Scott McClellan Speaks Out

Just when everybody thought the White House couldn't possibly come under any more scrutiny, it does. In a book to be released next April, former Press Secretary Scott McClellan is supposedly going to tell "what happened" concerning his and others' involvement in the Valerie Plame-CIA leak case. In an excerpt released yesterday, McClellan wrote,

"The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. There was one problem. It was not true. I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the Vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the President himself."

So there you have it. McClellan clearly states that indeed Cheney and Bush were involved. Today McClellan came out and said that he did not intend to imply that the President lied.....yet he DID imply that in the excerpt. In fact, not only did he imply it, he wrote it. You can go through and parse the excerpt however you like, but McClellan undoubtably did state that Bush and Cheney were involved in the cover-up.

My only question for McClellan is why did he not come out with this sooner? Why when the Libby trial was going on did he not come forth with this important piece of information? As far as I'm concerned, it was his duty as an American citizen to let the truth be known. If we have a criminal as a President, and I'm convinced we do, then the American people deserve to know. Justice deserves to be served.

One theory that many have come up with is that President Bush was lied to by Vice-President Cheney and hence that is why Bush "passed on misleading information" to McClellan. There is one flaw with that theory however. If Cheney did lie to the President, and its Cheney who is the criminal, not Bush, then when the truth came out, why didn't Bush get rid of Cheney. I know Bush is loyal, but I couldn't even imagine Bush keeping Cheney around if Cheney lied to him. That leads me to one conclusion: Cheney AND Bush were knowingly involved in the cover-up. Any sensible person can look at this situation and see that the pieces of this puzzle just don't match up unless Bush himself was knowingly and willingly involved.

So today when the editor of McClellan's book says that McClellan didn't "intend to suggest Bush lied to him," but also says that the reader can make up his or her own mind concerning Cheney's involvement, I would argue that there is no way one could be involved without the other. And by saying (to Chris Mathews) that the reader can make up his own mind concerning Cheney, the editor and McClellan are by default saying that Cheney was involved. And as I said earlier, if Cheney was involved, so was Bush. Its also interesting to note that although given the opportunity, McClellan did not come out and say that Bush wasn't involved, he just said that he didn't intend to suggest that he was involved.

I'll close by saying that I am very disappointed in the mainstream media for not covering this story the way it should be covered. Many are claiming that this is just "old news". Well I have news for them, this is not "old news". This is extremely important news that points toward our President, the leader of the free world, being a criminal. I urge the media to get this story out there to the American people. By standing by and decreeing this as "old news", the media is letting the Bush administration get away with a potential crime. I would, however, like to commend both Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman of MSNBC for giving this story proper coverage. I hope to see the rest of the media follow suit in the coming days.

The Debate About The Debate

David Broder of the Washington Post recently wrote an editorial "Sound and Fury, Signifying a Debate," concerning the last Democratic debate in Las Vegas.  The thrust of Mr. Broder's article was that the debate moderators are so eager for headlines, they rarely pause to ask the candidates for evidence to support their opinions or assertions.  As I've stated in the past, I agree with Mr. Broder on this issue.

 

However, Mr. Broder has the same problem as the moderators because when he appears on many cable shows, he speaks about candidates' positions but fails to tell the full story himself.  A prime example is promoting Republican talking points on national security as if they were fact, but not following up with any evidence to support his claims. Mr. Broder has done that several times just within the past few months.

 

Mr. Broder was also one of many journalists who never sought evidence to back up the claim that Iraq had WMD stockpiled and ready to use against America or transferred to terrorists as the President and other Republicans asserted.  Yet he says moderators don't seek evidence from candidates to support their opinions.  Mr. Broder is guilty of the same thing.

 

Mr. Broder ends his editorial in these words, "can't these debates be rescued."  The answer is of course they can, but they won't because journalists and the media put hype, spin, and show business first.  What Mr. Broder should be asking is when will the candidates face questions about the 20 years of record deficit spending by the Reagan-Bush and George W. Bush administrations.  Mr. Broder does not have to wait for the moderators to address that  and other issues.  He writes an editorial column; he can write about anything any time he wants to. 

Obama Wants You To Know That He DOES Have Foreign Policy Experience

It's no secret that the campaign is getting heated and possibly the most heated battle is between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Obama's argument has been that Clinton is too "old school", while Clinton touts that Obama is way too inexperienced to be President. Well, Obama is going to put an end to the notion that he is too inexperienced on foreign policy. Here is Obama's own words on his foreign policy credentials:

"Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact I spent four years overseas when I was a child in Southeast Asia."

Yup, thats right, I guess all I have to do to be President is to go live in Indonesia for four years. Here is Sen. Clinton's response:

"Voters will have to judge if living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next president will face. I think we need a president with more experience than that, someone the rest of the world knows, looks up to and has confidence in."

So, I guess the question is who is more experienced on foreign policy---someone who lived in Indonesia for 4 years when he was a child, or someone who has traveled the world and met with the leaders of dozens of countries? This is where I would normally interject to give my thoughts on who is most qualified to be President, but I think you can decide that.

Kerry Will Prove His Case

The American people have seen first hand how many Republicans have attacked the patriotism of many veterans who wore the uniform of their country during their generations war.  It came to a head when veterans questioned the way Mr. Bush has managed the war in Iraq.  I mentioned before in a previous commentary how a good many of the neocons who clamored for war in Iraq either never wore the uniform of their country or joined the reserve to dodge the draft.

 

Now we know that T. Boone Pickens, an oil tycoon, provided $3 million to bankroll the group "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" (the group that ran the attack adds against Senator John Kerry).  Mr. Pickens is a well known neocon and was willing to be used by the Bush campaign during the 2004 elections to try and discredit Kerry's election bid and service to his country.  Pickens said he would pay $1 million to anyone who can disprove even a single charge against Kerry made by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

 

Senator Kerry is taking Mr. Pickens up on the challenge and now Mr. Pickens is throwing up road blocks to that challenge.  It is interesting to note that T. Boone Pickens was of prime age during his generations war but according to several sources, he has no military record.  If that is true, he follows the pattern of so many neocons in this administration who love to see other's children go off to war while they stay home and count their money.  The neocons feel inadequate so they take it out on our veterans who volunteered their service to their country, one of the highest acts of patriotism. 

The Iraq War---the Effect on our Military

FACT: desertion rates for the U.S. Army are up 80% since the Iraq war started.  It is at its highest level since 1980 according to Roy Wallace, Director of Plans and Resources for Army personnel as reported by the Associated Press.

 

The desertion rate jumped 42% just over the past year.  One of the reasons is repeated tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The Army has been stretched to the breaking point because of this and will only be reversed by an increase in Army personnel.

 

This is the war that was supposed to be a cakewalk.  The President, Vice President, and the other neocons who clamored for this war and told America we would be welcomed with open arms have done an injustice to our men and women in uniform.  Almost 53 months ago Mr. Bush landed on an aircraft carrier and proclaimed "mission accomplished" and that "major combat operations were ended."  And now as we speak, 53 months later, our brave men and women in uniform are still paying the ultimate price over a war and occupation over WMD that did not exist. 

 

The reckless, arrogant, and casual way this president took our country to war with out the proper planning and equipment to protect our troops in a prolong war was irresponsible and flagrant.  The President and many Republicans are still in denial.  The fallout from this unnecessary war continues to worsen on a daily basis. 

 

The President could end this war tomorrow if he had the character to do so, but he lacks the wisdom to do so because he can not admit to any mistakes.  In fact he has already told the people the next President will have to deal with the problem.  A truly strong leader would put our country and our men and women in uniform first.  Bush doesn't.  I hope the American people elect someone in '08 who will.  

The Key To Ending The War: The News Media

Yes, there is a way to end this unnecessary war in Iraq.  And it can happen rather quickly if the news media cooperates.  It was television journalists who failed to seek the truth concerning Iraq having WMD in the lead up to the war, mainly because they let themselves be intimated by the President.

 

This is what television journalists should do.   Rerun all the speeches Mr. Bush gave the american people during the run up to war in Iraq when he repeated over and over he knew for sure Iraq possessed WMD that were stockpiled and ready to use against america or transferred to terrorists.  Rerun his speeches over and over every night so the people would be reminded just how reckless this president was and still is.  Rerun all his speeches about Saddam trying to buy uranium from Niger and trying to tie Iraq to the tragic events of 9-11. 

 

Rerun the president's speeches when he told the people Iraq reconstituted its nuclear program and then talked about a "mushroom cloud".  Then rerun over and over all the other charges he made about Iraq that were completely false.  Journalists need to step up to the plate to make up for their own reckless behavior by promoting on their own that Iraq had these WMD.

 

Mr. Bush has always tried to change history and change the reason why he took the country to war in Iraq after no WMD were found.  Rerunning his speeches will remind the people of the real reasons he is so incompetent and the real reasons why he started this war and blatantly misled the American people.  And most importantly it will remind the American people why there needs to be change in '08.  

11/15 Debate: Hillary "Turns up the Heat"

I just finished watching tonight's Democratic Presidential Debate on CNN and I must say I was very impressed with Sen. Clinton. I commented after the last debate in Philly that there was no clear winner. Well tonight, there was definitely a clear winner. Like her or not, Sen. Hillary Clinton won the debate hands down.

What is interesting to note is that most of the sparks in the debate took place in the first 15 minutes or so. Right from the start, Obama and Edwards went after Clinton, but unlike previous debates, Clinton responded. Clinton's forceful responses were spot on and she super-effectively made the case that she is the most qualified candidate to be President. I also find it interesting that after Clinton responded to her attackers, both Edwards and Obama left her alone for the remainder of the debate; she essentially shut them up.

Clinton's best response came when she was asked about playing "the gender card". Clinton correctly responded by saying that her opponents were not ganging up on her because she was is a woman, but rather because she is ahead. Another fact that will play to Clinton's favor is that she answered every question directly. No one can accuse her of parsing her answers or trying to get around the question. If anything, Obama had problems answering the questions directly; he himself got tripped up on the immigration question that Hillary messed up on in the last debate.

In the past few weeks, Obama has really grown as a candidate. He got a huge boost coming out of the last debate, but he completely failed to capitalize on that momentum tonight. Obama completely lost tonight. He indeed had one of his worst debate performances.

It would not surprise me if Hillary regains her strength and Obama loses his. Tonight was a complete win for the Clinton campaign and really a huge loss for everyone else involved. You could tell this by the crowd reaction. At the start of the debate, the audience was evenly split between Hillary, Edwards, and Obama. By the end of the night, the crowd loudly booed anything Obama or Edwards said negatively about Clinton. Clinton had managed to win over about 90% of the Las Vegas audience by the end of the night. And possibly the most important thing of all, Clinton looked the most presidential and she succeeded in presenting herself as the strongest, toughest, and most experienced candidate in the race.

As many of you know, I typically rank the candidates in the order in which I think they scored, but tonight there is simply no need for that. Sen. Clinton is the solid #1 winner. There is no reason to rank anyone else, because frankly, Clinton was in a totally different league then everyone else tonight.

With that being said, if you saw the debate and have any thoughts, please share them. I want to know what you think.

Presidential Primary Season

The beginning of the Presidential primary season is just around the corner and in the near future we will know the Democratic and Republican nominees.  Hopefully the American people will take this process seriously and truly vote for the person they think can best lead our country into the future.

 

What the candidates say is very important even with their double talk.  Those candidates who presently hold office and those that did in the past will be saying things that don't add up when compared to their actual record.  The most important thing to listen for is what they say they will actually do if they are elected President.

 

Candidates who resort to personal attacks on character, morals, and family values and try to tell people what other candidates will do have a big problem.  They do that because they can't tell the people what they themselves stand for nor can they articulate their positions.

 

It is noticeable in the debates that many candidates spend their time attacking others and fail to inform the people what they are going to do if they are elected President.  The primary season is when candidates should inform the American people how they are going to handle the many problems they will inherit.  It is unfortunate the people will get no help from the moderators of the debates.  Moderators are stuck on questions concerning the past and not on the future.

 

Voters should resist when a candidate tries to paint another as unfit because of a single issue such as abortion, immigration, or religion.  The people also need to understand that journalists on the cable networks have to fill up so much time that they try to create issues that are not there.  They are really a sad bunch.

 

There is no one candidate on either side who is perfect and without imperfection, so the people will have to choose the candidate who can best lead our country for the next four years and possible eight years and reverse the calamity the nation has been exposed too for the past seven years.  Listen closely to the candidate who talks about the future and has the character to explain the direction he or she purposes to take the country.  Our future depends on it.

America's Right to Privacy----Under Siege

The Patriot Act, surveillance without a warrant, and torture----all in the name of protecting America by the most secret administration in history.  And make no mistake about it, the secrecy started prior to the tragic events of 9-11.  The President believes privacy is only a right for himself and his administration, but not for the American people.

 

And now it has been reported that Donald Kerr, a deputy director of national intelligence, wants the American people to change their definition of privacy.  In fact, he is quoted as saying privacy can no longer mean anonymity.  He wants government and businesses to safeguard people's private communications and financial information. (From Associated Press writer Pamela Hess)

 

Mr. Bush and the intelligence community want to shield telecommunication companies from lawsuits for giving the government access to people's private emails and phone calls with out a court order.  After the WMD fiasco concerning Iraq and the leaking of Valerie Plame's name, can anyone imagine trusting this administration or intelligence when it deals with protecting the privacy of millions of Americans?  The closer this administration gets to leaving office the more the people are going to discover just how reckless this President and his administration have been.

 

Telecommunication companies who turn over private records of  American citizens to intelligence agencies without a court order deserve no protection.  Those companies who said no to our government agencies when asked to do so without a court order should continue to stand tall.  It is called checks and balances and being patriotic the patriotic way. 

 

We know that this administration met with oil, gas, and other energy companies behind closed doors and never revealed what took place.  In fact they fought to keep their discussions secret.  Now we have lived with the most sustained price increase for oil and is now in the $90 barrel range. 

 

The absence of checks and balances during the run up to war in Iraq led to the President misleading the American people and the Congress.  Because of this administration,  men and women in uniform were committed to a war and occupation in Iraq over WMD that did not exist.  This administration has already failed the test.  No american should trust this administration to protect their privacy.  

Trouble Ahead: Pakistan, India, and Israel

All three countries have stockpiles of nuclear weapons and other WMD according to the experts.  None of them participate in the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.  The United States, Britain, France, Russia, China are all involved in the treaty, and yes, so is Iran.  The administration talks almost daily about the dangers of the proliferation of these WMD to other countries and parties, yet we have no foreign policy to put pressure on these 3 countries to join the treaty and open up their nuclear plants to inspection.  Has any one heard Mr. Bush, or for that matter any Republican, talk about this issue?

 

Now we have Pakistan  being declared in a state of emergency by President Pervez Musharraf.  He is still chief of staff of the Army and the Army is in charge of maintaining the order.  Finally after 6 years and $10 billion for Pakistan the administration is asking Mr. Musharraf to give up his Army role.  The country is in turmoil and the  Pakistani Army and Pakistani intelligence are in charge of protecting and preserving their nuclear stockpile.  Members of this administration and others say they believe the weapons are safe.  But suppose the Army splits and tries to overthrow their President, then how safe would those stockpiles be?  Remember, Mr. Musharraf himself came into power with a coup.

 

Adding to the mixture is former prime minister Benazir Bhutto back in Pakistan from exile.  The administration seems to favor her sharing power with Musharraf.  He does not seem to take to kind to that approach and just recently had her under house arrest.  The Shah of Iran was put in power by the United States and everyone knows what happened to that country down the road.   

 

It is past time for the U.S. and other governments to put pressure on Israel, Pakistan, and India to join the non-proliferation treaty and open up their facilities for inspection.  Is that too much to ask for in this dangerous world? I think not.  All three countries are in a part of the world that is unstable and is prone to radical ideas.  That's reason enough in my estimation.