Mar 22, 2008 at 9:48 PM by Political Chase
The Washington Post has a piece about George Bush strong-arming allies to gain their support for U.N. resolutions, which would sanction his coveted invasion of Iraq. The piece is based on a book written by Chile’s ambassador to the U.N. at the time of the prelude to war.
In the months leading up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration threatened trade reprisals against friendly countries who withheld their support, spied on its allies, and pressed for the recall of U.N. envoys that resisted U.S. pressure to endorse the war, according to an upcoming book by a top Chilean diplomat.
Does this really come as a surprise now, or would it have even been a surprise the day after Bush addressed Congress on September 20, 2001 and warned, "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
I will never forget hearing those words and thinking how that would resound resonate around the world. And I don’t mean positively either.
The Decider has proven time and time again he has no respect for the citizens of this country. Did anyone really believe he would treat foreign nations, except maybe his Saudi oil buddies, with greater respect than Americans.
Mar 22, 2008 at 7:29 PM by Political Chase
Hillary Clinton has made countless claims about her experiences in the White House and how they make her eminently qualified to be President — ready on Day 1, and at 3:00 AM. One of the more notable claims Clinton made was a life-risking mission she made to a Bosnia war zone in 1996. Although Clinton progressively asserted she had to dodge sniper fire and other perils in Bosnia, it turns out her claims are patently false.
Recently her bullet-dodging claim was rebuked by the comedian Sinbad, who, along with singer Sheryl Crow, accompanied Clinton on her death-defying trip. However, when Sinbad disputed Clinton’s claims, she summarily dismissed it with, “He’s a comedian, you know.”
That hand-waving dismissal has been Clinton’s signature response to virtually every foreign-policy experience claim she has made and was later proven to be a gross misstatement or lie. But it seems Hillary will have to find something more substantive than hand-waving to dismiss Sinbad’s counterclaim this time, because the Washington Post has caught and documented Clinton in a whopper of a lie.
In its fact-checking piece, appropriately headlined, “Sniper Fire, and Holes In Clinton’s Recollection,” the Post rips Clinton’s claims to pieces.
Hillary Clinton has been regaling supporters…with hair-raising tales of a trip she made to Bosnia…In her retelling, she was sent to places that her husband, President Bill Clinton, could not go because they were “too dangerous.” When her account was challenged by one of her traveling companions, the comedian Sinbad, she upped the ante and injected even more drama into the story. In a speech earlier this week, she talked about “landing under sniper fire” and running for safety with “our heads down.”
There are numerous problems with Clinton’s version of events.
In fact, according to the the Post, the airport Clinton claims was sniper-laden was “one of the safest places in Bosnia” and was “firmly under the control” of the 1st Armored Division. Continuing the Post’s report:
Had Hillary Clinton’s plane come “under sniper fire” in March 1996, we would certainly have heard about it long before now. Numerous reporters, including The Washington Post’s John Pomfret, covered her trip. A review of nearly 100 news accounts of her visit shows that not a single newspaper or television station reported any security threat to the first lady. “As a former AP wire-service hack, I can safely say that it would have been in my lead had anything like that happened,” Pomfret said.
Summarizing, the Post concludes:
Clinton’s tale of landing at the Tuzla airport “under sniper fire” and then running for cover is simply not credible. Photographs and video of the arrival ceremony, combined with contemporaneous news reports, tell a very different story. Four Pinocchios.
Four Pinocchios is the worst rating the Post’s fact-checker assigns, and characterizes it as “real whoppers.”
Mar 22, 2008 at 2:38 PM by Political Chase
A new poll by CBS shows Barack Obama’s speech on race this week was largely received well.
The poll shows 69% of voters "who have heard or read about Obama’s speech say he did a good job addressing the issue of race relations," and 71% percent "say he did a good job explaining his relationship with Wright."
In somewhat of a trade off, of those following the controversy, "only 14% said they were less likely to vote for Obama as a result — with an equal 14% saying they were more likely to vote for him, and 70% saying it would make no difference"
Where residual damage appears to linger is in whether voters believe Obama can unite the country, a principal tenet of his campaign. On this issue, he is at 52% Yes and 35% No, down from 67% to 25% last month. This obviously will take longer to regain given the intensity and overwhelming media coverage of the Wright issue.
