The Story that GWB wishes the world would forget about….

I must confess, I find this most funny. Hee hee 

Pentagon Report on Saddam’s Iraq Censored? (via Rapid Report)

ABC News’ Jonathan Karl Reports: The Bush Administration apparently does not want a U.S. military study that found no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda to get any attention.  This morning, the Pentagon cancelled plans to send out a press release announcing the report’s release and will no longer make the report available online.
The report was to be posted on the Joint Forces Command website this afternoon, followed by a background briefing with the authors.  No more.  The report will be made available only to those who ask for it, and it will be sent via U.S. mail from Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia. 
It won’t be emailed to reporters and it won’t be posted online.

Asked why the report would not be posted online and could not be emailed, the spokesman for Joint Forces Command said: "We’re making the report available to anyone who wishes to have it, and we’ll send it out via CD in the mail."
Another Pentagon official said initial press reports on the study made it "too politically sensitive."

I would guess so, this is like red meat for the left.

If you think that the Democrats won’t use this, for campaign purposes come November, You’re crazy.

Others: Hullabaloo, Donklephant, News Hounds, TPMMuckraker, democracyarsenal.org, The Newshoggers, Liberal Values, Talking Points Memo, Bang the Drum, The Carpetbagger Report and The Washington Independent

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign

Here is Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment on the controversy surrounding Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign.

The Video:

Full Transcript: (Via MSNBC’s Site)

By way of necessary preface, President and Sen. Clinton, and the senator’s mother, and the senator’s brother, were of immeasurable support to me at the moments when these very commentaries were the focus of the most surprise, the most uncertainty, and the most anger. My gratitude to them is abiding.

Also, I am not here endorsing Sen. Obama’s nomination, nor suggesting it is inevitable.

Thus I have fought with myself over whether or not to say anything.

Senator, as it has reached its apex in their tone-deaf, arrogant and insensitive reaction to the remarks of Geraldine Ferraro, your own advisers are slowly killing your chances to become president.

Senator, their words, and your own, are now slowly killing the chances for any Democrat to become president.

In your tepid response to this Ferraro disaster, you may sincerely think you are disenthralling an enchanted media and righting an unfair advance bestowed on Sen. Obama.

You may think the matter has closed with Rep. Ferraro’s bitter, almost threatening resignation.

But in fact, Senator, you are now campaigning as if Barack Obama were the Democrat and you were the Republican.

As Shakespeare wrote, Senator, that way madness lies.

You have missed a critical opportunity to do what was right.

No matter what Ms. Ferraro now claims, no one took her comments out of context.    

She had made them on at least three separate occasions, then twice more on television this morning.

Just hours ago, on NBC Nightly News, she denied she had made the remarks in an interview; only at a paid political speech.

In fact, the first time she spoke them, was 10 days before the California newspaper published them, not in a speech, but in a radio interview.
On Feb. 26, “If Barack Obama were a white man, would we be talking about this, as a potential real problem for Hillary? If he were a woman of any color, would he be in this position that he’s in? Absolutely not.”

The context was inescapable.

Two minutes earlier, a member of Sen. Clinton’s Finance Committee, one of her “Hill-Raisers,” had bemoaned the change in allegiance by superdelegate John Lewis from Clinton to Obama, and the endorsement of Obama by Sen. Dodd.

“I look at these guys doing it,” she had said, “and I have to tell you, it’s the guys sticking together.”

A minute after the “color” remarks, she was describing herself as having been chosen for the 1984 Democratic ticket purely as a woman politician, purely to make history.

She was, in turn, making a blind accusation of sexism and dismissing Sen. Obama’s candidacy as nothing more than an Equal Opportunity stunt.

The next day she repeated her comments to a reporter from the newspaper in Torrance, Calif.

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

And when this despicable statement, ugly in its overtones, laughable in its weak grip of facts and moronic in the historical context, when it floats outward from the Clinton campaign like a poison cloud, what do the advisers have their candidate do?

Do they have Sen. Clinton herself compare the remark to Al Campanis talking on Nightline on Jackie Robinson day about how blacks lacked the necessities to become baseball executives, while she points out that Barack Obama has not gotten his 1,600 delegates as part of some kind of affirmative action plan?

Do they have Sen. Clinton note that her own brief period in elected office is as irrelevant to the issue of judgment as is Sen. Obama’s while she points out that FDR had served only six years as a governor and state senator before he became president?

Or that Teddy Roosevelt had four-and-a-half years before the White House?

Or that Woodrow Wilson had two years and six weeks?

Or Richard Nixon, 14, and Calvin Coolidge, 25?

Do these advisers have Sen. Clinton invoke Samantha Power, gone by sunrise after she used the word “monster” and have Sen. Clinton say, “This is how I police my campaign, and this is what I stand for,” while she fires former Congresswoman Ferraro from any role in the campaign?

No.

Somebody tells her that simply disagreeing with and rejecting the remarks is sufficient.

And that she should then call them “regrettable,” a word that should make any Democrat retch.

And that she should then try to twist them, first into some pox-on-both-your-houses plea to "stick to the issues," and then to let her campaign manager try to bend them beyond all recognition, into Sen. Obama’s fault.

And thus these advisers give Congresswoman Ferraro nearly a week in which to send Sen. Clinton’s campaign back into the vocabulary … of David Duke.

“Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let’s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world, you’re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up.

“Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white.

“How’s that?”

How’s that?

Apart from sounding exactly like Rush Limbaugh attacking the black football quarterback Donovan McNabb?

Apart from sounding exactly like what Ms. Ferraro said about another campaign, nearly 20 years ago?

“President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don’t ask Jackson tough questions because of his race. And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his ‘radical’ views, ‘if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn’t be in the race.’”

So, apart from sounding like insidious racism that is at least two decades old?

Apart from rendering ridiculous Sen. Clinton’s shell-game about choosing Obama as vice president?

Apart from this evening’s resignation letter?

“I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign.

“The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you.”

Apart from all that?

Well. It sounds as if those advisers want their campaign to be associated with those words, and the cheap, ignorant, vile racism that underlies every syllable.

And Geraldine Ferraro has just gone free-lance.

Sen. Clinton:This is not a campaign strategy. This is a suicide pact.

This week alone, your so-called strategists have declared that Sen. Obama has not yet crossed the “commander-in-chief threshold.”

But he might be your choice to be vice president, even though a quarter of the previous sixteen vice presidents have become commander-in-chief during the greatest kind of crisis this nation can face: a mid-term succession.

But you’d only pick him if he crosses that threshold by the time of the convention.

But if he does cross that threshold by the time of the convention, he will only have done so sufficiently enough to become vice president, not president.

Senator, if the serpentine logic of your so-called advisers were not bad
en

ough …

Now, thanks to Geraldine Ferraro, and your campaign’s initial refusal to break with her, and your new relationship with her, now more disturbing still is her claim that she can now “speak for herself” about her vision of Sen. Obama as some kind of embodiment of a quota.

If you were to seek Obama as a vice president, it would be, to Ms. Ferraro, some kind of social engineering gesture, some kind of racial make-good.

Do you not see, Senator?

To Sen. Clinton’s supporters, to her admirers, to her friends for whom she is first choice, and to her friends for whom she is second choice, she is still letting herself be perceived as standing next to, and standing by, racial divisiveness and blindness.

And worst yet, after what President Clinton said during the South Carolina primary, comparing the Obama and Jesse Jackson campaigns; a disturbing, but only borderline remark.

After what some in the black community have perceived as a racial undertone to the “3 A.M.” ad, a disturbing but only borderline interpretation …

And after that moment’s hesitation in her own answer on 60 Minutes about Obama’s religion; a disturbing, but only borderline vagueness …

After those precedents, there are those who see a pattern, false or true.

After those precedents, there are those who see an intent, false or true.

After those precedents, there are those who see the Clinton campaign’s anything-but-benign neglect of this Ferraro catastrophe, falsely or truly, as a desire to hear the kind of casual prejudice that still haunts this society voiced and to not distance the campaign from it.

To not distance you from it, Senator!

To not distance you from that which you as a woman, and Sen. Obama as an African-American, should both know and feel with the deepest of personal pain!

Which you should both fight with all you have!

Which you should both ensure has no place in this contest!

This, Sen. Clinton, is your campaign, and it is your name.

Grab the reins back from whoever has led you to this precipice, before it is too late.

Voluntarily or inadvertently, you are still awash in this filth.

Your only reaction has been to disagree, reject, and to call it regrettable.

Her only reaction has been to brand herself as the victim, resign from your committee and insist she will continue to speak.

Unless you say something definitive, Senator, the former congresswoman is speaking with your approval.

You must remedy this.

And you must reject and denounce Geraldine Ferraro.

Good Night and Good Luck

Reactions via Blogrunner

Editorial: Mr. Mayor, You are wrong!

While the national media today is focusing on the moral failure of the Governor of the State of New York.  We here in the State of Michigan and those in the city of Detroit and the many suburbs of this great city are watching in utter horror as a Mayor is attempting to turn a failure, of his own making, into a race war.

Mr. Mayor, You sir, created this mess.  You were the one, who had the extra-marital affair, you sir, were the one, who used a device, bought by your own governmental organization, to provide accountability to your office.  You sir, were the one, who foolishly used this device to commit criminal offenses and were the one, who was caught.

This whole mess was created by you and you alone.  It was not created by the local media.  The local media did not have sex with another woman, while still married to your wife, the local media did not lie to a federal judge and a grand jury and give a settlement to people trying to sue the city of Detroit.  Further more the Media did not attempt to cover this up either.  These things were committed by you and you alone.

As if this all were not enough, YOU have the blatant audacity to turn this scandal of your own doing, into a racial matter! This and the utter abject “pimping” of your wife and children to rally your supporters around you, is utterly detestable.

Mr. Mayor, You said something that troubles me, you said and I quote:

“In the past 30 days, I’ve been called a nigger more than any time in my entire life.  In the past three days, I have received more death threats than I have in my entire administration.  I’ve heard these words before, but I’ve never heard people say them about my wife and children.”

Mr. Mayor, while I personally think that it is reprehensible that someone would threaten to harm your wife, children, and yes, even you.  The fact remains, the people that are attempting to investigate your wrong doings, are not those of the Anglo Saxon race; like me, they are your own people!  They are black; they are African-American, Just like you! 

Therefore, for you to go up on a stage, and complain that the “big bad media” is picking on you and use terms like “unethical, illegal lynch-mob” is totally out of bounds, and further it smacks of something that the Republicans constantly accuse the Democrats of partaking in, that being Identity Politics.

Further more, Mr. Mayor, This is not 1964, this is the year 2008, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream of racial equality has been realized, the Selma, Alabama bridge has been crossed already, so, why are you attempting to turn back the clock?  Why are you trying to go back across the bridge and stir up something that has been resolved for years?  It does not make any sense, at all.

Mr. Mayor, you have totally disgraced this city, this state, and your office as a whole.  Please, for the sake of the city of Detroit, the State of Michigan and for the viable future of it.  Do the one thing left that can provide atonement for the sins that you carried out while in office:

Resign.

Resign and reclaim what little dignity you still have left.

This nation is at a crossroads; the Bush Administrations reign of warmongering is about over, the democrat party has the nation’s first African-American Presidential candidate that is about to take office.  We have already had one scandal in the State of New York; we do not need another dent in the party’s armor.  

However, realistically, I know that you will not listen, you will do, just what our embattled President in Washington DC is doing, surround yourself with people, that will tell you exactly what you WANT to hear.  Instead of people that will tell you, what you NEED to hear.  

I thought that a man from the City of Detroit, and a democrat, no less, would be better than that sort of political tone deafness.  I must have been mistaken, because what I am seeing from you, Mr. Mayor, is just that, George W. Bush, with black skin.

I hope, Mr. Mayor that you will awake from your Political tone deafness soon, because the future and the legitimacy of the city of Detroit rests in that awakening. I just hope that you do not wait, until that moment has come and gone.

And that’s the way I see it…..

Cross-Posted on my Blog @ Detroit Free Press

Obama snags Mississippi

He’s gaining by the minute.

Obama Wins Mississippi (via MSNBC)

NBC News declared Barack Obama as the projected winner in the Mississippi primary on Tuesday, the latest in a string of racially polarized contests across the Deep South and a final tune-up before April’s high-stakes race with Hillary Rodham Clinton in Pennsylvania.

Obama was winning roughly 90 percent of the black vote but only about one-third of the white vote, extending a pattern that carried him to victory in earlier primaries in South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia and Louisiana.

I think, considering what Hillary Clinton’s surrogate said about Barack Obama, This is just payback. I mean, Hillary, I believe is trying to cause division in the Democrat Party. I think it’s immature and shows much about her.

Senator Obama did an interview on a special late edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews. He basically repeated his talking points, however, he did answer the nasty stuff said about him very well. That says much about Obama’s character.

 

Here’s The Video:

Of course, the pundits are saying it was a easy win, because, according to the "Pundits" or as I like to call them, the educated Political idiots, say that it is because of the large African-American Population, which is, in my opinion, simple-minded and short sighted. He won because people believe in the man, is that so hard for the Media to admit that? Confused

More on the Obama Victory @ Memeorandum

Okay, who rattled this woman's chain?

How Stupid.

"I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama’s campaign – to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against," she said. "For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It’s been a very sexist media. Some just don’t like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." Ferraro does not buy the notion of Obama as the great reconciler.

"I was reading an article that said young Republicans are out there campaigning for Obama because they believe he’s going to be able to put an end to partisanship," Ferraro said, clearly annoyed. "Dear God! Anyone that has worked in the Congress knows that for over 200 years this country has had partisanship – that’s the way our country is."

Oy.

Sour Grapes, Anyone?

Democrats win Seat held by Rep. Dennis Hastert

Read about it here.

There is quite a bit that could be said about this. Many other Bloggers have already written much of it.

The writing is simply on the wall. I do not place the blame squarely on Bush himself. Because I am keenly aware of how things operate in Washington D.C., I know that the blame does not all go to him.

I blame the advisers who went to him, the ones who were the dye-in-the-wool Neo-Conservatives, who went to him and said, "We can change the shape of the middle east, by invading Iraq." He, of course, bought into that foolish mindset and the scramble for intelligence began and when they found a piece of questionable intelligence, they proceeded to cherry pick it, to suit their needs.

What followed was the quagmire that we are involved with now. This will end up costing this Nation for many years to come. Current cost estimates are at 3 trillion dollars.

Of course, this all did happen and it is not a nightmare, and at what cost? Conservatism is now in it’s death throws, Republicans are now the scourge of American, Obama is the new messiah for America and the Democrats will, most likely, hold the majority in the both houses of Congress.

America wants change and Obama and, somewhat, Hillary are offering that. But what kind of a change are they really going to bring?   What will we see? An end to a war, ended so fast that Iraq descends into chaos? Will we see Churches being closed because they dare to speak out against the Homosexual lifestyle? America’s tax system changed to force churches to pay income tax? Our civil liberties being taken away, the ability to set up a blog and criticize the government, taken away as a threat to national security?

Some of us have not forgotten the tragedy, which happened in Waco, Texas.  I often ask myself, if the liberals take the White House again, will there be more Waco’s? Will they be more Ruby Ridges? Will they be more out of control Government Police action?

I have always believed in balance in Government, the balance of two political parties, both checking one another and each preventing the other gaining total power in the houses of Government. However, what we are seeing now, with the Conservatives being chased to the fox holes, is possible throwing of our Government into a total liberal state, and quite frankly, that scares me to death. I believe in freedom, in all it’s forms, whether it be Speech, Religion, Expression, Press, or whatever else, and I am quite afraid that the Liberals do not believe in total freedom, oh they believe in freedom of speech, as long as it fits their political ideologies.

There are those who say that the Iraq War will bankrupt this Nation. I disagree, I believe that National Healthcare plan will bankrupt this Nation or at worst, place a bigger demand of foreign currency from China and other countries. This is totally eroding our Nation’s sovereignty, with each deposit that we take. 

It is going to be an interesting four years, after the liberals win Congress and the White House. I just have a sinking feeling that the United States is going to be stuck with buyers remorse, because many people are, to coin a phrase, "Betting the farm", on this new messiah, and I have sinking feeling that there is going to be this massive let down, when he gets in office and absolutely nothing changes. It is a grim outlook, but I am afraid it is the reality of the situation at hand.

Snort Worthy Story of the day….

D’oh! Doh

The Story: Local girl makes unexpected appearance in Hillary ad (Via KING5.com)

The Video:

Quote:

The political ad that sparked nationwide controversy turns out to have a surprising local connection.

One of the actors in the Hillary Clinton ad was shocked to see herself, especially because she’s a fierce supporter of Barack Obama.

The so-called "red-phone ad" was played all over the country and helped turn the tide for Hillary Clinton leading up to her big win in Ohio. The commercial suggested Barack Obama was too inexperienced to handle a national crisis.

But the young girl starring in the ad will actually be voting age next month and says she’s no fan of Hillary Clinton

I’d be willing to bet that someone in the Hillary camp is feeling about "that" high right now. LaughingRolling on the floor

Others: TPM Election Central, The Newshoggers, Spin Cycle, Comments from Left Field, Buckeye State Blog, Fox News, Wake up America, Ohio Daily Blog and THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS

NAFTA-Gate Continues…..

It’s worse than the energizer bunny.

It just keeps going and going and going…..

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton never gave Canada any secret assurances about the future of NAFTA such as those allegedly offered by Barack Obama’s campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s office said Friday.

With the NAFTA affair swirling over the U.S. election and Canadian officials skittish about saying anything else that might influence the race, it took the PMO two days to deliver the information.

After being asked whether Canadian officials asked for — or received — any briefings from a Clinton campaign representative outlining her plans on NAFTA, a spokeswoman for the prime minister offered a response Friday.

"The answer is no, they did not," said Harper spokeswoman Sandra Buckler

I think before this is over, someone is going to look like a huge idiot.

Others: The Moderate Voice, Taylor Marsh, Buck Naked Politics, Don Surber, QandO and Clive Crook 

Related Discussions @ Memeorandum

Not everyone in the Obama camp agrees with him on FISA and Telecoms

Interesting… 

Check it out

Quote:

In a new interview with National Journal magazine, an intelligence adviser to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign broke with his candidate’s position opposing retroactive legal protection for telecommunications companies being sued for cooperating with a dubious U.S. government domestic surveillance program.

"I do believe strongly that [telecoms] should be granted that immunity," former CIA official John Brennan told National Journal reporter Shane Harris in the interview.  "They were told to [cooperate] by the appropriate authorities that were operating in a legal context."

"I know people are concerned about that, but I do believe that’s the right thing to do," added Brennan, who is an intelligence and foreign policy adviser to Obama.

That wasn’t just a personal opinion, Brennan made clear to Harris. "My advice, to whoever is coming in [to the White House], is they need to spend some time learning, understanding what’s out there, identifying those key issues," including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, he said — the law at the heart of the immunity debate.

"They need to make sure they do their homework, and it’s not just going to be knee-jerk responses," Brennan said of the presidential hopefuls.

On one hand, this is good thing, he’s taking opinions from other people. On the other, what if he decides to agree with this guy and the President gets away with breaking the law?

Should be interesting.

Others: The Newshoggers, American Street, Weekly Standard, The American Mind and The Campaign Spot

Related Articles and such @ Memeorandum

The stupidity of the Obama/Clinton flap.

You know, I’ve always said this idiotic crap between Obama and Clinton was quite stupid.

Josh Marshall agrees:

Let me stipulate to one thing: if this were two Republicans squabbling, I’d be laughing my head off at the moment. And I can assure you a lot of them are.

The Clinton campaign has gotten so deep inside the Obama campaign’s collective head it just ain’t funny — or, depending on your political persuasion, it’s very funny.

Late Tuesday night I wrote that the upshot of the March 4th contests was that Clinton had beaten Obama up a bit and he hadn’t responded. She’d not only bloodied up his poll numbers a bit by throwing all sorts of stuff at him. She also showed that it wasn’t at all clear that Obama was enough of a fighter to stand up to this stuff or get back in her face. More than the delegate numbers, that was the challenge March 4th had left him with.

But since then she’s just been slapping this guy around like crazy. She’s on the offense every day, dictating the terms of the discussion and getting results.

This "monster" thing is a good case in point. That’s a pretty over-the-top thing for a key campaign advisor to say. But what it tells me more than that is that the Clinton campaign has these guys rattled really bad. Some of this is no doubt due to the fact that Power is a bit out of her element. She’s more from the academic/policy world than the political/policy world. But, again, rattled. The Clinton folks have been bashing Obama like crazy. Now they follow up by explicitly demanding that Obama fire one of his key foreign policy advisors and … how, long did it take? An hour? And she’s gone.

If boxing is our metaphor she’s got him cornered on the ropes on one side of the ring and she’s just landing punch after punch. And all he can manage are the defensive moves that her constant attacks dictate.

Well said.  I believe before it’s over with, whomever comes out on top, there’s going to be bad blood on either side. That’s not a good thing. It could hurt the Democrats in November.

Others on this: Comments from Left Field, Cogitamus and TalkLeft

Related Discussions via Memeorandum