« March 2007 | Main | May 2007 »

More Tenet

April 30, 2007 9:45 AM

Writing in the Washington Post YESTERDAY, the former head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden desk takes issue with former CIA director George Tenet's book.

As we noted in a piece for the Webcast on Friday, Tenet in 2003 and 2004 was a cheerleader for the war in Iraq. Now he's depicting something quite different.

"Tenet now paints himself as a scapegoat for an administration in which there never was 'a serious consideration of the implications of a U.S. invasion,' insisting that he warned Bush, Cheney and their Cabinet about the risks of occupying Iraq," writes Michael F. Scheuer. "Well, fine; the CIA repeatedly warned Tenet of the inevitable disaster an Iraq war would cause -- spreading bin Ladenism, spurring a bloody Sunni-Shiite war and lethally destabilizing the region.

Scheuer notes that on March 24, 2004, Tenet told the 9/11 Commission that he "was talking to the national security adviser and the president and the vice president every day" and "certainly didn't get a sense that anybody was not paying attention to what I was doing and what I was briefing and what my concerns were and what we were trying to do."

"Now, Scheuer notes, "a 'frustrated' Tenet writes that he held an urgent meeting with Rice on July 10, 2001, to try to get 'the full attention of the administration' and 'finally get us on track.' He can't have it both ways."

Scheuer concludes: "Tenet in effect is saying that he knew all too well why the United States should not invade Iraq, that he told his political masters and that he was ignored. But above all, he's saying that he lacked the moral courage to resign and speak out publicly to try to stop our country from striding into what he knew would be an abyss."

Ouch.

What do you think?

-- jpt

April 30, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)

Clueless Political Quotes of the Week

April 28, 2007 1:09 PM

It's really a toss-up as to which comment belies the more solipsistic worldview.

1) "No one suffers more than their president and I do when we watch this."
-- First Lady Laura Bush on the TODAY show, watching pictures of the war in Iraq.

2) "It's the most despicable thing I've ever heard in my life."
-- Former CIA Director George Tenet, telling 60 Minutes how offended he was by the leak of the "slam dunk" story

Really? The head of the Central Intelligence Agency has never heard anything more despicable in his life than a leak that made him look bad?

Somebody's not reading the briefing books about Darfur.

And no one suffers more than the President and First Lady when watching pictures from Iraq?

Not the injured veterans? Not war widows? Not the Iraqis?

These people need to get out of Washington, DC.

--jt

April 28, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

Clinton Spin

April 27, 2007 5:58 PM

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, had a pretty good night at the first Democratic debate Thursday night.

But that's apparently not enough for her campaign. Earlier today her spinners sent out a memo saying: "CAMPAIGN MEMO: COMMANDER IN CHIEF"

"With the first debate of the 2008 presidential campaign now completed, one fact is abundantly clear: Hillary Clinton showed that she is ready to be President of the United States."

Now, you can believe that or not, but here's how her spinners prove their point: "Last night, Hillary was the candidate who demonstrated that she would know how to respond if the country was attacked."

They then quoted her thusly:  "Having been a senator during 9/11, I understand the extraordinary horror of that kind of attack. I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate. That doesn't mean we go looking for other fights. Let's focus on those who have attacked us and do everything we can to destroy them."

I agree that Clinton gave a decent response to that question -- especially compared with Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, who had to re-answer the question -- but, again, that doesn’t seem to have been enough for her campaign.

Because that paragraph is NOT what she said.

Here's what Clinton actually said:  "Having been a senator during 9/11, I understand very well the extraordinary horror of that kind of an attack and the impact that it has, far beyond those that are directly affected. I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate. If we are attacked, and we can determine who is behind that attack, and if there are nations that supported or gave material aid to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond. Now, that doesn't mean we go looking for other fights. You know, I supported President Bush when he went after Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan. And then when he decided to divert attention to Iraq, it was not a decision that I would have made, had I been president, because we still haven't found bin Laden. So let's focus on those who have attacked us and do everything we can to destroy them."

As pointed out by my pal John Dickerson writing as Slate (LINK), you'll notice, first of all, that the Clinton campaign -- quite misleadingly -- did NOT provide ellipses that would indicate her comments had been edited. That's a bit dishonest.

Now…let's look…What did they edit out?

1) Her sounding less than decisive, as with this sentence chock full o' qualifiers:  "If we are attacked, and we can determine who is behind that attack, and if there are nations that supported or gave material aid to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond."

2) Her praise of President Bush: "You know, I supported President Bush when he went after Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan."

3) Her claim that if she'd been president she wouldn’t have led the country to war in Iraq -- a war, you may recall, that she voted for.  "And then when he decided to divert attention to Iraq, it was not a decision that I would have made, had I been president, because we still haven't found bin Laden."

Pretty slippery stuff.

-- jpt

April 27, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (8) | TrackBack (0)

Edwards breaks a promise?

April 27, 2007 11:17 AM

On Wednesday, the campaign manager for former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, sent an email to supporters preparing them for Thursday night's debate where Edwards would call for President Bush to fire Karl Rove.

"Tomorrow, John Edwards is going on national television to take part in the first presidential debate. And that night, he's going to call on George Bush to fire Karl Rove," wrote David Bonior. "Please add your name" to an Edwards petition (CLICK HERE) "so when John speaks out at tomorrow's debate it's clear that he's speaking for thousands."

One problem -- Edwards did no such thing last night.

Oops.

What's up with that, Edwards people?

-- jot

April 27, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Debate recap

April 27, 2007 10:51 AM

Last night's 90-minute MSNBC debate between the Democratic presidential candidates was lively, well moderated by NBC's Brian Williams, and enlightening.

For those of you who would like longer answers than that format allows, I steer you towards our "March to the White House" series on the ABC News Shuffle weekly podcast. Having featured interviews in the past with Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, Joe Biden, D-Del, Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, and Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo, this week we spoke with Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio (CLICK HERE) ...

That said, here are some highlights from last night...

BITE (of the tongue) OF THE NIGHT:

WILLIAMS: Senator Biden, words have in the past gotten you in trouble, words that were borrowed and words that some found hateful. An editorial in the Los Angles Times said, "In addition to his uncontrolled verbosity, Biden is a gaffe machine." Can you reassure voters in this country that you would have the discipline you would need on the world stage, Senator?

BIDEN: Yes.

pause, laughter

WILLIAMS: Thank you, Senator Biden.

*

HANDRAISING QUESTIONS:

Who has ever had a gun in his or her house? -- Biden, Kucinich, former Sen. Mike Gravel, R-Alaska, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.

Who believes there is a global war on terror? Clinton, former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois….seemingly everyone except for Kucinich, who says "the global war on terror has been a pretext for aggressive war."

*

WHAT THREE NATIONS OTHER THAN IRAQ ARE THE BIGGEST THREATS TO THE US?

Biden - North Korea, Iran, Russia

Gravel - "We have no important enemies."

*

WHO IS YOUR MODEL SUPREME COURT JUSTICE?

Richardson -- Whizzer White or Ginsburg

Dodd -- Brennan, Ginsburg

Edwards -- Ginsburg, Breyer.

*

GRAVEL V EVERYONE

GRAVEL: After standing up with (these fellow candidates), some of these people frighten me! They frighten me! When you have mainline candidates that turn around and say that there's nothing off the table with respect to Iran, that's code for using nukes, nuclear devices...I would say the top tier ones, the top tier ones. (Laughter.) They've made statements -- oh, Joe, I'll include you too. You have a certain arrogance. You want to -- you want to tell the Iraqis how to run their country. I got to tell you, we should just plain get out. Just plain get out.

*

OBAMA V GRAVEL:

OBAMA: I'm not planning to nuke anybody right now, Mike, I promise you.

GRAVEL: Good, good, we're safe then for a while.

*

RICHARDSON V EDWARDS

RICHARDSON: They don't want blow-dried candidates with perfection.

*

EDWARDS V CLINTON:

WILLIAMS: Senator Edwards, you made a high profile apology for your vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution. You have said, quote, "We need a leader who will be open and honest, who will tell the truth when they made a mistake." Was that not a direct shot at your opponent, Senator Clinton?

EDWARDS: No, I think that's a question for the conscience of anybody who voted for this war. I mean, Senator Clinton and anyone else who voted for this war has to search themselves and decide whether they believe they've voted the right way; if so, they can support their vote. If they believe they didn't, I think it's important to be straightforward and honest.

*

EDWARDS v OBAMA

EDWARDS: If you want to be president of the United States, to tell the American people what it is you want to do. Rhetoric's not enough. Highfalutin language is not enough.

*

BIDEN V GRAVEL/KUCINICH:

BIDEN: You guys can have your happy talk, there's real life.

*

CLINTON (HEARTS) OBAMA:

CLINTON: I think what Barack said is right. I mean part of our challenge is to put together the political support throughout the country, particularly within the Republican party, to join with us to bring an end to this war.

*

OBAMA (HEARTS) CLINTON

OBAMA: Hillary mentioned earlier, this is going to be a change election; people are hungry for change. And the question is, who is going to be the most effective agent for change?

*

BIDEN (HEARTS) EVERYONE BUT HILLARY ESPECIALLY

BIDEN: I'm looking at a bunch of winners right here, number. And whoever wishes for Hillary is making a big mistake on the Republican side.

*

CLINTON FUZZES A FACT

CLINTON: (President Bush) threatens to veto the legislation we passed, which has been something that all of us have been advocating for a number of years now.

(In fact Clinton has been advocating a specific timeline for withdrawal for only a few months.)

*

OBAMA ON REZKO

OBAMA: We have thousands of donors. This donor engaged in some ethical (sic) behavior, and I've denounced it.

*

EDWARDS WANTS YOU TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD A $400 HAIRCUT

EDWARDS: That was a mistake which we've remedied. It was simply a mistake. But if the question is, Brian, whether I live a privileged and blessed lifestyle now, the answer to that is yes; a lot of us do. But it's not where I come from, and I've not forgotten where I come from. Many people in the audience and the viewing audience know that my dad worked in textile mills all his life, and I can remember vividly -- my dad's here tonight, and I was born here in South Carolina -- I can remember vividly my dad after church one Sunday when I was about 10 years old taking us, just our whole family, into a restaurant -- I was dressed up; I was very proud to be there -- and we sat, got our menus, looked at the menus. And the waitress came over, and my father said, "I'm sorry we have to leave." I didn't understand why. Why did we have to leave? I was embarrassed. I found out when we got out the reason we had to leave is he couldn't pay the prices that were on the menu. The reason I'm running for president of the United States is so that everybody in this country can have the same kind of chance as I've had.

*

RICHARDSON'S AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR AG GONZALES

WILLIAMS: Governor Richardson, you were one of the last people on this stage to call for the resignation of the attorney general, Attorney General Gonzales. When asked by a journalist why you were taking long to make up your mind about this, you replied, quote, "It's because he's Hispanic. I'm honest." Is that the right way to make personnel decisions?

RICHARDSON: That's how I felt. Now, what I said, too, Brian, was that I wanted to await Alberto Gonzales's testimony before the U.S. Senate, before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He hadn't had a chance to fully explain ...So, yeah, you know, he's -- came from nothing. I know the guy. Did it affect that he was Hispanic in what I said? Yeah, it did, and I said so. I think the American people want candor.

*

HUH?

Asked about health care, Kucinich says "the house that I live in right now, that I bought in 1971 for $22,500, connects me very strongly to middle-class communities."

*

WILLIAMS HELPS OBAMA WITH JEWS

Asked who are the U.S.'s three closest allies, Obama says the European Union, NATO, Japan.

WILLIAMS: I didn't hear you mention Israel...

OBAMA: Israel has been one of our most important allies around the world.

*

DAUGHTERS:

DODD (on same-sex marriage): Well, I always begin this question, Brian, by asking people to consider what they would do in the case of their own children. I have two very young daughters who one day may have a different sexual orientation than their parents, how would I like them treated as adults?

OBAMA (on the environment): We've also been working to install light bulbs that last longer and save energy, and that's something that I'm trying to teach my daughters, 8-year-old Melia and 5-year- old Sasha.

***

What did you guys think?

-- jpt

April 27, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

"Barack the magic…."

April 26, 2007 3:01 PM

Liberal internet writers, the tang of Don Imus's blood still fresh in their mouths, have been writing recently about a song featured on Rush Limbaugh's website called "Barack the Magic Negro" to the tune of "Puff the Magic Dragon."

You can hear the song HERE

While the song -- performed by conservative white comedian Paul Shanklin mimicking Rev. Al Sharpton -- may well be offensive, the context of the parody seems not insignificant.

The full  song is called "Barack the Magic Negro -- That's What the LA Times Called Him," and it's based on an oped by a liberal writer in the LA Times from last month (READ IT HERE) called "Obama the Magic Negro."

David Ehrenstein writes that in addition to running for president, "Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the 'Magic Negro.' The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education. 'He has no past, he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist,' reads the description on Wikipedia.

"He's there to assuage white 'guilt' (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history, while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest. As might be expected, this figure is chiefly cinematic — embodied by such noted performers as Sidney Poitier, Morgan Freeman, Scatman Crothers, Michael Clarke Duncan, Will Smith and, most recently, Don Cheadle. And that's not to mention a certain basketball player whose very nickname is 'Magic.'…"

Please note: I am not defending the song or the use of that word…..Just highlighting the context.

-- jpt

April 26, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (13) | TrackBack (0)

Terror firma

April 26, 2007 8:22 AM

Harshly critical comments about Democrats and national security made by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani on Tuesday have prompted some, um, passionate responses.

“If any Republican is elected president —- and I think obviously I would be the best at this —- we will remain on offense and will anticipate what they (terrorists) will do and try to stop them before they do it,” Giuliani said in New Hampshire.

“But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have? If we are on defense, we will have more losses and it will go on longer. I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense. We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.”

Concluded the former Mayor of New York: “The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.”

These remarks prompted a great story by The Politico's Roger Simon (READ IT HERE) -- with a completely misleading headline. The headline, which was picked up and hyped by Matt Drudge: "Giuliani warns of 'new 9/11' if Dems win."

Giuliani did no such thing. He certainly said that Republicans would make the nation safer than Democrats -- and you are free to consider than incendiary, as many Democrats have. But he didn't use the term "new 9/11," or even speculate that there would be another 9/11. Whoever wrote that headline needs to be reprimanded. Why was 'new 9/11' in apostrophes and not quotes? Because, I suspect, he or she knew it wasn't a quote. (Why not put it in ampersands? Or here's one -- "Giuliani warms of @new 9/11@ if Dems win.")

Very misleading.

Either way, the remarks were controversial enough -- drawing swift rebukes from Democratic candidates, such as Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, who said Hizzoner had brought "the politics of fear to a new low."

(The Washington Post's Dan Balz has a nice summary of the Democrats' responses HERE)...

Last night on MSNBC, Keith Olbermann said the following about Giuliani:

"How dare you, sir? 'How many casualties will we have?' This is the language of bin Laden."

Olbermann said Giuliani's comments constituted "terrorism itself, dressed up as counter-terrorism."

"Claim a difference between the parties on the voters' chances of survival, and you do Osama bin Laden's work for him. And we, Democrats and Republicans alike, and every variation in between, we Americans are sick to death of you and the other terror-mongers trying to frighten us into submission, into the surrender of our rights and our reason, into this betrayal of that for which this country has always stood."

So Olbermann is calling Giuliani a terrorist? -- jpt

April 26, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (15) | TrackBack (0)

Pelosi and Petraeus

April 25, 2007 11:42 AM

Last night we learned that when Gen. David Petraeus, commander of multinational forces in Iraq, comes to brief members of the House on the status of the war today at 2 pm, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., will not be in attendance. MORE HERE.

Pelosi spoke to Petraeus on the phone for about half an hour yesterday after unsuccessfully being able to arrange a private briefing.

Liberals have made it very clear to me via emails that they don't think this is a story since she spoke to Petraeus on the phone, which we mentioned in the story.

I would disagree. The House is voting this evening to withdraw US combat troops from Iraq as soon as July 1; I think the fact that the leader of the House isn't attending a briefing from the chief general on the ground is newsworthy. There's the political question -- what does this look like?  And there's the substance -- can someone get everything out of a private 30 minute phone call that one can get from an hour long back-and-forth between the general and dozens if not hundreds of members of Congress?

In any case, just yesterday I was arguing with a conservative correspondent who took issue with my coverage (READ HERE) of the testimony from former Pvt. Jessica Lynch and the family of killed-in-action Army Ranger Pat Tillman, who accused the Pentagon and others of creating false hero myths. I quoted Steven Colbert's famous "reality has a well-known liberal bias" line.  Today I might quote the converse.

But what do you think? Please weigh in…

But before you do, ask yourself the question…how would you regard the Petraeus story if it were Speaker Newt Gingrich, D-Georgia, not meeting (but chatting by phone) with one of President Clinton's top generals in a war Gingrich opposed?  And how would you regard the Lynch story if the spinners at the Pentagon and the administration were Democrats?

-- jpt

April 25, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (15) | TrackBack (0)

Precluding Embarrassment

April 24, 2007 1:07 PM

Evidence from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing is creating questions about how high any alleged misinformation campaign about Cpl  Pat  Tillman's death may have gone.

The committee is looking into why the Pentagon spread false information about Tillman's death due to friendly fire in April 2004, and the capture and rescue of Private Jessica Lynch in Iraq in 2003.

Democrats are pointing to evidence that a White House speechwriter was seeking information about Tillman on April 28, 2004, and one day later a Major General -- alluding to a pending presidential speech -- warned a General that Tillman may have been killed by friendly fire ...doing so as to "preclude" any "embarrassment" for the president.

This was weeks before May 29, 2004, when the Tillman family was told the truth that their son had been killed by friendly fire. 

A week after Tillman was killed on April 22, 2004, then-Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal sent a "P-4" memo to a four-star general on April 29, 2004, saying (emphases mine):

"IT IS HIGHLY POSSIBLE THAT CORPORAL TILLMAN WAS KILLED BY FRIENDLY FIRE. THIS POTENTIAL FINDING IS EXACERBATED BY THE UNCONFIRMED BUT SUSPECTED FINDING THAT POTUS AND THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY MIGHT INCLUDES COMMENTS ABOUT CORPORAL TILLMAN'S HEROISM AND HIS APPROVED SILVER STAR MEDAL IN SPEECHES CURRENTLY BEING PREPARED, NOT KNOWING THE SPECIFICS SURROUNDING HIS DEATH...I FELT THAT IT WAS ESSENTIAL THAT YOU RECEIVED THIS INFORMATION AS SOON AS WE DETECTED IT IN ORDER TO PRECLUDE ANY UNKNOWING STATEMENTS BY OUR COUNTRY'S LEADERS WHICH MIGHT CAUSE PUBLIC EMBARRASSMENT IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CORPORAL TILLMAN'S DEATH BECOME PUBLIC."

The day before, April 28, 2004, an email exchange between Pentagon officials indicated that White House speechwriter John Currin had been seeking information about Tillman "for the President's speech at the Correspondent's dinner this coming Saturday."

In that May 1, 2004 speech, President Bush did not mention the false stories about Tillman's death that others in the Pentagon had spread.

"The loss of Army Corporal Pat Tillman last week in Afghanistan brought home the sorrow that comes with every loss, and reminds us of the character of the men and women who serve on our behalf ," the president said.

At Tillman's memorial service in San Jose on May 3, 2004, Navy SEAL Steve White said in a eulogy that Tillman "made the call. He dismounted his troops, taking the fight to the enemy, uphill, to seize the tactical high ground from the enemy. This gave his brothers and the downed vehicle time to move off that target. He directly saved their lives with that move. Pat sacrificed himself so his brothers could live."

That story was later proven fictitious. White later said he was given that information by an Army official an hour or so before the ceremony, and that he regrets saying them.

-- jpt

April 24, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (19) | TrackBack (0)

"Heroes"

April 24, 2007 9:20 AM

Is the Pentagon propagating stories about "Heroes" as fictitious as the NBC hit show? READ MORE HERE.

Thoughts?

-- jt

April 24, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

Limbaugh: Cho was a liberal

April 23, 2007 6:26 PM

On the April 19 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show , the famous conservative talk radio host opined about the political views of Seung-hui Cho, the Virginia tech massacre madman.

"If this Virginia Tech shooter had an ideology, what do you think it was? " Limbaugh asked. "This guy had to be a liberal. You start railing against the rich and all this other -- this guy's a liberal. He was turned into a liberal somewhere along the line. So it's a liberal that committed this act. Now, the drive-bys will read on a website that I'm attacking liberalism by comparing this guy to them. That's exactly what they do every day, ladies and gentlemen. I'm just pointing out a fact. I am making no extrapolation; I'm just pointing it out. "

Limbaugh went on to say that "back in the early '90s, when there was any kind of an incident, crime or what-have-you that attracted national attention, in the early days of this program, the drive-by media went out and they tried to connect the perpetrator to this program. They did everything they could. In fact, it went so far as Bill Clinton blaming me for influencing Timothy McVeigh to blow up the Murrah building . These are the people sponsoring lies and distortion for the purposes of dividing this country and creating hatred. These are the people that invented this kind of tactic, if you will ."

The reference to Clinton harkens back to CONTROVERSIAL COMMENTS the former president made after the Oklahoma City bombing in which he slammed "loud and angry voices in America today whose sole goal seems to be to try to keep some people as paranoid as possible and the rest of us all torn up and upset with each other. They spread hate. They leave the impression that, by their very words, that violence is acceptable."

Clinton did not mention Limbaugh's name. In fact, he didn't even say "talk radio," but many folks inferred that's who he was talking about.

Limbaugh, conversely, spoke more directly. Cho "had to be a liberal," he said just days after the worst school shooting in U.S. history.

What do you think?

-- jpt

April 23, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (374) | TrackBack (0)

Off-shore Edwards

April 23, 2007 12:59 PM

Today's Washington Post TAKES A LOOK at the work done by Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, for Fortress Investment Group, a New York-based investment group know for its hedge funds. Fortress's hedge funds are incorporated in the Cayman Islands, which allowed investors to avoid or defer paying US taxes.

You may recall that during the 2004 vice president debate, Edwards criticized Vice President Dick Cheney and Halliburton for such offshore accounts.

"They oughta be closed," he said. "They oughta be closed for anybody. They ought to be closed whether they're personal, and they ought to be closed whether they apply to a corporation."

You can view that video by clicking HERE.

Edwards' 2004 presidential platform also made a big stink about this. Pre-Fortress, natch.

"It is a disgrace that American companies renounce their citizenship to reduce their taxes," Edwards wrote. "It is a disgrace that corporations can take out life insurance policies on their janitors, claim a huge tax deduction, and then keep the proceeds when that employee dies, rather than sharing them with his family. Our tax code is riddled with such loopholes, which waste our money and offend our values. This president has had several opportunities to close these very loopholes and he hasn't. I will."

An Edwards spokeswoman told the Post that Fortress stopped letting "managing partners defer their U.S. income taxes by reinvesting profits in the offshore funds. The firm made that change when it went public late last year around the time Edwards ended his consulting arrangement."

"John Edwards believes offshore tax shelters are wrong," said Edwards spokeswoman Kate Beningfield "As president, he will end them. By voluntarily going public, Fortress has ended the practice of using offshore tax shelters for deferred compensation and has committed itself to a whole set of transparency and disclosure obligations that no other hedge fund has committed itself to before."

-- jpt

April 23, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

Green Day

April 23, 2007 11:23 AM

Yesterday in Decorah, Iowa, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, said, "Today is Earth Day, and I personally believe every day should be Earth Day...Some of the damage ... we didn't know about, we didn't understand," she said. "But now we do - so we have no excuses left."

But Clinton skeptics have pointed to the fact that the day before Earth Day she participated in a photo op with Rep. Leonard Boswell, D-Iowa, in which she and the congressman drove to a fundraiser in an 18-wheeler.

Video is available HERE.

18-wheelers are generally not considered to be carbon-neutral methods of transportation. According to a website at Oregon State University, one 18-wheeler can emit as many nitrogen oxides and soot pollutants as 150 passenger cars.

-- jpt

April 23, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

Smackdown at the WH Dinner!

April 23, 2007 9:55 AM

As Hollywood producer Laurie David and singer Sheryl Crow blog about ON THE HUFFINGTON POST TODAY, the two Tinseltown activists got into a skirmish with White House big macher Karl Rove Saturday night at the White House Correspondents Association Dinner.

"Mr. Rove exploded with even more venom," the women write. "Like a spoiled child throwing a tantrum, Mr. Rove launched into a series of illogical arguments regarding China not doing enough thus neither should we. (Since when do we follow China's lead?)"

Said White House spokesman Tony Fratto, "It would be better to set aside Hollywood histrionics and try to help with the problem instead of this baseless, and tasteless, finger pointing.”
It may have been the only entertainment of the night. Responding to last year's edgy performance by Stephen Colbert (watch it HERE) the esteemed Correspondents Association may have leaned too far in the other direction by hiring Rich Little, whose performance was truly awful.

I mean, horrendous. A cloying chorus, moldy schtick…his impression of George W. Bush was weak.
Judge for yourself HERE.

A gifted impressionist of long-departed superstars like Ronald Reagan and Johnny Carson, Little doesn't seem to have worked too hard on his mimicry of anyone born after 1940, i.e. anyone relevant to the world today.

The audience for this dinner isn't necessarily the right one for cutting-edge comedy. This isn't the Second City. More like the 11th.

And yet…this was abysmal.

I await next year's booking of Slappy White.
-- jpt

April 23, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

The Sound of Silence

April 20, 2007 4:10 PM

Where did it go?

In 1989, a schoolyard killing was followed by a ban on military-style assault weapons.  President Clinton called for gun control after Columbine a decade later.

Today…nada.

We took a look at this on Good Morning America. (FREE VIDEO HERE).

In other news, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and MoveOn.org are GETTING INTO A TUSSLE about McCain's venture into Weird Al Yankovic territory.

And on Nightline last night…the folks who hear about the worst school shooting in U.S. history and immediately try to think about how to make money off of it. READ ABOUT IT HERE.

-- jt

April 20, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Outstanding mysteries

April 19, 2007 9:50 AM

April 19, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (14) | TrackBack (0)

Mute Dems

April 18, 2007 2:37 PM

Ask the Democratic leaders of the House and Senate what they think of the US Supreme Court decision or whether there should be gun control?

Chirp.  Chirp.

(That's the sound of crickets you hear. Democrats are trying to avoid hot-button social issues these days.)

More on that HERE

Smart? Right? Good? Cowardly? Weak?

Please weigh in.

-- jake

April 18, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (8) | TrackBack (0)

Horrible day

April 17, 2007 1:59 PM

GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA calls on Congress "to repeal its deadly law requiring gun free school zones" so people can defend themselves.

Virginia allows citizens to carry concealed weapons, with a permit, but universities and schools such as Virginia Tech do not allow concealed weapons on campus.

The VIOLENCE POLICY CENTER says gun control is needed. "We allow virtually anyone the means to turn almost any venue into a battlefield," it says "In the wake of these shootings, too many routinely search for any reason for the tragedy except for the most obvious--the easy access to increasingly lethal firearms that make mass killings possible."

VPC also calls the incident "the largest mass shooting in U.S. history" which -- sorry to nitpick -- it is not. In the 1857 "Mountain Meadows Massacre," somewhere between 100 and 150 men, women and children were slaughtered in Utah with guns, clubs and knives. They were Arkansans moving Westward, the shooters were largely Mormon militia. It wasn't one gunman, but it was certainly a deadlier shooting. (And yes, I know Utah was not yet a state, but it was a United States territory.)

Anyway…what now? HERE'S THE LOOK WE TOOK LAST NIGHT ON WORLD NEWS on the laws some have sought after previous tragedies.

-- jpt

April 17, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (16) | TrackBack (0)

$$$$$$$$$

April 15, 2007 11:04 PM

So every presidential campaign filed its Federal Election Commission report yesterday -- how much they raised, how much the spent, from whom, etc.....

And there are some BIG HEADLINES.

And some BOLDFACE NAMES.

-- jt

April 15, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)

This Just In....

April 15, 2007 12:59 AM

Click and enjoy!

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., spent a ton of cash already in his campaign...CHECK IT OUT.

And Rudy IS ACCUSED OF PANDERING on the Confederate flag...

whaddayathink?

jpt

April 15, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Hungry like the wolf

April 13, 2007 2:54 PM

I don't mean to seem flip, but I have a bet with someone about whether or not World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz survives the weekend with his job intact.

I won't tell you what side I betted on, though you CAN READ MY LATEST STORY ON HIS TROUBLES HERE.

Perhaps an inkling of what's to come came in a PRONOUNCEMENT A FEW HOURS AGO from the board of executive directors: 

"The Executive Directors noted that the group found that the Ethics Committee, including its Chairman, had not been involved in the discussions with the concerned staff member. Neither did it find that the terms and conditions of the agreement had been commented on, reviewed or approved by the Ethics Committee, its Chairman or the Board."

Today, came news that "the president has full confidence in Paul Wolfowitz," according to White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. "We expect him to remain as World Bank president."

But former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, said "Unfortunately, Wolfowitz's tenure at the World Bank has been marked by some of the failures as his term managing the war in Iraq -- cronyism and rhetoric that does not match reality -- and now serious questions of financial integrity that have alarmed our allies. America's ability to lead in the fight against global poverty is undermined with Paul Wolfowitz at the helm of the World Bank. He should resign."

How would you bet?
-- jpt

April 13, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Wolfy's girlfriend

April 12, 2007 5:53 PM

...is just one of several stories I've been working on that will not likely see air, but I can bring you through the good graces of ABCNews.com....

Say, on how World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz apologized for his role in a scandal involving his girlfriend...READ THAT HERE...

...or on how any nudnik can easily grift $43,600 out of the IRS...READ THAT HERE.

And HERE'S OUR LOOK at Sen. John McCain's speech on Iraq Wednesday.

Thoughts?

-- jpt

April 12, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Fashizzle

April 11, 2007 8:33 PM

In AN INTERVIEW with MTV News, rapper Snoop Dogg rejected the claim by embattled radio shock jock Don Imus that his description of the Rutgers Women's basketball team as "nappy headed ho's" was nothing more than what rappers regularly say.

"It's a completely different scenario," said Snoop in a phone interview. "We are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports. We're talking about ho's that's in the 'hood that ain't doing sh--, that's trying to get a n---a for his money. These are two separate things.

"First of all," Mr. Dogg elaborated, "we ain't no old-ass white men that sit up on MSNBC going hard on black girls. We are rappers that have these songs coming from our minds and our souls that are relevant to what we feel. I will not let them muthaf---as say we in the same league as him."

Snoop had a punishment in mind for Mr. Imus.

"Kick him off the air forever," said Mr. Dogg. "Ban him like they did 'Pacman' Jones*. They kicked him out the League for the whole season, but this punk gets to get on the air and call black women 'nappy-headed ho's.' "

Incidentally, Mr. Dogg today pleaded no contest to felony charges from October for transportation of marijuana and possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to five years of probation and 800 hours of community service.

* Adam "Pacman" Jones, star cornerback of the Tennessee Titans, was yesterday suspended by the NFL for the entire 2007 football season because of numerous run-ins with the law, necessitating 10 interviews with police, most recently surrounding allegations Jones was involved in a February shooting at a gentleman's club in Las Vegas.

-- jpt

April 11, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (21) | TrackBack (0)

Obama Calls for Imus to be Fired

April 11, 2007 4:44 PM

READ ALL ABOUT IT!!!

-- jpt

April 11, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Always double down on Aces and Eights

April 10, 2007 5:37 PM

On the day he was previously scheduled to officially declare his presidential candidacy, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is tomorrow giving a major speech about Iraq at Virginia Military Institute.

MORE ON THE SPEECH HERE.

-- jake

April 10, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

GodTube?

April 10, 2007 4:50 PM

No it ain't YouTube -- it's GodTube.

You can READ ABOUT IT HERE.

Or WATCH IT HERE...

-- jpt

April 10, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Roker weighs in

April 10, 2007 11:30 AM

On the blog of NBC'S AL ROKER comes another call for Don Imus's head.

"(I)t is time for him to go," Roker writes. "I, for one, am really tired of the diatribes, the 'humor' at others’ expense, the cruelty that passes for 'funny'. Don Imus isn’t the only one doing this, but today he’s the one in the hot seat. What he said was vile and disgusting. It denigrated an entire team and by extension, a community and its pride in a group that had excelled."

I'm no expert on these things, but this would not seem to bode well for Mr. Imus, whose show airs on MSNBC.

-- jpt

April 10, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (19) | TrackBack (0)

Imus in the Morning

April 10, 2007 10:34 AM

I think one of the things that I find so perplexing about this Imus controversy is how liberal politicians and media figures who purport to deplore racism are such frequent visitors to Imus's show.

"Solidarity forever, pal," said liberal Boston Globe columnist Tom Oliphant to Imus.

Presidential candidates regularly make appearances on Imus's show -- Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., even announced his intention to run for president during a phone-in to Imus.

In the last month or so, Imus has been joined by such liberal beacons as Sens. Joe Biden, D-Del., and John Kerry, D-Mass.

Odder still, many of the same media figures whose reporting and commentaries about Biden's "clean" and "articulate" remarks about Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, were suffused with outrage are regular guests on Imus.

How do they square this?

How does Doris Kearns Goodwin think this is cool? What would Abraham Lincoln make of her visits to the I-man?

-- jpt

April 10, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (15) | TrackBack (0)

Amnesty for the I-man?

April 09, 2007 2:27 PM

"Here's what I've learned: that you can't make fun of everybody, because some people don't deserve it," Don Imus said on the radio this morning. "Because the climate on this program has been what it's been for 30 years doesn't mean it's going to be what it's been for the next five years or whatever because that has to change, and I understand that."

Imus was referring to the latest outrage over racially insensitive remarks; last week he referred to the Rutgers University women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos."

YOU CAN WATCH THE REMARKS HERE.

"I'm not a bad person. I'm a good person, but I said a bad thing," Imus said today. "But these young women deserve to know it was not said with malice."

Imus has called the comments "completely inappropriate…thoughtless and stupid" and POSTED HIS APOLOGY.

As David Carr wrote in TODAY'S NEW YORK TIMES.

"This isn't the first time that Mr. Imus has trolled these waters: he once called Gwen Ifill, then working at the Times, 'a cleaning lady' and described one of the paper's sports columnists, William C. Rhoden, as a 'quota hire.' Both of those journalists are black, but Mr. Imus's defenders like to point out that he is an equal-opportunity misanthrope whose show displays 360-degree offensiveness toward all sorts of ethnicities, sexual orientations and religious affiliations."

Carr also points out that regardless of these comments, many media elite continue to visit his show.
Rev. Jesse Jackson and the RainbowPUSH Coalition in Chicago today are protesting Imus's continued employment by MSNBC outside the offices of NBC.

Do you remember when Imus told Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., to "stop talking" last year after his "botched joke"?

LISTEN HERE.

Imus will appear today on the radio show of Rev. Al Sharpton, who has also called for Imus to be fired.
What do you think? Is an apology enough? Or enough is enough?

April 9, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (11) | TrackBack (0)

Grindhouse Podcast

April 06, 2007 6:58 PM

Our ABC News Shuffle podcast features actor Kurt Russell, star of Grindhouse, which opens this weekend.

Russell discussed what it's like working with Quentin Tarantino, and how he didn't get parts in real 70s grindhouse flicks.

Listen to it (HERE).

- jpt

April 6, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

But Who Is Mr. Belding?

April 06, 2007 4:53 PM

Our friends at RADAR illustrate the popularity of the presidential candidates on My Space using the characters from SAVED BY THE BELL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saved_by_the_Bell)….

Obama = Zach…

Clinton = Jessie...

Edwards = Lisa...

Romney = Screech.

READ ALL ABOUT IT HERE (LINK )

-- jpt

April 6, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Because I'm Bad

April 06, 2007 9:52 AM

On the Rush Limbaugh radio show YESTERDAY (link), Vice President Dick Cheney used the same adjective -- "bad" -- to describe Syria's Bashar Assad for supporting terrorism and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., for meeting with Assad.

"She, in this particular case, by going to Damascus at this stage it serves to reinforce, if you will, and reward Bashar Assad for his bad behavior," Cheney said. "This is a bad actor, and until he changes his behavior he should not be rewarded about visits by the speaker of the House of Representatives."

Moments later, Cheney -- chuckling -- said "I'm obviously disappointed. I think it is, in fact, bad behavior on her part. I wish she hadn't done it, but she is the speaker of the House, and fortunately I think the various parties involved recognize she doesn't speak for the United States in those circumstances. She doesn't represent the administration. The president is the one that conducts foreign policy, not the speaker of the House."

In other Cheney news, we hear from ABC News's Ann Compton that the grandchild Cheney is expecting through his daughter Mary Cheney and partner Heather Poe will be a boy.

Thoughts?

-- jt

April 6, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (21) | TrackBack (0)

What can $25 million buy you?

April 05, 2007 1:04 PM

For the World News Webcast WE TOOK A LOOK at what Mr. Obama's largesse can purchase. - jpt

April 5, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Bye, bye Miss American Pie

April 05, 2007 8:11 AM

My stellar producer Avery Miller and I are at the Mason City (Iowa) Municipal Airport. It's 5:05 am central time.

I'm told this is the airport where the plane crash took place that took the lives of Buddy Holly, the Big Bopper and Ritchie Valens. Their last show was at Surf Ballroom in nearby Clear Lake.

Their plans went down about six miles away, the woman at the Northwest Airlines counter tells me.

"Bad weather," she says.

The day the music died: February 3, 1959.

Last night, we reported that Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, raised more primary cash than did Democratic frontrunner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY.

MORE HERE

To a packed gymnasium at Northern Iowa Area Community College in Mason City last night, Obama acknowledged his fundraising successes.

"A lot of media's been focusing on the fact that we've raised a lot of money in this campaign," he said. "And they're stunned, they said, 'How did this guy named Obama who hasn't been in Washington that long, how'd he raise this money?'

"Then they noticed that we didn't take PAC money," he said to enthusiastic applause. "And we didn't take money from lobbyists...

"100,000 donors all across the country, 90% of them contributed $100 or less. And that captures the spirit of this campaign. I'm going to get tired in this campaign, I'm going to make mistakes. If any of you doubt that, talk with my wife. But what I'm absolutely confident in is when the American people make a decision that we're going to tranform the country, the country's transformed."

Wish us luck on the flight --

jpt

April 5, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)

25 MILLION DOLLARS???

April 04, 2007 5:06 PM

Wow, that is some BIG news, that Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, raised $25 million -- with $23.5 million of it designated for the primary. READ MORE ABOUT IT HERE…

So is the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, ever going to let us know how much of its $26 million is for the primary and how much is for the general? They were so eager to talk about their money on Sunday!

-- jt

April 4, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

GREETINGS FROM DES MOINES

April 04, 2007 9:49 AM

We're here for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's first sojourn as a presidential candidate to Iowa…IT WAS INTERESTING, AS YOU CAN READ HERE or WATCH HERE…

What say you?

-- jt

April 4, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

About that $26 million...

April 02, 2007 10:36 AM

Sen. Hillary Clinton has a lot to crow about today, what with her record-setting $26 million fundraising quarter.

Except....

For some reason...

We don't know how much of that money is for the primary and how much is for the general. And that's significant. Because she cannot touch the general election money unless she wins the nomination.

And, until we know what the breakdown is, we won't know who actually "won" the money primary this quarter. It seems entirely possible, as of this writing, that someone else could have raised more primary funds.

Clinton's $26 million comes from 50,000 donors, we are told. Former Sen. John Edwards raised $14 miilion from 40,000 donors. Sen. Barack Obama raised an undisclosed sum from 83,000 donors.

In short - Clinton seems to have more major donors than the others, more donors giving the maximum allowed by campaign law -- $2300 for the primary. But I'm guessing since she seems to have relied a great deal on these major donors that a lot of them maxed out, giving $4600 total - $2300 for the primary, $2300 for the general election (to be returned if she doesn't get the nomination.)

The significance is that this can be seen as cooking the books since Team Clinton refused to differentiate as to how much of this money is for the primary and how much is for the general. Unlike, say, Edwards, who provided that breakdown.

None of the experts on this issue whom I have talked to think it's credible that the Clinton campaign wouldn't have an idea of the breakdown as of now. None.

Which means they were likely trying to get a big splashy headline about the $26 million ($36 million when you add the cash transferred from her 2006 Senate campaign account) without those niggling details about what she can actually spend.

Mission accomplished.

But at a price, I think.

- jt

April 2, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)