Oy! Hillary Caught Lying Again!

With so many actual horror stories from the world of American health care, why on Earth would a Presidential candidate talk about something fictitious? Leave it to Senator Clinton to repeat a story that isn't true and to say it enough times that the hospital in question has to make the issue public. I just do not understand why everything has to be embellished? Is she trying to make her campaign fall harder and faster than Bill could back in January?

From The NY Times:

Over the last five weeks, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has featured in her campaign stump speeches the story of a health care horror: an uninsured pregnant woman who lost her baby and died herself after being denied care by an Ohio hospital because she could not come up with a $100 fee.

The woman, Trina Bachtel, did die last August, two weeks after her baby boy was stillborn at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio. But hospital administrators said Friday that Ms. Bachtel was under the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with the hospital, that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured.

"We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story," said Rick Castrop, chief executive officer of the O’Bleness Health System.

The Clinton campaign thus far has made a pitiful excuse to defend their defamation of O'Bleness Memorial Hospital. Not having a chance to vet a story does not fly on the Presidential campaign circuit. That is a rookie mistake and at this level rookie mistakes can be major blunders.

Bill Maher Goes Into Overtime

As it does every Friday night that he's on, the show does an audience Q & A, pre-selected Q's of course but that doesn't mean the answers are dull from those on the panel.

Add Boehner To The List Of Crazy Republican Dreamers

This wouldn't be a dream like Martin Luther King's. Boehner's dream consists of gaining back power in this year's electoral contests for the Republican party. Like the GOP crazies who thought they'd win the midterm elections two years ago, Boehner sees success in November in spite of the money woes. Of course like any Republican in politics, he fails to grasp the big picture.

From FireDogLake:

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) predicted Thursday that Republicans will pick up seats in the 2008 election despite a slew of GOP retirements and the Democrats' significant fundraising advantage. "We don't need as much money as [Democrats] have," he said. "We need enough to tell our story." He added, "I think we are going to gain seats this year. Period."

Confident Delusional Hilarious words for a man who just a few weeks ago was pleading with his fellow Goopers to get off their "dead asses" and raise money because the GOP's fundraising "sucks."

Money, schmoney. Boehner's right. There is that wonderful Republican story to be told of the housing crisis, the recession, two lost wars and generally what awesome shape the country's in. Because when voters hear that story, they'll swoon.

It's just fabulous.

Yes, I can't wait for Boehner to tell that story, gather around the children and let the lies flow like water out of the Hoover Dam. I hope they spend whatever money is left letting Americans know all about those wonderful things.

Boston Globe Kisses McCain's Ass

McCain certainly does a good job of courting the media. He lets them ask all the questions they want, invites them to barbecues and as Chris Matthews exclaims, they're practically his base. So that is why the latest piece from the Boston Globe shows how a story can be construed into favoring McCain when all the facts point the other way. Printing spin as is without framing it isn't journalism, it is just pathetic. The story below is about campaign financing and McCain's decision to return checks.

Let's take a look:

In another sign that John McCain is moving toward accepting public financing this fall, the Republican's campaign is returning about $3 million in checks to contributors who have given money for his general election campaign, funds he could not use if he opts into the public system.

McCain's campaign, in letters to contributors, is asking supporters to write new checks to a special fund created to help the Arizona senator pay legal and accounting expenses related to compliance with the public funding system.

Can you see the two problems in these paragraphs? First of all, he already opted into the public system. That directly contradicts their statement that implies he hasn't made a decision already. And no, you can not simply opt in and out as you please, it doesn't work that way. Perhaps if these journalists would have spent less time on the StraightTalk Express bus, they could have researched that little fact.

In the second paragraph, that special fund to pay legal and accounting expenses in order to comply with the system is a clever way of getting around the fact that the FEC is looking into McCain's campaign violating the rules he vowed to oblige when he opted into the system months ago. Recently the DNC filed a complaint against McCain, but this article conveniently forgets to mention it.

Then there is this:

The move is largely procedural, and McCain's campaign said yesterday that it has not yet decided whether to accept public funding or to raise money on its own for the November presidential election. But the decision to return checks - which was made as the Democratic candidates announced raising $60 million combined in March, nearly as much as McCain had raised for the entire campaign through February - indicates that McCain is laying the groundwork for doing so.

"Senator McCain has made it clear that he expects to participate in the general election public financing system, and he hopes the Democratic nominee will do so as well," Brian Rogers, McCain spokesman, said in a statement. "The campaign reserves the right to change course, but these developments reflect our current plans."

Moving that money around is not simply procedural, how does one swallow crap like that so readily. Without even a trace of journalistic ability, the article allows McCain's spokesman to get away with calling on the Democratic nominee to opt in (only because the Democratic side is humiliating McCain when it comes to fundraising numbers) yet it says in bold black ink that they haven't made a decision to opt in or not, despite having opted in already!! And again, there is no changing course unless the FEC allows you and they haven't granted McCain an out so far.

The article also mentions that candidates who opt in have to abide by spending limits. If they would have noted that McCain is already in the system, they might have been able to show the data that proves he has already gone over the limit for the primary season (that leads up to the convention). Of course, that is conveniently missing as well.

Score on this one, McCain 1, reality 0.

Blackwater Saga Will Continue: Pentagon Looks The Other Way For Mercenary Group

For reasons beyond the realm of common sense, the Pentagon has decided to renew the contract for Blackwater to maintain their operations (and cash flow) in Iraq. Despite numerous abuses and allegations, this private contractor mercenary group will continue to leech off of American taxpayers and take jobs that should be reserved for our soldiers. Instead, some Blackwater agents use their 'contractor' status to override our own military forces in humiliating fashion, though still not as bad as how they try to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis. All in all, this is just a bad deal.

From The Huffington Post:

Blackwater provides security for diplomats in Baghdad, where the sprawling U.S. Embassy is headquartered. Its private guards act as bodyguards and armed drivers, escorting government officials when they go outside the fortified Green Zone.

Iraqis were outraged over a Sept. 16 shooting in which 17 Iraq civilians were killed in a Baghdad square. Blackwater said its guards were protecting diplomats under attack before they opened fire, but Iraqi investigators concluded the shooting was unprovoked.

An FBI probe began in November. Prosecutors want to know whether Blackwater contractors used excessive force or violated any laws.

The State Department's top security officer, Greg Starr, told reporters Friday that because the FBI is still investigating the shootings, there is no justification now to pull the contract when it comes due in May.

Blackwater has a five-year deal to provide personal protection for diplomats, and its contract is reauthorized each year. The decision announced Friday extends Blackwater's deal for the third year.

Here's an idea, why not pull these operations in-house. Why do we need to pay private companies to protect diplomats? If we as a nation are held accountable in the court of world opinion, then we should be fully responsible for protecting people who are on diplomatic missions in the hell that is Iraq. I know this wouldn't make some people who are close to the Pentagon (like Erik Prince) as wealthy as he is today, but too f**king bad, our military should not be about enriching a few war profiteers.

Reid To Petraeus: Whats Your Plan?

Once again, General Petraeus is going to Congress to stump for more money for this horrendous war. Reid is going to ask tough questions, but we need to hold him accountable to take tough actions. That is one of many things Reid talks about to PoliticsTV in this segment:

Feith Proves Bush Administration's Ridiculous Rationale For War

While 60 Minutes interviews many interesting public officials, one that the viewers must watch with a guarded eye is Douglas Feith and his upcoming performance on the show this weekend. Feith was mostly a shadowy figure within the Administration before he tried to cash in with a book deal. Now he's making his way to the CBS weekend icon to continue to press a case that shows a rationale for going to war to prevent war.

From RawStory:

CBS's Steve Kroft asked Feith, "Why was the decision made to go after him after 9/11? Because we knew even then, he didn't have anything to do with it."

"What we did after 9/11 was to look broadly at the international terrorism network from which the next attack on the United States might come," Feith replied, "and we did not focus narrowly only on the people who were specifically responsible for 9/11. Our main goal was preventing the next attack."

While at the Pentagon, Feith led the Office of Special Plans, which has been accused of "stovepiping" intelligence during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq and passing along questionable information that could help make a case for war. A 2004 report (pdf) initiated by Sen. Carl Levin found that "in the case of Iraq’s relationship with al Qaeda, intelligence was exaggerated to support Administration policy aims primarily by the Feith policy office, which was determined to find a strong connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, rather than by the [Intelligence Community], which was consistently dubious of such a connection."

That may confuse some, but it also angers many with the brashness that is the hallmark of the Bush Administration. What Feith is doing is regurgitating the same old tired talking points that those within the White House have tried use to pull the wool over Americans' eyes. Well Mr. Feith, Americans are waking up to your BS and clearly, we are seeing you for who you really are, a stovepiping liar.

Disgracing The Memory Of Dr. King Like Only McCain Can

For some strange reason, Presidential candidate John McCain decided to show up in Memphis today to honor the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Why is that odd? Well, for starters, John McCain rejects much of what King stood up for. He was against war, McCain is obviously for it. King wanted so many different things for our society that was meant to help us achieve equality and justice for all, yet McCain is running for George Bush's third term, and that goes together like oil and water. On top of the principles and issues, McCain initially voted against making King's birthday a national holiday...and sought to defund the commission that promoted the holiday as late as the 1994. So what type of response did McCain get in Memphis from those in the crowd?

From The Huffington Post:

Senator John McCain, "who says he will court the African-American vote this year and campaign in places Republicans often shun," spoke in Memphis on Friday to mark the 40th anniversary of the assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

But his speech was met with boos and interruptions from many in the audience, as he apologized for repeatedly opposing the creation of a holiday to celebrate King's legacy.

McCain voted against the creation of a holiday honoring King in 1983, a vote which was supported by a large number of Republicans. McCain claimed this week that he was largely unaware on the importance of King's work at the time, due to his Vietnam-era service overseas. Speaking on Thursday to reporters, he explained that his conversion occurred around 1990:

"I voted in my...first year in Congress against it and then I began to learn and I studied and people talked to me. And I not only supported it but I fought very hard in my home state of Arizona for recognition against a governor who was of my own party."

But McCain's voting record since 1990 doesn't support this explanation. In addition to voting to oppose a state holiday in 1987 (which he later supported) and a federal holiday in 1989, McCain voted in 1994 to cut funding for the commission that promoted King's holiday.

This is a hard one for the McCain camp to spin and the comment about reaching out to African-American voters is nothing more than a pleasantry. Beyond the facts of the case, there is something to be said about a picture being worth a thousand words, but a video of McCain being booed (not to mention the man that is keeping him dry) speaks volumes.

Where Did All The Salmon Go?

Could salmon fishing possibly be banned on the Pacific Coast? It looks like it might have to be.

Council Speaker's Phantom Groups Go Beyond Quinn's Office

It is now a little more than a day since the story broke about the phantom groups in the City Council Speaker's budget that went to "other" causes (such as those people that do what the Speaker's office wants them to). Quinn claims to have only found out recently and that the people in her office who utilized the slush fund were fired months ago. Somehow though there is no paper trail of her documenting them being fired for these acts, so we have no idea why they left. Nevertheless, some blame lies on Speaker/Mayoral candidate Christine Quinn for not inspecting her budget more thoroughly. Then again, there is blame to spread on to another candidate for Mayor, Comptroller William Thompson.

From The NY Sun:

Mr. Thompson, who is running for mayor, said in a statement that the allegations against budget practices of the council raise serious concerns.

"If there were any attempts to subvert the New York City Charter or to hide money in non-existent organizations, these actions would represent a breach of the public trust," he said. His spokesman could not be reached for comment about the damage the disclosure may have on Mr. Thompson's political future.

A former parks commissioner who is the director of New York Civic, Henry Stern, said the budget accounting practice implicates officials outside the council as well as in, and is "totally wrong." "He's in his seventh year as comptroller. She's only in her third year as speaker," he said, referring to Mr. Thompson and Ms. Quinn. "All these books are in print, how come the comptroller didn't know anything about it? It's their job to audit all these city agencies. I think although it's primarily the speaker's fault, we should look closely at what the comptroller knew and when he knew it."

Stern makes a very good point. Why didn't Thompson catch this? For that matter, what about the Comptrollers before him and the same goes for all of the Speakers from Peter Vallone to Christine Quinn. This lack of accountability goes across the city's political spectrum and this is just one instance of corruption. Now two candidates for Mayor are being fingered in this story, and their credibility, even this far out is going to be tarnished. Criminal charges should be coming soon, but we'll see if the law or the public will have the greatest effect on their political and legal futures.

Has Torture Becoming Boring To The Media?

A huge bombshell landed in our laps this week and no one really noticed. That explosive contained the rationale for George Bush and his henchmen to torture anyone they want. Anyone. John Yoo at the Department of Justice had an 81 page memo crafted and is now declassified. Why would the Administration want to open up this part of their book for people to see how they've been on a crusade for an Executive branch that makes Congress look like a whimpering puppy? Perhaps it was because they knew the media would be unable to digest it in their endless 24 hour cycle of ratings-grabbing insanity.

From The Huffington Post:

On cable news, mentions of the memo's declassifications were few, brief, and undetailed. CNN's Headline News noted that the story was "one of the most popular stories at cnn.com," but apparently, that's not enough to warrant a lengthier report. MSNBC featured a brief mention on Morning Joe, and a near-noontime mention that was three sentences long and followed by a lengthy report on the hospitalization of an American Idol performer.

Only Fox News took the matter to the level of discussion, but even then, the report was largely short-sighted and full of equivocations and unsubstantiated claims. The major takeaway was that the memo noted that "constitutional protections do not apply to foreign prisoners being held outside the United States" and that interrogation "becomes torture when severe pain and suffering cause permanent or irreversible damage...death, organ failure, or the permanent impairment of a significant bodily function." (As you'll see below, the full ramifications of the memo were far more vast.)

Later in the day, Fox added, "Numerous presidents have ordered the capture and questioning of enemy combatants during virtually every major conflict in the nation's history. Recognizing this authority, congress has never attempted to restrain or interfere with the president's authority on this score." This sort of implies that if an action was taken in the past, it imbues a "rightness."

Along the way, Fox salted the coverage with equivocations. "A number of major Republicans and Democrats said this is a terrible mistake." None were named, and the wisdom of their position was unexplored. "Some constitutional scholars say the 81-page legal opinion must be placed in historical context...[it should be viewed as] a period piece." That's a classic "some say" assertion that again suggests that "history" trumps a moral foundation or factual evidence that indicates torture is ineffective. Finally, Fox lets Kit Bond have the last word, and it's a stupefyingly inane one: "Some are more interested in recycling old news and scoring political points with the ACLU."

It is amusing, if not sad, that Fox News went the farthest with this. Perhaps they knew that no one else would pay too much attention to it. That would give them ample opportunity to spin this the way the Administration would want. That Bush is right to torture people if it serves a "higher purpose," even if we do not know what that purpose is, despite all the facts to the contrary that torturing prisoners does interrogators absolutely no good at all.

What the media did with this story, both actively and passively, shows that they are not doing their jobs at protecting the freedoms of the American people. The fourth estate was meant to be a stop gap when the three branches of our government were not working to the best of their ability. Unfortunately now, that fourth estate is either in bed with the Executive branch, or in the other room playing video games while King Bush gets to do as he pleases.

The NAFTA Gig Is Up Hillary

Senator Clintin, what exactly were you claiming about your opponent concernin NAFTA? Something about an aide doing a wink and a nod? Last time I heard, wink and nodder Mark Penn still worked for you.