politicalpartypoop.com

UPDATE: MALKIN HAS MORE LINKS BELOW

The retired general who asked about gays and lesbians serving in the military at the CNN/YouTube Republican debate on Wednesday is a co-chairman of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s National Military Veterans group.Retired Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr was named a co-chair of the group this month, according to a campaign press release.

He was also active in John F. Kerry’s 2004 campaign for president.

Kerr asked candidates “why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.”

Ok first I did not watch the debate; I have said often that I NEVER watch debates because they are pointless.
You can put me on stage and I can play the role of any presidential candidate and answer a question exactly as they would, well maybe not Hillary because she is such a fucken liar politician she always talks out of her ass.

Now as for this “Clinton Plant” I am finally beginning to see the “inevitability” wall starting to crumble with Mrs. Bill and I don’t blame her so much as I do the people who supposedly support her. She is the ultimate control freak but she can’t keep a tight reign on her idiot supporters who do this stupid shit.
The people in her campaign apparently are not as smart as we all once believed. Her campaign is a public relations disaster and if I were running her campaign I would put my foot up some folks asses.

This question was so unnecessary, the military policy on gays like it or not is working.
I’m trying to understand just what point he was trying to make. Now in the next debate Hillary must now address another issue that was not on her radar and do PR damage control because the focus will again be on the “plant” and not the substance of the question.

What is fascinating to me was a few people trolling the net was able to uncover all these plants within an hour or two, but the Clinton News Network with its world wide resources, liberal fact geeks, editors, reporters either didn’t find that out or didn’t think it was relevant. I mean does CNN think that the average citizen is a retarded dolt? They must think that way.

Now that CNN’s credibility has been pissed on again and we now have this new slate of Democratic flunkies and activists asking questions of Republicans, the new Democrat tactic now seems to be “who gives a shit, they were valid questions, so it really doesn’t matter who asked them.” This is what one dude said on a talk show this morning as I was driving to work. Then what is this “undecided voter” bullshit, why hide your identity?

Let’s use some fucken common sense here if we are not suppose to give a shit about who asked the questions then why didn’t the homo general ask about the economy, lead in toys, or global warming, or the mom with her kids ask about gays in the military?
Because it was convenient for the Democrats to have this decorated fraud ask the question, who is saying something is just as important, if not more important than what is actually being said.

Notice all of the deception deceit, fraud, flip flopping on the Democrat side, reason number 4,210,763 I thank God I’m not a Democrat.

Update: New - Muslim questioner was a former CAIR intern.

Update: CNN on the defensive. CNN’s Glenn Beck comments here.

Update: The foliage keeps blooming…a questioner working with Dick Durbin’s staff and a Richardson supporter masquerading as a Paulbot… and a former Jane Harman intern…and the “Blind Black Republican satirist” (a milder species, but still, all in the same family).

*
From Hot Air: Video: The disappearing Hillary plant; Update: Does it matter who the questions come from?
*
From Sweetness & Light: The Clinton News Network Does It Again

From the John Edwards camp, I’m sure the Republican version will follow soon, LOL!

From Amy Proctor

In Thomas DeFrank’s book “Write It When I’m Gone” based on 16 years of conversations with former Pres. Gerald Ford which he promised not to publish until after the ex-president’s death, Ford called Bill Clinton a sex addict in denial. He also said Clinton refused to come clean about lying under oath to a Federal Grand jury about the Monica Lewinsky affair.More here

From The American Spectator - Link

NEW HAMPTON, Iowa — Hillary Clinton is working hard to counter her image as an arrogant Ice Queen.

At campaign stops, she laughs at her own jokes and regales the audience with tales of herself as a little girl who stared into the sky with binoculars hoping to catch a glimpse of Sputnik as it passed by.”Give me a fair reading as to who I am, not who somebody says I am,” Clinton pleaded with a room full of Iowa voters as she wrapped up her remarks at a campaign stop here on Sunday.

But just moments later, in a rare stumble for her highly-choreographed campaign, Clinton demonstrated that people’s long-standing impressions of her are right on target.

During the question and answer period, Randall Rolph, a retired Democratic voter from Nashua, Iowa, confronted Clinton on her recent vote in favor of a U.S. Senate resolution calling on the Bush administration to declare Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. The measure has been greeted with suspicion by war critics who view it as a document that President Bush could use as a pretext to launch an attack on Iran.

“Why should I support your candidacy if you haven’t learned from the past?” Rolph asked, referring to her 2002 vote to authorize the use of military force in Iraq.

Clinton first thanked him and then countered that, “the premise of the question is wrong.” So far, so good. But after offering a description of what was in the resolution, Clinton smugly and dismissively accused him of having been fed the information, saying “obviously somebody sent [it] to you.”

Rolph didn’t let it pass. “I take exception, this is my own research…”

“Well, then let me finish telling you…” Clinton screamed.

“Nobody sent that, and I am offended that you would suggest it,” Rolph snapped at her.

Realizing she had committed a blunder, she backed off. “Then I apologize,” she said. “I apologize, it’s just that I’ve been asked the very same question at three other places.”

Later, she patronizingly told him “I respect your research,” but instructed him that there were two versions of the bill, and she opposed an earlier draft that had harsher language.

“We just have a disagreement,” she concluded. “I know what I voted for, and I know what we intended to do with it.”

The crowed filled with supporters may have applauded, but Rolph was turned off.

He said he came into the event uncommitted, but ruled out voting for Clinton after she insinuated that he was a patsy even though he had spent the morning on government websites looking into the question himself.

“It was an insult,” he fumed following the event. “It was basically calling me stupid. That I can’t think on my own. That I don’t have the ability to research or come up with a coherent or concrete thought on my own. How dare she!”

He continued, “She never did answer the question. She just, what I say is, bitch-slapped me.”

Whether this incident does any damage to the well-oiled Clinton machine remains to be seen. But one thing it does make clear is that no matter how scripted Hillary is, over the course of a long campaign, she will not be able to mask her contempt for average Americans who dare to challenge her.

If you are a shitty dad and husband or wife and are a cheating bastard can you still make a good president?

Links from Sister Toldjah….and good music video choice too!

Gateway Pundit and Stop The ACLU both have the latest details on yet another shady character involved in donating lots of money to Hillary Clinton. His name is Abdul Rehman Jinnah, and he was also wanted by law enforcement. Just keep scrolling at both places.

Malkin also has: Hillary loves fugitive moneymen Plus: Norman Hsu speaks! 

Ooooo I just love a feeding frenzy, this is frankly why I right wing bloggers are far more interesting. Left wing bloggers are too much into clichés and post ranting emotion type I hate Bush and Republicans crap, while right wing bloggers dig, and check and dig further.
Hillary and the MSM are going to have to address these “smoking guns” soon.
I have been scanning the left blog world and they are not saying shit about this.
Craig is the tantalizing blog fruit of the day still.

Sister Toldjah also has another post (in Iowa, Silky Phoney is actually ahead of Hillary and Barack:)
I think John Edwards is poised to take advantage of Mrs. Bill’s corrupt tendencies, more dirt is on the way I bet. Edwards is just happy as a clam over the past days news.
  
Sorry Hussein backers, I’ve said this from day one about the Magic Negro, I know you don’t like to hear it and it’s politically incorrect but Barrack had NO shot at getting the Democratic nomination. Even if Mrs. Bill were to drop dead today, he has no chance.
Why, you ask… well any regular reader to the Poop already knows the answer.

I found this clip on Sister Toldjah , I swear this woman needs to be kept out of the White House, this bitch is crazy.

 By David S. Broder - The Washington Post

WASHINGTON - When Lt. Gen. David Petraeus came before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week in open session, its members understandably had many questions for the new commander of American forces in Iraq.
They knew of his reputation as a battlefield leader, a trainer of Iraqi troops and the author of the Army manual on counterinsurgency warfare. They also recognized the difficulty and importance of his new assignment.
Many of the questions probed deeply into the rationale for the president’s new strategy of injecting more U.S. troops into Baghdad neighborhoods wracked by killings by rival Sunni and Shiite gangs. Others challenged the readiness of Iraqi forces and the Baghdad government to do their part in reducing sectarian violence.
A few of the questions were naive, self-serving or off on tangents. But virtually the entire membership of the committee was present and senators of both parties recognized the value of probing this experienced and candid witness.

With one exception. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York used her time to make a speech about Iraq policy and did not ask a single question of the man who will be leading the military campaign.
Her speech replayed some of the themes from her news conference the previous week, on her return from Iraq, when she made clear her disagreement with President Bush’s decision to add 21,500 soldiers and
Marines to Petraeus’ force.

She began by blaming the Iraq crisis on a “Congress (that) was supine under the Republican majority, failing to conduct oversight and demanding accountability, and because the president and his team, particularly the former secretary of defense (Don Rumsfeld), refused to adapt to the changing circumstances on the ground.”
From that partisan opening, Clinton went on to decry “the failures of the Iraqis to step up and take responsibility for their own future.” She said the escalation Bush ordered was too little and too late, and instead called on Congress to “threaten to cut money for the Iraqi troops and for the security for the Iraqi leadership,” as a way to break the political gridlock in Baghdad and force efforts at national reconciliation.
She wound up the speech by saying that despite her disagreement with the policy, she wanted Petraeus’ assurance that “we have every possible piece of equipment and resource necessary to protect these young men and women” going into battle.

“I’ll do that, senator,” Petraeus said, and after that four-word response, Clinton was finished. She had no questions to ask.
Judging by all the polls, Clinton is the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a leading candidate for the Republican nomination, is also a member of the Armed Services Committee.

McCain asked Petraeus 14 questions, ranging from the political situation in Iraq to the morale of the troops to the time line for the planned “surge.” He ran out of time before he ran out of questions - quite a contrast to Clinton.

Clinton aides said the senator thought it was important to rebut the comments from several other committee members suggesting that congressional resolutions opposing the president’s policy would “undercut the troops,” so she used her time for that purpose. But I can think of three other possible explanations for her remarkable reluctance to probe the general’s thinking.

First, she has been treading a careful line from her early support of military action against Saddam Hussein to an increasingly sharp criticism of the war and calls for troop reductions. Perhaps she feared that dialogue with Petraeus would lead her into dangerous, uncharted waters. Caution is commendable, but she is sometimes faulted for being too calculating.

Second, the hearing came only three days after she announced her presidential exploratory committee, and she may have decided it was a good opportunity to repeat her views on Iraq policy before TV cameras rather than share time with the general. That wouldn’t say much about her priorities as she begins a second six-year term as senator, but New York voters last November presumably knew she might have loftier goals than just minding her Senate duties.
The third, less-benign possibility is that Clinton is reverting to the mode of her ill-fated 1993-94 health-care initiative, when she gave members of Congress and other interested folks the impression that she thought she had all the answers - so please just do as I say. In that period, she and her deputy, Ira Magaziner, two of the smartest policy wonks in captivity, were also supremely self-confident - and in some eyes, arrogant. And it cost them support, even among potential allies.

Last week, Clinton began her presidential campaign, as she did her first race for the Senate in New York, by saying she wanted to do a lot of listening. She sure wasn’t listening to Gen. Petraeus. She wasn’t even asking.

 

More old stuff while I’m out

 From New York Daily News Blog 

I’m not sure when this started, but a crucifix cross* appears to have become a regular part of Hillary Clinton’s wardrobe.

She wore a gold one July 20, for a speech criticizing advertising directed at children. No picture available.) And she wore the diamond-studded one pictured above to the News last week. A Google Images search doesn’t seem to turn up any others, though whenever you think you’ve noticed something new about Clinton, her aides usually produce rock-solid evidence that it has always been thus.

Clinton’s Christianity, while never exactly lapsed, has rarely been forefront; noticing the jewelry doesn’t strike me as (quite as) frivolous as reporting on her hairstyle. (He said defensively.)

Is it, perhaps, a sign that her faith may be a bit more in the foreground as 2008 approaches?

*Commenters have politely alerted me that a crucifix is a cross with a representation of that guy — what’s his name again? — attached.

TO BE EXPECTED THO…

President Bill Clinton signed a letter authorizing former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger’s access to classified documents that later came up missing, according to a newly released investigation report by the National Archives and Records Administration.

The sensitive drafts of the National Security Council’s “Millennium After Action Review” on the Clinton administration’s handling of the al-Qaida terror threats in December 1999 suspiciously disappeared after Berger said he intended to “determine if Executive Privilege needed to be exerted prior to documents being provided to the 9/11 Commission.” Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft testified before the 9-11 commission about the millennium report, urging the panel to ask why the document’s warnings and “blueprint” to thwart al-Qaida’s plans to target the U.S. were ignored by the Clinton administration and not shared with the incoming Bush security staff.

The NARA investigation report said Clinton signed an April 12, 2002, letter designating Berger – and another person whose named is redacted – as “agents on his behalf to review relevant NSC documents regarding Osama Bin Laden/Al Qaeda, Sudan and Presidential correspondence from or to (Sudanese President) Omar Bashir, contained in the Clinton Presidential records.” A subsequent letter from a National Security Council official, May 14, 2002, said Berger repeatedly was briefed that “he was not allowed to remove any documentation from NARA.”

Last year, Berger plea bargained a criminal sentence on the charge of unlawfully removing and retaining classified documents. A judge gave him no prison time, a $50,000 fine, 100 hours of community service and a ban from access to classified material for three years.

READ THE REST

I did not get a chance to post this yesterday, but when I first read about this all I could do is laugh as
Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, who seems to have gradually been distancing herself from her 2002 vote to use force against Saddam Hussein.
Unlike Sen. John Kerry and former Sen. John Edwards, both of whom have publicly declared their regret over the same vote, Clinton has never said she would have voted differently until now.
On the ABC News blog and countless other sources reported her tactical change.

Clinton has often been asked if she regrets her vote authorizing military action and she usually answers that question with an artful dodge, saying that she accepts responsibility for the vote and suggesting that if the Senate had all the information it has today (no WMD, troubled post-war military planning, etc. . .), there would never have been a vote on the Senate floor.

However Monday on the Today Show, Sen. Clinton was asked about her 2002 vote and offered a slightly evolved answer.

 ”Obviously, if we knew then what we know now, there wouldn’t have been a vote,” she said in her usual refrain before adding, “and I certainly wouldn’t have voted that way.”

Sen. Clinton’s biggest rival for the Democratic nomination, is against the war. Is Sen. Clinton’s new position on Iraq borne of conscience, or just more luggage she’s picked up during her two-year, pre-2008 trek toward the political center?

C’mon even you libs know the answer to this.

***I almost forgot about these quotes. In case some of you forgot, Mrs. Rodham obviously has.

Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

 

By Larry Elder - Human Events - Link 

“I don’t want any lies in there parading as the truth, that’s all.” With that, on the fifth anniversary of 9/11, former President Bill Clinton (the man impeached by the House of Representatives for lying under oath), struck again.

Before the airing of ABC’s docudrama “The Path to 9/11,” former members of the Clinton administration and several Democratic senators complained about the docudrama’s “fabrications” and “lies” in letters to Robert Iger, CEO of Disney, ABC’s parent company.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright urged ABC to cancel its scheduled airing on September 10 and 11. She called a scene in which she alerted the Pakistanis to an impending strike against bin Laden “false and defamatory.” Implicitly threatening to yank ABC’s broadcast license, several Democratic senators wrote, “Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law. . . . ” Where’s the ACLU when you need them?

Okay, the Clintonistas criticize conversations or actions that never took place. And, true, an earlier version of the docudrama — not aired — stressed that the research came from the 9/11 Commission. In fact, the docudrama also used a couple of books about 9/11, as well as interviews.

Let’s review.

The first attack on the World Trade Center occurred in 1993, Clinton’s first year in office. For the next eight years, his administration squandered several opportunities to kill bin Laden. Besides, the docudrama comes down hard on the Bush administration for dawdling during its eight months before 9/11.

In one scene, for example, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice demotes counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, clearly showing the Bush administration’s failure to give bin Laden top priority. But did anyone in the Bush administration send letters to ABC demanding revisions — or else?

What about when Clinton himself, speaking to the Long Island Association in February 2002, admitted that he declined at least one chance to get bin Laden? “He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991,” said Clinton, “then he went to Sudan. And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.” (Clinton later, in testifying before the 9/11 Commission, called his admission “inappropriate,” according to Commissioner Bob Kerrey.)

Did the former president forget that prosecutors, two years after the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, named Osama bin Laden as an unindicted co-conspirator? Or that our government suspected bin Laden of aiding, financing, training and arming terrorists for several years?

Over the rest of Clinton’s term, al Qaeda remained busy. It attacked U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998. It bombed the USS Cole in 2000. In 1998, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, a plan to capture bin Laden at his Tarnak Farms compound in Afghanistan was shot down at a high level, although, according to the commission (page 114), “Impressions vary as to who actually decided not to proceed with the operation. . . . Before it was canceled, [lead CIA officer in the field, Gary] Schroen described it as the ‘best plan we are going to come up with to capture [bin Laden] while he is in Afghanistan and bring him to justice.’ No capture plan before 9/11 ever again attained the same level of detail and preparation.”

Regarding the Clinton administration’s efforts, the 9/11 Report (pages 350-351) reads: “Before 9/11, the United States tried to solve the al Qaeda problem with the same government institutions and capabilities it had used in the last stages of the Cold War and its immediate aftermath. These capabilities were insufficient, but little was done to expand or reform them. . . . At no point before 9/11 was the Department of Defense fully engaged in the mission of countering al Qaeda, although this was perhaps the most dangerous foreign enemy then threatening the United States. The Clinton administration effectively relied on the CIA to take the lead in preparing long-term offensive plans against an enemy sanctuary.”

Also (page 358): “Responsibility for domestic intelligence gathering on terrorism was vested solely in the FBI, yet during almost all of the Clinton administration the relationship between the FBI Director and the President was nearly nonexistent. The FBI director would not communicate directly with the President. His key personnel shared very little information with the National Security Council and the rest of the national security community. As a consequence, one of the critical working relationships in the counterterrorism effort was broken.”

Bottom line, the Clinton administration treated terrorism as a law enforcement matter. And neither he nor former members of his administration want Americans to understand or remember this. In his Saturday radio address after the first World Trade Center attack, Clinton barely mentioned the attack before beginning a much lengthier discussion about his economic program.

No amount of whining letters to ABC can change those facts.