The Blue State

Obama excitement annoys Bill Clinton

Read this quote carefully.  It reads like worried language to me:

Speaking to hundreds of supporters on conference call, the formerpresident said, “I don’t have a problem with anything Barack Obama[has] said on this,” but “to characterize Hillary and Obama’s positionson the war as polar opposites is ludicrous.

“This dichotomythat’s been set up to allow him to become the raging hero of theanti-war crowd on the Internet is just factually inaccurate.”

I really need to put in my two cents on this.  Ever since January, the Clinton Campaign has spent more time worrying about Obama than the Obama Campaign has spent worrying about Clinton.  I cannot recall one time when Obama specifically called out Hillary for her war vote.  Something else is going on here.  Likely, Bill Clinton is upset because his wife's campaign is a bit behind in the area of new media, and knows that Obama genuinely has a shot to pull this off.

Bill is a smart and wise man.  He also has a short fuse.  I would guess that he made these comments out of frustration, because Hillary's campaign is not creating the excitement that many thought it should have.  "The vast right-wing conspiracy" cry is old.  We already know how low the GOP are willing to go -- look no further than Swift Boat Vets for Truth.  None of that is new.  Hillary lacks fresh new ideas, and comes across as too politically calculating -- regardless of her unwavering competency as a lawmaker.

Obama represents something different.  Throw political calculation out the window.  He inspires.  He offers hope.  He represents a better kind of political experience -- the kind that you lose when you stay in Washington too long.

In this conference call, Bill Clinton vented what was likely his frustration of reality: that Hillary has already peaked, while other candidates -- like Obama, Edwards, Richardson and potentially Gore -- have no other place to go but up.

And lastly, if you think Hillary and Obama's positions on Iraq were similar, then read their pre-war speeches for yourself and be the judge:

• Hillary Clinton's speech on the Senate Floor: October 10, 2002
• Barack Obama's speech in Chicago on October 26, 2002

You tell me who was more anti-war, and which one was more willing to give Bush what he wanted.

Fox News to air new scenes from "Path to 9/11" movie

Fox News has announced it will air new scenes that were deleted in the previous airing of the controversial made-for-tv movie "Path to 9/11":

Unseen footage from the controversial ABC docudrama The Path to 9/11 has been obtained by Fox News and will be shown Sunday on Hannity's America.

The scene shows Sandy Berger, played by actor Devin Dunn, refusingto authorize an attack on Osama bin Laden despite a request from CIAofficials, who said he was in their sights.

According to Americablog, Bill Clinton's office is outraged and is contacting ABC to ask them why they are letting Fox News do this?:

PresidentClinton's office has just informed me that they're "taking it all theway to the top at Disney to find out why they're not enforcingcopyright" in this matter.

You'llrecall that not only is FOX planning on broadcasting the false anddefamatory scenes that were cut from Disney/ABC's error-riddleddocumentary "Path to 9/11," but Disney/ABC have announcedthat they have no intention of enforcing their copyright in thismatter, and demanding that FOX not rebroadcast Disney/ABC's sceneswithout permission.

Just in case you forgot what caused all the uproar about the movie, the film was critical of President Clinton's anti-terror strategy even though the fictional drama contradicted the 9/11 report.  Back on September 7th, I wrote a column about the airing of this biased drama.

(Video) Bill Clinton on the difference between philosophy and ideology

In a speech at Georgetown University, former President Bill Clinton underscored the differences between philosophy and ideology -- and that ideology has taken over Washington these last six years:

watch video clip

--- Partial Transcript ---

CLINTON: "The problem with ideology is, if you got an ideology you already got your mind made up -- you know all the answers.  And that makes evidence irrelevant, and argument a waste of time.  So you tend to govern by assertion and attack.  The problem with that is that discourages thinking and gives you bad results...if you are an ideologue, denial is an essential part of your political being."

It's about time we start electing lawmakers that believe in promoting a reality-based community in Washington, as opposed to an ideology.  We have tried ideology these last six years, and look where we are.

North Korea nuke test was with a Bush-era bomb

Intelligence officials report that the North Korea nuclear blast resulted from its plutonium-based program, which was restarted during the Bush era.  It was Bill Clinton who helped halt the program in 1994, and therefore not one plutonium bomb was built by North Korea when he was president.  It's interesting that Clinton is being blamed, even though this plutonium-based development happened between 2002 and 2006 -- under George W. Bush's watch.

Even though North Korea's nuclear test is old news, the academic community and other East Asia studies experts were waiting for weeks to find out whether the bomb that was detonated was uranium-based or plutonium-based.  It may not seem that important.  However, this discovery literally tell us whether or not Bill Clinton's policy was a failure.  We now have our answer -- and don't expect the traditional media to talk about it at all.

It has been concluded by U.S. intelligence officials that the bomb was plutonium-based:

U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that North Korea's test lastweek was powered by plutonium harvested from its small nuclear reactor,according to officials who have reviewed the results of atmosphericsampling since the explosion.

So why is this important, you ask?  Under Bill Clinton, North Korea's plutonium-based nuclear program was halted thanks to the 1994 Agreed Framework.  It was not until 2002 when North Korea restarted its plutonium-based program, after being threatened by President Bush in his Axis of Evil speech.

It is important that we all know the difference between North Korea's plutonium and uranium-based programs.  The plutonium program was the most advanced, and the Clinton Administration dealt with it immediately.  The 1994 Agreed Framework put an end to the program for the rest of his presidency. 

Conservatives have every right to complain that Clinton did not do enough to curb North Korea's uranium-based program.  However, uranium-based nuclear weapons are harder to come by.  So what Clinton did was he focused more on the plutonium threat.

Once North Korea conducted its test just a few weeks ago, East Asia experts wanted to know whether it was from uranium or plutonium?  If it was uranium, then it would prove once and for all that both Bush and Clinton policies were a failure -- since the uranium program was operational under both their watches.  If it was plutonium, it would show that Clinton was right about it being more of a threat, and that the bomb that was tested was built under George W. Bush's watch.  The latter turned out to be true.

Had it not been for Clinton's 1994 Agreed Framework, North Korea would have 50 nuclear weapons today.  The Clinton policy worked, and no new weapons were built during his presidency.  Clinton is not the one to blame.

And now word is that North Korea is planning to conduct a second test with yet another plutonium-based bomb.  It looks like that Axis of Evil speech has really paid off!

(Video) Frank Rich: Democrats develop spine and confidence

On MSNBC's prime time show Countdown, New York Times columnist spoke with Keith Olbermann about how Bill Clinton has set a good example for other Democrats this campaign season -- and that example is to fight back and have a spine:

Click to watch video clip

--- Partial Transcript ---

OLBERMANN: "Can we now look back to a certain moment or certain event that set President Clinton and others over the edge and led them to their 'mad as hell' moment?

RICH: "Well, my feeling is..that moment came with Katrina.  That's when we sort of pulled back the curtain and saw who the wizard of oz really was.  And now the Democrats smell blood -- they should smell blood...They are finally mustering the courage that one wishes that they had had when they were voting on a war resolution, particularly in the Senate, in the fall of 2002."

I wouldn't say that the moment came with Katrina.  However, Katrina may have been the moment when the rest of the nation discovered the truth.  But as far as bloggers like myself, that realization came immediately after 2004.  We were pinned against the wall, we wanted wanted to do everything possible to fight back.  So when did Democratic lawmakers wake up, you ask?  I would actually say immediately following the Social Security debate, which the Democrats prevailed in.

Cartoon: GOP Boogeyman

(By Andrew Wahl, The Wenatchee World, OffTheWahl.com)

Here is Andrew's weekly commentary:

YES, THAT’S CLINTON …
    Former President Clintonhas been in conservative crosshairs again recently, first with ABC’s“The Path to 9/11” earlier this month, and again during his fieryinterview on “FOX News Sunday” this past weekend. With elections comingand Osama still nowhere to be found, it seems conservatives are eagerto joust with a familiar foil. It was obvious grist for a cartoon, and“GOP Boogeyman” [Archive No. 0633] is the result.
    Unfortunately, this seems to be one of those times when theexecution of the cartoon fails the concept. I knew when I finished thisweek’s cartoon that it would fly or die based on the readers’ abilityto recognize Clinton in the second panel. I admit, I was a bit worried.And, based on calls and comments from readers of my home newspaper, TheWenatchee World, I had reason to be.
    While some readers had no doubt it was Clinton, others had no clue.So they called, confused. For them, I had failed. As an editorialcartoonist, I love getting a response from readers — be it anger or joy— but I never want to leave readers confused.
    I think the Clinton panel failed them for number of reasons:

- Caricatures often evolve with a readership. For example, the firstfew times I caricature a new political figure, I will often label thecharacter for clarity. As I start to get better control of thecaricature, I drop the label and the character starts to take on a lifeof its own. For example, my Bush doesn’t look exactly like the realBush, but my readership clearly know who it is. One of the problemswith Clinton is that I hadn’t drawn him since 1998 (before my six-yearhiatus) and my current audience at The World had never seen my versionof the former president.
- Compounding the problem is that I was going for an exaggerated,vilified version of Clinton. Big mistake: You can’t draw an evilClinton. The guy is a human Muppet. Regardless of what you think of hispolitics, you’d be hard-pressed to find evil in that doughy, smileyface. Mischievous, sure. But evil? Nah.
- The final strike was the different style I used for this cartoon’sbackground. I scanned in pencil sketches, then darkened the line workand applied a filter in Photoshop. While the effect was pretty close towhat I was going for, it ended up a bit sloppier and darker than I hadhoped. Some vital details of my Clinton caricature, such as the hair,were lost in the mud.

    Anyway, that’s probably way more than anyone needs to know aboutwhy I’m not overly happy with this week’s cartoon. If you see Clintonin the second panel and the cartoon works for you, great. If not, Iapologize. Either way, we’ll hit it again next week.

Till then,
Andrew
toon@offthewahl.com

For the new visitors to The Blue State, Andrew Wahl is a cartoonist for the Wenatchee World newspaper in Wenatchee, Washington -- just less than three short hours east of Seattle.

Rice tries to get back at Clinton, but lies big time

I don't like to recklessly call people liars.  But that is exactly what Condoleezza Rice did when she tried to discredit what Bill Clinton said in his weekend interview with Fox News.  Calling it anything else but a lie would be a disservice to the truth.

These last few days, the Bush Administration has been put on the defensive on an issue they thought would benefit the Republicans this November: terrorism.  The Bill Clinton interview on Fox News over the weekend, coupled with the leaked details of the 2006 National Intelligence Estimate on worldwide terrorism, is forcing the White House to come back swinging.

Yesterday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice snapped back and said Clinton never left Bush with a strategy to fight terrorism:

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," she toldthe newspaper, which is owned by News Corp., the same company that ownsFox News Channel.

But according to a 13-page memo sent from Richard Clarke to Condoleezza Rice just five days before Bush was sworn into office -- titled Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al-Qida: Status and prospects -- the Clinton Administration did indeed leave the incoming Bush team a comprehensive strategy to deal with terrorism.

Even read the document for yourself.  Condoleezza Rice and the rest of the foreign policy team in the incoming Bush Administration were given prior warning and a realistic strategy to deal with al Qaeda.  So it looks like Condi Rice did what people would call "lying" -- all just to get back at Clinton.  What a shame!  In November, we've got to cast our ballots for accountability -- those in power have lost our trust.
-------------------------------------------
Other sites blogging about this issue: Media Matters, Truthdig, Motor City Liberal, The Carpetbagger Report, Media Girl, Vox Verax, Faithful Progressive, Donkey Digest, AMERICAblog, The Strata-Sphere.

The Wallace interview with Clinton is no longer banned

It's been an interesting last two days.  Yesterday, I got an e-mail telling me that Fox News Group LLC wanted my video of the interview with Bill Clinton banned from Youtube.  The letter informed me that it had been deleted, and threatened to delete my entire Youtube account if it ever happened again.

Though, oddly enough, the Clinton interview videos are back up today.  I have no idea why.  How come it is suddenly okay for Youtube to show the interview today, but not yesterday?  Is this a case of Youtube defying Fox News?  Or did Fox News tell Youtube not to place the ban on my video anymore?

Nonetheless, the videos are back up.  So if you want to watch the Clinton interview with Chris Wallace, this might be your last chance.

Part One
Part Two

Good times!

(Video) Clarke reassigned by Bush

Al Franken and Tony Blankley went face to face over Clinton's interview on Fox News Sunday.

There has been a lot of discussion about this -- with some people charging that Clinton lied about the role that counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke played before and after 9/11.  To recap, Clarke was probably the most informed government official about the issue of terrorism.  He served under Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr.

On Hardball with Chris Matthews, author Al Franken and Washington Times columnist Tony Blankley went at it about the Clinton interview with Chris Wallace and Clarke's role in the Bush and Clinton administrations:

Click to watch clip

I know this doesn't really help.  But it shows how loyalists on either side are completely set in their opinions regarding how Richard Clarke's position under the current Administration was downgraded in comparison to the nature of his service during the previous three presidencies.

To be honest, I have only read bits and pieces of Richard Clarke's book Against All Enemies.  I do own the book though.  What I found most striking was how Richard Clarke was demoted after 9/11 because his post-9/11 security proposals were contrary to what the neoconservatives wanted -- I am obviously referring to the desire to attack Iraq.  So, in summary, I think the Bush Administration should be faulted more for not following his advice after the 9/11 attacks.  I mean, honestly, if your country gets attacked by terrorists, wouldn't you want to at least give the person who knows the most about terrorism more control over foreign policy decisions?

Let's be up front about this.  The fact that Condoleezza Rice, who was a Soviet expert that taught at Stanford, was chosen as President Bush's national security advisor shows just how the Administration lacked a basic understanding of the post-Cold War threats facing our country.  Under Clinton, National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and Richard Clarke were very close.  Clarke said in his book that he did not have that same relationship with Rice.

I at least hope that the next presidential administration, Republican or Democrat, asks Richard Clarke to be the National Security Advisor.  He knows more about terrorism than anyone else.  He would be a lot better fit than a Soviet expert or someone like Stephen Hadley that has consistently encouraged his boss to ignore Afghanistan.

Hirsh: Bush barely paid attention to bin Laden before 9/11

No one is claiming that President Clinton deserves an A for his job in preventing terrorism during the 1990s.  But he did try.  It is also true that he was criticized by Republicans for being too obsessed with terrorism during his eight years in office.  Bush, on the other hand -- well, that's a different story.

While Bill Clinton was doubted by Fox News host Chris Wallace, maybe he should have interviewed President Bush in a much more skeptical tone.  As Michael Hirsh of Newsweek writes, it was Bush, not Clinton, that dropped the ball before 9/11:

And for the record, the Bush administration barely paid attention tobin Laden before 9/11, as documented by the 9/11 Commission and otherinquiries. On Jan. 26, 2001—six days after Bush’s inauguration—an FBIreport for the first time conclusively tied the USS Cole bombing inYemen to Al Qaeda. A few weeks later, CIA Director George Tenet raisedthe stakes, calling bin Laden's global terror network "the mostimmediate and serious threat" to U.S. national security. Yet there wasno retaliation for the Cole or any other Al Qaeda attack for eightmonths—the “principals” did not even hold a meeting on how to deal withthe terrorist group—despite Tenet’s increasingly urgent warnings aboutan Al Qaeda attack in the summer of 2001. Even today, the Bushadministration is spending more time, resources and energy on supposedstate sponsors of terror, like Iraq, than on the terrorists themselves.

For the unteenth time, read Richard Clarke's book.