Neocon artist DeLay slanders Obama on Hardball

For the life of me, I will never, ever understand why right wingnuts like Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich and the rest of former GOP "leaders" in Congress are continually invited on political talk shows to subject America to their brand of bullshit. It's beyond annoying.

On Hardball the other night, Tom DeLay took the opportunity to remind America what a vile, contemptuous piece of filth he is. During the broadcast, DeLay actually insinuated that the McCain campaign hasn't been sleazy enough in its portrayal of Barack Obama. As if his contention needed further explanation, he proceeded to tick off a shopping list of Obama's, ahem, attributes in his sick, twisted mind - that Obama's a Marxist, a radical, a black-liberation theologist, terrorist sympathizer and Constitution-hater, etc.

People like DeLay that make me weep for America. Thank God this guy is out of Congress. Too bad the Bush-appointed federal prosecutor in Texas didn't have the balls to take him to trial following his multiple indictments.

I wish Matthews would have taken it to him, as he's wont to do with gas-bag politicians, but he was notably meek and mild during this interview, which is inexcusable.

Actually, what's really inexcusable is that these talk shows keep giving DeLay air time. Funny how I don't see former Democratic Congressional leaders giving any interviews, save a few by Sen. Tom Daschle.

Also, notice the not-so-cleverly-disguised code phrases that DeLay uses, too, i.e. - "I think that when people go into the voting booth, they won't be able to bring themselves to vote for a radical." Why not just say "black man," you dirt bag?

I also find it amazing how Obama's 2001 interview has had the right-wingnuts hysterical this week. I also wonder how many people have actually taken the time to listen to what Obama actually said.

DeLay's meme that Obama called the Constitution "a charter of negative rights," as some sort of anti-American rant doesn't hold up either. It is, and if you actually look it up, it's a legal term. To wit:

In the Bill of Rights...

In the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...

In the Second Amendment: ...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In the Third Amendment: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner...

In the Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

Those are examples of what is meant by "negative rights," yet despicable people like DeLay oversimplify and twist Obama's words, hoping that people won't do any homework to discover the meaning behind them. Sadly, there are a number of willfully uninformed voters who will take DeLay at face value, but happily, that number is shrinking. Perhaps some day people like Chris Matthews will realize that we really don't want to hear from people like DeLay anymore. (And most of us never did in the first place.)

Below is what Obama actually said about the Constitution in an interview seven years ago:

Differs pretty wildly from how the right has been portraying it during the last few weeks, doesn't it?

Stephanopoulos & Gingrich on drapes, race & Congressional leadership

I have a few clips from last Sunday's morning talk shows that are still worthy of mention, and the first one is from This Week.

There's a remarkable amount of b.s. in this minute-and-a-half video clip.

First, George Stephanopoulos trots out a phrase that's been hackneyed for nearly 20 years now (or maybe even longer), that Obama is "Measuring the drapes in the Oval Office..." Gimme a break. Stephanopoulos should know this line well - it's one that President George H.W. Bush used against then-Governor Bill Clinton in 1992 when Stephanopoulos was working on the Clinton campaign.

More recently, it was endlessly pimped by President Bush in before the '04 election, and even more extensively before the '06 election (see below).

Hmm - well, Republicans are many things, but certainly original isn't one of them.

Back to the video at top - I'm always pleased when networks bring in Newt Gingrich, because I never want to go too long without being reminded how much I truly despise the man. Notice how much red meat Gingrich is throwing to the far right in a very short time; I especially got a kick out of Gingrich's assertion that a President Obama will "restrict the free speech rights of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh," but notice how he gives no specifics.

So, on its face, you would think that Gingrich has some concrete proof about how Obama will suppress the free rights of Sean Goebbels and Rush Göring, but he doesn't. Know why? Because that's not what Obama wants to do; he wants to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine in some form, and to also enforce a law that's still on the books, the Sherman Antitrust Act. Those two things will undoubtedly affect right-wing hate radios hegemony over the airwaves, but it certainly won't suppress Hannity or Limbaugh's free speech rights. But, it's not a stretch to say that the GOP will spin it otherwise, especially if Obama wins the election.

Obama, if he's elected in 11 days, will have plenty on his plate, but I hope that at some point he does get around to addressing both of the above topics, because the citizens of this country will never truly "take our country back" until the corporate media is busted up for good. I know, I know - I shouldn't hold my breath, but it's what I firmly believe needs to happen. That, and keeping the Internet free from tiered services, which is what the greedy media companies are pining for. (Thankfully, with a Democratically controlled Congress and hopefully Obama in the White House, the 'Net will be safe for the time being.)

I can't believe that I'm agreeing with Gingrich on anything, but I do agree with him on one point - Congress will likely be Democratically controlled, with large majorities in each house, and both houses are in desperate need for real leadership. And that means kicking Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid out of their leadership positions. Both have been miserable failures, and following the election, I will write Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) and U.S. Rep. Bob Brady (D-PA), both of my Democratic legislators, to demand just that - leadership with a spine that is willing do many of the things that need to be done to get this country back in shape.

Of course, in the video above, Gingrich also railed about taxes, which comes as no surprise. But, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that taxes must be raised to combat the ballooning deficit, which is spiraling out of control. The question is by how much and who will pay more. Taxes are going to have to go up, and spending is going to have to come down in some areas - reducing the deficit must be a two-pronged approach.

Stephanopoulos also brought up "race" at the end of the clip. *Yawn* I think the predictable people will vote against Obama for this reason, but overall, I predict it won't have much of an impact. The only "race" that matters is the presidential one, and it's trending our way. But, I'm very, very wary for many reasons, so of which I will get to in successive posts this weekend.

Hannity pwned by wrong vid - too funny!

This one is from a few days ago, but I loved it too much to not share. Hannity had on Newt Gingrich a few days ago to distort Obama's energy policy proposals, and someone (who is no doubt either now looking for employment or who is Hannity's coffee gopher) cued up the wrong video.

It's always a good day (and a timeless clip) when Hannity is made to look like the jackass he truly is.

By the way, more on Newt's blatant lies and distortions about Obama's energy policy in a bit.

Gingrich at his demagogic worst, as usual

In case you missed it a few days ago, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was on Face the Nation at his demagogic best following the Supreme Court decision last week that detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have rights under our Constitution.

For a quick refresher, here's a brief report on the Supreme Court ruling, via MSNBC...

Anyway, Gingrich really drank the Kool-Aid with his comments on FTN, specifically this passage:

GINGRICH: I will say, I think the recent Supreme Court decision to turn over to a local district judge decisions of national security and life and death that should be made by the President and the Congress is the most extraordinarily arrogant and destructive decision the Supreme Court has made in it's history.

REID: In it's history?

GINGRICH: In it's history. Worse than Dred Scott, for the following reason: The court has now knowingly stepped in, this morning's newspaper say, smugglers had actually gotten the design of a nuclear weapon, that we now have the evidence that people out there had a nuclear weapon design. And this court is saying that any random district judge, based on whatever their personal caprice is, whatever their personal ideological bias, can intervene with a terrorist in such a way.

Pretty amusing to hear Newt Gingrich talking about ideological bias.

Two things: 1. To say that this decision was worse than the Dred Scott case is quite possibly the dumbest thing to ever come out of this man's mouth. And that's saying something, because there's quite a bonehead buffet to choose from - Gingrich once publicly stated that the US ought to re-institute orphanages for unwanted children.

To compare this decision to arguably the worst decision in the Supreme Court's history - that Congress had no authority to outlaw slavery, is the height of stupidity and ignorance. But, these sorts of statements are the norm with Gingrich. No wonder the man's been married three times - he has the morals of a promiscuous rabbit, and the ethics of a corrupt politician. Oops.

There's lots of fear mongering going around surrounding the Supreme Court decision, but again the question is worth asking, What's so wrong with allowing these criminals a trial by jury?

And 2. I'd much rather have a court decide the merits of a charge against a terrorist than an ideological president with political ulterior motives, be it Democrat or Republican.

It's amazing to me that people like Gingrich think that our judicial system isn't the answer to dealing with terrorists. I much prefer these trials than the secret military tribunals that the Bush administration favors, which includes torture, trials without representation, and a suppression of basic human rights in some cases (and that's just what we know about).

As with so many political issues, Gingrich is on the wrong side of public opinion. But, that's nothing new to him. This guy's more often wrong than right. (Clinton Impeachment, drilling in ANWR, etc.) Even when he's right, he ends up being wrong. I remember the laughable Contract with America in 1994 - term limits were a provision in that contract, and the public wanted it. However, that was conveniently left behind when politicians realized it would end their feeding at the public trough.

Hannity's unbiased take on passports

Take a listen to Sean Hannity's take on the passport breach of Sen. Barack Obama's file - it's pretty entertaining.

This is pretty predictable stuff, but I thought I'd share it with you for a few reasons.

First, of course Hannity will cite a report from the Washington Times, one of the most notoriously slanted and biased newspapers in the nation. If you've never done any reading about that paper, click this link - it's pretty fascinating stuff. To call the times a "daily newspaper" is being extremely generous. It's more like a daily National Enquirer for the Republican Party. You want controversial religious leaders? Sun Myung Moon, the founder of the Washington Times, certainly qualifies, so I find it pretty ironic that Hannity would even go near that paper, but Hannity's probably too stupid to realize the irony anyway. (Or at the very least, he probably thinks his viewers are too stupid to care, and he'd be right. But, getting into a guessing game of what goes on in Sean Hannity's head is a game I don't really have the stomach for, so I'll stop.)

I also found this footage pretty entertaining because Hannity tries to bait and lead Newt Gingrich into trashing Obama for having his passport file breached, which is beyond absurd. I have to give credit to Gingrich for his answer though; he brushed off Hannity's partisan remarks, and he's also spot on when saying the government has the responsibility to keep our files private. It's pretty entertaining watching Hannity backtrack when Gingrich doesn't sop up his slop with a biscuit.

I've got plenty more on the Jeremiah Wright story in a bit, too, including some pretty damning revelations that are getting NO play in the mainstream media.

What cut-ups: O'Lielly & Newt blast NYT

I almost laughed myself silly when I saw this footage - Newt Gingrich and Bill O'Lielly castigating the New York Times for its report on John McCain's alleged improper relationship with a lobbyist.

My favorite part: BOR intoning that "these people [The New York Times] aren't being honest, they're not reporting the news, and we have to stop this. Make them the villain, and that will galvanize people around John McCain."

Someone, anyone who works for Fox News bitching about another media outlet "not reporting the news" is akin to Dick Cheney complaining about the federal government's awarding of no-bid contracts.

I can't neglect to mention Gingrich's claptrap, either, including "a massive tax increase" and neither Obama nor Clinton being amenable "to making English the official language" of the United States.

I seriously doubt that the average Fox viewer, much less the drones who watch BOR, will even take the time to look into exactly what the candidates said, but both have proposed rolling back the tax cuts for people who earn over $250,000. Good. If Newt wants to call that a "massive tax increase," that's fine by me. But people need to know where that increase is going, and to whom.

When I first heard Gingrich say that, I almost jumped out of my chair with an "A-ha!" moment. You see, this is the exact strategy that Bush employed when he gave the rich the ill-advised tax cut back in '01. All but the most far-right thought that those tax cuts were a bad idea - even the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated at the time that the cuts would blow a massive hole in the budget.

Fast forward seven years, and of course, people like Gingrich and O'Lielly count on the fact that most people haven't paid attention. Quite naturally, it's the Democrats who are pointing out that these idiotic tax cuts can't continue (oh yea, along with two wars that are going to cost us an estimated $2 trillion), and here's Gingrich and other Repubes on TV harumphing about Democrats' "proposing a massive tax increase," when they never should have been cut in the first place.

The whole issue of English being the official language of the United States is about 787th on the list of things that should be debated in this campaign. To me, it's just a rather sad, transparent attempt by far-right, xenophobic Repubes to discriminate against immigrants.

Think I'm going too far? This is the same Republican Party that wants to have discrimination put into the Constitution by banning gay marriage.

h/t to C&L for the video

PA prez poll has Rudy holding edge

What's wrong with Pennsylvania? A recent poll pitting presidential front runners Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani has Rudy enjoying a four percentage-point lead of Hillary.

I'm anything but frightened by this, for a number of reasons:

1. It's much too early to be panicking about polls. The only real function polls serve right now is fund raising.

2. Pennsylvania has not gone to the GOP presidential candidate in the general election since 1988.

3. There are plenty of x-factors who may yet enter the race - Newt Gingrich, Fred Thompson, Al Gore and Michael Bloomberg.

Pennsylvanians have plenty of time to wake up. I'm betting they will.

Poll details: Conducted May 22-28. 1,318 Pennsylvania voters surveyed. Plus or minus 2.7 percentage points. Leaders for respective parties shown. Graphic via Keystone Politics.

Are there four more seats at this table?

There are rumors to varying degrees that the 2008 presidential candidate pool may swell by as much as four in the coming weeks and months: Newt Gingrich, Fred Thompson, Al Gore and Michael Bloomberg. One Democrat, two moderate Republicans and Gingrich, a has-been who I like to think of as a "never will be."

My first thought about more candidates is that this isn't a bad thing. There is so much at stake in the 2008 election, the more candidates we have to choose from, the better.

I don't know all that much about Thompson, other than his infamous red truck that he used during his campaigns for the Senate. (It was later revealed that he would drive his red truck from campaign stop to campaign stop, but after each stop, he would drive his truck just outside of town, and get into a much nicer vehicle. An aide would drive the red truck almost the entire way to the next campaign appearance. Thompson would then switch back into the red truck and drive into the next town. Real genuine guy, that Thompson. I guess that's why he fit right in as a U.S. Senator.)

I honestly hope that Gingrich gets into the race. After the damage he did to our political system in the 1990s, I'd love to see him get his tail end kicked in the primaries, or heaven forbid, if he received the nomination.

It's no secret I hope Gore gets into the race, but the longer time goes on, the longer the odds are that he gets into the race. I hate it that this is a reason, but money and fundraising has got to be a consideration (and an impediment to his getting into the race later on) for a Gore candidacy.

Quite frankly, I really hope that Bloomberg enters the race. I'm of two schools of thought on Bloomberg. I like it that he would be beholden to no one, because he would not have to worry about fundraising. He has more money than he knows what to do with, so he could just deposit a check for $500 million in a campaign account, and away he goes.

But, there could also be a perception, which would have some merit, that Bloomberg would be "buying" the presidency.

Bloomberg seems to be seriously flirting with the idea of running, but he's tough to read. He recently even complimented Gore and the idea of a Gore candidacy (above).

From a recent New York Times article:

"I hope Al Gore enters the race; I think it would be good for the country," the mayor said.

Mr. Bloomberg this week moved to establish his chops as an environmental mayor by proposing congestion pricing for those who drive into Manhattan. While many have speculated about the Mayor himself running for president, could he be open to directing some of his fortune, and political clout, to Al Gore?

Bloomberg has better environmental credentials than any Republican candidate, and maybe even some of the Democrats.

However, I want Bloomberg to run for two principle reasons: 1. I want a credible threat to the two main political parties, and 2. Bloomberg is a moderate - he's not afraid to make tough choices. Although he's a Republican, he's a moderate who doesn't subscribe to Republican dogma on many issues, including taxes and the environment.

I wouldn't mind seeing all four of these guys enter the race - the more the merrier.

Photo by Chip East/Reuters

Newt gets called out... on FOX

Wow, maybe I had Chris Wallace wrong, or maybe Wallace woke up after his ridiculous interview with President Clinton last fall and realized that he needs to be a journalist, not a hack like the rest of the Fersatz News crew.

I give Wallace a lot of credit for calling out Gingrich on his own hypocrisy - it doesn't happen often enough. I will have a lot more tonight about Pelosi's trip to Syria. I've been gathering lots of stuff about her trip to the Middle East, and I wanted to wait until the dust settled before commenting.

It really is amazing what people will say and do when trying to discredit her. In the process, they merely discredit themselves.

Anyway, much more on Pelosi later.

GOP Poll chat with Paula Zahn

This spring, I've been decrying the appearance of presidential polls in the mainstream media, but I've rethought that; so many big states have moved up their primary to February 5, which will be the single-biggest day during the campaign, save for election day. Super Tuesday (Some are calling it "Giga Tuesday") is only 10 months away, and it's all but certain that date will determine who the nominees are.

This is a few days old, but still relevant. I still find it very hard to believe that the religious right will be at all happy with Rudy Giuliani - his stances on abortion and guns, as well as his marriages, will ultimately cook him if a number of other differences with the right do not.

John McCain? GOP roadkill.

I'll put out a few fearless forecasts right now - neither McCain or Giuliani will even get the nomination. Both are problematic and not nearly conservative enough, and in McCain's case, not trustworthy enough.

On the Republican side, I think we are yet to see the candidate who could make a viable nominee in '08. Only time will tell.

I wouldn't be shocked if former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson did indeed jump into the race, but I would be surprised. He has more the feel of a cabinet member if, heaven forbid, the Republicans hold onto the White House in 2008.

I'd give my eye teeth for Newt Gingrich to get into the race. I believe most Democrats have been spoiling for a fight with that fool for a long time. I know I have. The Georgia Leech would get his ass kicked.

Newt's "Ma Bad" is just... Bad

It didn't take Newt Gingrich long to realize that his insensitive comments last weekend about Spanish-speaking people in America was a colossal screw up.

Just days ago, Gingrich equated bilingual education with "the language of living in a ghetto" and mocked requirements that ballots be printed in multiple languages.

Que lastima! ¿Y este hijo de una perra desea ser presidente?

So today, we are treated to Gingrich trying to pronounce a Spanish apology from a teleprompter. Psst - next time, you may want to consider rehearsing.

So, let's get this straight - last Saturday, you derided ballots being printed in two languages and that English isn't the official language of the United States, and now we're just supposed to forget it?

This is Speaker Gingrich's Macaca moment. Thanks for the memories, and the politics of personal destruction. Now, don't you have a wife to go divorce?

¡Gracias por nada, usted perro de mentira!

Newt drops a beaut

Ahh, the party of tolerance strikes again. Really, I got nothin' on this one - I'll just let the clip speak for itself.

Here's a portion of the Associated Press story:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich equated bilingual education Saturday with "the language of living in a ghetto" and mocked requirements that ballots be printed in multiple languages.

"The government should quit mandating that various documents be printed in any one of 700 languages depending on who randomly shows up" to vote, said Gingrich, who is considering seeking the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. He made the comments in a speech to the National Federation of Republican Women.

"The American people believe English should be the official language of the government. ... We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto," Gingrich said to cheers from the crowd of more than 100.

"Citizenship requires passing a test on American history in English. If that's true, then we do not have to create ballots in any language except English," he said.

Peter Zamora, co-chair of the Washington-based Hispanic Education Coalition, which supports bilingual education, said, "The tone of his comments was very hateful. Spanish is spoken by many individuals who do not live in the ghetto."

He later went on Hannity & Colmes to clarify his remarks. I don't think he does a very good job. From the transcript:

COLMES: You spoke over the weekend to the National Federation of Republican Women. You’re quoted as having said, The American people believe English should be the official language. And then you went on to say that people should learn the language of the country and not the language of living in a ghetto, referring to Spanish. Is that your definitive comment or was that a misquote? Were you not properly quoted?

GINGRICH: Well, that did not refer to Spanish. The point I made was that we ought to have a program of intensive education so that every person who comes to America learns English as rapidly as possible. And I’ve talked to experts who believe that an intensive program, young people could learn to be relatively fluent in four to six months, and older people could learn in a year.

COLMES: What do you mean language in the ghetto?

GINGRICH: What I meant is very clearly, Alan. I’ll let you pick the right word for me. We should not have a program which traps people into not being able to speak English by failing to teach them the language that is the prominent language of prosperity, the dominant language of government, the dominant language of politics. Now, I’ll let you pick — frankly, ghetto, historically had referred as a Jewish reference originally. I did not mention Hispanics, and I certainly do not want anybody who speaks Spanish to think I’m in any way less than respectful of Spanish or any other language spoken by people who come to the United States.

Click on Think Progress to read more, and to watch Gingrich's appearance on H&C.

I really do tire of the whole "English is the official language of the United States" debate. Gingrich is right on one thing - people who come to America should learn the language. But, passing a law saying that English is "the official language of the US" accomplishes little, other than alienating the many immigrants who come to our country every year. People lose sight of the fact that at one time or another, almost all of our ancestors were immigrants in this country, unless you are 100 percent Native American.

My point, and my pipe dream, is this - I'd love to see America adopt Spanish as a second language some day, but it's doubtful it will happen in my lifetime, unless I live one long life. Hispanics and Latinos now make up 13.5 percent of our population, and growing. The harm in having Spanish as a second language would be what, exactly?

Too many Americans, a vast majority, in fact, wouldn't know the meaning of bilingual if it bit them in the face. I count myself among this unfortunate majority. Most other first-world countries in the world have a much higher rate of bilingualism than America does. There are many reasons for this, but I don't feel this fact reflects very many good things about America. In fact, it speaks to our arrogance and hubris when it comes to matters of language and culture.

I know full well that some conservatives would jump all over my comments above, wrap themselves in an American flag, and shout, "You hate America!" These rubes, Gingrich among them, aren't to be scorned - they're to be pitied.

Please run, Newt. Your brand of conservative intolerance is just what Democrats need to not only recapture the White House, but to widen control in both Houses of Congress. Your 15 minutes were up in 1998.

I realize that there is a certain percentage on the right who believe that the existing presidential candidates are not "conservative enough" for their liking. I'm not sure whether that's true, but if they look to Gingrich for a more conservative candidate, they surly are courting disaster.

Run, Newt, run.

More DeLay delusions

I'm not done with DeLay by a damn site. Take a look at two more pretty good examples of the man's character. First, Keith Olbermann made a special comment about DeLay's new garbage book, which it appears no one is buying. Bring it, KO...



Olbermann put author DeLay's Hitler reference in perfect perspective. I'm so sick of hearing about Nazis and World War II in our political discourse. There ought to be a law... In fact, both have been referenced so often while being used to justify so much, I wonder if Newt Gingrich used the Nazis as an excuse when he got caught cheating on his wife?

NEWT: Yea, yea, okay, I f----- her. But, Germany invaded Poland! What are you, an appeaser? Are you siding with the terrorists? Why not just let me finish my job? I was just getting to the surge!

WIFE: I've got chemo in 20 minutes, Newt. GET OUT!



Next, check this one out - here, DeLay, appearing on CNN with Wolf Blitzer late last week, takes President Clinton to task for things such as cheating in golf. I can't believe I just typed that.

His seemingly insane comments, coupled with his denial that he ever did anything wrong while being strongly linked to the Jack Abramoff Scandal, simply makes him irrelevant political theater at this point.

Not much time to write 'til tonight...

But in the meantime, a few hard hittin' cartoons to start your week. I found some good ones today.

I can think of 500 billion reasons why this 'toon hits painfully close to home.

Speaks for itself. "If you're losing the argument, change the argument." -- Somewhere on Karl Rove's desk, there's probaby a granite stone with those words chisled into it. He's turned changing the argument and coming up with effective distrations into an art form. Karl Rove - the modern-day Rasputin.

A homerun. And yes, Newt really did send his wife divorce papers while she was recovering from cancer. If there is a hell, the presidential suite there is named in his honor. I'll have more on Edwards' decision to stay in the race later tonight.

This is another cartoon that is painfully apropos. I've been reading and listening to a great deal of stories in the media lately about a possible economic collapse. There are lots of signs, and one of the biggest is the rate of foreclosures, which is skyrocketing. I was just telling Vandra last night that we need to get rid of our variable rate mortgage, immediately. We're looking into it. More on this later, too. I've got lots to write about tonight.

A little more on Bush's "Democrat" slur

As most of you know, I'm a big fan of Podcasts. As long as I've owned an iPod, I was a bit late coming to the Podcasting game, but last year I discovered them in a big way.

One Podcast I never miss is It's All Politics, a Podcast hosted by Ken Rudin and Ron Elving - two political commentators for National Public Radio. Their 10-12 minute take on the big issues in Washington is essential listening.

Last week, the duo spent a few minutes going over the history of Republicans using "Democrat" to describe the Democratic Party.

I have to confess, and I really should just let it die, but I got irked all over again. Of course, Bush has begged off inquiries on multiple occasions since this utterance during his State of the Union Speech three weeks ago: "And I congratulate the Democrat majority."

Elving and Rudin then played a clip of Bush brushing it off, saying it was an "oversight" and that he "didn't even realize he said it," accompanied by his characteristic snide sneer.

President Bush has tried to shovel some pretty nasty fecal matter into the mouths of Americans since he was appointed president in the fall of 2000, but this is one of his biggest. Bush has turned blowing smoke into an art form.

As Rudin and Elving rightfully pointed out, this slur has a long history in the Republican Party, going back to at least to the era of Joe McCarthy, who flat out refused to refer to the Democratic Party as Democratic.

Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House, used to coach Republicans to refer to Democrats this way, to intentionally rile them up. And this slur has Republican pollster Frank Luntz's fingerprints all over it, too.

The bottom line is that the line was intentional, and it underscores the pettiness of our frat boy president. Notice I didn't say fraternity boy president, but really, it wasn't intentional. I didn't even know I wrote it.

Another example of our LIBERAL media

I have to confess, I got this from Crooks and Liars, an awesome Website where I find many issues that I blog about. So, I'm cribbing a lot from C&L about this post, so I wanted to give proper attribution. Here goes...

A Reuters story that appeared on Yahoo's Website last Friday carried this headline:

Bomb kills 15, Bush critic Pelosi visits Baghdad

Really? You've got to be kidding me. It's bad enough that the news stories about Pelosi have ranged from blatantly male chauvinist "Pelosi, dressed in Armani..." to the completely irrelevant (too many to list here), but this could be one of the worst headlines I've ever seen on the Web for a news story.

As Crooks & Liars rightfully points out, someone couldn't even write "California Congresswoman"? Or, here's a radical idea -- how about "Speaker Pelosi"?!?

Can anyone imagine, when Newt Gingrich was speaker, if this headline appeared? -- "Clinton hater Gingrich slams health care plan."

Imagine the outrage that would have followed that one. Bill O'Lielly would have declared a War on Irresponsible Journalism.

Hey conservatives, keep complaining about the liberal media. And when you get a chance, drop by Earth and let us know how the weather is in your parallel universe.

Leslie Stahl latest CBS disgrace

Above is Part I of a a 60 Minutes interview of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi by Leslie Stahl this past Sunday.

I can honestly say that I haven't been more appalled at a 60 Minutes interview in a long time. Stahl might just as well have been working for the Republican National Committee. Don't get me wrong, I've got no issue or problem with a tough interview or probing questions of a politician affiliated with any political party - that's what journalists are for. But, Stahl revealed her bias with idiotic and leading questions and comments that had me wheeling me around in my chair. (I was listening more than watching; Sunday is often a busy day of writing and planning.) First, take a look at part II:



I'll get to the specific questions and comments I found highly dubious in a minute. However, after watching the interview, I'm wondering why CBS would air such an interview with such an outrageous slant and bias. We'll probably never find out, but I'll suggest a two-word motive - Dan Rather. Ever since Rather aired an unflattering story before the '04 presidential election about President Bush's time in the Air National Guard based on questionable documents, the network has been dogged with accusations of liberal bias.

Perhaps CBS thinks it can placate the far right with interviews like this one?

In short, Stahl is embarrassing herself and CBS News. Stahl begins her interview with this whopper: "I mean, you're one of the reasons we have to restore civility in the first place". Correct me if I'm wrong, Leslie, but it's Republicans who have controlled the House since 1994, and it's the GOP that has been setting the partisan tone in the House. Sure, the Democrats can take part of the blame, too, but wasn't it the Republicans who led the witch hunt against Clinton? Isn't it the GOP who have been ramming bills though Congress, mostly without reaching across the aisle and even working with Democrats? Isn't it the GOP that has been rocked by scandals, be it Mark Foley, Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich, etc?

It looks like 60 Minutes should restore civility to its show by yanking Stahl from its line of traditionally respected correspondents. That's certainly an opinion she could have and should have kept to herself. Can you just imagine the cries of "liberal media" if Stahl led off an interview with, say, Vice President Dick Cheney with a comment that he's one of the reasons we have to restore civility in Washington? Rush Limbaugh would have wet his pants and popped 10 Oxycontin.

At the top of the interview, after Stahl makes the absurd "restore civility" comment, she just gets rolling. I love it when she asks Pelosi about the names she's called the president, Pelosi said, "Oh, I was being nice when I said those things." Stahl voices over, "Oh reeealllly?!?" Someone correct me - does Stahl now work for Karl Rove or the Republican National Convention?

It gets worse. Stahl then asks Pelosi, with a straight face, "How are you going to work with him [the president]?" I find this amusing, since this administration hasn't really given too much thought to working with Democrats since Bush took office. In short, it's because Bush hasn't had to; he's enjoyed an almost total domination of Congress by the GOP since he was appointed president. It sounds like Bush, if the Democrats take back one or both Houses of Congress, is the one who's gonna have to worry about working with Democrats. And it will be an uphill battle indeed, since Bush and Karl Rove has spent almost six years pissing in the eyes of political opponents whenever they've had the chance.

Hey, I've got no problem with Stahl being a conservative, if she is in fact one, but the entire tone of this interview and broadcast is sickening. Later, in the interview, Stahl comments that Pelosi was pregnant while she was working, and then almost forces Pelosi's daughter to defend her mother on camera that they were amazingly still “fed and clothed” while Pelosi worked. What the hell are we in, the 1950s again?

Oh, there's more that got me full hot about this interview. How about Stahl's comments about Pelosi's clothes and how much she eats? Is that relevant in any way tp this piece? (A few quick examples by Stahl: "Here's Pelosi in Armani" and "Here she is in Cowboy boots" and "She ate not one but two pork chops.") I ask you, if this interview were about a man, would ANY of these comments been made about clothes or eating habits? Without question, no. Stahl's comments do nothing to add to the piece; they merely add to the perception that this is a Pelosi hatchet job (oh CHRIST, I sound like Bill O'Lielly now).

One would think that in the 21st century, a woman journalist would not put such ridiculous questions and comments in a broadcast about a potential first female Speaker of the House in U.S. history. Pelosi, if she does get elected the next Speaker if the Democrats take back the House, would signify a significant leap forward for all women. What kind of message is Stahl sending by asking such misogynistic questions? Not a good one. Stahl might as well have been a man circa 1955 wearing a wife beater, bellowing from the couch, "Get me another beer, bitch! When's dinner gonna be ready?!?"

I'm curious if Stahl would have treated woman pioneers Sally Ride, Sandra Day O'Connor or Madeleine Albright this way? I seriously doubt it.

Stahl ought to be ashamed of herself. I bet Stahl's daugher is real proud of this interview.

However, the Pelosi hysteria on 60 Minutes if just a small snippet of the drumbeats of doom that are being pounded hourly about a potential Pelosi speakership. Who can we count on to keep the "liberal hysteria" going? Why Bill O'Lielly, of course! Take a listen, and I won't even comment - the piece speaks for itself. Caution, you're about to enter the Dipshit Zone...



Thanks for validating my every political belief, Bill.

Bill Clinton outFOXes journalistic jackass

Here's the much ballyhooed interview between Chris Wallace and former President Bill Clinton. I'll put all three parts on here, and comment below. Above is part I - part II to follow...



Above is part II



And part III.

What a sad commentary on American, um, "journalism." In short, Chris Wallace is nothing short of a fucking hack - dispatched to bully Clinton with Fox's right-wing agenda. This entire interview was staged to get to Clinton; to rile him and to get him to lose his temper. Mission accomplished, Fox News, and Rupert Murdoch.

But, I'm not criticizing the former president. I'm offering lots of praise for his reaction. These mother fuckers deserve the scorn the president so rightfully heaps on them - Clinton has been castigated by the right-wing media for years - since long before he was elected in 1992. My only crit of Clinton is this - it's about time, Mr. President. You should have done it long ago.

Seems like a million years ago when the worst this country had to worry about was whether Bill Clinton had an affair with Ms. Lewinsky. We should be so lucky now. And it's a good time to once again briefly bring up this inconvenient GOP fact - the Republicans who were out to get Clinton were every bit as hypocritical as Clinton - Henry Hyde, Bob Livingston, Newt Gingrich & Tom DeLay, to name a few (the first three all having had extra-marrital affairs of their own).

Thank you, Mr. President, for trying to get bin Laden. I love it that Clinton mentions how he tried to get Osama after the African embassy attacks, but was accused of diverting attention away from his own troubles. I also enjoyed his references to Richard Clarke - if you haven't yet read his book, Against All Enemies, I urge you to do so. It's as relevant today as it was nearly three years ago when it was released.

And lastly, I applaud the president for publicly calling bullshit on the strategy that Rove and Co. will employ this fall to try to retain power in Congress - trying to scare the living shit out of us all. It certainly won't work with me, but the unfortunate thing is that it will work for millions of Americans who would rather make the "safe" choice by voting Republican.

I have two other quick thoughts on Wallace. 1. I've never heard such disrespect of a former president, regardless of party, by another would-be reporter. Unreal. 2. At various points in the interview, it almost sounds as if Wallace is working for the Bush White House, as he challenges Clinton, with a dismissive smirk on his face, about "launching cruise missiles" to get bin Laden. I'm sure Wallace is a legend at Fox News now, or should I say ITAR-TASS.

I urge everyone to take the time to examine the issues thoroughly from a variety of sources to really make an informed decision. I'm reasonably confident that most, if they've done any homework at all, will make the wise choice, and that's to kick the idiots out of office who have done nothing but politicize the war on terror since September 12, 2001.

Go get 'em, Bill. Our country is lucky to have you.

Update: YouTube has been pulling off the video clips of the interview because evidentally FoxNews has been bitching and complaining that they are being posted without permission. There seems to be a tug of war going on - some of these clips get pulled down, then people repost them to YouTube, so hopefully the three that I link to stay up, but just in case they aren't available when you click on them, here's the complete transcript of the interview. Yes, it's long, but in lieu of being able to see the real thing, trust me, it's worth the read. I will keep trying to repost the videos if these one's get pulled. The transcript follows...

MR. WALLACE: I'm Chris Wallace. U.S. intelligence has said the Iraq war has spawned new terrorists. Next on "Fox News Sunday," the interview everyone will be talking about: former President Bill Clinton in a combative discussion about his attempts to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice. He says his right-wing critics are giving President Bush a free pass.

Our interview with former president Bill Clinton. This week he hosted his second-annual Global Initiative Forum in New York. More than $7 billion was pledged to tackle some of the worst problems in developing countries, such as poverty, disease and climate change. As part of the conference, Mr. Clinton agreed to his first one-on-one interview ever on "Fox News Sunday."
The ground rules were simple: 15 minutes for our sit-down, split evenly between the global initiative and anything else we wanted to ask. But as you'll see now in the full, unedited interview, that's not how it turned out.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. President, welcome to "Fox News Sunday."

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Thanks.

MR. WALLACE: In a recent issue of The New Yorker, you say, quote, "I'm 60 years old, and I damn near died and I'm worried about how many lives I can save before I do die." Is that what drives you in your efforts to help in these developing countries?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Yes. I really -- but I don't mean -- that sounds sort of morbid when you say it like that.

MR. WALLACE: No, you said it.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I actually -- but yeah -- but the way I said it, the tone in which I said it was actually almost whimsical and humorous, that is. This is what I love to do. It is what I think I should do. That is, I have had a wonderful life. I got to be president. And I got to live the life of my dreams. I dodged a bullet with that heart problem. And I really think I should -- I think I owe it to my fellow countrymen and people throughout the world to spend time saving lives, solving problems, helping people see the future.

But as it happens, I love it. I mean, I feel that it's a great gift. So it's a rewarding way to spend my life.

MR. WALLACE: Someone asked you -- and again, I don't want to be too morbid -- but this is what you said: He asked you if could wind up doing more good as a former president --

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Yeah.

MR. WALLACE: -- than as a president. And you said, "Only if I live a long time."

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Yeah, that's true.

MR. WALLACE: How do you rate, compare, the powers of being in office as president and what you can do out of office as a former president?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, when you are president you can operate on a much broader scope. So, for example, you can simultaneously be trying to stop a genocide in Kosovo, you know, make peace in the Middle East, pass a budget that gives millions of kids a chance to have after-school programs and has a huge increase in college aid at home. In other words, you've got a lot of different moving parts, and you can move them all at once.

But you're also more at the mercy of events. That is, President Bush did not run for president to deal with 9/11, but once it happened, it wasn't as if he had an option. Once I looked at the economic -- I'll give you a much more mundane example. Once I looked at the economic data, the new data, after I won the election, I realized that I would have to work much harder to reduce the deficit and therefore would have less money in my first year to invest in things I wanted to invest in.

MR. WALLACE: So, what is it that you can do as a former president?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: So what you can do as a former president is, you don't have the wide range of power, so you have to concentrate on a few things. But you are less at the mercy of unfolding events. So, if I say, look, we're going to work on the economic empowerment of poor people on fighting AIDS and other diseases, on trying to bridge the religious and political differences between people, and on trying, you know, to avoid the worst calamities of climate change and help to revitalize the economy in the process, I can actually do that.

I mean, because tomorrow when I get up if there's a bad headline in the paper, it's President Bush's responsibility, not mine. That's the joy of being a former president. And it is true that if you live long enough, and you really have great discipline in the way you do this, like this CGI, you might be able to affect as many lives or more for the good as you did as president.

MR. WALLACE: When we announced that you were going to be on "Fox News Sunday," I got a lot of e-mail from viewers. And I've got to say, I was surprised. Most of them wanted me to ask you this question: Why didn't you do more to put bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business when you were president? There's a new book, I suspect you're already read, called "The Looming Tower." And it talks about the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, bin Laden said, "I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of U.S troops." Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa, and the attack on the Cole.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Okay, let's just go through it.

MR. WALLACE: Let me -- may I just finish the question, sir? And after the attack, the book says that bin Laden separated his leaders, spread them around because he expected an attack, and there was no response. I understand that hindsight is always 20/20 --

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Let's talk about it.

MR. WALLACE: -- but the question is, why didn't you do more, connect the dots and put him out of business?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: All right, let's talk about it. I will answer all those things on the merits. But first, I want to talk about the context in which this arises. I'm being asked this on the Fox network. ABC just had a right-wing conservative running their little "Pathway [sic] to 9/11," falsely claiming it was based on the 9/11 commission report, with three things asserted against me directly contradicting the 9/11 commission report.

And I think it's very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say I didn't do enough claim that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush's neocons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden. They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office -- all the right-wingers who now say I didn't do enough said I did too much, same people. They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993, the next day after we were involved in Black Hawk Down. And I refused to do it, and stayed six months, and had an orderly transfer to the United Nations.

Okay, now let's look at the all the criticisms. Black Hawk Down, Somalia: There is not a living soul in the world who thought Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk Down, or was paying any attention to it, or even knew al Qaeda was a growing concern in October '93.

MR. WALLACE: I understand that. And I --

PRESIDENT CLINTON: No, wait. No wait. No wait. Don't tell me -- you ask me why I didn't do more to bin Laden. There was not a living soul -- all the people who now criticize me wanted to leave the next day. You brought this up, so you get an answer. But you can't --

MR. WALLACE: I'm perfectly happy to -- (inaudible).

PRESIDENT CLINTON: All right, secondly --

MR. WALLACE: Bin Laden says --

PRESIDENT CLINTON: But bin Laden may have said --

MR. WALLACE: Bin Laden said that it showed the weakness of the United States.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: But it didn't. It would have shown the weakness if we had left right away. But he wasn't involved in that. That's just a bunch of bull. That was about Mohamed Aidid, a Muslim warlord murdering 22 Pakistani Muslim troops. We were all there on a humanitarian mission, and we had no mission -- none -- to establish a certain kind of Somali government or keep anybody out. He was not a religious fanatic --

MR. WALLACE: But Mr. President --

PRESIDENT CLINTON: There was no al Qaeda --

MR. WALLACE: With respect, if I may. Instead of going through '93 and --

PRESIDENT CLINTON: No, no. You ask it. You brought it up.

MR. WALLACE: May I ask a general question --

PRESIDENT CLINTON: You brought it up.

MR. WALLACE: And then you can answer? The 9/11 commission, which you talk about -- and this is what they did say, not what ABC pretended they said.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: What do they say?

MR. WALLACE: They said about you and President Bush, and I quote, "The U.S. government took the threat seriously, but not in the sense of mustering anything like the kind of effort that would be gathered to confront an enemy of the first, second, or even third rank."

PRESIDENT CLINTON: First of all, that's not true with us and bin Laden.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I'm talking about the 9/11 commission.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: All right, let's look at what Richard Clarke said. You think Richard Clarke has a vigorous attitude about bin Laden?

MR. WALLACE: Yes, I do.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: You do, don't you?

MR. WALLACE: Yes, he has a variety of opinions and loyalties, but yes.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: That's right. He has a variety of opinions and loyalties now, but let's look at the facts. He worked for Ronald Reagan; he was loyal to him. He worked for George H.W. Bush; he was loyal to him. He worked for me, and he was loyal to me. He worked for President Bush; he was loyal to him. They downgraded him in the terrorist operation. Now, look what he said. Read his book and read his factual assertions -- not opinions; assertions.
He said we took vigorous action after the African embassies. We probably nearly got bin Laden. I authorized -- now, wait a minute. Wait, wait, wait. Now, wait a minute.

MR. WALLACE: You fought to use cruise missiles.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: No, no. I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him. The CIA was run by George Tenet, that President Bush gave the Medal of Freedom; he said he did a good job setting up all these counterterrorism things. The country never had a comprehensive anti-terror operation until I came there. And if you want to criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this: After the Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and launch a full-scale attack to search for bin Laden. But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan, which we got after 9/11. The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible. While I was there, they refused to certify. So that meant I would have had to send a few hundred Special Forces in, in helicopters and refuel at night. Even the 9/11 commission didn't do that.

Now, the 9/11 commission was a political document, too. All I'm asking you is, anybody who wants to say I didn't do enough, you read Richard Clarke's book --

MR. WALLACE: Do you think you did enough, sir?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: No, because I didn't get him.

MR. WALLACE: Right.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: But at least I tried. That's the difference in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terrorist strategy, and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke, who got demoted.

So, you did Fox's bidding on this show. You did your nice, little conservative hit job on me.

MR. WALLACE: But --

PRESIDENT CLINTON: What I want to know --

MR. WALLACE: But wait a minute, sir. I'm going to ask a question. You don't think that's a legitimate question?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question. But I want to know, how many people in the Bush administration you ask this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you ask, why didn't you do anything about the Cole? I want to know how many people you ask, why did you fire Dick Clarke? I want to know how many people you ask about this.

MR. WALLACE: We ask, we ask -- have you ever watched "Fox News Sunday," sir?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I don't believe you ask them that.

MR. WALLACE: We ask plenty of questions --

PRESIDENT CLINTON: You didn't ask that, did you? Tell the truth, Chris.

MR. WALLACE: On the USS Cole?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Tell the truth, Chris.

MR. WALLACE: With Iraq and Afghanistan, there's plenty of stuff to ask, sir.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Tell the truth, Chris. Did you ever ask that? You set this meeting up because you're going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch's supporting my work on climate change. And you came here on false pretenses and said that you'd spend half the time talking about --

MR. WALLACE: I --

PRESIDENT CLINTON: About -- you said you'd spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7 billion plus, in three days, from 215 different commitments, and you don't care.

MR. WALLACE: I -- President Clinton, if you look at the questions --

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I thought you'd (have an audience here ?).

MR. WALLACE: You'll see half the questions about it. I didn't think this was going to set you off on such a tear.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: You launched into it. It set off on a tear because you didn't formulate it in an honest way, and because you people ask me questions you don't ask the other side.

MR. WALLACE: Sir, that's not so.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: And Richard Clarke --

MR. WALLACE: That is not true.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Richard Clarke made it clear in his testimony --

MR. WALLACE: Would you like to talk about the Clinton Global Initiative?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: No, I want to finish this thing.

MR. WALLACE: All right.

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

MR. WALLACE: But did they know --

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Now, wait. Wait.

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

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Absolutely.

MR. WALLACE: When he bombed the two embassies?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: And who talked about it?

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

PRESIDENT CLINTON: What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to kill him than anybody's gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have more than 20,000 troops there, trying to kill him. Now, I've never criticized President Bush, and I don't think this is useful. But, you know, we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is only one-seventh as important as Iraq. And you ask me about terror and al Qaeda with that sort of dismissive thing, when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke's book to look at what we did in a comprehensive systematic way to try to protect the country against terror.

And you've got that little smirk on your face. You think you're so clever. But I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it. But I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could. The entire military was against sending Special Forces into Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter. And no one thought we got do it otherwise because we could not get the CIA and the FBI that al Qaeda was responsible while I was president. And so, I left office. And yet, I get asked about this all the time.

They had three times as much time to deal with it, and no one ever asked them about it. I think that's strange.

MR. WALLACE: Can I ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: You can.

MR. WALLACE: I always intended to, sir.

PRESIDENT CLINTON. No, you intended, though, to move your bones by doing this first, which is perfectly fine. But I don't mind people asking -- I actually talked to the 9/11 commission for four hours, Chris. And I told them the mistakes I thought I made. And I urged them to make those mistakes public, because I thought none of us had been perfect. But instead of anybody talking about those things, I always get these clever little political deals, where they ask me one set of questions and the others guys another set. And it always comes from one source. And so --

MR. WALLACE: I want to ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative, but what's the source? I mean, you seem upset, and I --

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I am upset, because I --

MR. WALLACE: And all I can tell you is, I'm asking you this in good faith, because it's on people's minds, sir.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, there's a reason it's on people's minds. That's the point I'm trying to make. There's a reason it's on people's minds, because there's been a serious disinformation campaign to create that impression. This country only has one person who's worked on this terror. From the terrorist centers under Reagan, to the terrorist centers from 9/11 -- only one, Richard Clarke. And all I can say to anybody is, do you want to know what we did wrong or right? Or anybody else did? Read his book. The people on my political right who say I didn't do enough spent the whole time I was president saying, why is he so obsessed with bin Laden; that was "wag the dog" when he tried to kill him.

My Republican Secretary of Defense -- and I think I'm the only president since World War II to have a Secretary of Defense of the opposite party -- Richard Clarke and all the intelligence people said that I ordered a vigorous attempt to get bin Laden, and came closer, apparently, to anybody that has since.

MR. WALLACE: All right.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: And you guys try to create the opposite impression, when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke's findings, and you know it's not true. It's just not true. And all this business about Somalia, the same people that criticize me about Somalia, were demanding I leave the next day -- the same exact crowd.

So, if you're going to do this, for God sakes, follow the same standards for everybody --

MR. WALLACE: I think we do, sir.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: And be flat, and fair --

MR. WALLACE: I think we do.

MR. WALLACE: One of the main parts of the global initiative this year is religion and reconciliation. President Bush says that the fight against Islamic extremism is the central conflict of this century. And his answer is promoting democracy and reform. Do you think he has that right?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Sure. To advance, advocate democracy and reform in the Muslim world? Absolutely. I think the question is, what's the best way to do it? I think also the question is, how to educate people about democracy? Democracy is about way more than majority rule. Democracy is about minority rights, individual rights, restraints on power. And there's more than one way to advance democracy.

But do I think, on balance, that in the end, after several bouts with instability -- look how long it took us to build toward democracy. Do I think on balance it would be better if we had more freedom and democracy? Sure I do. And do I think specifically the president has a right to do? Sure I do. But I don't think that's all we can do in the Muslim world. I think they have to see us as trying to get a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

I think they have to see us as willing to talk to people who see the world differently than we do.

MR. WALLACE: Last year, at this conference, you got $2.5 billion dollars in commitments, pledges. How did you do this year?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, this year we had 7.3 billion [dollars] as of this morning.

MR. WALLACE: Excuse me, 7 --

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Point three billion [dollars] as of this morning. But 3 billion [dollars] of that is -- now this is over a multi-year. This is up to 10-year commitments. But 3 billion [dollars] of that came from Richard Branson's commitments to give all of his transportation profits for a decade to clean energy investments. But still, that's -- the rest is over 4 billion [dollars].

And we will have another 100 commitments come in, maybe more, and we'll probably raise another -- I would say at least another $1 billion probably before it's over. We've got a lot of commitments still in process.

MR. WALLACE: When you look at the 3 billion [dollars] from Branson, and, plus the billions that Bill Gates is giving in his own program, and now Warren Buffett, what do you make of this new age of philanthropy?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I think that -- for one thing, really rich people have always given money away. I mean, you know, they've endowed libraries and things like that. The unique thing about this age is, first of all, you have a lot of people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett who are interested in issues at home and around the world that grow out of the nature of the 21st century and its inequalities. The income inequalities, the health care inequalities, the education inequalities. And you get a guy like Gates who, you know, build Microsoft, who actually believes that he can help overcome a lot of the health disparities in the world. And that's the first thing.

The second thing that ought to be credited is that there are a lot of people of average incomes who are joining them because of the Internet. Like in the tsunami, for example, we had $1.2 billion given by Americans; 30 percent of our households gave money, over half of them over the Internet.
And then the third thing is you've got all these -- in more countries you've got all these nongovernmental groups that a guy like Gates can partner with, along with the governments. So all these things together mean that people with real money want to give it away in ways that help people that before would have been seen only as the object of government grants or loans.

MR. WALLACE: Let's talk some politics. In that same New Yorker article, you say that you are tired of Karl Rove's B.S., though I'm cleaning up what you said.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: But I do -- but I also say, I'm not tired of Karl Rove. I don't blame Karl Rove. He -- if you've got a deal that works, you just keep on doing it.

MR. WALLACE: So what is the B.S.?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, every even-numbered year, right before an election, they come up with some security issue. In 2002, our party supported them in taking weapons inspections in Iraq, and was 100 percent for what happened in Afghanistan, and they didn't have any way to make us look like we didn't care about terror. And so, they decided they would be for the homeland security bill that they had opposed, and they put a poison pill in it that we wouldn't pass, like taking the job rights away from 170,000 people, and then say that we were weak on terror if we weren't for it. They just ran that out.

This year, I think they wanted to make the questions of prisoner treatment and intercepted communications the same sort of issues, until John Warner and John McCain and Lindsey Graham got in there, and it turns out there were some Republicans that believed in the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions, and had their own ideas about how best to fight terror. The Democrats, as long as the American people believe that we take this seriously, and we have our own approaches, and we may have differences over Iraq, I think we'll do fine in this election.

But even if they agree with us about the Iraq war, we could be hurt by Karl Rove's new foray if we just don't make it clear that we too care about the security of the country. But we want to implement the 9/11 commission recommendations which they haven't for four years. We want to intensify our efforts in Afghanistan against bin Laden. We want to make America more energy independent. And then they can all, if they differ on Iraq, they say whatever they want on Iraq.

But Rove is good. And I honor him. I've always been amused at how good he is, in a way. But on the other hand, this is perfectly predictable. We're going to win a lot of seats if the American people aren't afraid. If they're afraid and we get divided again, then we may only win a few seats.

MR. WALLACE: And the White House, the Republicans want to make the American people afraid?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Of course they do. Of course they do. They want us to be -- they want another homeland security deal. And they want to make it about, not about Iraq, but about some other security issue where, if we disagree with them, we are, by definition, imperiling the security of the country. And it's a big load of hooey. We've got nine Iraq war veterans running for the House seats. We've got President Reagan's secretary of the Navy as the Democratic candidate for the Senate in Virginia. A three-star admiral who was on my National Security Council staff, who also fought terror, by the way, is running for the seat of Curt Weldon in Pennsylvania.

We've got a huge military presence here in this campaign, and we just can't let them have some rhetorical device that puts us in a box we don't belong in. That's their job. Their job is to beat us. I like that about Rove. But our job is not to let him get away with it. And if they don't we will do fine.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. President, thanks for one of the more unusual interviews.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Thanks.