What is Hillary Hiding?

The net is abuzz with people asking, "Just what does Hillary have to hide?"

From today's LA Times:

Clinton's first-lady records locked up
Archivists say the documents at her husband's presidential library won't be released until after the '08 vote.

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton cites her experience as a compelling reason voters should make her president, but nearly 2 million pages of documents covering her White House years are locked up in a building here, obscuring a large swath of her record as first lady.

Clinton's calendars, appointment logs and memos are stored at her husband's presidential library, in the custody of federal archivists who do not expect them to be released until after the 2008 presidential election.

A trove of records has been made public detailing the Clinton White House's attempts to remake the nation's healthcare system, following a request from Bill Clinton that those materials be released first. Hillary Clinton led the healthcare effort in 1993 and 1994.

But even in the healthcare documents, at least 1,000 pages involving her work has been censored by archives staff because they include confidential advice and must be kept secret under a federal law called the Presidential Records Act. Political consultants said that if Hillary Clinton's records were made public, rivals would mine them for scraps of information that might rattle her campaign.
Full Article.

So what is Hillary hiding in the millions of pages of records that she won't release? And which of her Democratic rivals will be first to call for their release?

I understand perfectly the need to protect the privacy of our citizens, and especially former first ladies; however, their privacy should be respected BECAUSE they are still ordinary citizens. When they decide to run for office, then these records become vital to the decision making process of the electorate. The voters should NOT be kept in the dark.

Clinton's Campaign Song Suggestions

Since Hillary wants America to help her choose a theme song for her campaign, the conservative blogs have had some creative suggestions her her list.

I was inspired by
Six Meat Buffet's list:
The Bitch is Back - Elton John
Fat Bottomed Girls - Queen
We Won't Get Fooled Again - The Who

So I went through my MP3 list and came up with some of my own suggestions:

Air bag - Radiohead
American Idiot - Greenday
Baby Got Back - Sir Mixalot
Badfish - Sublime
Badhead - Blur
Basketcase - GreenDay
Bed of Lies - Machbox 20
Better Off Without You - The Clarks
Bronzing the Garbage - The Mighty Might Bosstones
Certain Tragedy - Saves the Day
Chump - Green Day
Creep - Radiohead
Dead Wrong - The Fray
Death of a Party - Blur
Desperately Wanting - Better Than Ezra
Easy Target - Blink 182
Elderly Woman - Pearl jam
Everything Evil - Coheed and Cambria
Fool on the Hill - The Beatles
Freakish - Saves the Day
Hooker with a Penis - Tool
I Could Never Be Your Woman - White Town
I Think I Smell A Rat - The White Stripes
Idioteque - Radiohead
I'm a Fool - The Clarks
Jackass - Greenday
Jack-ass - Beck
Jaded - Green Day
Laughing Stock - Grandaddy
Loser - Beck
Mean Girl - Unwritten Law
Mess - Ben Folds Five
Nightmare Hippie Girl - Beck
No Brains - Sum 41
No Substance - Bad Religion
Pathetic - Blink 182
Prelude to Madness - Savatage
Prison Bound - Social Distortion
Reject - Green Day
Repeat Failure - The Delgados
Scumbag - Green Day
She Withers - Geggy Tah
She's Got A Problem - Fountains of Wayne
She's Got Issues - The Offspring
Soul Suckin Jerk - Beck
Sour Girl - Stone Temple Pilots
Stop this Train - John Mayer
Stupid - Toad of the Wet Sprocket
The Best Deceptions - Dashboard Confessionals
The Vampires of New York - Marcy Playground
The Young and the Hopeless - Good Charlot
Twisted Logic - Coldplay
Wasting Time - The Clarks
We're Not Right - David Gray
What a Mess - SR-71
Where is my Mind - The Pixies
Wrong Way - Sublime
Yellow - Coldplay

Think I missed a good one? Leave a comment.

Democrat Leaders Boycott Fox News

Democrats, Fox News Channel lock horns
Associated Press

NEW YORK - Democrats running for president seem to find Fox News Channel as ripe a target as President Bush, a development with dangerous implications for both the network and the politicians.

Fox has tried twice, without success, to set up a debate with the major Democratic contenders. Both times they failed because of pressure applied by online liberal activists, who consider Fox biased toward Republicans and conservatives.

The first debate, which was to be co-sponsored by Fox and the Nevada Democratic party, had been set for this August but was canceled. Fox then teamed with the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute for a Sept. 23 debate that is still scheduled, even though John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton all said they won't attend.
Read More.

I think that comic probably sums it up for most folks.

Somehow we will manage to move on.

Interesting Hillary Pic: The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy at Work

Believe it or not, this pic is real:


Looks like she is flicking us off, right? (h/t)



Amazingly, the "Related" news story listed by Yahoo is "Clinton: Right-wing conspiracy is back"

Is this irony or just an amazing coincidence?

In the related story we learn that on Tuesday (March 13, 2007) Hillary said, "To the New Hampshire Democratic Party's credit, they sued and the trail led all the way to the Republican National Committee. So if anybody tells you there is no vast, right-wing conspiracy, tell them that New Hampshire has proven it in court"

Hillary was alluding to an incident where some Republicans in New Hampshire, in what was clearly a dirty trick, jammed phones to disturb a Democratic "get out the vote" effort.

I suppose using Hillary's logic (woops... now there is an oxymoron if ever I saw one) that when Acorn (an extremely liberal, 100% democrat supporting group) paid an Ohio man in "crack cocaine in exchange for fraudulent registrations that included underage voters, dead voters and pillars of the community named Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy and Jive Turkey" that this must, by analogy, be proof of a "vast left wing conspiracy."(Source.) Why would a Democrat front group go out and register dead people as Democrats?

Or when Democrats pay homeless people with cigarettes to vote Democrat. Would this help evidence a vast left wing conspiracy?

Why is there only ever talk of a vast right wing conspiracy?

Maybe it is because only moonbats subscribe to vast conspiracies of any sort.

Fw: FW: FW: Fwd: Fw: FWD: FW: fwd: FW: Fw: Fw: petition

----- Original Message -----
From: Dawn
To: Judy ; Delores ; Dick ; Donald ; Doris & Ralph ; Eric ; Carl ; Marc & Allison ; Mike & Darlene ; Michael ; Patti ; purity ; Phil ; preach ; fabulinus
Subject: Fw: FW: FW: Fwd: Fw: FWD: FW: fwd: FW: Fw: Fw: petition

----- Original Message -----
From: Jim
To: Dawn ; Dana ; Donnie ; David ; Earl ; Charlie ; Francis ; John ; Kevin ; Mandy ; Tony
Subject: FW: FW: Fwd: Fw: FWD: FW: fwd: FW: Fw: Fw: petition

----- Original Message -----
From: Sonny
To: Frankie ; Florence ; Dave ; Don ; Robert ; Eddie ; Wolf ; Randy ; Allison ; Stevie ; Matt ; JP ; Joe ; Brandon ; Jim
Subject: FW: Fwd: Fw: FWD: FW: fwd: FW: Fw: Fw: petition

----- Original Message -----
From: Alice
To: Judy ; Sandy ; Susan ; Beth ; sonny ; Paul ; Felix ; Todd ; Elizabeth ; Matt ; Marc ; Johnny ; Crystal
Subject: Fwd: Fw: FWD: FW: fwd: FW: Fw: Fw: petition

----- Original Message -----
From: Brian
To: Clare ; Debbie ; Terry ; Tim ; Madeline ; Alice ; Cheryl
Subject: Fw: FWD: FW: fwd: FW: Fw: Fw: petition

| Polling Americans
| |
| | The Democratic National Committee is currently polling Americans through
| | the internet to determine the electability of Hillary Clinton for president
| | of the United States in 2008.
| |
| | If you would like to show your support for Hillary and encourage her to
| | run for President in 2008, please add your name to the bottom of the list
| | below and send it on.
| |
| | 1.

Hillary's Southern Drawl in Context

Does anyone out there like being lied to? Maybe calling it a lie is a bit harsh, do you like it when the media plays you like a violin?

This past week we all saw the footage of Hillary's outrageously silly southern drawl that she adopted when speaking in front of a largely black, southern audience.



Fox news played it almost as much as they played Howard Dean's infamous "Yeaaaaaaagh!"



The conservative community was abuzz. I don't think a single conservative commentator missed the chance to poke fun at Hillary. I so badly wanted to blog about the story as soon as I'd heard the audio clip, but I was really busy this past week and didn't have time to get it up.

The narrative espoused by conservatives was that Hillary, the NEW YORK Senator, who is engaged in a battle with Obama over the southern black vote, had, in an effort to distance herself from the remarkably clean, bright, and articulate - not just any kind of articulate, we are talking storybook, man... - Barack Obama, adopted a southern drawl in what was apparently an effort to appeal to the Southern black voter.

The joke was, "I may not be black, like my opponent, but I can sound just like you, and that is why you should vote for me."

It was absurd. It was ridiculous, but when you listened to Hillary's audio clip, it all made perfect sense.

Too perfect, it turns out. When looking for the video for my Hillary Resource Center, I came across the following clip, which shows Hillary's comment in context.



When I watched this, I was pretty disappointed with Fox News, Sean Hannity, etc. The conservatives who were quick to slam Hillary over her southern accent, essentially cherry picked the audio in what was pretty clearly an out of context quote.

I see this as different than the alleged "botched joke" that Kerry claims was nothing more than a right wing smear, where we all "knew what he really meant."



Kerry expected that despite his history of saying atrocious things about American troops:





... that we would all just know that if you added a word or two here, took away a word or two there, viola, it was really a joke about President Bush... and we all KNEW IT!

No. This Hillary accent brouha is very different. I am disappointed in the conservative coverage of this. I don't like Hillary, not a bit. I don't want to see her anywhere near the White House, unless it is to congratulate Rudy when he takes office, but I want the coverage of these politicians to at least be accurate.

Fair and Balanced means playing a clip like that in context. Just like Coulter's joke about no longer being able to use the new "F" word was ill-conceived and detracts from all the intelligent things she has to say, playing clips out of context represents a sort of dishonesty that detracts from all of the other things conservative outlets have to say.

Shocking New Ad Targeting Hillary

Pajama's Media has an amazing video up.

The video purports to be from the Obama campaign; however, at this point it is unclear whether his camp had anything to do with this.



Wow. This election cycle is going to be UGLY.

Obama's Ancestors: Slave Owners?

Obama's ancestors may have owned slaves
NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Democrat Barack Obama, who would be the first black president, has white ancestors who owned slaves, according to a genealogical researcher.

The researcher, William Addams Reitwiesner, says the discovery is part of his first draft of research into Obama's roots. Obama's father was from Kenya and his mother was a white woman from Kansas.

Wow. This after Obama started making gains with black voters. The same black voters that Hillary has been buying off with cash and promises.

Who could possibly gain from this hit piece on Obama? Hmm...

Wow

This is amazing. Wow. I can't even begin to express how good this clip is... outstanding. Whoever put this clip together: great job!

Slash Burn, When Will They Learn?

vs

'Slash and burn' row as Clinton, Obama trade shots
Stephen Collinson

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The 2008 Democratic presidential race took a sharp, nasty turn with Hillary Clinton's camp ripping into rising star rival Barack Obama as he savored a million-dollar Hollywood debut.

...

The flap erupted hours after director Steven Spielberg and stars such as Jennifer Aniston and Eddie Murphy reportedly helped Tinseltown glitterati raise more than 1.3 million dollars for Obama's White House bid.

With tensions rising 11 months before the first party nominating contests, the row centered on a New York Times column Wednesday, in which Geffen was quoted as branding Senator Clinton overly ambitious and "polarizing."

...

"By refusing to disavow the personal attacks from his biggest fundraiser against Senator Clinton and President Clinton, Senator Obama has called into serious question whether he really believes his own rhetoric," Hillary Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson said in a statement.

"How can Senator Obama denounce the politics of slash and burn yesterday while his own campaign is espousing the politics of trash today?" Wolfson said.

Clinton herself, at a Democratic Party candidates forum in the western state of Nevada, sought the political high ground.

"I want to run a very positive campaign, I sure don't want Democrats or supporters of Democrats to be engaging in the politics of personal destruction," she said when asked about the controversy.

...

"It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when he was raising them 18 million dollars and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom."

...

Geffen was quoted by Times columnist Maureen Dowd as doubting Clinton's capacity to bring Americans together.

"I don't think that another incredibly polarizing figure, no matter how smart she is, and no matter how ambitious she is -- and God knows, is there anybody more ambitious than Hillary Clinton? -- can bring the country together."

And in another shot at the former first couple, Geffen told the Times: "Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it's troubling."

"I don't think anybody believes that in the last six years, all of a sudden Bill Clinton has become a different person," Geffen was quoted as saying of the former president impeached over an affair with a White House intern.
Read the Full Article

Meanwhile, conservatives sit back, pop-corn in hand, and watch as the liberals tear each other apart.

Related:

Analysis: Early bumps trip Clinton camp

NEW YORK - A Hollywood-style brawl with the campaign of rival Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) is the latest in a series of speed bumps tripping up Hillary Rodham Clinton's early presidential moves.

From the Clinton team's decision to criticize — and therefore publicize — producer David Geffen's complaints about both Clintons to increasingly skeptical questions about Sen. Clinton's nuanced explanation of her 2002 vote authorizing the Iraq war, it became apparent even a battle-tested front-runner can fall prey to missteps.
Read More.

Hillary's Plan to Defeat Obama

She will simply buy the black vote.

Looking in the wayback machine, we see that Hillary bought off a prominent Black leader in SC, a Congressman who has accepted a $10,000 a month "consulting" contract to deliver the black vote in South Carolina.

Now she is promising aid for minority students:

Clinton seeks aid for minority students
AP

...

"This achievement gap is deeply troubling to me," Clinton said. "If we don't invest in our children, our society and our economy will decline. This is not just something nice to do, this is something that we have to do."

Clinton, a New York senator and former first lady, spoke and took questions for an hour from the mostly black audience of 300 in the Liberty City neighborhood. The event was sandwiched between fundraisers in Tampa, Miami and Hollywood that were closed to the press.

...

"She's showing us, 'Look, the black community has been a major supporter and I want to keep you as a major supporter.' It's a clear message. I don't think it was subtle,"

Meanwhile,

Clinton defends consulting contract
JIM DAVENPORT, Associated Press Writer

FLORENCE, S.C. - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday denied that her campaign traded money for an endorsement from one of South Carolina's most influential black politicians.

Right, I mean sure, it LOOKS like she is buying the black vote, but really, this is all very innocent, she isn't afraid of Obama, or anything, right?

Notice how the people she cares most about (prominent black congressmen who can deliver the black vote) get real money - her money - while the people she cares less about (people who cannot deliver more than their one vote) get only promises of money - federal money.

Pajama's Media Straw Poll

If you look to the left you will see I have added the Pajama's Media Straw Poll widget to my blog. I think it is a neat idea to allow any website to add this widget in order to let as many people participate as possible.

If you are visiting A Perfect Contradiction for the first time, or if you are a regular visitor, I ask you to please take part in the poll. Come back each week vote as this vote is counted not only for the "A Perfect Contradiction" precinct but your vote counts towards the overall count as well. So please, vote once each week at this precinct!

This weeks options:
Dems: Bill Richardson, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Al Gore, Wesley Clark, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Christopher Dodd

Reps: Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Chuck Hagel, Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Tommy Thompson, George Pataki

(the choices are picked by "those national candidates of both parties that score at least one percent on the previous month’s Gallup Poll."

Hillary's Past Haunting Her

Hillary always seemed like an unlikely ally in the War on Terror. I say that not because I believe Hillary doesn't care about the US coming out on top in the War on Terror, but the Iraq War became SO political, and Hillary was one of the President's strongest allies regarding Iraq. Many Republicans and political commentators - Dick Morris comes to mind - believed that Hillary was just posturing and trying to build up record as being strong on defense so that she could run in '08. Hillary did and said a lot of things to appear more centrist and project an image of strength.

But now that she seeks the nomination of the Democratic Party, she is running as far to the left as she can in order to distance herself from the past 5-6 years of un-Hillary-like-behavior. She can finally be herself and let her true colors show through. Except this is proving difficult for her. Her base is calling on her to repudiate her vote, and if she comes out too strongly against all the decisions she has made in the past 5-6 years, the American people will see through her when she starts sprinting back towards the center for the General Election, assuming she can win her part nomination, of course.

Christopher Hitchens has an excellent article over on Slate in which he basically blasts the Presidential hopeful.

On her campaign visit to New Hampshire this weekend, she was asked by an audience member to describe her 2002 vote as a mistake "right here, right now, once and for all, without nuance." Until "we hear you say that," the questioner went on, "we're not going to hear all these other great things you've said." Not for the first time, she declined to oblige. Instead, she took refuge in the softer claim that she couldn't know then what she knew now, and in the following rather bizarre view of the Bush administration's policy:

From almost the first day they got into office, they were trying to figure out how to get rid of Saddam Hussein. I'm not a psychiatrist; I don't know all of the reasons behind their concern, some might say their obsession.

If she continues in this vein, then someone is going to remind her of how truly agonizing an effort to ride two horses can be. The record is very plain and easy to look up. Here is what she said in her crucial speech of October 2002:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

Notice what this does not say. It does not say that she agrees with the Bush administration on those two key points. Rather, it states these two claims in her own voice and on her own authority. A man like John Edwards can back away from his own 2002 vote easily enough by suggesting that he was deceived by Republican propaganda, but he was barely in politics before 2000. Sen. Clinton, however, was not just in politics. She was in the White House. That's why she had to speak of "the four years" that had elapsed since the relationship between the United States and Iraq went critical once more. As the preceding paragraph of her speech said:

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change.

Indeed, it was on the initiative of President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, both of whom delivered extremely tough speeches warning of another round of confrontation with Saddam Hussein, that the Senate passed the Iraq Liberation Act that year, making it U.S. policy to remove the Baathists from power. It was the Clinton administration that bombed Sudan, claiming that a factory outside Khartoum represented a chemical-weapons link between Saddam and Osama Bin Laden. And, as Sen. Clinton reminded us in the very same speech, it was "President Clinton, with the British and others, [who] ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets" in Iraq. On its own, this is enough to make childish nonsense of her insinuation that an "obsession" with Saddam took root only after the Bush-Cheney victory in 2000.

When I read this all I could say is, "Wow." I hope to one day be able to write as effectively, intelligently, and eloquently as Christopher Hitchens. Kudos to him on an excellent article (please read the full article here). This will do quite nicely in our Hillary Resource Center.

Clinton's Iraq Plan: Cut and Run

With victory in sight, Hillary Clinton has a different idea on how to win in the War on Terror - 3 takes on one story:

Hillary Clinton urges phased withdrawal from Iraq
(AFP) - Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton called in an online video for US troop levels to be locked at January levels and urged a phased US withdrawal from Iraq.

"We have to end this war in a smart way, not a Republican or a Democratic way, but a way that makes us safer and gets our troops home as soon as possible," Clinton says in the video. "If (President) George Bush doesn't end this war before he leaves office, when I'm president, I will."

The SMART way to end the war is TO WIN ! Cutting and running, forcing our soldiers to retreat with their tails between their legs, will NOT make us safer. If Democrats think the world has lost respect for the United States now, just wait and see what happens if the Dems force a pull-out and allow the terrorists to take over Iraq.

Clinton dodges arrows on '02 Iraq vote
HOLLY RAMER, Associated Press Writer

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton told New Hampshire voters Saturday that ending the war in Iraq is more important than whether she repudiates her 2002 vote authorizing President Bush to use military force there.

...

Clinton introduced legislation late Friday that would require the Pentagon to begin pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq three months after the bill becomes law — an unlikely scenario with the number of Republicans in Congress and Bush's veto power.

"It's time to say the redeployment should start in 90 days or we will revoke authorization for this war," Clinton said in a statement.

Notice how the AP introduces Hillary's cut and run policy in an article about how she is "dodging arrows" for her 02 vote to authorize the war in Iraq. Whereas the two topics are related, the narrative is that Hillary is facing heat from the left for her centrist like behavior in voting to authorize the war in Iraq. They mention, in passing, that Hillary is demanding that we cut and run in 90 days or else! I speculate that reporting the narrative "Hillary wants to cut and run in 90 days" would not be popular with the majority of Americans, so mentioning it in a related story softens the blow. This, of course, is evidence of bias, but everyone basically accepts the US press is biased.

The foreign press is generally biased too; however, they don't particularly worry about which narrative they use when introducing information that would be damning to an American politician. Which is why the AFP uses the term phased withdrawal instead of "phased redeployment" and Reuters didn't worry about couching the truth in a related narrative:

Clinton urges start of Iraq pullout in 90 days
(Reuters) - U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the early front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has called for a 90-day deadline to start pulling American troops from Iraq.

Clinton, the wife of former President Bill Clinton, has been criticized by some Democrats for supporting authorization of the war in 2002 and for not renouncing her vote as she seeks the U.S. presidency in next year's election.

"Now it's time to say the redeployment should start in 90 days or the Congress will revoke authorization for this war," the New York senator said in a video on her campaign Web site, repeating a point included in a bill she introduced on Friday.

See how Reuters gets straight to it. They call it what it is, a pull out, and get right to the point in doing so.

You know we heard time and again that the democrats had a "plan" for Iraq. We heard that it was a "better" plan and that it would win the war and bring our soldiers home. The democrats were able to get elected on this "plan." At the time I often said there was a silver lining in the Republican loss in 06. The silver lining was that it became put up or shut up time for the Democrats. They were an impotent party, the political minority, without representation in the White House and with no real power in the House and Senate. Well now that they have control of both houses of Congress, and what is their plan exactly? Cut and run. Retreat. Run and hide. A vote for Hillary is a vote for defeat in Iraq.

We have all heard the Democrat plan. "Symbolic" resolutions, cutting funds, and forcing a pull-out. Hmmm... Where is their plan to win?

Money, Not Race, A Factor in NC politics

For some reason, the AP has been running this as two seperate stories. I can't quite figure out why, probably because the Obama story came first, but this is really one news story:

Race doesn't give Obama edge in S.C.
JIM DAVENPORT, Associated Press Writer

COLUMBIA, S.C. - Barack Obama may find that for black voters in South Carolina, being black isn't everything. If there is a single state where being black holds the potential to boost Obama's chances to win the Democratic presidential nomination, South Carolina fits the bill.

Yet, Democratic voters and party officials here said the Illinois senator will have to do as much persuading as any other candidate to win the support of blacks, who make up about half the Palmetto State's Democratic voters

Obama is gonna have to work for that black vote... or maybe he should take one out of Clinton's book and just buy off the black politicans:

Clinton offers contract to S.C. endorser
SUSANNE M. SCHAFER, Associated Press Writer

COLUMBIA, S.C. - A key black Democratic leader in South Carolina has negotiated a $10,000 per month consulting contract with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign, a development that came to light when the lawmaker endorsed the presidential hopeful.

The contract with state Sen. Darrell Jackson's firm, Sunrise Enterprises, is not yet signed but will run through the first Southern primary here next January, Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee confirmed Thursday.

Elleithee denied there was any deal made for Jackson's endorsement.

Riiiiiight. That $10,000 per month "consulting fee" was just a bonus, not quid pro quo.

Hillary: Don't Mess with Iran

From the AP

Clinton warns Bush about action in Iran
By DEVLIN BARRETT,

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton warned President Bush on Wednesday not to take any military action against Iran without getting congressional approval first.

"If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority," Clinton said in a Senate speech.

Clinton, a member of the Armed Services Committee, voted in 2002 to give Bush the authority to use military force in Iraq — a vote that has prompted some Democrats to demand that she repudiate.

Since then, the New York senator has become an outspoken critic of Bush's handling of the war. She said the new Democratic Congress must not let him make similar mistakes in the increasingly tense relationship with Iran.

"It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further congressional authorization," Clinton said.

She also insisted the resolution authorizing force against those responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks did not allow for U.S. action now against Iran.

Clinton, who has come under fire from anti-war Democrats, excoriated the previous Republican-controlled Congress for not questioning the administration over the past six years.

"We continue to experience the consequences of unchecked presidential action," she said, later adding: "This president was allowed for too long to commit blunder after blunder under cover of darkness provided by an allied Republican Congress."

Clinton spoke shortly after President Bush said he was certain the Iranian government is supplying deadly weapons used by fighters in Iraq against U.S. troops, even if he can't prove that the orders came from top Iranian leaders.

"I'm going to do something about it," Bush pledged, displaying apparent irritation at being repeatedly asked about mixed administration signals on who was behind the weaponry.

U.S. officials have said that Iran is behind attacks against troops in Iraq, an assertion denied by Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Here is what I think:

More Trumped-Up Rhetoric For Impending War With Iran

As any good little sheep American who puts their trust in the mainstream media, or as any Democrat could tell you, the pre-Iraq War intel was trumped-up by the Bush administration in order to gain support for the Iraq War. This is evidenced by the fact that 'WMDs were the only reason we went to war' and 'there were no WMDs in Iraq.'


"[T]his Administration was either not being honest with the American people or did not know what was going on in Iraq." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Letter, 11/29/05)

"Obviously, if we knew then what we know now, there wouldn't have been a vote and I certainly wouldn't have voted that way" - December 2006




"...we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda."

"It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake." - November 2005




"Americans were originally persuaded by the President to go to war in part because of the threat of weapons of mass destruction, and in part because they were told that it would help reduce the threat of international terrorism. Neither turned out to be true." November 2006




Because the Iraq war intel was false. The mainstream American media, Democrats, and moonbats in general have been quick to warn the American public about the Bush Administration's attempts to trump-up intel regarding Iranian involvement in Iraq.

“Again, you start seeing how evidence is blown out of proportion and presented in a way that makes it seem more cumulative than it actually is,” Obama said, “and that makes me concerned for how the administration will approach Iran.”






"When [Bush] uses this kind of language ‘options are on the table,’ he does it in a very threatening kind of way — with a country that he’s not engaging with or making any serious diplomatic proposals to. I mean I think that he’s just dead wrong about that."







It looks like this time around, the CIA isn't the source of intelligence for the coming war. It seems Bush's puppets in England are helping him make the case for war with Iran.
Iraqi insurgents using Austrian rifles from Iran

And of course, the blogosphere: example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4, example 5

Poking Fun at Hillary

From the Inbox:

Thoughts on '08: Democrats: Hillary Clinton

There is a tremendous amount of attention being given to the 2008 Presidential Elections. I believe '08 will be the most vicious, divisive, ridiculous election yet. I've been writing a series on the '08 elections, Thoughts of '08.

Originally, I planned on making this all one post, however, my ambition sometimes gets the better of me. There is no way I could talk about the Democrats, Republicans, and all of the front runners, and keep it down to just one post. It seems every day a few more Presidential hopefuls throw their hat into the race, and I just can't keep up. Instead of trying to do one comprehensive post, it makes a lot more sense to look at all of the elements individually, one at a time. This post will focus on one Democrat front-runner who in considered by many to have a lock on the '08 election.

This post will focus on the shrill, middle-aged, socialist, woman who has already spent 8 years in the White House with her perjuring, philandering husband: Hillary Clinton. This woman has more baggage and skeleton's in her closet than perhaps any other candidate. That she is considered a front runner for the '08 Elections is a marvel.

Even if Hillary were everything her supporters claim she is, she still must overcome the fact that she is a woman running for a position traditionally held exclusively by men. It doesn't make you a chauvinist to point this out.It does not make one a chauvinist to point out that not all of America is going to be on board with the idea of a woman President.

America is a "melting pot" full of sometimes goopy, sometimes chunky, sometimes slimy, mixing, melting, melding "stuff". In this melting pot we find: Ethnic groups with long traditions of gender defined roles and positions in society; Elderly voters who will typically tend to have a more traditional approach to gender roles; ethnic groups that will vote along party lines, haters: actual bonafide chauvinists, bigots, and the like. Hillary will not get these votes. Not in the primaries. Not in the general election.

America will not elect a woman as president in '08. Not yet, not during a time of war, and certainly not if the woman running is Hillary Clinton.

Even if Hillary gets the Democratic nod, she is going to need help to win the White House. Republican women will not cross party lines just to make a "gender vote."

The Democrats I know are largely union members who have strong negative feelings towards minorities in general, strong negative feelings towards gays, and strong negative feelings about women in positions of power. Those Democrats, who seem to be in the strong majority where I live, are NOT going to vote for Hillary. (They won't vote for Obama either, for that matter)

The fact that she is a woman aside, Hillary is one of the most polarizing figures in America. The Clintons are hated and vilified on the right. I am a former Clinton supporter. In my youth, I bought into the MTV image of Bill Clinton with the saxophone. As I matured, as I paid closer attention to politics and current events, as I became educated and gained a degree in Political Science, I started to see the Clintons for what they really are: Narcissists who want nothing more than money, power, and fame... and they will stop at nothing to get these thing. They will stop at nothing.

Conservatives tend to see the Clintons for what they are. If any candidate would be capable of lighting a fire under conservative America, it is Hillary. Even if she could win the Democratic Primary (I don't think she can), she will NOT win the general election. It will never happen.

On another note, I don't believe Hillary will win American Idol this year, either.

Next time she sings the National Anthem, she should make sure she knows all the words.

Stealing a line from Sean Hannity, "Let your heart not be troubled," Hillary can't win. Despite the all the warnings from the likes of Dick Morris, Sean Hannity, and the stop Hillary crowd, I do not believe Hillary can win. She is unelectable.

The Democrats aren't stupid, so they probably already know all of this. I predict a white male gets the Democratic nod. Likewise on the Republican side. I think America does want the privilege of a woman president and a minority president. I doubt very much that when it happens it will be a Democrat, but I believe it will happen in my lifetime. I just don't believe it is going to happen in this election cycle.

Next time on Thoughts on '08, Barack Obama. As you can tell from above, I don't think he as much of a chance, and I'll tel you why.