Joe Scarbourough: another partisan hack

Of all the Republican talking heads in our mainstream media, specifically TV, I've largely felt that Joe Scarborough is one of the more reasonable ones - not a ridiculous, babbling buffoon like Bill O'Lielly.

But, the Republican infighting has begun, as well as conservative pundits' criticizing and castigating Obama's every move as he sets up his administration. After all, the GOP just got pwned a few days ago, and the party and its supporters are fightin' mad. This is to be expected - I remember not-so-fondly in 1992 when then President-elect Clinton's transition team weathered similar criticism, but right-wing hate radio wasn't anywhere near the size it is today, and there were fewer Sean Hannitys back then.

A few mornings ago, Joe Scarborough wasted no time criticizing Obama's choice for White House Chief of Staff, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL-5). On his show, Morning Joe, Scarborough laughably compared Emanuel to former disgraced House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Seriously, Scarborough said it -- with a straight face.

So, Scarborough is comparing DeLay, a former member of Congress who is under federal indictment (and who is also tied to the Jack Abramoff scandal), to Rahm Emanuel, who has a reputation of being a tough political fighter and effective fundraiser? The last time I checked, Emanuel has not been involved in, accused of, or indicted of any crimes.

It would be a compliment to accuse Scarborough of using political hyperbole to disagree with an appointment, but calling it mindless, stupid partisanship would be more accurate.

Here's hoping that Obama has learned the lessons of the Clinton presidency, and that's to aggressively fight back against partisan smears, slanders and innuendo. As president, I realize Obama can't get distracted every little criticism, but Clinton allowed some blatant lies and distortions put forth by the right-wing media to fester, which in some cases proved an old maxim true: If you repeat a lie long enough, often enough and forcefully enough, people eventually start to believe it.

And by the way, what's with every Republican pundit having a fetish about President Jimmy Carter? (Sort of like their fetish with Ronald Reagan.) Carter's the president they point to when they are trying to make a political point. I'll go to my grave believing that Carter wasn't nearly as bad of a president as people make him out to be. Sure, he made plenty of mistakes (the Iranian hostages), but he also did a great deal of good, too. That's okay though - because Democrats will now have a president (George W. Bush) it can point to for decades when they want to make political points on the other side.

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?

Here's wishing DeLay would go away

I have been following politics for a quarter century, and I can't think of anyone who's a more detestable, vile human being than Tom DeLay. And he's really not worth any more time than that.

Someone in the video above, I think it was Tucker Carlson, mentioned that this DeLay rant was little more than a Mann Coulter moment. How true that is. Lest we forget, the soon-to-be jailbird has a book to sell, and he now must continuously ratchet up his rhetoric to get any press. He now is the one thing that all politicians and celebrities dread...

Totally irrelevant.

MSNBC bids Imus adieu

Look at that punim. Don Imus has reason to be cranky today. Yesterday, he was abruptly fired by MSNBC, ending an 11-year relationship with the network. The fate of his radio program is still in question. For now, CBS is maintaining that he'll be suspended without pay for two weeks. So far, that's the extent of his punishment.

I'm already tired of this story, to be honest, but I'd be remiss to leave out a few things. First, a good parody...



Stephen never disappoints.



Michael Smerconish brings up some interesting points here - he is right that people in our society walk around just waiting to be offended, but he's way off base with regard to the Rutgers women's basketball team. Words DO have meaning, and consequences. Yes, he was looking for a cheap laugh, by using racially hateful and insensitive comments.

Smerconish is normally a conservative I respect and listen to, because of his noted lack of hateful comments; he's level-headed and reasonable. But, he's got the Imus case all wrong.



I'm anticipating that this will be the first and last time in my life that I will agree with Laura Ingraham about anything, but I give her credit for reacting the way she did in this clip. The footage runs out, but evidently, she didn't return for the next segment.

It's hard to overstate how much I despise the insipid Hannity, and the footage above is precisely why the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson getting involved in this controversy clouds this issue. It gives conservative jackals fodder for the hypocrisy cannon, and distracts from what Imus said or what this whole story is about in the first place.

These two morons have a history of making highly racial and insensitive remarks themselves, so for them to come to the "aid" of Rutgers basketball players is absurd, and the height of hypocrisy.

What annoys me even more is the fact that Repubes are trying to make political hay out of the Imus remarks, when they really should keep their mouths shut. Take a look at this footage...



Terry Jeffrey, editor-at-large of Human Events magazine, probably says the most idiotic and contradictory statements I've heard on television in quite a long time.

"Don Imus represents the decline in standards in American broadcasting"?!? Surly you jest, Mr. Jeffrey.

Apparently Jeffrey's never heard broadcasts of Matt Drudge, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Tom DeLay, etc.? Talk about selective outrage. I'm choking on righteous indignation. Jeffrey almost (almost!) sounds like the right's idiotic answer to this whole mess vis à vis Sharpton and Jackson on the left.

As Keith Olbermann rightfully pointed out tonight on his show, where's the outrage over the "racist right's" comments. A recent sampling:

• Rush Limbaugh calling Barack Obama [and Halle Berry] "Halfrican American"

• Michael Savage saying the Voting Rights Act means "a chad in every crackhouse"

• Neil Boortz saying Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), an African-American Congresswoman, "looks like a ghetto slut"

• How about former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay comparing Democrats to Nazis? (Scroll down a few messages and you'll hear audio of it.)

These are just a few examples. I don't have enough time or energy to cite them all, but that's a pretty good "worst of" list.

Jeffrey winds up this clip with a breathtaking bomb:

"I think this type of programming underestimates the intelligence for the potential audience it has."

I'll remember that the next time I hear Rush Limbaugh comparing Democrats who oppose funding a destructive, idiotic war to Stalin, while Vice President Dick Cheney plays the role of Ed McMahon, nodding in agreement and braying like a donkey. (I blogged about this last weekend.)

By the way, and I know I've mentioned this before, but when you have five minutes to kill, drop by the Human Events Website - it really is a kick.

Here's a press conference that the Rutgers Womens Basketball Team held yesterday...



Elegantly said, and well put. It will be very interesting to hear what comes of the meeting between Imus and the team. I give those girls a lot of credit for even agreeing to meet with him; it's going to be a pretty uncomfortable meeting all around, but mostly for Imus. It should be.



Here's Al Sharpton on CNN's Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. I agree with just about everything Sharpton is says, but it's tough to get past the messenger. He's got such a checkered past, it's tough to look past his credibility problem. But, he's right about Imus.

I'll say it one more time, and then I'm movin' on, because I've had enough of this story already, but I hate it that Sharpton's even involved in this matter, because it's just fodder for the right's cannon of hate and intolerance.

I find it profoundly sad that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are spokesmen for African-Americans today in any capacity. Seriously, it undermines the issue whenever these two idiots show up and preen before the cameras and sound as if they've never done anything wrong in their lives.

Anyway, one down, one to go - time for Imus to go from CBS, too, but I'm not holding my breath.

I do wonder, getting back to Terry Jeffrey's comments, if this will be another excuse for Republicans to try and arrogantly push their morality on the rest of us. The FCC has done it before, and they'll undoubtedly try again. I really hope this isn't another Janet Jackson moment.

Tom DeLay kills puppies*

Kind of ridiculous, right? Of course it is, but this is the sort of thing that people like Tom DeLay do to people each and every day who disagree with Republicans.

Hmm, it's been about, what, three or four weeks? Time for DeLay to show his true colors again. The song remains the same - say something stupid, ridiculous and wildly intolerant, get on the news, sell more books. Rinse, Repeat.

No need to even discuss his use of the Titanic cliché of politics, the Nazis; I couldn't be any more tired of pointing out Republicans' and conservative political pundits' use of fascist or Nazi when someone disagrees with them. But, I will continue to point it out, because it's unacceptable, and it denigrates people on the left who really do care about their country.

DeLay is a corrupt, sleazy and disgusting excuse for a human being (or politician, whichever you consider lower). Funny how the "politics of personal destruction" was great sport in the 1990s, when he was on the giving and not the receiving end. You're getting your just desserts, buddy. I can only hope you go to prison and that you are forced to share a cell with a 350-pound liberal who is a big fan of Bill Clinton. Now that is what I'd call justice.

Funny how it's always Repubes making the news saying this stuff. I defy you to find me a liberal commentator with an audience of more than 10 resorting to this type of behavior. Find me one, and I'll condemn him or her just as I do conservative pundits for calling people Nazis or fascists. Why is it always Republicans?

I'm not referring to liberals bloggers or voters, a number of whom have compared Bush to Hitler. I'm not one of them, although, I think Bush is now about as popular in America as Hitler now is in Germany - not very much.

* - Tom DeLay doesn't kill puppies, but I thought it would get your attention, and I thought for a nanosecond I would get down in the gutter and say hi to Tom.

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.

MTP marks Iraq War Anniversary with...... TOM DELAY?

I've been meaning to get this one out, but other topics have been winning out and taking up my writing time lately. But, trust me, this one's worth a few minutes of your time...

Oh, have I been waiting to blog about this one. Before I get into it, I'll offer this qualifier: I love Meet the Press. I love it that the show's been on the air since 1947. I love it that it brings political figures into my living room every Sunday morning about issues that matter to me. I've been watching MTP for years. Rare is the week that goes by where I don't either watch it, or listen to a Podcast of it. On balance, I like Tim Russert, who's been hosting the show for 15 years. However, I don't always agree with his choice of guests. I don't know what goes into booking various guests on his show, or who is responsible for booking them, but whoever that person is ought to be fired for booking the guests it did before the four-year anniversary of the Iraq War's start.

Eight days ago, this was MTP's line-up during the show's last 1/2 hour to debate the war:

On the Democratic side, Russert bagged Tom Andrews, a former House member who has been out of Congress for the last 12 years, but the leader of Win Without War; and Congressman Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), a retired Vice Admiral and Naval Academy graduate, who just happens to have a Ph.D. in Political Economy and Government from Harvard University.

Okay, not bad. Russert could have done better than Andrews, but not bad.

However, on the Republican side of the debate, Russert had on Tom DeLay, the disgraced former House Majority Leader who resigned from Congress under federal indictment, and Richard Perle, who, as the chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee from 2001-2003, was one of the principle architects of the Iraq War.

Wow, nice choices, Tim. Wasn't Donald Rumsfeld available?

If you didn't get a chance to see this particular episode of MTP, you've got to take 15 minutes to watch this circus. I can't post it here myself, since I can't host videos directly on my blog since it's hosted on Blogger, and YouTube only lets users post clips that are 10 minutes or shorter. But, I did find a clip of the DeLay ridiculousness on Crooks and Liars. Get it by Clicking Here, and it should be the second or third entry down.



Air America Radio host Rachel Maddow took some pretty good swings at DeLay last Monday - above is a clip of her DeLay diatribe. I love Maddow - I listen to her show when I can, and I have her Podcasts loaded into my iPod, so I listen to them when I have time.

In case you can't view the video, here's a brief transcript. Try to read it without falling down in fits of laughter.

The entire segment starts out with DeLay's grandstanding (surprise)...

RUSSERT: And we're back. Welcome all. The war in Iraq four years old, and let me show you some of the numbers after the first four years. U.S. troops killed, 3,192; US troops wounded, 24,042. The cost is $351 billion. If you include budget requests, it would be about $500 billion. And the Iraqi civilian deaths, some 54,000.

Congressman DeLay, is the war in Iraq worth the cost in life and treasure?

DELAY: Well, you said it yourself, Tim. It's been four years since American has been attacked by these terrorists. We seem to forget that we are at war, and when you're at war, you've got to fight that war to win rather than fight the war for political posturing. We have been fighting that war. Sure, it--it's been tough. We've had to write a complete new war manual on how to fight terrorists that [sic] want to kill women and children. If you compared that note to, say, the Vietnam War in the same period of time, you're talking about much more in casualties and, and relative spending.

##

First off, someone needs to give "The Exterminator" a grammar lesson on the "that/who" rule. But, I wouldn't expect a rube like DeLay to know it - political character assassination is his speciality. If political hate speech and invective were knowledge, he'd have a Ph.D. Back to the show...

DeLAY: "...this is hard [referring to Democrats' desire to set a deadline for withdraw or redeployment], so I want to surrender."

SESTAK: Absolutely not.

DeLAY: That's exactly what it is.

SESTAK: You never just keep banging your head against the wall, we learn in the military. Is there a better way to go about it? And that's what this bill does is it takes the last leverage we have to make it happen.

RUSSERT: But setting a date for–is setting a date for withdrawal...

DeLAY: ...every step of the way, undermine–I think it's aiding and abetting the enemy. When you tell the enemy what your strategy is, that's aiding and abetting the enemy because they can use that strategy to come back and harm your soldiers.

SESTAK: Tim, I spent 31 years in the service of our nation leading men and women into combat in war. And I always assumed, at least I always hoped, that the men and women back here, the policy makers, day in and day out, were spending hours, weeks, debating about the best use of this national treasure. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said it best a few weeks ago when he said, as someone asked him about this debate and what's going on in the House, he said, "Our men and women of our military are educated. They understand the democratic process." I remember when working for President Clinton as director of defense policy, when I didn't agree with you, Tom, but that there was the Buyer Amendment to stop in a year any more funding for our troops in Bosnia. And then there was, in 1999, the effort not to place any more troops not–in Kosovo. While I may have disagreed with you, I respected your office, that that is the constitutional duty of Congress, to take pride for the common defense. [Emphasis Mine]

DeLAY: Joe, you're a congressman. Go back to Iraq and talk to those same soldiers and you'll get exactly a different response from those soldiers.

SESTAK: I talk to them, Tom. I talk to them all the time.

DeLAY: I do, too.

###

Does anyone honestly believe that Tom DeLay talks to soldiers in Iraq? Or Iraqis? That one's got b.s. written all over it.

A little more DeLay...

FMR. REP. ANDREWS: Tom, with all due respect, I think I'd be much more comfortable taking the military strategy advice of Admiral Sestak than, than Tom DeLay. And listen, you know, we in Washington love to talk about what's in the best interest of the, the people of Iraq. We've been doing this for years and years. Why don't we ask the people of Iraq what they think? If you ask the people...

DeLAY: Well, let's ask what's in the best interest of the American people.

ANDREWS: Well, ask the people--let's ask--let's ask the people of Iraq, OK?

DeLAY: No, let's ask the American people.

ANDREWS: What is--let's ask them first, OK? Because listen, they're the ones that have the most at stake. They're the ones that have the most at stake.

DeLAY: I'm more interested in the American people.

##

Evidently, since DeLay was forced to leave Congress under federal indictment, he isn't following polls too much anymore. A majority of the American people want us out of Iraq. If you pick up a newspaper other than The Washington Times or watched some television other than Fox State TV, you'd know that. (I believe the latest poll has Americans wanting to leave Iraq by just shy of 2/3 - it's at around 60 percent.)

But wait! There's more... (Feel like you're watching a Ginsu Knife commercial yet?

I'd be remiss if I didn't miss war criminal Richard Pearle, taking an Al Gore quote completely out of context, as reported by Media Matters:



HOWEVER, Gore STILL opposed going into Iraq.

Eh, I could go on an on about this memorable Meet the Press, but why bother? It did bug the living daylights out of me that Russert (or his superiors) decided to bring in Tom DeLay, so he could plug his piece of garbage tome. I wouldn't buy his book if someone paid me a grand to read it.

I counted Russert holding up the book at least three times (maybe more - I was doing stuff around the house as it was on). How annoying. Go on Fox News and plug your tripe.

Time for some Sunday funnies

Since the Bush Administration's Justice Department had a big "data dump" on Friday, I figured I'd have a cartoon dump this afternoon. Speaking of that data dump, notice the administration followed the age-old, tried-and-true, cardinal rule of political PR - always release bad political news/notes after deadline on Friday night.

This cartoon got me thinking about global warming. I've heard skeptics and global warming deniers (and thank God there are fewer and fewer of these people) reason that the US should not do anything to combat global warming because "China or India both aren't doing anything."

My response to that is two-fold (I'll stick with China, since it's much more populous than India): First, China IS doing something about global warming, or at least trying to. Recently it announced that it's spending $200 billion to try and convert a whole city in Western China to solar power. Hmm - can anyone name a U.S. city that's trying to do that?

Also, the United States is still by far the largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world at around 33 percent. Right now, China's greenhouse gases are around 13 percent. So we are belching almost three times as much greenhouse gases as China, yet we have 1/5 of China's population. If you were China, wouldn't you resent this just a little bit? And what kind of message are we sending the rest of the world, specifically the developing countries? "We had our industrial revolution, but you can't have yours - sorry." China, which boasts the world's largest coal reserves, needs cheap energy NOW. Along comes the US saying, "You can't burn coal" after we've been doing it for over 100 years. Yea, a lot of good that's going to do us.

I say this because I question what's happening to leadership in our country? We're the United States - we used to lead, not follow. Evidently, we've turned into a bunch of followers, most notably on the important issues like nuclear proliferation and global warming - issues that affect every member of the human race. Can you imagine the response by the rest of the world if we announced we are taking drastic measures to curb greenhouse gases? It would be HUGE news. What's more, then and only then, if the rest of the world didn't take appropriate action, we'd have a leg to stand on. We don't have one now.

I winced at this one, but there's some truth to it, too. I'll have more on carbon trading later today.

There's a lot of truth in this cartoon, too.

Yes, I'm capable of joking about it, but the "Gore invented the Internet" lie still bugs the living daylights out of me.

This one's gold, plain and simple. There are more similarities between the Bush and Nixon administrations than people are realize, but it looks as if some very intelligent journalists are finally waking up to this fact.

This one nails it. The one on the left, in a metaphorical, political sense, is what's best for the country. I'm very happy the Senate Judiciary Committee issued subpoena power in the investigaton of the Justice Department's dismissal of eight federal prosecutors. This should get very, very interesting. Again, I'll have more on this later today.

Nice. And accurate, too. Rudy's wife should be embarrassed that she's made such a fool of herself. Being married three times (or if your wife happens to have been married three times) shouldn't disqualify a candidate. But, how do you forget a marriage? Sounds intentional to me, but whatever - there are much more important things to be discussing, even at this early stage of the campaign.

Blowhard DeLay hasn't lost his ability to say totally stupid, asanine things.



Speaking of DeLay, I forgot to bring this one to you - it's DeLay getting bitch slapped by Meredith Vieira on The Today Show last week. At one point, he even gets a bit testy, telling Vieira "I didn't know you spoke for the American people," when she brought up a poll that said 59 percent of the American people want the troops out of Iraq.

I got a pretty big kick out of DeLay's comment that the federal prosecutor firings is "a made-up scandal" and "that there's no evidence of any wrongdoing." He also says "this is just a taste of what it's going to be like for the next two years" and that the Democrats are "on a fishing expedition."

You're absolutely right, this is what the next two years are going to be like, scumbag. This administration needs looking into, because before January, Repubes had no oversight whatsoever during Bush's entire presidency. It's breathtaking that DeLay says this stuff with a straight face, considering he's one of the principle architects of the character-assassination, partisan-warfare politics that have dominated Washington since the early 1990s and continues today.

It's pretty entertaining that DeLay's got the balls to say he "never did anything wrong," and how the Democrats set up a specific strategy to "get Tom DeLay 12 years ago. It was on their Website." Ooooohhhhh! Their Website! The Republicans, when Clinton took office, set out to destroy him before he ever raised his right hand on January 20, 1993. That is a well-documented fact - dozens and dozens of books have been written, based on internal memos from Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay, about their plan to destroy Clinton at all costs.

DeLay would still be in office if he did nothing wrong. Does anyone think that a man as ruthless and power hungry as DeLay wouldn't have given up his Congressional seat unless it was absolutely necessary? Two of his aides pleaded guilty in the Jack Abramoff Scandal, and DeLay knew he was next. Oh, and he's still under federal indictment, by the way. He sounds exactly like Nixon in the clip above - playing the victim, and even referring to himself in the third person. One more thing - learn how to say "terror" - it's "error" with a "t," not "terruh." Wait, keep saying it that way - it makes you appear like the rube you really are.

I have no intention of ever reading his book, or putting money in his pocket for it. But, I did read this on the Huffington Post last night - an excerpt from DeLay's book. The excerpt:

"I believe it was Adolf Hitler who first acknowledged that the big lie is more effective than the little lie, because the big lie is so audacious, such an astonishing immorality, that people have a hard time believing anyone would say it if it wasn't true. You know, the big lie — like the Holocaust never happened or dark-skinned people are less intelligent than light-skinned people. Well, by charging this big lie" — that DeLay violated campaign-finance laws in Texas — "liberals have finally joined the ranks of scoundrels like Hitler."

Check out HuffPo's analysis, by Rachel Sklar:

Never mind the invocation of Godwin's Law, never mind the fact that, where big lies are concerned, the Republicans seem to have that covered — DeLay can't even be bothered to fact-check his own book! "I believe it was Adolf Hitler, but I can't be sure, because I haven't bothered typing the phrase "Hitler" and "big lie" into Google. Buy my book!" Seriously. What a bozo.

###

Is DeLay even relevant anymore? Now Democrats are Nazis? I'd really like to know when references to the Nazi Party, Munich, or Hitler became the Titanic of cliches for the Republican Party. Having a Nazi reference in your hip pocket is now like the American Express Card for the GOP - Don't Leave Home Without It.

More on DeLay later, including what I think of his appearance on Meet the Press last week.

Comics from Slate Magazine.

DeLay's book promos not going well

I've got plenty to say about Tom DeLay, but I've been busy getting our desktop computer back to health after the hard drive died (literally). Anyway, I'm almost done with a piece about DeLay, including his appearance on Meet the Press this past Sunday.

Anyway, the clip above is a pretty good clip of DeLay appearing on Hardball with Chris Matthews. Here's a tip to the disgraced, indicted former House Majority Leader - before you go on a talk show to plug your stupid book, you might want to know what's in it. (Which raises the question, did he write it?) Anyway, Matthews makes him look like the perfect ass that he is. Good stuff.



The one above isn't quite as good as the Hardball footage, but it's still pretty good. NBC Today cohost Meredith Vieira doesn't let DeLay get off the hook too easily and actually has a halfway decent interview. Matt Lauer might want to study this tape for pointers on how to interview a controversial figure or celebrity. When you get verbally slapped around by the likes of Tom Cruise, you've got some work to do. Lauer is getting better, though.

British leaving Iraq, but no worries!

A British convoy in Southern Iraq last week. No truth to the rumor that they are driving straight to the Chunnel, across the English Channel and back to Great Britain.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair is under the gun in his own country, so I certainly understand the absolute necessity for his wanting to bring some British troops home.

What's quite another matter is the spin doctoring that the White House, along with Vice President Dick Cheney, put on the British withdraw.

The White House lamely tried to couch Blair's move in a positive light, saying the British pulling their troops out of the southern Iraqi city of Basra is a sign of "some progress in Basra." The British have been responsible for policing Basra since the the invasion.

Cheney is just flat out bonkers, floating above the rest of us in some alternative reality. From halfway across the globe, Shooter intoned that the British pullback is evidence that there are some areas of Iraq where "things are going pretty well."

If they are going that well, Dick, then why are we sending more troops over there? What's more, the British draw down will certainly put added pressure on already taxed U.S. forces. Blair said that Britain will withdraw around 1,600 troops from Iraq over the "coming months" and aims to cut its 7,100-strong force to below 5,000 by late summer, if local forces can secure the southern part of the country. He also announced that British troops will remain in Iraq until at least 2008 and work to secure the Iran-Iraq border and maintain supply routes to U.S. and coalition troops in central Iraq.

However, take a look at the anti-war protests in London over the weekend...

This protest took place in central London on Saturday, February 24.

Above, another offensive picture from the central London protest, with Old Glory splattered with blood. I don't enjoy these pictures any more than the next American, but it certainly is an indication of how far our fortunes have fallen around the world. Anyone else remember The Star-Spangled Banner being played outside of Buckingham Palace on September 11? I do. If we've lost our closest ally, then the president and his advisors should be taking a close look at our participation in this war. But, Shooter Cheney and Dubya insist on our current course of action, which is to escalate the war by 21,000 more Americans, because, conceivably, we have a chance at "victory."

I didn't think I'd agree with John McCain on just about anything, but I agree with his statement that he made over the weekend about how the War in Iraq "may cost him his career." He made similar statements about Tony Blair. At this point, who can disagree? Only time will tell, but I wouldn't be surprised if both of McCain's remarks turn out to be true.

Another interesting development last week - Finland announced it's bringing all of its troops home, and Lithuania is also considering bring home its remaining troops. That begs the question - who's left? The answer is not many - we now comprise about 94% of the troops in Iraq. That's some coalition, Mr. President.

The only encouraging thing about the British pullout, quite frankly, was Barack Obama's comments, which were steeped in reality.

Obama, speaking at a rally in Austin, Texas, said Tony Blair's decision this week to withdraw 1,600 troops is proof that Iraq's problems can't be solved militarily.

"Now if Tony Blair can understand that, then why can't George Bush and Dick Cheney understand that?" said Obama. "In fact, Dick Cheney said this is all part of the plan (and) it was a good thing that Tony Blair was withdrawing, even as the administration is preparing to put 20,000 more of our young men and women in.

"Now, keep in mind, this is the same guy that said we'd be greeted as liberators, the same guy that said that we're in the last throes. I'm sure he forecast sun today," Obama said to laughter from supporters. "When Dick Cheney says it's a good thing, you know that you've probably got some big problems."

That's a pretty good start to what I hope all of the Democratic candidates continue to do over the next 18 months or so - make Bush, Cheney & company eat their words about the War in Iraq.

You can even go back to Tom DeLay's quotation about the War in Kosovo to get an illustration about our situation in Iraq (bear with me). Here it is, from the New York Times April 29, 1999 edition:

"Was it worth it to stay in Vietnam to save face?" asked Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority whip. Sharply criticizing the NATO bombing campaign, he said: ''What good has been accomplished so far? Absolutely nothing."

Was DeLay talking about Kosovo or Iraq? About Kosovo, he was dead wrong, but if you use this quote about Iraq, it's spot on. And I love his point about Vietnam. We proved nothing by staying there and saving face, just as we aren't now. By the way, you know I'm feeling pretty strongly about this if I'm using a DeLay quotation - a man I despise with every fiber of my being.

Sadly, it seems that our reality-show-based society has a memory span of about two weeks, so it's up to the Democrats to remind all voters of the lies, distortions and rosy predictions that were made (and continue to be made) about this war.

I can't wait for 2008.

Third photo from top from The Huffington Post
All other photos from AP

Is Iran next?

Will this bumper sticker prove true after all?

There's plenty of talk that it's a strong possibility. I haven't read enough about it yet to write at length, but I certainly will, soon.

You can bet your butt that if we do go to war with Iran, there will be a draft. We absolutely do not have the troops for operations anywhere else. If we do go to war in Iran though, Bush had better schedule the invasion or bombing around American Idol, because can you imagine the civil revolt if Fox broke into Idol programming with news of war?

I sincerely hope that people who constantly say, "I don't care about politics" are reconsidering their position. Because everyone should care, especially now, especially if there's a draft. If the draft is reinstated, you can bet everyone will care, fast.

The bumper sticker above, and many others, are available at CafePress, truly a cool Website. Check it out. I was there today, and they've got a whole menu of great new products.

A quick sample...

I love the one on the left *ahem*, but wouldn't a Cheney/Satan ticket be redundant? Okay, okay, I'm getting a bit carried away, but Dick scares me. Call me crazy, but I pray for the president's health on a daily basis, because heaven help us if Cheney were to become president. I can tell you one thing, though - there would be plenty of high fives at Halliburton headquarters. With a Cheney presidency, the new Hallie corporate slogan would write itself: "A no-bid contract in every pot."

I love this one, too. I kind of miss Tom DeLay, though. It was fun kicking him while he was down. This one would make a great t-shirt. After I sell my old computer monitor, maybe I'll spring for one. My car is about maxed out on bumper stickers. In fact, I may thin out the ranks soon. One of my stickers, "Don't blame me, I voted for Kerry" rings kind of hollow now that he's opted out of the '08 race.

Lastly, I found this one - ITMFA - which stands for "Impeach The Mother F----- Already." Too funny. We impeached President Clinton for a consensual affair, but Bush gets a pass on... a laundry list of crap.

I think impeachment should be a last resort, not a first one, but my point is that if Congress could wrongly go after Clinton for what he did, how's Bush get a pass?

It will be interesting to see how the I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby trial plays out. (I'll be blogging more about this over the weekend.)

Incidentally, I'm sooo sick and tired of the media saying his whole name. Who goes by the nickname "Scooter," anyway? That sounds like a nickname from the playground in fifth grade. Hey, I go by RJ, but, I have to pat myself on the back - it's a lot cooler than "Scooter." And what's with the "I"? I never get the whole first initial thing, like "H. Ross Perot." Why not just "Ross Perot?"

One of my favorite initialed-monikers is the football player R.W. McQuarters, a defensive back for the New York Giants. "RW" is a lot to say, but his full name is Reginald Willingham McQuarters II. (There's two?) Yikes. I'd go with "RW," too.

Okay, from now on, I'm R. Joseph "Moped" Corby.

Or not.

Corrupt, unethical, sleazy GOPers; the list grows & grows

God, I pray my drug dealer has more meth!

So much for the "family values" platform of the Republican Party. I have to admit that I get a kick out of sanctimonious Republicans who claim they represent these values, but in the end they can't shake the very vices they publicly scorn.

A quick laundry list:

Ted Haggard (Above): The embattled minister and Bush spiritual advisor recently admitted to reporters that he purchased methamphetamine from a male prostitute he had contacted about a massage. Haggard said he never used the drug and threw it away (Somewhere, Bill Clinton is laughing.)

When asked where he threw it away, he "couldn't remember." Haggard also admitted that it was his voice on the prostitute's voice mails asking to purchase meth. The male escort, Michael Jones, said on a radio talk show last Thursday that he and Haggard had a three-year homosexual affair, which included the use of meth. Hey, I've got no problem with homosexuals at all; quite the opposite, in fact. What I DO have a problem with is a supposedly pious man-of-the-cloth who publicly preaches against gay marriage and homosexuality, but his private life is just the opposite. You deserve all the scorn you're getting, Ted. Oh, P.S. - Haggard is married with five kids. And don't come at me with Jim McGreevy, either - he wasn't hiring male prostitutes or trying to score meth.

Mark Foley: This one's been covered ad nauseum, but there's something profoundly sad about a House Republican who is in charge of combating pedophilia & adults preying on minors who is subsequently revealed to be courting minor Pages working in Congress. Again, this isn't a gay issue, it's an adult/minor issue. But, it's all been done, so I won't spend too much time on this, other than to say that by just about every account, some very high level Republicans knew about Foley's issues long before the scandal became public, including Karl Rove and Dennis Hastert. And that's not my opinion, that's many conservatives.

Jack Abramoff: The Jack Abramoff Fundraising Scandal touches both parties, to be sure, but there's no question it affects Republicans much more than it affects Democrats. Abramoff pleaded guilty to corruption of government officials and defrauding operators of Native American casinos out of millions. Abramoff and his law firm were paid at least $6.7 million by the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) from 1995 to 2001, which is permitted manufacture goods with the "Made in the USA" label but is not subject to U.S. labor & minimum wage laws. After Abramoff paid for Tom Delay and his staffers to go on trips to the CNMI, they crafted policy that extended exemptions from federal immigration and labor laws to the islands' industries. What's even more amazing about this is that it's received little or no publicity in the "liberal press."



George Allen: (Above) The Republican incumbent is trying to hold onto his Senate seat in Virginia in a heated battle against Democrat James Webb. Late last week, a would-be provocateur approached Senator Allen to ask him some admittedly obnoxious questions, and the man was wrestled and slammed down to the ground by Allen's staff. The victim had no weapon and posed little if any threat, unless you consider a threat an embarrassing question. Watch the video and you decide. This isn't the first incident surrounding Allen's campaign - his behavior has become increasingly bizarre, including his use of a racial epithet. In September 2006, at one of his political rallies, Allen referred to S.R. Sidarth, who was filming the event as a "tracker" for the Webb campaign, as a macaca. Sidarth is of Indian ancestry, but was born and raised in Fairfax County, Virginia.

Tom DeLay: The "velvet hammer" turned out to be covered in Velcro - charges of unethical behavior finally stuck to him. DeLay resigned from Congress when he had no choice - when two of your assistants are convicted in the Abramoff Scandal, you don't have much choice. He's been involved in so much bullshit over the years, going all the way back through the 1980s, I don't even have time to type it all. I hold him in particular scorn over his efforts to slander, libel and defame President Clinton from the time he took office. What goes around, comes around. DeLay's going away, but his legacy will live on, and it's not a good one.

Bob Ney: Ney, a U.S. House Representative from Ohio who pleaded guilty last month in the Jack Abramoff Scandal, resigned from Congress on Friday. The Republican, who had been pressed to quit by fellow GOPers, sent a letter of resignation to House Speaker Dennis Hastert. the Jack Abramoff scandal snags another victim.

John Sweeney: The incumbent Republican Representative is locked in a heated battle with Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand to keep his New York House seat. There have been widespread reports that the police were called to Sweeney's residence on December 2, 2002 after his wife placed a 9-11 call saying he was, "knocking her around the house." He has promised to produce papers that would prove his innocence, but has since done nothing but obfuscate, claiming the papers are forgeries. I only wonder one thing when situations like this crop up - where the hell is his wife now? Keeping her mouth shut just so he can go back to Congress? Unreal. He also has a host of other questionable incidents in his recent past, including the Jack Abramoff Scandal. Hopefully, this sleazy Republican will bite the dust on Tuesday.

Don Sherwood: Sherwood is a special case this fall. The Pennsylvania Representative is in all sorts of trouble; hence, Sherwood's having trouble in his bid for reelection. He's admitted to having a five-year affair with Cynthia Ore, who he paid $500,000 to keep quiet about the affair until after the Nov. 7 election. The man's got balls, that's for sure. Sherwood also allegedly beat Ore up, prompting her to call the police on one occasion. When they arrived, Sherwood explained he was only giving her a "back rub."

###

So, there you have it, a GOP Scandals for Dummies List, which just scratches the surface, but frankly, I'm bored and don't feel like typing anymore. For instance, I haven't even touched on all of the scandals that have plagued Republicans since taking over the House in 1994 - the Clinton witch hunt, which uncovered multiple instances of adultery; Newt Gingrich and his multiple ethics violations; Rick Santorum rushing to Terry Schiavo's bedside to score cheap political points; Bill Bennett's gambling multi-million dollar gambling problems; Rush Limbaugh, a true OxyMoron if there ever was one, has got all sorts of problems, the least of which isn't his drug habits; and on and on. Don't get me started on Republican pundits, or I could be here all night.

My point isn't that Democrats are perfect - far from it. As I've blogged before, simply examine their 40+ years of running at least one House in Congress, and you'll uncover all sorts of nasty shit. But, the Democrats aren't in power now - the Republicans are, so it's their turn to feel the heat, and bear responsibility for the many things that need fixing in our foreign and domestic policy. I'm under no illusions that things will be flawless when/if the Democrats take over one or both Houses, but it's time for change. It's also time for some checks on President Bush's agenda - he's pretty much had his way over the last nearly six years with legislation, tax policy, and his budget and judicial appointments.

Tick tock, GOP. Hopefully, the clock is about to run out on your domination of our government.

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.