Bad Iraq news continues; Look! Over here! A Gore speech from '92

[Click for larger image]

It's interesting that the right-wing smear machine is already gearing up for Al Gore's potential candidacy. Of course, GOP shill Matt Drudge leads the way. The screen capture above is from The Drudge Report this past Tuesday. Of course, he's highlighting an Al Gore speech from 1992, part of which is below.

This speech is interesting to watch. Our country's past with Iraq and Saddam Hussein is a complicated one, and by complicated I don't mean that President Clinton is completely innocent, but he's far from the guiltiest, either.

What I found particularly poignant was Gore's Cliff-Note-tour of our country's involvement with Iraq in the 1980s. I won't get into it too much more in this piece, other than to say I've read the exact same things Gore speaks of in this video clip, lest anyone think Gore was merely spouting campaign rhetoric (the video dates from 1992).

Richard Clarke, who worked counter-terrorism under presidents Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Dubya, discussed in detail how Saddam brutally murdered hundreds of thousands of Iranians and Iraqis during that decade, all of which were under Republican, um, "leadership" in the White House. These facts often don't fit into the well-worn rhetoric of Republicans - that Saddam was a "brutal dictator" who "murdered his own people." Clarke details all of this and more in his stunning tome Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror, a book I highly recommend.

Sidney Blumenthal also covers our relations with Iraq in the 1980s (but less than Clarke) in his outstanding book, The Clinton Wars. Blumenthal served as President's Clinton senior political advisor during his second term.

The bottom line here is that America (Read: Ronald Reagan, and later, Bush Sr.) didn't feel the need to do anything about Iraq until the flow of oil was threatened by Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. I can still remember, with my own two ears, Bush Sr. on television declaring that "We are going to war to defend our way of life." Seems patently absurd now, doesn't it? If it doesn't, it should.

If you read about Kuwait, it's anything but a democracy, too.

Now that the neocons' grand experiment has failed MISERABLY in Iraq, setting our foreign policy back 25 years, people like Drudge are busy digging up video tape from 15 years ago in a lame, half-baked attempt to smear a undeclared candidate for president INSTEAD OF rightfully criticizing Bush's Iraq policy of perpetual war.

It's easy for someone like Drudge to dig up old video of Gore, ignoring the events of the past 15 years. What it does NOT take into consideration is what happened following Desert Storm; sanctions, no-fly zones and close monitoring during the 1990s had Saddam mostly boxed in - he had no nuclear program, and, we now know, no WMDs.

Over 3,500 hundred Dead Americans later, to say nothing of the $500+ billion in American dollars spent in Iraq, but Drudge chooses to not talk about that; instead, a Gore speech from 15 years ago takes priority.

What a pathetic canard, even for Drudge.

Bush Sr.: "Bush fatigue" has set in

Seems that former President George H.W. Bush think that country might be sick of politicians named "Bush." I can see that his 82 years have not diminished his sharp wit and wisdom.

"There's something to that -- there might be a little Bush fatigue now," said former President Bush.

Barbara and George were on Larry King tonight, and of course they were full of praise for their son, Jeb, the former governor of Florida.

Bush seems to think that there's a political future for Jeb.

"I hope that Jeb, who left office looking good, is not through with politics," the elder Bush said. " I think he's a good man, most other people think that, a man of principle. And I think he's got a future."

Considering Jeb's role in the 2000 recount, I hope his only future in politics is running his brother's presidential library or something.

I guess I can never think of Jeb without the bitterness of 2000 boiling to the surface.

Speaking of Jeb, I got a sick kick out of the University of Florida's attempts to honor him. About a month ago, the University of Florida, by a 38-28 vote, decided to deny Jeb Bush an honorary degree. Among the faculty senate's concerns were some of Bush's education initiatives while serving as governor of Floria.

However, when Republicans want to give a tongue bath to one of their own, they'll do whatever it takes, the will of the people be damned. Not to be denied, the conservative-controlled state legislature took things into their own hands. The House Schools & Learning Council voted a few weeks to force the university to rename its education school the "Jeb Bush College of Education."

How ridiculous and self serving. If Jeb had any balls, he would have turned this award down. I can't imagine being that shameless, showing up on U of Florida's campus to commemorate having the school being renamed in his honor. (I imagine that since the school is being renamed, there will be some sort of ceremony at some point.) However, maybe the school and/or Bush will eschew such a ceremony because of the controversy. (And the protests that would inevitably result.)

I really try to not be petty and cynical about politics, but sometimes it's very hard. The former president I can tolerate, and I even admire him in some ways. I almost always disagree with him politically, but he has a certain aura of respect around him.

However, I do not feel the same about the rest of the Bush family: Neil Bush and his role in the Silverado Savings and Loan scandal; Jeb and his role in the 2000 election; and Barbara Bush's well-earned reputation for saying absurdly insensitive things, such as:

telling the press that she could not say on TV what she thought of then Vice-Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro, but "it rhymes with rich."

However, nothing beats Barbara's all-time worst quote about Hurricane Katrina victims. (Picture at Right) "Beautiful mind"? Humph. What a churlish rube.

I hear Repubes complaining all the time about the Kennedy dynasty, and on some points, rightfully so. But, the Bush clan more than equals the Kennedys out, and then some.

Jeb is still pretty young - it will be interesting to see if he elects to jump back into politics at some point in the future. If he's anything like his big brother, I sure hope not.

Prez papers may soon be public again

The House has voted to overturn President Bush's November 2001 Executive Order that allowed former presidents to keep their papers secret indefinitely.

Bush came under criticism when the order was made public, primarily because it was seen to benefit his father, former President George H.W. Bush. The Executive Order also allowed former vice presidents to invoke executive privilege to keep their papers secret, also seen by many as a boon to Bush's father, and it extended to deceased presidents' designees rights to keep their papers secret indefinitely.

The provision in Bush's Executive Order that afforded former vice presidents the right to keep their papers secret was seen as the most blatant move for his father, since Bush Sr. served as President Reagan's veep for eight years before becoming president. Previously, only former presidents could invoke this type of executive privilege to stop the release of their papers.

As reported by Reuters,

"The measure, which drew bipartisan support and passed by a veto-busting 333-93 margin, was among White House-opposed bills the House passed that would widen
access to government information and protect government whistle blowers."

"Today, Congress took an important step toward restoring openness and transparency in government," House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman said.

Bush's original Executive Order placed the burden of proof on researchers and historians to demonstrate a "specific need" for records.

The bill passed by the House would give "current and former presidents 40 business days to object to requests to view their papers, allow a sitting president to override a former president's claim of executive privilege and strip former vice presidents and the designees of deceased presidents of the power to use executive privilege to block access to their historical documents." (Reuters)

Many historians argue that Bush's decree has been bad for historians and researchers, and has slowed the declassification process.

According to Reuters, Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archives at George Washington University, said the average time to release presidential documents has grown to 78 months from 18 months since the Bush order, which he said directly contributed to one year of the lag.

This should come as no surprise, though - this is just one example of why the Bush Presidency has the well-earned reputation as one of the most secretive in history.

A bill similar to the House version is expected to be introduced in the Senate. Hopefully, that one will not only pass, but be bullet proof to a veto as well.

The DemocratICALLY controlled House also passed other measures that will increase openness in our government. It's worth noting that the White House also opposes these measures:

A whistle blower bill passed the House by a 331-94 margin (also firmly veto proof), aimed at increasing protections of government whistle blowers who report wrongdoing, especially those with private contractors and national security and scientific agencies. The White House has threatened a veto.

Another bill, which passed the House 308-117, is aimed at speeding requests for government information made under the Freedom of Information Act. The White House didn't threaten a veto with this one, but hinted strongly at it, saying it "couldn't support" the bill.

What the White House has failed to explain is why it doesn't support these bills. Or, should I say, hasn't adequately explained its opposition.

For instance, regarding the presidential papers bill, the White House lamely explained the reason requests have grown from an average of 18 months to 78 months (and increase of 50 months!) is because of a lack of adequate National Archive staff at presidential libraries. An increase of over four years because of a lack of staff? That's b.s., even for this administration.

It's good to see that Democrats are working to reverse the secrecy that has been cast over our government in the previous six years. Now let's hope these bills become law.

Bill Clinton is wealthy. So what?

The Washington Post reports today that President Bill Clinton has earned more than $40 million from speaking fees in the six years since he left office, at $150,000 per speech. It's not news that former presidents become fabulously wealthy. What's not well-known, according to Bill Press this morning, at least, is that the $40 million is only from 20 percent of the speeches he made - the other 80 percent of his fees he either did pro bono, or he donated the money to his AIDS Foundation.

Tucker Carlson was upset the other day, saying it doesn't look good for a former president to become so wealthy. I would tend to agree with that, but it's the reality that all former presidents will become wealthy when they leave office. After going through all of the misery it takes to become elected in the first place, I say let them have their money, and that opinion applies to both political parties.

For instance, how wealthy do you think President Bush will become when he leaves office, with all of his corporate donors and friends? Anyone think he won't have tens of millions of dollars at his disposal? Good for him. Let's check back on this in a decade and see how wealthy President Bush is. I can't say I'll have a problem with it, really; former presidents are in demand to give speeches and be heard, and they have a right to earn money, too.

Funny how I didn't hear conservatives whining much when President Ronald Reagan earned $2 million for one speech in Japan after he left office. I also wonder how wealthy President Bush Sr. has become since he left office? The guy isn't hurting, that's for sure. But then again, as a one-term wonder, he might not be as in demand as Reagan was or Clinton is.

The bottom line here is that conservatives are angry that Bill Clinton has continuously beat the odds, and efforts to destroy him. I have a great amount of admiration and respect for Clinton - a whole lot more of both than I do for our current president. At least Clinton admitted his mistakes (albeit late). When is the last time Bush has publicly stated he made a mistake about anything?

People also forget that Clinton was basically bankrupt when he left office, with millions in legal bills that needed to be paid, mostly from right-wing funded witch hunts, which he needed to defend himself against in the courts.

But boy, Paula Jones sure did get a nice nose job from her settlement, didn't she? James Carville said it best about her - she's what you get when you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park.

My 2¢ on coverage of Hillary's announcement

I woke up to the news this Saturday morning that former first lady and New York Senator Hillary Clinton threw her hat into the 2008 presidential race. I've written before at length (and I'll no doubt say it more than a few more times) that I have mixed emotions on her candidacy; there's no doubt that her name on any ballot will drive conservative morons crazy, such as Jerry Falwell (a.k.a. the great Satan) and his brother Pat Robertson; Bill O'Lielly; Rush Limbaugh (just hearing the news probably prompted him to take another 6 or 8 blue M&Ms); and all the rest.

Ultimately, I feel her candidacy will be good for the political process, though, whether she wins or not. She's one of the biggest leaders of the Democratic Party, and she'll bring on a lot of important ideas to the discourse of the 2008 race.

But, the garbage political coverage has already begun. I won't bore you with a recap of it all, save one example - MSNBC's mid-day coverage on Saturday.

Before I get to that, I have a confession to make - 1. I rarely ever watch cable news broadcasts these days - the coverage is atrocious, they focus on the superficial and idiotic, and I don't find them that informative, and 2. Of all of the cable news channels, MSNBC is the only channel I can stomach, but at times just barely. The lone bright spots seem to be Joe Scarborough and, of course, Keith Olbermann.

Just when I think that MSNBC isn't so bad, along comes Contessa Brewer (left), an MSNBC anchor who used to read the news for Imus in the Morning. (I won't even get started on Don Imus.)

Her coverage on Saturday primarily focused on two things (and I'm not exaggerating) - the Whitewater "scandal," and Bill Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky scandal. My first thought after watching about 10 minutes of this coverage was "Are you f------ kidding me?!?" I kept waiting for Brewer to get to the real story - that for the first time in our nation's history, a first lady was running for president. I could have waited hours, but I could only stomach about 45 minutes of her ranting and sewage about the Clinton administration's lowlights.

A stupid land deal, where the Clintons were ultimately acquitted of any wrongdoing, and an affair with a White House intern (and a consensual one at that). In the wake of 9-11 and all that our current president has done to royally screw this country for at least a few generations to come, spending even one minute on dead-and-buried political witch hunts is a profound waste of time, but then again, so is watching MSNBC.

So, I did what any sane, educated American would - I changed the channel. Brewer should go back to reading the news for recovering cocaine addicts and leave the real reporting to people who focus on real issues.

But, Hillary's coverage from this past weekend is certainly a harbinger of things to come. We are in for an onslaught of superficial media coverage, focusing on things that most voters care little or nothing about.

And Hillary won't be the only one who has to endure this kind of coverage. Barack Obama (above, outside his future residence?) has also had to tolerate similar blarney, most notably about his confessed drug use during his teenage years. I've also said multiple times, and I'll repeat it once more -- Obama has been a lot more forthright and honest than President Bush has been about his alleged drug use.

I can't wait for the primaries to begin, but I also dread it, too.

Hearing Hillary announce her candidacy had me thinking back to 1992, when President Clinton was elected. It was the first election I was eligible to vote in, and I was very politically active - I couldn't wait to vote against President George H.W. Bush, and it was a thrill when Clinton won.

Above, Hillary and Bill Clinton on election night, 1992. I think I speak for millions when I say that I was so full of hope when he was elected. Personally, it was a time of political naïveté for me, though.

I'm sure the Clintons would say the same - both were also marked by naïveté when they moved into the White House, but no more. Above, Hillary testifies on Capitol Hill before a committee on health care reform. President Clinton put her in charge of getting universal health care legislation passed, and it backfired, big time, due in large part to the railroading of Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay. Remember those two? Yea, I'm trying to forget, too.

The million dollar question that the Clintons will have to answer is what role will the former president have if Hillary triumphs? I'm sure the radical Republican religious right already has some made-for-hate radio answers on Bill's role. I look forward to hearing them, and laughing at them, too. How long do you think it will be before Pat Robertson is leading a prayer group, begging for Hillary's defeat?

Unoriginal W: measuring the drapes

Yes, lots of YouTube coming at you today - I've had so much to get to, and I've found so much more in the last few days.

This one gave me a chuckle -- it's another shining example of President Bush and his unoriginal thinking. Remember right before the 2006 mid-term election, when W was on TV every chance he could get, saying Democrats were busy "measuring the drapes" to their offices they were sure they were going to occupy after election victories?

Here's a nice little flashback, to the president's father, President George H.W. Bush before the 1992 election, whining about how Bill Clinton was already selecting a transitional staff, and maybe even measuring the drapes in the Oval Office. Turns out he needed to do both. And it's also worth noting that while the 2000 election was still unresolved, W went around naming cabinet secretaries and appointments long before he had even been declared the winner. Maybe Democrats can learn from that - if another presidential election is ever too close to call, just act like you won and begin nominating cabinet secretaries.

I know, it's ancient political history, but I got a laugh over it. We now know we can add "unoriginal" to President Bush's long list of virtues.

Partisanship set aside for Ford funeral, mostly

Washington, D.C. appropriately mourned President Ford, as we all did this week. It was a fitting send off for a man who helped heal a nation following the Nixon administration, an era marked by corruption, abuse of power, and much worse. Nixon's pardon aside (and I feel that received entirely too much play in the press this week), President Ford really accomplished what many believed unthinkable on August 9, 1974, when Ford took the oath of office at noon -- to restore Americans' collective belief in our Democracy, political system, and most importantly, the presidency. Well done, Mr. President. Rest in peace.

President Ford makes his final journey through Washington.

I thought President Ford's memorial service and funeral were both touching, appropriate and accurate tributes of the man that was Gerald R. Ford. With each of our presidents, there is always plenty of evidence of how they view themselves and how they want to be remembered, from their presidential libraries to their memoirs. But, there's no greater indication than their funerals and memorial services. As such, President Ford didn't disappoint this week; his planned memorials were great reflections of his character and personality -- unassuming and dignified, without a whiff of pomposity or self-importance; two unfortunate traits that tend to mark such events. No horse with the empty boots, no Air Force flyover (that was saved for the Michigan service). And the American public streamed in throughout the night to view his casket, alongside the many dignitaries, world leaders and former presidents.

Just when I thought this was about as nonpartisan political event as one can see, I read after the funeral service that President Bush was the only person who required that the Rotunda in the Capitol be cleared so he could go in and view the casket, where videotape shows he stood for about seven seconds. All presidents have egos, but really? What an uncouth rube.

This is one of my favorite pics from this week -- visitors passing by the presidents casket as he lies in state in the Capitol Rotunda on the Lincoln catafalque, which has held every president who has lied in state in the capitol since President Lincoln. I love the use of a drag shutter here (when a photographer uses a slow shutter speed). It's a cool technique that can add a lot to a situation, as long as it's not overdone.

The Washington National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. is an impressive site to behold; it's too bad that most of the time that Americans see it is during occasions like these.

My favorite part is how they robbed Bush of his 1,000,000,000th photo opportunity - when it was time for pictures, the Ford children were nowhere to be found. Good for them.
President Bush's remarks (above) were pretty measured. I wonder if this was because it was revealed seemingly hours after Ford's death that the former president was vehemently opposed to Bush's disastrous foray into Iraq. We'll probably never know.

My favorite moment from the memorial service was former President George H.W. Bush's remarks, when he talked about Ford's ability to laugh at himself. Bush talked about the Saturday Night Live skits that made fun of his falling down, and Ford's ability to laugh at himself and the importance of having that trait in public life. And Bush Sr. also showed the ability to laugh at himself, doing an imitation of Dana Carvey doing an imitation of him (above). As his Bush Sr. said that, he got a big laugh, and the cameras went to the sitting president, and he had that smirk on his face that I've come to despise these past 7-8 years.

Anyway, it was a moving, memorable service, if for no other reason that even Americans who live 80-90 years only get to see these funerals seven or eight times in their lives.

ABC = All But Caving? (To right wingers)

Predictably, this is a story that's not going away anytime soon. Former Clinton administration officials are pissed, as they should be. Many people are deriding ABC for "interpreting" and "dramatizing" events on 9-11. As if 9-11 requires dramatizing.

Clinton's staff fired off a letter to ABC demanding certain portions of the movie be changed, including one scene depicting Clinton as being too distracted by the Lewinsky scandal to go after Islamic terrorists who blew up embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

Clinton's former National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, and former counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke are similarly outraged.

To wit, Clarke's response:

1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.

2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was nowhere near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL (that's Usama bin Laden, as Clarke refers to him - RJ).

3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.

##

There you have it, from Clarke, who was counterterrorism chief under Bush I, Clinton and Bush II until shortly after 9-11, when he quit in disgust.

Another amusing anecdote, this one from Tucker Carleson, a conservative that I normally admire (I occasionally watch his show on MSNBC). As reported in Media Matters today, Tucker wants this argument both ways. Well, he can't have it.

Here's what Media Matters had to say:
During a discussion with Media Matters for America president and CEO David Brock on the September 7 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, host Tucker Carlson falsely claimed that when CBS chose not to air the 2003 biopic, The Reagans, he had "sort of agreed" that the move constituted "censorship," just as he now argues that it will be "censorship" if ABC is pressured into not running The Path to 9/11. In fact, in 2003, Carlson specifically denied that CBS' decision to pull The Reagans was "censorship," saying that the use of the word in the context of CBS' Reagan movie "devalue[d] the term" and defending CBS' decision to pull the film because it was "inaccurate."

##

What the fuck, Tuck?!? You're better than that.

Oh, and one more thing - yesterday I wrote of the urban legend that persists that Clinton could have had bin Laden. The source of this bullshit is Fateh Erwa, a known liar. The Washington Times, one of the most radical right-wing papers in the country, had this to say about Erwa and his allegations:

"No one should believe these allegations" from "Fateh Erwa, a Sudanese intelligence officer known for his penchant to deceive, that there was an offer to hand bin Laden over to the United States."

Folks, if the Washington Times is saying it, trust it, because that paper never, EVER misses an opportunity to make Clinton look bad.

Enough said.

ABC needs to do the responsible thing, and pull or significantly alter this movie. My prediction? The network will puss out, because all of the major media outlets (excluding Fox News, for obvious reasons) are afraid of being labeled "liberal" and of getting attacked by the right wing distortion machine.

The movie's a disgrace, and so is Tom Kean for being involved in it.

Lies and distortions should be called out as lies and distortions, no matter when they happen. They can't just be bad when it's politically convenient, Mr. Carlson.