First Outright Lie Caught

Patterico found it, of course. (I really, really would not go up against him in court.) Clinton's Fox News Sunday appearance that is generating so damn many spilled pixels and barrels of ink included a number of interesting things. Including this one:

In an interview aired on Fox News Sunday today, Chris Wallace asked Bill Clinton why he hadn’t done more to get Osama bin Laden. Clinton’s furious answer lasted several minutes, and included finger-wagging reminiscent of Clinton’s angry declaration that he had not had sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.

According to Clinton, this was all a right-wing hatchet job, and Wallace had never asked similar questions of Bush officials:

So you did FOX’s bidding on this show. You did you[r] nice little conservative hit job on me. But what I want to know..

WALLACE: Now wait a minute sir…

CLINTON:..

WALLACE: I asked a question. You don’t think that’s a legitimate question?

CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked why didn’t you do anything about the Cole. I want to know how many you asked why did you fire Dick Clarke.

Wallace replied that such questions had been asked. Clinton replied: “I don’t believe you asked them that.”

I believe he did.

In 2004, Wallace asked almost the exact same question of Donald Rumsfeld that he asked Clinton today.

Here’s what Wallace asked Clinton today:

[H]indsight is 20 20 . . . but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?

And here is what Wallace asked Donald Rumsfeld on the March 28, 2004 episode of Fox News Sunday:

I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it’s more than an individual manhunt. I mean — what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived. . . . pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?

. . . .

What do you make of his [Richard Clarke’s] basic charge that pre-9/11 that this government, the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda?

. . . .

Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority.

Patterico goes on from there. It's worth taking a trip over and reading the whole thing. But really, does any of this sound familiar? Anything at all? Especially the finger wagging?

Frist Forges Ahead On Immigration Bill

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is pushing to get the "fence only" immigration bill to a floor vote despite the indications that the Democrats may try to kill it.

The bill is all that is left of a comprehensive immigration proposal generally backed by President Bush that included provisions for a guest worker program and ways for an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants to work toward legal status and eventual citizenship.

Frist led a bipartisan effort to pass that measure this year, but House Republicans opposed it as too lenient on immigrants in the country illegally.

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, accused Frist of playing politics by seeking to blame Democrats. Frist's move is an attempt to cover up his failure to push through more comprehensive changes, Manley said.

"The Senate spent almost a month debating and then passing tough and smart immigration reform that included border security, but Republican obstructionism has prevented us from completing that bill," Manley said in a statement.

In December, the House passed legislation that concentrated on border security and enforcement of laws banning employment of undocumented workers; the Senate in May then passed its broader bill. Since then, there's been no progress in efforts to reconcile the two bills.

With no prospects this year for passing broader immigration changes, House GOP leaders said taking action to seal the border was a matter of urgency. Some GOP lawmakers including Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., however, have said they're not sure immigration could be addressed "on a piecemeal basis."

The vast majority of Americans want something done about the border with Mexico. Frist knows it. The Democrats fear it. This one could bite them, hard.

This Space For Rent - Cheap

A cheap way to send something into space - at least into near space. If all goes as planned, a privately funded rocket will launch a payload into space tomorrow from New Mexico. UP Aerospace is planning the first launch of their SpaceLoft XL rocket from a spaceport near Truth or Consequences, New Mexico. The rocket, about the size of a telephone pole, will launch its payload about 70 miles into space. Recovery is supposed to be by parachute at the nearby White Sands Missile Range.

UP Aerospace plans to launch the SpaceLoft XL rocket early on Monday from Spaceport America, a remote desert launch site near the town of Truth or Consequences, New Mexico.

The telephone pole-sized rocket will carry around 50 items of payload — including a Ziploc bag of Cheerios, some cremated remains and several high school science projects — on a brief suborbital flight 70 miles above Earth.

The rocket is not the first privately funded bid to reach for the stars. Two years ago, SpaceShipOne brushed the edge of space with a man on board, scooping up a $10 million prize for its backers.

But Connecticut-based UP Aerospace says the brief 13-minute flight will inaugurate a new era that puts space within reach of large numbers of paying customers.

Chief executive Eric Knight said clients could buy payload space starting at a few hundred dollars for items weighing a few grams, rising to "many tens of thousands of dollars" for larger pieces of cargo.

"This is the first time that a company has allowed direct access to space for the public," Knight told Reuters.

"It's low cost, it can be regularly scheduled, (and) it's the way it's going to be done by the commercial sector in the future," he added.

Although it is only 70 miles, it is considered "space" as it is designated today. The flight is suborbital and nothing in the payload is scheduled to actually reach orbit. But it is a start toward commercialization of space. The UP Aerospace website is here. You too can send a bag of Cheerios into space (what in heck is that all about?).

Indoctrination

This is not a teaching plan or an educational program. This is indoctrination. Dan Riehl is all over it.

Activity Title: Tolerance, Unity, and Diversity

Discuss how, as a result of the events of 9-11, some people had angry feelings about people who came from different parts of the world or dressed differently than most Americans. They were intolerant. Although our country was unified, there were people who were hurt or died because they came from a certain part of the world.

So is Ace.

Bad Housekeeping Seals

Despite all the questioning we have been getting lately from the authorities, we continue to try to bring you the real story on the animal uprising. So it is that today we revisit the subject of seal invasions. Scientists claim they simply don't understand why arctic seals have been tuning up as far South as the US Virgin Islands - particularly in the summer months. They pretend we haven't been trying to warn them, even though they keep hanging up when we call.

In a typical year, 25 to 35 hooded seals might venture to the U.S. Northeast Coast and get stranded, typically in winter. Seldom are they ever spotted off the Southeast coast.

But this year, 47 have become stranded in the Northeast and eight in the Southeast. Oddly, the majority of the strandings occurred during summer. The seals have been spotted as far south as the U.S. Virgin Islands this year.

"We don't necessarily picture a hooded seal resting on a hot sunny beach in Florida, where the air temperature is still in the 90s," said NOAA Fisheries Service biologist Jenny Litz. "We get concerned when we see them out of their natural environments."

Hooded seals are so-named because they have an inflated air sac, or hood, atop their noses. Pups are typically born in March or April. After about five days, a pub is left by its mother to fend for itself. They are very solitary except when breeding and are known to migrate large distances.

Most of the strandings have involved juveniles.

"The animals coming ashore are severely dehydrated, suffering from heat exhaustion, sunburn and often alopecia (hair loss)," said NOAA biologist Ulrika Malone.

Don't these fools understand the dangers? I suppose it will take swimmers being used as beachballs for them to take their blinders off. Think about it: we have under-aged, thirsty, sunburned bald seals invading US beaches. It's the seal equivalent of a skinhead convention! We're all doomed.

Well, at least those of you living near the coasts.

Playing Politics

This report makes me believe that the leaked National Intelligence Estimate that is all the rage in the media and in the blogosphere has a hell of a lot more to do with rogue elements in the intelligence community meddling in politics than it has to do with the truth. Democrats have jumped all over it to use it for political purposes. The criticism from the Dems appears to be almost concurrent with the release of the media reports - awfully fast turnaround.

The report was completed in April and represented a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government, according to an intelligence official. The official, confirming accounts first published in Sunday's New York Times and Washington Post, spoke on condition of anonymity on Sunday because the report is classified.

"Unfortunately this report is just confirmation that the Bush administration's stay-the-course approach to the Iraq war has not just made the war more difficult and more deadly for our troops, but has also made the war on terror more dangerous for every American," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, head of the Democratic effort to take control of the House.

"It's time for a new direction in this country," Emanuel, D-Ill., said in the statement.

"Press reports say our nation's intelligence services have confirmed that President Bush's repeated missteps in Iraq and his stubborn refusal to change course have made America less safe," said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. "No election-year White House PR campaign can hide this truth."

A White House spokesman, Blair Jones, said, "We don't comment on classified documents." But he said the published accounts' "characterization of the NIE is not representative of the complete document."

The White House issued a written rebuttal that argued administration officials have been making some of the same arguments as in the intelligence estimate. A White House strategy booklet released this month described the terrorists as more dispersed and less centralized and still a threat to the United States.

All criticism, no position. No solution, just attack. Another politically motivated leak from an intelligence community that appears to be more involved in domestic politics than in actually doing what it is paid to do.

Red Sunset Maples And Zombie Squirrels

My wife informed me that we were going to plant some trees in the front of the house. The trees would, eventually at least, provide some shade. Now, it's important to keep in mind that I don't get anything like an actual vote on things like this. She decides, I dig. She's absolutely right, though. The morning sun beating in the windows during the summer months can make the front rooms of the house stifling hot, despite central air.

So even though I don't get a vote in the process, I still get to provide some input as to species. One local place had some rather nice "Red Sunset" maples. They were around ten feet high, over two inches in diameter and very healthy looking. They were also on sale; always a plus when buying trees. We bought two and she handed me a shovel. We moved the trees back and forth until she said, "That's where we want them. So I started to dig.

And promptly hit the Invisible Fence wire buried in the lawn. I'll be splicing that later.

So we moved trees around again until they looked just right, and I began to dig again. Because it has been fairly wet, the soil was soft, but clumped together, too (we have very unusual soil in the area we live in). But it wasn't too awfully hard to dig. Then, I had a bright idea. We have a post-hole auger from back in the day when my wife had her horse. If you've never seen one of these, it's sort of like a corkscrew for dirt. You turn the whole device by the T-shaped handle and extract a clump of dirt. It actually works better if the soil is clumping since then you can pull the whole lump out and dump it into a wheelbarrow. So I asked my wife if she could get it for me.

She was gone for a few minutes since the auger was around back in the shed. When she came back she handed me the auger and said, "The squirrel is back". I must have looked very confused, because she clarified for me, "The dead squirrel came back."  That cleared it right up.

Three or four days ago, a squirrel had decided to go for a swim in the pool. Unfortunately, it didn't know how to swim. My wife had found it halfway into the skimmer. It had been there a while, too. It was definitely dead. So, she'd done what anyone would do who found a dead squirrel in the pool skimmer. She used a long handled swimming pool net, fetched it out and threw it over the back fence.

Now, that may sound kind of odd to city dwellers, but what's on the other side of the fence isn't a neighbor's yard. It's just a patch of scrub and weeds. We have thrown the occasional dead critter over there before. It disposes of the carcass and feeds the scavengers. Sort of a circle of life kind of thing (not to go all Disney on you). But nothing that we've ever thrown over the fence actually came back before, either.

So my wife took a shovel, retrieved the dead squirrel (which looked somewhat worse than the first time she'd dealt with it) and this time really threw it over the fence. With English. I continued planting trees. But I got to thinking about that squirrel. Maybe one of the cats dragged it back into the yard, though I have no idea how it got it through the fence. But if that squirrel is back again in a few days, we may need to call a good exorcist.

Clinton Interview Video

Greg Tinti has the entire video posted over at The Political Pit Bull. He also notes this from Sister Toldjah:

You know what burns me up about the interview? Not the fact that Clinton gets uptight and defensive, but the fact that he says the Bush admin “didn’t try” (that’s who he meant when he referred to the “right wingers” who had several months to get OBL). Bush has never once blamed Bill Clinton for his failure to get OBL. Not once. This is an incredible cheap shot on the part of Clinton. Not entirely unexpected, but a cheap shot all the same.

She's absolutely correct about that.

UPDATE: Ann Althouse looks at the body language. The judgment is harsh.

UPDATE: Fishbowl DC has some reactions from Chris Wallace - he was absolutely stunned by Clinton's tirade. The left can try - is trying - to spin this. I think Ann Althouse called it correctly. This was one serious bad move on Clinton's part. This was not even close to presidential behavior.

What Do The Letters ‘AP’ Stand For?

Jules Crittenden wonders if they stand for Associated Press any longer, or something completely different.

The AP has had one or two exemplary war correspondents in Iraq. But this strange war has changed so many things. In late 2004, as the U.S. military was moving to rid Fallujah of the terrorists who controlled it, the AP wanted some eyes inside the city. It hired Bilal Hussein. He gave the AP photos of insurgents setting up ambushes and firing at Americans. He gave them photos of terrorists posing with their freshly slaughtered victims. His pictures helped the AP win a Pulitzer Prize.
 
A blogger named Darleen at www.darleenclick.com said it very well in December of 2004:
 
“I have trouble with how cozy this AP photographer is with the terrorists. I realize he’s a Hussein from Fallujah, so his own personal feelings and associations may be on display here, but did The Associated Press . . . employ Nazis to get photos showing attacks on the Allies and the execution of Jews?”
 
I wish it stopped with the AP’s effort to give the enemy in Iraq a fair shake, as if terrorists were freedom fighters. Then I look at the AP copy I see nightly. The president of the United States gives a speech. The AP grants him a couple of fragmentary quotes before allowing his failed 2004 challenger and other opponents several full paragraphs to denounce him.
 
There is the bizarre work of Charles J. Hanley, an AP apologist for Saddam Hussein. He dismisses evidence of weapons programs and reports on the deep frustration Saddam felt when he could not convince the world of his good intentions, in those years when he was murdering his own people and playing a hard-nosed game of cat-and-mouse with U.N. weapons inspectors that led to their removal.

Crittenden is wondering the exact same thing many bloggers, myself included have wondered. Who's side are they on exactly?

The Problem With Clowns

The Washington Post points out some things that are really worth remembering about Hugo Chavez and his clownish antics. The reality is that he is running Venezuela into the ground and doing serious long term damage to that country.

HUGO CHAVEZ got the attention that he craves by comparing President Bush to Satan last week. But the Venezuelan leader's absurd talk may be less threatening than his equally absurd incompetence. Since Mr. Chávez took power seven years ago, Venezuela has mismanaged its oil so disastrously that production may have fallen by almost half, according to the estimates of outsiders, reducing global oil supply by a bit more than 1 percent. Along with natural disasters and Nigerian rebels, Mr. Chávez's ineptitude has contributed to high energy prices.

It takes sustained determination to reduce output by that much, and Mr. Chávez has provided it. He inherited a competent national oil company that produced three times more per worker than its Mexican counterpart. He immediately starved it of investment capital and dispatched ignorant political cronies to oversee it. When this abuse provoked a strike, Mr. Chávez fired the staff en masse, getting rid of two-thirds of the skilled employees and managers.

Read the whole thing, it's quite short. The fact that Chavez appears to have little or no understanding of the realities of the oil markets and is burning through his falling oil revenues spending money on weaponry he does not need are extremely worrisome for Venezuela and it's neighbors. The fact that he appears to be aiming to make himself dictator for life following in the footsteps of his idol Fidel, is even more worrying.

So What Do We Do, Then?

There are multiple reports in the major media about a leaked National Intelligence Estimate. All are based off anonymous sources, talking about the document. The document itself is not available, nor it is possible to judge the motivations of the people leaking the information or the accuracy of what they are saying. Nonetheless, if we assume that these reports accurately portray the document, and if we are willing to accept that this NIE is more authoritatively correct than many past NIEs what then do we do?

A 30-page National Intelligence Estimate completed in April cites the "centrality" of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the insurgency that has followed, as the leading inspiration for new Islamic extremist networks and cells that are united by little more than an anti-Western agenda. It concludes that, rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position, according to officials familiar with the classified document.

….

An NIE drawn up in the fall of 2002 concluded that Iraq had "continued its weapons of mass destruction [WMD] programs," possessed stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and "probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade." All of those judgments, which provided the political and national security underpinnings for the Iraq invasion, turned out to be false.

….

National Intelligence Estimates have often sparked controversy, both for what they have said and what they have omitted. A 1997 estimate, the last on global terrorism before the 2001 al-Qaeda attacks, mentioned bin Laden in only three sentences, describing him only as a "terrorist financier" and making no reference at all to al-Qaeda.

The 2002 NIE is the hammer the left uses to charge that "Bush Lied!" But the left is rushing to embrace this NIE because it is reported to echo their beliefs. That is human nature, of course. But if this one is more objectively "true" than others have been, what do we do? Ignore terror and it will go away? That's a hell of a strategy. Rick Moran takes a hard, hard look at this issue. I would direct people over there to read what he has put together.

UPDATE: See the Glittering Eye for a discussion on alternatives we did not have. James Joyner on alternatives we don't have now. A Blog For All on the "Kick over the hornest's nest" strategy. Liberty and Justice on what does it mean in the long run? Captain's Quarters on confusing correlation with causality.

UPDATE: Let me clarify something here. This post is not meant as an indictment on the war in Iraq. Rather it is directed at those who criticize and carp with no real solution. The time for debating whether to go to war is long over. A precipitous withdrawal weakens the US immeasurably. And the problem does not go away just because we wish it so. So, to the critics: What the hell do you propose to do?

Holy Smoke. WaPo On Clinton

The Washington Post has an article about Bill Clinton's appearance on Fox News Sunday which will air today. Let's put it this way, Clinton looks very, very bad indeed here. The Post did not try to spin this in a positive direction by editing out the worst behaviors, as I would have expected. It is not that they highlighted the bad actions, either. They simply did not hide them. Clinton comes across as out of control. Man - I gotta watch this one.

Clinton said he authorized the CIA to kill bin Laden, and even "contracted with people to kill him." He also said he had a plan to attack Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and hunt for bin Laden after the attack on the USS Cole, but the CIA and FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible, and Uzbekistan refused to allow the United States to set up a base. By contrast, Clinton said the Bush administration's neoconservatives "had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months," believing he had been "too obsessed with bin Laden."

"At least I tried," Clinton said. "That's the difference [between] me and some, including all of 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-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, [Richard] Clarke, who got demoted."

Clinton seemed particularly irked by Wallace's reference to his decision in 1993 to pull troops out of Somalia, a move bin Laden later described as a sign of American weakness. Clinton argued that even though many Republicans demanded a withdrawal from Somalia the day after the downing of a Black Hawk helicopter, he kept a U.S. presence there for another six months to ensure an orderly transition to United Nations forces.

That's when the interview got testy, as a Fox transcript reflects:

Go over and read it. Testy would not be the word I would use. I would use 'tantrum'. It is that bad.

In Memory Of Sgt. Paul R. Smith

Freedom Dogs has organized a blog burst to honor Sgt. Paul R. Smith who was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his actions near Baghdad International Airport, Baghdad, Iraq on 4 April 2003. The citation for the medal is as follows:

The President of the United States of America, authorized by Act of Congress, March 3, 1863, has awarded in the name of Congress the Medal of Honor to

Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith
United States Army

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty:

Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action with an armed enemy near Baghdad International Airport, Baghdad, Iraq on 4 April 2003. On that day, Sergeant First Class Smith was engaged in the construction of a prisoner of war holding area when his Task Force was violently attacked by a company-sized enemy force. Realizing the vulnerability of over 100 fellow soldiers, Sergeant First Class Smith quickly organized a hasty defense consisting of two platoons of soldiers, one Bradley Fighting Vehicle and three armored personnel carriers. As the fight developed, Sergeant First Class Smith braved hostile enemy fire to personally engage the enemy with hand grenades and anti-tank weapons, and organized the evacuation of three wounded soldiers from an armored personnel carrier struck by a rocket propelled grenade and a 60mm mortar round. Fearing the enemy would overrun their defenses, Sergeant First Class Smith moved under withering enemy fire to man a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on a damaged armored personnel carrier. In total disregard for his own life, he maintained his exposed position in order to engage the attacking enemy force. During this action, he was mortally wounded. His courageous actions helped defeat the enemy attack, and resulted in as many as 50 enemy soldiers killed, while allowing the safe withdrawal of numerous wounded soldiers. Sergeant First Class Smith's extraordinary heroism and uncommon valor are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, the Third Infantry Division "Rock of the Marne," and the United States Army.

There is a short video presentation available regarding Sgt. Smith's actions here. I am awed by the soldiers that defend this nation. Thank you Sgt. Smith. We will not forget you. Rest in Peace.

From His Own Mouth

Lally Weymouth interviewed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the Washington Post. If you want to get a feeling for where the world is heading if we do not get our collective act together, you need to read this. There are real hints in here as to Iran's beliefs and intentions. There is also a great deal of evidence that Mad Mahmoud pays attention to what the Western left says and thinks and echoes it right back. He's is a sharp enough propagandist to know how to play that game to the max. Some of what he says could have come right off the HuffPo or the Daily Koz.

Why don't you let the IAEA inspectors back in, as the U.N. Security Council demanded last summer?

The Security Council's involvement is, in fact, illegal. We are working under the framework of the IAEA, and the cameras are on our sites. Could you please show me at least one report by the IAEA on the United States' nuclear facilities?

Are you really serious when you say that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth?

We need to look at the scene in the Middle East — 60 years of war, 60 years of displacement, 60 years of conflict, not even a day of peace. Look at the war in Lebanon, the war in Gaza — what are the reasons for these conditions? We need to address and resolve the root problem.

Your suggestion is to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth?

Our suggestion is very clear: . . . Let the Palestinian people decide their fate in a free and fair referendum, and the result, whatever it is, should be accepted. . . . The people with no roots there are now ruling the land.

You've been quoted as saying that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth. Is that your belief?

What I have said has made my position clear. If we look at a map of the Middle East from 70 years ago . . .

So, the answer is yes, you do believe that it should be wiped off the face of the Earth?

Are you asking me yes or no? Is this a test? Do you respect the right to self-determination for the Palestinian nation? Yes or no? Is Palestine, as a nation, considered a nation with the right to live under humane conditions or not? Let's allow those rights to be enforced for these 5 million displaced people.

If the Palestinian people decided that they wanted a two-state solution, would you support that decision?

The politicians in the United States should allow the Palestinians to vote, and then we'll all respect the results. They won't even accept a small Palestinian state. That's why we think the root cause of the crisis must be addressed. Jews, like other individuals, will have to be respected. It's not necessary to occupy the land of others, to displace them, to imprison their young people and to destroy their homes and agricultural fields and to attack neighboring countries.

You really should read this. These are the words straight from his mouth. He is hell bent on making Iran a "powerful country" (his words). And when he thinks Iran is powerful enough, hell will be unleashed. The left may want to Pooh-pooh or ignore Mad Mahmoud and Iran. The words from his own mouth show that to be a deadly foolish position to take.

Yeah, Me Too.

I didn't post anything about this when I saw the original item because a) I think Gary Hart is nuts and b) I don't think Karl Rove and George Bush are nuts. Joe Gandelman has put together a more thoughtful and nuanced response than I just did. The conclusions are about the same, however.

If there is any kind of a military operation right before the elections it will automatically undermine the credibility of the operation. It could help the GOP retain control of Congress, but it could also turn off independent voters. And even if the GOP retained control of Congress the international cynicism and cynicism of administration critics will be hardened. It's hard to image two years of an administration supported almost exclusively by its party's base and talk show listeners.

Those on the far left who pooh-pooh the threat of Iran ignore the threat posted by Iran and importance of, at a minimum, containing the threat. And those on the right who dream of a military operation before the elections — or those who possibly might be planning one — ignore the fact that any military operation that took place before the election would lose some of the support it might have if it came in November after the elections.

There would be short-term electoral gain and long-term loss of credibility to the reputation of serious American policy-making and to the credibility of the institution of the Presidency itself.

We will have to do something about Iran. I rather doubt this will be the October surprise, however.