September 19, 2007
Hotline After Dark -- Taser Talk
More of your non-O.J. news, but plenty of taser talk:
Hillary Clinton was on "All Things Considered" to talk about her health care plan but she was also asked about taking money from Norman Hsu:
HRC: "Well, I think it was a rude awakening to all of us. I mean, not only in my campaign, but the dozens of campaigns going back to, I guess, 2003 and [2004], who took contributions. None of us caught this and we all ran searches. Every one of us does a vetting process and my campaign certainly did it. And this did not turn up. And as soon as we found out, we took action. And that's one of the reasons why I think we should be moving toward public financing. And when I'm president, I'm going to see if there is a way to do just that."
Asked if that doesn't raise questions about the dangers of bundling: "Well, that's why we returned all of the contributions. Obviously, we didn't want any questions asked about any of them and took that rather drastic action, but I thought it was exactly the right thing to do."
On Gen. Petraeus: "If you look at everything that I said, I not only praised his service, I have the deepest admiration for him and I think he's been dealt a very hard hand. He's been made, along with Ambassador Crocker, the de facto spokesman for President Bush's policy. And it isn't any surprise to anyone that I disagree with that policy. I think we are on the wrong track in Iraq. I regret that the president apparently is going to continue this war until the last day he's in office, leaving it to his successor. But I believe that Gen. Petraeus, and the brave young men and women who are serving under him, are doing everything they possibly can to fulfill their mission" (NPR, 9/18).
SUNNY DAYS, WISHING THE CLOUDS AWAY
FNC's Cameron reports on the rivalry between Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson for FL:
Cameron: "The Sunshine State is key to Rudy Giuliani's strategy, as the biggest and most moderate among the early voting states. He has raised more money in Florida than any candidate in either party. Thompson has drawn his largest and most enthusiastic crowds yet in Florida. And after two weeks on the trail, he sounds almost cocky."
More Cameron: "But [Thompson] has stumbled on a handful of issues near and dear to Florida Republicans. Last week Thompson said he couldn't remember details of the controversial Terry Schiavo cases, which pitted culture of life conservatives against right to die civil libertarians. And though most Floridians deeply oppose drilling for oil off Florida's delicate coast, he refuses to rule it out. ... Asked about potential energy exploration in the Everglades, Governor Crist had to bail Thompson out when he acknowledged he was unaware of the issue."
Cameron: "Two polls have come out since Thompson entered the race, indicating how close it is in Florida. Thompson leads in one, Giuliani in the other."
Thompson, in an interview: "I have to do things at my own pace and get my legs under me and get the organization together before we did it. So now we have done it. The response has been exactly what I thought it would be."
Cameron: "Make no mistake, the Florida battle will be brutal. But for now, no shots at Giuliani."
Thompson: "I'm not going to downgrade anybody else. He's obviously got some things going for him. So do I."
Cameron: "Some of Thompson's popularity in Florida is because he is a fellow southerner. In Rudy Giuliani's case, it is because so many North easterners move here and vote. Both treat the Florida primary as the decisive contest. And both candidates know that to beat the other here could effectively put him away permanently" ("Special Report," 9/18).
MAN WITH A MISSION
CBS' Greenfield profiled Joe Biden for the "Evening News":
Greenfield: "When Joe Biden was elected to the United States Senate in 1972, Hillary Clinton was in law school; John Edwards was in college, Barack Obama was 11-years-old. ... Biden travels light, speaking to dozens, not thousands."
Biden, in an interview: "I'm saying if you look us all over, it's obvious who is going be most capable of re-establishing America's place in the world and making us a lot safer."
Greenfield: "This is the core of Biden's argument. ... He delivers this argument in stark, grim terms where ever he goes" (9/18).
TASER ME, TASER YOU
There was lots of talk on Andrew Meyer, the student tasered during John Kerry's speech at the Univ. of FL:
MSNBC's Matthews: "So is this the democracy we're out there killing people for? Is this the way we're teaching the Sunnis and Shias to run their show?" ("Hardball," 9/18).
New Yorker's Conason: "It looked like they were torturing that kid" ("Hardball," MSNBC, 9/18).
Dennis Miller: "The thing I don't understand about where was John Kerry? He had the chance for a Sister Voltage moment here, where he jumps off the stage, acts like the hero that he always tells us he is. But he was mute on it. I guess he was waiting for U.N. approval to save the poor kid" ("O'Reilly Factor," FNC, 9/18).
MSNBC's Shuster: "In a sign of how much this is all reverberating, today, 'Don't tase me bro,' was established as a page on Facebook" ("Hardball," 9/18).
FNC's O'Reilly: "I just wish my grandfather were alive. He would have handled the guy by himself. He was a cop in Brooklyn and he knew how to do this stuff. And tasers weren't invented then. ... Grandfather O'Reilly would have taken care of the guy, but not Bill" ("O'Reilly Factor," 9/18).
Dick Morris: "It's the face of fascism. ... Have you ever screamed in pain? I did once, at a hospital" ("Hannity & Colmes," FNC, 9/18).
James Carville: "I'm torn, because anything that embarrasses Florida has to be good for an LSU fan" ("Situation Room," CNN, 9/18). [EMILY GOODIN]
Posted at 08:59 AM
Comments
After all of the B.S. is said and done with in this election, a few insightful folks may soon recognize the Iraq War as the most overwhelmingly serious thing threatening the future of the USA. I hope your readers have read New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson's op/ed piece from the Washington Post on how and why we must get out of Iraq, from about 11 days ago.If not, here it is, in full, after a few introductory remarks by me:
There is a much larger scale confrontation with Bush from the candidates regarding the Iraq War and the problems it is continuing to cause, after six years of Halliburton and Brown and Root and Blackwater corporate kleptocracy. Only one candidate, it is abundantly clear to me, is really slamming the truth and providing the logistics and rationale for ending this disastrous war: Bill Richardson. This article was printed in the Washington Post about 10 days ago, and please take the time to read it:
_______________________
Why We Should Exit Iraq Now
By Bill Richardson
Saturday, September 8, 2007; A15
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have suggested that there is little difference among us on Iraq. This is not true: I am the only leading Democratic candidate committed to getting all our troops out and doing so quickly.
In the most recent debate, I asked the other candidates how many troops they would leave in Iraq and for what purposes. I got no answers. The American people need answers. If we elect a president who thinks that troops should stay in Iraq for years, they will stay for years — a tragic mistake.
Clinton, Obama and Edwards reflect the inside-the-Beltway thinking that a complete withdrawal of all American forces somehow would be “irresponsible.” On the contrary, the facts suggest that a rapid, complete withdrawal — not a drawn-out, Vietnam-like process —would be the most responsible and effective course of action.
Those who think we need to keep troops in Iraq misunderstand the MiddleEast. I have met and negotiated successfully with many regional leaders,including Saddam Hussein. I am convinced that only a complete withdrawal can sufficiently shift the politics of Iraq and its neighbors to break the deadlock that has been killing so many people for so long.
Our troops have done everything they were asked to do with courage & professionalism, but they cannot win someone else’s civil war. So long as American troops are in Iraq, reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. Leaving forces there enables the Iraqis to delay taking the steps to end the violence. And it prevents us from using diplomacy to bring in other nations to help stabilize and rebuild the country.
The presence of American forces in Iraq weakens us in the war against al- Qaeda. It endows the anti-American propaganda of those who portray us as occupiers plundering Iraq’s oil and repressing Muslims. The day we leave, this myth collapses, and the Iraqis will drive foreign jihadists out of their country. Our departure would also enable us to focus on defeating the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11, those headquartered along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border — not in Iraq.
Logistically, it would be possible to withdraw in six to eight months. We moved as many as 240,000 troops into and out of Iraq through Kuwait in as little as a three-month period during major troop rotations. After the Persian Gulf War, we redeployed nearly a half-million troops in a few months. We could redeploy even faster if we negotiated with the Turks to open a route out through Turkey.
As our withdrawal begins, we will gain diplomatic leverage. Iraqis will start seeing us as brokers, not occupiers. Iraq’s neighbors will face the reality that if they don’t help with stabilization, they will face the consequences of Iraq’s collapse — including even greater refugee flows over their borders and possible war.
The United States can facilitate Iraqi reconciliation and regional cooperation by holding a conference similar to that which brought peace to Bosnia. We will need regional security negotiations among all of Iraq’s neighbors and discussions of donations from wealthy nations — including oil- rich Muslim countries — to help rebuild Iraq. None of this can happen until we remove the biggest obstacle to
diplomacy: the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq.
My plan is realistic because:
It is less risky. Leaving forces behind leaves them vulnerable. Would we need another surge to protect them?
It gets our troops out of the quagmire and strengthens us for our real challenges. It is foolish to think that 20,000 to 75,000 troops could bring peace to Iraq when 160,000 have not. We need to get our troops out of the crossfire in Iraq so that we can defeat the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11.
By hastening the peace process, the likelihood of prolonged bloodshed is reduced. President Richard Nixon withdrew U.S. forces slowly from Vietnam — with disastrous consequences. Over the seven years it took to get our troops out, 21,000 more Americans and perhaps a million Vietnamese, most of them civilians, died. All this death and destruction accomplished nothing — the communists took over as soon as we left.
My position has been clear since I entered this race: Remove all the troops and launch energetic diplomatic efforts in Iraq and internationally to bring stability. If Congress fails to end this war, I will remove all troops without delay, and without hesitation, beginning on my first day in office.
Let’s stop pretending that all Democratic plans are similar. The American people deserve precise answers from anyone who would be commander in chief. How many troops would you leave in Iraq? For how long? To do what, exactly? And the media should be asking these questions of the candidates, rather than allowing them to continue saying, “We are against the war . . . but please don’t read the small print.”
The writer is governor of New Mexico and a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Stephen Fox | 09.19.07 11:29 AM
 |
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
