Bush not vindictive? PLEASE!

Gore meets Bush, declares it 'cordial... substantive'

In his private Oval Office meeting with President Bush, the former vice president insisted that they had spoken about global warming “the whole time.” It wasn’t clear if the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, who shared the honor for his work on climtate change, was serious.[..]

But Gore, calling the meeting with Bush “very cordial” and “substantive,” declined to elaborate on their meeting. “I’m not going to do an interview here,” Gore said in his walk down the streets outside the White House. “I don’t want to comment more.”[..]

Gore also has been outspoken in his criticism for other administration policies, most notably the war in Iraq.

The White House insists the president holds no ill will toward Gore, who carried his challenge of the outcome of the 2000 election to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t believe so,” Bush Press Secretary Dana Perino said of any “bad blood” between the two. “I know this president does not harbor any resentments. He never has.”

--------------------

If anyone’s entitled to feel resentment it’s Gore, who was cheated out of what he rightfully won.

And Bush sure as hell does feel resentment. He’s extremely petty and vindictive.

Here’s an example:

In early April 1986, Bush ran into Al Hunt, then the Wall Street Journal’s Washington bureau chief, at a Mexican restaurant in Dallas, where Hunt was dining with his wife, Judy Woodruff, and their 4-year-old son. The April edition of Washingtonian magazine had come out featuring 16 pundits predicting who would lead the 1988 GOP ticket. Hunt had predicted Jack Kemp over Vice President Bush. (Only half the group said Bush would be the nominee.)

Hunt said Bush approached the table and began cursing at him in front of his child. Hunt said there was no doubt that Bush had been drinking heavily.

“You [expletive] son of a bitch,” Hunt quotes Bush as saying. “I saw what you wrote. We’re not going to forget this.”

Bush “apologized” a mere ten years after this incident. And please note that it wasn’t Hunt and Woodruff who brought up the incident, but Bill Minutaglio, a Dallas Morning News reporter. Some “liberal media bias.”

Jesus, all these guys do is lie

Talk about revisionist history.

Richard Perle: ‘I Don’t Believe I Was Wrong’ About Iraq

Appearing on BBC’s Hardtalk with Stephen Sackur this weekend, Iraq war architect Richard Perle attempted, on the one hand, to distance himself from the failures of the Iraq war, and on the other hand, to claim it was a fantastic success.

“I’m not happy about the way events have unfolded in Iraq,” Perle began. But when asked whether he felt a “sense of personal responsibility” for what has happened in the aftermath of the invasion, Perle said “I certainly don’t consider myself responsible” for the disastrous post-war occupation of Iraq.

Asked whether he was wrong on Iraq, Perle gave this response:

Well, I don’t believe I was wrong. Let me be very clear about that. What I think happened is that a successful invasion was turned into an unsuccessful occupation. I didn’t favor the occupation strategy. I think the occupation was a mistake.

Perle also defended his pre-war claim that regime change in Iraq would bring about “dancing in the streets.” “Essentially,” there was, said Perle. “The Iraqis actually tend to shoot weapons in the air rather than dance in the streets,” he observed. “But we were regarded as liberators at the beginning.”

Before the war, Perle advocated simply bombing and leaving Iraq. “We do not have to go into Baghdad,” he said in Oct. 2002 on NBC. “We do not have to engage in door-to-door, street-to-street fighting.”

BULL. SHIT.

Perle specifically endorsed the occupation of Iraq, and more than once claimed it was producing good results. Here's an example: Appearing on Fox News on April 7, 2004, Perle said, “We’re making so much progress with most Iraqis that those who feel threatened by the progress are more devoted and more energetic than ever to try to destroy the progress we’re making.”

--------------------

On The Charlie Rose Show, Karl Rove claimed that he was “opposed” to holding the pre-war Iraq vote just ahead of the 2002 elections. “The administration was opposed to voting on it in the fall of 2002,” Rove said.

ROSE: But you were opposed to the vote.

ROVE: It happened. We don’t determine when the Congress vote on things. The Congress does.

ROSE: You wish it hadn’t happened at that time. You would have preferred it did not happen at that time.

ROVE: That’s right.

BULL. SHIT.

Rove’s claim is totally false.

In September 2002, then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle asked President Bush to delay the Iraq war vote:

“I asked directly if we could delay this so we could depoliticize it. I said: ‘Mr. President, I know this is urgent, but why the rush? Why do we have to do this now?’ He looked at Cheney and he looked at me, and there was a half-smile on his face. And he said: ‘We just have to do this now.’”

While some Democrats, including Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO), were arguing that it was “imperative” that Congress vote immediately to authorize war, had Bush wanted to delay the vote until after the 2002 elections, he would have found plenty of Democratic support:

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL): “It would be a severe mistake for us to vote on Iraq with as little information as we have. This would be a rash and hasty decision.”

Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA): “I do not believe the decision should be made in the frenzy of an election year.”

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): “I know of no information that the threat is so imminent from Iraq” that Congress cannot wait until January to vote on a resolution.

But Bush wasn’t interested in delaying the vote. Rather, his administration totally politicized it.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, “Delaying a vote in Congress would send the wrong message.”

President Bush explicitly told Congress to “get the issue done as quickly as possible“:

"My answer to the Congress is, they need to debate this issue and consult with us, and get the issue done as quickly as possible. It’s in our national interests that we do so. I don’t imagine Saddam Hussein sitting around, saying, gosh, I think I’m going to wait for some resolution."

On September 11, 2002, administration officials briefed Congress on Iraq, trying persuade it to schedule a vote authorizing military action.

And the administration’s congressional allies were clear on why they wanted to rush the war vote. “People are going to want to know, before the elections, where their representatives stand,” said Rep. Thomas M. Davis (R-VA.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “This could be the vote of the decade, so why wait?”

--------------------

The Bush administration has been so venal, so corrupt, and so spectacularly unsuccessful that it has no achievements to which it can point with pride. Instead, the best it can do is LIE about its failures in an attempt to create the appearance of success. We should all protest this revisionism.

Romney should learn his Constitution

Once in a while, a high-profile Republican will slip and accidentally concede what everyone already knows: that Fox News has a political agenda. Here’s a coffee shop encounter in Iowa City yesterday with Mitt Romney:

A woman asked the former governor of Massachusetts: What can we do to stop the newspaper and television from attacking the president?

Romney replied: “It’s amazing isn’t it?

“Well, fortunately you can change the channels,” he said, “and there are channels like FOX that gives a different perspective, and you can also go on the Internet and talk radio.”

I demand to know which newspapers and TV news shows are attacking the president. As far as I can tell he’s all about public transportation, in that he’s gotten the longest free ride in the history of American politics.

Of course, what the woman meant was “can’t we FORCE the media to stop criticizing THIS President?” I GUARANTEE you she didn’t feel this way from 1993 to 2001.

Of course, Romney didn’t bother to tell this woman about the First Amendment.

If this Iowa woman doesn’t like the free press, there are other countries she’ll be more comfortable — countries where she won’t see or be allowed to make comments critical of the authorities.

Boone Pickens lies like the Swift Boat Veterans

T. Boone Pickens offered $1 million to anyone who can disprove “even a single charge” leveled at John Kerry in 2004 by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

John Kerry took him up on the challenge.

I welcome the opportunity to prove that you are a man of your word and that the so-called “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” lied. While I am prepared to show they lied on allegation after allegation, you have generously offered to pay one million dollars for just one thing that can be proven false. I am prepared to prove the lie beyond any reasonable doubt.

I would request that your check be made payable to the Paralyzed Veterans of America which is doing incredible work every day to meet the needs of veterans returned home from Iraq and Afghanistan. My hope is that by sending this money to such a dedicated organization – founded for veterans, by veterans – some good can come out of the ugly smears and lies of the orchestrated campaign you bankrolled in 2004 in an attempt to discredit my military record and the record of the men who served alongside me on the Swift Boats of the Mekong Delta.

Pickens reneged:

I will ultimately need you to provide the following:

1) The journal you maintained during your service in Vietnam.

2) Your military record, specifically your service records for the years 1971-1978, and copies of all movies and tapes made during your service.

I now challenge you to make this commitment: If you cannot prove anything in the Swift Boat ads to be untrue, that you will make a one million gift to the charity I am choosing -- the Medal of Honor Foundation.

So Pickens went from offering ANYONE a million dollars to disprove ONE Swift Boat Veterans claim against Kerry to demanding specific items of "proof" and deciding himself where to send the $1 million payout.

It should be clear to all that Pickens will continue to shift the goalposts, and that he has ZERO intention of admitting Kerry is right and the same intent when it comes to paying the million dollars.

UNACCEPTABLE

McCain supporter, addressing Senator McCain:

"How do we beat the bitch?"

McCain: "May I give the translation?"

McCain, later: "But that's an excellent question."

Since McCain goes on to talk about the results of a poll that includes Hillary Clinton, let's all agree that the questioner meant "bitch" to refer to Hillary Clinton, and that McCain understood the reference.

This is not acceptable.

No one would stand for the supporter of a major candidate for President referring to Bill Richardson as "the spic," or "the greaser," or "the wetback."

No one would stand for Mitt Romney being called "the heathen."

No one would stand for Obama being called "the nigger," or "the coon," or "the spook."

No one would allow a candidate's supporter to call Rudy Giuliani "the dago," "the guinea," or "the wop."

So WHY is it so acceptable when Hillary Clinton is referred to as a bitch that John McCain doesn't feel the need to condemn, correct or chastise his supporter?

"Straight talkin'?" "Maverick?" BULLSHIT.

Sweeney continues to sink -- updated

CLIFTON PARK -- Former U.S. Rep. John Sweeney was charged with drunken driving early this morning after a traffic stop on the Northway, State Police said.

The arrest was the latest embarrassment for a one-time Congressional rising star whose re-election campaign was derailed last year by allegations of domestic violence.

Sweeney was pulled over by a state trooper on the Northway in Saratoga County at 1:20 a.m., police said.

Police said he was charged with driving while intoxicated.

Sweeney's attorney, E. Stewart Jones, confirmed the arrest on Sunday. He denied that his client had a drinking problem and said that Sweeney, who lost a bid for re-election last year, would try to resolve the matter as quickly as possible.

"He is a private citizen," Jones said. "This is a private matter."

-------------------------

State Police had no comment when asked the identity of the passenger in Sweeney's 2004 BMW sedan. Sweeney was also ticketed for driving erratically. A law enforcement source said Sweeney's car had been swerving and the woman was seated partially on his lap when Trooper Phillip Dickson first spotted him.

Sweeney's blood alcohol content registered at .10 percent when he was checked at the Clifton Park station, according to Lt. Scott Cobura. He was ordered to appear in Clifon Park Town Court Wednesday night at 7 p.m.

See the thing about Republicans is their superior morals and values. Like that photo of Sweeney when he was drunk at a college party while he was still serving in Congress.

Or the charges of domestic violence Sweeney's wife leveled against him, which Sweeney lied about in an attempt to preserve his political career.

Or the pro-Bush mob Sweeney led to intimidate Miami vote counters during the 2000 theft of the Presidency from Al Gore.

All in all, I'd say this couldn't happen to a more deserving guy.

UPDATE:

State Police say Sweeney was operating a vehicle which nearly struck their police cruiser as they were responding to an unrelated call. Sweeney blew a .18, more than twice the state’s legal threshold of .08 blood alcohol content.

UPDATE:

Sweeney’s son, John Jr., was charged with second degree assault in Stillwater on Aug. 19, 2004, which seriously injured the victim. Although Sweeney, Jr. could have faced seven years in prison for the vicious assault, he escaped jail time. In a rare action, in December 2005, Republican Fulton County Judge Richard Giardino reversed his earlier decision to sentence Sweeney Jr., then 19, and John J. Manupella of Troy, also 19, to jail for a brutal assault of another teen which fractured the victim’s skull and left him with long-term vision damage and recurring nightmares. He also had to undergo reconstructive dental work after losing one tooth and having three others chipped in the assault.

Sweeney and Manupella had pleaded guilty in exchange for a sentence of four months of weekends in jail or 45 consecutive days in jail plus probation and community service. But when they appeared in court, Judge Giardino negated the plea agreement, suspended the jail time, granted them youthful offender status, and sealed the court records.

The sentence did not please the victim, Matthew Brady, 20, of Stillwater who said he believed the pair got such favorable treatment because Sweeney's father is a Congressman.

UPDATE:

On the night of January 23, 2001, Sweeney was driving away from Willard, where he'd passed the evening skiing. Just before 10 p.m., he lost control of his vehicle and hit the utility pole. He told police he was fidgeting with his CD player. He was not hurt. A woman who lives along the road, Donna English -- who happens to be a local Republican councilwoman -- came out to offer assistance. A state-police trooper arrived on the scene. Live electrical wires lay strewn across Vly Summit Road. A local volunteer-fire-department chief offered to send a crew to the site to direct traffic, a common enough procedure in rural areas. But the fire chief was told by the state police that no assistance was needed. Instead, it was left to English to direct traffic. For an hour and a half.

Nothing strange about any of that, right? Maybe not. But editors at the Glens Falls Post-Star came to suspect otherwise. Small-town newspapers routinely call around to local police detachments and ask if anything unusual has happened lately. A Post-Star reporter did indeed call the state police covering the area where the crash occurred. But the reporter was never told about it. Then, seven days later, the paper learned about the accident via an anonymous e-mail from a reader. And this got the paper pondering a few questions. On February 1, it ran a benign story under the headline sweeney unhurt in crash. A February 2 story by reporter Don Lehman dug a little deeper, with state police explaining that Sweeney "was treated just like any other citizen."

UPDATE:

Sweeney pleads guilty. What's the matter? Couldn't fix the case like the one his son was involved in?

Where's Goldilocks?

On the November 9 edition of Fox News Live, host E.D. Hill said that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is "spending like a Learjet liberal on the campaign trail" because her campaign said it left a $100 tip for a $157 bill at a restaurant in Iowa, adding that the big tip "just plays into what people say about liberals."

Here's the deal -- because it's Hillary Clinton, there's NO CORRECT ANSWER!

Tip more than 20 percent? big spending liberal.

Tip less than 20 percent (or as falsely reported in the first place, NO TIP AT ALL)? Tightwad and cheapskate who cares about the poor and middle class as a concept, but has no interest in the plight of REAL working men and women.

If Hillary Clinton took out a calculator and figured EXACTLY 20 percent, she'd be called so concerned with her image that all she cared about was being technically in compliance with the unwritten social norms about tipping.

When a story like this gets ginned up by Drudge and the "reporters" at Fox and, the rest of the media goes along, the one thing you can count on is that it's a DEMOCRAT (usually a Clinton) who will be trashed, and that no matter what he or she did or didn't do, it was wrong -- too high, too low, too much, too little, too whatever -- there's NO "just right."

Kerry scores a point on Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show that Kerry’s Swift Boat attackers in 2004, “were right on the money and nobody has disproven anything they claimed in any of their ads, statements, written commentaries, or anything of the sort.”

Kerry spokesman David Wade issued the following statement response:

“At first I thought, that’s not Rush, that’s just the OxyContin talking. Nonetheless, this is a despicable but unsurprising new lie from a man whose closest brush with combat came when customs officials tried to take away his Viagra.”

Moral -- The more you respond like this, the less you’ll be smeared.