sozobe
 
  1  
Mon 3 Mar, 2008 12:59 pm
Several members of the administration? As in, the Bush administration? As in, the people who were selling the war?

Quote:
On the campaign trail, Clinton has said again and again that she cast her vote based on the best available intelligence. But Gerth and Van Natta show that, according to all evidence, Hillary did not actually read the "best available intelligence" on the war before the invasion -- the full, 90-page classified version of the National Intelligence Estimate -- even though Sen. Bob Graham, then chairman of the Intelligence Committee, had, according to the book, "implored his colleagues to do so before casting such a monumental vote." (After reading the full report, Graham voted against the war.)

What's more, "Hillary still had no one on her staff with the security clearances needed to read the NIE." So what, exactly did she base her decision on -- briefings provided by the administration? Gerth and Van Natta sum it up this way: "If she did not bother to read the complete intelligence reports, then she did not do enough homework on the decision that she has called the most important of her life."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/her-way-hillary_b_49733.html

(Emphases mine.)

I know that not everyone read it (despite Graham's urgings). I have read elsewhere -- a NY'er article, maybe -- that the full 90-page report was much different from the summary version. It had a lot more detail of course but the detail tended to add up to a much different picture than the summary.

Yes, I know that very few senators read the whole thing, and I'm annoyed at everyone who failed to read it. Why I single out Hillary Clinton is because this kind of preparedness is supposed to be exactly her strength. That's what she's running on. "They didn't do it either" isn't much of an excuse.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 3 Mar, 2008 01:02 pm
It's interesting to learn that Senator Feinstein read it, because I wrote to her and told her she shouldn't approve the legislation. She wrote back and told me that with the information she was privy to, she had no other choice. I told her I had confidence in her judgement. After learing she read the NIE report, I must now question her judgement.
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Mon 3 Mar, 2008 01:12 pm
Quote:
"Sen. Obama is so desperate to divert attention from his limited national security experience that he's not just misleading voters about Sen. Clinton, he's also misleading voters about his own supporters. That is not change you can believe in." -- Clinton spokesperson Phil Singer
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 3 Mar, 2008 01:18 pm
Seeing the desperation in Clinton is so obvious, I'm not sure how anyone can mistake it for anything else.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Mon 3 Mar, 2008 01:20 pm
I thought the talking point memo was that Democratic members of Congress weren't privy to enough info to make an informed decision re the Iraq War, or the info they got was cherry-picked by the administration. When did the goal posts move?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 3 Mar, 2008 01:23 pm
The goal post never moved; what Bush and his adninistration said before starting the war is the same now.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Mon 3 Mar, 2008 01:25 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
I thought the talking point memo was that Democratic members of Congress weren't privy to enough info to make an informed decision re the Iraq War, or the info they got was cherry-picked by the administration. When did the goal posts move?
Probably about the same time the WoMD were not found.
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Mon 3 Mar, 2008 01:34 pm
Hillary is hammering Obama on this today....

March 3, 2008 9:34

Blame Canada? Blame Obama

A couple of days ago I blogged about this CTV story that the Obama campaign had reassured the Canadian government the Illinois Senator's populist rhetoric on NAFTA was simply for the primaries and that Canada shouldn't worry. At the time, both the Canada government and the Obama campaign vehemently denied the story.

Turns out, thanks to diligent reporting by AP's Nedra Pickler, that there were talks on NAFTA between an Obama senior advisor, University of Chicago Professor Austan Goolsbee, and the Canadian embassy and the notes the Canadians came away with sound a lot like the CTV story, though Goolsbee denies he made any assurances.

From Nedra's story:


Quote:
The memo is the first documentation to emerge publicly out of the meeting between the adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago, but Goolsbee said it misinterprets what he told them. The memo was written by Joseph DeMora, who works for the consulate and attended the meeting.

Goolsbee disputed a section that read: "Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."


It will be interesting to see how the Obama campaign explains this one -- if Obama comes back on our flight to Texas that's about to take off, he can be sure he'll be asked about it. I bet they're glad this story didn't pop two days ago. That said, what's the conservative Canadian government doing leaking memos about meetings with U.S. campaigns? And it begs the question: what, if anything, did Hillary's camp tell them?


http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/03/blame_canada_blame_obama.html
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 3 Mar, 2008 01:56 pm
Naw, Obama can't have it both ways. His message thus far has been to keep jobs in the US.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Mon 3 Mar, 2008 02:15 pm
It's been a bad news day, the polls and I didn't like that Canada/ NAFTA thing either -- just came here to post this (first good news I've seen today):

Quote:
Please find below a statement issued by the Canadian Embassy today.

Washington, D.C.
March 3, 2008

The Canadian Embassy and our Consulates General regularly contact those involved in all of the Presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials. In the recent report produced by the Consulate General in Chicago, there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect.

The people of the United States are in the process of choosing a new President and are fortunate to have strong and impressive candidates from both political parties. Canada will not interfere in this electoral process. We look forward, however, to working with the choice of the American people in further building an unparalleled relationship with a close friend and partner.

Statement can be found at: www.washington.gc.ca.


Also, more details on the TX caucus:

Quote:
4 - The polls close across Texas at 7pm local time. Most of Texas is in the central time zone, with the exception of some west Texas areas (e.g. El Paso) which are in the mountain time zone. The Texas secretary of state's office says it will begin reporting results immediately after 7pm central time. These results will be available at http://enr.sos.state.tx.us/enr/

5 - Another 67 delegates (42 at-large and 25 super delegates) will be allocated according to the results of a three-month-long series of local, regional and statewide caucuses. This caucus process begins on Tuesday night immediately after the polls close, when each precinct holds a caucus event.

6 - These precinct caucuses send delegates to county/district caucuses on March 29, which are followed by a statewide convention on June 6-7. It is only at the statewide convention that delegates are finally allocated to each candidate. And just to make things really interesting, delegates are not bound by their allegiances from the precinct and county caucuses.

7 - That means the precinct caucus results on Tuesday night will at best be a rough snapshot of support for Clinton and Obama, but in no way can those results be used to accurately predict how many caucus-chosen delegates each candidate will end up with.


Middle swath of "a quickie 10-point primer on how the convoluted 'Texas Two-Step' primary is going to work."

The Swamp
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Mon 3 Mar, 2008 02:19 pm
Too complicated for the media. Look for them to make projections regardless, 'specially if Obama is winning the caucuses left and right.

Still, he needs to win the popular vote in TX!!!

aargh

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Mon 3 Mar, 2008 02:42 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Naw, Obama can't have it both ways. His message thus far has been to keep jobs in the US.


But there is no way he can force that to happen.
He can write all the bills he wants, but he cannot force a company to stay somewhere when they are losing money.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Mon 3 Mar, 2008 02:51 pm
mysteryman wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Naw, Obama can't have it both ways. His message thus far has been to keep jobs in the US.


But there is no way he can force that to happen.
He can write all the bills he wants, but he cannot force a company to stay somewhere when they are losing money.



Ever heard of the Bully Pulpit?
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Mon 3 Mar, 2008 02:56 pm
Re: CanadianNAFTAgate.

Is anyone expected to be indicted?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Mon 3 Mar, 2008 02:58 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Naw, Obama can't have it both ways. His message thus far has been to keep jobs in the US.


But there is no way he can force that to happen.
He can write all the bills he wants, but he cannot force a company to stay somewhere when they are losing money.



Ever heard of the Bully Pulpit?


Yes, and if he does try that, whats to stop a company from just closing its doors permanently?
That is not now nor has it ever been illegal.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Mon 3 Mar, 2008 03:00 pm
Oh ****, I thought I made that up (NAFTA-gate.) Turns out Hillary's henchpeople beat me to it. Candy Crowley of CNN was calling this a scandal this AM.
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Mon 3 Mar, 2008 03:00 pm
Questions linger over developer's Obama deal

Fallout from his relationship with politically connected Rezko dogs him still

Tony Rezko was obviously in trouble. He was a defendant in at least a dozen lawsuits, federal investigators in Chicago were poking around, and his name was in newspaper articles about corruption and fraud.

None of that stopped Mr. Rezko, a politically connected developer, and Senator Barack Obama from completing real estate deals a few years ago that resulted in the Obamas obtaining their dream house and the Rezkos buying an empty lot next door.

Nearly three years later, fallout from Mr. Obama's relationship with Mr. Rezko, who raised more than $150,000 for Mr. Obama's campaigns, continue to dog Mr. Obama on the presidential campaign trail. That distraction promises to linger as Mr. Rezko goes on trial on corruption charges starting Monday.

Mr. Obama, a Democrat, is not part of the case against Mr. Rezko, who is accused of shaking down companies seeking business with the State of Illinois. Mr. Obama has conceded that it was a mistake to bring Mr. Rezko into his personal real estate dealings, although he has insisted that there was nothing unusual about the developer's decision to buy a sought-after lot in an upscale neighborhood.

But a review of court records, including new details of Mr. Rezko's finances that emerged recently, show that the lot purchase occurred as he was being pursued by creditors seeking more than $10 million, deepening the mystery of why he would plunge into a real estate investment whose biggest beneficiary appears to have been Mr. Obama.

As Mr. Obama and Mr. Rezko were completing the property purchases in June 2005, Mr. Rezko was fighting to keep lenders and investors at bay over defaulted loans and failing business ventures. But he side-stepped that financial dragnet by arranging for the land to be bought in his wife's name, making it the only property she owned by herself, according to land records.

As a result, when the Obamas bought part of the land from Mrs. Rezko seven months later to widen their yard, the money they paid was beyond the reach of Mr. Rezko's creditors, including one conducting a court-ordered hunt for his assets to recover a $3.5 million debt.

Two lawyers involved in the civil litigation against Mr. Rezko said they believed that the property was subject to possible seizure on the premise that Mr. Rezko had been trying to hide behind his wife, Rita, who had little money of her own to complete the $625,000 purchase.

The lawyers, both of whom requested anonymity because they did not have their clients' permission to speak about the cases, said there was little purpose in pursuing it because the legal costs would have outweighed the value of the property, which was encumbered by a $500,000 mortgage.

Lawyers representing Mr. Rezko in the civil litigation declined to comment.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23430819?referer=sphere_related_content&referer=sphere_related_content
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Mon 3 Mar, 2008 03:01 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Naw, Obama can't have it both ways. His message thus far has been to keep jobs in the US.


But there is no way he can force that to happen.
He can write all the bills he wants, but he cannot force a company to stay somewhere when they are losing money.



Ever heard of the Bully Pulpit?


Yes, and if he does try that, whats to stop a company from just closing its doors permanently?


Somewhere, there must be a point you are trying to make.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Mon 3 Mar, 2008 03:03 pm
Questions linger over McCain's mental health


http:///www.roxxxanne.blogspot.com
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Mon 3 Mar, 2008 03:06 pm
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/03/03/politics/horserace/entry3900831.shtml

Momentum Spinning
Posted by Vaughn Ververs


It's Monday and that means another round of dueling conference calls by operatives in the Democratic presidential race. "NAFTA-Gate," that's the headline in a press release sent out by Hillary Clinton's campaign hammering away at the latest controversy to pop up around the Democratic campaign and a prime topic of a call hosted by Clinton's chief strategist Mark Penn and communications director Howard Wolfson.

The story about what Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee said to a Canadian consulate and in what capacity he was serving in at the time has become a mini-flap over recent days after a Canadian news report claimed that the adviser told the consulate that Obama's threats to renegotiate NAFTA were said in the heat of the campaign. The Obama campaign first denied that any such conversation took place and now says the remarks have been mischaracterized and the adviser was not speaking on behalf of the campaign. The issue is big, of course, in Ohio which votes tomorrow.

In the press release and on the conference call, Wolfson read a lengthy list of quoted from Obama aides denying the story in full, calling it "NAFTA-Gate." The campaign also began discussing the trial of indicted Chicago businessman and one-time Obama supporter Tony Rezko, whose corruption trial begins today. The candidate herself weighed in on the topic in a statement released this morning. "I don't think people should come to Ohio and you both give speeches that are very critical of NAFTA and you send out misleading and false information about my positions regarding NAFTA and then we find out that your chief economic advisor has gone to a foreign government and basically done the old wink-wink, don't pay any attention this is just political rhetoric."

In a conference call of his own with reporters, Obama manager David Plouffe called such charges part of a "kitchen sink" strategy being launched by the Clinton camp as it tries to hang in the race. "This conversation has been discredited by the Canadian government, it's been discredited by our campaign, it's simply a conversation that did not happen," Plouffe said of the flap.

Plouffe was then quick to point to a story in today's New York Sun which quotes retired general Jack Keane, as being skeptical that Clinton would authorize a large, immediate withdrawal from Iraq should she become president. Keane has briefed Clinton on the surge strategy and other matters in the past. Plouffe told reporters the story "deserves an enormous amount of scrutiny."

Of course all the back-and-forth was put on hold when it came to the strategists' assessments of how the race may look after four states vote tomorrow night. The Obama campaign characterized it as a race about delegates, which Obama will almost certainly maintain a healthy lead in after tomorrow. "We have built a very meaningful and significant pledged delegate lead," Plouffe said. "If the Clinton campaign is not able to produce a big delegate yield tomorrow night, you begin to have a smaller number of contests and a smaller number of delegates available to make up that gap."

The Clinton camp signaled that their candidate is likely to remain in the race should she win primaries in both Texas and Ohio and argued that Obama's momentum, built over the course of 11 straight wins, is slowing. "I think that momentum is tipping to Senator Clinton," Penn said. "I think it's tipping on the big and most important issues that we have raised in the campaign and I think that momentum will allow us to be successful in both of these states."

Penn said the NAFTA incident and the Rezko trial signaled a new period of vetting for Obama. "We expect that Wednesday morning, that the momentum of Senator Obama will be significantly blunted and new questions raised about whether or not he is the right nominee for out party," he said.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 566
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 07/15/2025 at 09:54:14