ordinances and pension plans we need to secure our retirement. Put portions of that money back into renewable energy that will make money, and in time middle class folks will be paying themselves when they pay power bills. As this alleviates the CPI in real terms we’ll be able to strengthen purchase power and discretionary income, key points of solid market fundamentals.

    Smaller states will probably get done with that first and have a surplus to share with neighboring peak demands, and in time the large states new green and clean energy commitment will match or surpass its needs as well. We want America strong, let’s make it to the point we can sell utility power to our neighboring countries that supply us with most of our oil. That’s win-win and then we’re making market fundamentals more affordable.

    We see who the media sides with, a candidate with high negatives for the limited exposure he has on the Democratic side. His ideas really don’t seem original either, the wording is the same we heard from George Bush in 2000, change. Ironically many of the policies mirror or match that.

    Let’s reshape the future in new ways so we can negotiate from a position of strength at all items. Bring back agribusiness independence to America. Energize our energy supply from within so we can meet the challenge without being compromised by other countries or corporations trying to unfairly claim part of our livelihood.

    Make education a cornerstone of leading the world once again. Research to remain leaders with the truth of altruism, like John F Kennedy’s Peace Corps. once did to help us lead the way, do so here and abroad. Reclaim our communities with the hope we’ve always shared in of having the next generation know peace and prosperity.

    Work to those ends and we’ll bring America to the position and vision we see , as others will be inspired to join us in these ends.

    • http://www.evergreenpolitics.com shoephone

      Mr. M – When are you filing your papaers to run? I would vote for you just based on that detailed, visionary comment alone!

  • Mr.Murder

    The fear is that Lebanon will retaliate for Gaza.

    They’ve improved logstics for weapons handling in their class of strike rockets.

    The whole world is waiting to see how much bribe money gets paid out to keep the pipelines of Southern Lebanon flowing.

    Cheney can make one phone call and stange a false flag in the gulf off a driveby to spike oil prices.

    The strategic petroleum reserve lost 308 thousand gallons as well to set prices up.

    The OAS continues to drop the ball stopping genocide and qualming tension in key new oil producers there.

    Condi Rice’s no.3 just resigned, her Russian Amb is being promoted, and Putin just got finished telling us not to mess with Kosovo.

    Egg.On.Face.

    An asian country has a possible leadership shuffle in the wake of a leader’s death, to the extent this energizes radicals remains to be seen.

    Spain is mad that we’ve retained the leader of the Madrid cell from a major trial and he continues to be renditioned in Persia, it looks like Cheney is punishing their gov’t for having given Asnar the boot.

    So the DoJ continues to mess up terrorism prosecution whilst the CIA helped the DoJ lose or destroy evidence whilst the White House deliberatly taped over items including slect days fromCheney’s office dealing with Rove contacts during the Plame investigation.

    China is buying up influence and client states, appears ready to annex Siam and Taiwan without any opposition, and dominates our currency and trade.
    SNAFUBAR

    • TeakWoodKite

      Mr. Murder do you paint with oils as well?

      All these great points you make have a common thread. Leardership and know how. One without the other just won’t do will it?

    • shirin

      “The fear is that Lebanon will retaliate for Gaza.”

      I admit that I have not been following events in Palestine as closely and in as much detail as I used to, and ditto Lebanon, but I do not recall “Lebanon” ever retaliating for anything that happened in Ghaza. Certainly the current Lebanese government is extremely unlikely to take an interest in what Israel does to Ghaza or the West Bank, or East Jerusalem. As for Hezbullah, to the best of my knowledge, their focus is and always has been Lebanon, not Ghaza.

      So, please educate me if I am missing some real information, but this “Lebanon will retaliate for Ghaza” makes absolutely no sense at all to me.

      I will be in Lebanon for an unspecified number of days this April, and talking to a wide variety of people, so I will ask around and find out whether I have been missing information about Lebanon’s deep involvement in Ghaza matters.

      • Mr.Murder

        Because every time Israel gets in a scuffle with one part of its political overlay, the political right wing in their government decides to get hot with neighbors.

        It’s their track record, Lebanon might be given an incentive to respond for such a reason.

        • shirin

          This looks like pure speculation with no basis anywhere except in the mind of the speculator.

  • Smilin’ Jim

    “And, as readers here know, Paul Krugman said the economic stimulus plans of John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are far superior to that of Barack Obama.”

    I salute you as the master of the tactful remark.

    Mr. Krugman’s description of the Obama Camp started with “disreputable” but warmed to a closing:

    “but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy”

    Does a certain Princeton professor suspect that our ersatz Reagan is morphing to a stealth Republican? That would indeed be a vein of irony to mine.

    Beware gods with a sense of humor.

    • http://noquarterusa.net/ SusanUnPC

      Ah yes, Jim. I’d already given the group a hefty dose of my concerns about Mr. Obama today so tailed off … but did write about Mr. Krugman’s use of the word “disreputable” the other day. Which shocked me. Krugman is not given to such terms.

      If I could see inside his heart, I believe I’d see a lot of pain within Mr. Krugman these days. He does not enjoy reporting facts such as Obama’s “disreputable” and less progressive plans.

      Me? At first I felt similar pain. Now I’m just plain angry that a host of far-left Democrats and independents/Republicans think that Obama is “Jesus,” as Larry says. They’ve forsaken rational, discerning judgment.

      And, as Shoephone points out above, the Obama followers — and I must point out that they’re more followers than supporters — are an angry mob. They have consumed Daily Kos in a fiery inferno, and whatever other comments section they can find. Now it’s Politico, Shoephone tells us.

      Some friends of mine call them the “pitchfork and torch” mob. That’s just how crazed they appear.

      They behaved that way at the NH Democratic party dinner the Saturday before the primary. They booed Hillary Clinton and they interrupted Bill Richardson’s speech with chants for Obama. That is behavior unknown at party formal functions. Until this crowd came along. (It wouldn’t surprise me if that turned off a lot of NH SOLID Democrats, and affected their vote.)

      • Smilin’ Jim

        plus ça change………

        The troggies have always been there, McGovern had them in spades. The difference between then and now is the babble of the Internet.

        Take heart, they always disappear by early November or desert you for Nader, leaving you with the coyote ugly date to wake up with on that cold January morning.

      • Cee

        Me? At first I felt similar pain. Now I’m just plain angry that a host of far-left Democrats and independents/Republicans think that Obama is “Jesus,” as Larry says. They’ve forsaken rational, discerning judgment.

        Susan,

        Name one person who said Obama was Jesus. LOL!!

        People who support other candidates don’t like liars. End of story.

        • http://noquarterusa.net/ SusanUnPC

          It was a term that Larry used in one of his last posts.

        • TeakWoodKite

          Obama did.

      • CK

        Is Krugman still supping at the Kristol trough?
        If one judges a person by the company he prefers, Krugman is dispicable.

    • shirin

      He may be less progressive on domestic matters, but he is not less progressive than Hillary when it comes to matters concerning foreign policy and the military. There are, in fact, few people who are less progressive than she is in that regard. Edwards is somewhat more “progressive”, but she and Obama are about on a par with the Republicans.

      • TeakWoodKite

        I am wondering what respect Obama will command
        when it comes to matters concerning foreign policy and the military. Just as there have been those who have had subversive agendas when it came to executing lawful presidential orders. The folks the Bush crime family will leave behind will frustrate at every turn those efforts made.

        The mil-indus machine is at a true point of no having no rudder and a tool of corporate desires.

  • Cee

    Truth hurts.

    Ronald Reagan again…

    In that interview the man who was a senior adviser to three Republican Presidents said of the Clinton political operators: “They understand what Reagan understood. They have grasped the essential point that a Presidency attempting change is a campaign, and you have to work it like a campaign.”

    Ooh! Comparing Clinton’s techniques and method of change campaigning to Reagan. Basically saying he ripped Ronnie off and sucked at it to boot. Surely “Big Dog” got purple in the face and roughed up a few journalists, right? No:

    Now, proving anew that the abiding faith of this city is neither Republicanism nor Democratism, but Inside-ism, the 51-year-old Mr. Gergen has signed on as counselor to President Clinton, a role in which Mr. Gergen will shape the Administration’s effort to reverse the very policies that he once sold for President Reagan.

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/18/215735/973/138/439216

  • Cee

    Tell me again how much Hillary cares for children and families!

    Snake Eyes
    01.18.08 — 8:43AMBy David Kurtz
    The LA Times picks up on a pivot point between the Obama and Clinton candidacies:

    Barack Obama has warned about the dangers of gambling — that it carries a “moral and social cost” that could “devastate” poor communities. As a state senator in Illinois, he at times opposed plans to expand gambling, worrying that it could be especially harmful to low-income people.
    Today, those views are posing a problem for Obama in the gambling mecca of Nevada, which holds its presidential nominating caucuses Saturday. While his top rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, also talks often about aiding low-income Americans, she has embraced the gambling industry and its executives, and her campaign has used Obama’s past statements in an effort to turn casino workers and other Nevada voters against him.

    The split on gambling between the Democratic rivals is a little-noticed but meaningful development that could affect the caucus vote Saturday and the broader election …
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/064070.php

    • Jess Wonderin

      POLE EEEZE . . . .
      Asked about gaming by The Associated Press in March, he said it was “something I continue to be concerned about.” Pressed on the issue on the Las Vegas television show “Face to Face with Jon Ralston” in June, he expressed his love for poker and blackjack, but said when it comes to state revenue, “I just believe in paying for government services the old-fashioned way.” – Dec. 23, 2007 Las Vegas Review-Journal

      So I guess he opposed regulated controlled gambling “that carries a ‘moral and social cost’ that could ‘devastate’ poor communities” . . . but is not opposed to enjoying a bit “on the side”? Yea, I guess those damn kaw-see-nos hires too many low paying Union jobs and generates hotel revenue, where good old Chicago Mob card games only harmed rich adults . . . such crap.

    • shirin

      If you want to know just how much Senator Clinton cares about children, ask the Iraqi children, whose systematic starvation by her husband, whose first administration engineered the deaths of half a million Iraqi children under five years, she enthusiastically supported. Ask the millions of Iraqi children whose lives have been destroyed forever by the aggression, and occupation she consistently and enthusiastically supported until about a year ago. Ask the Serbian children who suffered as a result of her husband’s bombing campaigns she urged and supported. Ask the children of Ghaza who have endured constant attacks, and a medieval siege from Israel, which she is happy to support. And ask the children of Lebanon, who continue to suffer as a result of Israel’s 33 day devastating assault, which she was only too thrilled to support.

      It takes a village to raise a child, and it takes one bomb, one bullet, one occupation soldier, one decision on the part of a United States Senator, to destroy that child’s live forever.

    • shirin

      If you want to know just how much Senator Clinton cares about children, ask the Iraqi children, whose systematic starvation by her husband, whose first administration engineered the deaths of half a million Iraqi children under five years, she enthusiastically supported. Ask the millions of Iraqi children whose lives have been destroyed forever by the aggression, and occupation she consistently and enthusiastically supported until about a year ago. Ask the Serbian children who suffered as a result of her husband’s bombing campaigns she urged and supported. Ask the children of Ghaza who have endured constant attacks, and a medieval siege from Israel, which she is happy to support. And ask the children of Lebanon, who continue to suffer as a result of Israel’s 33 day devastating assault, which she was only too thrilled to support.

      It takes a village to raise a child, and it takes one bomb, one bullet, one occupation soldier, one decision on the part of a United States Senator, to destroy that child’s life forever.

      • shirin

        Sorry for the double post. Feel free to delete one – but please, only one! :o }

      • Kathleen

        The truth hurts…but does not seem to hurt the Clintons

    • Mr.Murder

      Abramoff and Ralph Reed worked both sides of the gambling lobby, for and against…

      Josh Marshall he pretty much been repeating whatever the people from campaign staffs that contact him say to say about others…

  • Smilin’ Jim

    “the 51-year-old Mr. Gergen”

    David Gergen was an advisor to Bubba back in the days when the Canadian dollar was worth four bits.

    He will be 66 this May.

    I blame the new math.

  • Cee

    Clinton still modeled himself after Reagan and Hillary is a liar who will never get my vote.
    We’ve seen the results of her experience.

    Hillary spins Iraq war crime vote

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyC7loMop58

    • TeakWoodKite

      Hillary is a liar? What stones you cast. What shall we see from the others on Castle Rock?

      • shirin

        They are all liars to one degree or another, but it is a fact that Hillary has urged and/or supported every act of aggression available to her to support, without regard to the affect they would have on the women and children whose rights her heart supposedly dwells in.

        • TeakWoodKite

          Is the power of the Presidency different than other positions that are subservant to the majority? and the voices are many.

          • shirin

            Sorry, I don’t get your point here.

            • TeakWoodKite

              I respect your views on Hillary as you see it. I mean to say the Senate and the Office of the President express power differently.

              Given the ability of the Oval Office to express it self in a singular fashion what I’m saying is Hillary Clinton might surprise you in a positive way. I know you’re sayin’ “That’ll be the day!”. AS POTUS the wieght of the world is on your shoulders in contrast to the senate where you are subjected a different calculus and the will (or lack of) of the majority.

              • shirin

                You have a point. However, she HAS been in the White House, not as President, of course, but, as they insisted, when they elected Bill they got two for the price of one. And Hillary was very happy to support her husband’s genocidal policies in Iraq, his various military actions here and there, etc.

                When it was becoming clear that Saddam was, for all practical purposes, disarmed, Bill found a way to keep the Iraqi people under the sanctions that were destroying their country and their lives, and killing their children by the thousands each week by deftly changed his sanctions policy from weapons inspections/disarmament to regime change. Hillary, that great champion of children, found that a good decision. Hillary also encouraged Bill’s continuation of his regular bombing runs in Iraq, and simply LOVED Operation Desert Fox, which included bombing the capital, and killed, among others civilians, one of Iraq’s most revered artists.

                So no, I do not think Hillary will be significantly different when it comes to foreign and military policy in general and Iraq in particular in the Oval Office than she has been in the Senate. I do not think so for the simple reason that there is no indication based on her history or her statements as a candicate that anything would change. She has always been a hawk, is a hawk now, and that’s not likely to change.

                And aren’t you just the tiniest bit concerned about what she has in mind for that greatly expanded military with the greatly increased budget that she has announced?

      • Cee

        She is a liar.

        Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) insisted her 2002 vote for a resolution authorizing an invasion of Iraq was “not a vote for a pre-emptive war,” but was instead a show of support for further United Nations-directed weapons inspections.

        • Congressional Resolution on Iraq (Passed by House and Senate October 2002)

        SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

        (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

        (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq

        The Democratic presidential front-runner has been criticized by hard-line anti-war groups for making that vote more than four years ago and for not apologizing now, as fellow candidate John Edwards has done.

        “I will let others speak for themselves,” she said in a telephone interview from Washington.

        • Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (AUMF) of 2002

        It authorized the United States to use military force to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.”

        “I have taken responsibility for that vote. It was based on the best assessment that I could make at the time, and it was clearly intended to demonstrate support for going to the United Nations to put inspectors into Iraq. When I set forth my reasons for giving the President that authority, I said that it was not a vote for pre-emptive war,” the former first lady said.

        • ybnormal

          How is this proof by evidence of lying?

          Edwards’ message is that he regrets the vote. Clinton’s message is that the results of the vote were bad, but it seemed like a good idea at the time.

          This may sound kind of lame, but her vote was similar to the vast majority of congress, including Biden, who’s considered one of the Senate’s foreign policy experts. Why didn’t he know better?

          Before condemming Clinton as a blatant liar, consider that the hindsight perspective of us in the public today is not the same as the perspective of congress was in ’02. Saying they should have well known better is valid, but it’s not as black and white as comdemming them all as liars.

          • Kathleen

            Not only has she not apologized for this bloody mistake she went ahead and voted yes on the Kyl Lieberman amendment giving the zealots an opportunity to use that amendment to pre-emptively attack the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Hello! She did it again

            • ybnormal

              While I also was disappointed in the passing of Kyl/Lieberman, it’s passing is far short of “giving the zealots an opportunity…to pre-emptively attack” anybody. It is not law, and it not an authorization. It is a Sense of the Senate.

              If Kyl/Lieberman had not passed, do you really believe that would stop the W.Bush White House from launching an attack if they decided to do so?

              Further, do you really believe that it’s passage gives any additional ability to launch an attack, since it changes nothing in terms of authorization, not to mention funding?

              Note that Joe Wilson, an actual career diplomat, has posted here that he thinks it’s a useful diplomatic move. So be it. I think different, but what do I know? Kyl/Leiberman means whatever any particular reader thinks it means as an opinion, but it is not THE traffic signal turning green.

              • Kathleen

                Yeah Yeah and the 2002 war resolution did not give the Bush administration congress’s stamp of approval for the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq. Yes I do believe they can spin this amendment and the bill that passed in the house having to do with Iran to pre-emptively attack Iran.

                I’ll give you this your point about the Bush administration finding anyway they can to implement the zealots agenda in the middle east is on target. But why the fuck give them one more stamp of approval for their aggression? Why? Make a fucking stand Hillary and Obama make a fucking stand! Show us that you mean business with these crazy fucking warmongers!

                You need to go watch Senator Webb’s statements having to do with the Kyl
                Lieberman amendment the day before it passed. He called it “tantamount to declaring war on Iran” we went on and said it was “Vice President Cheney’s fondest pipe dream”

                Senator Liebermann authored the 2002 war resolution and then authored the Kyl Lieberman amendment. What does it take for people to make a stand against the lobby?

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npzN3dZR6JM

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTK6XY1tRzY&feature=related

                • shirin

                  Kathleen, can we please use the correct terminology? There was nothing preemptive about the attack on Iraq, and there would be nothing preemptive about an attack on Iran. Preemptive means that a threat exists that unless one attacks first, one will be attacked. No such threat ever existed in the case of Iraq, and no such threat exists in the case of Iran.

                  Let’s call this what it is – an unprovoked aggressive attack.

              • Kathleen

                Oh by the way on issues of war and possible pre-emption should I place my bet on Joe Wilson or a career military man like Senator Webb. I think I’ll go with Webb.

              • GR3

                You’re right, it seems that nothing will stop the monster. They would argue the traffic light was pink and not red. But they will use Kyl/Lieberman as permission – you can bet on it!
                Which is why I laughed when hearing Hillary explained she voted for it to give diplomacy a chance! Diplomacy is a lost art with this WH crowd.

                • shirin

                  Diplomacy my Aunt Fatima! Kyl-Lieberman was about diplomacy the same way the bill to authorize attacking Iraq was about diplomacy.

                  At best Kyl-Lieberman was about name-calling.

              • Cee

                We’re dealing with empowering Bush and the neocons. She shouldn’t have given them squat!!

                Are you telling me that she had less access to information than I had?

                She’s not getting rewarded for that experience.

            • shirin

              Oh, but Kathleen, Kyl-Lieberman was ALLLL about diplomacy! And the Iraq invasion authorization bill was ALLLLLL about diplomacy and getting UN inpectors into Iraq.

              Come on, Kathleen, get with the program!

          • Cee

            How is this proof by evidence of lying?

            Are you kidding?

            Russ Feingold isn’t buying what Edwards is now saying about his mistaken votes. Neither are many others.

            Hindsight my ASS! I’m a little nobody who paid attention and KNEW they were lying.
            She should have too.
            Biden was too busy listening to Leslie Gelb and planning to divide Iraq.

            • ybnormal

              Technically speaking you couldn’t actually KNOW WH was lying in ’02/’03 unless you were privy to classified intelligence and analysts opinions at the time.

              What you did was ESTIMATE, as I did that the whole thing smelled like last week’s fish, based on what we knew from public sources. Having the estimate bear out later does not raise that estimate to the level of knowledge.

              I don’t believe in free passes either, but on the other hand neither you or I can know the appearance of credibility of the cherry-picked classified information force fed to congress committee members who then advised the rest of congress.

              • shirin

                Have you forgotten that the WH COMMANDED that the intelligence be cherry-picked? That they REJECTED any intelligence that did not support what they had already planned to do? Have you forgotten the various statements that the intelligence was deliberately being shaped to fit the policy?

                It was obvious to me that they were lying as it should have been obvious to anyone who was paying attention. It was obvious to me for a lot of reasons, but anyone should have known they were lying because they simply could not keep their stories straight. The average seven year old is more deft and competent at lying convincingly than that gang of crooks is.

                How about the fact that they would claim reason A for attacking Iraq, a few weeks later something would show that reason A did not exist, and a day or two later they would shift to reason B, a few weeks later reason B would be shown to be bogus, a few days later they would switch to reason B. If that is not overwhelming evidence that they were scrambling desperately to find a reason, being cut off at every turn, and then scrambling quickly to find another, what is it evidence of? It was obvious from the beginning that they would make any claim they could think of to sell what they had already planned to do.

                Of course they were lying, and it was obvious.

                • Chris Vosburg

                  Right on, Shirin. The aluminum tubes story was obvious horseshit, to cite one example, and really, all you had to do was look. The same is true of the remainder of the claims, and nobody, but nobody, should be able to walk away from this without guilt.

                  I’m looking at you, mainstream media morons.

                  • shirin

                    Including your beloved Hillary, who eagerly bought all the claims hook, line, and sinker, and repeated them publicly over and over with great conviction.

              • Cee

                Oh no. I know what Hussein Kamal said years ago. He was killed for it too.
                No excuses for the criminals who empowered Bush. NONE!

                • shirin

                  Hussein Kamel’s story is very sad. In brief, he was forced to return to Iraq and to certain death at the hands of his father-in-law’s thugs because the Bushite neocons were not interested in the information he was conveying because it contradicted what they needed to hear.

                  • shirin

                    Oops! Belay that about Hussein Kamel! Don’t know what I was thinking of. It was not the Bushites who lost interest in him. His story took place in the mid-90′s during Clinton’s administration.

          • shirin

            “How is this proof by evidence of lying?”

            Ummmmm – RTFR (Read The F****** Resolution)? What does it authorize the President to do? There is the proof by evidence of lying.

  • Taters

    Sorry, Obambi was smoochin’ ass. All you have to do is watch the video. Any more and he could have been arrested for lewd and lascivious behavior.

    • Cee

      Sorry, Obambi was smoochin’ ass.

      AKA appealing the other voters. LOL!!

      Tater,

      How does this change the fact that Clinton is a liar?

  • Lindy

    Every couple of days, your rss feed bookmarks revert back to posts on Jan. 10.

  • Cee

    Now Bill Clinton is lying. MSNBC just played a clip of Bill telling people that Barak said Reagan had all the GOOD ideas.

    Stinking liar. Now the pundits are tearing into him.

    • susanunpc

      it isn’t a lie, he didn’t quote his words precisely but he did accurately convey what Obama said which was that the Republicans were the party of ideas for the past ten to fifteen years.

      Further, Bill Clinton took Obama’s remark as it was intended — it was a SWIPE at the Clinton administration. that’s why in yesterday’s piece (just below) I took considerable time to look up, and display, the achievements of the Clinton/Gore administration — particularly for African-Americans and Latinos.

      (P.S. Cee, even if I find your arguments and retorts incorrect, I appreciate that at least you are reading and listening, and reporting what you read and hear. Instead of just being worshipful of Obama, as most of Obama’s followers.)

      • Cee

        Susan,

        When you misquote someone YOU LIE!
        This is embarrassing. They laughed out loud. One went on to say that Bill and Hillary will do ANYTHING to get back into the White House.
        I realize this and I have changed my mind. Hillary will NEVER get my vote.
        The GOP must be thrilled with the way she has run her campaign.
        I’ve also listened to black radio for the past week. They don’t share your views about how good Clinton was for black interests.
        Peter and Marion Wright Edleman don’t agree either. Peter resigned from the Clinton administration and his wife no longer speaks to Hillary.
        OMG. I even heard that Andrew Young said the Bill slept with more black woman than Obama. What an endorsement!

        Among the chuckling Black elite, Bill Clinton has been touted as Americas “first Black President.” This appellation is insulting to African Americans on two fronts: first, it presupposes that playing the saxophone, succumbing to spousal infidelity, and eating junk food somehow makes you black; and secondly, it neglects Bill Clinton’s real legacy when it came to the Black poor.

        http://thoughtmerchant.wordpress.com/2007/10/05/how-bill-clinton-hurt-poor-blacks-and-how-hillary-might-to/

  • Taters

    Cee,
    I don’t know if there is anything I could ever say that could convince you of anything and that’s ok with me. You despise Hillary. Does that make you any less of a person in my eyes? No.
    Like many folks, I don’t know what poltical persuasion most of my neighbors are. That isn’t the criteria I look for in a good neighbor.
    I’m curious, do you ever spend time debating arguing with freeper types that are convinced SS is Marxist ideology?
    I am going back to reread your post on the third way, it looked interesting.
    To me, Bill Clinton’s biggest blemish was Rwanda. (Nafta, not far behind.)
    At least Hillary tried to convince her husband to intervene. Wes Clark’s request for a brigade was denied. And unlike Shirin, I strongly believe our intervention in Kosovo was the right thing to do. And while far from perfect, to me doing nothing would have been far worse. I disagree with Chomsky’s take on Milosevic and believe Chomsky was dead wrong in his assessment. Srebenica was just as horrible as Shatilla or Sabra.

    I’m a son of a sergeant who was career military, my entire life from infancy to adulthood was spent as a military dependent, so maybe that colors my view regarding my take on the Marshall Plan. As you can imagine, my mom, sis and myself were very happy when the “old man” returned from Vietnam.
    Obama bugs the shit out of me and many of his followers even more. They truly seem incapable of nuance. I actually tried to get behind him. Many of them (his supporters) want respect but won’t give it. I was an Edwards supporter and still think he’s decent and qualified. Whoever gets the nod for the Dems will get my support. I was a volunteer for Jesse Jackson’s campaign when I lived in Oakland.

    • Cee

      You’re right. You aren’t going to change my mind.

      You are wrong about me despising Hillary. I just don’t trust a woman who lied and shares the responsibilty for the deaths of thousands of people.

      I’m curious, do you ever spend time debating arguing with freeper types that are convinced SS is Marxist ideology?

      Why would waste my time talking to Freepers?

      I don’t disagree with Bill not taking action in Rwanda. It wasn’t our business. Neither is the conflict in Sudan.
      Funny that you mention this…Hillary was pushing for us to take some action in Zimbabwe not long ago!! Like we don’t have enough problems. LOL!

      • shirin

        Cee, the idea that dropping bombs and sending soldiers to shoot up the place is the way to correct a bad humanitarian situation is beyond nuts.

        Got violence? Send more people to do more, even greater violence – yeah, that’s fix things!

    • TeakWoodKite

      Taters: Some folks are forgetting the charged political conditions that were present when this vote occured. If I cast a vote and it is based on a lie, I am a lier? If 1/2 of Dems voted for AUMF after being told by the WH directly they would use the UN path, I would not call them liers, just lied to.

      PS You can order Everett and Jones BBQ sauce online. :)

      • shirin

        If you actually read the resolution, knew what it said before voting on it, then claimed your yes vote was about diplomacy, then you are a liar.

        If you did not do due diligence by investigating the entire body of available information, but simply bought the clearly inconsistent, and ever- shifting information you were getting from the White House, then you have been inexcusably derelict in your responsibilities.

        If you did not listen to the experts who were in many cases DIRECTLY CONTRADICTING the information that the White House and Pentagon were vomiting forth (e.g., the aluminum tubes rubbish), then you have been inexcusably derelict in your responsibilities.

        If you could not see past the rhetoric and talking points being repeated in concert ad nauseum by the warmongers, and if you could not detect the blatant inconsistencies in their claims, then you are so lacking in political and intellectual sophistication that you should not ever be in any position of responsibility.

        If you have allowed yourself to let the “charged political conditions” cause you to forget just how serious it is to militarily attack another country in anything but direct self-defense, and what even the mildest consequences of such an attack are likely to be, and if you have allowed the “charged political conditions” to cause you to ignore any information from any source that might cause you to question the absolute necessity of the proposed military action, if you have allowed yourself to be made blind, deaf, and mindless by a “charged political condition”, then you have no right to remain in government and should be driven out permanently.

        • shirin

          PS I, an ordinary citizen with no special knowledge of nuclear matters, KNEW the aluminum tubes claim was rubbish. I knew it because I looked for information that would confirm or contradict the claim, and found convincing information from nuclear experts that directly contradicted the claim. I found, among other things, that the fact that the tubes were made from anodized aluminum made them unsuitable for refining nuclear material (Colin Powell later claimed in front of the UN that the fact they were made from anodized aluminum was proof positive that they were intended for the refinement of nuclear material – he had been told the opposite by his own nuclear experts).

          There were things I knew because I have particular, specialized experience and knowledge about Iraq, but there were plenty of other things that I, an ordinary person, was able to find out.

          If I, an ordinary person, working on my own, using only my wits, a few connections, and the internet, was willing and able to dig for and discover information that called into questions, and at times directly contradicted the claims of the warmongers, how is it that Hillary Clinton and all the other Congress members who supported the attack on Iraq, were not able, with all their staff and other resources, to do what I and others did?

          There is absolutely no excuse for this complete failure. None.

          • CK

            Colin Powell is another “magic black”. Has been since he orchestrated the My Lai coverup.

            • shirin

              While I find the “Barack the Magic Negro” ditty amusing, I do not see race as in any way relevant. Colin Powell was (is?) another self-serving, ambitious political animal who put his own personal ambitions above the truth, the law, humanity, and the welfare of his country (an earlier version of David Petraeus).

              • CK

                Powell has been used and fronted by the Republican party exactly because of his race. While it may not be relevant to some, it is highly relevant to others who can find a profit in it that is not available in a Petraeus. Relevancy is determined by the producer not the consumer. And in this case, the consumer does not even have the choice of picking another product.

                • shirin

                  “Powell has been used and fronted by the Republican party exactly because of his race.”

                  You have a valid point.

                  My reason for finding race irrelevant addresses a different matter. Powell is clearly a very intelligent, articulate, extremely capable human being who has acheived a great dea in ways and for reasons that are unrelated to race.

      • Cee

        Why were people like Russ Feingold and Barbara Lee able to stand up under these conditions?

        I trust them. The others are cowards or fools.

    • shirin

      “I strongly believe our intervention in Kosovo was the right thing to do.”

      Yeah – I just love the oxymoronic concept of “humanitarian war”.

  • ybnormal

    While Nevada caucusing is interesting, what’s waiting in the wings is the big khahuna elephant in the voting booth. Note that California is on Super Tuesday.

    How many delegates will California have?

    See if you can figure it out

    • Cee

      Yb,

      Tell us. I clicked on this link, walked away, played with the dog, came back, did a cartwheel, still not open.

      • ybnormal

        So far I haven’t had time to locate the exact numbers. Here’s a couple more links.
        http://www.cadem.org/site/c.jrLZK2PyHmF/b.3643973/
        http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-Alloc.phtml

        They don’t exactly nail it down, but what is clear is that as usual, CA will have convention delegates in the hundreds, in much larger numbers than any other state, similar proportionally to the Nov election where CA will have 55 electoral votes.

        Note that there’s bonus delegates based on the date of the primary.

  • GR3

    As this is an ‘open thread’, I’d like to bring up the NH recount numbers.
    http://www.sos.nh.gov/recountresults.htm
    It looks like so far, all the major Democratic candidates lost votes in the recount, and the major Republicans WRITTEN IN on the Democratic primary ballot gained votes.
    Now why do we have machines counting ballots? To be more accurate? Is it related to election expenditures? Can we trust the machines at all?
    While the numbers so far do not seem way off, they are all off to some degree. As Brad Friedman mentioned on his blog BradBlog, if 6 votes had changed in each Ohio district in 2004, we’d have a different President now.
    If we have to use machines in 2008, I would like to see at least partial recounts in every district.

    • GR3

      Here is a good story on verification of recounts with a statistician, Philip Stark, weighing in.
      Quote:
      “No flat percentage, short of 100 percent, gives high confidence in all circumstances,” Stark says. The appropriate percentage depends on the number of precincts and ballots, the size of the apparent margin of victory, and the number of mistakes the recount finds. A very close race with only a few ballots and lots of mistakes will require a full recount. For many races, though, a recount of 1 percent of precincts, randomly chosen—the number currently required by California law—will be enough to generate 99 percent confidence.
      http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20080119/mathtrek.asp

    • Cee

      I understand there are slits in some of the ballot boxes.

    • TeakWoodKite

      I heard an interview with Brad last night and besides the skimming and the downward turn in number of votes, electronic vs paper,electronic votes as a group recorded more votes than can be accounted for. My understanding of what I heard him saying was that the electronic count was “inflated”.
      And your point about a 6 vote difference in Ohio per precinct infers a different statisical audit model for “tweaking the vote” is called for. In certian districts it maybe that a “higher vote” total was enough to tip the scale for that one district. Brad was saying that because ALL the votes were not counted, it is much more difficult to isolate the 6 vote spread across all precincts and would be impossible to certify unless all the VOTES are counted. Any audit would be a needle in a many haystack affair.

      He also stated he was surprised at how both sides of the spectrum have been critical of him in quest to have all the votes counted. The write-in aspect is interesting. Statisically I am curious if it is with in historical averages. My impression is the level of insurgent behavior is more pronounced this hunting season.

      • TeakWoodKite

        I am going to get his DVD and watch it.

  • Kathleen

    Great clip on Edwards..worth watching the whole thing
    http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5574

    Great article

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19097.htm
    Dr. Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury for Economic Policy in the Reagan administration. He is credited with curing stagflation and eliminating “Phillips curve” trade-offs between employment and inflation, an achievement now on the verge of being lost by the worst economic mismanagement in US history.

  • TeakWoodKite

    Was the turnout 2 to 1 for republicans in Nevada?
    Was the Repub/Wraith vote a caucus?
    Was McCain shown the door?

    Malfunctioning voting machines plagued Horry County, which contains the cities of Myrtle Beach and North Myrtle Beach, according to poll workers. “Human error” put the machines offline in 80 percent of the county’s precincts during Saturday’s voting, according to county spokeswoman Lisa Bourcier

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/19/south.carolina.gop/index.html

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080119/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_sc_turnout

  • Cee

    Which candidate will speak up about this

    Edmonds, a 37-year-old former Turkish language translator, listened into hundreds of sensitive intercepted conversations while based at the agency’s Washington field office.

    She says the FBI was investigating a Turkish and Israeli-run network that paid high-ranking American officials to steal nuclear weapons secrets. These were then sold on the international black market to countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

    One of the documents relating to the case was marked 203A-WF-210023. Last week, however, the FBI responded to a freedom of information request for a file of exactly the same number by claiming that it did not exist. But The Sunday Times has obtained a document signed by an FBI official showing the existence of the file.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3216737.ece

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3216737.ece

    • shirin

      “Which candidate will speak up about this”

      None of them – not one. Why would they? speaking up about it will do nothing to further their campaigns, and that is all they care about.

      Well, OK, maybe – MAYBE – Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul.

      • Cee

        Right. We’ll just keep talking about race, gender, and rest of the usual BULLSHIT!

  • TeakWoodKite

    Who was the last person to be convicted of treason in this country?

  • Pingback: Jim Spence