Big Dogs Weblog

Reid Makes Hillary a Hsu in to Cheat

Dec 19, 2007 Political

Hillary Clinton has had a bit of trouble with the honesty of her fund raising as indicated by a boy named Hsu as well as other events where she was illegally involved in the process (which was caught on video tape). The Federal Elections Commission has been pretty soft on her by fining one of her cronies for past indiscretions and a federal judge appointed by her husband might be looking the other way on the video tape deal but now it looks like it will not matter.

Harry Reid has decided to violate the Constitution and not allow a vote on four FEC appointments if they include a man named Hans von Spakovsky. Reid has stated that if von Spakovsky’s name is in the mix the Senate will not consider any of the nominees. The job of the President is to nominate people with the advice and consent of the Senate. It is not the Senate’s job to decide on who they will and will not vote on, it is its job to advise and consent. If they do not like the nominee then they are free to vote against the conformation.

This is an issue that will not likely be resolved in the near future and certainly not before the early primary caucuses and elections in January. This means that the candidates will have little or no oversight from the FEC. We have already seen what the Clintons do when there is oversight so it is not hard to imagine what they would be capable of if the oversight is lacking.

The Democrats in Congress have been an abysmal failure and there are only two reasons they just passed spending bills. They do not want to go home without passing the bills because they criticized the Republican majority for doing so last year and they just want to go home and enjoy their month long Christmas vacation. Harry Reid is an absolute failure and he could not lead a group of people out of a burning building.

Our Senators need to remember their place and do their damned jobs. The President runs the country. Senators serve their states so Harry Reid is not in a position to dictate the way the country runs and he is certainly not in a position to violate the Constitution because he does not like a person the President has nominated.

Source:
The Politico

Tags: Clinton, election oversight, fec, Reid

Don’t Let Facts Get in the Way Little Moonbat

Dec 18, 2007 Political

Meatbrain has not been to my site (well at least he has not commented here) in quite some time. For those of you unfamiliar with him, he is a left wing lunatic who finds fault with everything and his only method of debating is to demand proof of something and then call people a liar. I recently wrote a post about leaving Iran alone and Meathead took issue with it. He wrote a post at his site asking that I answer 3 questions. I am not going to answer them in his comments because no matter what I write he will call me a liar and then things go down hill from there. I will answer the 3 questions here so that they are put forth without all the drama associated with his site. He can either read it here or he can just sit in his mother’s basement eating Hot Pockets and drinking Mountain Dew. Those who do not know him (I do not link to his site) just think of the annoying gnat named Billy Joe and you will know Meathead. The only difference is that, at least, BJ made good arguments sometimes no matter how wrong he was. However, Meathead is just as annoying and degrading.

Q: Who in the intelligence community, specifically and by name, has indicated that Iran does not pose a threat?

A: I cannot answer the question as it is posed because it asks for the name of one person. The National Intelligence Estimate was prepared by a number of people and the press release on it was written by Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence Dr. Donald M. Kerr. The NIE is comprised of information provided by many intelligence analysts so naming one specific person is something I cannot do. The question also takes the original post out of context. I was writing about nuclear weapons and said “Basically, according to the intelligence community, Iran does not pose a threat.” The logical conclusion of the statement is …to make nuclear weapons (and I indicated they might later but not now). The report states that Iran has not been working on nuclear weapons since 2003 (emphasis should focus on the fact that they were prior to that despite their denials) and that they have not since then and there is no indication they will but if they do it will be well into the next decade (well into the next president’s watch).

UPDATE: I found this while searching for something else:

They are Tom Fingar, formerly of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research; Vann Van Diepen, the National Intelligence Officer for WMD; and Kenneth Brill, the former U.S. Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

I have already shown that the report indicates they are no threat “to build nuclear weapons.” That is what the subject is about.

Q: In what previous NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) report did “the intelligence community” state unequivocally that Iran was developing nuclear weapons?

A: I never stated that the intelligence community stated anything unequivocally. Check the post and see if the word is even in there. The exact quote is “Never mind the fact that this is the same intelligence community that said Iran was working on nukes…” From the November 2007 NIE; “We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.” This is also is pointed out in the key differences between the previous NIE and this one in the summation. United for Peace also questions the differences by stating; ” The assessment does not explain — unless it is addressed in more than 130 pages still marked classified — how the May 2005 conclusion that Iran was still pressing ahead with a nuclear weapons program went awry.” Therefore, the May 2005 NIE stated that Iran was working on developing nuclear weapons. Since the 2005 report has not been declassified I cannot cite it directly.

Q: How do you reconcile your claim that the intelligence community “missed 9/11 completely” with the fact that the August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing, which was titled “Bin Laden determined to strike in US”, specifically noted that Osama bin Laden intended to conduct terrorist attacks on U.S. cities, that members of his Al Qaeda operatives had traveled to or lived in the U.S. for years, that bin Laden had previously expressed a desire to hijack an American aircraft, and that “FBI information since that time indicate[d] patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York”?

A: First of all, the PDB which you cite does indeed have that title and the information contained after the title is old news that had been passed from the previous president. It was the ongoing stuff and if you look it clearly indicates that the information is from as far back as 1997 and it was prepared because Bush had been briefed about the desire of OBL to attack inside the US. Bush wanted to know if we had any new information. This was the historical portion. What the briefing did not say is that bin Ladin was an imminent threat. Specifically, the PDB stated “The only recent information concerning possible current activities in the PDB related to two incidents. There is no information that either incident was related to the 9-11 attacks.” The only recent information was about two possible activities. The PDB does not give any information that indicates an attack was imminent. The entire PDB has not been released but the fact sheet on it summarizes the information. The report does not address all the items you outline in the question and many of them are suppositions since the entire report has not been released (the 1998 PDB to Clinton did. More on that later).

Now for my assertion that the intelligence community missed 9/11 completely. It has already been established that the PDB had no information regarding imminent attacks on 9/11 or any other date. The information citing intelligence failures comes from the 9/11 Commission Report. This report is the Bible all libtards hold up when they claim the President was totally at fault despite the fact the report lays blame in a number of directions and reaches back prior to the Bush administration and to the Congress:

Commission Chairman Thomas H. Kean says the report cites government wide “failure of policy, management, capability and, above all, failure of imagination,” but not government neglect. Fault is spread broadly: The intelligence community is harshly chastised but so is Congress for poor oversight of intelligence collection. Chemical and Engineering News

I realize that it is inherent in the design of moonbats to hate President Bush and blame everything on him. Meathead would have you believe that the intelligence community reported the late breaking news that bin Ladin hated us and was planning something and we are supposed to believe that the inaction of the president was the problem. If we were to take that at face value then we would have to blame President Clinton first. This is from his PDB in 1998:

The following is the text of an item from the Presidential Daily Brief received by President William J. Clinton on December 4, 1998. Redacted material is indicated in brackets.
SUBJECT: Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks

1. Reporting [—] suggests Bin Ladin and his allies are preparing for attacks in the US, including an aircraft hijacking to obtain the release of Shaykh ‘Umar ‘Abd al-Rahman, Ramzi Yousef, and Muhammad Sadiq ‘Awda. One source quoted a senior member of the Gama’at al-Islamiyya (IG) saying that, as of late October, the IG had completed planning for RESPONSES TO AL QAEDA’S INITIAL ASSAULTS 129 an operation in the US on behalf of Bin Ladin, but that the operation was on hold. A senior Bin Ladin operative from Saudi Arabia was to visit IG counterparts in the US soon thereafter to discuss options—perhaps including an aircraft hijacking.

• IG leader Islambuli in late September was planning to hijack a US airliner during the “next couple of weeks” to free ‘Abd al- Rahman and the other prisoners, according to what may be a different source.
• The same source late last month said that Bin Ladin might implement plans to hijack US aircraft before the beginning of Ramadan on 20 December and that two members of the operational team had evaded security checks during a recent trial run at an unidentified New York airport. [—]

2. Some members of the Bin Ladin network have received hijack training, according to various sources,but no group directly tied to Bin Ladin’s al-Qa’ida organization has ever carried out an aircraft hijacking.Bin Ladin could be weighing other types of operations against US aircraft.According to [—] the IG in October obtained SA-7 missiles and intended to move them from Yemen into Saudi Arabia to shoot down an Egyptian plane or, if unsuccessful, a US military or civilian aircraft.

• A [—] in October told us that unspecified “extremist elements” in Yemen had acquired SA-7s. [—]

3. [—] indicate the Bin Ladin organization or its allies are moving closer to implementing anti-US attacks at unspecified locations, but we do not know whether they are related to attacks on aircraft. A Bin Ladin associate in Sudan late last month told a colleague in Kandahar that he had shipped a group of containers to Afghanistan. Bin Ladin associates also talked about the movement of containers to Afghanistan before the East Africa bombings.

• In other [—] Bin Ladin associates last month discussed picking up a package in Malaysia. One told his colleague in Malaysia that “they” were in the “ninth month [of pregnancy].”

• An alleged Bin Ladin supporter in Yemen late last month remarked to his mother that he planned to work in “commerce” from abroad and said his impending “marriage,” which would take place soon,would be a “surprise.”“Commerce” and “marriage” often are codewords for terrorist attacks. [—] [Pages 128 and 129 of the 911 Commission Report]

Notice how much this PDB from 1998 looks like the one Bush received in 2001? As I stated earlier, the Bush PDB was a rehash of old material. However, this begs the question, if moonbats hold Bush accountable for 9/11 based on the 2001 PDB why do they not hold Clinton accountable for not acting on the same (and in some cases more detailed) information? The Clinton 1998 PDB actually said that it was going to happen in a couple of weeks so it was certainly imminent at that time. I would not hold my breath waiting for Meathead or any other moonbat to lay the same blame on Clinton that they have been laying on Bush.

In any event, I answered the questions and they are well sourced. This will not stop Meathead from calling me a liar, demanding facts and generally smearing me in his comment section. This is all I am going to say with regard to addressing him though I welcome comments and will respond in kind. I answered the questions so that readers who followed his trackback (but don’t waste your time) would know that I did not ignore him and that I had the facts in the case, so to speak.

BTW: If you are unfortunate enough to end up at Meathead’s site, there is a commenter named Dan. He wrote an ignorant comment posing as me until Meathead changed it. Dan also accuses me of threatening to get my military buddies to track him down when I was on WAR. I never said that and he is lying about it. I never threatened this guy on the air and I do not recall saying I would get anyone to track him down. It would not be worth my time or anyone else’s. I will give credit to Meathead for writing that the comment did not come from me and asking Dan to comment under his own name.

Tags: 9/11 commission report, Bush, Clinton, Iran, nuclear weapons, pdb

What Experience Matters for Presidential Candidate?

Dec 15, 2007 Political

The Democrats have made about experience with regard to Hillary Clinton and her supposed 35 years of it and the supposed lack of said experience by B. Hussein Obama. I have written a number of times about the lack of experience Hillary Clinton has and I find it interesting that people, including her husband, say that she has a lot and Obama only has a year’s worth. Obama was in politics at the state level for many years and based just on political service (as an elected office holder, not a First Lady) Obama bests Clinton by at least a half a decade. But does the experience really matter?

When George Bush ran for reelection the Democrats were dead set on beating him and they ran John Kerry against him. George Bush certainly had more experience required for the job than Kerry because Bush had actually been President for four years. No matter how many years Kerry served in public office, the fact is that Bush had four years of actual experience doing the job. I don’t recall Clinton, Kerry or any other Democrat (except Zell Miller) saying that Bush should be reelected because he had more experience. The Democrats, including their sycophants in the media (Rather) did everything they could to unseat Bush even though he was the more experienced candidate. Is there any doubt Bill Clinton believed he was more experienced than Bob Dole because Clinton had already served four years?

I wonder who the Clintons voted for? I believe they wanted Bush to win (and there were rumors of them sabotaging Kerry) but not because they thought he was great but because Hillary would be able to run for the office sooner than if Kerry had won (assuming he had two terms). With Bush they knew he was limited to only four more. However, most Democrats in public office voted for Kerry and they did so only to get a member of their party back in control of the White House. They did not care about experience.

Yet here we are in 2007 and experience is supposed to be a big deal. How many people who run for the office for the first time actually have on the job experience? Sure, there are those better qualified by virtue of their resumes. If they were a governor or CEO of a company they would certainly have more experience than a person who has little or no time in charge of anything or who has a few years of service in the Senate. If the Clintons actually believe that experience is important than why are they not supporting Joe Biden. Biden has held an elected office since 1970 (several years in Delaware and the balance in the US Senate) so if experience is the be all, end all that the Clintons want us to believe, they should be supporting Biden and his 37 years of experience. That is two more than the hyper-inflated number Hillary uses.

The fact is, the experience is only one portion of the total equation. Hillary is smart and she has some experience but she lacks in other areas. She is divisive, she is manipulative, she has a problem with telling the truth, and she lacks actual leadership qualities and she lacks experience when compared to others who are running. How many times have we heard stories where people spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to feel her wrath? How many books portray Hillary as a Gestapo type leader who demands total loyalty and uses threats to enforce that loyalty? A true leader is able to influence people and gain their willing cooperation to accomplish those things that are necessary to be successful. Having people who cower and are afraid to make a mistake is not a sign of a good leader.

Of course, I have been using a recognized definition of experience. To Bill and Hillary, experience might mean being a Democrat and great experience means being a Democrat named Clinton.

Source:
Marc Ambinder

Tags: Clinton, Democrats, experience, Obama

Clinton Hypocrisy Part of the Fun

Dec 12, 2007 Political

When Bill Clinton was running for the presidency he made a now famous statement when he responded to questions about his drug use. He said that he smoked marijuana but that he did not inhale. This is a stupid answer and anyone with brains knew he was lying. Not that Bill has issues completing tasks (that is why the blue dress was stained) but this is just absolutely unreal and it insults the intelligence of the people to whom he directed it. He was elected to office as the Democrats were willing to overlook his drug use and believe his “did not inhale” line as well as his draft dodging. In any event, one would assume that the Clintons would be the last people to bring up the subject of drug use. That would be a wrong assumption.

Billy Shaheen, the co-chairman of Hillary Clinton’s campaign in New Hampshire, brought up the subject of B. Hussein Obama’s past drug use. Yes, Obama admitted (a long time ago) that he used marijuana and cocaine when he was a teen. I don’t condone drug use but I respect the fact that this guy was honest about it and that he told the truth. He did not say he didn’t inhale or that he used cocaine but did not snort it, he just said that he used it in the past. All candidates have issues from their past that show they are human beings. The ability to atone for those indiscretions and to grow from them is what makes a better person. A lot of people have used drugs in the past and they are functioning members of our society.

As an aside, the very same people who excused Clinton for his use and those who see it as no issue with Obama were critical of George Bush and stories of past cocaine use and his DUI. I guess it is expected that Democrats will be drug users because it fits their liberal views. Besides, one would have to get high to actually believe in liberalism.

Shaheen said that Obama’s background is unknown and that the Republicans would have a field day with him. He cited Obama’s admission of drug use as an example and said that the Republicans would attack him on it. His basic statement was that the admission leaves him open to other probing statements like did he sell it or when was the last time he used it. He said that voters should select a candidate who is tested, like Hillary.

I have discussed before about Hillary. She is not tested and has a very short political career, one which has been unremarkable. She has not authored any major legislation and she has played down the middle in order to prepare herself for the run for the Oval Office. Shaheen seems to think that honesty is not really the best policy and that would explain why he supports Clinton.

Neither of the Clintons has ever been honest about anything. Bill raped a number of women and he denied several of his affairs only to have them exposed by the media and while he testified under oath. Hillary lies about everything and it is said that it was she who told bill to say he did not inhale. Hillary and Bill are incapable of telling the truth. Bill has been rewriting the history of his presidency since he left office and how he felt or what he supported depends on the mood today, not what he actually did.

I think this idea of bringing up Obama’s drug use is going to backfire in a big way. How can anyone hear this and not think of Bill and his did not inhale? How can anyone think this will be an issue now for Obama when it was not for Clinton? At least Obama was up front about it which is more than anyone can say about Bill.

I do not agree with Obama’s politics and he would not be my choice for president but I can respect the fact that he told the truth about his past. Americans are pretty forgiving of past indiscretions and can look past these kinds of things, especially if the candidates are honest about them. That is where the problem lies for Hillary, she does not know how to be honest.

I do however, find it interesting that people can run for the presidency with a history of drug use but that some jobs in the federal government (and some law enforcement agencies) will not allow anyone with such a past to be hired. I think we need to look at the people now and use their past as a point of reference.

I only wish the people on the left who excuse this kind of behavior for Democrats would be consistent and excuse past indiscretions of Republicans.

That would be asking too much.

Big Dog’s prediction; This will come back to bite Hillary in her rear.

Remember, Hillary was going to focus on the issues and Bill Richardson defended her in a debate asking for the attacks to stop. Hillary then decided to go dirty (at least to publicly go dirty, she has been dirty all along). She said the fun was going to begin. I wonder how fun it is to see her numbers plummeting and to have a loser issue like this as a main line of attack. What next, Obama said the word drug in kindergarten?

Source:
Washington Post

Others with similar posts:
Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary’s Thoughts, guerrilla radio, Adam’s Blog, The Pink Flamingo, Celebrity Smack, The Amboy Times, The Bullwinkle Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Chuck Adkins, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Adeline and Hazel, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Tags: Clinton, didn't inhale, dirty campaign, drug use, hypocrisy, Obama

Full Clinton Press in Iowa

Dec 9, 2007 Political

Hillary Clinton might have stated that she does not need celebrity endorsement to win but it has not stopped her from picking it up and at the most opportune times. It is as if the endorsements are timed to counter something big about her opponents. B. Hussein Obama has picked up the endorsement of Oprah Winfrey and that is a big endorsement. Winfrey is a very popular woman whose opinions carry a lot of weight. Winfrey is making three appearances this weekend in support of Obama and this has the Clinton camp in a tizzy.

Hillary has pulled out the stops and has hubby Bill running around spreading lies all over. He is criticizing the media for its portrayal of his wife and he is rewriting history with regard to his support for the war. He has start power and he is trying to use it to beat back the Obama/Oprah assault. Now Hillary has brought in her daughter Chelsea who has not yet campaigned for mom. I saw the picture of Chelsea and I have to say she is a lot cuter than she was as a teen but no matter how she has changed she has no where near the start power of Winfrey. There is no way that her presence is going to cause a hiccup in the Obama/Oprah express. It is kind of unfair to bring Chelsea in at this time when there is not a damned thing she can do.

I wonder why Babs Streisand did not show up. That would have been a more logical choice than Chelsea though Oprah has much more star power than a yenta whose time has come and gone. Maybe Babs did not want to be in an uncomfortable position among the Clinton crime family seeing as how she slept with Bill (which Hillary is quite aware of).

If people are not going to show up in support because they had sex with Bill then it is going to be a lonely campaign trail.

Source:
New York Times

As an aside, take a look at the amount of food on Hillary’s plate. No wonder her hips are getting farther away from center. If she keeps eating like that she will be able to cover Iowa and never have to move.

Tags: chelsea, Clinton, Hillary, iowa, Obama, oprah